Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1-30-2017 ARC Correspondence - Item 1 (B. Mourenza) Meeting:, I . ;0.1 -1 - From: Bob Mourenza < Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 9:38 AM To: Advisory Bodies Subject: To members of ARC 1/30/17, 71 Palomar To members of the Architectural Review Commission Re: Project at 71 Palomar, San Luis Obispo Dear Commissioners: Item: 1 RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO JAN 2 7 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I would like to address various issues regarding the design of the dormitory style student housing project at 71 Palomar.call it multi family is a far stretch, there is nothing family about this project • The project developer and architect have claimed they met with neighbors, no neighborhood meeting per City of San Luis Obispo Public Engagement Manual occurred for this project. A hearing is not a workshop, we the neighbors and concerned citizens have three minutes to make our and cannot reply to question presented by the commissioners or object to the applicants assertions. • The project presented at the CHC first meeting was rejected and the developer was instructed to reduce massing and scale, the second proposal reduced the number of units but increased the number of bedrooms in a good portion of the units so the result was only a reduction of only three bedrooms overall. The developer claimed project was reduced by 5,575 square feet but in reality the apartments were only were reduced by 1,895 sq ft and garage by 3,680 sq ft with 27 less parking spaces. The complex remains too massive for his sensitive site and the scale of the building still overwhelm the historic house and cultural landscape, the architectural rendering are quite deceptive. • The project was reviewed by your pcommission and was suggested to reduce scale and mass along Luneta drive. Applicant response was to change roof from gable to hip with little attention to reducing massing. • The units have been designed for maximum per bed occupancy, The long bedrooms with double doors in the middle will be further subdivided with partitions, so a two or three bedrooms units can accommodate up to six beds and will rented by the bed. There is a similar project under construction designed by the same architect, Icon SLO at Taff and Kentucky, which blatantly advertised as Cal Poly student housing with a starting price of $999.00 PER BED IN A SHARED ROOM, so much for affordability. This is clearly done to circumvent the maximum allowable density which is based on a per bedroom formula and it doubles it. • The living portion of units are very small and,definitely not intended for families to interact. The complex repurposes the historical Sanford house with exercise room and lounges because there is not place within the apartments unit to study due to the cramp quarters. • Little consideration has been giving to orientation for natural light and natural cross ventilation, long interior hallways will necessitate artificial lighting even at day time.