Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-17-2015 Andrew Firestone - AppealFiling Fee Dale Received Tree Appeal: $109.00 All Other Appeals A city of DEC 17 2014 71-1 SAn WIS OBISPO APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION Name Mailing Address and Zip Code 0 % ", Phone Fax Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Title Phone Fax SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL. 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1,20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: (Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: . �? - I, !., 3, The application or project was entitled: ku 'It C>-J r 4, 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member: (Staff (Member's Name and Department) (Date) 5: Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom: J'-\ �)_ C , , , SECTION 3, REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what actionis you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what ­evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may att,,,)ch additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the otherside, Page 1 of 3 Reason for Appeal continued SECTION 4. APPELLANT'S RESPONSIBILITY The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and encourages all forms of citizen involvement. However, due to real costs associated with City Council consideration of an appeal, including public notification, all appeals pertaining to a planning application or project are subject to a filing fee of $273 , which must accompany the appeal form. Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities If you file an appeal, please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from filing this form, You will be notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your representative will be expected to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make your case. Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes. A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances If you feel you need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please be advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public, the Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance. Submitting a request for continuance does not guarantee that it will be granted; that action is at the discretion of the City Council. 1 hereby agree to appear and /or send a representative to appear on my behalf when said appeal is scheduled fora- public hearing before the City Council. ' (Signature of Appellant) (Date) Exceptions to the fee: 1) Appeals of Tree Committee decisions are $109. 2) The above -named appellant has already paid the City $273 to appeal this same matter to a City official or Council advisory body. This item is hereby calendared for ec: City Attorney City Manager Department Head Advisory Body Chairperson Advisory Body Liaison City Clerk (original) Page 2 of 3 � LltSTONEPARK.. To City Council of San Luis Obispo, CA This is an appeal of the decision by the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission to uphold the appeal of the San Luis Drive neighborhood of the Use Permit for proposed hotel project at1845 & 1865 Monterey Street. - Specifically, this appeal is in regard to the findings of the Planning Commission as they pertain to our project, and more specifically as they pertain to "Ordinance 1130". This is an overriding set of guidelines related to our property and the adjacent creek and neighborhood that we have studied very closely, and usedasou/Quidingdocumentaswedesi0nedthe|aynutofthehoteiTho/paneaxpectso[Ordivamce 1130 that are clearly defined, and others that are more suggestive in nature and therefore are open to interpretation. |n the Planning Commissions' deliberations they described o 'vague recoUe¢ion^ofthe genesis and background of this 25 year old Ordinance 1130, and went on to state that the basis oc theoryofthismrdinancewaoiniendedtoadd/eothenox+mukjated^mote|"buiNing type, which iso completely different hospitality model than contemporary hotel facilities of today, And although our proposal is for the latter, we contend that our hotel design addresses and conforms to both the prescriptive and subjective requirements ufOrdinance 1130. Therefore, with respect to the Planning, Commission's ruling, we offer the following information in support of our appeal: Planning Commission Findings- 1)The parking in the creek setback is not in conforrnance with the City' s Zoning Regulations, Response: The ten (lO) spaces in question are existing noo-confonning,parking spaces. The current hotel design proposes to retain these 10 spaces as-is, with the exception of adding a sound and headlight wall ao directed by city staff, Therefore, vve are not seeking to add now nr additional parking in this clearly established and protected set back area. 2) The balconies proposed in the rear building elevation are not in conformance with Criterion No. 2 of Ordinance Il]D, which states that "buikjing openings facing the creek shall heminimbed," Response- The term "minimizccl" is difficult to define, whether one considers the entirety of the building, or only for the area that ison the creek. |nregards tu the entirety o[ the building, the openings have been minimized as they represent Iless than 28% of the openings of the whole building. In addition, as suggested by the neighbors, arid further directed by staff and the ARC, we had already previously removed 3 of the creek-facing balconics and drastically IWILIced the size of 3 additional balconies as opposed to the original design of the building, 3) The proposed parking is not in conformance with Criterion 7 of Ordinance 1:130 stating that "noise generating uses such as parking and outdoor recreation uses should be located on the interior of the site, using buildings as a buffer." Response: The design of our parking structure includes many sound and light attenuation strategies, and does provide a buffer between the parking and the creek, In fact, we took direction from previous comments by the neighbors and added additional height and mass to the sound+headiight wall design. In addition, a number of additional sound attenuation measures were added to the project, including sound absorbing acoustic panels within the interior of the structure, a denser wall material, and scoring or "tining" of the concrete floor to prevent tire squeal, all in response to specific directive from staff, the ARC, and the neighbors. 4) The proposed building height creates overlook, noise and glare issues. Response: The design of the building is within the allowed 45' height allowance, as supported in both the Zoning Code and Ordinance 1130. We understand that Ordinance 1130 was established to balance the commercial /tourism area of Monterey Street with consideration for land use compatibility of the San Luis Drive residential neighborhood, therefore establishing an even greater set -back from the creek than normally required by the City's Zoning Code and Development Standards. Dire to the fact that we were cognizant of the concerns of our neighbors, our project is set bark even further than required by Ordinance 1130 in order to respect that privacy and provide an added measure of consideration for the San Luis Drive neighborhood. In addition, supporting documentation including Noise & Acoustic Studies, a Photometric Analysis, and a Viewshed Study- were conducted at the request of staff and the neighbors, all which conclude that the Concerns regarding overlook, noise, light and glare fall well below the thresholds established by city ordinances. 5) The project needs to consider the corments in the recently-adopted Land Use and Circulation Element regarding Upper Monterey, especially those that prornote an enhanced pedestrian experience. Response: One of our primary goals for this project is to "promote an enhanced pedestrian experience" for all hotel guests. We hope to accomplish this by adding a beautifully designed "destination" hotel that tourist and local guests can use as a hospitality hub while accessing downtown via alternate transportation methods, such as walking, biking, or public transportation. To that end, we are rnernbers of the SLO Bike Coalition and will be collaborating with them to provide local information and resources to our guests about San Luis Obispo's "bike - friendly" atmosphere. In addition, the LUCE also describes policies and objectives that look to "incentivize reinvestment in the upper Monterey Street area ", We agree, and our proposed hotel facility will help the city achieve these LUCL goals and objectives with a smartly designed facility that is eco- friendly yet sensitive to the needs and concerns of our neighbors We look forward to the opportunity to present our project to City Council. Andrew Firestone Principal StonePark Capital