Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/01/1990, 3 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT ALLOWING A TWENTY PERCENT MIXED USE PARKING MEETING DATE: city of San Luis OBlspo S-1 - 90 COUNCIL AGENDA DEPORT STEM NUMBER: 3 0 FROK: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director; BY: Da id Moran, Associate Pla er SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission approval of a use permit allowing a twenty percent mixed use parking reduction at 2015 and 212.1 Monterey Street (The Apple Farm) . CAO RECOXXENDATION: Adopt Draft Resolution No. 1 to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission approving a twenty percent mixed-use parking reduction subject to conditions. REPORT IN BRIEF The owner of the Apple Farm motel and restaurant wants to allow outdoor dining in two locations on the site: on the patio next to the restaurant and on the patio next to the Mill House. Previous approvals currently allow him to have outdoor dining at only one of these locations at a time. In order to provide the 12 additional parking spaces for the expanded use, he applied for a mixed use parking reduction for the Apple Farm and adjoining Trellis Court motel (formerly the Franciscan motel) . Section 17 .16. 060 (B) of the zoning ordinance allows the Director, through the administrative use permit process, to reduce the total parking space requirement for a site by up to twenty percent when the times of maximum parking demand from the various uses on a site will not coincide. I Based on data supplied by the applicant, and confirmed with data collected by staff, the Hearing Officer concluded that the uses on the site -- primarily the restaurant and motel -- result in times of peak parking demand which do not coincide and on January 5, 1990, approved a twenty percent mixed use parking reduction for the Apple Farm and adjoining Trellis Court motel. The conditions of approval allow outdoor dining at two locations subject to restrictions on the hours of operation and the maximum floor area allowed. This action was appealed to the Planning Commission who voted 4-2 on March 14 , 1990 to deny the appeal. The decision of the Planning Commission has been appealed to the City Council. The points of concern of the appellants are: -- The decision of the Hearing Officer and Planning Commission was based on inaccurate parking calculations for the various uses on the site. Current parking and use data for the Apple Farm is summarized on Exhibit III. The information differs slightly (2 parking 3- 10JJJJJIlll��pWV� city o f San tins osIspo i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ARC 90-08 2 Page 2 spaces) from the original calculations but did not change the staff or Planning Commission conclusions concerning approval of this request. The actual parking reduction is 20 percent, as previously requested. -- The parking data used to support the decisions of the Hearing Officer and Planning Commission did not reflect the fact that employees of the Apple Farm are not permitted to park on the site. The zoning ordinance is silent with respect to whether or not employees are required to park in the parking provided on a site. Therefore, it was not considered germane to the decision of the mixed-use reduction. -- The mixed-use reduction will worsen an existing problem with on-street parking in the vicinity of the Apple Farm. On-street parking is heavily used in the upper Monterey Street area but was found to be available at various times of the day and week. This item was continued from the council's April 17, 1990 meeting at the request of the applicant and appellants to allow time to resolve their various concerns without the need for the appeal. BACKGROUND Data Summary Address: 2015 and 2121 Monterey Street Applicant: Bob Davis Appellants: Bonnie Garritano, et al, and Robert Binkele (two separate appeals) Zoning: C-T-S General Plan: Tourist commercial Environmental Status: This project is categorically exempt. Site Description The site consists of about five total acres on two adjoining lots of record which contain two motels (99 total rooms) , a restaurant, and a gift shop. There are 170 total parking spaces on the two sites (112 spaces at . 2015 Monterey Street and 58 spaces at 2.121 Monterey Street) . DISCUSSION 1. Prior Actions/Applicant's Request -- The.Apple Farm hotel and 3-2 I,� � i�hillll�Im � 11 city of San Luis OBispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ARC 90-08 3 Page 3 restaurant has been the subject of numerous previous actions by the Director and Architectural Review Commission which are summarized at the end of this report. The two actions most germane to the current request and appeal are the mixed-use reduction previously granted in 1984 (A96-84) , and the more recent approval of offsite parking for the Apple Farm at the adjacent motel site at 2121 Monterey Street (A73-89) . The. former is important because the uses on the site (restaurant, motel rooms and gift shop) are principally the same now as then, although expanded. The latter is important because a condition of approval allows the owner of the Apple Farm to provide outdoor dining on the patio next to the restaurant or the patio next to the Mill House but not both (see conditions of approval and parking summary, Exhibits I and II, attached) . The applicant now wants to provide outdoor dining at both the Mill House patio and the patio next to the restaurant. In order to provide parking for the in in dining and food preparation space (12 additional spaces) , the owner has applied for a twenty percent mixed use parking reduction for adjacent sites at 2121 and 2015 Monterey Street. On January 5, 1990, based on supporting data provided by the applicant and staff which showed that excess parking is available on the site, the Hearing Officer approved a 20 percent mixed-use parking reduction which reduced the total required parking for 2015 and 2121 Monterey Street from 212 spaces to 168 spaces, subject to findings and conditions (see minutes and conditions, attached) . The conditions restrict the total outdoor dining allowed for the site to a maximum 1125 square feet: 640 sq.ft.. at the restaurant deck and 485 sq.ft. at the Mill House. The conditions also restrict the hours of operation for dining at the Mill House and require that all food be "box lunch" or "to-go" only. These are the same restrictions on the Mill House dining that are currently in effect, except that the Planning Commission changed the hours of operation allowed for the Mill House deck dining from 7: 30 AM to 7:00 PM to 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM. . The conditions also require that the owner enter into a recorded agreement which says that the outdoor dining shall cease if inadequate parking is evident. The use permit will also be reviewed in one year, at which time it may be revoked, extended, or conditions added or modified. This use permit would also supersede the previous mixed use reduction granted in 1984, and would amend those conditions of approval for the offsite parking granted in 1989 which relate to the use of outdoor dining areas. 3-3 �JJVK1JJJJJJWp city of San Luis OBlspo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ARC 90-08 Page 4 2. Parking Availability -. The proposed additional outdoor patio dining would require a total of 12 additional parking spaces which can be provided in a variety of ways, including adding more spaces to the site or reducing or eliminating uses to offset the increase in parking demand. Another option is a mixed-use parking reduction. The applicant suggests that a mixed use reduction is appropriate in this case because: -- The primary uses on the site have complementary parking demands which result in a single parking space serving more than one use at a time. And, -- Ample excess parking is provided on the site now, even with a previously approved twenty percent mixed use reduction. The applicant has submitted parking space availability data (summarized on Exhibit IV) which shows that, even during peak occupancy of the motels and restaurant, an average of about 30-40 parking spaces are still available which would more than offset the 12 additional spaces required for the added patio dining. This conclusion was verified by a parking survey conducted by staff between December 15 and December 30, 1989. During this time, both motels were 100% occupied on three days and averaged about 50% occupancy for the period. On the days with 100% occupancy, .an average of about 30 parking spaces were available at various times of the day (see Exhibit V, attached) . One of the main points of discussion and confusion when the Planning Commission considered the appeal of the Hearing officer's action was that the parking summary provided for the hearing did not accurately balance the parking required with the parking provided. For this reason, when the Planning Commission voted . to deny the appeal, they required that a parking and use summary be prepared which accurately portrays all of the uses on the site and the corresponding parking requirements. A current parking summary is attached (Exhibit III) which lists the various uses on the sitewith the corresponding parking requirements based on a tour of the site conducted in March, 1990. 3 . Appellants' Concerns -- The Hearing Officer's decision was appealed to the Planning Commission by residents of San Luis Drive whose properties adjoin the site to the south across San Luis Creek. The appellants felt that the mixed use reduction was not appropriate in this case because it would contribute to an existing parking and traffic problem in the area, it would allow intensification of the site which could adversely ����► i�llill���i� ► �� city of san tus oBispo i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT A164-89 Page 5 affect the adjoining residences, and because the parking data used to support the request was not representative of peak parking demand for the site. The Planning Commission concluded that potential impacts from the additional outdoor dining would be mitigated by the location of the patio and by the restrictions recommended for its use. They also felt that the parking data was representative of peak demand for the site and that on street parking was available at various times of the day and week. The city has received two separate appeals of the Planning Commission action. One by residents of San Luis Drive (see statement, attached) who want to be certain that the decision on the mixed use parking reduction is based on current, accurate parking calculations for the site. As outlined above, a current summary of uses and parking for the site has been .prepared and is attached as Exhibit III. The appellants are also concerned that the owner of the Apple Farm does not own the Trellis Court motel but has a lease option to buy the site. The statement recommends that the patio dining next to the Mill House be prohibited in favor of allowing patio dining next to the restaurant. The second appeal is by the owner of a neighboring property at 1895 Monterey Street who states that the parking data presented is misleading because it does not account for the fact that employees of the Apple Farm are not allowed to park on the site, and that if they were, it would significantly reduce the number of vacant spaces. This issue was discussed briefly at the Planning Commission hearing but was not considered germane to this request because the zoning ordinance is silent with respect to where people park (see Intent of Parking Space Requirements, attached) and because the Commission felt that the issue of requiring employees to park on site should not be decided within the context of a specific application because such a policy or change in the zoning ordinance would affect businesses citywide. Currently, the Community Development Department is working on a "Trip Reduction Ordinance", or TRO. The purpose of the ordinance is to reduce the use of "single occupant vehicles" by employees. Implementation of a TRO could also reduce employee parking demand which might be a more direct method of addressing this issue. However, if the Council wishes to change the parking ordinance to require employees to park on- site, staff recommends that the matter be referred to the Planning Department for a separate evaluation of the consequences. 3—S ���h�� imIIIIIII� iIt city of san Luis oBispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT A164-89 Page 6 The appellant is also concerned that the mixed-use parking reduction will only worsen an existing on-street parking problem in the upper Monterey Street area (see statement, attached) . The decision to approve the mixed use reduction was based on the best available information about parking in the upper Monterey Street area without doing a formal parking study for the area. The conditions of approval allow ample protection for the city and surrounding property owners if the use permit is approved and an onsite or offsite parking problem arises. 4. Alternatives -- A variety of alternatives are available to the Council: Twenty percent is the maximum mixed-use reduction which. can be allowed. The Council may approve a lesser reduction, with a commensurate reduction in the area allowed for outdoor dining, or you may uphold the appeal and deny a reduction altogether. If the mixed-use reduction is denied, the previously approved mixed use reduction would still be in effect, and outdoor dining could continue on either the Mill House patio or the restaurant patio. i Another option would be to condition the use permit to require the Apple Farm to prepare a Trip Reduction Plan for the employees which would promote carpools and alternate means of reaching the site other than cars. An example of a trip reduction plan prepared recently for new commercial center on South Higuera Street is attached. A key part of any TRP is the monitoring and enforcement of its requirements. If a TRP is required, it would help monitor the parking situation on the site. Note that Trip Reduction Plans are designed to reduce employee trips only. The Applicant has also expressed a desire i to operate a private shuttle service to the Apple Farm, which would reduce customer trips as well. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may adopt Draft Resolution No. 1 to deny the appeals and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a 20 percent mixed use parking reduction based on findings and conditions. 2. The Council may adopt Draft Resolution No. 2 to uphold the appeals and deny the mixed use reduction. In this case, the owner of the Apple Farm would still have permission to have outdoor dining at either the Mill House patio or the restaurant patio. city of San tuts o61Spo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT A164-89 Page 7 3 . The Council may continue review with direction to the appellant and staff:. RECOMMENDATION The Council should adopt Draft Resolution No. 1 to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a 20 percent mixed use parking reduction at 2121 and 2015 Monterey Street (The Apple Farm) . Attachments: Draft Resolution No. 1 (deny the appeal) Draft Resolution No. 2 (approve the appeal) vicinity map site plan Exhibit I: Conditions of use permit A96-84 Exhibit II: Conditions of use permit A73-89 with parking summary Exhibit III: Current parking calculations for the site, with proposed deck dining applicant's statement Exhibit IV: Applicant's parking data Exhibit V: Staff parking data appellants' statements minutes from January 5, 1990 administrative hearing example of a Trip Reduction Plan section of the parking ordinance 3-7 a1111 city of San tuts OBlspo Nj;S COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT A164-89 Page 8 Actions Relating To Parking -- The Apple Farm 1984-1989 Parking Total Total Required Parking Provided Request Date For Use Required 20% Mixed-use reduction 11/84 N/A 146 122 for 2015 Monterey (a) Mill House added at 2015 10/89 9 154 124 Monterey Parking lot addition at 7/88 34 34 58 2121 Monterey (b) Offsite parking for 2015 7/89 N/A 161(d) 170 Monterey at 2121 Monterey (c) 20% Mixed-use reduction for 2/90 12 212 (e) 170 2015 and 2121 Monterey, and outdoor dining at Mill House and restaurant patios NOTES:. a. The Apple Farm restaurant, 65 room motel and gift shop. Conditions of approval are attached (A96-84, Exhibit I) . Note that the findings conclude that the times of peak parking demand from the uses on the site will not coincide. b. Owner of the Apple Farm obtains controlling interest in The Franciscan Motel, now called Trellis Court; 34 rooms and parking for 58 cars. C. On July 7, 1989 approval granted for offsite parking for 24 additional cars on this site for use by the Apple Farm. Conditions of approval and parking summary attached (Exhibit II) . Note that the conditions allow the Apple Farm to provide up to 720 square feet of outdoor dining space at either the. patio next to the Mill House ("box lunches" or "to go" food only) or the patio next to the existing Apple Farm Restaurant. d. Total parking required for both sites computed separately and including previously approved mixed use reduction for 2015 Monterey Street granted in 1984 . e. Total parking for both sites computed collectively and excluding previously approved 20% mixed-use reduction (present application and subject of appeal) . (See Exhibit III) . 3- Draft REsolution No. 1 RESOLUTION NO. (1990 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE- PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO APPROVE A TWENTY PERCENT MIXED USE PARKING REDUCTION AT 2015 AND 2121 MONTEREY STREET (THE APPLE FARM) 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's request A164- 90, the appellants' statements, the Planning Commission's action, staff recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings: 1. The proposed 20% parking reduction is not likely to adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons visiting, living or working at the site or in the vicinity. A 2. The proposed 20% parking reduction is appropriate because the mix of uses on the site, namely motel and restaurant, results in a reduced peak parking demand for each use because a given parking space often serves patrons of both uses. SECTION 2. Conditions. The request for approval of a twenty percent mixed use parking reduction at 2015 and 2121 Monterey Street is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. A 20% reduction in required parking is hereby approved. A minimum of 168 vehicle parking spaces, 8 motorcycle spaces and 8 bicycle spaces (of which 2 spaces shall be lockable storage lockers) shall be available at 2015 and 2121 Monterey Street at all times for employees, customers and guests of the uses on site. 2 . Outdoor dining use at 2015 Monterey Street shall be limited to 640 square feet at the restaurant deck and 485 square feet at the Millhouse deck, as shown on attached Exhibits A and B. 3 . The following restrictions shall apply to the Millhouse 3-9 r� Resolution No. (1990 Series) A164-90 Page 2 dining deck: a. No alcoholic beverage service shall be allowed. b. No menu food services shall be allowed. Food service shall be "to go", "box" lunches or buffet style only, primarily serving groups. C. Hours of operation shall be 10:00 a.m. to 7 p.m. d. No outdoor music, live or recorded, or entertainment of any kind shall be allowed at any time. e. No cooking of food shall be done at the Millhouse. Food warming and incidental food preparation and serving may be allowed. • 4. Applicant shall submit an agreement to the city for review, approval and recordation indicating that use of outdoor deck dining shall cease under any one of the following conditions: a. When the Community Development Director determines that available parking is insufficient for the use; b. When the Community Development Director determines that outdoor deck dining use is contributing to a significant parking problem; or C. Upon the expiration or sooner termination of the off-site parking easement and agreement. The applicant shall further agree to notify the Community Development Director, in writing, if off-site parking is not available. 5. Use permit shall be reviewed in one year (January 1991) , and upon receipt of any reasonable citizen complaint, the Community Development Director shall schedule this use permit for review. At such review, the Director may add, delete., or modify use permit conditions, or may revoke the use permit. All property owners within 300 feet of the subject property shall be given written notice of any such review. 6. The property shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner. All plant materials, building exteriors and parking lot improvements shall be maintained, repaired or replaced as necessary. Resolution No. (1990, Series) A164-90 Page 3 7 . Approval of this use permit supersedes use permit A96-84 . 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 , 1990. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: i Y ~ Resolution No. (1990 Series) _ A164-90 Page 4 C inistrative Officer y for ey Community Development Director JL1:restrl82.wp \ (jam-� ��erf��``• ' 1 / y y v / / � I AET L N I lu K � A i (V ♦' 4 P -11 Poll • � W � O �i � r , J t 1 • •. �� Jir .1 !•f r1 i�J i• Y it /• • 7 a C • �♦ • CC 1 h, P v a ar { Draft REsolution No. 2 RESOLUTION NO. (1990 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL •OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION DENYING A. TWENTY PERCENT MIXED USE PARKING REDUCTION AT 2015 AND 2121 MONTEREY STREET (THE APPLE FARM) 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's request A164- 90, the appellants' statements, and the Planning Commission's action, staff recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following finding: 1. The proposed twenty percent mixed use reduction is not appropriate at the proposed location and will have an adverse impact on persons living and working in the vicinity. SECTION 2. The proposed twenty percent mixed use parking reduction at 2015 and 2121 Monterey Street, A164-90, 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 1989. C Mayor 3-�S } CResc '.ution No. (1990 Series) A164-90 Page 2 ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: City A inistrative Officer t t ne 7 7 Community Develop e t Director 3-!i � t •� • O may. :': '4�'O�p-V i .:O ciLLIt a N Jam. ::1;='•4'•: ::. :: : �:j:i , ••,s•;, •.t `r �•�c. ane = .:-,<' : •..::-.:.::. . ;, :.� 15 NLO SIA vN3ne to , . Cb /� 7 flb memo o ccl / `\ 0 W � N 19 s Ln i ' a An I F \ Q '�. a w U 4 � N v a� � \ m 7 ^.1 y m f+ � W1 > 4 �e//1 �u e��a4. u uf o[ sain LUIS ( Z500 IONICS •I#1M.'• IYIM..•A... - .• SMV-.I$*II . ....• . •. I. • ..1.. q^.'.H rain Mo remher 71. 11ON4 Exhibit 1 ;. Greg Wilhelm. AIA YR? ^_O• Strev. :an l.uts Oblsilo. CA 914A11 i tl1RJECT: use Permit ppl. A 96-64 1 2015 Monter STteet i Dear Mr. W11hels: ' I On rrtday. Now-bar 2. 1984. 1 conducted a public hearing on your request t•. allow a 202 reduction in required parking for mixed uses: to allow Off"nit.- parking at 2001 Mpaterey Street. to allow a temporary construction troller: and to allow a temporary parking !ot at the subject location. Alterreviewing the information presented. I took this item under submission. On November 17. 1964. 1 approved your request. based an the follrrwing finnitl.til. and subject totne following conditions: Findings 1. The proposed project and requested exceptions to develnpment standards wi!i not be detrimental to the hea Lth. safety. and welfare of persons livinx lar working at the site or in the vicinity. 2. The Class of peak parking demand for *misting and proposed uses will not coincide. 3. A parking roductivn wil! allow sore attractive and efficient development of the site than would otherwise be possible under cot.ventinnitl standards. 4. The proposed off-site parking is wt.thln 700-(*et of the uses served and allow for sale and convenient pedestrian access. S. The area of proposed off-site parking 'is under the exclusive control of the i 2014 Monterey Street property owner pursuant to a Grant of Exclusive Easement and Agreeasnt dated October 1. 1964. and recorded in (look 2641. Page 711. !r. the County of San Luis Oblspo. E� I Conditions ' 1. A minimum of 122 vehicle parking spaces shall be available at ali times for therestaursnt. motel. Outdoor dlning area. and gift •hop uses. A minimum of 111 spaces shall be located on-site at 2015 Monterey street. Eleven additional vehicle parking +pace■ may he located off-stet at 2001 Montecay Street. r • I i i 1 2013 Ilnntrtry Street � PRRe 2 1 I. The 201 parking reduction is approved. but knnditinnr:; upttn the availability shall i of adequate parking. use permit all the reviewed to one year after 1 Completion of the project . in review of the use permit.. conditlons may be added, deleted, or modified. I. Applicant shall submit an agreement to the city for approval and recordalton Indicating that use of outdoor deck dining shat, cease under any one of the following cotdltlon¢ When the Community Development Director determines that available parking is insufficient for the use: when th. Community Development Director determines that outdoor deck dining use is c[.ntributtng to a significant : parking problems or upon the expiration or sooner termination of the off-site parking easement and agreement. The applicant shall further agree to notify the Co®uaity Developmaat Director in writing if off-site perking is not available. 1. At all times during Construction,. a mintsium of AS vehicle parking spaces shall be available for restaurant use. Parking lot iwprovements say be temporary. After Mevesibor 17. 1963, permanent parking lot improvements. Including paving, striping and laadecaplag shall be installed. to the satis- faction of the Comamnity Development Director. S. Applicant shall repair and/or replace street frontage improvements including driveway ramp, sidewalk, curb and getter. to the approval of the hrbl:c Works Department staff. 6. Applicant shall install two fire hydrants and a standpipe/hose connection em-este, to the approval of the fire Ilersbal. 7. Applicant @bell post a Cash surety is an amount to bo determined by the Commonalty Development Director. and enter into as agreement with the city to Smaramtne tbs peesarvattetti of trees to resale em-site. Agreement shall be --' to the approval of the Cosmmulty Development Director. S. ApplleeK sball provide as independent, professional Cultural resource site survey prier to commnmceseat of grading. If evidence of cultural resource- are found or determined likely to be found, grading shall Cease laedlatei and all reseemable and feasible mmasures shall be taken to protect and pre serve cultural resources. to the satisfaction of cbe Community Development Director. 9. The property shall be maistalaed is a clean and orderly manner. All plant material• shall be maincsiaed and replaced as necessary. Ry decision is final unless appealed to the flasaing Commlselon by November So. 1961. An appeal may be filed by any person aggrieved by the decision. If .you have any questions, please call Jeff (look at 319-7171. Sincerely, 7-� Kan Bruce i_c� Meering Officer cc: Bob Davis KDtdra .7-0707) �rr u�� ���''' ��� ►iii CIty of SAn WIS OBISPO 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403.8100 July 7, 1989 Exhibit li M. Robert Davis 2015 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: Use Permit App CA 73-89 2121 Monterey Stree Dear Mr. Davis: On Friday, June 23, 1989, I conducted a public hearing on your request to allow off-site parking at 2121 Monterey Street for uses at 2015 Monterey Street. After reviewing the information presented, I took this item under submission. On Thursday, July 6, 1989, I approved your request, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1. The proposed off-site parking will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of persons residing or working on the site or in the vicinity. • 2. The uses are appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding land uses. 3 . The proposed uses conform to the general plan and meets zoning ordinance requirements. 4 . The proposed off-site parking is exempt from environmental review. 5. The proposed off-site parking is within 300 feet of the uses served, and allows for safe and convenient pedestrian access. 6. The site of the proposed off-site parking is controlled by the same owner as the other uses served. 3-21 Mr. M. Robert Davis July 7, 1989 O Page 2 Conditions 1. At least 58 vehicle parking spaces shall be available at 2121 Monterey Street for the proposed uses. Of these, at , least 34 spaces shall be maintained for the exclusive use of motel guests at 2121 Monterey Street, 12 spaces shall be available for the exclusive use of employees, customers or guests of the Apple Farm Inn and Restaurant and related uses at 2015 Monterey Street. Twelve additional parking spaces at 2121 Monterey Street may be used as offsite parking to serve. additional uses at 2015 Monterey Street. 2. Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to guarantee that said parking shall be available in perpetuity, and that if offsite parking becomes unavailable for any reason, the parking required for uses at 2015 Monterey Street shall otherwise be provided to meet city standards, or the uses modified to that parking requirements are met on site. The applicant shall agree to notify the Community Development Director in writing if the off-site parking is not available. Said agreement shall be recorded and shall run with the land and uses. 3 . Due to limited parking available, outdoor dining use at 2015 Monterey Street shall be limited to 720 isquare feet of gross floor area at either the millhouse dining deck or the restaurant dining deck, but not both. 4 . If the millhouse dining deck is used, the following restrictions shall apply: a. No alcoholic beverage service shall be allowed: b. No menu food services shall be allowed. Food service shall be "to go", "box" lunches or buffet style only, primarily serving groups. C. Hours of operation shall be 7:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. d. No outdoor music, live or recorded, or entertainment shall be allowed at any time. e. No cooking of food shall be done at the Hillhouse. Food warming and incidental food preparation and serving may be allowed. Y r Mr. M. Robert Davis July 7, 1989 Page 3 5. Upon receipt of any reasonable citizen 'complaint, the Community Development Director shall schedule this use permit for review. At such review, the Director may add, delete, or modify use permit conditions, or may revoke the use permit. All property owners within 300 feet of the subject property shall be given written notice of any such review. 6. The property shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner. All plant materials, building exteriors and parking lot improvements shall be maintained, repaired or replaced as necessary. My decision is final unless appealed to the Planning Commission within ten days of the action. An appeal may be filed by any person aggrieved by the decision. If the use or structure authorized by this use permit is not established within one year of the date of approval or such longer time as may be stipulated as a condition of approval, the use permit shall expire. See Municipal Code Section 17.58.070.D. for possible renewal. If you have any questions, please call Jeff Hook at 549-7176. Sincerely, 6L rclua � Ken Bruce Hearing Officer bee:ds/misc:a73-89 cc: San Luis Drive Neighbors 3-�3 Parking And Use Summary For Previously Approved Offsite Parking A73-89 Project Name Apple Farm/Trellis Court File Number A73-89 Project address 2121 and 2015 Monterey Street Pians Dated Caics Prepared by OM. Date 2/6/90 Zone C-T-S Parking Provided 168 USE: AREA: RATE: SPACES REQUIRED: The Apple Farm (2015 Monterey) Motel , Restaurant Parking required and Gift Shop per Use Permit A96=89: 122 Proposed Uses (2121 Monterey) Trellis Court 34 rooms 1 space/room 34 Banquet Room 317 sq.ft. 1 space/60 sq.ft. 5 TOTALS: 161 COMMENTS: o a a a a m a m m o m 6 U U U U mp °bo00o co 00 aa aRo s • 2.m m n 0 •N. Ia a to n n O o m6 .+•+•+n.+r m.+N m .[ r r N M N I E0 H P V O O ° m O O O E O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O OI O V e e ^. •V� V V N V.y N V.I.w�n44 .r ..V n �P•+.... P.• ° •� � 6np ..n• {1 a a a 0 0 W F 0 O p 0 M IL1 O � O ml Y L M r q nrylll O m �OOO e00q nOV.r.O, mn N v0 N 6as.. O..N tp n n ' X "q •j P 0 C Y 0 [w[.. tia a a m a u z o o s �.+^"n. O C Q w o o a c o 0 Y O Ol g ••. Y 61 Y L 7+. Y E Y v W CO O 00, Q0.ym 0 CO. y 701 2 w L C OtY99 Y qY Y'�pp O q B U P w pI Oo gu .\ 0 u U O a o a/W U O Y Y q c N Yg0) 00001••� 01000 11. aq .7 m LY 0O606nN 0 Ca.US 000 •=Co.2 m m 0 d 0 E4.. X 6 +°dab•. < pp 3 7 C F 4 E u CL Cl Ir R I N 6P � N+ E _ o • E E 8 I � / � �• 1 .. t i I • oa J � Gp n 1 r LO 'T Y ) ♦nnea L ,�( r 6 VPn \ I S J . VCG I A [ .V J.I.I •1 ' I F • t + Applicant's Statement � The full parking requirement for all proposed uses that were not in operation when the parking survey was taken July 21-27 CExhibit t1O including deck dining, patio dining and the con- ference room total 25 spaces with no reductions. The, only time we had this few free spaces was 9: 00 PH Sunday when the lower patio could not be In use by terms of our agreement and use of the conference room would be unlikely. We are also taking other measures that are not motivated by a shortage of parking, but will have the effect of reducing our parking requirements. I . We are now taking reservations for the restaurant at all times and are currently advertising this fact vigorously CExhibit E). This should reduce the number of people waiting which will free up spaces.. 2. We have purchased three 14 passenger shuttle buses which are being renovated for service begi.nning the first of the year. The primary purpose is to offer frequent free shuttle service to Cal Poly. This should reduce trips and encourage off peak use of our facilities. The shuttles will be available to pick up large parties at private homes for special dinner celebrations_ We are considering providing free transportation for residence complexes like .Judson Terrace, Las Brisas, mobile home parks and condominiums on a regular basis for a special night out for elders without transportation. Transportation to other motels 1s also possible. We believe that the use of these buses will enable us to expand the use of our facilities without increasing the parking 'requirement . We are confident that the surveys taken by the staff w111 be consistent with our own and will show that more than adequate parking exists to support the proposed uses . However, we remain willing to sign a document that states we will reduce uses if a problem develops. Since we are not asking for any treatment that Is not allowed by code, I believe we should be allowed the oppor- tunity to fully utilize our .facilities and solve problems if they occur rather than preventing the full use based on a conjecture that some problem might arise.. This proposition especially has merit , since the adequacy of parking has been shown to be adequate and sln� ctivlties can be curtailed if parking becomes a problem. APPLE FARM Appendix to Application Mixed Use Parking Reduction I believe the fol.lowing tabulation of total parking re— quired and provided .for parcels 1 & 2 (See Exhibit A) is a. clear way of analyzing the entire Apple Farm complex: Apple Farm Parcel 1 6 2 Parking Summary 11/25/89 REQUIRED: New Uses Deck Dining: Customer Use 640 @ 60 10.7 Food Prep 160 @ 100 1 .6 Lower Patio Dining: Customer Use 485 @ 60 8 . 1 Trellis Court Rooms 34 @ 1 34 Conference 300 @ 60 5 59. 4 Total Required 59 Mixed Use Reduction (20%) 12 Net Required 47 / Old Uses Restaurant, Gift Shop, Inn and M u lhouse (Agreement of 5/.9/88 -less 1 space -fer room -converted to . office,. Total -Required 168 PROVIDED: Parcel 1 S8 Parcel 2 110 168 _ 3_J� TIME DAY \ DATE t O �.� SPACES AVAIC,r-• rn MAIN LOT COURT r = � O �r \ C\ 0 — 3 R-0 Exhibit IV APPLE FARM PARKING SURVEY JULY 21-27. 1989 DAY TIME FREE SPACES WAITING/GIFT ROOMS OCCU"" MAIN BLDG FRI 7:00 PH 40 107 100 8:00 PH 69 81 100 9: 00 PH 59 38 100 11 : 00 PH 77 0 100 SAT 9:00 AH 34. 88 100 i 10: 00 AH 53 56 100 12: 00 PH 70 60 100 i 1: 00 PH 67 74 100 4: 00 PH 98 21 :100 6: 00 PM 56 38 100 8 :00. PH 58 77 100 SUN 11 :00 AH 38• 98 100 12:00 PH 36- 126 100 1 : 00 PH 62- 57 92 7:00 PH 65 71 92 9:00 PH 25' 86 92 ' TUE 12: 30 PH 72- 17 100 THR 8: 00 PH 99• 16 lOG Exhibit V APPLE FARM PARKING SURVEY DECEMBER 15-30, 1989 FREE DAY TIME SPACES OCCUPANCY (OUT OF 100 ROOMS) WED 11-00 AM 23 12/13 1:00 PM 93 4:30 PM 108 7:30 PM 54 TTiU 11:00 AM 43 12/14 LOD PM 64 4:30 PM 111 7:30 PM .27 FRI 11:00 AM 65 12/15 1:00 PM 87 4:30 PM 121 7:30 PM 44 MON 11.00 AM 73 42 12/18 1:00 PM 80 4:30 PM 99 7:30 PM 37 TUE 11:00 AM 56 56 12/19 1:00 PM 94 4:30 PM 72 7:30 PM 63 WED 11:00 AM 67 58 12/20 1:00 PM 76 4:30 PM 103 7:30 PM 92 TTtU 11:00 AM 89 56 12/21 1:00 PM 110 4:30 PM 98 7:30 PM 102 TUE 11:00 AM 24 100 12/26 1:00 PM 44 4:30 PM 38 7:30 PM 27 wED 11:00 AM 22 100 12/27 1:00 PM 36 4:30 PM 28 7:30 PM 33 THU 11:00 AM 44 99 12/28 1:00 PM 21 �l 3s�V San Luis Drive Appellant Statement � San Luis Drive Residence % 1950 San Luis Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 March 23 , 1990 City Councilmembers 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Councilmembers; We, the undersigned, are hereby appealing the Planning Commission decision of March 14 , 1990 which upholds use Permit A 164-89. This mixed use reduction of parking to allow additional deck dining on the site needs your review, considering these facts: 1. Inaccurate parking calculations were presented to both the Zoning Hearing Officer and the Planning Commissioners. we request that accurate parking calcullations be submitted to you which conform to the City Parking Ordinance, allowing for no discretionary alterations. 2 The applicant does not own the parcel at 2121 Monterey St. which he intends to combine with his own parcel at 2015 Monterey, though he does hold a lease option to buy. A lease/ option on the adjacent parcel should not be considered a viable option. This project sets a precedent for development in this highly competitive commercial tourist area. ,If concessions are granted to this project, you must be prepared for the consequences of granting the same for all. Our goal is not to deny the applicant his right to earn a profit but to limit the activities to those areas which have the least impact on the R-1 homes adjoining the project. Therefore, we propose that the Mill House dining patio, which has not been fully utilized to date, be sacrificed in favor of the restaurant deck dining. Since this is a matter of grave concern to several of the undersigned we request that this come before the Council at your earliest convenience, with the exception of Tuesday, April 9th and Tuesday April 23 , 1990. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, R C C EI V E G MAR 2 � 1990 CITY CLERK SAr\l.UtS 081S'0.CA CG; ��6 �aytC / 1895 Monts 3y Street Appellant 5` tement LAW OFFICES _ MILLER & WALTER f ER C.MILLER• Cable Addreff A DennenhlD Mrcluding Rdefvensl Corporerrenf .UAM S. WALTER' DRODLAW I °F REY EIIRUCII 679 MONTEREY STREET I RA WIfYn SAN LUIS OBISPO.CALIFORNIA 93401 Telefax ofefvonel Corporation TELFPIIONE(805)5416601 (805)5415766 March 23 , 1990 To the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93403 Re: Appeal by Robert Binkele of March 14 ; 1990 Decision by City Planning Department on . File No. A164-89 STATEMENT OF APPEAL BY APPELLANT ROBERT BINKELE .Appellant Robert Binkele respectfully appeals the March 14 , 1990 decision of the City Planning Commission regarding file No. A164-89 , a use permit permitting a 20% mixed use parking reduction at 2015 and 2121 Monterey Street (the Apple Farm) . Appellant Binkele owns and operates a motel and coffee shop located at 1895 Monterey Street in San Luis Obispo: The basis for this appeal is twofold: 1 . Condition 1 of the Planning Commission's decision is requires the Applicant to provide a minimum of 168 vehicle parking spaces, 8 motorcycle spaces , and 8 bicycle spaces at all times for "employees, customers and guests" of the uses on site. The Commission found, based upon parking studies conducted by the. Applicant, and the planning staff , that this number would be sufficient, based upon a current excess of parking spaces on site. However, Appellant believes, based upon discussions with employees of the Apple ?an, that it is Apple Pan policy not to permit its employees to park on site. Hence, the parking studies relied upon actually understate the current availability of on-site parking. If the Applicant is required to comply with the mandate of condition 1 and permit its employees to park on site, then there will not be adequate parking for customers and guests. i 2 . Appellant is concerned that approval of the Application will exacerbate existing parking problems in the upper Monterey Street area . The Staff Report to the Planning Commission acknowledges at p. 3 that "On-street parking is heavily used in the area, although surveys by staff indicate on- street parking is available along Monterey Street at a variety of City Council of City of San Luis Obispo March 23 , 1990 page 2 times during the day and week. " What is admitted, but unsaid, is that on-street parking is unavailable along Monterey Street at other times during the day and week. It is Appellant's experience that on-street parking on upper Monterey Street is often unavailable, and is almost always difficult to locate. The .parking situation has become severe enough that the City has sent correspondence to the Appellant indicating that it was considering putting parking meters along Monterey Street. The staff report appears to understate the current parking problems. The expansion of Applicant's business cannot have any effect other than to worsen the current situation. If parking is restricted along Monterey Street, or is unavailable, then customers and employees will begin to park along residential side streets. As this occurs, neighborhood groups will protest, and ultimately the City will enact a restrictive ordinance regarding on-site parking that will limit other businesses along upper Monterey Street from expanding in the same manner as the Applicant. This scenario has already played out in a similar context. The Applicant was permitted tosexpand its operation to build a building along San Luis creek. The increased use prompted neighborhood groups to protest, and ultimately resulted in a rezoning of the area along the creek to "Open Space. " As a result, Appellant, who also operates a motel and coffee shop, is prohibited from expanding his businesses a manner similar to the Apple Farm's expansion. Unless the City is prepared to grant similar applications from other businesses along Monterey Street in the future, fairness requires that the Application should be denied. Dated: March 23 , 1990 Respectfully submitted, MILLER & WALTER By Ja effr y Ehrlich � . Atto treys for Robert Binkele ,3-�33 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING - MINUTES FRIDAY JANUARY 5, 1990 2015 and 2121 Monterey Street. Use Permit Appl. A 164-89; Request to allow 20% parking reduction based on mixed use; C-T-S zone; Apple Farm Restaurant, applicant. (Continued from December 15, 1989) Dave Moran presented the staff report. He explained that the Zoning Regulations allow for a maximum 20$ reduction in the required parking for a site, when it can be demonstrated that the uses on the site have peak parking demand characteristics that don't overlap. In this particular case, he noted, the request is being made to allow dining on the deck next to the Apple Farm Restaurant. This request is being justified by the fact that often people who stay at the motel, eat at the restaurant and are patrons of the other uses on the site. Therefore, one parking space would serve more than one use on the site. Mr. Moran then explained that a parking survey for the site during peak hours of the motel and restaurant has been submitted by the applicant, showing that there is parking available even during peak hours of operation. To verify this information, the Community Development Department. also did a parking survey of the site and came to the identical conclusion. He further noted that even during 100% occupancy of both motels and during peak hours at the restaurant, there are still many vacant parking spaces. Based on this date, Mr. Moran recommended that the reduction request be approved, based on findings and subject to conditions which he outlined. The public hearing was opened. Bob Davis, applicant, spoke in support of the request. He had no problems with the staff-recommended conditions. Bonnie Garritano, 1950 San Luis Drive, wondered if the city was comfortable with the reduced parking, and asked about a previous request for reduced parking for the Millhouse. Bob Davis explained that the motel, the Millhouse and restaurant are all on one site. Ken Bruce noted that this approval would supersede the previous approval; that this request is for a larger percentage of reduction than the previous request. He explained the request is to allow outside dining at the restaurant. The total parking requirement for the site is 212 ; so they are asking for 20% off of that amount. The public hearing was closed.. Ken Bruce took this item under submission. He explained that this means he has an addition 10 days to render a decision. He further explained that he felt uncomfortable with the request and felt that a parking problem could result if the reduction were granted. Page 2 On January 15, 1990, Ken Bruce approved the request, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1. The proposed 20% parking reduction is not likely to adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons visiting, living or working at the site or in the vicinity. 2. The proposed 20% parking reduction is appropriate because the mix of uses on the site, namely motel and restaurant, results in a reduced peak parking demand for each use because a given parking space often serves patrons of both uses. Conditions 1. A 20% reduction in required parking is hereby approved. A minimum of 168 vehicle parking spaces, 8 motorcycle spaces and 8 bicycle spaces (of which 2 spaces shall be lockable storage lockers) shall be available. at 2015 and 2121 Monterey Street at all times for employees, customers and guests of the uses on site. ;- 2 . Outdoor dining use at 2015 Monterey Street shall be limited to 640 square feet at the restaurant deck and 485 square feet at the Millhouse deck, as shown on attached Exhibits A and B. .3 . The following restrictions shall apply to the Millhouse dining deck: a. No alcoholic beverage service shall be allowed. b. No menu food services shall be allowed. Food service shall be "to go", "box" lunches or buffet style only, primarily serving groups. C. Hours of operation shall be 7:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. d. No outdoor music, live or recorded, or entertainment of any kind shall be allowed at any time. e. No cooking of food shall be done at the Millhouse. Food warming and incidental food preparation and serving may be allowed. 4 .. Applicant shall submit an agreement to the city for review, approval and recordation indicating that use of outdoor deck dining shall cease under any one of the following conditions: a. When the Community Development Director determines that available parking is insufficient for the use; 3-�3�' Page 3 b. When the Community Development Director determines that J outdoor deck dining use is contributing to a significant parking problem; or C. Upon the expiration or sooner termination of the off- site parking easement and agreement. The applicant shall further agree to notify the Community Development Director, in writing, if off-site parking is not available. 5. Use permit shall be reviewed in one year (January 1991) , and upon receipt of any reasonable citizen complaint, the Community Development Director shall schedule this use permit for review. At such review, the Director may add, delete, or modify use permit conditions, or may revoke the use permit. All property owners within 300 feet of the subject property shall be given written notice of any such review. 6. The property shall be maintained -in a neat and orderly manner. All plant materials, building exteriors and parking lot improvements shall be maintained, repaired or replaced as necessary. I VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION PLAN Nnv 2 1989 TRACT 1673, A COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 3440 SOUTH HIGUERA STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA L Requirement The preparation of this plan was required by the City of San Luis Obispo as a condition of approval of Use Permit 1430 for a commercial condominium subdivision (Tract 1673) at 3440 South Higuera Street. 2. Obiectives The objectives of this plan are to: A. Reduce the number of job-related automobile trips associated with commercial use of this site. B. Encourage site employees to use alternative forms of transportation, such as bicycles, transit and walking, or to carpool. } C. Incrementally improve air quality through the reduction of automobile use. D. Focus the responsibility for implementing this plan on an individual — the vehicle trip reduction 'Plan Coordinator." 3. Vehicle Trip Reduction 'Plan Coordinator" A. The "Plan Coordinator' shall be the President of the Property Owners . Association for Tract 1673. B. Upon formation of the Property Owners Association, the association shall inform the Community Development Director in writing of the name of the association's president, the association's legal name and mailing address.. This written notice shall initially be furnished within 60 days of the city's issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a tenant or owner within Tract 1673 and thereafter on an annual basis. C. Until such time as a Property Owners Association is formed, the Plan Coordinator shall be: Mr. John Kuden P.O. Box 3605 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 337 4. Plan Implementation The Following measures shall be implemented, directed and maintained by the Plan Coordinator: A. Posting of Information. In a prominent on-site location approved by the Community Development Director, install and maintain a permanent, protected lockable display case containing up to date information concerning transit schedules and route maps, transit pass information, bike route maps,.ride sharing information and computer ride matching services, and other information promoting alternative methods of transportation. The City of San Luis Obispo shall, upon request, make available to Plan Coordinator all information concerning dry-sponsored transportation programs. The Plan Coordinator will be responsible for securing pertinent information (eg. regional transit routes, ridesharing information) from county and regional agencies. B. Dissemination of Information Disseminate annually, information on trip reduction, ridesharing, transit, etc provided, upon request, by the city and county/regional agencies to each employer in the complex. The Plan Coordinator shall request that each employer distribute information to every new employee during the person's first week of employment. C. Secured Bicycle. Parking Facilities Install secured bicycle parking facilities on site for the use of project employees at no charge. The location and design of bicycle parking facilities shall be incorporated into the construction plans and specifications for the project, location to the approval of the Community Development Director. The Plan Coordinator shall ensure the maintenance and management of the use of all on-site bicycle parking facilities. D. Transit Subsidies Each employer will inform all employees that monthly city, regional or joint city/regional transit passes are available at reduced cost, made possible by employer subsidies. Upon presentation of a receipt for a monthly city, regional or joint city/regional bus pass, employers shall reimburse employees for 50% of the cost of monthly bus passes. E. Annual Survey, Respond to City of San Lois Obispo annual survey to determine the number of employees on site, their employers, home adc. primary means of transportation to work, and compliance with provisions plan. 4. Enforcement of Plan Provisions To assure the cooperation of each on-site employer or space owner in the implementation, maintenance, and operation of Tract 1673 Vehicle Trip Reduction Plan, the subdivider and the Property Owners Association shall incorporate language requiring such cooperation in the Tract 1673 codes. covenants, restrictions, and association by-laws. 5. Relationship to City-Wide Trip Reduction Program Upon adoption of Trip Reduction Regulations by the City of San Luis Obispo, this vehicle trip reduction plan shall be reviewed and amended/superseded as necessary to be consistent with the city-wide program. 6. Effective Date This vehicle trip reduction plan for Tract 1673 shall become effective and shall become the responsibility of the Plan Coordinator to effect, monitor. and enforce 60 days after the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for an individual tenant or owner within this minor complex. APPROVED TO FORM AND CONTENT. Randi Rossi, Interim Comrttuniry Date Development Director 17 -Sy Jo Kuden, Subdivider, Tract 1673 Date 34 _ South Higuera Street. San Luis Obispo, California 3-39 l i i Ali nnae may the operating times of the concerned uses and where the Commercial and governmental agency ante exceed the height limits for the zone in which they are concerned parties have adequate recorded agreement located if such an exception is approved by the director. governing the joint parking. ires pt as otherwise Any other exception to the theight limits erelg7 60 cep providedtin hese regulaatirements by eons,for every of Use. structure ruct re erected proval of a variance as prove P or enlarged and for any land or structure devoted to a chedule For height limits of signs,see Chapter 15.40.Sign Regu- new use requiring moron.. there shalfbe p�provided he lations. (Ord. 1085 - 1 Ex.A(part), 1987;Ord. 1006- 1 set out in this subsection, numberofoff-streetparkingspares (part), 1984; Ord. 941 - 1 (part), 1982: prior code - indicated minimum located on the site of the use- 9202.5(E)) The right to occupy and use any premises shall be contin- 17.16.050 Fences,walls and hedges. gent on maintaining the required parkin& In no case Fences,walls or hedges in placed within required may required parking spaces for a use be rented or leased yards,provided: to off-site uses or used for other purposes. The parkinrequirement is based on the gross floor A.'Me maximum height in any street yard shall be as areae area of the entire rue,unless stated otherwise. shown in Figure 9; B.The maximum height in any other yard shall be six 2.When the calculation of required panting results in a fractional number,it shaft be rounded to the nest highest feet; whole number if the fraction is one-half or more;other- C.Where fences or walls are located on retaining walls, wise it shall be rounded down to the ne=t lowest whole the height of the retaining wail shall be considered as number. part of the overall height of the fence or wall; Parking in addition to these requirements may be re- D.The director may giant exceptions to these standards quired as a condition of use permit approval by approving an administrative use permit subject to a finding that no public purpose would be served by strict For residential uses.when panting spaces are identified compliance with these standards. (0;0.1006- l (part), for the exclusive use of occupants ora designated dwell- compliance ndar riot code-9202.5(F))- Irt), ing.required spaces may be arranged in tandem(that is, 1984;Ord.941 - 1 (pa ), Pone space behind the other)subject to approval of the L7.16.060 Parking space requirements. community development director. A.Intent.'ibis section is intended toetuure provision of Housing occupied exclusively by persons aged sixty-two adequate off-street parking,considering the demands or ceder r four occupants of a group quarters.mav provide one-half space tt or one likely to result from various cues.combinations of uses, P Pe and settings. It is the citys intent, where possible, to consolidate parking and to minimize the area devoted exclusively to parking and drives when typical demands may be satisfied more efficiently by shared facilities. B. Mixed Uses. where more than one type of use is located on a lot or within a project with common parking areas, the parking requirements for individual uses as provided in subsection D of this section,except that by approval of an adminuse e permit the director may reduce the total parkingspace requirement by up to twenty percent when the times of marimum parking demand from various uses will not coincide. C. Joint Use. For separate parcels or independently planned projects, the director may, by approving an administrative use permit,authorize joint use of parking spaces when he determines there is limited conflict in �IIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�I �IIIIIIIIIII ililill III IA- city of san lois oaspo 10119=1 ffi-0191 955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 MEETINU AUENDA April 24, 1990 DATE 5' o ITEM # *-*ft' MEMORANDUM TO: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer FROM: David F. Romero, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Letter Received April 13 . 1990 from Robert E. Alberti Regarding Problems on Upper Monterey Street Doctor Alberti makes a number of statements which presumably will be considered at the May 1 hearing regarding the Apple Farm. request. I believe response to Dr. Alberti 's comments are appropriate. My response will be in the order in which they were presented in the letter, however, I will respond only to those items to which the Public Works Department has direct involvement. 1. "Heavy -high-speed commuter traffic flow in late morning and late afternoon". Our traffic counts on Monterey, west of Grand, taken March 1988 (Exhibit A) show a total of 15,711 cars per day on this portion of Monterey Street. This is relatively heavy congestion. Peak hour in the morning for eastbound traffic is 11-12 a.m. and for westbound traffic is at 8-9 a.m. Peak hour for evening traffic is 5:15-6:15 p.m. for eastbound and 3:45-4:45 p.m. for westbound. This is not a typical commuter pattern. This corridor has relatively heavy flow from 8:00 a.m to 6:00 p.m. Our vehicle speed survey taken March 14 (Exhibit B) shows an average speed of 28 mph, a critical speed (85% of the vehicles are traveling below this speed) of 32 mph, and a pace speed of 24-34 mph (79% of vehicles are traveling in the pace) . This is excellent for a commercial street in downtown. Not too fast and not too slow. Denotes action by Lead Person Respond by: RECEIVE ® C?-Council _ RECEIVED ,42'CAO � E/Ci y Any. -Fi-L�C APR 2 S 1990 21/Clerk-orig. 021.b ROMERO CITY CLERK A. 00A0 ' SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA y(,�fMp�gN • 3-� l Upper Monterey Street Page Two \\ 2. "Turn lanes are confusing" . J The turn lanes we have striped in this area are in exact accordance with Caltrans requirements. Enclosed is a page from the traffic manual and an aerial photograph taken several years ago and before the two way turn arrows were painted on the street (Exhibit C) . It is not appropriate to place signs on the streets to explain to the public how State standard traffic striping is to function. 3. "Apple Farm employees parking on the street". In response to continuing complaints regarding. the need for short time parking in upper Monterey, we have sent a letter to business owners indicating that we will soon be installing two hour parking on Monterey, between Grand and Buena Vista (Exhibit D) . This should be placed into effect within the next couple of weeks. 4. "Failure of the City and Caltrans to adequately control traffic on offramps from 101". If this is true, this is a Caltrans problem. The Apple Farm has hired Mr. Skyles, a traffic consultant, to review this in connection with their expansion. 5. "Visibility impeded by City sign and landscaping at Garfield and Monterey". This sign and a very attractive conifer tree do restrict visibility, however, not to the extent that there is a hazard to a motorist wishing to turn left from Garfield to Monterey. We do not believe there is a safety hazard and do not feel that further action is needed. 6. "Signal at Monterey and Grand Avenue actuated unnecessarily by right turn traffic". The right lane of the southeast bound traffic on Grand at Monterey may either go straight ahead toward the Monday Club or turn right to go down Monterey Street (Exhibit E,) . The traffic loop at this location must allow for the straight ahead movement, however, we have a built-in delay for that movement after a signal call to avoid the very problem pointed out in the letter. Most right -turn traffic pulls up to the intersection and turns right without activating the signal. 3�f� Upper Monterey Page Three 7. "The City should commission a careful study of traffic in this area". In the fall of 1984, the City hired Gerald Skyles, traffic consultant, to prepare a report on traffic in the area. His conclusions are attached (Exhibit F) . This served as the basis for a reactivation of our plan line study for Monterey Street. We hired Sanchez Talarco Associates, who presented an exhaustive environmental impactreport in the spring of 1986. When the Council considered this report they determined that they would not adopt a plan line at this time, despite the conclusions in the report that all negative affects could be mitigated. Council determined instead that we should await the results of the major circulation element study now underway. We have had plan line studies completed for upper Monterey for approximately 25 years, as we observe this traffic continue to increase. Contrary to Dr. Alberti's letter, we have spent and continue to spend considerable time and effort in attempting to resolve problems in upper Monterey Street. Attachments: Exhibits A-F uprmont/dfr#21 3- T� 71 15 T -.7 1; 7 j. 7 2 13 ll� F2 12 1.4 :7 21 '171 6, A!,! S,n lu'(- 7 izL. 1 :.'.Cl 7:2 5 7C., L 7 c"- -1 If, -21 1. C2:-1 . 71 1<E, 131 1 1 L 526 n,y: 21 i it. 121 11 E 506 6-,t-17 �4 J:-vo il ,_!., i 1 11 141 1614 i-.1!-; k.11 At-*, ii 4E i Ll-- ..7, ? - C.C.1 "0 i( .0. .0 ir-4 Y-;46-l'.' w'-,e IV: c A S7 US 177 156, A* )( 4!y ***4,-Mal-X 4 4. —1 r.,7 .1.f 7 r':crl +-r.ll...4,4!-Y,-4-t-]o *Y-�w rr 70 ME 172 150 643 71 i...J, 1.2 f I 7 !7-1-4. 2.,::; l S-11 Lf 412 -17 71 2-7 S 7! A_.. r3 A!l -7 BEGAN: n7 12 W ONI WMARSDpy MARM 1 91 TO EF, T.; Y-- -7 APPPOVED mv, PAEO �Z- 1 7 2:� 7C- C."-T 4 :;.x..#... f -0-*4�* .'4 r7^ IX i%+ k.-4 4(.+7 Y. j-, :77 F 97 Iq 4. 56 4L.7 -7C ILI I -7,-;, T L C. fR Fl E"J"EATED pppAPPROVEZ) F "LEi, �17 3 ------ L=J. SPETC:iA! Ec A -z i NUMBER OF • • • i5 20 25 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■_ONE m■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■_ONE m■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■teNON mFAR►-■►: �■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■EM A m0►R,►_� FOR►0►OHM■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■I - . ®0154►=4=44VWWau:�i�l0OWN Now■■■■■■■■■■■■IWNW- OJ NOW NNO IN 0■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■®MEN IN MEN■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■INEN ONE IN ®■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■INEN® 0■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■MEN!NON G - �� �S'�w' 13 ��.!`�^`�' -i�i"VeS�r .{+fie•�%n``n--+ 1.: . ,t",,,�,�y.�r! ter � C +R•r � .."-s Y''Y" h A'x.`�. s. "'J_.. +.,.•,-r .i'±b;Z'�f';s= Ake v%'u^ 1� ,� Y ': hr;{ct -' S•�2r .M1 [ R'`lrr,0 J4'�y A4""� Y, i`j� �. ..+L. • ...� ?t 4.r. ace A�••d �`'r ,+Y:- +NY`"''�'�"*•`�`. �^"'' !2'Y.. t `rf'�G' .Y.ex w'�Ym'' ''� ti� �� JJ•FY'" D,�.— �,. _ z� ��il"yc�_ar a `o"� ��,�r� �T)�s'�' a'Cd%�• ;2V -�-�. _ six ,.3,t a s r.-sXAd"'^'."h*f i ��-' *.n f +ro •a� `.r..r ��'„ :. y tin r Z� S ah L�+ xrJ�'y..`+Y���� i 7 h�C-•k',�[.�t� vJ�'y p�� .� -# �� '���+ .: ��~����G o ... a'L t ppc r:��..�.a� .y� •`N�1` � +ir-.s3'.�'a. -c r 1. '� w � r � �!?` In �±T}T• {'S ��i .0-`.w•'y Sy 1 ywr-"':�Yh r .A ,�.... y.�..3�+�,�n��[�.!X{t�'Gr.z �....t+�S.�T.r<�.�"•.`��!Fne,N. ^j'n'���=^'}z' ry-a.=r:St^�� 'c.n.��..r 1 1 }✓Y�hY��.'bra.:rp g—mm�'.'f lr �r f Lm-- 1� �T .J'1� T`�.VL..C.:. •�lW R }vA e'YS`,.+3t•`n aa��t3�G' z1 '�+• '�� "'n i r.�a.�. hA��...(„A�l�Y...s'7�^ +�.c��f 5 �.�,,ys �h+ �. . ..3iy'.". e +.. is C.'K-vN e.•er< t�"� fi '� ...!;5_FF.+ Yom`• ON-9—MS`e <+`.-N ,.p,. ' �4rv'lt r nth` `•s T'J�M,ys ' {!r y" Rim n- _,Y. �.� ,.. r - tKc h'rr'i� i "' C ` v "•�._ ..- L pg 0A,�.•� '..�+�, � .4C�c-^a�'.'� ` �.• ..`.. r� � .`'. f+ r 1. K .,a 'r n"^ a Vic. �•S+:_ res- �....1 ��' .� ,�,J N'`,.•lift �p�,7-7,7E; - r 4.�.y�:hy�tt�%l'.+ l 'iL"� rte"' .wok •. s.,�}. , 1` � e� y� -'2'+T'�»' e t iM a..�� y "?-ell.S} .31 ; �Hv y'+n'�� ri•^".�.�T xY 't.n_�'. � a`..: r.2 ah'u4S. �yyul a `Y F5 _ �!�G�. ___��... r � �-:� C^"."� .Sa •-. y�✓e F_�.e '4 .+J.ri 'S±µ �rrr Gam. ",.�,�t +' ',.�"�?T• �.� M. T r...[ T�r3iT.�5i-1�J�".¢"�..'^2� T"Yy� ' +ay+_ !Y, w Y � f�r y � T G 1 3 7Tr , r u' �� Yf IA.•'t)r'�'� �r.l. 1 a L rvji .ts I'n V Jv,, ^✓may ' t I lw a, 1 t ■ ro > 1 Y , C? I it LF 'h 4 f. U March 4, 1990 BUSINESS OWNERS: It has been called to our attention by one of the Business Owners on your block that there is an increasing need for more short term parking in your area. As a result the City is considering installing two hour parking on Monterey between Grand and Buena Vista. We would appreciate hearing from you regarding this change. Please contact Christine Cornejo at 549-1216 within the next two weeks. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, WAYNE A. PETERSON CITY ENGINEER Christine Cornejo Engineering Technician/Traffic bl/Busownitr csc j mmmmmsmmee©eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeo, a�m���s�r�eueeeeeeueeueeemc� •• ►aa�tmmmmmmmmeu7mn aomuououuct atmmmmmmmmuueeuemeemeeoo omen, a®u_IMME©so::::: ::::::00::ooaUNoon= a®mammmmm am©c�■so■cuuuuuun, c t�mmmmmomouuoum■■■■■■soma ®ctmmcimmommuuu■u em ue�occu[t ummmmmmmmuommms■om■s■s■ommm, � . comcilownsommom r.memmmmom■o■■■m■■■su■■■■uon NOW®al mmsmmmo�iiiii:Nmmaiiiiimunwm= ®emmmom�mmnuuSameecaeoe��•un, aammmmmmom■■■oou■uu■■■■■mo e:■me�mLa©m mmeeuuuueceeeeecun, ®aammmmmmmc�ouuuuuuudo© � ■-tmmmmmmomoo■o0o■omuuomo ®a■mmmtammmmue■■ueeuuc 001" W wmmmm mmmmmmmmmeeuouoem rommmm mmomousu■um■se eumsmu a®a�mommc�mmmuouooecseo■�_uct aammmmmmmmoo0ommoeseeeueem, ■ evmmmmmmomuseesuuou■uumo r■mo c�mmmuuuuuecuoee,.em-i �� � Is ............. ul� ®ii�ia�oaovssamismviii�aiiii�■o, • Sam NONE � � m■mmOmG7immmueeeeOUee�C/ODG UI"] � I, m o®■lmmmmmmClmee/et eeeeeee■ee■eee 0, m® mammmmmmmm■■mmusm0mmm■sooa vtmmmmmmmmmm■mm■omuuuuumm, mammmmmmomuououuooucmci � _ Mill,11101122:11111 TZI IIII _ I -i p ■ 1 - HOME M 011ie 3 • AL �E�, rt � ��•� t� Sk:.ts, 48 1tr1� S/$y CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Monterey Santa Rosa Street and Buena Vista Avenue to provide an additional traffic lane in each direction. Widening should be 'completed by 1995 and earlier widening would be desirable because of the poor operating conditions that occur with a single lane in each direction when volumes are high. 2. Traffic projections indicate that operating conditions at California Boulevard will be markedly degraded by addition of traffic expected to be generated by land use developments on Monterey Street. If continuous widening must be deferred beyond the time those development projects are completed, consideration should be given to interim widening at that intersection. 3. The short section adjacent to Buena Vista Avenue should be widened as early as possible to provide a more adequate merging section . It may be possible to accomplish that improvement in connection with additional development of the abutting property. 4. The future right of way width and location selected in the City's building _ setback line study appear to be satisfactory with minor alteration. It is recommended that the future roadway width be 64 feet between curbs, and that building setback lines be adopted., located 40 feet from the future street centerline. 5. It is recommended that the existing curb line be retained, with a 7-foot sidewalk width on an interim basis between the SPRR and California Boule- vard on the southeast side of the street, between Grove Street and Grand Avenue on the northwest side of the street, and between Grand Avenue and Buena Vista Avenue on the southeast side of the street. 6. It is recommended that further study be made of alternate future align- ments at Grand Avenue so as to select a location without severe changes in direction and with least adverse impact. 7. The planned access and circulation provisions for the proposed Quality Inn Suites Motel are satisfactory with the following changes: a. Driveway approaches on Monterey Street should be widened to 30 feet; one driveway should be relocated to increase the separation from Grove Street. C b. The portico in front of the budding should be repositioned to clear the recommended building setback line. r- - 3-s1 49 C. To provide clearance from the future curb line and off-street `. reservoir space, parking spaces adjacent to Monterey Street should be relocated. d. Unless the Fire Department recommends an emergency vehicle access connection to Higuera Street, a cul-de-sac or turn-around should be constructed. In either case, revision of the parking area will be required. 8. It is recommended that on-street parking on Monterey Street be prohibited between Santa Rosa Street and US101 for improved traffic safety, to reduce interference to through traffic, to alleviate turning movements at driveways, and to improve sight distances at driveways and side streets. t AGENDA !TIEM # C) WITHDRAWAL OF APPEAL To the City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palin Street San Luis Obispo, CA Re: Appeal of March 14, 1990 Decision by Planning Commission upholding Use Permit A 164-89. The undersigned hereby withdraws his appeal of the referenced action and consents to the upholding of Use Permit A 164-89. Date: CD C ' ert Binkele r lit-,notes accon by Lead?esu.. Respcno uv: i ✓Ccunrii i I�'✓Cn0 :/�.II F'Ft's•, , APR CITY COUNCIL SAN LUis oiiii>Po, CF -. Xis Dl f d Gf 9.3W/ . cps: he ti /v allow aw ease mhr�io e iAIZ� �sa���-9 ase J/ s ed -Ze �� of ,�ee� iev�IMwi,� �is�afe <.�,e� /9?Y- A2.C. C'_e�M�SSiGxei' a�s �1� 6mr5 ,le Lfe�t�iuR �eYelb���� s &d"eL �veL�•he,.c15 u�.�G r � � � S¢d �x�sn %��'l¢r r /S/41� ��C 4211�2s ✓ /� � '/' �l�i�llJ���d .J -zo WI-seuss 4�fAell ie-9 vjl�e �v�G�G .slims /r1i%Yeos� 05 .3 �a�C>/ugi� wry�►a �i.�o�s, or �4/ �d /fiefs, ins, e �D 11,./ eel1J/ A!/i zaz a ro oar�efo lwge. 1! IAP - � �f�r 6os�✓ � � � [A96- S .n4kr Me47S a. d�q yC4r. JJ Oe.7' i9,07� L F7-47M-r) .ZYiec' or /D�2L[ A7/%ld/ //1C1. d,� �ia�J S 40 //7;//ti Inde 2t eghti its, ax- /oar o� ui°idv /eY Gr1<��S �alrartles ltsh;d /A /JI<lCffix& lr.z Cees �ajpo' �bors Cea . /N�, �7lor- #&Ah l <) ,C6ars .s<�6•n,� /er�'� �eiL ?�c�s�,� �i,�rc #A 4�& o e h&f 7-lfl7h7I"� le /a./ Ifer �� �i ec tears s �0h 5 f eS o/dere e,Y71 a�✓/ !c Sa.c�c. v fL°/�1Jd/C11n/ V Lc��lc.G cdU1�Y, o�C11<' ofQ'l�jD,�a�c/ / � .Le�•er-�,�dn� �'n,1 �e v��«2h.� ��CG�i QdvisQS � �� . D� •f; /9��'-,!l " ,l-6orj ,f �'"nef� a{r�i�iex - �// i9�'- /y/ er dr �ii•zes :eell q / 30, ��� /�Iee� cdi•,�U 42ve�o�- Gr'01n �v2CgD/ha�7 ,�1�/'�hll -� �t�CICSS � /ylilC/•� j,Q, lvis� � � mar;� otd enietf �tu�G 23 IRof- 4�¢YP�dJOP,/" f /ylm4ej LV1444 /J/D h�:� �1'�lrKS ila/r� i �o- IAn..4�0 /i2af-rn 7o c�LIoUJ De-oS a � t «sem re�'u, ohJ VI-Ao reed6 dor/ �Jvm /990 - Al,�e �L6ers �,o irexss!� ✓ . Qdd��'%�ondi r�,�rs . �.� �' • /I1ar� �3, /9ya- •�/2!lj'1'��S G,O�Qea-L � o� C-rys�// JU J (``�-�G( IIIJ �✓ � ,�� �-•.oil" � /tri �D:���7� iEE NG' AGENDA Ara r•' DATE -/-90 ITEM # 1.94.1 Monterey Street San. Luis Obispo, California 93401 April 12, 1990 DECEIVE ® Members of the City Council APR 1 3 1990 City of San Luis Obispo Post Office Box 8100 cRYCLMK San Luis Obispo, California 93403 SAN LUIS OBWO.CA RE: Apple Farm Parking Reduction Application -- File # A164-89 If there is still time for consideration of the subject item, I urge your attention to the issues noted below. I submit that any reduction in parking requirements will exacerbate an increasing traffic problem on north Monterey Street. The problem is more significant than may be apparent from City Hall. Here are some contributing factors: • Continued expansion of motels, restaurants, and retail shops in the area; • Heavy high-speed commuter traffic flow in morning and late afternoon; • Tourist (and resident) confusion with the "turn lanes" (the lines of which are painted identically with "do not pass" lines on the state' s highways, thus many folks will not use the lane; there are no signs explaining their purpose) ; • Apple Farm employee parking on the street; • Heavy pedestrian traffic across Monterey Street between motels and restaurants (not to mention the high school track teams) ; • Slow vehicles inhibiting traffic flow (e.g. horsedrawn carriage, shuttle bus, tourists looking for motel vacancies and restaurants) ; a Failure of the City and CalTrans to adequately control traffic at the northbound and southbound offramps of U.S. 101 (e.g. , informational signs, ramp speed, intersecting access at Monterey Street/Garfield Street/Loomis Street/Buena Vista Avenue/ overcrossing) ; • Visibility impeded by the City' s sign and landscape median at Garfield and Monterey Streets (opposite the Apple Farm drive) ; • Signal at Monterey Street and Grand Avenue actuated unnecessarily by traffic from Cal Poly turning right (southwest) onto Monterey Street, thus inhibiting flow on Monterey. r�oRGe��E� 777 Xic6r dlr�<C'4cre- Alberti to City Council April 1Z 1990 The City should commission a careful study of traffic in this area before approving this or any other reduction of' off-street parking. Despite the City' s occasional expressions of concern about the "Monterey Street Corridor, " there is no evidence that actual attention has been paid to the problems of traffic flow and parking at this end of town. (Come up and spend a day looking out the window of my office! ) In fairness to the Applicant, I regret submitting an intervention on the matter at this late date, ,but I was out of town and unable to attend public hearings regarding this item. Please consider this matter with public safety as your primary consideration. I acknowledge my own lack of objectivity. I have lived in this area of San Luis Obispo for over 20 years, and have occupied an office with a window on north Monterey Street for 12. Moreover, I am still smarting 'from the way the Council handled the Monterey Street rezoning last year. Please study the needs of this area of the City more thoroughly this time. g y, . Alb rt ' , Ph.D.