The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-03-2016 Item 12, RowleyCOUNCIL. MEETING: CD91V 3lZ Q ( b I I i -M NO.:� 1'1_ 77 Residents for Quality Neighborhoods P.O. Box 12604 . San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 May 3, 2016 SUBJECT: PH 12, Appeal of ARC Decision Regarding 40 Buena Vista MAY 0 2 20th Dear Mayor Marx and Members of the Council, Residents for Quality Neighborhoods does not believe that the ARC properly understood and applied the hillside standards to the proposed project or realized the significance of the R -1-S designation. For these reason we request that you uphold the appeal of the ARC's decision. We, also, request you direct any redesign to more closely adhere to the underlying concept of the hillside standards, i.e., that hillsides are to be the prominent feature and the structure is to draw the least possible attention to itself. We further request you confirm that a roof is not the same as a balcony, porch, courtyard or front yard and that its use as a deck is not allowed. We do not deny that the applicant has the right to build his house on this legal non -conforming lot. However, when this was approved as a legal lot we do not think anyone envisioned that a house would be built in the most prominent location on the hillside. Background Information. When the project was first heard by the Planning Commission, September 23, 2015, the proposed structure was 3 -stories tall. The Commission continued the item due to questions regarding the use of the bottom level and some traffic and road concerns. The bottom level was replaced by support poles prior to the second Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission heard the item again on October 28, 2015. At this time the structure had been reduced to 2 -stories and looked much the same as it does today. After discussion and consideration of the *5 -Overlay they denied the project, finding that the project would be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity due to concerns with steepness and narrowness of the dead-end road, lack of on -street parking and lack of sidewalks and connectivity. Other concerns expressed were the roof deck, intensity of the proposed house, street configuration and scenic view. Current Situation. The project brought before you is substantially the same as the project you reviewed and commented upon in January. The height has been reduced by a few inches and a street yard exception has replaced the side yard exception. We have no problem with the street yard exception; however, we do have concerns with the height exception as well as the overall mass of the structure, adherence to the hillside development standards and the roof deck. * Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere clarified that the project cannot be denied because of an SDU but rather because it does not conform as a whole within the R -1-S zone considerations. Stating the S -Overlay looks at the protect as a whole. i Secondary Dwelling Unit. RQN does not have an issue with the SDU; however, we have significant concerns with the stand-alone bedroom and closet adjacent to the SDU on the top floor. The bedroom lacks an adjoining bath and shares a common wall with the SDU. One must access the rest of the house (bottom floor) via stairs or a potential elevator. An occupant of this bedroom must descend to the main floor to use the half bath, and walk halfway through the main floor in order to bathe. We, also, have concerns with the design of the SDU. There does not appear to be a sleeping area or a bed, although the couch could be a sleeper -couch. However, unlike the adjacent bedroom, there is no closet space provided. Unless this area is reconfigured, our concern is that at some future date a door will be placed in the common wall, making this a one -bedroom apartment. As a single-family home this would not be appropriate or allowed. Whether you uphold or deny the appeal, a condition needs to be made so this adjustment does not occur. PROJECT DESIGN AND HILLSIDE STANDARDS Intensity The applicant has put a lot of house into a relatively small area. Even though the house itself has less square footage than other houses in the immediate vicinity, it is still too large for the site. This observation was made by several of the planning commissioners. The size of the house should be reduced to better fit the site. Hillside Development Standards. A number of years ago city residents determined they needed to protect the scenic beauty of San Luis Obispo's hillsides. The standards they developed are embodied in LUE 6.4.3 which begins by saying, "The City shall (emphasis added) require development — including buildings, driveways, fences and graded yard areas — on hillside parcels to" and then lists a number of requirements (See attachment). The project needs to be significantly re -designed; otherwise many precedents will be set resulting in an erosion of these.standards. Prominence The house is sited at the most prominent location on the property. In addition, the design makes it highly visible against the hillside. The boxy design protrudes from the slope, and the large contiguous walls and squared -off massing of floor -to -ceiling windows accentuate the boxy appearance. Inclusion of a roof deck adds a degree of unexpected motion, drawing attention to the structure. The support poles are taller than normally allowed and are not camouflaged by vegetation or other screening methods. Glass does not blend in with the natural features of the hillside, and there is so much glass that it is impossible for the house to have a low profile. The design needs more articulation of the building's surfaces, more natural -looking materials, far less glass and no roof deck in order to attain a low profile and recede into the hillside. Exterior Lighting A large amount of the exterior surface space consists of windows. In addition to windows at the front and rear of the structure, there are windows in linear array on the sides, and 3 windows along the stairwell. The ARC's comment that at night the structure would look like an illuminated box seems like an accurate, but disturbing, assessment. Lights on the roof deck would, also, contribute to exterior lighting. Instead of minimizing exterior lighting of the structure, this design seems to maximize it. Roof Deck The two balconies each meet or exceed the requirement for private outdoor space; there is no need for the roof to be used as anything other than a roof. A roof deck is not a balcony, porch or courtyard, and, at six or more feet off the ground, it is certainly not a front yard. A roof deck would visually increase the height of the structure. Five of the six Planning Commissioners expressed their dislike for the roof deck; the neighbors dislike the proposed use of the roof as a deck, and RQN concurs. We think that approving this use would be precedent setting for infill projects in this and other established neighborhoods, and that our attempts to keep all of our short-term residents off of roofs would be compromised. Summary. Request you uphold the appeal and direct staff to work with the applicant to come up with a design that will meet these standards. This project is in a Special Consideration Zone and as such is subject to tighter restrictions, the project is too intense for the site and it does not meet the Hillside Development Standards, specifically: 1) Does not keep a low profile and conform to the natural slopes, 2) Does not avoid large, continuous walls or roof surfaces, or prominent poles or columns, 3) Does not use materials, colors, and textures which blend with the natural landscape and avoid high contrasts, and 4) Does not minimize exterior lighting. Additionally, request you specify that a roof deck is not compatible with the neighborhood, contributes to the prominence of the structure and exacerbates rather than minimizes exterior lighting and, thus, will not be favorably considered. Further request that you include removal of the stairway extension to the roof as a part of the denial to use the roof as a deck. Thank you for your time and your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Sandra Rowley Chairperson, RQN Attachment Land Use Element 6.4.3. Development Standards The City shall require development — including buildings, driveways, fences and graded yard areas — on hillside parcels to: A. Refers to urban reserve line and development limit line. B. Keep a low profile and conform to the natural slopes. C. Avoid large, continuous walls or roof surfaces, or prominent foundation walls, poles, or columns. D. Refers to minimizing road grading. E. Refers to minimizing grading on individual lots and visible driveways. Also refers to locating houses close to the street, but in this location that does not seem feasible. F. Include planting which is compatible with native hillside vegetation and which provides a visual transition from developed to open areas. G. Use materials, colors, and textures which blend with the natural landscape and avoid high contrasts. H. Minimize exterior lighting_