Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-07-2016 ARC Correspondence - Item 2 (Rowley)From: Sandra Rowley Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 7:50 AM To: Bell, Kyle Subject: ARC Meeting - 40 Buena Vista Good Morning Kyle, RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MAR 0 7 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Please forward the attached letter to the ARC commissioners. Thank you, Sandy Sandy Rowley Meeting; W 3L,7 ILP Item: 2 - Residents for Quality Neighborhoods P.O. Box 12604 . San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 March 7, 2016 SUBJECT: 40 Buena Vista TO: Commissioners, Architectural Review Commission RQN recognizes that this site is one on which development is difficult, as evidenced by the very steep slope and the amount of time which has elapsed prior to a project being brought forward. However, although the slope on the property is greater than that normally considered suitable for development, the City recognizes this as a legal lot. Given the above, one or more of the usual standards applied to site development may need to be eased. If the choice is between Hillside Standards and Development Standards, we strongly encourage you not to compromise those Hillside Standards and design features that pertain to minimizing the visibility of the structure. We further request that the best examples of appropriate design and architecture in the vicinity of the site be included in your consideration of ways the dwelling can be designed to fit in with the rest of the neighborhood; this has not previously been done. If an easing of standards must occur, we ask that you look at increasing the amount of grading/fill allowed, easing the driveway slope standards and siting the structure even closer to the street, as well as considering a terraced/stepped approach and other modifications so that the design of the dwelling can better blend into the hillside and conform to our hillside standards. We have the following concerns with the siting and design of the structure as proposed: 1. Placement. The structure is placed in a visually prominent location on the top of an open hillside, with part of the structure on the Buena Vista side and the majority on the Loomis side. 2. Overall design. This is not a design that blends into the hillside. The boxlike shape, the large flat surfaces and the sharp angles cause this dwelling to be prominently displayed against the hillside and the sky. There is nothing to soften the edges or mimic the contours of nature. Any minor articulation that may be present is lost when viewing the structure from any distance. 3. Roof design. Although there may be flat roofs in lower elevations, there are none in the vicinity of this site. In addition, a flat roof is not appropriate at this location because of the need for this structure to blend into its surroundings. A hip roof or pitched roof would more naturally conform to the surrounding area — making the structure less prominent, making it conform more closely to the surrounding hills and making it more compatible with the architecture in the vicinity of the site. 4. Height exception. The requested height exception is inconsistent with other properties in the neighborhood and out of character with all other dwellings similarly situated on the hillside. An exception would detract from the neighborhood character. 5. Roof deck. a. There are no roof decks in the neighborhood. The proposed use of the roof for living space and concomitant addition of furniture, umbrellas, etc., will effectively increase the height several more feet as well as emphasize and exaggerate the increased height of the residence. In addition, the lights planned for the inside perimeter of the roof deck will illuminate any nighttime gathering and highlight the structure for those traveling on US 101 and for the neighbors. b. If the roof deck were disallowed, there would be no need for the staircase leading to the roof. Removal of the staircase extending above the roof would drop the height of the northwest corner by 4 % feet and would result in better views from Buena Vista. 6. Windows. a. Contrary to the language in the staff report, the massing of glass on the street sides of the structure accentuates rather than reduces the mass and prominence of the structure. The stark contrast of the mass of glass with the surrounding dark wall emphasizes the structure's bulk. b. During the daytime, glass is reflective. Cantilevered decks may reduce the glare on parts of the glass, but with the amount of glass used it is unlikely that glare will be eliminated. c. In the evening when inside lights are turned on there will be a blaze of light emitted, especially on the Loomis side, drawing attention to the structure and away from the hills and sky. 7. Support Poles. The support poles are taller than the maximum 6 feet allowed, are visually prominent and are not enclosed. Recommendation. For the reasons enumerated above we do not think this development plan meets the minimum requirements of the hillside standards specified in the LUE and the Community Design Guidelines. Therefore, we request that the applicant be advised to redesign the project in accordance with the Hillside Development Standards — with no height exception, a pitched or hip roof, some provision for ground -level outdoor space (in lieu of the roof deck) and special emphasis on those features (exterior design, colors and materials) that pertain to minimizing the visibility of the structure. Thank you for your time and your consideration of these concerns. Sincerely, Sandra Rowley Chairperson, RQN 2