Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-02-2015 PH2 WhiteLomeli, Monique Subject: FW: CC Appeal of 323/353 Grand Ave Attachments: 2015 06 02 CC Appeal to CC not Power point.pdf From: Linda White [ mailto :lindaleewhitel5@(imail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 10:55 PM To: E -mail Council Website; Mejia, Anthony; Carloni, Marcus Subject: CC Appeal of 323/353 Grand Ave Madame Mayor, City Council Members, Attached is our appeal of the ARC decision to approve four high density houses (42% living/lot ratio in an existing established neighborhood of 24 -25% living/lot ratio). These supersized houses are to be built on sub standard lots (average lot size of 5233 sq. ft compared to the established neighborhood average of 7827 sq. ft.). Thank you for your consideration, Linda White D COUNCIL MEETING; '2 MAY 2 9 2015 � f{Q b2 f5 kk, ITEM �f � I June 25 2015 City Council Appeal 323/353 Grand Ave. We, the neighbors residing in Monterey Heights and Alta Vista, have maintained throughout the approval process, that this project is NOT compatible with our R- I neighborhood. We have attended and stated this at all of the ARC and Planning Commission Meetings with the exception of the meeting that approved the lot split into 4 substandard lots, all less than 6000 sq. ft. We were asked at one of the meetings why we didn't protest the lot split. The answer is simple, "We were not notified." We know that "legal" notification was given to those within 300 feet of the project. However, I own a rental house at 250 Grand Ave. It is the furthest house to be notified. The city has the proper mailing address for our taxes and yet due to some error, I never received the postcard. When the notification area is so small - - -300 ft. any error or lost postcard is magnified. Once the neighborhood became aware of the project, we attended and spoke out at each meeting. Our concerns are that this project is not compatible with our established neighborhood. This project does not follow the Community Design Guidelines and we will point out the specific areas where it fails. In order to receive approval to split two lots into four lots of less than 6000 sq. ft. the developer presented a list of lots under 6000 sq. ft within 1/2 mile radius of the proposed project. The 5 properties of 6000 sq. ft. or more (in red) remained in these calculations since they were on the original list provided by the developer. ADDRESS BDRM /BATH 2/2 SQ. FT LOT SIZE LIVING /LOT RATIO % 521 Hathway 1138 sq ft 5880 19 537 Hathway 2/1 1028 5250 20 549 Hathway 2/1 891 5250 20 551 Hathway 3/3 1501 5250 29 544 Ellen 2/1 1019 5880 17 502 Hathway 2/1 780 3600 22 550 Hathway 3/1 1332 5501 24 619 Grove 3/1 1287 6000 21 615 Grove 3/2 1748 6000 29 634 California 2/1 1171 5900 20 675 Grove 3/2 1720 6098 28 1698 Wilson 3/2 1842 5700 32 1618 Hillcrest 2/1 1382 5116 27 1654 Hillcrest 4/3 2227 5950 37 1662 Hillcrest 2/1 1253 5000 25 611 Park 2/1 1014 5924 17 1661 Wilson 3/1 1034 4304 24 1641 Wilson 3/1 1004 5562 18 624 Grove 3/1 1040 5000 21 1690 Hillcrest 2/1 1060 5093 21 670 Grove 3/2 2269 6000 38 1625 Hillcrest 1/2 870 5744 15 657 Park 4/2 1800 5654 32 1656 Phillips 3/2 1393 5250 27 1607 Phillips 2/1 948 3500 27 Totals 64/37 32751 134,406 610 Average 2.513ed rm/1 .5 baths 1310 s . ft. 5377 sq. ft. lot 25% As you can see from the above chart, the homes on the substandard lots are significantly smaller than the developer proposes to build on his sub standard lots. We have no problem with smaller lots in our neighborhood. We merely ask that the homes built on these small lots are proportionate to the lot size and compatible to the surrounding established neighborhood. The developer used a different list of lots and houses in the ARC request for supersized build out on his substandard lots. Staff Report Attachment 4 ARC 1 -35 & 36 January 21, 2015. Proposed Lot House Size % (house size /lot Project Size 2 size) Lott 5166 2258 44% Lott 5553 2866 52% Lot 5202 2650 51% Lot 5031 2425 48% 1 6670 2826 42% 1724 Mccollum Street 2 6560 2806 43% 1744 Mccollum Street 3 6560 2826 43% 1764 Mccollum Street 4 6850 2807 41% 1784MccollumStreet 5 10243 1971 19% 1661 Mccollum Street 6 10160 2088 21% 1677 Mccollum Street 7 14460 2992 21% 1693 Mccollum Street 8 6500 2538 PUD 39% 301 Leroy Court 9 5070 2438 PUD 48% 317 Leroy Court 10 5060 2022 PUD 40% 321 Leroy Court 11 7810 2438 PUD 31% 302 Leroy Court 12 5040 2438 PUD 48% 316 Leroy Court 13 5010 2022 PUD 40% 328 Leroy Court 14 9950 2886 29% 311 Grand Avenue 15 10220 1276 12% 1660 Fredericks Street 16 10910 1568 14% 1676 Fredericks Street 17 14360 not found 1692 Fredericks Street 18 9670 2369 24% 1706 Fredericks Street 19 4200 0 PUD 347 Leroy Court 20 5390 2438 PUD 45% 1720 Fredericks Street 21 10490 800 8% 1740 Fredericks Street 22 6970 934 13% 1760 Fredericks Street 23 8420 2134 25% 395 Grand Avenue 24 8990 2256 25% 1661 Fredericks Street 25 8910 1084 12% 1739 Fredericks Street 26 11760 1424 12% 433 Grand Avenue 27 8510 1440 17% 436 Grand Avenue 28 15070 1484 10% 470 Grand Avenue 29 10490 1728 16% 1866 Loomis Street 30 7510 736 10% 476 Grand Avenue 31 32 5990 6020 1110 1312 19% 22% 430 Grand Avenue 410 Grand Avenue Attachment 4 33 6010 not found 1843 Hope Street 34 6010 1326 22% 1861 Hope Street 35 6010 1056 18% 1881 Hope Street 36 10110 1490 15% 1890 Hope Street 37 6130 notfound 1840 Hope Street 38 13750 2318 17% 1820 Hope Street 39 5810 1712 29% 1810 Hope Street 40 6280 1520 24% 346 Grand Avenue 41 6030 2380 39% 320 Grand Avenue 42 6920 2380 34% 1825 Mccollum Street 43 8310 1645 20% 1861 Mccollum Street 44 5990 1726 29% 1865 Mccollum Street 45 9280 1570 17% 357 Graves Avenue 46 8130 1089 13% 1889 Mccollum Street 47 6760 880 13% 1874MccollumStreet 48 6760 1364 20% 1860MccollumStreet 49 6750 1224 18% 1844 Mccollum Street 50 5020 880 18% 292 Grand Avenue 51 5000 884 18% 254 Grand Avenue 52 4990 1048 21% 250 Grand Avenue 53 6000 not found 236 Grand Avenue 54 6760 1224 18% 1841 Hays Street January 21, 2015 ARC Staff Report ARC 1 -5 Table 4.2 Neighborhood Study Conclusion finds that All Residences excluding Leroy Court PUD have a 24% average living /lot ratio. This table still includes the recently approved high density Grand /McCollum project that we contend is another City approved outlier. Table 4.2 Neighborhood Study Conclusion All residences within 300 -feet Leroy Court Planned Unit Development only All residences excluding Leroy Court PUD Proposed Project Average living space to lot size ratio 24% 42%2, 21% 49% Average Average Home Size Lot Size 1,774 sq.ft. 7,827 sq.ft. 333 sq.ft. 5,697 sq.ft. 1,680 sq.ft. 8,229 sq.ft. 2,550 sq.ft. 5,238 sq.ft. This 24 % ratio is compatible with the 25% ratio of the small lots demonstrated in the table used by the developer to secure his approval for smaller lot split. Calculations by both the developer and the City Staff find this property to far exceed the neighborhood standard of 24 %. Below is a table of the approved build out with the slight sq. ft. reduction asked for by the ARC. Proposed 323/325 Grand Ave Build Out as Approved by the ARC ADDRESS Bedroom /Bath Square Footage Lot Size Living /Lot Ratio Lot 1 4/3 1995 5166 38.6 Lot 2 4/4 2379 5553 42.8 Lot 3 4/3 2364 5202 45.4 Lot 4 4/3 1963 5031 39.01 Total 16/13 8701 20932 165.9 Average 4/3 -1/4 1 2176 1 5233 42.% As you can see from the above table, even the ARC approval far exceeds the 24% standard for the established neighborhood and smaller lots. This merely brings the proposed R -1 development to the 42% Living space /lot size ratio of the Aurignac Leroy Court development which is a PUD. The proposed project is R -1. In order to be compatible with the established neighborhood, these homes should be limited to a 24 -25 % living /lot ratio or 1250 to 1300 sq. ft. NOT the proposed 2176 average (876 sq. ft. greater than the surrounding established neighborhood). You may say that no one wants a 1300 sq. ft. house but that is wrong. 1. As a single, retired person, I am presently looking for a small house on a small lot both here in SLO and in San Jose. 2. My rental at 250 Grand that is listed as 452 in the City chart comparable Attachment # 4 is 1048 sq. ft. on a 4900 sq. ft. lot for 21 % coverage. As a Real Estate Investor, I rent that house to 5 Cal Poly students which is the legal number here in SLO. I have not had a vacancy in over 30 years of ownership. Nor have I had one citation or even a warning. 3. Young families, working professionals, CP staff and faculty are also looking for "starter homes" in which to build up equity before moving into larger homes. Monterey Heights and Alta Vista were two established neighborhoods that provided this type of workforce housing. Recent high occupancy, legal or illegal, and the associated problems have prompted us to fight to preserve our R -1, low density neighborhoods. Community Design Guidelines Chapter 5- Residential Project Design ...They (Guidelines) are also intended to help preserve the traditional character of the City's older Neighborhoods. Our neighborhood is over 60 years old. Photo Taken from 1886 Loomis in the late 1940's. 5.3 Infill Development The following guidelines apply to "infill development ". That is, multi family stniet -es of individual houses that entirely replace existing units or are constructed on vacant parcels between existing units. The guidelines are intended to provide for infill projects of high afehiteewfal quality that are compatible with existing development. They are also intended to promote the eansefvatien and feuse of existing eldef houses, and to preserve the historical character of the City's older neighborhoods. We are an older neighborhood established by the photo above. We are desperately trying to preserve the historical character of our older neighborhood. That is the reason we are appealing this infill project that is not compatible with our established older neighborhood. 5.3 A. General Principles. Infill residential development should: 1. 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. When new homes are developed adjacent to older ones, the height and bulk of the new construction can have a negative impact on adjacent, smaller scale buildings. We maintain that not only does the height and bulk of the new construction have a negative impact but even more important is the high density in our low density established neighborhood. The 42% living space to lot size ratio is not compatible with the 24 -25% ratio of the established neighborhood. 5.3 B. Building Design. An infill residential structure should incorporate the traditional architectural characteristics of existing houses in the neighborhood including .......... roof style and pitch. The proposed houses are architecturally pleasing and would be appropriate in the Orcutt area, Arbors or Serra Meadows off of Prado. These homes would be appropriate even in the newly proposed airport development. However, there are no 2000 sq. ft. +, two story, Craftsman style homes in either Alta Vista or Monterey Heights, the adjacent established neighborhoods. The only exceptions are the two recently City approved projects - -- Aurignac Leroy Court PUD and Grand /McCollum project. These two projects are outliers. We have an eclectic style of bungalow, ranch, modern as will be been demonstrated by the slide show of established neighborhood homes. 5.3.0 Visual impacts from building height. The height of infill projects should be consistent with the 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 two adjacent homes are one story as are the majority of established neighborhood homes. This new project will loom over the existing homes and stand out as do the recently City approved houses on Grand and McCollum. These are the Craftsman style outliers mentioned above. Below are photos of 2 -story McCollum /Grand looming over adjacent house. As you can see from the photo above of 320 Grand Ave., (the recently approved outlier), the 2- story Craftsman style home towers one full story above the neighboring chimney of 346 Grand Ave. violating 5.3B Community Design Guidelines. The house on the other side of 346 is also newly constructed but kept to one story profile with dormers. As you can see below, this roofline does not tower over the same 346 Grand Ave. in accordance with 5.3B k The following two pictures are of the homes on either side of the proposed project. Please note that they are both one story and if the proposed 2 -story Craftsman homes are built, they will tower over the existing established homes. w �W 395 Grand Ave. Neighborhood Wellness, Code Enforcement We affected neighbors, maintain that if the City would consider and adhere to the Community Design Guidelines and the 10 Neighborhood Wellness ordinances, when approving new inf ill projects, many problems would be avoided. Many have commented that the Community Development Department should review past approved projects; determine if these approvals have had a negative or positive effect on the neighborhood, if they have achieved the desired outcome, and to adjust their approval process accordingly. Everyone knows that these houses will not be single - family, workforce housing homes. Because of the proximity to Cal Poly, they will be mini - dorms. This means that each bedroom and den with bath will house at least one student. We in the neighborhood can only hope and pray that only one student will occupy each bedroom and den with bath. Each student will bring with them a vehicle despite the lack of parking. Two examples of this abuse of the permitting process and Community Design Guidelines are the Aurignac Leroy Court project and the Grand /McCollum project which are not and never have been compatible with the established neighborhood. As a result we have high density occupancy in a low density R -1 neighborhood. With this high density occupancy comes all of the accompanying problems such as noise disturbances. Along with high density occupancy comes overflow street parking wherever a space can be found violating the Community Guideline 5.1. to reduce the visual dominance of the automobile. Fredericks St. with Leroy Court Overflow Parking Along with high occupancy comes the total disregard of designated parking areas or spaces. Grand Ave /McCollum City Approved Outlier & comp for proposed project. Finally, students are not as concerned as permanent residents with the exterior appearance of their houses. Trash cans are left on the street or sidewalk permanently. Grand Ave. /McCollum parking lot with trash cans left out continuously At the May 7, City Neighborhood Wellness Program held at the Ludwick Center, Neighborhood Services officer Daniel DelRio presented an excellent Power Point presentation. In his presentation he used photos of difficulties that his department encounters and attempts to correct. A photo of Leroy Court was used in demonstrating the use of front yards for parking. The photo of the McCollum /Grand project was used as an example of trash cans being left out continuously. He informed us that another new measures is under way to determine which address these cans belong to in these high density projects so that the proper address can be cited. If these high density projects had not been approved in low density neighborhoods, these problems could have been avoided. In summary: This project is not compatible for the following reasons: ❑ The project lot size is smaller than the average neighborhood lot and the home size is larger than the neighborhood average. Neighborhood Average Project Average • Lot size 7,827 sq. ft 5,238 sq. ft • Home size 1,774 sq. ft 2,176 sq. ft. In order to get approval for the reduced lot size, a list of neighborhood (within 1/2 mile radius) small lots was produced. The project lots are smaller than the average neighborhood small lot and the house size is larger than established neighborhood houses. The statistics are: Neighborhood Average Project Average • Small lots 5,377 sq. ft. 5238 sq. ft. • Home size on small lots 1,310 sq. ft. 2,176 The City uses the average living space to lot size to come up with a ratio called the Average Living Space to Lot Size Ratio. This simply compares the size of the home to the lot size. The following are the statistics: Neighborhood Average Project Average Living space to lot ratio 21% 42% ❑ This project does not adhere to the Community Design Guidelines when it comes to size, scale and mass of the proposed project. Again the project is not compatible with the existing established neighborhood. The City has Community Design Guidelines. Chapter 5 deals with Residential Project Design. More specifically 5.2 deals with Infill Development which this project is considered. The Guideline states: The guidelines are intended to provide for infill projects of high architectural quality that are compatible with existing development. In 5.3 A General principles it states: Infill residential development should: Be Compatible in scale, siting, detailing and overall character with adjacent buildings and those in the immediate neighborhood. Ten City Ordinances that have been passed to counter the negative impacts of developments such as this: 9.12.040 General noise regulations. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, and in addition thereto, it shall be unlawful for any person to willfully or negligently make or continue, or cause to be made or continued, or permit or allow to be made or continued any noise which disturbs the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or which causes any discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitivity in the area. Fines for noise violations are: $350 for 1 st, $700 for 2nd, $1000 for third and subsequent citations. 9.13.030 Unrul�/...gatherings prohibited ....-....... ......... ...- _...................................... E. "Unruly gathering" shall mean a gathering of twenty or more persons on private property that results in conduct that causes a substantial disturbance of the quiet enjoyment of private or public property in a significant segment of a neighborhood, including but not limited to conduct that results in excessive noise as defined in Chapter 9.12, obstruction of public streets or rights -of -way by people or vehicles, public drunkenness, unlawful possession of alcohol or drugs, serving alcohol to minors, fights, disturbances of the peace, urinating or defecating in public, setting off fireworks, vandalism, and littering on public property or private property not belonging to the host of the gathering. 10.36.200 Limitations on parking in a residential permit parking area. It is unlawful for any person to stop, stand, or park a vehicle on any street identified in a resolution adopted by the council designating a residential permit parking area during the hours and on the days set forth in such resolution except: A. Those vehicles described in Section 10.36.180 displaying a valid permit issued as provided for by Section 10.36.220 and parked within the street block in front of the household to which the permit is issued or within one adjoining district block; California Vehicle Code 22500 No person shall stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle whether attended or unattended, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the directions of a peace officer or official traffic control device, in any of the following places: (e) In front of a public or private driveway, except that a bus engaged as a common carrier, school bus, or a taxicab may stop to load or unload passengers when authorized by local authorities pursuant to an ordinance. In unincorporated territory, where the entrance of a private road or driveway is not delineated by an opening in a curb or by other curb construction, so much of the surface of the ground as is paved, surfaced, or otherwise plainly marked by vehicle use as a private road or driveway entrance, shall constitute a driveway. (f) On any portion of a sidewalk, or with the body of the vehicle extending over any portion of a sidewalk, except electric carts when authorized by local ordinance, as specified in Section 21114.5. Lights, mirrors, or devices that are required to be mounted upon a vehicle under this code may extend from the body of the vehicle over the sidewalk to a distance of not more than 10 inches. 17.17.055 Front yard parking. ....... ............................... - A. Purpose and Application. 1. The purpose of these regulations is to preserve the residential character of streetscapes in the city's neighborhoods. The expansion of parking in front yard areas off driveways interferes with the pattern of building masses and open areas within neighborhoods, creates vehicle clutter, and results in excessive vehicle parking, which has the effect of creating small parking lots in front yard areas which are intended to remain as open areas within neighborhoods. 2. Vehicles may only be parked in areas within the driveway width established to serve approved parking spaces as defined in city parking and driveway standards. Vehicle parking on pavement or other surfacing added outside the driveway area does not meet the definition of a driveway. (See Figure 9.7b for examples of allowed front yard parking.) Vehicles shall be parked completely within the driveway surface with all tires completely on the driveway surface. 17.17.060 Roofs A. No furniture or equipment, including chairs, mattresses, couches, recreational furniture, or other materials may be placed on any roof, patio cover, carport, shed top, or similar structure, 17.17.070 Fences ..................... ... All fencing that is visible from a public right -of -way shall be maintained so that fencing materials and support are structurally sound, with no missing material. (Ord. 1277 § 2 Ex. A, 1995) 17.17.075 Neighborhood preservation. A. Refuse, green waste, and recycling receptacles shall not be within the front yard area except as provided in Chapter 8.04 which states: Refuse and garbage containers shall not be placed adjacent to the street for pickup more than twenty -four hours before pickup time, and such containers shall be removed within the twelve -hour period following pickup. The "front yard" area is defined as: The area of a residential lot that lies between the street property line and the walls of any residences that face the street. Trash, green waste, and recycling receptacles shall be completely screened from public view from the public right -of -way that abuts the front yard by a fence, landscaping, or wall that is otherwise permitted by zoning and building codes. Multifamily developments, condominium projects, and other common interest residential units which are approved for individual waste wheelers shall remove waste wheelers from the common area visible from the public right -of -way in accordance with this section. 17.93.020 Definitions High Occupancy Residential Use Regulations A. "Adult" means a person eighteen years of age and older. B. "High- occupancy residential use" means any dwelling, other than a "residential care facility" as defined in Section 17.100.180, in the R -1 or R -2 zones when the occupancy of the dwelling consists of six or more adults. Finally, the newly passed Rental Inspection Ordinance. Neighborhood Services is a recently developed department within the Community Development Department to counter the ill effects of high density occupancy within low density neighborhoods. Neighborhood Services officers deal with the very problems that their overriding Community Development Department allows /promotes with the approval of projects such as this 323 Grand development. It is time that the City begin to treat the underlying problem rather than passing ordinances to alleviate the inherent negative impacts. We implore the City Council to uphold the Community Guidelines and protect the struggling neighborhoods that rely on your support. This project should be denied based on Community Design Guideline 5.3 as stated by two members of the ARC who voted against approval.