Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/1/2021 Item 3, Woelfle (2) Wilbanks, Megan From: 2021 10:27 AM To:Advisory Bodies Subject:302 South St Project This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. To: ARC Regarding the 302 South Street Project 3/18/2021 st I sent a letter of concern to the board prior to the March 1 ARC Board meeting, that I watched online. I found the applicant did a great job selling her project as an improvement to what she called a transient corridor. Could it be that South St. is only one of a few thru streets from Higuera St. to Broad St. so it sees more foot traffic? She referenced the property to the West as a large project, when in fact, that project is a well planned improvement based on the size of the lot and provided adequate off street parking. The minimum required parking for this project is 4 parking spots, which includes one spot on South St., however it also includes the area to the west on Branch St. which is part of the west side setback area. More astonishing is that the existing redesigned 3 bedroom house with attached garage is now to become an ADU of a 2 bedroom unit (that will exceed the ARC maximum of 1122 sq. ft.) and an ADU of one bedroom unit that require zero parking. With the city ordinance stating one ADU per property. This project has two. After talking with city staff it appears that the applicant has used loop holes in the regulations and the lack of clear rules, in this case, to get her project pushed through. How does that make sense when they face one of the busiest cross town streets in San Luis Obispo? The large development to the West may not be of the craftsman style that she continued to refer to, but it does have a good use of wood and blends well with the existing neighborhood. The current project to the East a couple doors down is more representative of the neighborhood, even though they did split the lot. The 2 single family homes both face Branch St and the design allows for all onsite parking including visitor parking. The large low income buildings across South Street from her property are of a more modern design but the fact remains that that side of South Street was built much later than the Branch Street neighborhood and the more modern approach to that design is justified. Especially when you take into account the condo development and industrial park that border the low income housing on either side. 1 st During final discussion before the vote at the March 1 meeting, Mr. Beller mentioned a project on Benton Way. In fact, the project at 62 Benton Way, is a single family home that the neighborhood refers to, with disdain, as the “Fish Tank”. The Benton Way home is a single family home with an ADU in the rear and has adequate parking as long as the students who refuse to pay the $125 per month fee from the Academy Building at the corner of Foothill and Chorro St are not in school. Otherwise they take up much of the neighborhood street parking much to the dislike of the local residents. In addition, we don’t need any more non-conforming projects like the John Belsher project near the Creamery on Higuera St. As I mentioned in my emailed letter to the ARC representatives on March 1, 2021, -I don’t mind development but in a controlled way. With the removal of the center duplex you eliminate multiple problems, some of which are: 1. The parking problems (there is a good chance that the 2 bedroom unit will have at least 2 adults/or students with 2 cars or more.) The project simply doesn’t have enough onsite parking. To assume the ratio of bikes vs. cars to apartment is maximized, is questionable at best. 2. Location of the trash containers 3. Bike storage 4. increased green space 5. Eliminate access problems for fire and safety. 6. Overcrowding on a long /narrow lot. 7. Water meters I have several concerns regarding this development many of which were addressed by the ARC Board during the March 1st meeting. But I did not agree with your vote to return to staff only and not further review. There were many unanswered questions. The people living in the “old blue house” next door to the South Street development have been there since the 1960s and are elderly. I believe I know them well enough to state their family will be there for years to come. Would you want this type of crowded development next to you? My name is Mark Woelfle. My sister and I own the property at 319 Branch St. and the property at the rear of 313 Branch St. (behind the blue house). These properties have been in our 2 family for 65 years. We were raised there and know the Branch Street area well. Years ago, I tore down our home in hopes of developing the property. At that time, I was informed by the planning department that all parking would be required to be onsite and the ratio of parking to units was higher to avoid over impacting the neighborhood. A.D.Us would not have been allowed at that time. Obviously, that parking requirement has changed. Unfortunately, we have been unable to follow through with our plans. An overcrowded development such as this one makes me wonder if future development in the area will be even more restricted. This project should be more of a craftsman style look. I don’t have a problem with a request for a single family craftsman style home with some modern touches on site but this project does not fit the neighborhood. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Mark Woelfle markinslo@charter.net (805)710-2024 3