Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-19-2016 Item 14, BuckshiCOUNCIL MEETING: c3l__t[ -�1� G E T V E D ITEM NO.: - - - -- l L_i JAN 10 2016 From: Maier, John Paul Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 8:53 AM To: Subject: FW: Input regarding Jan 19 hearing related to housing proposal for 48Buena Vista Ave. Attachments: Honorable Mayor and County Council.docx Disregard previous email — this is the updated AC From: Kristen Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 2:03 PM To: E -mail Council Website Cc: Lichtig, Katie; Codron, Michael Subject: FW: Input regarding Jan 19 hearing related to housing proposal for 48Buena Vista Ave. Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, I realize in my initial message I addressed you as "County" Council. I do understand I am addressing the City Council and I apologize for the typo! Regards, Kristen Buckshi Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Kristen Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 1:39 PM To: emailcouncil@slocity.org Cc: klichtig @slocity.org; mcodron @slocity.org Subject: Input regarding Jan 19 hearing related to housing proposal for 48Buena Vista Ave. COUNCIL MEETING: 0 t`t �� t b RECEIVED r JAN 19 2016 Honorable Mayor and County Council, SLO CITY CLERl� Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend the Council meeting Tuesday but would like to express my perspective and concerns about the house proposed for 48 Buena Vista Ave in the Monterey Heights neighborhood. I watched the two Planning Commission meetings and read all of the staff reports. I fully understand that this is a legal lot and respect the fact that property owners have a right to develop their respective properties. That said, there are a few characteristics about this proposal that cause me concern. The applicant is seeking a setback and height exception. While staff's analysis indicates that neither are cause for concern, I believe otherwise. While the height exception, in and of itself, may not impede views of the neighbors, the inclusion of the proposed roof deck results in an even larger exception than what is being requested. The addition of patio furniture and outdoor equipment or accessories could easily raise the level of the exemption by an additional ten feet. Also, according to the architectural plans, the rooftop deck would be visible from the road, which I believe would be aesthetically unappealing and would be inconsistent with the neighborhood's tranquil nature and character. Furthermore, one of the defining characteristics of the neighborhood is that many of the homes have views of the city and surrounding hills. Granting an exception to the height limit and the allowance of a rooftop deck could be a significant and problematic precedent for future development in the neighborhood. The staff report states that the Public Works department evaluated the parking situation and determined that the impact is negligible. I respectfully disagree with this conclusion. There are three on- street spaces for the five houses that are located farther up the hill near the proposed house (one of which is my own). Based upon the size, layout, and potentially high occupancy of the proposed dwelling in question, it is very probable that the occupants would regularly use all three of the spaces, thereby making them unavailable for use by the other five residences. As a result of these cumulative, negative impacts, I ask that you not approve the requested exceptions and ask that you deny the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. Feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss further. Thank You, Kristen Buckshi Buena Vista Ave resident Cc: Katie Lichtig, City Manager Michael Codron, Community Development Director