HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-15-2016 ARC Correspondence - Item 3 (Rowley)Lomeli, Monique
Subject: Architectural Review Commission - Item 3, 1259 Laurel Lane
Meeting: A R D 9.15 -1 Lo
From: Sandra Rowley fmailto:macsar99@vahoo.com] Item: 3
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 2:26 PM
To: Advisory Bodies <advisorvbodies@slocity.org>
Subject: Architectural Review Commission - Item 3, 1259 Laurel Lane
RECEIVED
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AUG 15 2016
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
The attached letter is for tonight's ARC meeting and is regarding Item 3, 1259 Laurel Lane.
August 15, 2016
SUBJECT: Architectural Review, Item 3, 1259 Laurel Lane
Dear Commissioners,
I am concerned about a few aspects of the proposed development plan for this site: 1) the size,
mass and scale of the buildings, 2) the parking reduction along with re -striping the parking lot and
lack of any short-term parking spaces within the residential area, and 3) the existence of a roof
deck.
This section of Laurel Lane is primarily residential. Across the street (west) there is a small house
converted to office uses, a community garden, a fire house, and the old 1 -story bowling alley
converted to a residential care facility. Behind the parcel (east) are small apartment buildings, a
health center and single-family residences. To the south, across Southwood and along Laurel Lane
is a long 2 -story condo complex. To the north are single-family homes. So this is a good area to
add compatible housing.
Size, Mass and Scale
The combination of the height, mass and scale of this project is not compatible with its
surroundings. The problems are the massing of the structures, the lack of space between the
buildings, the continuous face of a 3 -story building along Laurel Lane along with the height.
Although page 17 of the plans shows a break on the first -floor (between suites 1 and 2), none of
the other renderings show such a break, and there are no other visual breaks until the center of
the project.
Although the condos to the south of the project are three stories, only three of the seven are
immediately visible from the street, and there is a break between each building allowing a view of
greenery and sky. The 2 -story condos further south are designed to look like separate buildings
and, because they are only two stories, allow a view of trees and sky above and behind the
buildings.
Depending on the amount of grading, where and how it will be done, some of the structures could
be as much as three stories above adjacent properties to the side/rear.
Parkin;
A 30% parking reduction would exacerbate the already difficult parking situation in the area since
the area is already heavily parked. Current residents state it is difficult to have friends over
because there is no place for them to park. Tenants in the apartments may walk, ride bicycles or
take the bus to many or most places within the city; however, most (if not all) of them will own at
least one car and/or recreational vehicle. When not in use these, vehicles will be parked in the
commercial area. Commercial customers/employees, will then need to park in the street —
somewhere. Some parking reduction probably is possible without spilling out into other areas;
however, 30% seems excessive for this project.
The parking lot is to be re -striped. I have concern about the size of the new parking spaces. Over
the years the required size of parking spaces has shrunk, but vehicles have not. In many parking
lots finding dings, dents and/or other damage to your vehicle is not uncommon — and annotating
"compact" in a parking space does not preclude large vehicles from parking there.
My last parking concern is the absence of any parking spaces in the residential area, even short-
term spaces. Are groceries to be carried bag by bag from the parking lot to one's apartment?
How about furniture or a flat screen TV or other bulky item? If a replacement refrigerator is
needed, where does the delivery truck park? If something is broken and a workman is needed,
does he carry all of his tools and equipment from the parking lot? Residential developments
usually locate the parking next to the residences. It is understandable why it's desirable for the
applicant to locate the residential parking in the existing lot; however, for convenience of the
tenants it would seem that at least a few short-term spaces would be available for loading and
unloading.
Rnnf murk
There is a safety concern. Even though there is a railing, it is only three and a half feet high. If
families with children are living there, the children could climb over it — because it's there. If
there are college students living there it is likely they, too, would climb over it onto the rest of the
roof. That seems to be a current tradition.
Regarding noise, with few exceptions this is a quiet part of town, and I and my neighbors would
like to keep it that way. When there are noise disruptions, the noise echos off of the hills and can
be heard all over the area. At night this includes being able to hear actual conversations from a
distance as well as the louder party -type noise. I have a very real concern that a community space
three stories in the air could be a substantial disruption.
Each apartment has personal outdoor space via a balcony, ground -level yard or center courtyard
This added community roof deck space is not required by regulation and it can be eliminated
without the applicant needing to find replacement space elsewhere.
Summary
From purely a personal point of view, eliminating the roof deck would ease my mind about
possible negative effects this project would have on the peace and quiet, i.e., the quality of life
that exists in this neighborhood.
Thank you for your time and your consideration of these concerns.
Sincerely,
Sandra Rowley
SLO Resident
iJ