Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-24-2016 PC Correspondence - Item 1 (Brown)RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AUG 1 1 2016 Kerry and Darren Brown COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 755 Rougeot Place San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Meeting, -Q 4-- Ile August 4, 2016 Rachel Cohen, Project Manager Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Subject: 22 North Chorro Dear Rachel Cohen and Planning Commissioners: Item. I Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments regarding the proposed development at 22 North Chorro. There are several aspects of this development that I find to be objectionable and inconsistent with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Design Guidelines. The project would require the city to waive or provide exceptions to several core policies and design standards, the impacts of which will be borne directly by the adjoining neighborhood. Height of the structure The project as designed is out of place, and would be more appropriate downtown. At 43' in height this structure would dwarf the surrounding residences and commercial structures. This development borders an R-1 neighborhood to the south, which are predominately single story residences. The height limit is 35', and the applicant is requested a height exception. This height exception should not be granted. The designer has neglected to take into consideration the existing development pattern. The highest structures in this area are within the Office zone to the south east of this development. There are two structures that are three stories in height; however they are set back at least 75 feet from any residence (adjacent in R-1) and they don't overwhelm and overshadow the adjacent neighborhood. Along the Commercial zone on Foothill Boulevard, the structures are all one story with the exception of University Center which has a small two story component (Club 24). Additionally LUE 8.2.1 states: Among other possible incentives, building height adjustments on the North side of Foothill may be considered with mixed use development. This site is on the south side of Foothill. Additional heights on the north side make more planning sense since this area is borders the high density residential area with many multiple storied structures. This is not downtown; a four story structure will look out of place and is not consistent with the existing development pattern. Inadequate Parking Given the location and the design of the building and units, this development appears to be providing student housing. Due to the high cost of housing, students share rooms. Each two bedroom unit will likely house 4 occupants (23 — 2 bedrooms), each studio (4 — studios) will likely house 2 occupants for a total of 100 occupants in this 27 -unit high density development. Yet there are only 28 parking spaces for the residential component provided. This development is woefully under parked and as designed will impact the neighboring residential area. There is no parking on Foothill and no parking on Chorro (in this location). Where do you think these residents will park? Required Parking (per Zoning Ordinance): Residential 23 2 -bedroom units 46 4 studio units 4 Plus 1 per each 5 units 5 Commercial 1600 square feet (1 per 300) 5.33 TOTAL 60.33 Parking provided 33 Bicycle parking required: In C -C zone 15% of total 9 Bicycle parking provided 113 It is inappropriate to give three separate parking modifications, a shared parking adjustment, a mixed use adjustment, and bicycle parking adjustment. By allowing all three adjustments the result will be inadequate parking. The existing parking requirements aren't sufficient for the intended use. The residential portion of this project will likely have 100 occupants and parking should be as required for a high occupancy residential use, which would mean requiring one off—street parking space for each adult occupant; resulting in 100 spaces with additional parking for the commercial use. Designing a development with inadequate parking is inconsistent with the following City's polices: Land Use Element 1. Growth Management Objectives 1.1.1 Growth management Objectives. The City shall manage its growth so that: D. New residents can be assimilated without disrupting the community's social fabric, safety, or established neighborhoods. 2. Conservation and Development of Residential Neighborhoods 2.3.9 Compatible Development I. Parking New development: (a) Outside of the Downtown In -lieu Parking Fee Area, new development will be required to provide adequate off-street parking to match the intended use. I am not against student housing, however the project should be designed to fully accommodate itself within the site, including parking. Failure to do so will shift the impacts of this project directly on the neighbors adjoining the site. Providing bike parking and bike provisions doesn't mean that the occupants will not have cars. San Luis Obispo is not San Francisco. I have lived in this city for 18 years and I am well aware of what happens when developments don't provide sufficient parking. The cars need to go somewhere; they will come into the adjacent residential neighborhood (my neighborhood street) and exacerbate an already significant existing parking problem. This has happened in many neighborhoods in this city. Many students already park their cars on our street and ride their bikes or take the bus to school. Our neighborhoods have become de facto park and ride lots for Cal Poly. We also deal with the parking spill over from the commercial and office uses categories. This development needs more parking. Affordable housing or not — a housing development should provide adequate parking for its residents. I don't disagree that the occupants will use transit and bikes, but they will still have cars. Some student housing developments charge extra for parking and force students onto the neighboring streets. The parking adjustments seem to be a result of this the Land Use Element's Special Planning Area for Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Area: 8.2.1. Foothill Boulevard /Santa Rosa Area This area, which includes land on both sides of Foothill Boulevard between Chorro and Santa Rosa, is currently developed as commercial centers that include highway and neighborhood serving commercial uses. At the affected property owners' request, the boundary of this area on the north side of Foothill may be extended to include one or more of the existing commercial properties west of Chorro Street. The City shall work with property owners / developers to redevelop the area as mixed use (either horizontal or vertical mixed use) to include a mix of uses as described under the Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial and Medium High to High Density Residential designations. The non-residential component of the project should include elements that serve the nearby neighborhoods. Examples include: • specialty stores and services • food service • entertainment, and • recreational facilities (except that movie theaters, nightclubs, bars/taverns and restaurants serving alcohol after 11 pm shall be prohibited) As part of this project, the City will evaluate adjustments to parking requirements to account for predominant pedestrian and bike access. Building height adjustments in this area can also be considered with mixed use development. Redevelopment plans shall include consideration of improving the existing complex intersections of Foothill/Chorro/Broad, the desirability of modifying Boysen at and through the property on the northeast corner of the area, and enhancement of pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections across Foothill and Santa Rosa/Highway 1 and to the campus. Among other possible incentives, building height adjustments on the North side of Foothill may be considered with mixed use development. The Fire Station will be maintained or relocated within the area. This area is conducive to pedestrian and bike travel, however the area is also heavily used by automobiles and is a commuter route into downtown. The shopping center on the north side of Foothill was recently redeveloped and improved, mixed use was not incorporated into the design. Pedestrian access in this recently renovated shopping center is not ideal. And although all tenants are not occupied at this time, parking is already inadequate. I walk to this shopping center (with my children) and maybe it's due to the inadequate parking and the feeling of cars everywhere, but I don't feel like it was designed with pedestrians in mind and I don't find it a pleasant safe place to walk to. The other major shopping center is at Broad and Foothill, this shopping center is currently being renovated and this center will also not contain a mixed use component. Although the LUCE may have anticipated this area would be redeveloped into mixed use, that isn't happening. The other commercial developments in the area, like Ferrini Square are at a pedestrian scale. They also don't overwhelm the neighboring residences with out of scale heights. I walk through and to this area often and they include walkways that keep the pedestrians away from the cars. Setbacks The site is within the CC zoning category. The Zoning Ordinance states that the street yard is as provided in zone of adjacent lot. The adjacent lot on Chorro Street is within the R-1 zone and has a required 20 foot street yard setback. The setback of the proposed structure is 0 on Chorro, and is not consistent with this standard. Density This site is adjacent to R-1 with a density of 7 units per acre. This development is proposing 50 units per acre. This is incompatible with the adjacent R-1 zone. The highest density allowed by the Zoning Ordinance for R-4 is 24 units per acre. This high density project belongs downtown or on Chorro Street north of Foothill - North Chorro (the project address is incorrect; the address is 22 Chorro not North Chorro). Blocking Mountain Views Foothill was identified as Medium scenic value in the Circulation Element, although it does not state why. If you have ever walked along Foothill you will notice the views of Cerro San Luis Obispo, Bishop Peak, and the Cuesta ridge. This development will block views of Cerro San Luis Obispo and is inconsistent with the Circulation element. L.— - From the Circulation Element 15. SCENIC ROADWAYS The following provisions address the scenic importance of local roads and highways in the San Luis Obispo area. 15.1. Policies 15.1.1. Scenic Routes The route segments shown on Figure 3 and in Figure 11 of the Conservation and Open Space Element — Scenic Roadways Map —are designated as scenic roadways. 15.1.2. Development Along Scenic Routes The City will preserve and improve views of important scenic resources form streets and roads. Development along scenic roadways should not block views or detract from the quality of views. A. Projects, including signs, in the viewshed of a scenic roadway should be considered as "sensitive" and require architectural review. B. Development projects should not wall off scenic roadways and block views. C. As part of the city's environmental review process, blocking of views along scenic roadways should be considered a significant environmental impact. D. Signs along scenic roadways should not clutter vistas or views. E. Street lights should be low scale and focus light at intersections where it is most needed. Tall light standards should be avoided. Street lighting should be integrated with other street furniture at locations where views are least disturbed. However, safety priorities should remain superior to scenic concerns. F. Lighting along scenic roadways should not degrade the nighttime visual environment and night sky per the City's Night Sky Preservation Ordinance. Compatible Development The project is not consistent with the Land Use Element's policies of compatible development. The project does not maintain front setback pattern, the rhythm of development, street orientation, architecture, privacy and solar access. From the Land Use Element 2.3.9. Compatible Development The City shall require that new housing built within an existing neighborhood be sited and designed to be compatible with the character of the neighborhood. Compatibility for all development shall be evaluated using the following criteria: A. Front Setback Patterns New development shall match the typical range of setbacks used in areas adjacent to the project. B. Landscaping New development shall repeat or enhance the landscaping provided in parkway areas (if any exist) along street frontages. C. Rhythm of Development New development shall reflect the rhythm of existing development in the area including features such as setbacks and fagade widths along the front setback. Larger structures, such as multi -family (as allowed by the General Plan land use designation for the site) should replicate the spacing of structural components along the street frontage. D. Street Orientation New development shall match the general orientation of existing residential structures in the adjacent area and shall provide an inviting fagade facing public streets. E. Architecture Architectural compatibility will be assessed based on a combination of factors, including height, scale, mass, form and architectural style. Desired outcome is a smooth transition between existing and proposed development, supporting a quality neighborhood. F. Privacy and Solar Access New buildings will respect the privacy and solar access of neighboring buildings and outdoor areas, particularly where multistory buildings or additions may overlook backyards of adjacent dwellings. (See also the City's Conservation and Open Space Element.) G. Preservation of Natural, Historic and Cultural Features New development shall: (a) Respect historic context (b) Maintain mature trees on-site to the maximum extent feasible (c) Protect stream corridors and natural drainages H. Housing Diversity A mix of housing types, and a range of density within an area is generally desirable (see also Policy 2.2.6). I. Parking New development: (a) Outside of the Downtown In -lieu Parking Fee Area, new development will be required to provide adequate off-street parking to match the intended use. (b) For multi -family, parking shall be sited and designed to minimize the visual impact from the public street. The project is inconsistent with the following San Luis Obispo Design Guidelines. 1.4 - Goals for Design Quality and Character C. Protect natural resources and integrate the natural environment into building and site planning, where appropriate. 2. Maintain views of hillsides surrounding the city. The project is inconsistent with this guideline as it blocks views of Cerro San Luis Obispo. 2.1 - Site Design B. Consider the context. Review existing development near the site and consider how the project can be designed to fit in with the best examples of appropriate site design and architecture in the vicinity of the site. The project is inconsistent with this guideline as it ignores the existing development and context and was not designed to fit in. 2.2 - Building Design A. Keep building elements in proportion. Proportion, continuity, harmony, simplicity, rhythm and balance should prevail in building design. Building elements should be balanced and in proportion to one another. See Figure 2-1. The project is inconsistent with this guideline as the proportion, continuity, harmony, simplicity, rhythm and balance of the neighboring properties 3.1- Commercial Project [design Guidelines B. General architectural design guidelines 2. Neighborhood compatibility. In designing a building, it is important to analyze the areas surrounding the building site to find elements of compatibility that can be used in a new design. Simply duplicating the character of surrounding buildings, however, should not be a design goal. It is important for each site to both maintain its own identity and be complementary to its surroundings. Thus, a new building can be unique and interesting and still show respect for and compatibility with the architectural styles and scale of other buildings in its vicinity. Design factors that contribute to neighborhood compatibility include: a. Appropriate design theme; b. Proportional building scale/size; c. Appropriate building setbacks and massing; and d. Appropriate colors, textures, and building materials. The project is inconsistent with this guideline as it is incompatible with the neighborhood, grossly out of proportion, and does not include appropriate setbacks and massing. C. Site planning. Project site planning should comply with the following guidelines. 1. Consider neighboring development. Each development proposal should demonstrate consideration for the existing conditions on and off the site including the following: a. The uses on, and site layout of neighboring properties; b. The architectural style, and the shape and massing of neighboring structures. c. Existing natural features (i.e., mature trees, landforms, etc); d. Opportunities to preserve or enhance views of the hills; e. Privacy and solar access of the site and neighboring properties; f. Opportunities for new projects to provide physical links to adjacent development using sidewalks, and shared access drives and parking, whenever possible; and g. Opportunities for new projects to provide visual links to adjacent development in the form of similar landscaping, trees, etc., in addition to contextual architectural design as noted in b. above. The project is inconsistent with this guideline as it does not consider the neighboring development and context. The project ignores the uses and site layout of neighboring properties, ignores the massing of neighboring structures, blocks mountain views, and does not consider privacy and solar access of the neighboring properties. 5.4 - M u It i- Fa rn i ly and Clustered Housin Desi n Multi -family and clustered housing projects are generally more dense than single-family developments, and tend to generate larger parking areas and provide less private open space. If not properly designed, parking can dominate a multi -family site, and open space may only be provided as "left over" areas, unrelated to other project features, that are not usable for outdoor activities, and expose residents to uncomfortable noise levels. Multi -family projects that are surrounded by high walls, parking lots and/or rows of carports along streets are inappropriate in San Luis Obispo and should be avoided. These guidelines address the problems associated with higher density developments through appropriate site planning, parking layout, circulation patterns, building design, and landscaping. A. Site planning. Site planning for a multi -family or clustered housing project should create a pleasant, comfortable, safe, and distinct place for residents, without the project "turning its back" on the surrounding neighborhood 1. The placement of new units should consider the existing character of the surrounding residential area. New development should respect the privacy of adjacent residential uses through appropriate building orientation and structure height, so that windows do not overlook and impair the privacy of the indoor or outdoor living space of adjacent units. 2. Multi -family units should be clustered. A project of more than 10 units outside the Downtown should separate the units into structures of six or fewer units. 3. Multi -family structures should be set back from adjacent public streets consistent with the prevailing setback pattern of the immediate neighborhood. The project is inconsistent with these guidelines as 'turns it back' on the existing surrounding neighborhood, isn't respectful of the privacy of the adjacent residential uses, and includes out of proportion structure heights. in addition the project is more than 10 units in one structure and not consistent with the prevailing setback pattern of the immediate neighborhood. C. Multi -family project architecture. The exterior design of multi -family projects should be derived from architectural styles in the surrounding neighborhood. Often, these types of projects are adjacent to single family neighborhoods, and care in design should ensure that the height and bulk of the higher density projects do not impact adjacent lower density residential areas. 1. Facade and roof articulation. A structure with three or more attached units should incorporate significant wall and roof articulation to reduce apparent scale. Changes in wall planes and roof heights, and the inclusion of elements such as balconies, porches, arcades, dormers, and cross gables can avoid the barracks -like quality of long flat walls and roofs. Secondary hipped or gabled roofs covering the entire mass of a building are preferable to mansard roofs or segments of pitched roof applied at the structure's edge. Structures (including garages and carports) exceeding 150 feet in length are discouraged. See Figures 5-2 and 5-4. 2. Scale. Because multi -family projects are usually taller than one story, their bulk can impose on surrounding uses. The larger scale of these projects should be considered within the context of their surroundings. Structures with greater height may require additional setbacks at the ground floor level and/or upper levels (stepped -down) along the street frontage so they do not shade adjacent properties or visually dominate the neighborhood. Large projects should be broken up into groups of structures, and large single structures should be avoided. See Figure 5-4. The project is inconsistent with this guideline as it exceeds 150 feet in length and is within one structure. 6.3 Parking Facilities F. Bicycle parking. Adequate on-site facilities for bicycle parking throughout the City will encourage more widespread bicycle use. 1. Each new multi -family, office, commercial, or industrial project that requires 10 or more automobile parking spaces must provide both short- term (racks) and long-term (lockers or interior space) bicycle parking. The number of spaces required is based on the percentages included in Section 17.16.060, Table 6.5 of the Zoning Regulations. Section 17.16.060 E. of the City's Zoning Regulations allows a project that provides more bicycle and/or motorcycle spaces than required, to reduce its vehicle parking requirement at the rate of one vehicle space for each additional five motorcycle or bicycle spaces, up to a 10 percent reduction. The project is inconsistent with this guideline as the parking reduction exceeds 10% (60 spaces or more required, a reduction of 22 spaces for a total of 33 spaces — 37% reduction). Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments. This project should be redesigned to provide adequate parking, reduced height, compatible setbacks, and a reduction in density. Best, Kerry and Darren Brown Cc: Tyler Corey