Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPPL-0665-2025 (1236 MVP) - Appeal of CUP Revocation (Delta Chi Fraternity) Presentation1 Appeal of Revocation of Fraternity Conditional Use Permit APPL-0665-2025/USE-0332-2025 (1236 Monte Vista Place) City Council Hearing –October 21, 2025 2 Recommendation Adopt a Draft Resolution denying an appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to revoke the use permit for a fraternity located at 1236 Monte Vista Place. 3 Project Site High-Density Residential (R-4) Zone Developed property of two-and three-story multifamily structures with 26 bedrooms and various site improvements Irregularly-shaped lot with access from Monte Vista Place In proximity to other fraternities and multi-family residences; northern boundary abuts Cal Poly SLO campus 4 Background Original Use Permit (U106-98) Approval in 1998 Delta Chi moved to Property and continued use as a fraternity under U106 in 2012 Limits residents to maximum of 35 people and gatherings or events to 53 people History of Fraternity Violations 2 Police Dept. citations issued from September 2024 until March 2025 •1 successfully appealed noise violations and 1 unruly gathering violation Code Enforcement issued a Notice of Violation on March 19, 2025 5 Background Referral for Review and Additional Violations The Director referred Use Permit to Planning Commission for review per Condition 11 of U106-98: 11. Use permit shall be reviewed if any reasonable written citizen or Police or Fire Department complaints are received by the city. In review of the use permit, the Planning Commission may add, delete or modify conditions of approval, or revoke the use permit. The Planning Commission may consider adding a condition requiring fraternity officers to perform a community service project in the neighborhood. 1 Police Dept. Citation issued on April 18, 2025, after the fraternity had been notified of the upcoming Planning Commission review 6 Planning Commission Action Planning Commission Hearing –May 28, 2025 Voted 5-0 to revoke the Use Permit (USE-0332-2025), based inability to make required findings from SLOMC 17.110.70.Specifically, •Planning Commission found that the design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the use was not compatible with residential uses in the vicinity •Planning Commission found that continued use of the property as a fraternity under the Use Permit was not appropriate for the subject location, was incompatible with the neighborhood, and would be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity 7 Appeal Appellant filed a timely appeal on June 20, 2025, and provided supplemental appeal materials on July 11 and September 22, 2025 The Appellant: Asserts that the revocation was premature and that issues cited can be effectively addressed through collaboration with City staff and other stakeholders Requests that City Council uphold the appeal, reverse the Planning Commission’s decision, direct City staff to collaborate with the fraternity and community to draft Conditions of Approval, and adopt a modified Conditional Use Permit with said drafted conditions 8 Appeal Issue No. 1 Issue No. 1 –Good-Faith Reliance, Cooperative History, and Severe and Disproportionate Penalty Appellant states they have committed to reducing incidents that lead to citations or use permit violations and working with City staff to comply with permit conditions and address neighborhood concerns Appellant states that revocation imposes a severe and disproportionate penalty. 9 Appeal Issue No. 1 –Staff Response Staff acted in accordance with the Municipal Code by conducting a judicial process for the review of potential violations of conditions of approval for an authorized use Several citations, complaints, and Use Permit violations contributed to the Director’s referral of the Use Permit to the Planning Commission for re-review in accordance with Condition of Approval No. 11 of U106-98 As described in Condition No. 11, revocation of the use permit is one possible outcome of a review instigated from a complaint 10 Appeal Issue No. 1 –Staff Response Continued Complaints and Violations: •March 3, 2025 –Police issued citation for noise violation, successfully appealed •March 9, 2025 –Police received complaint for noise, no citation issued •March 15, 2025 –Police issued citation for unruly gathering (St. Fratty’s Day) •March 19, 2025 –Code Enforcement issued NOV and Director referred Use Permit to Planning Commission for review •April 18, 2025 –Police issued citation for noise violation •October 4, 2025 –Police issued citation for noise violation 11 Appeal Issue No. 1 –Staff Response Continued The organization’s actions constituted a public nuisance and caused a substantial disturbance of the quiet enjoyment of private property in the immediate neighborhood The Planning Commission’s decision to revoke the Use Permit would not be considered a severe or disproportionate penalty Note: •The property may continue to be used for residential uses •Revocation of the Use Permit does not allow the site to be used as a fraternity or sorority house and requires regular operations, such as chapter meetings and special events, to cease on site 12 Appeal Issue No. 2 Issue No. 2 -Collaborative Process for Constructive Resolution Appellant requests that City Council uphold the appeal and direct staff to collaborate with the fraternity and community to draft clear and achievable Conditions of Approval Appellant has proposed modifications to the draft Conditions of Approval included in the draft Resolution that was a part of the May 28th Planning Commission Agenda Report Appellant states the drafted modifications and additions address concerns raised by the Planning Commission, and if adopted, would allow fraternity operations to satisfy the required findings 13 Appeal Issue No. 2 –Staff Response Insufficient evidence to address Planning Commission concerns Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence to address the concerns raised by the Planning Commission that operation of a fraternity is appropriate for the subject location, compatible with the neighborhood, and will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of people living or working at the site or in the vicinity Staff evaluated the modified Conditions of Approval and while many of the changes are potentially beneficial, they are still conceptual and lack information relating to implementation, or how implementation would effectively change the operations and behavior of the fraternity 14 Proposed Modifications and Additions to Draft COAs COA #2:When two citations are received,the fraternity would submit a plan on how they will prevent future violations COA #4:Increase the number of people allowed on the site for meetings and gatherings from 54 to 154 people COA #4:Submit annually to the Community Development Director an event plan that would include all activities outside of regular meetings and gatherings COA #6:Provide the name and contact of the President of the Alumni board of Trustees and the President of the Housing Corporation to the CDD and the Police Department New Conditions: Annual education about the CUP Create a good neighbor management plan Conduct three community service events each year benefiting the community of SLO 15 Appeal Issue No. 2 –Staff Response Continued The appeal process does not provide an effective avenue to support a collaborative conversation or the time necessary to modify the existing Use Permit The Appellant may re-apply, at any time, for a new use permit; at which time, staff would collaborate with the applicant and other stakeholders on their application proposal Note: If City Council directs staff to undertake the effort requested by the Appellant, the appeal would need to be continued to provide time for staff, the Appellant, and the community to discuss the proposed conditions and then return for consideration of a revised Use Permit and proposed findings 16 City Council Consideration “De novo” Review De novo review means that the City Council must exercise its independent judgment to determine if the Applicant/Appellant’s Use Permit should be modified, revoked, or remain in effect as it was prior to the Planning Commission’s revocation City Council is not bound by the Planning Commission’s findings or conclusions City Council decision shall be made based on the required findings in SLOMC §17.110.070. 17 Required Findings 1.The proposed use is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan; 2.The proposed use is allowed or conditionally allowed within the applicable zone and complies with allotherapplicableprovisionsofthesezoningregulationsandthemunicipalcode; 3.The design,location,size,and operating characteristics of the proposed activity will be compatible withtheexistingandfuturelandusesinthevicinity; 4.The site is physically suitable in terms of: a.Its design,location,shape,size,and operating characteristics of the proposed use; b.Traffic generation and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g.,fire and medical)access; c.Public protection services (e.g.,fire protection,police protection,etc.);and d.The provision of utilities (e.g.,potable water,schools,solid waste collection and disposal,stormdrainage,wastewater collection,treatment,and disposal,etc.). 5.The establishment and subsequent operation or conduct of the use will not,because of thecircumstancesandconditionsappliedintheparticularcase,be detrimental to the health,safety orwelfareofthegeneralpublicorpersonsresidingorworkingintheneighborhoodoftheuse,or bedetrimentalorinjurioustopropertyorimprovementsinthevicinityoftheuse. 18 Alternatives 1.Continue review of the appeal. The City Council may continue the review of the appeal with direction to staff regarding additional information or analysis required to make a decision. 2.Uphold the appeal and modify the Use Permit. The City Council may uphold the appeal and modify the findings and/ or conditions of approval based on consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, or other policy documents. The City Council may consider and incorporate any of the Appellant’s submitted modified conditions. 3.Uphold the appeal and retain the existing Use Permit as is. The City Council may uphold the appeal and retain the Use Permit with the existing findings and conditions of approval. 19 Recommendation Adopt a Draft Resolution denying an appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to revoke the use permit for a fraternity located at 1236 Monte Vista Place. 20 21 Existing COA for U 106-98 1.No more than thirty-five (35) persons shall reside at the site at any time. The applicant shall allow the city to verify occupancy by allowing an inspection of the records or by a visual inspection of the premises. Any inspection shall be at a reasonable time and shall be preceded by a 24-hour notice to the residents. 2.A minimum of thirty-two (32) on-site parking spaces to city standards shall be provided and maintained at all times for the intended use. 3.The property shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. All plant materials shall be maintained and replaced as necessary. 4.The maximum number of persons allowed on the site for routine meetings an gatherings is 53, except as specifically approved by the Community Development Director for special events. For such special events, the applicant shall also submit a parking and transportation plan. 5.No meetings, parties, or other types of similar activities involving persons other than residents are allowed between the hours of 10 p.m. and 9 a.m., except as approved by the Community Development Director. 22 Existing COA for U 106-98 6.The applicant shall institute and maintain a neighborhood relations program. This plan shall include at least the following elements: •Annual training of all members in community relations. •A program to inform neighbors of upcoming events at the house. •Submission of names and telephone numbers of responsible persons, including the alumni president and chief financial officer, to the Community Development Department and to the neighbors within two blocks of the house. Responsible persons shall be available during all events and at reasonable hours otherwise, to receive and handle complaints. Evidence of implementation of said plan shall be submitted to the director for review each year. Failure to exercise reasonable efforts to implement said plan may be grounds for revocation of this permit. 23 Existing COA for U 106-98 7.Events, including meetings or parties, on site, shall be limited to those listed on a meeting and activities schedule, submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director in the fall of each year. Exceptions to this schedule must be approved by the Community Development Director. If the Director determines the change is significant and may have an adverse impact on the neighborhood, then it will be referred to the Planning Commission for consideration. 8.There shall be no freestanding signs on the premises. Signs shall be limited to signs located on building faces or fences. 9.The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan to the Community Development Director for review and approval. All landscaping shall be installed per the approved plan. 10.The existing trash dumpster shall be removed from the sidewalk and relocated to the concrete pad existing in the parking lot near the driveway entry to the site. An enclosed trash and recycling area shall be created to the approval of the Community Development Director with adequate space for both the dumpster and recycling containers. 24 Existing COA for U 106-98 11.Use permit shall be reviewed if any reasonable written citizen or Police or Fire Department complaints are received by the city. In review of the use permit, the Planning Commission may add, delete or modify conditions of approval, or revoke the use permit. The Planning Commission may consider adding a condition requiring fraternity officers to perform a community service project in the neighborhood. 12.Failure to comply with any of the above conditions or code requirements, or the conduct of the use so as to constitute a violation of Federal, State, or local law, or so as to constitute a public nuisance or so as to cause adverse impacts on the health, safety, or welfare of persons in the vicinity of this use is prohibited and may constitute grounds for revocation of this permit.