Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-03-2016 Item 12, HoffmanRECEIV ?LO CITY c�..j = -R Thank You so much for the work that you do, and f ©r all the attention and effort you have put into the proposed building on Buena Vista Ave. I realize it is only a small concern in a city with so many problems to resolve. I am enclosing a copy of the summary I put together for prospective speakers at the May 3rd. hearing. Compiling it reminded me of the 10 months of our efforts to try to find an equitable solution for all. Because I understand the constraints of the site and the demands of the City ordinances I am pleading for a resolution that, if you are not able to deny the project on the grounds that it is a health and safety issue as the Planning Commission originally did, that at the very least we be spared the atrocity of a "party deck" to constantly remind us of this project and this very difficult period in our lives. I turned 90 on the 4th of April this year. Having devoted so much research, time and effort to keeping our neighborhood a livable place, I am hoping that I will be able to remain in the home I love with the peace and quiet that this beautiful neighborhood deserves. COUNCIL MEI"TING:__ IT'ETA NO _ �.�- - -- -- -- - A Brief History of the Saga of 48 Buena Vista Ave. It all started last July when Jeff Kraft of Redwood City applied for a permit to build a 3- story, 5- bedroom, 4 bath, 3 laundry room 2 living room, 2 kitchen, retirement home with a roof -top party deck and no dining room. This was supposed to be passed by an administrative hearing only, but when a neighbor heard of it by chance and objected at that hearing, it was submitted to the the Planning Commission. After two public hearings, the Planning Commission denied the application on the basis primarily of Health an Safety issues and suggested that the building be revised so as to be of smaller impact, The developer appealed to the City Council with a plan to remove the lower floor thereby reducing the bedrooms and baths, and living spaces. The possibility of restoring those areas after the building has been approved and finished, still exists. The City Council after listening to many arguments, decided to approve the building but referred it to the Architectural Review Committee with the instructions that the building be re- designed without the "special considerations" of height and width. The Architectural Review Committee approved all of the plan as it had been submitted by the developer to the City Council, thereby ignoring the instructions of the City Council to "redesign the structure without the "special exemptions'. Our appeal to the City Council is scheduled for May 3rd and is based on the fact that The Architectural Review Committee did not follow the City Councils instructions to re- design the building. The logic behind the neighborhood objections to this plan are many and varied: - The lot, although it was earlier made a legal lot, is so steep, above 40 %, that it would not now be approved as a legal lot. - The constraints that the slope imposes on the construction, such as the limited parking space available for its size, limited outdoor recreation areas and difficult landscaping solutions will negativity impact the neighbors if a large scale structure is approved. - - The size of the building and its number of occupants does not relate to the quality of the neighborhood. - -The number of possible occupants is a serious threat to the safety of the people living and driving on that street due to the fact that the driveway backs into a dangerous curve with little visibility. -The Fire Department has stated that their will be no more future parking allowed on this "fire -lane" designated street. Therefore, the number of occupants are limited to the garage and driveway for parking in the future. - The roof -top deck will be a light and noise disturbance to the neighbors. Although the ARC stated that it was not a privacy concern it will be a huge source of disturbance to them. This deck is in opposition to the height concerns as it raises the visibility of the building due to the lights, fencing. elevator enclosure and deck furniture. This deck, due to its exposure to cold and 50 mile an hour winds at least 6 times a year, is unsuitable for outdoor activities. - Another large concern is that this building is in direct sight of Highway 101, the entrance to San Luis Obispo and a view that should be protected for the proposed Scenic Highway designation. - Proposed landscaping solutions are based on faulty information. The AEC suggests that trees be planted out in front of the building. ....where? ...in the driveway? It was also suggested that they be planted on top of the deck. That would make the building even more visible. - The Geenvale Tree Company stated that trees would struggle to survive in the thin soil of that site. - The building is in contradiction to the Hillside Development Guidelines, Community Design Guidelines and the General Plan. Alternative Solutions This builder should be required to adhere to hillside and neighborhood needs by designing a residence that is responsive to the concerns of size, visibility, noise and light pollution and traffic safety concerns. - - - -- Build on the alternative available Loomis site. It might require grading exceptions but so do several aspects of the Buena Vista site The above concerns could all be met on the Loomis Site. -- - - - - -- Redesign the building so that a proper back yard is available by bringing in soil to fill in a walled -in area below the house, thus eliminating the need for the roof deck, an insult to the neighbors.... and thus allowing deep enough soil to plant screening trees. This would also eliminate the need to screen the look of the stilts holding up the structure. Grading exceptions seem like an easy thing to approve. Some more creative thinking might solve other concerns on the property as well! - Redesign the plan so that it is no longer a large -sized multi- family home. I am very confident that if presented with a smaller conventional family home with the needs of a family met, that everyone would cheer the appropriate resolution to what has been a long and very difficult effort to bring a equitable resolution for all involved. - Instigate a City ordinance to enforce owner - occupied laws. - The last and of course the most optimal and laudable solution is to re -zone the site for open space as was done for the adjoining Don Simpson -owned parcel adjacent to it. This would create a real definition between the City edge and the proposed Miossi development up the road.