HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-07-2018 - Item 2 - Brown1
Tonikian, Victoria
From:Kerry Brown <
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 12:38 PM
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:790 Foothill
Dear Architectural Review Commission:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments, as I am unable to attend the meeting tonight. I am
concerned about the proposed project at 790 Foothill. I live in the area and find the proposal out of scale
and objectionable. This is a neighborhood commercial area and the proposed apartment is out of scale
and overwhelming. Projects like these are the reason the City has Design Guidelines. This structure will
dominate and change the character of this area. The project is considered mixed-use, but it is more of
an apartment than a commercial structure. The project is inconsistent with the following San Luis Obispo
Design Guidelines. (Design Guidelines are shown in italics).
SLO 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 Bishop Peak.
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 structure is out of proportion, not in continuity or the
harmony, or 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
2
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.
3
5.4 ‐ Multi‐Family and Clustered Housing Design
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.
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. Also, the upper
floors are not set‐back. The structure will definitely visually dominate the neighborhood. The four floor should be
removed.
Parking
The parking proposed is inadequate for the intended use. Each two bedroom unit is actually a four bedroom apartment
and each one bedroom unit is actually a two bedroom. We know this because this is a how the other project (developed
by the same developer – 22 Chorro) is being advertised. There should be one parking space for each adult living in this
apartment, which would require at least 234 spaces (this is inconsistent with the County’s Land Use Element Policies ‐
new development will be required to provide adequate off‐street parking to match the intended use)
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. Many
students need cars so that they can have transportation home and don’t use their cars.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments. This project should be redesigned to provide adequate
parking, reduced height and massing, and the building needs to be broken up into groups of structures.
Best,
Kerry Brown