HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/6/2019 Item 2, Maegert
Architectural Review Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
Attn: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Jacqulene Maegert. I am the owner and resident at 983 Rachel Ct. in San
Luis Obispo. I would like to take a moment and list my concerns with the proposed
development of the empty property on our cul-de-sac, 974 Rachel Ct.
1. Non-conformance to the neighborhood: According to the plans and renderings
that were provided, the owners are seeking to build a custom home that does not
match any other house in our community. We are a track development and all
houses were built with uniformity of character and coloring in mind. The proposed
house will set out as a stand-alone structure that will neither match the color, size
nor style of our neighborhood. These differences include, but aren’t limited to, a
rock-face facade, a black garage door, black window shutters, etc. A design like this
will not blend in to our existing community, but will rather be seen as a “castle on
the hill” in appearance, size (discussed in point 2) and diversity.
2. Height of Development: It is to my understanding, from garage floor to roof, the
house will have the appearance of a three-story dwelling. With garage included, our
cul-de-sac only has 2-story homes. Combine that height with the fact they are
building on the highest point on the cul-de-sac, their home will literally tower over
every other house in the community by well over 10 ft. This is a substantial height
difference when you take into account the grading that was done to allow about a 2-
3 ft. roof height increase for each house going up the hill.
3. Obstruction of View: One of the many reasons I chose to purchase my house,
spending well over the amount most other homes were purchased for on our street,
was not only for my view looking out over the valley through my southwest-facing
windows, but also to look out my front door, front patio and garage to the preserve
on the northeast. This house will overtake any view I have of the preserve because
of its substantial height and requests to push their property line past the city-
approved easements. This lot originally was not set to be developed for a house, but
there were discussions of it being used for extra parking or even a small community
park. Only later did CCB decide to sell the lot and provided an architectural plan
that would allow for a small home to be built there instead (see point 5).
4. Retaining Wall: One of the largest concerns affecting our community is the
retaining wall to which the property will be developed behind. Our HOA was
established for a few main reasons, 2 of which being: 1. Maintenance of the retaining
wall, 2. Care of landscaping in the community area around the retaining wall. It is of
utmost importance than any house developed on that lot be within a realistic size so
as not to harm that retaining wall in any way. If the wall is compromised, it is then
up to the HOA to fix it, which means every owner in the community has to pay for a
potential building mistake or oversight. I do not want to be held responsible and
pay for a developer or owner who has unrealistic ideas of the size house this lot can
hold.
5. CCB Architectural Plan: The original developer, Coastal Community Builders,
designed and submitted an architectural plan to help them sell this lot. These plans,
that were included with the sale of this lot, show a smaller 2-story (garage included)
design of appr. 2042 sq. ft. (total including garage) that conforms to the rest of the
community, does not encroach on city-set or HOA easements, and would minimally
block precious views many of us paid higher house prices to have. Most
importantly, this design would ensure less pressure and potential harm to the large
retaining wall it sits upon as opposed to the 2,860 sq. ft. design that has been
submitted.
6. Parking: Parking is already a problem our community is dealing with because we
are limited to having guests park on one side of our cul-de-sac, minus fire lanes, and
in between driveways. I have already sought out and am planning to expand the
cement portion of my driveway to allow more of my guests to park in my driveway
as opposed to the very bottom of the hill where parking is already scarce. I will be
paying this out of my own pocket to help this problem. The plans that were
presented for our review show an ADU with a separate entrance and own
kitchen/laundry facility. It seems logical by their plans to conclude they intend to
rent this portion of their dwelling. This could potentially place another occupant’s
car, if not more than one, seeking parking on our street where there already isn’t
enough space to spare. The original plans from CCB show a single-family dwelling
with no attached rentable studio and therefore would not create a worse parking
situation than we already have.
In conclusion, I would also like the board and prospective homeowners to know, I
do not list these concerns in any way to prohibit the lot from being developed. My
concerns lie with the well being of the community, the HOA, and the retaining wall
to which we are all responsible. If a house is to be built, it would be nice for the
owners to take in consideration the neighborhood to which they are joining, the
community look and feel that has been established, and propose a smaller and more
reasonable architectural plan that falls in line with the plan that was created by the
original developers, CCB.
Thank you for your time,
Jacqulene Maegert