HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-03-2016 Item 12, KraftCOUNCIL MEETING:
ITEM NO.;__ L__Z
To:
Subject: RE: 40 Buena Vista
APR 2 6 2016
From: Marx, Jan
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 10:13 AM Pacific Standard Time
To: Jeff Kraft
Cc: Maier, John Paul; Price, Lee; Codron, Michael
Subject: RE: 40 Buena Vista
Your message will be posted on the city website as agenda correspondence.
Thank you
Jan
From: Jeff Kraft
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 7:58:43 AM
To: Marx, Jan
Subject: 40 Buena Vista
Dear Mayor Marx,
This letter is in response to the disappointing news that Mrs. Hoffman, with support of Council
Member Ashbaugh, submitted an appeal to the City Council of the unanimous approval of the 40-42
Buena Vista project by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) on March 7, 2016. In their
findings, the ARC specifically justified why they approved the new proposed height exception, since
they determined that, considering all the possible options, an exception would make a better project.
Not only is there no legitimate basis for an appeal of the ARC's decision, eliminating all height
exceptions as the appellant advocates will result in the opposite effect that was originally
desired.While it might seem counter -intuitive, eliminating the height exception will actually increase
the height of the house above the street, triple the amount of grading, and decrease parking
by two spaces. Based on the City Council's decision to eliminate the original proposed height
exceptions, we reduced the height exception, which raised the overall height of the house at street
level by 4 inches and slightly increased grading. Although we would argue that any height exception
would be imperceptible to the human eye, the neighborhood impact of eliminating height exceptions
is illustrated below.
Height Guidelines
Resulting
Resulting
Impact on Neighborhood*
Height of
Driveway
House Above
Length and
Street Level
Parking
and Grading
quantity
Original proposed
. Lowest house height from street
exception of 28' (vs. 25'
level. Least prominent.
without exceptions,
6' 11"
26' 6"
when up to 35' is
0 Minimal amount of grading required
allowable)
6 Onsite
parking
a Maximum driveway length, 6 offstreet
Grading under
spaces (small
parking spaces
100 Cubic Yards
cars)
Revised proposed
exception of 27', which
was approved by the
7' 11"
25'
0 1 foot higher
ARC Requires 18'6"
Street yard exception
4 Plus Onsite
2 less parking spaces
parking
Grading 140
spaces
. 40% more grading quantity
Cubic Yards
No height exceptions
8' 5"
18'6"
. 23% height increase 1'6"
25' Requires a 12'6"
Grading 300
4 legal Onsite
9 300% grading quantity
Street yard exception
Cubic Yards
parking
spaces
0 70% closer to street
• 33% Less parking
*Note that the differences being presented here are only about one foot—a difference imperceptible
from 101, but noticeable from Buena Vista. Normally when a height exception is sought, it raises the
height of the building on the site. In this case, the opposite is true, given the steepness of the
lot. Even if these exceptions raised the building they would still be justified. Given that they in fact
lower the building this appeal has no merit.
On January 19, 2016, the City Council made findings not to grant specific proposed exceptions on the
premise that granting exceptions would make the house more prominent. Unfortunately, this
assumption was incorrect. Although Council Member Christensen aptly noted that changing one
aspect of a project can have unintended negative impacts on other aspects of the project, the format
of the Council Meeting did not allow for in-depth analysis of the impact or the opportunity for further
rebuttal.
As we have not had the opportunity to talk with Council Member Ashbuagh, and a letter from him was
an attachment to the appeal, we feel compelled to write and be sure he knows the facts about both
the impact of no height exceptions as well as the attempts we have made to inform the neighbors
about these impacts. I have diligently made several attempts to meet with Mrs. Hoffman and have
made her aware of the negative outcome of my project not being granted a height exception. After
the use permit was granted at the City Council appeal meeting, Mrs. Hoffman turned to me and said,
"I can help you design a decent house for your lot." As was suggested by Mayor Marx, I reached out
to Mrs. Hoffman and Dr. Cochrane (who appeared to be representing the neighbors) to set up a
meeting to discuss the neighbors' concerns and to help them understand how height exceptions
would actually help minimize the impact of the house on the neighborhood.
drove 4 hours to Mrs. Hoffman's home from my current home and I installed story poles on the lot
and had the plans so I could show the neighbors what the outcome of the city council denying my
exceptions meant. Dr. Cochrane was the only neighbor to join us at Mrs. Hoffman's home and she
asked to see my house redesigns. I told her the house was not redesigned; rather it was re-
positioned to move it closer to the street and raise it up. She said she thought I was going to show
her several new design options for her considerations. I told her I had spent well over $50,000 on the
current design and was not planning on redesigning the house, unless the ARC required it. I simply
wanted to meet to make sure the neighbors knew the height exception actually lowered the house
and moved it further back from the street. In addition, I wanted to hear what the neighbors' specific
concerns were so I could see if there was anything I could change or at least explain why I was doing
it the way I did as this site did not leave a lot of flexibility. After realizing that I did not have several
new designs to submit for her consideration, she said there was nothing to talk about. I asked if they
would at least look at the plans and/or come down the street and look at the story poles and both Mrs.
Hoffman and Dr. Cochrane declined my offer to review the plans or visit the lot.
Several weeks later, I hand delivered a flyer to the doors of approximately 20 immediate neighbors
offering to meet with any interested parties at the site on March 5th, prior to the ARC meeting (Mrs.
Hoffman included the flyer in her ARC correspondence). I put up story poles to demonstrate the
effects of not getting a height exception, which counter -intuitively moves the house closer to the street
and increases the height, neither of which is beneficial to the neighborhood. The flyer heading
showed two versions of my house with the height compared and the heading was "Be careful what
you ask for, at least be an informed opponent". I even stated that I was flexible on a meeting time
and included my phone number. None of the opposing neighbors attended the meeting or called
me. To be fair, Mrs. Hoffman responded to my email invitation saying, "Thank you for checking in
about the exceptions. I think I do understand them. I saw the poles today as I drove down the street
so I get the idea. Unfortunately, I won't be free to meet tomorrow as I have already made other plans."
The plan the ARC unanimously approved at the March 7th meeting was approved with only two
conditions one related to final color selection and one relating to landscaping. The approved plan had
no side yard exception. The new plan raised the house 4" from the City Council's version and the
street yard setback was reduced by 1 '/'. The height exception granted for this was 27' vs. the 28'
exception, which the City Council chose to deny. I told the ARC I could in fact build the house without
any height exception, if they told me that they thought no height exception would be the best
approach. Building this house without any height exception is most certainly an option, and the first
one I submitted to planning was without an exception. However, both the planning staff and the
ARC indicated that they thought they could approve a better project with a height exception.
The ARC approved this unanimously, and there is no valid reason to deny the exceptions.
To be clear, a plan with no height exception raises the building and makes it more prominent
on the hill, which is contrary to what I believe the City Council's intentions were in denying the
original exceptions requested, in addition to grading quantity increasing by 300%, eliminates 2
onsite parking spaces, and moves the house 70% closer to the street. Mrs. Hoffman earlier
email confirmation stating that she thinks she understands the effects the exceptions have on the
building height effectively confirms that, through her appeal, she is asking me to raise the height of
the house. Frankly, we're not sure why it matters so much to Mrs. Hoffman, given that she will not be
able to see any house built on our lot from her property. The amounts being debated here
are minuscule, which indicates that this is NIMBYism, particularly since the exceptions serve to
minimize the home's impact.
One last item of importance to note is that a planning staff review of the neighborhood homes
revealed that 7 out of 11 homes in the immediate area either were granted exceptions, (3 for
height) or would require exceptions if built under today's guidelines. Mrs. Hoffman's home
was determined to be one of the 7 homes that fall into the exception category. Exceptions seem
to be the norm in this neighborhood, which is understandable given that it's a hillside
neighborhood. At our City Council appeal we did not even discuss the exceptions because we did
not think they were an issue given what they accomplished.
If Council grants Mrs. Hoffman's appeal the home will sit another foot higher on the hill, be 70%
closer to the street, require 300% more grading, and eliminate 2 onsite parking spaces, in a
neighborhood with no on street parking. All of these negative effects to meet the inexplicable
desire a few people, who cannot even see our house from theirs.
This small group of neighbors multiple attempts to stop the approval of my family's home has added
over 8 months to our homes approval process and over $55,000 of additional expenses in legal and
redesign fees. In addition the City of San Luis Obispo has expended an enormous amount of
additional resources as direct result of this small groups merit less attempts to stop this
project, which was granted unanimous approval by the ARC at the first meeting.
We thank you in advance for your careful consideration of this matter and we look forward to
becoming part of the neighborhood and the San Luis Obispo community.
Sincerely,
The Kraft-Schmiede Family
4