The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6/15/2020 Item 1, Ryff Wilbanks, Megan From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Sent:Monday, June 15, 2020 7:10 AM To:Wilbanks, Megan Subject:FW: Comments for Architectural Review Hearing June 15, 2020 Attachments:Affordable Housing ATT 1.pdf; Affordable Housing ATT 2.pdf From: Gail Ryff < Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2020 4:12 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: Comments for Architectural Review Hearing June 15, 2020 Hi Kyle, Thank you for the opportunity to review the architecture drawings for the Tract 2428 planned affordable housing for Lots 163 through 169. First of all, I like to commend the City and the architect on the lovely design of the building areas and the efforts to provide consistency with the Toscano Development. These rental units will be a very good addition to our community. I have reviewed the architectural design documents. I have four comments to make. I would appreciate if you could forward this email with the attachments to the right persons for the Architectural Review Commission hearing on June 15, 2020. 1. I am assuming that the same metal fencing will border the site perimeter on Tract 2428, Lot 82 that current Toscano residents have along the pathway. 2. Refer to the 14 tandem parking spaces on the lower left first attachment. Recommended Change: I am asking the Architectural Review Commission to consider putting up a barrier wall enclosure (at least vehicle hood height) with more vegetation in front of the tandem parking than currently shown on the plans to protect my residence from the glare of headlights as well as hide the parking lot to enhance the ambience of the greenway along the pathway. In addition, I would like to see native plant vegetation that complements the greenway in the bio retention planter. If you look at the attached pictures, the tandem parking spaces will be directly facing almost the entire length of the side of my Lot (107) impacting the master bedroom, and dining and living room windows. It’s a long area. Discussion: The City requires all Toscano homes to have a non-privacy metal fence along the pathway. To this end, many residents have planted vines inside of shorter backyard fences to regain lost privacy, which defeats the openness of the walkway. My experience of vines is that they are messy and require more water than drought tolerant plants. The type of vegetation in the greenway (drainage area) along the pathway in Common Lot 82 is limited because it is my understanding that the Army Corps of Engineers has an easement enforcing the strict use of native plants including the 4 feet wide easement outside my fencing perimeter along the pathway and consequently the HOA is unable to provide shielding vegetation. The green space is also unavailable for pedestrian access. 3. I am requesting that the lighting near the trash receptacle (L1) will be pointed away from the Lot 82 pathway so that it doesn’t shine into my bedroom. 1 4. More consideration should be given to the 44 parking spaces shown for the 38 planned rental units and the leasing office. The number of parking spaces shown on the site plan is inadequate, even more so, because there is no adjacent public street parking for this development. Discussion: The proposed plan appears to provide one space for each rental unit, leasing manager and five guest spaces. Parking spaces 1 to 14 appear to be tandem spaces. Is one tandem spot allocated each to a different unit? If so, how does someone get out when blocked by another unit’s vehicle? If allocated for two- and three-bedroom units then, there are not enough spaces for all 38 rental units to even have one parking space. Can building 01 be reduced in size, such as, strictly a leasing office (with a lease manager apartment, if required), meeting and laundry facilities without any rental units, thereby providing more parking spaces in that area? In addition, the number of spaces does not comply with the recommended parking spaces of the Margarita Area Specific Plan. Following its recommendation, I calculated that 66 parking spaces are required. The current plan with 38 rental units appears to have a shortage of 22 parking spaces as indicated in the second attachment. Parking on the adjacent private easement streets is strictly prohibited. Parking areas located in these easements are strictly for Toscano residents on those streets and guests. Parking on the “ALLEY” indicated on the first attachment in front of Lots 161 and 162 is also prohibited. I am the Secretary of the Toscano developer-controlled homeowner’s association board. Owners are already (beyond) exasperated by the lack of parking and we have not reached build-out. In part, the public streets have many non-parking areas (red curbs) due to the street corner 90 degree curves and private street easement entrances for vehicle visibility. There are not 22 extra parking spaces available in this development to meet this anticipated shortage. I am also aware that the near complete 36 unit apartment complex (Courtyard at Serra Meadows) on Violet Street next to Arezzo lacks adequate on-site parking, further exasperating the lack of public street parking to the Toscano development. In addition, walking access from/to the affordable development from/to any available parking on the public streets (Arezzo, Cortuna and San Vincenzo) would require using the main pedestrian entrance between buildings 03 and 04 of the site plan to the Tract 2428 Lot 83 pathway, which does lead to San Vincenzo and Arezzo public streets. Lucca Lane will provide ingress/egress for vehicles in the affordable housing development. There is no lighting or sidewalks on this private easement street. The excess vehicles seeking public street parking (going back and forth on Lucca Lane) will create more traffic on a narrow street. The nearest bus stop located north of the DMV is slightly over .5 miles from the southeast path entrance offering only limited hours of operation. There are also no bike lanes along Margarita. These current modes of transportation may be too inadequate to use in lieu of owning a vehicle. Again, thank you for the opportunity to make comments. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. (805) 234-4682. Gail 2 3 4 5 6 I�ifm � I � �L r i� WIUBOptY. usHlelC 9CHEOULE I �ffJ •' QlIING 01be Mf I i1T'j ' 2594 SF 'i AREA I IrK �� r +. +.0 .x,u M �� e LJ __ QSF I ,, Icy �n '! Li r, r-- EUILINNS 03 x } 1 71?33F 42 r 91LIVIING 5 , BUILDING 4 1� J KEYNOTES PRIOTE RESIE M E J 1. LOW LAND$$APE WALL ZL r I 3: SC16EvIt;S4TIGGTAs04ERING$k.E - - - — 1 4. P114TEBALCONY;PATIC�.'Y? J= + •t 6: MAIN ?eDE$TRIA'j ENTRY +a LL 6. PARKING LOT LI:'H-Ih- —F7r rFF-•.J`5 7: $ITEISTRLICIII:r: PRVhl4RLi.EWCE '��IIL��LIU"NFL �� LANDSCAPE PLAN Development Standards Margarita Area Sinecific Plan 2.4 High -Density Residential (R-4-SP) 2.4.1 Uses A mix of housing densities, ownership patterns, cask and building types is desirable in the Margarita Area Specific Plan. High -Density Residential areas are intended for attached dwellings in close proximity to the core area. To maintain residential capacity and airport compatibility uses such as churches and schools are not allowed, 2.4.2 Density Density will be not less than 47 or more than 60 dwelling units per net hectare (19 to 24 dwelling units per net acre). Density is based an bedroom count, as provided in the Zoning regulations. .4.3 Lot Dimensions The area designated High -density Residential is expected to be developed as a single parcel (or an airspace condominium). However, to facilitate a cornbination of market -rate and affordable housing, it may be divided into two land parcels following the standards for Medium -high Density Residential. 2.4.4 Building Form A- Setbacks; see Table 4. 8. Architectural Character: See Part 3, Design Critefia. - Porches or verandas overlooking the public street should be included: to provide architectural interest, a transition from public outdoor apace to private indoor space, and opportunities for neighbor interaction. Similar features that accomplish the same goal rrray be substituted subject to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission. .4-5 Parking Car parking shall be provided as follows: Each studio or one -bed roon7 dwelling: one space: Nd C� v�, 1 "_;_ k f es Each two -or -more -bedroom dwelling: two s p aces; o Up%j'tk.Y 40S e° One guest space for five dwelling units: `J S z I -to Perking in a required street yard is not allowed; Parking should be located at the rear of lots unless the lot is located on the uphill side of street along the base of the gills: where parking beneath houses will minimize grading. High -density residential character 1 r p e v A '5 T" W, � - elaA so c ? 3