The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About9/9/2019 Item 3, Jansen Wilbanks, Megan From:Allard Jansen < To:Advisory Bodies Cc:Scott, Shawna; Hannah Devine Subject:Item 3 - ARCH-0255-2019 (279 Bridge Street) Attachments:Jansen-Devine Letter.pdf; Exhibit A.pdf; Exhibit B.pdf Architectural Review committee members For your consideration concerning the new development at 279 Bridge Street, San Luis Obispo. ALLARD JANSEN AIA HANNAH DEVINE 251 Bridge Street| San Luis Obispo | California Email| allard@teamaja.com | web www.teamaja.com 858-245-7152 1 September 5, 2019 Architectural Review Commission C/O Shawna Scott Senior Planner City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: 279 Bridge Street Design Review, September 9, 2019 Meeting Dear Members of the Commission: As new owners of a single-family home adjacent to this project, we thank you for the opportunity to have some input in the approval process. Let's start by saying that we are not opposed to development; we like the idea of using this land for a sensitive build -out. We like the architecture and concept, and think it will add to the energy of this corner of San Luis Obispo. We appreciate that now is the time to ensure that any development is done right and will be a timeless legacy, not an expedient response to current markets. So before going into specific recommendations, we note that the developer is rightfully seeking to maximize the potential of their Bridge Street parcel. The current zoning (M) already allows for the proposed number of units, so there would be no need to seek a zoning change for a Mixed -Use (MU) overlay. The intention of the MU overlay is to allow for the addition of residential units (including affordable) within a central downtown or existing all -commercial area for the purpose of introducing a 24/7 pedestrian population, enlivening business districts and providing more secure streets.' We again wonder why a MU overlay would be of purpose in a ground -up development already in a neighborhood that comprises a variety of housing types and light commercial uses. Our only conclusion is that a MU overlay zone provides the possibility of variance for a higher height limit (than the current 35' maximum), though the code indicates that it is for cases where it's necessary to fit units into an existing area.' This brings us to our only significant objection to the project. The height of the buildings, while conforming to the 35' limit, also includes multiple stair towers that exceed 45', something that would not be allowed under the current (or any other) zoning. Only the MU overlay provides an opening to review the proiect height. We obiect to the overlay application as disingenuous — it appears to be_a component only to get around the height limit that is in place for all the surrounding properties. We, and our neighbors, are unfairly impacted by these additional heights, especially in the form of such a massive wall that closely borders our property and interrupts our peaceful views. We understand that the stair towers lead to roof decks above the residential units, which will be very appealing to future residents. Without calling for elimination of the decks and access towers, we propose a few alternate changes that would mitigate the impact of this new, dense project that is literally in our backyards: 1. Reduce the overall height of Building B. Maximizing the building height AND getting another 10' of stair towers is excessive. The project would be just as successful by reducing the commercial and residential floor heights respectively, lowering the overall building height to 30'6" and the stair towers to 37'6". See exhibit A 2. Provide aesthetic screening over the visible rooftop mechanical units and require vibrational isolators to reduce noise. 3. Install carports and landscaping over the rear parking area, to cover the visual impact of multiple parked cars, adding decorative vine plants if possible to create a greener view. 4. Consider secure garage doors for the tucked -under parking spaces, rather than open car and storage areas that could be an untidy view for neighbors. 5. Reroute drainage of catch basins to the north creek, not to the higher, rear swale that borders our property to the south and may become a standing water hazard. Attached exhibits A (Building Section) and B (Site Plan) show a more detailed breakdown of these proposals. Please carefully consider this request for height variance and the zoning code intention, and find a reasonable compromise that is a win for the existing property owners and still a win for the developer. With these mitigating steps, we would be supportive of approving and expediting the project. 4Jans'y' 8, Hannah Devine, CPA Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 117.58.010 The primary purpose of the MU overlay zone is to provide a means for the city to identify areas where the public health, safety, and welfare will be enhanced by requiring that all allowed development be in the form of mixed-use projects, where ground floor street frontages are occupied by retail, business, or personal services uses and residential uses are located above or to the rear of a site. The MU overlay zone is intended to promote a compact city, to provide additional housing opportunities—including affordable housing opportunities—which is the first priority, and to reduce vehicle travel by providing services, jobs, and housing in proximity. The city desires the safety provided by having residential components in commercial areas. 217.58.030 Property development standards shall be those of the underlying zone, except that the application of the MU overlay zone to a property may include establishing a higher height limit than the underlying zone to more effectively accommodate the residential component of a mixed-use project. Any such request for a higher height limit shall be set forth in the subject application and shall be reviewed by the applicable review authority as part of the overall application. R - 45'-10" A.F.G oo -u_. H.r.u. FLOOR - 23-0" A.F.G. PLANTER ROOF DECK_ RAISED MAI VIAIAV SLOPE 2:12 _ ROOF MEC d AREA ue b/J/LD/Nle 8HEIgHT REDUG7/oN � BUILDING B SECTION SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" IMP.RQU EMENTS TO THE N6RT�'I CONSTRUG�D PER GALLAGHER BRIDGE ST PHASE I IMPROVEMENT PLANS I I 1 I I I I I I I I---- I i AVERAGE VEGETATION LINE SS LIFT STATION I I I I 1 P PG&E 1 RAISED I BUILDING C 1 TRANSFORMER -- - - - - -- - --�- - -- ------ L1 -- - I 1 F0UFIDA1T0_9 3580 SF ----- - I Z CREEK SETBACK 3.4% I ? I I I 1 1 171.9 O S 169.00 _ 166.50 FS _ _ 167.45 FS BSI 171.95 FS @ I I �� DOORS 166.15 TC 167.07 167.07 FS I I DOORS �. -. 1 8/ 1 I 167.23 TC 167.40 TC 165.65 FS o I 172.30 1 I 166.73 FS 166.90 FS RAISED DECK 167.45 FS BS ONC { A. 11% PERMEABLE 1% 171.95 Ts PAVEMENT PAVEMENT j 171.95 E 10, 165.05 TC 166.00 FS O 167.29 TC PERMEABLE 166.70 TC 167.30 TC I 168.89 F 164.45 TG 166.20 FS 16 FS _ 166.42 FS 1166057 FS 166.79 FS 166.74 FS PAVEMENT 165.70 TG 166.80 FS C NC 1 8.3°1? 7.2" CURB �.�� A.C. '.95 INV ! I l 164.10 INV SD 2.1% i RAMPS t" UNDEF PAVEMENT 3'1 % 165.78 TG 12 3%166.20 FS 0.5% 6" bb 0.5% 6" SOLID 166.80 TC 7% I ♦♦1 PE 164.60 INV 1 166.10 FS PERF. SD PVC SD 61.04 FO FS 1 i ♦ ♦♦ P j X66 165.91 FS 166.05 FS ,66 b" PERF SD R 8%� ♦ I 1.0%/ 1.4% _ 1.0% -__ _. - ♦ 167.65 1'65 PERMEABLE 1.2% 16 I ♦ S F .1 6,' ;x:'. , .r:. PERMEABLE - 170.12 1 I 0.83% ERMEABLE 0.5% PAVEMENT ----2.8Y. Y N 6.9 FS � FS 56.70 TC } PAYMENT f 166.70 TC 166 J0 TC 166.80 TC ♦ 1 165.40 Fl 66. FS 166.70 TC 16 .33 F 14k.39 FS- - 166.20 FS 166.20 FSI ♦�i 165.5 166.20 FS 6.60 FS i �- ; CV 55.9 TC o o o o o; o 0 0 0 0 0 0� o. o � 165. 65. F t j i I W 163.65 IN 66.7 TC BLDG OVERHANG 166.70 TC = 166. FS -- -- -- -- -- --- - - --- --1 B --- J-66 -10 a- 3.3% 166.82 FS10 r =�4s 5.9 TC ''2% MAX (TYP)166.95 FS @ DOORS ,^ I� q I o r 65.8 T I I I I I I I I I 166183 FS I 1 i � 1 I 6656 TC 166.801 FS i i i i I I i I 1 .85 FS ♦ 3' I 6 I I I- I I 167.0 FFE I I I I I ~ bb.l FS I I j I 1 I I 166 71 TG 1166.66 FS ♦ I �: O 1 0.5% 6" S 04- 11-036 166.80 FG I I I { BUILDING b.2 j 163.80 114V SD I PV l i i-... i i i I I I I i I I i oT 1.7%1 - tom. +...e I I _ _� 166.72 FS 1 I I WEST T ° , 1 1 1 15400 SF _ 541 166.40 FGA 166.40 T- C T 166.40 T �Lnclosecl Garages -i -i - T- 1 1 166.85 FS . 5.50 FG165.90 FS 165.90 F I I I I ,6 FS 65.eO 6.1 TC FS I j r �► ��• ♦ I 165.57 FE I 1 010 FG ----- --------- SIDEWALK @ 2% M t 1 L( 65.4 TC 64.5 0 FS g= I I I 1 O -165- E o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 3: 1.7% 16677 #C .62 TC I I i. l A.C.166.77 TC 166.2 FS 6.12 FS I I FLOOD I y. 1 1 40 TC 166.27 FS 2.3% 166.25 TC 166 22 I % MIN I ZONE f 5.1 TC 165.75 FS PAVEMENT 1 5.90 FS �6� j I 1 I AS INT ASIN �!� 64.67 FS 16 .7 FS 6 - `) I i ,.a 1►y�� \ I - - - - - - - - r��i - - = - -- I ' y FROM F6 �� +r�rrrwr x..� 166■�.r■.r w.�� 165.69 FL I NOVEN'l V @SPILL\ d- 1 65 71 165.83TC 165.67 Carport layout with intermittent trees BLDG OVERHANG A= .•1 5.21 FS 165.33 FS I FS/GB f and low landscape between carports Requested carports and screening PERIv Trees and Landscaping between carports RMEABLI If layout is a problem, eliminate one parking space At the south property line adjacent to neighboring property I PAV bp PAVEMENI and add landscaping every third parking space 6 .42 FL 20 164.32E171. Project: -g- - - - Street Development i' j ♦♦ b m Bridgep � ..�; / e f ♦ � 279 Bridge Street + ' 85: F V 65 0 10 i 1s (Y'C( RB 7.65 0 FS San Luis Obispo, California p o i --rte.......... � 1 d 6.31 I _�. _ . _ �.. __ ♦ V - .. - - 165.10 EG - t (164) c O5.67.EG.. ♦♦ z6 -_ - - 0 U __ _ _ Project drains to adjacent property, reroute `- ` . < (16, 1. ' U W L, - - - �. 163,00 `SD � _ w w - - _ tTo the north away from neighboring property ;. fA 2 FLOWLINE E SWALE- �� L.. . - --- -- - -_ - 1 O %.- 1 f L .... ti - - - .. u _I nT ,Q� �(0 I�r_ )' t:io� - -- - I