Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-07-2016 ARC Correspondence - Item 2 (Kraft,Schmiede)RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MAR 0 3 2016 Jeff Kraft + Angela Schmiede COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ARC Meeting — 3/7/16 48 Buena Vista Dear Members of the Architectural Review Commission: In preparation for the March 7, 2016 ARC meeting for 48 Buena Vista (now officially 40 & 42 Buena Vista per the building department), we would like to provide some neighborhood and hillside design information regarding the project. Neighborhood Architecture and View Points The neighborhood for this proposed home consists of five homes on a cul de sac, all of which were custom built many years ago. Our house is not really visible from any other house and it does not block anyone's view. Compared with other neighboring homes that obstruct the skyline and are very visible from both Buena Vista and 101, our proposed home is below the ridgeline. The home immediately behind our proposed home towers almost 50 feet above the street, compared with our home that is proposed at 6.5 - 9 feet above the street (depending on which exceptions are granted). Out of 56 homes in the surrounding neighborhood, only 14% are traditional / Mediterranean. 27% would be considered contemporary in design and 29% are built with mid-century modern design. 21 % would be considered mid-century ranch -style and 9% are what most architects would consider modern. Our mid-century / modern — designed home blends in with a majority of the neighborhood in what is clearly an architecturally diverse neighborhood. We were told by several neighbors that they thought the house design was very beautiful. Now some are saying it is not traditional enough for the neighborhood. Based on the survey results above, traditional homes are in the minority. Based on a zero - grading program for hillside construction, a modern style house is really the best fit for this lot. Based on height, setbacks, and grading restrictions it is difficult not to have a boxy design. Additionally, we are using a structural steel system, which is built on 10 drilled piers without the need for massive grading and foundation. Even the driveway is structural steel and concrete deck. Height Restrictions / Height and Setback Exceptions Hillside lots present a challenging combination of requirements, where certain restrictions create other limitations. One of the biggest challenges with this project relates to how the City of San Luis Obispo measures height, based on average grade. While most jurisdictions follow the slope of the property, SLO uses a level line. There is mention in the LUCE plan of intent to change the way height is measured; however, those changes haven't occurred yet. The height regulations do have specific guidelines for height exceptions and my project meets them without question. During the Planning Commission meeting on October 28, 2015, the planning commissioners all expressed having no problem with the exceptions I was requesting. The commissioners rejected my project on the basis of potential "safety" concerns, none of which were justified with any evidence. During my appeal to the City Council, the neighbors were trying to use my request for exceptions as a way to justify denial of the appeal. Because of how vocal the neighbors had been, I believe the City Council was trying to find a compromise that would approve the use permit while "giving" something to the neighbors. Despite the fact that the exceptions were not even part of the appeal, the City Council approved the use permit but rejected the request for the two minor height and setback exceptions I asked for. While I believe the Council's intent was to make the proposed house have a minimal impact on the neighborhood, ironically, eliminating the exceptions necessitates placing the house closer to the street, which increases the height. Council Member Christensen was the one dissenting vote among the Council because she thought the appeal should be approved as is, since the exceptions were quite minimal and served to improve the project. The Council did leave open the possibility of granting other exceptions. The height exception I originally requested (which was 28 feet, when up to 35 are allowed as an exception) and was supported by the planning staff actually lowers the house from the street. By eliminating the height exception, the house has to move closer to the street and gets higher. The overall height of the house does not change and I do not think this change would be perceptible from US 101, which is the only other place from which the house can be seen. I am certain that if there had been time during the City Council meeting to fully demonstrate the impact of denying the exceptions, that the Council Members and neighbors would have viewed the exceptions as positive. It is important to note that with the originally proposed height exception, the roof/deck of the house was only 6'6" above the street, and did not block any sky. Without any height exception the house has to move closer to the street by 10' and it is then 2'6" higher at the street, still only 9' above the street. The problem this creates is it reduces the driveway by 10' and eliminates two parking spaces. This is a big deal because there is no on -street parking in the immediate area of the house because of fire truck access. I think the neighbors would like this to be a reason to deny the project; however, on -street parking is not required for approval and the remaining parking does meet the requirement. We are not asking for any variances and we are not looking for any special treatment. We have worked long and hard to make the project meet all of the ordinance requirements and design guidelines that are required, but based on the site, require some tradeoffs. One example is the requirement for the lowest floor to be within 6' of natural grade. We spent a lot of time trying to accomplish this and it basically required adding a lower level which made the house 3 stories. When we presented this at the planning commission meeting we were told the building was too tall when viewed from below and there was a huge concern that the lower level was going to become a third unit. The solution was to eliminate the lowest level and have the building float on the hillside. Although contrary to the guideline not to have exposed supports over 6', this is an example of where tradeoffs make sense. Planning staff agree that the reduction in mass by eliminating the lower level, which we never wanted, far outweighs the exposed supports. Additionally, the house is really only seen below from US 101 for a total of 14 seconds, and at distances of 4000'-800' and 150' lower. The supports are in the shadow of a cantilevered deck so these supports will not be perceptible and the natural grade of the slope and the grade of the house will blur from that distance. There will also eventually be additional trees that will screen all of this. Neighbor Issues / Approval Process The elephant in the room with this project (and probably others) is the student rental issue, which was made very clear by the amount public and planning commission discussion about the potential of this home to be a student rental. Despite the City Attorney stating during the Commission meeting that any discussion of who might live in the house was illegal, it continued throughout our approval process. Council Member Christianson reminded others of this fact during the City Council meeting. However, even when I went to meet with the neighbors after the approval of our use permit they were still asking me about my plans, etc. I fully expect this issue to continue to be raised by neighbors during the ARC meeting, despite the fact that it's housing discrimination. I have a large family: 4 daughters, and 2 grandchildren so far, and I want this house to serve as a home that will encourage family gatherings and also serve multi -generational and our end of life needs. This is why we have an elevator and secondary dwelling unit. My mother lives alone in Santa Maria and is 82. Our last house had an SDU and my mother-in-law spent her last years living with her family rather than in a home somewhere. It also gives us the flexibility of live in care for our long-term care as well as accommodating boomerang children. The difficult aspect of this process is the time we have been allowed in this process. We have been through 4 public meetings --an administrative hearing, 2 planning commission hearings, and a City Council hearing. So far we have been given about 30 minutes total to present our project during the various meetings, and much of the discussion has focused on irrelevant issues (e.g., unsubstantiated safety concerns) or concerns that are illegal to raise in this context (e.g., student rentals). The opponents to the project have been given over 3 hours to present their various issues. It is easy to judge a project after looking at it briefly; however, after spending a year doing the design it is frustrating because there is a reason for every decision made to make the house fit into the neighborhood with minimal impact. We think the ARC is a more interactive process and look forward to discussing the project with members of the Commission.