Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/16/2018 Item 2, Brown Goodwin, Heather From:Kerry Brown <kerryobrown@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, July To:Advisory Bodies Subject:790 Foothill Dear Architectural Review Commission: I am concerned about the proposed project at 790 Foothill. I live in the area and find the proposal out of scale and objectionable. There is very little difference in the plans from the first set of plans to this revised set. This is a neighborhood commercial area and the proposed apartment complex 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). Building Design 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. Bishops Peak and Cerro San Luis Obispo are the focal points of this neighborhood . 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. Context matters! 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 1 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 - 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 2 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. Also, the upper floors are not set-back. The structure will definitely visually dominate the neighborhood. The four floor should be removed. Parking I also find the parking to be 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 3 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) 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. Traffic I am also concerned about traffic. When the City adopted the LUCE, and the special planning area standard that allows for this development and the one at 22 Chorro; the expected number of units was 80 with a population of 183. But since these two developments are student housing with each 1 bedroom really being a 2 bedroom and each 2 bedroom really being a 4 bedroom, the actual population would be at least 234 for 790 Foothill and 96 for 22 Chorro – that a total of 330 occupants. The traffic study looked at the average rate for an apartment NOT student housing. This is inaccurate and needs to be corrected. 790 Foothill 12 Studio – 12 occupants 1 bedroom- 42 occupants 2 bedroom- 180 occupants 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 Brown 4