The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-04-16 ARC Correspondence - Item 3 (White)Lomeli, Monique Subject: 323 & 325 Grand Ave. Meeting: K C �-� From: Linda White [ Item: Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2016 8:13 PM To: Davidson, Doug Subject: Fwd: 323 & 325 Grand Ave. RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPG APR 0 4 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ' I sent the following email to the 2 planners listed on the staff report for 323 & 325 Grand Ave. However, I received email responses that they are both out of town.Could you see that my comments reach the ARC in a timely manner? Thank You, Linda ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Linda White { responses Date: Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 8:03 PM Subject: 323 & 325 Grand Ave. To: advisveybodies(a,slocity.org, woetzell rz,slocity.org, tcorey(c�stocity.org Please see that this attachment is distributed to the ARC in time for them to review before the 5 PM Monday, April 4 meeting. I have noticed that on occasion, the comments from the public are not presented to the committee in color. Will you please make sure that this report is in color like the staff report. The pictures will not copy in black and white. Thank you, Linda White 2016 04 04 ARC hearing 323/325 Grand Ave Design e The new, one-story design is a tremendous improvement. The design of the exteriors is far more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. •However, neighboring lots, averaging 5377 sq. ft. have homes, averaging 1310 sq. ft. (see my attachment 1) eIn this project, lot sizes average is 5238 sq. ft., slightly smaller than surrounding small lots, yet the houses are 245 sq. feet larger. +If the developer wants small lots then he should build small homes. If he wants larger homes, he should build on larger lots. *This would be a great project, if built on 4 standard sized lots. However, these are 4 substandard lots, two of which are flag lots. •Community Development Guidelines, "When new homes are developed adjacent to older ones, the height and bulk of the new construction can have a negative impact on adjacent, smaller scale buildings"...therefore, "infill residential developments should be compatible in scale, siting, detailing and overall character with adjacent buildings and those in the immediate neighborhood." •The bulk of this project is not compatible to the adjacent buildings and the immediate neighborhood. +The living space of this proposed project should be reduced by 15% in order to be compatible with the surrounding smaller sub standard lots with homes averaging 1310 sq. ft. •This project is still in an R-1 Low Density Residential neighborhood. This project does not meet the spirit of zoning nor of the general plan. *When a project pushes the limits of the guidelines, it should not be guaranteed approval. Each project should be evaluated in relation to the neighborhood in which it is being built and the surrounding issues affecting the project location. Project Immediate Neighborhood •This project is being built on Grand Ave, one block from the "Gateway to CP". See Diagram Staff Report Attachment 2 Vicinity Map ARC3-13 oThe block just north of the proposed project houses Chris Jesperson school, Classical Academy, and Teach school with combined enrollments of 500 students. rThe block just south of the proposed project has the Highway 101 on and off ramps along with Mt. Carmel Lutheran Church, Nursery School and driveway with a minimum width of 25'. •Not pictured in the staff diagram is the left turn lane, just south of the CP entrance which services those making a left turn into the Classical Academy drop off area or making a U-turn to access Chris Jesperson or the proposed project and two adjacent homes. • Grand Ave accommodates over 52,000 cars per day (according to 2007 statistics). *There are elementary students and college students walking, bicycling, skateboarding past this proposed project in addition to the busses, and private vehicles dropping students off, all contributing to the 2007statistic of 52,000 cars/day. *Due to the traffic (vehicular and pedestrian) on Grand Ave., there is NO off street parking. A bike lane is provided. *I would hope that all advisory bodies would find it within their purview to consider safety --- safety for the existing established neighborhood and safety for the new development. *The proposed project is located in a very busy section of Grand Ave. and as such, requires a more thorough evaluation for safety than one would normally carry out for side street. Reality of Project *The original development stated to the various reviewing bodies that these were "workforce houses" while at the same time, marketing them as "Grand Ave. is the ideal location to develop homes for rental purposes... perfectly designed to accommodate any potential renter." February 2015 see my attachment 2. *I would hope that we can all agree that with the proximity to CP ---at the "Gateway to CP" that these homes will be student rentals. Cal Poly has failed to build adequate on -campus student housing and the reality is that our neighborhoods have been forced to provide student housing for the University. *If only one student occupies each room,(which we all know is wishful thinking and economically undoable for the students) that will mean 16 students and 16 vehicles. Workforce families will not be able to afford to rent a whole house even if they wanted to live within such high density. *This is zoned R-1 Low Density Residential and yet the design encourages high density 16 bedrooms ----at least 16 residents. •There are 2 -car garages at each house to accommodate two cars (8 total) with four drives to accommodate two additional tandem vehicles (8 total). There are 6 visitor parking spaces for 22 total parking spaces. There are no turn -around areas to allow cars to exit onto Grand Ave. front wise instead of backing onto busy Grand Ave. *There are two fallacies with the proposed project scenario. The first fallacy is that there will be only 16 residents living here, having only 1 1/2 guest per house at any one time. The second is that they will use their garages for parking. * The vehicles backing out of the common drive and lot 2 have limited site lines for other vehicles, bicycles in the bike lane (or not) who sometimes ride the wrong way, pedestrians, etc. *Lot 2 must always back their four tandem parked vehicles onto Grand Ave. *The projects at McCollum and Grand and at Leland Terrace show that the proposed plan is not the reality. As with these other projects, high density forces residents to park on the street (which this project does not have), in turnarounds (which Grand/McCollum has and this project does not) or to park in non designated areas narrowing the 20 ft. driveway. See photos of Grand/McCollum on my attachment 3. *How will emergency vehicles enter the common drive to access the flag lots and houses when there are illegally parked vehicles which cannot be ticketed because of the private lot? There are statistics on the number of alcohol and drug emergency calls which I can't locate at the moment but I am sure are readily available to you as ARC members. It is shortsighted to assume or not plan for a police or medical emergency at this location with all of the prior listed issues. 2 • Since this drive is a private, shared drive, will an HOA be formed for its maintenance? If not, who will maintain? If I had the house on Lot 2, 1 would not feel compelled to contribute to upkeep since I don't have to use it. ■There is no designated, enclosed trash area. Where will the trashcans be kept? Perhaps in the garage with the cars? Does this work in projects with this high density? See photos of Grand/McCollum in my attachment 3. *The proposed project does not provide enough interior space to accommodate the high density of this project. •The density of the proposed project will be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of those working or residing in the vicinity. We feel that this project should be denied with the following recommendation: ■ Require project to conform with existing smaller homes on existing neighborhood small lots. 1350 sq. ft ■ Require the project to conform to Planning Commissions direction, with safety in mind, so that cars share a common driveway which allows them circulation to turn their vehicle around and exit onto Grand Ave. in a forward direction. ARC may find recommending a circular drive more architecturally pleasing. Thank you for your further consideration of this project. Linda White, co-chairman Monterey Heights Neighbors c Attachment # 1 ih {n 4. J, 1 11 UJ N i. 4 1a w fJ T O QN '+ +G V, L. —j ONIA J or a+ C) C ., tri �i J ;d N W w W 'w CJ f•J w to tJl C.J fJ I.J. fV �+ �I f+ F+ W r+ FJ 0 ,w Ny �1 F7 tr t, j, r- r r+. F-. r+ J �+' p0 �' ►+ {/! W N •8- '..� IJ O O O O t I-3 Y. -J 00 w .h tQ '.11 W 8 �O C7 J•a Ji J-+ 1 J -j I•J 1' J 0 O -' -; 00 00 QO y O C M•! I.A 7; �W I.�.... J1 lJt,-.Jt 4..''1if . 1. 1j, tl. Q1 It Q1 Q1 'Jt W 'Jl '-h, 1.1, Vi" W": ": N 0� �Oo —Q� O1 x O pp11 pM tJ , hJ N w ,n OIOJ OpOO l. Jt noo 4m, Q G O1 Cn x r4, fes. I ., N N N N IJ t CJ t- 00 4- y -.1 TJ 00 O ',G +-• 4: TJ -J 'O O O �O 0 0 IF M El -i c ro O ro =r -1 NCD ro ro' Ol 4) ro S ro Cu Gl 01 < ro Qy ro (<U < < ro ro o- �; � 00 .� < rD ro a a, d M d 9a =p ao ro cry < (D ro Cr ro v ro w a4 0 a" v-1 w fn o Up ID 0_ ck, Q < Q rD a 3 rnS 00 CU 3 H+ 0 3 1, 3 3 C Q- M � fron � n�i 3 C oY W �_ o, S C 0 0 M El Attachment # 2 :_ T �f�M PA N I L'CON H'DME ABOUT PROJECTS COIll TACr OAK KNOU CREEK VINEYARD CREEK THE 590 SOHO SLO Pl18IIC MARKET .a...��r- ___ a>lil�l�� "ISI Online ad continues next page 5 HP U. ;L PORCH r.�r! LOT 3 Ill j LOT 4 -c MGM - 1 • - --- -- - COMMON ACCESS DRIVE LOT Z k { l LOT ] C7 I w ARAC:E . ".. l"Tramf Avl'llm, is +llr i(leui lorlltion to dovolop hontrs for rentid pnrposo's. °Cllr proposed hoinos vtii11 hr 1)1l11t un a 0.53 01TO lot thus is nOSI lr(I prrl'(T(ly- I olworlr ("al I'l iY" cim1plis ur)(I +luvVtltoW11 Selu ]JIi Obitipo, On th(' pr0l)E11'1Y will ho Imit' spiwIi)n,� StllLyh` itwil\` homos, aJlartn'Q' it ('on)nroll dt-ko'waY. Tho mil'!erhill.v i I'uf,.l'(1 llojwf . r;wU �M1 -y Dr'ol'l 2.623 -,yt re hwt to 2.866 s(lmare Ioei- an, pel' ecil1' tlesio-nell to A("I'onlnlodate hill' I polettliul romor, Sita work for this prol(wt is schellnled to bo<ntl in J almill-Y (r(''_'t}1.5 am] plun., an, expoc!od to 4w acrel ied will re(-or'Ii('t1 i).. t o ( it1' h Fobr!;ulw 2015. 3 hip