Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/6/2019 Item 2, Mills Goodwin, Heather From:Russell S Mills <RMills@csuchico.edu> Sent:Sunday, April 28, To:Advisory Bodies Cc:Bell, Kyle Subject:ARC Agenda for May 6, 2019 Attachments:Memo from Mills to ARC 042819.pdf Importance:High ARC Members: Please consider the attached memorandum regarding the proposed new house proposed for construction at 974 Rachel Court. Thank you, Russell Mills rmills@csuchico.edu (530) 210-3866 1 1 To: Architectural Review Commission Cc: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner From: Russell and Leslie Mills 961 E. 7th Street Chico, CA 95928 Dated: April 28, 2019 Re: ARC Agenda for May 6 - Proposed New House at 974 Rachel Court We own the house at 960 Rachel Court, immediately to the west of the proposed new house at 974 Rachel Court. Our current primary residence is in Chico, but we are in the process of retiring and selling our Chico home, after which our house in San Luis Obispo will become our primary residence. When we bought our house on Rachel Court several years ago, we expected that there would eventually be a new house constructed on the adjacent lot. But we also expected that any house built on this lot would be consistent with the existing homes on the north side of Rachel Court – consistent in terms of architecture but also in terms of size and elevation. This is the case for all of the existing homes on this side of Rachel Court and is a City requirement for infill development, as described in the City’s Community Design Guidelines (Section 5.3 - Infill Development). Despite these houses being located on the upward slope of Terrace Hill, the developer carefully excavated each lot so as to produce a minimal elevation differential between each house. This required extensive use of retaining walls but with the benefit of improving privacy and reducing the visual impact between each house. This is a critical concern since the horizontal clearance between each house is only 15 feet. The slope up Rachel Court reaches a peak elevation at approximately our house. Consequently, the natural slope of the lot proposed for the new construction is at approximately the same elevation as our lot. However, as with the other existing houses, our lot was excavated to reduce the overall elevation of our house. This required a retaining wall with a peak height of over six feet at the north-east corner of our lot, immediately adjacent to 974 Rachel Court. The lot proposed for development is heavily impacted by easements – some of which are City easements and others that are private easements held by the SLO Terrace Homeowner Association. The lot is also of an odd shape dictated by the cul-de-sac at the top of Rachel Court. The lot was initially so constrained that the City judged the lot undevelopable. But this designation was later changed when the developer, near the end of the neighborhood’s construction, moved a trailhead easement to the other side of the cul-de-sac, away from 974 Rachel Court. Nevertheless, the developer chose not to develop this lot. The lot has since been sold at least three times, with no owner until now moving forward in the building process. This long description of the character of this property is important, since any house proposed for 2 construction on this lot will need to be designed to avoid potential detrimental impacts dictated by the restrictions on the lot and by the adjacent existing homes. In other words, while the lot may be appropriate for building a house, it is not appropriate for building just any house. The design that has been proposed by the current owners of this lot fails in several regards. The proposed house is much larger in square footage and much taller in elevation than is any other house on the north side of Rachel Court, despite this lot being much smaller in unconstrained surface area. It is also essential to realize that the renderings that have been provided by the architect to illustrate the impact of the proposed house on the surroundings are, in multiple cases, highly inaccurate. In particular, these renderings underemphasize the height of the proposed house compared to the height of our house. In fact, excessive height is our principle concern regarding the impact of this proposed house on our house. The impact is so severe that this house, if constructed as proposed, will have a detrimental effect on the value of our house and our enjoyment of our new home in retirement. Consequently, the following comments refer only to the portion of the proposed house that is immediately adjacent to our house. The impact is most clearly illustrated by an elevation view. Based on the building plans available to us, we have constructed such a view of the back of the proposed house (on Lot 17/18), our existing house (Lot 16), and our neighbors’ existing house (Lot 15). This Illustration is drawn to the same vertical and horizontal scale and includes a human figure, approximately six feet tall, provided for reference. Figure 1: House elevation profiles, looking south (i.e., the back sides of these houses, as viewed from Terrace Hill). The extreme elevation differential between our house and the proposed house is the result of two contributing factors. First, the proposed house includes, towards the back of the house, a sleeping loft over the main floor below. This will produce what is, in essence, a two-level house at the back, while all of the existing houses on the north side of Rachel Court are only a single level in back. Secondly, while the garage at the front of the proposed house is excavated so as 15 ft 15 ft26 ft17 ftLot 17/18 (proposed) Lot 16 (existing) Lot 15 (existing)3.71 ft 5.61 ft(estimate)(typical) 3 to produce a main floor elevation above the garage nearly the same as our main floor elevation, the floor elevation at the back of the proposed house steps up to a higher elevation, while our floor elevation remains the same over the full length of our house. What this avoids is any substantial excavation or retaining walls at the back of the proposed house, but excavation and retaining walls are actually common features of every existing house on this side of Rachel Court. The combined effect of a higher floor elevation and a much taller house will produce a house that will tower over our house. This would not just be aesthetically unpleasing, but would be, frankly, quite frightening. Recall that there is only a 15-foot horizontal separation between our house and the proposed house, but over a 30-foot elevation difference from our floor level to the peak of the roof of the proposed house. It is also important to recognize that we own a fully electric vehicle. When our house in SLO becomes our primary residence, we intend to install solar panels on our roof. Since solar cells loose efficiency at higher temperatures, the solar panels must be installed on the east-facing slope of our roof, facing the proposed new house, so that most of the energy production will occur in the morning, when temperatures are cooler. However, if constructed as proposed, the new house will excessively shade much of our roof and severely limit the area where solar panels may be installed. This is an unacceptable impact considering that the cost of energy can only go up, especially with the decommissioning of Diablo Canyon. In summary, we request that the design of this house be modified in two aspects. The sleeping loft should be removed, producing a house profile that is consistent with all the other houses that currently exist on the north side of Rachel Court. And the back of the house should be excavated to produce a floor elevation at the back of the house that is the same as at the front of the house. We will also note that we formally communicated these concerns, in general, to the property owners previously, during the City’s pre-application planning review. This was a proactive attempt by us to avoid the very conflict that has now developed. We hope the new owners understand that enjoyment of their new house cannot be at the cost of serious detrimental impacts to their future neighbors in SLO Terrace and that the City will require a design that is consistent with and sensitive to the rest of the neighborhood.