HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-19-2016 Item 14, RowleyE�
COUNCIL MEETING: G t. i f l e't 1 ZO 1 �CEI11
ITEM NO.:____[ JAN 19 2016
To: Maier, John Paul W
Subject: RE: PH 14, Review of Appeal of Planning Commission Denial, 2390 Loomis /48 Buena
Vista
From: Sandra Rowley ]
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 9:41 AM
To: Marx, ]an; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John; Christianson, Carlyn; Rivoire, Dan
Cc: Maier, John Paul
Subject: PH 14, Review of Appeal of Planning Commission Denial, 2390 Loomis /48 Buena Vista
The attached letter pertains to the January 19, 2016, City Council Meeting. Please include in Council
Correspondence.
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
P.O. Box 12604 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
January 19, 2016
SUBJECT: Review of Appeal of Planning Commission Denial, 2390 Loomis /48 Buena Vista
Dear Mayor Marx and Members of the Council,
We realize that this is indeed a difficult lot on which to build a house, but that should not be a
sufficient reason to compromise our city standards or jeopardize the health, safety and welfare
of residents, workers or visitors to the area. RQN recommends you deny the appeal and
encourage the appellant to return with a project that meets city standards, including height and
setback requirements and those mandated by the Special Considerations overlay and hillside
standards, and is compatible with the neighborhood.
Health, safety and welfare.
There is no on- street parking allowed from Santa Maria to the top of Buena Vista. The street is
a designated fire lane and is sufficiently narrow in this area that both sides of the street are red -
curbed to assure that emergency vehicles have access at all times.
The driveway requires a driver to back onto a blind curve making visibility both for the driver
and for oncoming vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians difficult. Staff approval of the design and
of tandem parking exacerbates the problem. When cars exit onto the street, they must back un
the driveway to street level, seemingly decreasing the driver's ability to see oncoming cars,
bicycles or pedestrians. With tandem parking, a car must exit and sit in the traffic lane until the
inside car(s) can exit.
Special Considerations Overlay and Exceptions.
Due to the Special Considerations zoning, properties in this area were required to meet all
development and hillside development standards. No less should be required of the appellant.
Therefore, we ask that the height and setback exceptions not be granted.
LUE 6.5.3 states in part that the City will mitigate the visual impacts of hillside structures,
including revising the way maximum building height is determined. This implies that, as a
mitigation measure, the City can reduce the maximum height of structures on hillsides in order
to lessen their visual impact.
Hillside develo ment standards.
LUE 6.4.3 clearly enumerates the standards for hillside development. They include: keeping a
low profile and conforming to the natural slopes; avoiding large continuous walls /roof surfaces,
or prominent... poles or columns; locating houses close to the street; using materials /colors
which blend (emphasis added) with the natural landscape; and minimize exterior lighting.
1
Unfortunately, the proposed design does not incorporate many of these hillside standards.
Whereas other homes in the area are camouflaged by style, materials, color and vegetation, the
proposed structure is not. It has a high, rather than low, profile. The structure is not located
close to Buena Vista. Instead it is at the furthest point from the street without being totally on
the downward slope towards Loomis.
The view of the house from US 101 is one of a big, continuous wall with a large assemblage of
glass and four rather tall support poles; the view from Buena Vista is similar - but without the
support poles. No measures have been taken to mitigate the boxy shape of the structure or
minimize the continuous wall facing both the highway and the street. No discussion or
evaluation has occurred concerning the visual impact of the massing of glass in one area, the
possibility of light reflecting off those windows /doors during certain times of the day and /or
year, nor of any visual impact that may occur from light that will be emitted from them during
evening and nighttime hours.
Although presumably set up as accent lighting, the lights planned for the inside perimeter of
the roof deck will illuminate any gathering that occurs there at night and highlight the structure
for those traveling on US 101 and for the neighbors.
Neighborhood compatibility.
There are no roof decks in the neighborhood. Although there is an occasional flat roof, the vast
majority are pitched or hip roofs so as to better conform to the outline of the hillside. We ask
that use of the roof as living space (roof deck) not be allowed.
Although the appellant only requested a three -foot height exception, the use of the roof for
living space and concomitant addition of furniture, umbrellas, etc., would effectively increase
the height several more feet. Also, if the roof were not used as living space, there would be no
need for the staircase leading up to the roof. Removal of the section of staircase that extends
above the roof would drop the height of the northwest corner by 4 % feet and would result in
better views from Buena Vista.
Grading.
Removing the use of the roof as a deck could result in insufficient outdoor space for the
occupants. However, with a lot that's over 13,300 square feet there must be one or two places
that are suitable for a ground -level patio. Recommend that ground -level outdoor space be
considered when forming future grading plans, and that grading for this purpose be allowed.
Summary.
1. We strongly request that you deny the appeal based on the appellant's failure to meet
development and hillside development standards.
2. If you decide to uphold the appeal, we request the following: 1) the height exception not be
granted, 2) the use of the roof as a deck be disallowed, 3) the staircase be removed from the
N
roof, 4) one or more ground -level locations be used as outdoor space to supplement the
outdoor balcony space due to the loss of the (disallowed) roof deck, with grading for this
purpose allowed, and 5) that the appellant shall agree to the inspection provisions of the
covenant required for an SDU by paragraph 17.21.010 E 3a of the Zoning Regulations.
Thank you for your time and your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely
Sandra Rowley
Chairperson, RQN
3