HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-07-2012 ac PH1 rowley ph1RE : Item PHI, Appeal of the Architectural Commission's Approval of a Mixed-use Project a t
1340 Taft Stree t
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ,
The matter before you is an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's decisio n
approving a proposed mixed-use project at 1340 Taft Street . The zoning is Neighborhoo d
Commercial (C-N). The site is adjacent to a single-story C-N property,across the street from
another single-story C-N property and located at the edge of a medium-density residential (R -
2) zone with primarily single-story houses . Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) is on e
of two appellants in this action .
RQN was fortunate to be involved when the applicant offered the alternate design pla n
discussed and recommended in the staff report . By virtue of the alterations proposed ,
applicant has shown compassion and a willingness to reconsider and revise features that coul d
cause negative impacts to adjacent properties .More specifically,the changes made to th eplanto accommodate ingress and egress to the property from Kentucky Avenue and retentio n
of a screening wall have eliminated, or greatly minimized, vehicle noise and headligh timpacts from the project's tenants, customers and delivery vehicles that would have seriously
affected residents of homes on the opposite side of the alley at all times of the day/night ,
and have lessened both overlook and solar access concerns .
RQN supports staff's recommendation to approve applicant's alternative design plan with jus tone more alteration, removal of the third story . Our recommendation is made for a number
of reasons : 1) to reduce building height so it is more in conformity with the surroundin g
neighborhood, 2) to eliminate the temptation to convert the den into a large bedroom an d
preclude the project from being de facto under parked, and 3) to protect public health ,
safety and welfare .
Building Height
Neighborhood compatibility has been a guiding principle for construction in San Luis Obispo
since at least 1994, including for infilt and mixed-use projects . References to its importanc e
are incorporated into our Land Use and Housing Elements, Municipal Code and Communit y
Guidelines .
The height, mass, scale and bulk of this project would be compatible with buildings in th e
downtown core, but it is not compatible with this neighborhood . The residential buildin g
consists of a row of five three-story townhouses along Kentucky Avenue that are 35 feet high ,
with the third-story set back . The commercial portion consists of one three-story, 35-foo t
high building with a third-story set-back and one two-story, 27-foot high building, both alon g
Taft Street .
Other structures in this area, both commercial and residential, are primarily one story i n
height .There is a two story apartment complex at the far end of Stafford Street on propert y
zoned R-4 and a band of R-4 properties along, primarily, the other side of Californi a
Boulevard . To the north and east are mostly one-story, R-1, properties ;to the south is a
portion of the 101 freeway .
Residents far Quality Neighborhood s
P .O . Box 12604 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
August 6, 2012
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENC E#f
•
•
Standards for a mixed-use project in a C-N zone include a height maximum of 35 feet, no t
including roof-mounted apparatus . This is a maximum ; it is not a requirement . Projects ca n
be lower, and, in order to be more compatible with the neighborhood, this one should be .
Height Reduction The choice of how to do this would, of course, be up to the applicant, bu t
here are some possibilities and the rationale for each for consideration .
1 .Elimination of the Proposed Den/Stud y
As we are all aware, in San Luis Obispo every room in a residential unit has the potential t o
become a bedroom . Although the den/study is not intended to be a sleeping area, that doe s
not mean it will` not be used for that purpose . In fact, the other appellant noted that th e
den/study at approximately 16x19 is about 80 square feet larger than either bedroom (abou t
16x14 each). Elimination of the den/study and relocation of the third floor bedroom/bath t o
the second floor would obviate the need for a third story - and provide two master suites fo r
tenants .
The proximity of the project to Cal Poly and Cuesta makes it ideal living quarters for student s
and, per their website, since the ICON Company was formed to develop upscale mixed-us e
student housing, it seems likely that students will occupy these units . One of the way s
students reduce their expenses is to share their space with more people .The propose d
den/study clearly provides the capability to add at least two more individuals in each of thes e
units . These would be residents who are not included in the project's density calculations .
This sort of overcrowding has the potential to create more noise, more traffic and the nee d
for more parking . It is a health and welfare issue, and not consistent with our General Plan .
Therefore, request Council review the project with an eye to the number of occupants wh o
could live in these units and not presume that since it is a two-bedroom unit only two room s
will be used as bedrooms .
2.Reduction of Room Size s
The new design consists of five 1,680 square foot, three-story townhouses, one .1,525 squar e
foot apartment on two floors above commercial building #1 and one 700 square foo t
apartment,plus amenity space for all apartments, above commercial building #2 . Aside fro m
the affordable-by-design unit,these living spaces are larger than most three- and four -
bedroom houses in the city .
If the applicant preferred to retain the den as an amenity or study space, moderat e
reductions to the bedrooms and den would allow all three rooms to be located on the secon d
floor of the townhouses (first floor of the apartment).
3.Shared Roof Terraces
Each townhouse/apartment has a balcony and a terrace . Balconies are private, accessibl eonlyby tenants of that unit . Terraces, except the end unit, are shared between tw otownhouses. Also, it appears possible'to go from one terrace to another by climbing over th e
railing and onto the roof .
Reading the police log on a regular basis shows that many of our college-age residents an d
their roommates/friends enjoy getting up on the roof of their residences ; it is not unusual or
a rare occurrence . Alcohol is usually involved . In fact, consumption of alcohol by this age
group is an acknowledged problem in the City . Concomitant with the alcohol consumption i s
the propensity for impaired judgement . That's when people do dumb, sometimes criminal ,
things .
S
Because these terraces are shared and appear relatively easy to traverse, there is a safety
issue . There is an opportunity for falls to occur, and there is an opportunity for a resident o f
one townhouse to enter another townhouse uninvited via the terraces .
The shared roof terraces represent a safety hazard to the project's residents . Removing th e
top story of the residences would eliminate that hazard . Residents of the project would stil t
be able to enjoy the individual balconies already in the plan.
Parking
Because the den/study is not considered a bedroom and is not calculated in the densit y
formula, these rooms are not included in the parking calculations . Thus, there is a n
unregulated potential to create a project that is under parked . Additionally, commercia l
parking requirements are estimates . Since the commercial uses have not yet been decided, i t
is difficult to determine the actual demand for daytime parking . Paragraph 17 .16 .60 of th e
Zoning Regulations lists a myriad of uses that range from a low to a high demand for parking .
In addition, the mechanical parking apparatus/lift may or may not be utilized by residents o f
the townhouses . If said residents drive vehicles that do not fit in the apparatus, i .e ., over 5 9
inches high for the top Level or over 76 .7 inches high/205 inches long for the lower level, o r
find the lift inconvenient to use, they may elect to park in either the shared-use/commercia l
spaces, the lots of other C-N properties,or along, nearby residential streets . This woul d
certainly create conflicts with business owners, their employees and/or customers, and wit h
residents of the neighborhood .
There is, also, the possibility the parking apparatus may become inoperable . Per the Marc h
5, 2012, ARC Staff Report (page 1, last paragraph ; shown on page 1-82 of this staff report),
staff noted that their research found that the proposed parking tilts have been utilized i n
many projects and that they do require some on-going maintenance .
Although the applicant has stated he will limit tenants to those who have vehicles that will fi t
within the parking apparatus, he has,also,indicated a desire to sell the units a s
condominiums . Future owners may not be as willing to consider vehicle size when choosin g
tenants .
If any of these conditions occur and on-site parking is not available for either the busines s
patrons or project residents, or both, then cars will spilt out from the site to surroundin g
businesses and neighborhoods . Businesses might be able to establish tow-away spaces . Bu t
the resulting impact of such an occurrence on this already impacted residential neighborhoo d
would be significant and result in a decline in the quality of life for all .
Summa
In general, does Residents for Quality Neighborhoods support this project? Of course we do .
The site has been in need of redevelopment for years .In addition to improving th e
appearance of the property, residents will provide additional security for businesses and vic e
versa .
We appreciate the applicant's initiative in asking for a dialog with neighborhood residents an d
his time and willingness to speak with them and members of the RQN board . We areconfident that this project will pencil out, even with removal of its third story . We reques t
that removal of the third story be offered as an added condition to the project, and i f
•
•
accepted, that you deny the appeal so that he will not have to repeat any of the process i n
order to build the project .
That said, if the applicant refuses a condition of removing the third story, we request th e
appeal be upheld for the safety, health and welfare issues discussed : potential for
overcrowding, safety concerns regarding the terraces,and parking impacts .
Respectively submitted ,
Sandra Rowle y
Chair, RQN
Attachment s
1.References
2.Klaus Parking Systems Listing of Vehicles
•
1 .Land Use Element, Chapter 2 .2, Residential Location, Uses and Design .Paragraph 2 .2 .1 0
states, Housing built within an existing neighborhood should be in scale and in character wit h
that neighborhood . All multifamily development should be compatible with any nearby ,
lower density development .It appears the intent of this paragraph is to apply to mixed-us e
projects as well as to residential projects since paragraph 2 .2 .7 states,Where housing can b e
compatible with offices or other businesses, mixed use projects should be encouraged .
2 .Housing Element, Policy 7,1 .Within established neighborhoods, new residentia l
development shall be of a character, size, density and quality that preserves th e
neighborhood character and maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents .
Although we have been told that this policy does not apply to mixed use, we believe that i t
does . First, the residential component of a mixed-use project is "housing" and,when built i n
established residential neighborhoods, like the commercial component,it must be compatibl e
with the surrounding neighborhood . Also, we note no exclusion for mixed-use housing .
3 .Community Design Guidelines, Chapter 5 .4, Paragraph C, Multi--family protec t
architecture .The exterior design of multi-family projects should be derived fro m
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 heigh tand bulk of the higher density projects do not impact adjacent lower density residentia l
areas .Although this paragraph does not use the term "mixed-use,"it does refer to multi -
family projects ; the residential component of the Taft Street project is multi-family .
Normally, the term "single family refers to an R-1 neighborhood ;however,since th e
paragraph subsequently refers to lower density residential areas it would appear that it coul dOapply to either R-1, R-2 or R-3, depending on the circumstances .
4 .Municipal Code Zoning Regulations,,Chapter 17 .08, Paragraph 17 .08,72E, Subparagraph 2 ,
Mandatory FindingsforApproval .The approval of a use permit for a mixed use project shal lrequire that the review authority first make all of the following findings, as applicable :a.The project's mixed uses are consistent with the general plan and are compatible wit h
their surroundings, with neighboring uses, and with each other ;b.The project's design protects the public health, safety and welfare; an dc.The mixed uses provide greater public benefits than single use development ..
5 .Municipal Code Zoning Regulations, Chapter 17 .08, Paragraph 17 .08 .72E, Subparagraph 3 ,
Mandatory Findings for More Restrictive Standards .To require property developmen tstandards more restrictive than those of the underlying zone, the review authority mus tmake one of the following findings ;a.Site-specific property development standards are needed to protect all proposed uses ofthesite,in particular residential uses;or
b.Site-specific property development standards are needed to make the project consisten twith the intent of these regulations ;or
c.The preponderance of the development proposed for the site is of a type not normall ypermitted in the underlying zone,so property development standards for the zone wheresuch development is normally found are appropriate .
KLAUS PARKING STEMS, INC .
LISTING OF VEHICLE MODE SIZE AND WEIGHT (1 )
Height: P110-175&200/55 0
P110-175/550 P110-2001550 Length Weight (2 )
Vehicle Length
(inches)
Widt h
(inches)
Height
(inches)
Curb
W bs)t
Lowe r
Platform
Groun d
Platform
Lower
Platform
Ground
Platform
All
Platforms
Normal Wt .
(4400 lbs)
Special Wt.
(5060 Ibs)
DH (Headroom)80 .0"80 .0"80.0"80 .0"N A
Maximum Vehicle Height 59.0"78 .7"68.9"78 .7"197"
Cars
2007 Acura RL 194 73 57.0 4035 OK OK OK OK OK OK O K
2007 Audi A8 204 75 57 .0 4505 OK OK OK OK OK O K
2007 BMW 3-Series 178 72 56 .0 3460 OK OK OK OK OK OK O K
2007 BMW 5-Series 191
_
73 58 .0
_
3650 OK OK OK OK OK OK O K
2007 BMW 6-Series 190 73 54 .0 3885 OK OK OK OK OK OK O K
2007 BMW 7-Series 204 75 59 .0 4505
2007 Buick Lucerne 203 74 58 .0 3845
2007 Cadillac DTS 208 75 58 .0 413 0
2001 Chevrolet Camaro 193 74 51 .2 3545 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
2007 Chevrolet impala 200 73 59 .0 371 0
2007 Chevrolet Monte Carlo 197 73 56 .0 3625 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
2007 Dodge Charger 200 75 58 .0 417 0
2001 Dodge Intrepid .204 75 55.9 347 1
2007 Ford Crown Victoria 212 78 57 .0 4180
2007 Ford Five Hundred 201 75 62 .0 3725
2007 Ford Mustang 188 74 55 .0 3585 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
2007 Honda Accord 190 72 57 .0 3455 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
2007 Honda Civic 177 69 57 .0 2810 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
2007 Infiniti G 187 69 58 .0 ,3515 OK OK OK OK OK OK O K
2007 Infiniti M 193 71 59 .0 4095 OK OK OK OK OK OK O K
2001 Infiniti Q45 200 73 56.9 380 1
2007 Jaguar S-Type 192 72 56 .0 3880 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
2007 Jaguar XJ 200 73 57 .0 3860
2007 Jaguar XK 189 82 52 .0 3890 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
2007 Kia Amanti 196 73 59.0 4020 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
2007 Kia Optima 186 71 58.0 3285 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
2007 Lexus ES 191 72 57.0 3670 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
2007 Lexus GS 190 72 57 .0 3915 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
Page 1 of 4
KLA US PARKING SYSTEMS, INC.
LISTING OF VEHICLE MODELS BY SIZE AND WEIGHT (1 )
Height: P110-175&200/55 0
P110-175/550 P110-200/550 Length Weight (2)
Vehicle Lengt h
(inches)
Width
(inches)
Heigh t
(inches)
Curb
Weight
Ms)
Lowe r
Platform
Groun d
Platform
Lower
Platform
Ground
Platform
Al l
Platforms
Normal Wt.
(4400lbs)
Special Wt.
(5060 Ibs)
DH (Headroom)80 .0"80 .0"80 .0"80 .0"NA
Maximum Vehicle Height 59.0"78 .7"68 .9"78 .7"197"
2007 Lexus IS 180 71 56 .0 3510 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
2007 Lexus LS 198 74 58 .0 4245
2007 Lincoln Town Car 215 78 59 .0 441 5
2007 Mazda 6 187 70 57.0 3150 OK OK OK OK OK OK O K
2007 Mercedes Benz S 205 73 58.0 446 5
2007 Mercedes Benz E 190 71 57.0 3745 OK OK OK OK OK OK O K
2007, Mercury Grand Maquis 212 78 57.0 418 0
2007 Mercury Milan 191 72 56.0 3320
_
OK OK OK OK OK OK O K
2007 Mercury Montego 201 75 62.0 372 5
2001 Mercury Sable 198 73 58 .0 334 0
2007 Mitsubishi Galant 190 72 58 .0 3430 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
2007 Nissan Maxima 194 72 58 .0 3545 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
2003 Oldsmobile Aurora 199 73 57 .0 3802
2007 Pontiac Grand Prix 198 72 56.0 3630
2007 Porshe 911 Turbo 176 71 52 .0 3305 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
2007 Saab 9-3 182 68 57 .0 3370 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
2007 Saab 9-5 190 71 57 .0 3540 OK OK OK OK oK OK OK
2007Satum Aura 190 70 58 .0 3570 oK OK OK OK OK OK O K
2007 Subaru Outback 189 70 63 .0 3705 OK OK OK OK OK O K
2007 Toyota Avalon 197 73 59.0 3600 OK OK OK OK OK OK O K
2007 Toyota Camry 189 72 58.0 3530 OK OK OK OK OK OK O K
2007 Volkswagen Beetle 161 72 58 .0 3280 OK OK OK OK OK OK O K
2007 Volkswagen Jetta 179 69 58 .0 3615 OK OK OK OK OK OK O K
2007 Volkswagen Passat 188 72 58 .0 3615 OK OK OK OK OK OK O K
2007 Volvo S80 191 73 59 .0 3485 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
SUVs, Vans &Trucks
2007 BMW X5 191 76 70 .0 4980 OK OK OK OK
2007 Cadillac SRX 195 73 68 .0 4685 OK 'OK OK OK OK
KLAUS PARKING STEMS, INC .
LISTING OF VEHICLE MODE SIZE AND WEIGHT (1 )
Height: P110-175&200/55 0
P110-175/550 P110-200/550 Length Weight (2 )
Vehicle Length
(inches)
Widt h
(inches)
Height
(inches)
Curb
Weight
(Ibs)
Lowe r
Platform
Groun d
Platform
Lower
Platform
Ground
Platform
Al l
Platforms
Normal Wt .
(4400Ibs)
Special Wt .
(5060Ibs)
DH (Headroom)80 .0"80 .0"80 .0"80 .0"NA
Maximum Vehicle Height 59 .0"78 .7"68.9"78 .7"197"
2007 Chevrolet Uplander 205 72 72 .0 438 0
2007 Chevrolet TrailBlazer 192 75 75.0 4830 OK OK OK OK
2007 Chevorolet Silverado 230 80 74.0 5280
2007 Chevrolet Suburban 222 79 77 .0 5990
2007 Chevorolet Colorado 207 69 65 .0 4270
2007 Chrysler Aspen 202 76 74 .0 5335
2007 Chrysler Pacifica 199 79 67 .0 4635
2007 Chrysler Town&Country 201 79 69 .0 451 5
2007 Dode Dakota 219 74 69 .0 479 0
2007 Dodge Ram 228 80 77 .0 538 0
2007 Ford Expedition 206 79 78 .0 590 0
2007 Ford Ex •loner 193 74 73.0 4905 OK OK OK OK
2007 Ford Explorer Sport trac 210 74 73 .0 498 5
2007 Ford F-150 Reg. Cab 224 79 76 .0 569 0
2007 Ford Ranger 4x2 202 70 68 .0 3870
2007 Ford Freestar 201 77 69.0 4280
2007 Honda Oddyssey 201 77 69 .0 4615 T
2007 Honda CR-V 178 72 66 .0 3505 OK OK OK OK OK OK
2007 Isuzu Ascender 192 75 75 .0 4830 OK OK OK OK
2007 Infiniti QX 207 79 79 .0 563 0
2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee 186 84 69 .0 4725 OK OK OK OK
2007 Kia Sedona 202 78 69 .0 472 5
2007 Lexus RX 186 73 66 .0 4200 OK OK OK OK OK O K
2007 Lincoln Navigator 208 79 79 .0 607 0
2007 Mazda Tribute 175 70 70 .0 3575 OK OK OK OK O K
2007 Mercedes Benz M 189 75 70 .0 4845 OK OK OK O K
2007 Mitsubishi Outlander 183 71 66 .0 3670 OK OK OK OK OK OK
2007 Nissan Pathfinder 188 73 70 .0 4875 OK OK OK OK
2007 Toyota 4Runner 189 74 72.0 4345 OK OK OK OK
Page 3 of 4
KLAUS PARKING SYSTEMS, INC .
LISTING OF VEHICLE MODELS BY SIZE AND WEIGHT (1 )
Height: P110-175&200/55 0
P110-175/550 P110-200/550 Length Weight (2 )
Vehicle Length
(inches)
Width
(inches)
Height
(inches)
Curb
weig h t(Ibs)
Lowe r
Platform
Groun d
Platform
Lower
Platform
Groun d
Platform
All
Platforms
Normal Wt .
(4400 Ibs)
Special Wt .
(5060 Ibs)
DH (Headroom)_80 .0"80.0"80.0"80.0"NA
Maximum Vehicle Height 59 .0"78.7"68.9"78 .7"197"
2007 Toyota Land Cruiser 193 76 73.0 543 5
2007 Toyota Rav4 181 76 66 .0 3750 OK OK OK OK OK O K
2001 Toyota Sienna 200 77 69 .0 4365
Footnotes :
1)Dimensions are taken from Car and Driver Magazine and are not guaranteed . Individual cars must be tested .
2)An increased weight capacity to 2300 kg (5060 Ibs)is available .
2061 - Carsize Listing P110-550 07xls