HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-02-2015 PH2 ProstovichCOUNCIL MEETING: OU 109 I �D1S
ITEM NO.:__ T_
Lomeli, Monique
From: Jeffrey Prostovich <prostovich @me.com>
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 9:52 PM RECEIVED
To: E -mail Council Website
Cc: Linda White; fudge805 @charter.net JUN 02 2015
Subject: June 2, 2015, City Council Agenda ��
�� CI1_ Y CLERK
re: REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE THE
DESIGN OF FOUR SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCES AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT 323
& 353 GRAND AVENUE
Dear City Council Members:
I have reviewed the 72 page Council Agenda Report regarding this project. I'm impressed with the detail of the
report and the scaling back of the project from its original design.
As a resident in the area of this project, I disagree with the recommendations and findings that the project
complies with the Community Design Guidelines for the following reasons:
1. The size and scale considerations were based on newer construction and not the older homes in the
neighborhood. Photographs of the comparison homes clearly shows this. Some of these new residences do not
conform to the design guidelines. Why repeat mistakes. I urge the council members to drive through the entire
neighborhood and compare the photos of the proposed project with the existing neighborhood on Slack,
Henderson, Graves, Hays, Hope, and McCollum and the entire Monterey Heights subdivision.
2. While the sizes of the proposed residences have been reduced, several remain five bedroom residences under
the guise of the fifth bedroom being labelled "den," "media room," and "home office." Adjacent to these
supposed non - bedrooms are full bathrooms with bathing facilities when a half bath would suffice for the labeled
uses. This clever attempt to misguide the council members should not be overlooked.
3. All these proposed residences still look like boxes dressed in faux "character" details that are out of
dimensional scale. Look at the size of the pillars, windows, and roof lines and compare them with residences
along Pismo, Buchon, Islay and other downtown streets. I'm confident that they comply with current
construction standards, but they fall short of the intent of the design guidelines. The only thing they resemble is
other newer construction, such as the Serra Meadow tract, but the proposed design is just plain wrong for an
established neighborhood.
4. The argument that these residences will become student housing is not within the purview of the
council. The real estate market will determine who buys or rents these residences, but it is a known
fact that the potential rental income from these five bedroom residences will be out of reach for a
working family. Allowing these units will lead to need for increased police services after it is too
late. Look at the city police logs. Connect the dots. Don't be duped.
5. Grand Avenue is not a downtown neighborhood. It is a Cal Poly neighborhood. Public comments
alluding to the need for downtown housing is a true assessment, but misapplied and should not be
considered in your decision regarding this project.
I urge the council to grant the appeal and send the project back to the Architectural Review Commission with
attention to (1) the size of the residences (our home is under 1,500 square feet on a 9,000 sq. ft. lot) relative to
their lot size, (2) the addition of an area readily useable as fifth bedroom with a full bath, regardless of its label
on the plans, and (3) more appropriate architectural design with features that don't look like they are on steroids.
Thank you for your careful consideration and foresight.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Prostovich
San Luis Obispo
(