HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-03-2016 Item 12, FredericksonCOUNCIL MEETING:Q 5-92t ' U0
ITEM NO.: L'i.• -
APR 2 6 2016
CARSEL & FREDERICKSON, LLP
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
TELEPHONE 3220 S. HIGUERA STREET, STE. 311 TELECOPIER
(805) 544-8510 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 (805) 544-6357
;.n —
April 25, 2016
Traci McGinley
City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: Applicants: Jeff Kraft and Angela Schmeide, Ph.D.
Application: SDU-1521-2015
Property: 40-42 Buena Vista Avenue
Madam Clerk,
ROGER B. PREUERICKSON
Of COunsel
This letter is provided to the San Luis Obispo City Council in opposition to the appeal of
Architectural Review Commission's ("ARC") March 7, 2016, unanimous approval of the
plans for my clients' proposed home at 40-42 Buena Vista Avenue in San Luis Obispo,
California.
In doing so, my clients and the applicants would like to make three initial points to the City
Council.
1. At the March 7 ARC meeting, pursuant to the City Council's direction, my
applicants offered the ARC a plan option without a height exception, along
with alternate plans incorporating a slight height exception. The ARC, in
comparing the two options, found that that absent a slight height exception,
the home would actually be taller, would be significantly closer to the street,
would have significantly less parking, and would require significant
destruction of the hillside. Based upon those findings, the Commission
concluded that the adoption of a plan that did not include the slight height
exception proposed would bring about a result directly contrary to the
direction provided the Commission by the City Council. As a result, it
ultimately decided that common sense demanded the home be built with a
slight height exception, which is one foot less than the exception previously
rejected by the City Council.
2. This appeal, like all opposition to the applicant's plans, reeks of hypocrisy
and discrimination. City Planning staff has confirmed with the applicant that
seven (7) out of eleven (11) homes in the immediate area of the proposed
project, including the appellant's, either were granted exceptions (both
setback and height and much more significant than the ones proposed by
the applicant) or would require such exceptions if they were to be
constructed under the current guidelines.
3. As a direct result of the unwarranted and hypocritical complaints by
neighbors, whose sole purpose is to prevent the applicants from building on
his property, the applicants have been forced to expend an additional
$55,000 on the project, which has now been in the planning and approval
process for more than 10 months.
The Issues on Appeal
The appeal addresses only the height and setback exceptions approved by the ARC.
The Findings of the ARC with Regard to the Height and Setback Exceptions.
SECTION 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby approves the design
of the single-family residence on a sloping site, including a front yard setback and height
exception (SDU-1521-2015) based on the following findings:
1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of those working
or residing in the vicinity since the proposed project is consistent with the site's zoning
designation, and will be subject to conformance with all applicable building, fire, and
safety codes.
2.The project is consistent with the General Plan because it promotes policies related
to compatible development ( LUE 2.3.9), residential project objectives ( LUE 2.3.11)
and housing production (HE 6).
Front Yard Setback and Height Exceptions
6. The additional 2.3 foot building height exception will not obstruct views from any
adjacent property due to the existing topography and will allow for the construction of
covered parking that complies with the Hillside Development Guidelines and the
Parking and Driveway Standards for the driveway. The proposed maximum building
height exception is warranted due to the existing site slope and Engineering Standard
requirement for maximum driveway slope.
7. The proposed height exception will not detract or negatively affect the neighborhood
character because the structure will appear as less than a one story structure from the
public right-of-way surrounded by one and two story structures within the
neighborhood, and is consistent with the development pattern of the neighborhood.
8. A reduced street yard setback is acceptable at the subject location because the
adjacent property will not be deprived of reasonable solar access.
9. No useful purpose would be realized by requiring the full setback because no
significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are
anticipated.
10. Granting of these exceptions will not alter the overall character of the
neighborhood or the street' s appearance because the requested exceptions are
minor and will not deprive any adjacent property from reasonable solar access, as the
property that would be most affected by the shading of the structure is zoned
Conservation Open Space ( C/OS-5) with each adjacent parcel over two acres in size.
The ARC resolved specifically "to adopt a Resolution approving [the home] that includes
a front yard setback and a height exception", finding specifically that "[t]he project site
contains difficult constraints (slope), the exceptions are minor in nature, and while they
may have some impacts, they are the least detrimental to any of the options that allow for
reasonable development of the site."
Citv Council Direction to the ARC of January 19. 2016
On January 19, 2016, the City Council held a public hearing to review the appeal of the
Planning Commission' s decision to deny the use permit. The City Council upheld the
appeal of the Planning Commission action to deny the proposed project thereby granting
final approval for the construction of a single-family residence in the S -Overlay zone, but
denied the requested exceptions, providing direction to the applicant to work with staff
and the ARC to redesign the proposed home to conform with the Community Design
Guidelines without the currently proposed height and setback exceptions. The City
Council directed Staff and the ARC to review the project and address concerns including,
but not limited to:
a. Traditional architecture characteristics of the neighborhood,
b. Reflectivity of the amount of glazing and glass on the structure,
c. Appropriateness of the roof top deck,
d. Visual appearance of the support columns,
e. Landscaping plans,
f. Prominence of structure as viewed from Highway 101.
1. The ARC Sua Sponte Approval of the Resolution with Exceptions Mandated_
by Common Sense
It is important that the Council understands that, consistent with the Council's direction,
the applicant did submit plans to the ARC that excluded the height and setback exceptions
of the applicant's original plan that was rejected by the Planning Commission. However,
at the recommendation of City staff, who realized the problems with such a plan, the
applicant also submitted to the ARC an alternate set of plans that incorporate a slight
height exception, which was one foot less than the one considered by the City Council.
The plans submitted without a height exception resulted in the following -
1. An increase (not decrease) in the height of the structure as seen from Buena Vista
Avenue;
2. The relocation of the structure to be immediately next to Buena Vista Avenue;
3. A 300% increase in the amount of grading required to build the structure, as the
structure, now being closer to the street, would need to be sunk deeper into the
hillside, requiring the removal of three times as much dirt; and
4. A decrease in parking by two parking spaces.
While this may seem counterintuitive, due to the unique slope of the property, removing
the height exception, would operate to shift the structure closer to the street and would
increase the height of the structure by four inches.'
The difference is illustrated in the chart below:
Height Guidelines
Resulting
Height of
House Above
Street Level
and Grading
quantity
Resulting
Driveway
Length and
Parking
Original proposed
exception of 28' (vs. 25'
6' 11"
266"
without exceptions,
6 Onsite
when up to 35' is
Grading under
parking
allowable)
100 Cubic Yards
spaces (small
cars)
Revised proposed
exception of 27', which
7' 11"
25'
was approved by the
4 Plus Onsite
ARC Requires 18' 6"
Grading 140
parking
Street yard exception
Cubic Yards
_s aces
No height exceptions
8' 5"
18'6"
25' Requires a 12' 6"
Grading 300
4 legal Onsite
Street yard exception
Cubic Yards
parking
spaces
Impact on Neighborhood*
• Lowest house height from street
level. Least prominent.
• Minimal amount of grading
required
• Maximum driveway length, 6
offsite parking spaces
• 1 foot higher
• 2 less parking spaces
• 40% more grading quantity
• 23% height increase 1'6"
• 300% grading quantity
• 70% closer to street
33% Less parking
1 The Council should be aware that eliminating height exceptions will also require 300 times the truck traffic and
will lengthen the amount of time required to complete the project, because without an exception, significantly
more grading will be required.
Note that the differences being presented here are only about one foot—a difference
imperceptible from highway 101, and noticeable from Buena Vista Avenue. Normally
when a height exception is sought, it raises the height of the building relative to the site.
In this case, the opposite is true, given the steepness of the lot. Given that the exception
sought is actually resulting in a reduction of the height of the building relative to the site,
the ARC found that the elimination of the exception was counter to the direction it received
from the City Council.
As Council Member Christensen aptly noted at the January 19th hearing, changing one
aspect of a project can have unintended negative impacts on other aspects of the project.
This proved to be true in the result. Unfortunately, the format of the Council meeting did
not allow for in-depth analysis of the impact or the opportunity for further rebuttal.
The plan submitted by the applicant to the ARC did not require a height exception.
However, both the City planning department and the ARC concluded that the better
approach was to provide the height exception.
To be clear, a plan with no height exception raises the building and makes it more
prominent on the hill, which the ARC found to be contrary to the direction it
received from the City Council, when it rejected the height and setback exceptions.
In addition, the lack of the 1' height exception would result in an increase in the
grading quantity by 300%, the elimination of two onsite parking spaces, and the
repositioning of the house 70% closer to the street, which the ARC found defied
reason and common sense.
2. Seven of Eleven of the Homes in the Immediate Area of the Applicant's Horne
were either Granted Exceptions or Would Require Such Exceptions if Being Built
Today.
The City planning staff review of the neighborhood homes in the vicinity of the applicant's
proposed home, revealed that 7 out of 11 of those homes, including the appellant's, were
either granted exceptions, (3 for height) or would require exceptions if built under today's
guidelines. Attached is the graph summary of information received from City staff.
Exceptions seem to be the norm in this neighborhood, which is understandable given that
it's a hillside neighborhood. However, there can be no question that the denial of such
exceptions to the applicant, especially where they are warranted by the property
characteristics, proves not only the hypocrisy of the neighbors, but the discrimination of
the City.
3. The Permit Application Process in this Instance has Become Oppressive and
Onerous
The applicant would like to remind the Council that he first submitted plans for this project
on June 18, 2015, more than 10 months ago. The applicants have invested more than
1000 hours of their time and more than $100,000 in planning and legal fees in the process
of an application for a single family residence designed entirely within the zoning and
building guidelines as adopted by the City.
Planning staff has supported this application from its initial submittal and they
recommended that the applicant seek the exceptions sought, as it would make a much
better project, with much less destruction to the hillside. The only reason that application
has not yet been approved is due to the meritless and hypocritical complaints of the
neighboring homeowners, whose homes are much taller, much more visible, and enjoy
far more exceptions than those denied by this Council.
Unless the Council takes a stand and makes a final decision with regard to this
application, those complaints and the appeals will continue indefinitely, absent the
involvement of the Superior Court. The applicants would respectfully request that the
Council carefully consider this appeal, apply reason and common sense, and make a final
decision to deny the appeal, affirm the ARC recommendations, and permit the applicants
to build their family home.
Sincerely,
Roger B. Frederickson
RBF:ls
Enclosure
cc: Client (via electronic mail only)
City Attorney (hand delivered)
City Manager (hand delivered)
Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner (hand delivered)
Chairperson John Larson (hand delivered)
r r r r r
A W N r 0 lD W V M Ln A W N r
N W N N N N w V N vi A A r N
W N W W W N W O W W W O W O
00 N O1 O N 0 0 m W W W 0 C W -p
(A OJ N W N N m m (CD m m m 3 m N
3 •* 3 3 3 3 y y y y y y cu y K
00) CU W CU 00) < C < C N <• D
o3i G -G .G+ K 'ter .moi N
CL
(D -�• m (D m (D OJ Oi N 0) O) 0) d W
N OJ N N N N (A
O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D
cn cn w cn Lq - co to co o Ln Ln to o
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
W W W r L Lr W — r N z
b D7 � � 01 O Ul Ln N O CJl �
6 o o � b 6
A A W A O O O �O N O O O
A A
c+'
j
O:
ft
:3
r
�yy
A
A
Q1
V
0
Ln
w
ol
V
0
r
U.)
a
A
CD
0
LU
w
0
z
a
70
D
v
N
v
c
N W N N N N 00 V A N N�
1-L D) O W O(D Oo O W r 0 0
Q' W a W co
cLA u 3 cu w w w MMm N (CD
N '3•r .3•' d d d 03! d "�
Ol OJ 0) 0! w C <, D
(3D�• (3D (3D (3D (3D OJ O! Oi d 01 N
N j N N N N (A
O O O O O O O O O O O O D
N N N N N N N N N nJ N N
iv Z
01 Of Of W Ol W W Os Of W tWn
rn rn rn v+ o b
N A A W p O O O A ON A N
J J
00 A A r
G1 Ll G1 Gl G1 m Z Z Z Z 0 Z
N 3 3 3 3 n 3
r3•r e3 -F r3r r3i r3i fl n fl Cl r31 (1
CL a Q O_ n a l 7 7 3 a 3
E O O O O O
=r s = 3 3 3 3 T 3
M m m m m m= OQ o4 0o m o0
333333
S S N S S (n LA 70 On S�
m m 'n m m m n,m (0 m '0
n 00 ID n OG � � C M Do C o0 M
'�► -j cu 00 N cuaj fl. N d
a LA m x
N O: N m Q_ O_ n
ry3 3 C C d "� m
of 0( Q O- °' O- O
p x x _ .�_. a 0)" d Ln 3
N V1 O O 77 M u+
.� 3 3 6 .m•« m
(�D (D r M dK
N W C d •G
O
n d
a) o O ((A a 7c' O_
ri — N
m
m (D a: O)
C C -< 7^C em -r
o,
- a F
0 o a
3 3 (A Q
IA. G)
m
a Q
CL
m
r•r
D'
or
(1
Vi
3-
m
7
r
O
CD
C
O_