Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/04/1989, A-2 - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS MEET-_ AGENDA DATE - 4 ITEM # Illilllllllllllllll�����������I,III�Ilflllll II CitofSAnuisoBislo 990 Palm.Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100 April 4, 1989 MEMORANDUM TO City Council FROM: Councilmembers Rappa and Reiss SUBJ: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS Due to scheduling conflicts, we have been unable to arrange for a time to interview applicants for the vacancy on the Architectural Review Commission. We will , however, be conducting interviews later this week or early next, and will recommend an appointee at the Regular meeting on April 18, 1989. PR/JR/klc Denotes action,by Lead Person Respond by: r✓Courrcil �eCAO .RECEIVE © cue a . APZ 4 �K.n�fpd�.�Rr 1989 CITY CLERK SAN LUtS0BLgP0.CA - i . .�..._ MEETING AGENDA 6 ni DATE APR a as ITEM # o� Gerk-09. Cg M.MKL{at" W TT RAJNI DEASI FEBRUARY 27 , 1989 950 OLIVE ST . SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO. SUBJECT- LANDSCAPING DESIGN FOR 1951 Monterey St . San Luis Obispo, CA Dear Commissioners , I am requesting that you will approve the landscaping design today. Let me explain to you what we did in the last 12 months to satisfy neighbors complaints . A neighbor last Febraury 1988 complained to Mr . Multari that a retaining wall is too big and they did not like the "L" shaped building. I agreed with Mr . Multari if he approved all the changes in his dept , he had and a neighbor agreed so did I . We eliminated the "L' shape in the rear and used the 2 to 1 slope in the rear due to a parking constraint we Proposed to put a swimming pool in the rear . Due to a neighbors complaint again that they did not like a swimming pool in the back we started designing parking and shifted the swimming pool in the center where it originally was c the center of the property. ) When we started sloping in the back we encountered two existing trees that we had to remove in order to use the natural slope . Mr . Multari and Mr . Jack Brzil refused. Mr . Multari broke his promise to accept all changes in his department . I went to the A.R.C. and we lost and we had to spend $ 15000 .00 to install a retaining wall . Originally the neighbors did not want any retaining wail in the back . I do not know what they want . By this time we lost four months . By shifting the swimming pool in the center we would have to shift the rear stairs at the end. Again the neighbors complained and again Mr . Multari broke his promise to accept any changes in his department . I had to go to the A . R.C. and we had to enclose the stairs . Again it cost us roughly $ 5000 . 00 to satisfy a neighbor . We proposed a landscaping revision in the back in the slope area where we installed the retaining wall in back . The planning department and neighbor want to keep it as it is and do not want to touch that area for new plants. I am showing you video movies to justify my point that there are enough bushes and trees in that area so that the area does not need any new trees or plants. It is so thick even E 0E 111 V E p any leaves. i M>_ _)int is that I spent 6 me s to redesign the building. By doing that we have had to sacrifice to reduce storaqe area, manager quarters, reducing swimming pool size , and reducing size of the two rear units to save trees and it costs thousands of dollars of interest payments , redesigning costs. Also attorney fees and the cost of the delay not to mention mental tentions and lost revenue . . On February 23 a neighbor brought another complaint on the following items . I would like to respond on each item as follows; 1 ) The irrigation plan is almost the same as prviously approved except in the slope area, the new design is sufficient to screen the rear area . 2) The parking plan was approved by the Planning Dept . in July of 1988. 3) The fencing plan was approved in July -of 1988. The rear fence will eliminate the car lights and parking lights . 4) The tree replacment.s is the same as the origianal approved plan . 5) The pool area has a wrought iron fence and the pool in more. than 205 feet from the residence . Pool hours will be from 8:00 A.M. to 9: 30 P.M. and the gate will be locked after those hours so there will be no noise at night . We have a Travelodge at 950 Olive Street and the spa area from ® residence is less than 200 feet but we have not received any complaints in the last three years . Therefore , I do not think any more fences are needed around the pool area . 6) Lighting around the building between room doors will be nine watts . Flourescent light fixtures are also in the parking area. We are proprosinq new six feet heiqht from the ground [ as shown in picture . ] And nine watts flourecent instead of the 13 high preassure sodium lights as previously proposed. And that will eliminate most of the lighting concerns of neighbors. I hope you will approve my landscaping plan and if minor changes for landscaping and lighting with the planning dept . staff approval instead of coming back to A.R. C. YOURS SINCERELY , R. M. Desai e v rr1_ I:_ E11NG AGENDA -.y _S March 29 , 198 *Denct_;i'dbn LCAQ Lead vj _ _— on To : Glen Matteson Cr�y Atty. re : Final Map Time Extension - Tract 1261 R/The undersigned property owners i.n the ar Tract 1261 express concern over staff ' s recommendation that this subdivision be granted yet another extension . Property owners who made inquirie.s at the time of the 1988 extension were told that there would not be another extension . Tract 1459 , a similar subdivision in the same area was begun after Tract 1261 . Tract 1459 was completed quite some time ago. Additionally , we are concerned that the developers have not removed the building located at the. corner of Foothill and Rosita . This building was in fact repaired within the last extension period . We question if the developers are acting in good faith to complete the subdivision in a timely fashion . Many changes have taken place in this neighborhood since preliminary subdivision approval was granted . Perhaps it is in the best interest of neighbor- hood property owners and San Luis Obispo taxpayers that this subdivision return to the planning stages for reevaluation, in light of these changes , rather than granting another extension . .�08 Qa.G.ce cct. Ie44 pc"vNas- 5�3 9'F 94 OwItB✓ G1A.. page 1 of 2 O" ..JERK SAN LUI«ONS4M ONO G oa n�nc �Gh.GL ,t•uJier , CvE � Trac'E. /�5�9 S y � � E 7`�/ c : San Luis Obispo City Council page 2 of 2