Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/16/1996, 3 - A 13-96: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A REQUEST FOR A HIGH-OCCUPANCY RESIDENTIAL USE PERMIT, TO ALLOW SIX ADULTS TO LIVE IN A RESIDENCE. lug„I^,Ill�n�l I�II� f P MffTING ATE: I�Ii�W II Ij� c� o sap tins OBISPO - Will COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 0 FROM: Arnold Jo ommunity Development Director BY: Judith Lautnef, iate Planner SUBJECT: A 13-9 : Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a request for a high-occupancy residential use permit, to allow six adults to live in a residence. CAO RECONEMMIMATION Adopt a resolution denying the appeal, thereby denying the request as denied by both the Planning Commission and the Administrative Hearing Officer. DISCUSSION Back ound The applicants purchased a home in a Low-Density Residential (R-1) zone and rented it to four adults plus their two daughters, a total of six adults. A complaint was filed with the City because of the number of persons living in the house. The zoning regulations require that a high-occupancy residential use permit be approved to allow more than five adults to live in a residence in the R-1 zone. The applicants applied i for a use permit. The Administrative Hearing Officer denied the use permit on February 2, based on finding that the parking design is inconsistent with City regulations and inappropriate for the use. The applicants and one of the daughters appealed that decision to the Planning Commission. On February 28, the Planning Commission denied the appeal, thereby denying the use permit, based on the original finding and one additional finding, that no specific circumstances exist that would justify granting an exception to the parking standards. The applicants appealed that decision to the City Council. project description A description of the project can be found in the attached Planning Commission report. Suitimary of actions. citizen con c, and applicants' requests. The attached Planning Commission report describes both how the request meets the High-Occupancy Residential Use Regulations and how it does not. Both the Administrative Hearing Officer and the Planning Commission found that the proposed parking layout was not consistent with the regulations and inappropriate for the use. Concerned citizens submitted letters and spoke at the hearing. The primary concerns with the request were with its potential for traffic, parking, and noise problems. Letters from citizens are attached to this report. As an alternative to denial, the applicants requested that conditions be placed on the use permit, inclu4' that there be no more than five cars and that the approval would expire when the property next cl, hands. Neighbors of the home testified that they did not have problems with the specific temp' �illflfll�il� IpU��I MEETING DATE: ��III city of San LUIS OBISpo PIMA- COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT �°"I NUMBER: A 13-96 671 Park Avenue Page 2 house now, but noted that tenants change all the time. Staff notes that conditions limiting the number of automobiles are difficult to enforce. Use permits, by definition, run with the land, but it is possible to place time limits on them. A condition stating that the use permit expires in one or two years, for example, would be legally defensible, whereas a condition limiting the use to the present owners only may not be. ALTERNATIVES The Council may approve the appeal, thereby approving the request. A specific approval of parking design exceptions would need to be made, and a finding justifying such an exception. Staff suggests that conditions be placed on the use permit, setting a date for its expiration. The Council may deny the appeal, thereby denying the project, as recommended or with alternative findings. The Council may continue action. Direction should be given to staff and the applicants-appellants. Attache.: Resolutions Vicinity map PC staff report: February 28 Site plan Minutes - February 2, 1996 Administrative hearing Minutes - February 28, 1996 Planning Commission hearing Appeal letters - Letters from citizens �-2 CD RESOLUTION NO. (1996 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION. DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER'S ACTION, THEREBY DENYING A HIGH-OCCUPANCY RESIDENTIAL USE TO ALLOW SIX ADULTS IN A RESIDENCE AT 671 PARK AVENUE (A 13-96) BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of public testimony, the applicant-appellant's request and statements, the Administrative Hearing Officer's action, and the Planning Commission's action, staff recommendations, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The parking design is inconsistent with City regulations and inappropriate for the use, because it includes three parking spaces within the street yard, where one is normally allowed, and four spaces in tandem, which creates significant potential for conflict. 2. No specific circumstances exist which justify granting an exception to the parking standards established in the zoning regulations for high-occupancy residential uses. SECTION 2. Ajl;+�al�. denied The appeal of the Planning Commission's action is hereby denied, and the request is hereby denied. On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: -NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of 11996. 3-3 Resolution no. (1996 Series) 671 Park Avenue A 13-96 Page 2 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: i Atto e 3-L/ RESOLUTION NO. (1996 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ADNIINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER'S ACTION, THEREBY APPROVING A HIGH-OCCUPANCY RESIDENTIAL USE TO ALLOW SIR ADULTS IN A RESIDENCE AT 671 PARK AVENUE (A 13-96) BE rr RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of public testimony, the applicant-appellant's request and statements, the Administrative Hearing Officer's action, and the Planning Commission's action, staff recommendations, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. Exceptions to the parking regulations, to allow three parking spaces in the street yard and four spaces in tandem, are justified in this case because (COUNCIL FILL.IN). 2. The high-occupancy residential use at this location will not be detrimental to persons living or working in the vicinity because (COUNCIL FILL IN). SECTION 2. App=l approved, The appeal of the Planning Commission's action is hereby approved, and the request is hereby approved, subject to the following Conditions: 1. The use must meet all requirements of the High-Occupancy Residential Regulations, with the exception of the parking design requirements. 2. The use permit shall expire in three years (April 16, 1999). On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: 3-S Resolution no. (1996 Series) 671 Park Avenue A 13-96 Page 2 NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this _ day of , 1996. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: City Attorney . . - nsee-itc tris .aces-lee Ale •u+-es-as 6 UNR ISO V aa� Fpw V411, r VNIY >m L,u~m Q Q O O O O O ° s 5 Z cnp ISP ism is sf /H4 Jr," z6f, 16054 WILSON STREET WILSON STREET Q rs W H5�- wwc M-a'I�ez•.n � 1 v�o+x uVe°0M4s°Nla�e i w i F -AK°IO9 K574-151 V . Y' O 1UHITAM� m t w Q I , u O 0 .10 - $ O o r j'lr* 'n O 1b07�!" Y Q Ib�jj_p A Q Oor PrP ti t , w V,zt lox, MINE V stir aIP OPEN Awl IS O �` lr L pert �,Q O OROOM � b'V VICINITY MAP A 13-96 "ORT 671 PARK AVENUE 3-7 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MEM#3 BY: Judith Lautne sociate Planner MEETING DATE: February 28, 1996 FROM: Ron Whise and, Development Review Manage FILE NUMBER: A 13-96 PROJECT ADDRESS: 671 Park Avenue SUBJECT: Appeal of Hearing Officer's denial of a request for a high-occupancy residential use permit. RECOMMENDATION Deny the appeal, thereby upholding the Hearing Officer's action denying the use permit. BACKGROUND Situation. The applicants purchased a home and allowed six adults to live in it, including their daughters. A complaint was filed with the City, because such a use in the R-1 and R-2 zones requires approval of a High-Occupancy Residential Use Permit. They applied for such a use permit. The Administrative Hearing Officer denied the permit on February 2, based on finding that the parking design is inconsistent with City regulations and inappropriate for the use. The applicants have appealed that decision. Appeals of Administrative Hearing Officer actions are heard by the Planning Commission. Data Summary Address: 671 Park Avenue. Applicants/appellants/property owners: R. Sherman and Mary Baggett Additional appellant: Nicole Baggett Zoning: Low-Density Residential (R-1) General Plan: Low-Density Residential Environmental status: Categorically exempt(continuation of existing residential use: Class 1, CEQA Section 15301) Project action deadline: The zoning regulations say that an appeal "shall be scheduled for the earliest available meeting, considering public notice requirements, unless the appellant agrees to a later date." It does not specify when action must be taken on an appeal. These appeals (appeals were submitted by the applicants and by one daughter) were received February 8 and 12 and were scheduled for the first possible Planning Commission meeting. 3-� A 13-96 671 Park Avenue Page 2 Site description The site is a rectangular lot developed with a two-story house with a two-car garage. The front yard area has been mostly paved and is used for parking. The neighborhood consists of older single-family homes. Within a block of the home is a Medium-High Density (R-3) area, consisting of many older apartments, and within two blocks is High-Density (R-4) development. The site is close to Grand Avenue, several blocks from Cal Poly. Project Description The project is a request for six adults to live in the home. Adequate bathrooms and space are provided, in accordance with regulations. Parking is proposed to be provided by use of the two- car garage, plus three parking spaces in the street yard, two of which would be tandem to the garage spaces. EVALUATION 1. Specific standards are set. The High-Occupance Residential use Regulations say that "the purpose of the use permit is to ensure compliance with the performance standards described below, and to ensure the compatibility of the use at particular locations". The standards are: 1. The dwelling must contain a minimum 300 square feet of gross floor area, less garage area, per adult. 2. The parking requirement shall be the greater of: 1) the number of spaces required for dwellings as described in Section 176.16.060, OR one off-street parking space per adult occupant, less one. (five in this case) 3. The parking of one vehicle within a required street yard or setback is allowed. Parking in other yards is prohibited. 4. Each required parking space shall be of an all-weather surface. 5. Upon approval of the Community Development Director, parking may be provided in tandem. 6. There shall be a minimum of one bathroom provided for every three adult occupants. .3-9 A 13-96 671 Park Avenue Page 3 7. The dwelling must meet all current building, health, safety and fire codes and have been built with all required permits. The regulations further require that all approved high-occupancy uses be reviewed annually, and that a permit may be revoked if any provisions of the code are violated. 2. Parking is the problem. The standards for bathrooms and area are met. It appears that the building meets all current codes (a recent inspection for an addition did not turn up any discrepancies). The parking design, however, does not appear to meet either the letter or the intent of the regulations. The standards allow one vehicle within the street yard, and three are proposed. The regulations say that the Director may approve tandem parking, but do not say how many spaces in tandem. Two are proposed, behind the two in the garage. The zoning regulations further prohibit the use of the street yard for parking, unless special approval (of a tandem space, for example) has been granted because of special circumstances. The High-Occupancy regulations relax this standard to allow one space in the streetyard, but not more than one. The parking design encourages residents to park on the street, rather than use the two tandem spaces. And if all five are used, the front yard turns into a parking lot, which is inconsistent with parking standards for residential uses and incompatible with the residential character of the neighborhood. 3. Exceptions can be granted. The regulations allow for. exceptions or variances to standards. Therefore, the Planning Commission may find that exceptions to the parking standards are warranted if it can find that the use will not be detrimental to persons living or working in the vicinity. Because of the high potential for conflict that comes from the use of tandem spaces by several adults in a dwelling, and the appearance of the site with three cars parked in the front yard, staff believes this finding cannot be made. 4. Other concerns have been raised by neighbors. Several neighbors and other citizens spoke at the Administrative Hearing, and letters have been received from some of these as well as others. The citizens were in opposition to the request because of the potential it represents for increasing traffic and noise problems in the neighborhood. Those who spoke had no difficulties with the behavior of the current residents but were concerned that the specific occupants may change and that the number of occupants means that there is a high probability that traffic and noise problems will be associated with the dwelling. Copies of letters received have been attached to this report. 3 iv A 13-96 671 Park Avenue Page 4 ALTERNATIVES The Commission may approve the appeal, thereby approving the use. Such an approval must be based on finding that the use will not be detrimiental to persons living or working in the vicinity, and should be specific. An approval should include an approval of a parldng exception, and should be subject to the condition that all standards and code requirements be met, with the exception of the parldng design standards. The Commission may continue action, if more information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the applicants-appellants. The Commission may deny the appeal based on different findings. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS No other departments have concerns with this request. RECOMMENDATION Deny the appeal, based on the following Finding 1. The parldng design is inconsistent with City regulations and inappropriate for the use, because it includes three parldng spaces within.the stret yard, where one is normally allowed, and four spaces in tandem, which creates significant potential for conflict. Attached: vicinity map minutes of February 2, 1996 Administrative Hearing applicant's description of use and supporting documents letters of appeal letters of opposition L' lJ u m � b 1 1 y h 99• m I Q N F 0 G 9.0£ 1 E9 i W o • _ •noiia 1 31v-mxanusxivavD � � � c�i " 1.9.lZ o ® in < N m U 0, c � �sI .I.► ss' A� 4 n u n mss— a , Q a bca4 � r to 4- st- = I c O c`d _ u ' y y i• Iso- I�if V 3 3 m � Fn Q a w c Z g � s a c 100, a c IaG 1650 PHILLIPS �L 671 PARK Gross floor area of dwelling calculation 33' 3" X 34' 6"= 1147.125 18' 11" X 13' 4"= 252.220 15' 0" X 23' 0"= 345.000 6' 4" X 4' 171= 25.858 10' 0" X 2' 4"= 24.440 13' 0" X 17' 69v= 227.500 28' 0" X 20' 6"= 574.000 (Garage) Total Area 2596.143 Garage Floor Area 574.000 Habitable Gross floor area 2 22.14 .1000i I I I I {I Il !� II �I ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING - MINUTES FRIDAY FEBRUARY 2, 1996 671 Park Avenue: Use Permit Appl. A 13-96; Request for a high occupancy residential use permit to allow six residents, and request to allow tandem parking in the street yard; R-1 zone; R. Sherman and Mary Baggett, applicants. Judy Lautner presented the staff report, recommending denial of the request. She noted that the applicants are able to meet the square footage requirement, but the parking arrangement does not meet City standards. Ms. Lautner also noted that the ordinance allows one parking space in the street yard, and the possibility of one tandem space, but it does not allow more than that. In this particular case, three of the parking spaces are in the street yard (between the house and the street), and two spaces are behind two others, making access difficult to the vehicles in the garage. She stated that this situation is not consistent with City policy or with standards for residential uses. A large parking area in the front yard would be created which is not consistent with a residential use. She also felt the paving on this property exceeds the paving allowance allowed in residential zones. Ms. Lautner's recommendation for denial of the request was based on finding that the parking design is inconsistent with City regulations and inappropriate for the use because it includes three parking spaces within the street yard where one is normally allowed, and four spaces in tandem, which creates significant potential for conflict. She also found that the amount of paving in the front yard violates the maximum paving allowed and creates an appearance that is incompatible with a low-density residential neighborhood. The public hearing was opened. Sherman Baggett, applicant, spoke in support of this request. He said he felt all conditions have been met as required in the High Occupancy brochure. He felt Ms. Lautner's comment about the parking is accurate, although he felt the brochure said the parking design standards were discretionary, not mandatory. He said that the square footage per occupant requirement is met, along with the number of bedrooms and bathrooms required. Mr. Baggett explained that the reason for the request is to allow six college students to live in the house, two of them being his own twin daughters. He noted he is trying to support three children in college, and this is one way he can afford the housing for them. He said he was told by Cal Poly that there are 2,923.dorm beds available for 16,000 enrolled .students, and mentioned that his daughters lived in the dorms last year, which was not an appealing situation nor conducive to good study habits. Administrative Hearing Minutes February 2, 1996 Page 2 Mr. Baggett indicated that the complaint that instigated this request indicated that there had been a parking violation and a noise violation. He said he contacted the police department in December, and they ran a check on the residence and there have been no violations reported to the Police Department since he purchased the house. Mr. Baggett said he spoke to the neighbor on the west in December and asked for her opinion of the request. She had no complaints or objections. Ron Whisenand asked how many people are living in the house. Mr. Baggett responded that six students are living in a four bedroom house, and no one lives in the study area. It was noted that there are five cars, which normally park in the driveway and two in the garage, but sometimes on the street during the day. Judy Lautner noted that two letters had been received in opposition to the request. One is from Mary Wade and one from Dolores Scoggins who live at 1680 and 1641 Hillcrest Street. The concerns were with the potential for fast and unsafe driving, additional traffic, parties, fireworks, parking, and density. She explained that these are general comments and concerns and are not intended to indicate recent occurrences or behaviors. Tony Herrera, 676 Grove Street, presented a letter from Mrs. Stanley Nelson of 1661 Hillcrest, which he read, objecting to the request. The letter noted past bad experiences when a fraternity house was in the neighborhood, and concern that it would reoccur. Mr. Herrera added that this particular area is like an island or oasis. It is flanked by the freeway on the north, California Boulevard on the west which is zoned for office, and down the street is R-2 which heavily populated with students, the east side is Grand Avenue with the higher density residential uses, the south is Mill Street which is heavily impacted with students. He, too, asked that this request be denied. Harry Fierstine, 640 Park Avenue, opposed the request. He also presented a letter a letter from Larry and Laurel Borello at 640 Park Street, who also opposed the request. Tonya Baggett, 671 Park Avenue, said that she and five others moved into the house on September 14th. She noted that the following day a complaint was filed with the City, and she felt they were being punished for the actions of the previous tenants. Tim McNulty, 1670 Phillips Lane, had no complaints concerning the current tenants. However, his concern is that the design standards of the zoning ordinance are not being met. He felt this particular house is not suitable for a high occupancy use. He noted that the trend in the neighborhood seems to be houses transforming from single-family to groups of students, and the neighbors are resigned to live with it, Administrative Hearing Minutes February 2, 1996 Page 3 provided they meet City standards. His main area of concern is parking and the quality of the neighborhood, and he strongly opposed the request. Nicole Baggett, 671 Park Avenue, spoke in support of the request. She noted that the turn at the corner of Phillips and Park is very dangerous to all, and students did not cause that. She felt increased speed and traffic issue does not come from students alone, but the neighborhood as a whole. She also noted the financial benefit this would have for her parents. Ms. Baggett offered to park two vehicles in the garage all the time and three on the property. She also noted that all tenants are more concerned with school than parties, and do not plan to have any parties at the home. Ms. Baggett noted that her nearby neighbors always play loud music late, and she was concerned that the neighbors may think the music comes from her house. She also asked that if any neighbors ever have a problem with them, even if the permit is not granted and only five girls remain, to.please come directly to them and they will resolve any potential problems. Ron Whisenand was concerned that mention of a noise complaint keeps being mentioned but there is no evidence in the file of one. Judy Lautner was unaware of any noise complaint, but felt there is a fear that noise will accompany this particular use. Dennis Howland, 1690 Hillcrest, noted this is not a personal issue with the Baggetts, and that any dealings with the tenants have always been pleasant. He felt that six women will draw six men, which will cause a significant parking situation. He opposed the request. Louie Scoggins, 1680 Hillcrest Place, felt the neighborhood has more than its share of students with Kris Kar Apartments and the student-occupied housing in the area. He did not have a problem with the current tenants, but opposed the request as a density issue. Harry Fierstine asked if this permit were approved, would the approval run with the land and be good forever, or would the approval expire or cease upon the sale of the house. Judy Lautner responded that all use permits, unless specifically stated otherwise, runs with the land, and stays with the property. Angela Kowal, 1670 Phillips Lane, noted this the first home she has purchased. She explained that one prerequisite was that it be in an R-1 neighborhood because they wanted a place to live long-term and raise. children. In a two-block area (Hillcrest, Phillips, Wilson) there are over 20 children under the age of 12, and Ms. Kowal was Administrative Hearing Minutes .February 2, 1996 Page 4 concerned with traffic in the neighborhood. Ms. Lautner noted that several property owners and residents who are not at this hearing telephoned her and expressed their concerns, opposing the request. Harry Fierstine asked if the request is for six or more, how the number of tenants is determined. Judy Lautner responded that this request is for six residents, and that the number of residents is always specific. Sherman Baggett, applicant, wanted to clarify some issues. He read an excerpt from the standards that "all high occupancy residential use permits will be reviewed annually to ensure continued compliance with the regulations". He noted that he is requesting six occupants, but whether or not the permit is approved, there will be five cars at that address. Those five cars can be parked on the street. The sixth occupant will not affect the number of cars at the site. He offered to agree to a maximum of five cars as a condition of approval. He felt that the annual review is a significant safeguard to accommodate the concerns of the neighborhood. Ron Whisenand asked if any consideration has been given to putting in a driveway or providing parking at the rear of the property. Mr. Baggett said he had not considered that option one way or the other. Judy Lautner felt due to slope a driveway in that area is not feasible for cars to drive in, maneuver and get back out again, and still maintain a back yard. The public hearing was closed. Ron Whisenand noted the issues do not appear to be student issues or noise issues, but whether or not the request will comply with City standards. His main concern is that he cannot approve a request based on three cars in the street yard setback when the standards very clearly state that a maximum of one car in the front yard setback. Ron Whisenand denied the request, based on the following finding: 1 . The parking design is inconsistent with City regulations and inappropriate for the use, because it includes three parking spaces within the street yard, where one is normally allowed, and four spaces in tandem, which creates significant potential for conflict. He noted that this action can be appealed to the Planning Commission by any person aggrieved by the decision. This must be done within 10 days., 3-17 DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 1996 Page 8 AYES: Commissioners Hoffman, Ready, Kourakis, C ss, Whittlesey, and Chairman Karleskint NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Senn The motion carried. 2. 0 Hi era Street: GP 10 5: Review of General Plan hillside planning standards to allow a cellular transceiver cilities on.top of South Street hill near KIID radio broadcasting antenna; C/OS-40 ne; SLO Cellular, Inc., applicant. Commissioner Se made a motion to continue Item 42 to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 13, 1996 Commissioner Ready seconded the motion. AYES: Commrs. Senn, Ready, Hoffman, Kourakis, Cross Whittlesey, and Chairman Karleskint NOE None e motion carried. 3. 671 Park Avenue: (A 13-96): Appeal of the Hearing Officer's denial of an Administrative Use Permit to allow six adult residents in a dwelling and tandem parking in the street yard; R-1 Zone;R. Sherman and M. Baggett, applicants. Associate Planner McIlvaine presented the staff report which recommended that the PIanning Commission deny the appeal,thereby upholding the Hearing Officer's action denying the use permit. Commissioner Cross asked staff if the pavingin the front yard is allowable. Associate Planner McIlvaine stated it was installed prior to the City adopting the property maintenance standards. Sherman Baggett,the homeowner, thanked the Commission and staff for the opportunity to address this issue. Mr. Baggett stated the central objection is the parking. Two of the occupants of this residence are his twin daughters. All six occupants are Cal Poly or Cuesta students. The reason for DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 1996 Page 9 doing this is to provide adequate housing for his daughters and for the financial aspect of having two daughters in college. He is willing to accept a restriction of five vehicles, since both his daughters share a vehicle. The application is for six occupants and for five vehicles. There are five spaces available on the property. Two of the parking spaces are tandem. The City's high occupancy brochure specifically states that there is an annual review of the permit and the permit expires with any change of ownership. Mr. Baggett offered to answer any questions. Harry Firestone, 640 Park Ave., presented a letter from Larry Borrello who resides at 677 Park Ave. to the Commission. Mr. Firestone stated he is in opposition to Mr. Baggett's request to have six adults in his house. He firmly supports the restriction limiting the number of adults residing in a residence. The quality ofthe neighborhood will deteriorate if an administrative use permit is granted. Because of the proximity to Cal Poly, homes in his neighborhood are vulnerable to high occupancy. He asked the Planning Commission for protection from this behavior. Arlene Firestone, 640 Park Ave., stated Mr. Baggett's plea of financial need to defray his mortgage payments by having his two daughters and four additional students occupy the home should not be an issue in this appeal. Most of the neighbors have mortgages and are supporting small children. No one feels they should crowd as many people as possible into their homes to defray expenses. For Mr. Baggett to buy in a residential neighborhood and ask for a zone change to pay his expenses is ludicrous. If the City would allow this kind of appeal to defray costs, we would all be land barons or slum lords. Lou Skoggins, 1760 Hill Crest Pl., gave a letter from Dana Schmidt of 647 Park Ave-to the Comnvssion. Mr. Skoggins stated he has lived on Hill Crest Pl. since 1958. In 1957 you could rent a nice house in San Luis for about $50 a month. Soon the greedy people realized they could charge the student$50 a piece each month and make a lot of money. Now some of the students have to pay up to$300 a month just fora room. When you walk down Hill Crest and Park it looks like a car lot. Mr. Skoggins feels Mr. Baggett shouldn't defer the costs onto other people. He doesn't feel they need anymore students in the area. Five people in one house is more than enough. It is unlawful for them to have three cars parked out in the front now. Additional cars would create more of a traffic problem. These streets weren't really developed to have all the traffic that we have on them now. It is a shame that the cost of education is so high. He hopes the Commission does not approve their appeal. Tim McNaulty, 1617 Phillips Ln., stated he is against the appeal. The issue here is clearly one of student households and non-student households residing in the same neighborhood. he bought in this neighborhood because it was an R-1 neighborhood. There are a number of student households and older residents seem to be moving on to other areas. Families are buying these homes and putting students in them Standards need to be imposed on households where groups of people live together. This house does resemble a used car lot when you drive by. There are six people living there with DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 1996 Page 10 five different cars. He stated this is an issue of neighborhood quality. He doesn't want the neighborhood to resemble a car lot. Five students in that house is plenty. He asked for the Commission's help in upholding the vision of his neighborhood. Commissioner Whittlesey asked if there have been any noise problem with this house. Mr. McNaulty stated noise hasn't been a problem for him. These girls have been quiet and that is not one of his concerns. Commissioner Whittlesey asked if there are any problems with vehicular noise. Mr. McNaulty stated there is a big problem with the intersection of park and Phillips. It is a blind corner and there are no sidewalks on that part of Phillips. Increased traffic is a concern. Tony Guerra, 676 Grove St., stated he and his wife.have lived on Grove St. for four years. He lived at 1565 Beach St. for 20 years. He stated he has a letter form a neighbor, Elmer McLennon, who owns the residence at 671 Park St. and lives at 645 Grove St. Mr. McLennon is opposed to the project proposal because the particular block for this proposal is completely occupied.by single-family dwellings. High density use is entirely out of character for this particular block. Parking for this proposed use is entirely inadequate. Parking cars one behind the other will result in conflict for exiting. Students are known to have late parties which will result in noise disturbances in this quiet neighborhood, in addition to neighborhood street parking problems. Mr. Guerra stated this is a very unique neighborhood. There are only three access streets into this area. This is an R-1 neighborhood for single-family dwellings and that's why many of the people have chosen to live in this neighborhood. The neighborhood really loves Cal Poly. Through the years they have had many educators live in the area. they do value the quietness. There are many areas where there are no sidewalks. The neighbors do value the safety of the young children in the area. Mr. Guerra understands Mr. Bag predicament of children going to college. They did have a fraternity at 1681 Phillips and-still have scars from that. He urged the Commission to deny the use permit. Dennis Holland, 1690 Hill Crest Pl., stated he is not against the variance, but it's simply a case of traffic in the neighborhood. Six girls begat six boys and it just goes on from there. Delores Skoggins, 1680 KA Crest Pl., stated there is a dangerous situation with parking and traffic in this area. There have been a lot of incidences which have turned her against having more students. She stated she is very much opposed to the idea of having six students in this house. Maria Domingo, 1638 Hill Crest Pl., stated she bought her house two and a half years ago. The house was previously used for student housing. One of the closets was turned into a complete 3-20 DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 1996 Page 11 bathroom. She questions if the interior of the house will accommodate six adults. She is opposed to having more than five adults in a house of this size. Nicole Baggett, 671 Park Ave., stated they have never had a party to two o'clock in the morning. They are six adult women and they have school in the morning. They don't stay up until two o'clock in the morning having parties and being loud. She stated the complaint about the party and the noise was made the first or second week they came to Cal Poly and the neighbors didn't give them a chance. If they aren't given this high occupancy,there is still going to be five cars out in front. she will be the one that will move out because they can't break the lease with the other four students. She will be coming over to the house and there will be six cars in front of the house. The traffic situation is not going to change. She has an older brother who goes to UCD and it's going to be financial problem because they are going to have to pay the extra money for her to get an apartment or pay one of the other roommates to move out. Rent is high and she would have to get a job. She is a very devoted student and like to get good grades and feels getting a job would hurt her grade point average. She stated there are two bathroom and four bedrooms in their house. Two people share the master bedroom and this is not a problem for them. They all have classes at different times and sharing the bathroom has never been a problem. She stated, as for the fact that everyone would like to live in an R-1 residence and they feel like they are trapped by California and the freeway and Grand, that was their decision to decide on that area. She should not penalized by where they decided to be. Mr.Baggett stated a significant number of comments that have been made paint all college students with a very broad brush. There have been no specific complaints against the residents of this house since they have moved in. This is strictly a break even type of situation for them. The other ladies that are helping share the rent are getting a better rate compared to a dorm room or apartment housing. Party and noise complaints are not an issue. The police have not been informed of any noise complaints. With five residents in the house, they are allowed five cars. They are willing to accept a restriction of just that, five cars with six residents. Commissioner Ready asked Mr. Baggett to describe the special circumstances which exist in order to obtain approval for the street/yard parking. Mr.Bagget stated that they have met the requirements.of the occupancy permit of having five parking spaces or one less parking space for the number of residents. It is up to the discretion of the Commission to allow tandem parking. Commissioner Kourakis stated if the high occupancy regulations were relaxed this standard would allow one space in the street yard. They have three. Mr.Baggett stated the Commission has the discretion to allow tandem parking. He does not interpret the tandem parking as being limited to one in the street yard. DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 1996 Page 12 Associate Planner McIlvaine stated a permanent parking space that is required for any dwelling is not to be located within the street yard. In this case, the street yard is the 20' setback from the property line. Tandem parking is parking one vehicle directly behind the other vehicle. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS: Assistant City Attorney Clemens stated there has been a lot of discussion about students. There is a recent case out of the City of San Diego, which the City of San Diego chose to regulate high occupancy uses based upon owner-occupied versus tenant-occupied dwellings. If they were tenant occupied, they had to undergo similar performance standards for more than a certain number and if they were owner occupied they didn't. The court struck that down. She would like the Commission to focus not so much on students but on adults. Commissioner Cross stated he has a problem with tandem parkingand the finding at the hearing lever was appropriate. Commissioner Whittlesey stated she is concerned with the number of people specifically, and how it affects traffic in this neighborhood. She has heard traffic and safety concerns expressed from the neighbors. Commissioner Ready stated his analysis of the issue is that the application that is before the Commission seeks the special approval of street yard parking, and from his understanding of the zoning regulations, can be granted by the Commission, based upon special circumstances. There seems to be no special circumstances demonstrated by the appellant. Commissioner Hoffman concurred with Commissioner Ready and the Hearing Officer. The problem is parking. Without the special circumstances, he cannot find anything that would cause him to.grant the application. Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to deny the appeal, based on the findings, and uphold the Hearing Officer's action to deny the use permit and to extent the time period to bring the property into compliance to June 30, 1996. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Senn. Commissioner Kourakis asked Commissioner Hoffman about the June 30th date. Commissioner Hoffman stated if the appeal is denied and it's appealed to the Council, there is some time period which it will take to get scheduled. This way the high occupancy is not established, the school year has ended, the applicant will not have to terminate or buy out a lease, yet he's on notice for the next school year he can only lease to five people, including his family. 3-�z DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 1996 Page 13 Commissioner Ready stated he has a basic concern about the very nature of the fact that the June 30 date should be a consideration and that the Commission is taking into account the fact that they are students. The Commission should be dealing with this as a request, with respect to a higher density occupancy. There has been some reference to a rental or lease arrangements and the Commission wasn't presented with anything with respect to those. Under California law, when you don't see anything in writing, there is the presumption that it is month to month. He has no problem with allowing a reasonable period for these people to make accommodations, but has some reservations with the suggestion that it should be tied into the school year. He stated he has a problem with extending anything with respect to anticipated problems with enforcement. A 30-day date would be more reasonable. Commissioner Whittlesey concurred with Commissioner Ready. Commissioner Kourakis stated she would be more comfortable without the June 30 date. Commissioner Whittlesey asked if the Commission would be willing to consider another finding that due to traffic and safety issues it's not an appropriate occupancy level for this neighborhood. Commissioner Kourakis stated the Commission is dealing with the high occupancy level. They do not conform. Commissioner.Ready stated perhaps there should be an additional finding that there is insufficient special circumstance to justify an exception to the parking standards. AYES: Commissioners Hoffman and Senn NOES: Commissioners Kourakis, Cross, Whittlesey, Ready, and Chairman Karleskint Commissioner Ready made a motion to deny the appeal, based on the findings, and uphold the Hearing Officer's action to deny the use permit and to extent the time period to bring the property into compliance to March 31, 1996. Commissioner Senn seconded the motion. AYES: Commissioners Ready, Senn, Kourakis, Cross, Whittlesey, and Chairman Karleskint NOES: Commissioner Hoffman The motion carried. 4. 1880 Block Ruth Street: (ABAN 73-95): Review of abandonment of portion of 1800 block of Ruth Street; Rose McKeen and Robert Gonzales, applicants. 3-� STATEMENT We are filing a request for a High Occupancy Residential Use Permit for 671 Park Street, San Luis Obispo to allow six college students to occupy this home. The six (6) adults who are living in this home are full time students (five at Cal Poly, one at Cuesta College). Two of these residents, Tonya and Nicole Baggett are the homeowner's twin daughters. To comply with the High Occupancy Residential Use Permit, we submit the following: • Site plan , drawn to scale. This plan shows there is an average of 337 square feet of floor space for each occupant. The dwelling contains 2022 square feet of habitable floor space, not counting the two car garage. • Five(5) off street, paved parking spaces are provided. • Two (2) full size bathrooms are provided. Furthermore, to verify the six adults living at 671 Park Street have not caused any legal problems there is an attached statement from the San Luis Police Department. Officer Daniel R. Blanke (San Luis Obispo Police Dept.) has stated there have been NO complaints of noise or parking violations since the purchase, of the home, and occupancy of these six adults(see attached letter). There are several compelling reasons to issue the permit: • It is imperative, to help reduce our financial burden of college housing cost, to have six students occupy the home. • The attached letter from the city of San Luis Obispo states one student MUST move out by February 15, 1996. The one students would have to be one of our daughters, since the other four resident girls have a signed lease agreement. Thus, by having to rent an apartment for one of our daughters this would further impact us financially. • We are requesting a permit for six adults with five or less cars to enable us to kept our daughters in Cal Poly. • Any further help or information, please contact us. Signed Date: I city of san vuis oB�s �I 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 12/04/95 BAGGETT RICHARD S & MARY N 3517 COOLHEIGHTS RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90274- SUBJECT: Notice of Code Violation 671 PARK Dear Mr. & Mrs. Baggett: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated November 13, 1995. We have received only one complaint regarding the unlawful parking at 671 Park. If you would like information about any noise complaints that have been received, you must contact the San Luis Police Department. If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me at (805) 781-7186. Sincer y Rob B Neighborhood Services Manager f� O-�PuTFl� Crnr�C� lW40 �drs.aciPtir/i•S /!'T /xif' o�G.A�ESs' (/�lTi�/i.../ ��5�/G�i9�P_ 7DANIEL R. BLANKE ';; '='�` ` Z 140 . 1160-608, santutpo to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. Force Depar nant•(WS)781-7917-Emergency 911 5)781-7410. 3-� 1042 Wafnut St. -Box 1328 • San Luis Obispo.CA 93406-1328 "TLVO 4H r- NI CE' v T" _ E ID pc z/ /sem Nicole Baggett Fib 3517 Coolheights Drive Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 February 12, 1996 City of San Luis Obispo ATTN. : Ronald Whisenand Development Review Manager Dear Mr. Whisenand, I am submitting this letter as a formal appeal of the public hearing for our high occupancy residential use permit that was conducted on Friday,February 2, 1996. Please inform me of the necessary procedures we must follow and any forms or paper work to complete and dates they must be completed. I may be contacted by phone at: (805) 545-8810 day Please acknowledge this letter by return letter. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Nicole Baggett�t/.&'i t I7 er9�/1 S. 2& �11 9� R. S. and Mary N. Baggett 3517 Coolheights Drive Rancho Palos Verdes,CA dJ 40 90275 90275 February 6, 1996 City of San Luis Obispo ATTIC : Ronald Whisenand Development Review Manager Dear Mr. Whisenand, My wife and I are submitting this letter as a formal appeal of the public hearing for our high occupancy residential use permit that was conducted on Friday, February 2, 1996. Please inform us of the necessary procedures we must follow and any forms or paper work to complete and dates they must be completed. I may be contacted by phone at: (310) 416-5113 day or (310) 541-0213 evenings or (310) 662-5198 FAX day Please acknowledge this letter by return FAX or letter. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, RS Baggett U� 4 Mary N. Baggett -3-27 February 28, 1996 Good evening! My name is Harry Fierstine, living at 640 Park Avenue V roughly across the street from 671 Park. I want to express my opposition to Mr. Baggett's desire to have 6.adults inhabiting his house. I firmly support the regulation that no more than 5 adults shall occupy a dwelling in a R-1 zone and believe in this case or in any other, the quality of a residential neighborhood will deteriorate if an Administrative Use Permit for High Occupancy Residential Use is granted. Because of its proximity to Cal Poly, homes in our neighborhood are vulnerable to high occupancy, therefore I ask you, the Planning Commission, to protect us from this behavior. Personally, I think 5 adults, whether they are nuns, priests or college students, are a generous number. 3 -fig Z San Luis Obispo City Planning Commission 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo,California Re: Appeal for 671 Park St.housing project. Gentlemen, Pursuant to reviewing documents relative to this project proposal,I herewith make my opposition to the subject proposal for the following reasons: 1. The particular block for this proposal is completely occupied by single family dwellings or low density use. High density use is entirely out of character for this particular block 2. Parking for this proposed use is also entirely inadequate.Parking cars one behind the other will result in conflict for exiting. 3. Students are known to have late parties at times which will definitely result in noise disturbance of of this quiet neighborhood-in addition to neighborhood street parking problems. 4. Please consider the.complairns of many neighbors in this area. Respectfully submitted, Ebner McLennan=RCE 6923 645 Grove St. SLO. Ca.93401 Owner of property at 645-647 Park Ave 2/27/96 .3 -�9 r OJr name3 dire arj LCiur�e_ "3o:-r llo GS (nWW5 mark PcvZ Lje 4rz (-incerAed - w -i-r.e. OJJ;ki D:.d 1 -Ka kF,'c -t'Y�a-�, Ii_) o td re i L t- rOn, 1n.r�►.er occ.g)OA^cq �ltowjrt( e- G,) e S � pilar l- -l-ke '}'ha4 S odd 1+< Shoold d c- tae- t t;-aG n a Q- l lane 2nd ,.P h li'nve L aa t�+� o� 'n^ s Ljg .ld be ir1LJn� STar.� i� h, e Iv- '4in llvaol �6z)t'e d o /t� �;,�e t LZ r 3 3a �o/,/v0 February 28, 1996 My name is Arline Fierstine. I live at 640 Park Avenue across the street from 671 Park Ave. and I would like to address Mr. Baggetfs financial plea. Mr. Baggett's claim of financial need to defray or cover his mortgage payments by having his two daughters and four additional students(paying tenants) occupy the home should not be an issue to this appeal. Most of the neighbors have mortgages,are supporting small children, with both parents working and they additionally have child care expenses.. Some are single parents with young children with all the aforementioned expenses and some people, like ourselves,are retired and on fixed incomes—all of us paying mortgages without complaint in order to live in a quality R-1 neighborhood- None eighborhoodNone of us feel we should crowd as many people as possible into our homes to defray our expenses. For Mr. Baggett to expect to buy in a residential neighborhood and ask for zoning changes to pay his expenses is ludicrous. If the city would allow this kind of appeal to defray costs, we would all be land barons or slum landlords. Thank you. O&L� Y , Arline Fierstine 640 Park Avenue San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3-31 To whom this may concern: We are neighbors of-b59 Park Ave and up to this point have had no complaint about the parking or noise. We would like you to consider the high occupancy request. If there are any questions please feel free to contact us.Thank you for your concern. Larry and Laurie Borello 657 Park Ave San Luis Obispo 541- 5136 3-IZ RECEIVED FEB t 31996 o� 4847 Village Gardens Dr. Sarasota, FL 34234 Feb. 6, 1996 Community Development Department ATTN: Ms. Judy Lautner 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Ms. Lautner: This letter is written in response to the postal notice I received concerning application # A 13-96. By the way, I received the notice Saturday, Feb. 3d. The notice was postmarked from Santa Barbara on Jan. 26, 1996. Perhaps the delay was caused by the bad weather between California and Florida. You clarified the situation very well. I want to go on record that I am totally against the request for a high occupancy residential use permit allowing six residents. Yes, I am very concerned about the resulting parking situation. It has to be remembered that in addition to the six cars owned by the residents at 671 Park Avenue, there would be the cars owned by visitors--friends, relatives, service personnel . As you know, the 600 block of Park Avenue is limited at both ends. In effect that part of Park Avenue is one block long. Close around this block there are already many high occupancy residences. Each time one of these high occupancy residences has been added to this area, it has added parking problems and certainly increased the noise and traffic. Thank you for your notice about this matter. Sincerely yours, 9 Evelyn A. Guy .3-.�3 �Ls/Alf-r*Z17-',�72�Xw&c;Z u f4 ,�1147e , ez . ECEIVED -�- FEB 9 19Y6 71 OL cm of SAN LUIS OBISPO / 17 '(/ar 3 3t� pec 71x Z7� _ L .G . 41 , `= a �t, � �� .rte-¢�. ,�.��d.4�2,r��-lam 3 •3s i i < i i i. i / i J / !�- a�v� Jae &c ,ems - �Ilei RECEIVED FEB ;'. 1996 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISpo ""*oAIIPR*YnNpLcpm= T 3-37 PA AJJ 2 A& RE c. U-7 PAAK el. 5Ai W+S Dei Sr Os CA 7M Lv owt (T' MAY cao - ; APCE - 7-ALKI , WMi OUP, N6f j4eoA S W� E�r-E� (i MEC-ESSArtY C-LA2i c Y epoe, Posmot) WMf REGA OS -ra Co-7 ( PAKK S-C WE. o(JrOE(ZS'�O 'Ct#Al' A. REoJes( IA)nuLo (j WoE, rc2 A VA6 ! ©c cvP Y�4AN)- _WL Co uLo -qfEry ANy 647 src 1 Aczep-i A " Lin) ( OWb.)e cPj- K ViV6OC-&LSi INC-, N© lS `'t�rAr- A l ( ;4 c CC-068 -OCY OeE, IAIIE DO Mar Emoogs A (`Pep,,jNA(-r �. WE AptoF- 'Ms Lg Q ftLPS Ct,AK( f-Y 2 'P05MO N WL" IMm w Vc NG Ai96 ij(.NC&NT-S RECEIVED I', FE$ . b t-0 r�was w�sPo y:9 Dccwya y 6 71 PcL r K . r-%Ok -� owe / w y re, V)CL � 6�ari1 V1GG's� h5 r�� wL p re �BrLT I 1 � � I fi� a, tlrKl "� W �5 v► �s,r•j�� ppra� Th�rG ��-'r` y�� ,4aerow5 u,,,-f �'a-r�t 7 u,.�i��. y �'�4.Scvx.S u1Gl�^ o cog,r at Ire U) cJlSr�d rs - fs & oc�,,�,p�hf.: 71 5 +� -ere Oliva los 16 1626 Hillcmt FL Pl. Sa Luis ObL%h CA 93401 3 -3� 9 ry c4AX&O d gem A41),i au-,,u, � At tlu .3-yo fa �� IS G� CA'✓J�-,� �vla� �� N� � ,�►�ev� ��lZ �ey'1�i�.7i�' G�i'�'iY� i� d.� �✓� - �g Sty / l �Ihc� �rlJ- i'no✓� i,� /AYr