Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-02-2015 PH2 Johnson, CarloniCouncil Memorandum rtt r � �i•� Date: TO: FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council Derek Johnson, Community Development Director Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner Katie Lichtig, City Manager �� -4A.-\ COUNCILI " "t1NG: —I 6 ITEM NO.: �1 a,,. FSf it) MAY 2 6 2015 Item PH2 – Appeal of ARC Design Approval for 323 -353 Grand Avenue Attached are public correspondences related to this subject appeal for the following meetings: Planning Commission - August 14, 2013 Architectural Review Commission – January 21, 2015 Architectural Review Commission – April 6, 2015 Public Correspondence Architectural Review Commission April 6, 2015 RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO From: adrianarch@aol,com [mallto:adrianarch @ aol,com] APR - 3 2015 Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 12:20 PM To: Carloni, Marcus Subject: Proposed 323/353 Grand Ave four units COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ARC, I am opposed to the proposed four unit residential project at 323/353 Grand Ave. Proposed houses will exceed the average mean home size of 1680 s.f. /8300 s.f, lot size. Deny this project,..the size, scale and mass are not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Sincerely, George Adrian, Sr Community Development Department Date: DL-- —( Distribute by: , To: ® Planning Commissioners ARC Commissioners C3 CHC Committee Members Asst. City Attorney Doug Davidson © Kim Murry l�u�'cr �� r��,r'• odginai to: From: Kenneth Schwartz <kschwartz25 @gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 4:36 PM To: Carloni, Marcus Subject: Request for reduced lot sizes in R -1 zone @ 323 & 353 Grand Ave. Please forward the following message to members of the Architectural Review Commission as well as associated members of City Planning staff: Dear ARC members: I wish to register my very strong objections to the developer's request to reduce lots sizes on his proposed subdivision of 323 & 353 Grand Ave. I simply ask your commission to understand the meaning of the word, "minimum." It has become apparent that members of the development community and some City staff have forgotten the meaning of the word. The City's planning regulations use the word meaningfully. Minimum does not meat optimum or average, minimum means minimum. I would like to see your Commission hold to minimum standards. As an architect - planner I know that we can design homes on smaller parcels of land. In fact, our zoning ordinance recognizes these opportunities in, say, our R -3 and R -4 zones in which more housing units per acre are permitted. So, we are not engaged here in a contest to see how many housing units can be "packaged" in a particular parcel of land. No, we (you) are engaged in a processes of determining the architectural design compatibility of a group of houses arranged on plots of land in a neighborhood all with the same density standards. I hope you understand the difference. Somehow this simple understanding of basic Community Planning standards seems to have been lost in recent times. I hope your commission has the backbone to bring these standards and basic planning principles back in line. If this developer is interested in building more dense housing, he should be encouraged to purchase properly zoned land for that purpose. We should not be seeking silly justifications to increase housing densities in those parts of our community that have long been zoned for single family use. I have designed my own home (and others) in R -1 zones without seeking to alter the single family character of those neighborhoods. I have lived in this particular neighborhood for over 50 years; I am not interested in seeing its character changed by insensitive land developers or by City staff or ARC members who do not understand the meaning of the word "minimum." Please carry out your responsibilities accordingly. Thank you, (signed) Kenneth E. Schwartz, FAIA San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 To: Building and Planning Dept. ARC Planning Commission SLO City Council Dear Staff and Members of Council and Commissions: As I contemplate my letter in support of residents in Monterey Heights who are desperately trying to hold on to some aspect of "neighborhood ", "normal, "residential ". "traditional ", "conforming" "compatible ", I wonder if representation of residents isn't missing. Why is it missing? Who is it among you who does not value residents? We need your help to give us any hope that the damage caused by lack of dorms on the Cal Poly campus (and the subsequent horde of investors filling houses to the brim with college -aged students) can, one day, be reversed. Monterey Heights and Alta Vista, as well as other neighborhoods, pray for the day their area will see couples and families, both workforce and professional, return to available housing stock. As you know, many have already given up hope and moved. I ask you, the combined body of representatives of this once -sweet town, could you possibly give the remaining residents in impacted areas a thread of hope? 1 of 2 From inception, as you review plan submittals, please think of us as real people who live in real houses in real neighborhoods in the city you are elected, hired and appointed to represent. Plans for structures in San Luis Obispo's existing neighborhoods need not be an exercise in the latest and greatest planning idea from some school or school of thought: The concept of "infill" may work in some areas of some cities. Using it in beleaguered neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo that are already "filled in" adds to the destabilization of neighborhoods. There are guidelines. If a plan does not meet the guidelines, please do not consider exceptions just because you can. It does not seem that long ago that 6,000 sq. ft. lots were allowed. Now, at 323/353 Grand Ave., you seek to grant an exception for even smaller lots? With much larger structures? AND a larger percentage of living space to land ratio? WHY? Are we left to think that reason does not reign and there is nothing we can do about it? Perhaps you can tell developers, who think they are "entitled" to an exception, that just because it was done previously, you have no intention of setting a precedent. I do not think we are obligated to figure out how they can make bigger profits. Consider exceptions once granted as: A. In the Past B. Applied Enough Times C. Mistakes D. Not the New Standard E. All the Above It occurs to me that the damage done to neighborhoods by Cal Poly is now added to by The City. Please let us know what hope there is for residents fighting for their neighborhoods. It seems so unfair what Cal Poly has caused. Can our own city representatives be depended on to defend us? If no one has the time to develop an overlay for the subject area, it is time to determine - -at very least - -that no exceptions will be granted until such is in place. 2of2 I apologize for my less than formal letter. I simply have to write the truth: I am often sickened about what is happening and I am always sad. hi 2001 while canvassing neighborhoods, I met several residents who felt,forced to move as they could not stand living on their streets, filled with students and party noise, any longer. One woman on Dartmouth, living alone in her home of 45 yrs., particularly stands out in my mind. She loved'her home and did not want to leave it; she was miserable. In Monterey Heights, you have this desperate situation compounded by the City allowing investors to prey on it. This is also a good time to define "compatible ". What has been labeled this term would be laughable if it weren't so harmful. No one attempts to call vehicles "compatible" because both brands have tires, windows and steering wheels. Please stop doing it with structures when it can actually be quantified. What number /percentage of homes in a given area are two - story? Say 4 in a sample of 20. The lots in question could have two one -story homes facing Grand (thus visually compatible with the neighborhood) with one two -story in the back. Even allowing three structures on two lots stretches compatibility (though not as horrifically as what is being considered). Size? Stick to COMPATIBLE living /lot ratio! Why would you consider structures large enough to have 16 bedrooms when likely 6 were there previously and compatible with the neighborhood. You would be quick to tell me there are no density limits in R- 1. There did not have to be when this was a normal town. Do you really want 20 + students piling onto this property (yes, garages too) Now ask yourselves if you are personally culpable if you agree adding to the overcrowding party atmosphere. Hanging out every day with lots of young people in these neighborhoods is the incubator for the next party to rival the last. Were these huge structures presented as "workforce" housing? Seriously? Who thinks YOU are dumb? Is it the investor /developer or someone else who knows the buzz words? Disheartening!-- as well as completely lacking veracity. What is happening is so wrong! Please do not add to it. Camille Small San Luis Obispo RECEIVED �,iTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APR - 3 2015 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Monterey Heights Neighbors April 1, 2015 Architectural Review Committee Marcus Carloni Community Development Department RE: 323/353 Grand Ave. I am writing as co- chairman of the Monterey Heights Neighbors. We are working hard to reclaim our neighborhood and to restore it to the former "workforce housing" neighborhood that we once enjoyed. The City Council and Community Development Department have passed many ordinances to assist in this endeavor. To name nine: 9.12.040 General noise regulations, 9.13.030 Unruly gathering ordinance, 10.36.200 Limitation on parking in residential permit parking area, California Vehicle Code 22500 Parking on sidewalks, overhanging drives, etc., 17.17055 Front yard parking, 17.17.060 Roof & furniture, 17.17.070 Fence Maintenance, 17.17.070 Refuse containers, 17.93.020 Definition of High Occupancy Residential Use The above list does not include the proposed Rental Housing Inspection Program that will come before the City Council in the near future. All of these ordinances are aimed at alleviating the negative impacts upon the low density neighborhoods as a result of overcrowding up- zoning, studentification, or approval of mini -dorms within R -1 zones. The 323/353 Grand Ave. project, as presented, will only exacerbate the existing negative impacts that we presently experience. It is much easier to modify a project before it negatively impacts a neighborhood than to provide enforcement of existing and future ordinances after the project is completed and adds to the existing problem. The Aurignac -Leroy Court project and the 320 Grand, 1825, 1861 and 1865 MCollum project are two projects that have been used as comps when considering the high sq. footage build -out for this project. Since their completion, these two projects have greatly added to neighborhood un- wellness. Police, Neighborhood Services, Garbage, calls have all increased. The applicant listed 30 properties within a 1/2 mile radius to justify approval of the substandard lot split. The applicant now ignores those same properties and the size, scale, and mass of the 30 homes on those smaller lots. He also ignores the other homes within the established neighborhood. The developer uses the two high- density projects to justify the 2000- 2400 sq. ft. build out on these sub standard lots but then tries to make his project even denser than the two projects that he uses as comps. We have no problem with the developer using the same 30 house average square footage of homes built on the smaller lots that he used to obtain the smaller lot approval. I have done the calculations on the 30 properties used by the applicant and find that the average size of the homes built on these smaller lots is 1300 sq. feet. If the developer built 1300 to 1500 sq. ft. homes on these sub standard lots, the size of the homes would, by design be workforce houses not mini dorms. This smaller square footage home would also alleviate all of the concerns of the neighbors regarding, parking, studentification, up- zoning, etc. I have attached 24 pages of photos. The largest packet is of neighborhood homes in the vicinity of the Grand Ave. project. These photos show the size, scale, and mass of the established neighborhood. The smaller packet is of the two outlier projects that demonstrate the neighborhood problems that occur when Neighborhood Guidelines, size ,scale, and mass are ignored. I implore you to help us stabilize our neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Linda White, co- chairman Monterey Heights Neighbors Nk 14 m. 1 TIPW71wvw 7v I 1 111 Y r 5 kiik Ail I AL ;r. i 3 d Idk- . r F . W a w •a+ r. r - r ."'` t . r r r 5 kiik Ail I AL ;r. i 3 d Idk- . r F . W a w •a+ r. r - r ."'` t . lb -,RON 71 I. 161 4 OP wit OF, ' ot, !Zp LJ .0 il . •_- :'r- =� ° .� ;. •.,,�.�,,, _ t I Ilk IT r 14 �f 1 .011- �n VIP, I trr.•� •f. s �� � i - 4$'s Y ,� 8 li .� � ' r I.,. �� ^! ��' „�� 1' 1�;,, .� °: J �, �. �:, �',�'� .� i� 4 n y k , � y_` { d 1, 60 �' \ &a L , . \ .�\ �. � `� . \ /\ � }� � ��� � � \�. �4 Pw \ \��' �� . \ /\ � }� � ��� �s . 3 CY '- r y _ _ ,I r �! 1 /� V � r, Y �. / A �,� r'� �' ' y y'� y r I 11. jk-, F f ,' II r \ \ \ \ \ \\ \�� , \ \�\ - / \ Jy LAN { \ .r, i i M N s = D1 l � 16, w' 5 ti r � .ti _Al. r- t r �i I f � t r is r. -wt• r x •� 4 1p .1. r r is _ +. !r ` NI ' r� } �r lk 4 v71r . •,` Vii'. 1. -I�ti � � •r �;- � - 1� 9 � . 1 . }. y I ' 1 i VIN inim; IB IIIA f Iil i I-IF l`� "L, \ 'a J M. t M 1 � � -!,; "R rtl +i 41P - _ I r r V WNW_ i6 From: Linda White [ mailto :lindaleewhitel5gamail.com) Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 7:42 PM To: Carloni, Marcus Subject: 323 & 353 Grand Ave. RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APR -1 2015 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Re: 323 & 353 Grand Ave. Marcus Carloni mcarloni @slocity.org Please see that the ARC members are in receipt of this letter in advance of the April 5, 2015 meeting. I am writing once again to oppose the mini -dorm project that is being proposed as a single - family- work - force- housing project on Grand Ave. This project still does not conform to the size, scale and mass of the surrounding established neighborhoods. This project is supersized even when compared to the recently City approved outliers. e.g. Aurignac, Leroy Court project and 320 Grand- 1825- 1821 -18665 McCollum project. Please do not use these outliers as precedents or comparables. These two original lots were subdivided into 4 sub - standard lots. We have no problem with that as long as the size of the homes built on these substandard lots conform to the size, scale and mass of other homes on small lots. It is not fair to the established neighborhood (average 1680 sq. foot homes on average 7827 sq. ft. lots) to allow supersized homes of 1900 -2400 sq feet to be built on sub - standard lots (average 5238 sq. ft.). The applicant listed 30 lots within 1/2 sq. mile to support the reduced lot size. We ask only that the applicant build homes to the size, scale and mass of the same homes that they listed to obtain the lot size exception. The average size of the homes on these smaller lots is 1299.71 square feet (This calculation includes the four lots erroneously listed that are 6000 sq,- feet or more.) The neighbors would have no objections to homes of 1300 to 1500 square feet being built on these substandard lots as they would be compatible to the established neighborhood. We would hope that the architecture would also be compatible to the existing one -story, homes in the immediate 1/2 sq. mile radius used by the applicant. This 24 % living space to lot size ratio would also be closer in line with the 21 %ratio that we now enjoy is this established neighborhood. We ask only that the ARC use the same examples for the build out as used for the reduced lot size. It is unfair to allow the applicant to cherry pick one set of comps for reduced lot size and another for build out. Please keep to the same set of comps. Grand Ave is the Gateway to Cal Poly. It is also designated "Scenic Roadway" running through our R -1 neighborhoods. Please don't allow supersized scale and mass to detract from our single story, low density neighborhood. Allow the applicant to build to the 1/2 sq mile homes that he chose to use for comps in obtaining the reduced lot size. Sincerely, Linda White, resident of Monterey Heights at & owner of Community Development. Department Date: i q—D 1 - Distribut Y: To: Planning Commissioners ARC Commissioners 0 CHC Committee Members Asst. City Attorney Doug Davidson Kim Murry y Ori�tghal to f Public Correspondence Architectural Review Commission January 21, 2015 RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO From: Karen Adler [_mallto:fudae805C@charter.net] JAN 2 0 2015 Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 8:09 PM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Carloni, Marcus Subject: 323 Grand Ave. Marcus: As Chairperson of the Alta Vista Neighborhood Association, I want to vehemently oppose the plan for 4 new single - family residences in this 4 -lot sub - division. To create R -3 density student housing in an R -1 zone is an incredible abuse of zoning laws. This is creating a mini - subdivision by dividing existing lots. These are tiny sub - standard lots the City is calling R -1 with 4 bedroom density. Where are the controls? Where are these renters going to be parking? Zoning has to mean something. This is a farcel Our neighborhood is struggling to maintain owner occupied homes a priority. This just puts another nail in our coffin. I encourage you to recommend to the Architectural Review Commission denial of approval based on the integrity of the Neighborhood & abuse of zoning laws! Thank you, karen adler Community Development Department Qisiribute � y: To. ® Planning Commissioners ARC Commissioners CHC Committee Members Asst. City Attorney Doug Davidson Kim Murry Original to: � From: adrianarch@aol.com [mailto:adrianarc�aol, corn] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 12:03 PM To: Carloni, Marcus Subject: Proposed Residential Project 323 -353 Grand Ave (Leroy Court), SLO, Attn: Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner, RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO JAN 2 0 2015 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I own the property at SLO. And, wish to express more opposition for the proposed project know as "Leroy Court" on Grand Ave., SLO. As an architect, I find this proposed project one of the poorest execution of residential work that I have seen in a long, long time. From the; * traffic circulation getting on and off the site,,.-to issues of *overbuilding and not conforming to the density /compatibility of the existing neighborhood. *the height (number of stories) is another concern - - -is the height of the structures compatible? *first floor full bathroom off a media room, that can be easily converted to a bedroom, creates suspicion as to the real dubious intentions of an Owner /Developer. An Owner /Developer who cares very little about the quality of the living environment in the City of SLO. *the exterior finish materials of the structures are not sustainable. There are very little, if no materials (recycled) to represent a direction toward a LEED quality project. These are nothing more than "cookie- cutter" (a kit) house designs and have no architectural significance or originality, Please return this project back to the Owner /Developer with the following comments: *reduce to only two houses (per City Guidelines). *one story houses, max, four bedrooms ea. w/2.5 car garages ea. *cars not to back -up onto Grand Ave. *limit the use of wood siding /trim - -- maintenance issues. *use mostly brick, stone, cmu or cement plaster - - -in order to keep maintenance issues in check. * *construct a brick, stone and /or cmu fence 15' -0" back from the right -of -way on Grand Ave to screen the back and side yards. This project, as presented, will lower property values for existing homeowners who's home(s) do conform with City Guidelines. The City of San Luis Obispo needs to "send the message" that Owner /Developers cannot purchase property with the idea that they can "ask -for and get" special consideration to build substandard dwellings. Thank you for your time. Regards, George Adrian, Architect L �. a`) a`) :V. o o �1 Cn C E o CL m E E rn c Cnp �' •� d o c U t Cn O ai n. U q tD cD Q ❑ Y 0 0 �0_ 10 From: Odile Ayral Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:37 PM To: Carloni, Marcus Cc: Dunsmore, Phil Subject: 323/353 Grand Ave. RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO JAN 2 0 2015 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Please, forward the attachment to the ARC Commissioners. Thanks. Odile Ayral To ARC Commissioners, I urge you to be extremely careful with what you are approving on 323/353 Grand Ave. As you know, these two parcels presently have one small house each and, like the other Grand Ave houses next to them are included in R -1 zoning, The exception the Plaiming Commission is suggesting would turn this R -1 zoning into R -2. This will start a domino effect, whereby each and every developer /landlord in this area will think of making an extra buck if he can work out the same deal. We all know who will end up living in these houses: not working families who really need homes but can't afford the prices asked for these dinosaurs, but students. More and more students in an area already overtaken by them. Furthermore, these proposed houses are HUGE! Way out of size with the houses next door. The Planning Commission notes that the average house size within 300 feet is 1,774 square feet, and the ratio living space to lot size 24 %. On the other hand, the proposed houses are 2,550 sq. ft., and the ratio living to lot is 49 %. That's twice the neighborhood ratio. The Planning Commission, noting that this project is classified as "infill development" quotes Community Design Guidelines that one of the goals is "to provide for infill projects of high architectural quality that are compatible with existing development.. , and continue existing neighborhood patterns." This proposal is not compatible with existing development on Grand Ave. Each house would offer four bedrooms plus a den or media room. Just the amount Cor 5 students to live together so that the landlord can reap the maximum profit. You will not see any family living there, I guarantee you, You don't have to cater to each and every money- driven developer who comes to you. Please, do the legal and ethical thing: allow three houses on these lots (not four) with each offering three bedrooms (not four). By doing this, you are in line with existing neighborhood pattern; you stay within long accepted regulations and you may help stop the disastrous trend that has been happening in the north side of the city, which is turning family homes into dorms. Sincerely, Odile Ayral a) �} Z, C c W a) W o o -_ San Luis Obispo c E o o E Q s E o to 0 CL V O � .� N o U v U p - V a) 0 0 M O IL U W O= Q 0 O C) uN D E a 00 12E1 2 From: Linda Bishop [mailto:oneslonurse @ gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 10:04 AM To: Carloni, Marcus Subject: 323 / 353 Grand Ave. Mr. Marcus Carloni Associate Planner City of San Luis Obispo Re. File #ARC 25 -13 Dear Mr. Carloni, RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO JAN 21 2015 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I am emailing to register my opposition to the "infill housing" project being proposed for 323 / 353 Grand Ave. in SLO. It is my understanding that "infill" has been defined as allowing new construction within neighborhoods in unused, but conforming space, with structures that arc "compatible with the existing zoning and surrounding structures ". The density and scale proposed for this project is compatible and conforming ONLY with the recent infill debacles, such as Leroy Court, the corner of Henderson and ML'CONLIM and the illegal triplex at 2045 Slack St. This proposed project is on an R -1 zoned property, which the developers knew when they purchased the two lots (I assume this, since there are only two addresses)_. They had every intention of seeking to circumvent the zoning with applications for variances / waivers / exemptions, or whatever this process is called, just like other precedents that the City has allowed. This project goes beyond even those, by requesting a density in an R -1 neighborhood that exceeds R -2 zoning guidelines! Non - developer citizens acquire homes based on existing zoning, which they have every right to assume the City will enforce. Our family, on the corner of Henderson Avenue and Slack Street certainly did. What is the point of zoning when it is ignored For the sake of expediency in the City's attempt to increase housing? "['his emerging policy should be aimed at housing for the sake of working / professional families, not the development of mini -dorms near Cal Poly for students, We all know what is planned for these residences....... four bedrooms / three baths, with a dcn AND a media room translates into a minimum of 12 individuals (two per room, not including the frequent garage conversion) for a total of 48 residents for the project with the attendant cars, visitors, noise, debris and strain on city services that goes with this level of density and scale. I urge you to recommend denial of this project in the interest of preserving neighborhood wellness (a City cornerstone), zoning integrity and visual compatibility. Roger and Linda Bishop San Luis Obispo C C j N_ (D 0 o cEas aa)i 0 0 E 0 .� Q a o�aai ° VOG SE dU vEUE QU U� �' ° 5 ai Q Y G January 16, 2015 Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner Architectural Review Commission Re: 323/353 Grand Ave File No. ARC 25 -13 RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO JAN 21 2015 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT We are writing to oppose the proposed development at the above mentioned address on Grand Ave. We are residents of the Monterey Heights neighborhood and my husband and I have lived here since 1989. Before that the house was occupied by my husband's family since 1955. We have seen our once quiet neighborhood deteriorate into what is essentially party central. The proposed development only serves to further deteriorate the quality of our neighborhoods. What we have are 4 "single- family" residences, which we all know will not house families. Each house will have 4 bedrooms with 3 or 4 full bathrooms, and media rooms and family rooms which can easily be converted to bedrooms. According to your report each house will occupy about 50% of the lot, this does not factor in the garage space and decks, which adds almost 800 square feet to the footprint of each house. Then, somehow the speculator wants to squeeze in parking for 16 students or more likely 20 students once all the media rooms and dens get converted. We invite the members of the ARC to have a look at the parking nightmares that these developments create. Examples such as the PUD at the corner of Grand and McCollum, across the street from our house, the development on the North side of McCollum, West of Grand Avenue, the Leroy Court, just to see how poorly the parking and traffic circulation is, including the public streets. The kids living there park in the common driveway because they can't park in the street, as their on- street parking permits have all been used up. They do not park in the garages, as that would require cars to be moved every time they needed to get out of their garage to drive to Cal Poly. This indicates that there are more than four students living in each of these houses. This proposed development optimistically presumes that the students will park 2 of the resident vehicles in their respective garages and the other two in their driveways. Any review of this neighborhood of students during the school year will show that such optimism shows a complete lack of understanding of how the student society works. Based on reality, the 4 houses will allow 2 cars per house to park onsite for a total of 8 resident vehicles rather than the 16 indicated. The inadequately sized, spaced and impossible to back out of "GUEST" parking will be filled by 6 of the remaining residents leaving 2 to park in the street along with the 2 of the 8 guest parking permits, leaving 6 permits for visitors that can't park in front of these units because South bound Grand Avenue has a no parking bike lane/ Where are these poor deprived students to park? Certainly not on McCollum Street, it is already inundated with way to many single family resident student cars, both East and West of Grand Avenue. Why this City continues the fictional belief that R -1 zoning equals single family residences is beyond us. It is past the time to continue this false assumption. If the new structure is not going to be occupied by the owner, then the student housing should be treated as such and require parking that would be required for apartments, including ADA parking requirements and fire department requirements. Sub- standard lots approved by our City for a developer who is not going to live in any of the units nor care one whit about the mess that he has created, does not deserve any other breaks. This development would be better handled if the units were single story, which 9S% of the neighborhood was until the City approved the two story monstrosities that lie East, West and North of this proposed project. The units should be required to honor the 24% Living Space Average of the current neighborhood. That would take care of all of the parking issues and provide a place for the garbage cans to be stored at each unit. The other issue that has not come up is the issue of garbage cans. Right now at the corner of Grand and McCollum there are about 8 garbage cans that show up on the curb on trash pickup day. Two days after trash pickup there are still about 4 cans on the curb and these cans stay on the curb the rest of the week. When we call the city to complain they tell us that it is hard to cite anyone because they don't know who the cans belong to. How is this going to change for this new development? The City police department is johnny on the spot when it comes to ticketing those who are parked without a permit, including a permanent resident who forgot to put the permit on the mirror for one reason or another. But it seems the city just can't seem to figure out who's garbage can is who's. Maybe we should have the address of each house, painted on each of the cans in large letters so there is no question who it belongs to. This letter does not address the fraternity /sorority issue. The noise from the additional students, their vehicles, their parties, their trash or any of the other issues caused by housing way to many immature kids in what used to be a nice residential neighborhood. Please deny this project or at the very least significantly reduce the size and scope of the project. Sincerely, Karen & Berk Blake blakekaren @sbcglobal.net C o 0 Fn Q 4 E , in (M Ln mo 0��o o :3 >� (� m Q a cE cv 0 CUB W 0 UE 2 0 0'� cn 0 o ; ii0 aU �'� o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 - - RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO JAN 21 2015 From: Kat [mailto:backroads @fix.netj Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 8:35 PM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Carloni, Marcus Subject: subdivision at 323 Grand Ave We are unable to attend the Commission hearing on Jan 21st, but we want our voices to be heard hence this email to you. We are strongly opposed to the 4 new single family residences at 323 Grand Ave. These 4 bedrooms and a "den" are an absolute abuse of the zoning laws i our R -1 zone. Those so called "dens" will be used as bedrooms as is happening all over our once peaceful neighborhood. Where will these renters park? There is no parking on Grand Ave. The house next door to us was purchased this last summer and there are now 6 renters in the house, each with their own cars and they are parking in the driveway, on the front yard and across the street in front of the Mt Carmel church where no permit is required. These proposed houses are nothing less than mini -dorm situations in an already impacted neighborhood. The opinions and supportive objections of the citizens of these neighborhoods must be taken into consideration. Dorothy Brunson Chester Brunson Kathryn Atkins , San Luis Obispo Community Development Department Date: 01-21 —� Distribute by: To: ❑ Planning Commissioners ARC Commissioners ❑ CHC Committee Members ❑ Asst. City Attorney Doug Davidson ❑ Kim Murry �1]►L�f� i +eft r Original to: /� ! rl a- e 5 RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO JAN 21 2015 From: NJmslo190aol.com [mallto: jmslo19 @aolxom] COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 3 :10 PM To: Carlonl, Marcus Subject: subdivision at 323 Grand Ave. Please be advised that we are opposed to the proposal to create R -3 density in this R -1 zone for the construction, of these residences. We believe that there is inadequate parking and that these properties will become "mini- dorms" adding to the decay of our area of San Luis Obispo. Michele and Russell Hall Community Development Department Date: t Distributed, by' 1 To: ❑ Planning Commissioners ARC Commissioners ❑ CHC Committee Members Asst. City Attorney Doug Davidson ❑ Kim Murry t1^srnore LLB Cep Original to: - C,W5 'I I From: Bob [mailto:boblucas @ aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 3:05 PM To: Carloni, Marcus Cc: lindaleewhite15 @gmail.com Subject: 323 Grand Hi, Marcus -- RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO JAN 21 2015 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Please forward this note to the ARC concerning the proposed mini -dorms at 323 Grand. What is being proposed here for an R1 residential zoning is unconscionable. It makes no difference whether this is close to Cal Poly or not: all of the homes are super - standard structures being proposed on substandard lots. I urge the ARC to turn the project down flat, and send a message to this developer and others that asking for much too much in fear that you may receive nothing at all is a waste of the resources of City Staff and the valuable time of our Commissions. There should be no struggle about this. As I stood in front of the space today and puzzled about what is being proposed, a student came by. He was a Cal Poly in Biomedical Engineering, so he was likely considerably above average, even for the high quality of Cal Poly students. asked him how many four bedroom homes he thought could be fit on the lot. He looked at me, a bit puzzled, and then asked how many square feet, I said about 2600, and he said, "One." When I told him a developer thought four was about right, he showed surprise and and then asked, "where will they park ? ?" wouldn't give this project a whole lot more thought than that. I know the arguments about the need for more housing for students close to Cal Poly and I'm sympathetic to them. But this is not a reasonable approach to a solution. Let's not try to work with developers who don't seem to understand the basics. Thank you, Bob Lucas 1831 San Luis Dr. 805 459 4344 r+ N w R E q' N o 0 N o .E E O O a o >� E o t0 E6 1 - �, �, O A Cn T O�� ,, M t <Z� U00 o �, �� m Ev�vo o f sa o � _ N o M ❑ ❑. ❑ 17 �❑ t�� Q RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO JAN 2 0 2015 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 323 -353 Grand Avenue While the approval of the lot divisions for this project should never have been approved by the Planning Commission it demonstrates the overwhelming influence that speculators and developers have gained over the City Council, as well as over some on the so called "citizen advisory" committees. There is no intention by these speculators to rent these houses to anyone but students, and as many as can be accommodated. As the Leroy Court project was also promoted to be for families we see that all have become student rentals. Leroy Court should not be viewed as a precedent but as a mistake. Having strolled down the Court this past Saturday morning I witnessed a slum in the making. Your responsibility as ARC commissioners is not only to see that projects comply with city design codes and nearby community character, which the 323 -353 Grand project does not, but to relay to the council the feelings and wants of the citizenry as a whole and responsible neighborhood residents. Not to follow the councils lead in kissing up to special interests. It is quite obvious that the neighbors in Monterey Heights are sick of the city approving these speculator approved mini dorms thereby running many responsible residents out of their own neighborhood. The ridiculous idea forwarded by some of our elected officials that the police should be the arbiters of conflicts caused by these poor planning decisions or the residents should remedy the problems themselves by confronting the trouble makers just demonstrates the spinelessness of these elected officials to perform their duties. The appropriate way to stop this erosion of our neighborhoods is to stick to the codes that were set up to protect neighborhoods from this type of incursion in the first place. Having a lot (1179 San Carlos, ask anyone at City Hall) that has been an eyesore and nuisance for going on four years across from my house I can personally attest to the character of the developers of this proposed project, they are the same, and can tell you that their intentions are for profit only with no concern for the neighbors or the quality of our city. I urge you to totally reject this application and send them back to the drawing board to come up with a proposal using appropriate lot sizes and proper lot to house percentages. Our city is not that desperate for housing that we need projects that degrade its integrity to the extent this one does. Terry Mohan San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 C +' aai m c a C E °' o a E Q -9 E o a C: go Z N o a � aS w U 4) p O O ) 0 2 vii CM O E o 5 a.0 QU 02 Q ❑ Y` ❑ [] H❑ ❑ ❑, ❑❑ 0 From: Eve Neuhaus [mailto:eveneuhaus c gma[l.com] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 10 :04 AM To: Carloni, Marcus Subject: 323/353 Grand Ave, Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner Architectural Review Commission Rc: 323/353 Grand Ave. File Number: ARC 25 -13 RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO .IAN 2 0 2015 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I am writing to urge you to deny the depth and area exceptions required for the proposed project at 323/353 Grand Ave. Our neighborhood is zoned for low density. This project would add to the already serious problems the neighborhood is having with greater numbers of students moving in. My husband and I live at 2031 McCollum St. right across the street from the new mini -dorm at 2008 McCollum. Last summer, when the building started going up, we queried the builder, the city and the owner about the intent of the house. We were assured that it was a single family dwelling with five bedrooms, a den and a nursery, though we could see from the layout and style, especially of the bathrooms, that it was a student -proof mini -dorm. We were Iied to. Indeed, a great number of students moved in and our corner, up to now a reasonably quiet area, is party central. We are woken at 2 or 3 AM every weekend as students move from party to party on the 300 block of Henderson, and our own and the 1900 block of McCollum and further afield. Yesterday, Sunday, January 18, the houses at 2008 McCollum and 344 Henderson began partying loudly at 10 AM and went on until 5 PM when the second football game was over. We made last minute changes in our day's plans so we would be away for most of the day. We can't take down the mini -dorm across the street. We try our best to negotiate with our student neighbors and we call the police for noise violations regularly. Please do not accept the lies about the intent of the new project on Grand Ave. and add to the problems we already have by making an exception to allow additional high - density housing a couple blocks away. Eve Neuhaus San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (D _ C 1 a`) W o o , a o o f Q o - Eo T C 0 o M ��� E 5 CL U o E E E E � L) 3 U�� M o W o 1: Q N 0 o QU U� Q D a F°- ❑ ❑ ❑. ❑��� D From: Jeff Prostovich [mai Ito: prostovichnme.com] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 1:08 PM To: Carloni, Marcus Cc: Linda White; Eve Neuhaus Subject: 323/353 Grand Ave. Redevelopment Dear Mr Carlord: RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO JAN 2 0 2015 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Thank you for accepting comments about the proposed development at 323/353 Grand Ave, San Luis Obispo. I live in the Monterey Heights neighborhood and an, Familiar with the proposed site. I am also a real estate broker and understand the specifics having reviewed Architectural Review Commission Agenda Report for the January 21, 2015, meeting. I find it objectionable that the city would consider spot zoning for this project, which is contrary to Community Design Guidelines, the Current zoning, and would set a precedent for future development inconsistent with the same. Why have guidelines or zoning at all if they will be ignored? Granting an exception not only affects the aesthetics of the neighborhood, it diminishes the properly values of existing residences. It also makes the neighborhood less attractive for full time residents because of the noise and congestion caused by development of this scale and density 'These are conditions a seller must disclose to a prospective buyer and will lessen desirability and value of nearby properties. If anyone doubts the existence of existing neighborhood complaints about noise and violation of existing ordinances to maintain our neighborhoods, I invite them to search police and code enforcement records. If anyone would like to share their phone number with me, I will be glad to call them after 10:00 p.m, right after I report a complaint to the police. I'm confident 1 can cure any doubters, including the project developer. I ask members ofplanning staff anti any review committee if they would consider a development in their neighborhood that is twice as dense and out of scale with their neighborhood and inconsistent with their zoning. 11 doesn't make any sense to the community and benefits only one party to the detriment of the Whole. I encourage our decision makers to drive through Leroy Court on a weekday evening and see the type of development others residents are forced to live with. In reviewing the proposed plans, I find a media room adjacent to a full bathroom in the downstairs living area, If I were a city decision maker, I would be insulted by this obvious scam. While a half bath is a practical convenience on the living level, there is no reason for a full bathroom unless the media room were converted to a bedroom, I've been in more houses in this community than any staffand committee member, and the eventuality of this illegal conversation is a given. There is a need for housing in this community, especially student housing. But allowing spot zoning and indifference to guidelines meant to protect the character of our homes and financial investments are not the solution. 1 recommend that the city and the review committees deny this project because of its scale and density and ask that the city, including the Planning Commission, to allow only development consistent with existing zoning and land use ordinances. Sincerely, Jeff Prostovich C +�' <n � cn »D � a e O � San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 C E m a C" o C _� o f N E w Q �,, `3 E t '` �' (� prostoviah(�i)mc,com O E 6 •� U° U ® J ( a m (n 71 00 dU QU U� ¢ o CU �❑ ❑ ❑Taorin 0 _ RICHARD SCHMIDT, Architect January 21, 2015 Re: 323/353 Grand Ave Architectural Review Commission City of San Luis Obispo Dear ARC Commissioners: 112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544 -4247 e -mail: slobuild .yahoo.corn RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO JAN 21 2015 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I urge you to reject this project in its entirety, as its design and density are abusive to the single - family neighborhood fabric, and to the neighborhood's continued viability as a place to live. It is said a basic function of government is to protect the few from the bullying of the many, but its reverse, protecting the many from the bullying of the few, is equally important — and that's what you must do in this instance. Otherwise, it will be clear this city casts its muscle with speculators who thrive through such bullying and don't care one bit about the evil they inflict upon others. During the 8 years I served on the Planning Commission, a proposal like this would never have made it across the intake desk. Planners then understood their function to protect the many from the whims of the few. What this project represents is the exploitation of a huge zoning loophole which a responsible staff would have moved quickly to plug. Speculators discovered that because of this loophole, they could create R -3 density student slums in the R -1 zone, which is supposed to be for actual single - family homes, not student dorm districts. This comes about because in multi - family zones density is based on bedroom count, whereas in R -1 it's based on houses regardless of bedroom count. Thus a project like the one before you has R -3 density (it exceeds R -2's maximum, therefore it's R -3 — don't be fooled by staffs efforts to say it doesn't reach R -3's "numbers," which actually are maximums, not minimums) on tiny substandard single - family -zoned lots created especially for this abusive purpose. THIS IS JUST PLAIN WRONG, AND YOU NEED TO DO YOUR PART TO STOP IT. The dress rehearsal for this abusive practice took place on the south side of Foothill between Tassajara and La Entrada, where a single house on a large lot was replaced with five five - bedroom houses on substandard lots, and with that example, and staff's doing nothing to plug the loophole, has spread all over town. It could happen next door to you! It has happened across the street from me, where in a one -off a speculator created a 5- bedroom "investor- owned" house with two illegal apartments the city does nothing to shut down. After 5 years of neighbors complaining about the apartments, the official discussion has devolved into one about the legitimate size of the REFRIGERATORS in each illegal apartment! I kid you not. Once these places are built, the city stands by while they corrode whatever neighborhood fabric remains, whatever livability remains, until long -time residents are forced to move due to the slum conditions around them, and the city trends towards an ever more transient occupancy, with fewer homeowners, fewer people concerned about civic issues. This is how a city's downward spiral to slumdom gets going. Happiest place not! Please stop this! Remember: Slums don't just happen. They are planned and permitted, by planners. The 19th century tenements (that day's "workforce housing ") that housed so much of the 20th century's urban social pathology, were planned by housing reformers, and when built they too were shiny and new. But their basic premise, crowding people into spaces inappropriate for that crowding, is the same one being practiced by our city's density - elixir- drinking planners, and the results here will be the same. A project like the one you're being asked to approve will drag down at least the surrounding block. Its replication citywide will drag down all but the most exclusive hillside enclaves. The transition of San Luis Obispo into Slum Luis Obispo will be effected by such means, one decision at a time. Recommendation: Reject this project. If the developer wants these substandard -sized lots, then the houses on them should be appropriately small. By small, we mean about 1200 to 1400 square feet, two bedrooms, no "disguised future bedrooms" like the dens and lofts at the infamous Pine Creek Condominiums which everybody knew at the time they were approved would become bedrooms. A speculator can make good money from a project like I describe. There's a market for owner- occupied small homes. As rentals, small homes are also profitable. For example, the 820 square foot two - bedroom rental dump next to me now rents to students for $2200 a month. (When the rent was raised to that amount, the single - parent family with 3 small children who'd lived there for years were forced out,) If the speculators don't like such development conditions, they can abandon their illicit subdivision (the city didn't notice adjacent property owners, violating the law in the process — thus "illicit ") and redevelop the two original lots they own. Please reject this project. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt C C E2 U E c � E `� O O E Q� E O CL `_� rn vi W o E a� a t c E E v 4 rn Cj�O mo�E =E = E E aU act �� a o Yom- `° 6 ❑ ❑ ❑ �.❑ i s- o Steve and Kathie Walker 1269 Fredericks Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 January 19, 2014 Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner RE: 323/353 Grand Avenue; File Number ARC 25 -13 Dear Mr. Carloni, RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO JAN 21 2015 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I We live in the Alta Vista neighborhood and are familiar with the property at 323/353 Grand Avenue. After review of the proposed development of the property by PB Companies we have some serious concerns. While we encourage the development and improvement of our neighborhoods, we are opposed to the applicant's proposed project for several reasons. The applicants originally represented the project as a smaller scale in -fill development which was more consistent with the surrounding R -1 low density neighborhood. Based on those representations presented to the Planning Commission on August 14, 2013, the applicants were successful in obtaining approval for the subdivision of the two existing properties into four separate lots, which granted an exception to the City's Subdivision Regulations minimum lot depth and area requirement of 6000 square feet. The applicants supported their application for the subdivision with several attachments including a list of lots under 6000 s.f. within %: mile of their proposed development. An analysis of the list uncovers the fact that those smaller lots contain smaller homes relative to the size of the lot and consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Most lots were established decades ago, prior to the City's implementation of regulations that require a minimum lot size of 6,000 s.f. for subdivision in an R -1 zone. We researched the first 30 properties listed on the applicant's attachment and found that several lots are not under 6,000 s.f. as represented, and the average percentage of living space versus outdoor space is 24 %. The applicant's proposed development allows a 49% livable space versus outdoor space, more than double the average presented by the applicant's attachment in support of the lot subdivision. Address Bdrm /Ba Sq. Ft. Lot Size % Livable v. Outdoor Space 521 Hathway 2 bd /2ba 1138 5880 0.19 537 Hathway 2 bd /1ba 1028 5250 0.20 549 Hathway 2 bd /1ba 891 5250 0.20 551 Hathway 3 bd /3ba 1501 5250 0.29 544 Ellen 2 bd /1ba 1019 5880 0.17 502 Hathway 2 bd /1ba 780 3600 0.22 550 Hathway 3 bd /1ba 1332 5501 0.24 1283 Murray unavailable 6824 619 Grove 3 bd /1ba 1287 6000 0.21 615 Grove 3 bd /2ba 1748 6000 0.29 634 California 2 bd /1ba 1171 5900 0.20 675 Grove 3 bd /2ba 1720 6098 0.28 1698 Wilson 3 bd /2ba 1842 5700 0.32 1618 Hillcrest 2 bd /1ba 1382 5116 0.27 1654 Hillcrest 4 bd /3ba 2227 5950 0.37 1662 Hillcrest 2 bd /1ba 1253 5000 0.25 611 Park 2 bd /1ba 1014 5924 0.17 1661 Wilson 3 bd /1ba 1034 4304 0.24 1641 Wilson 2 bd /1ba 1004 5562 0.18 624 Grove 3 bd /1ba 1040 5000 0.21 1680 Hillcrest unavailable 4000 1690 Hillcrest 2 bd /1ba 1060 5093 0.21 670 Grove 3 bd /2ba 2269 6000 0.38 676 Grove unavailable 6144 1625 Hillcrest 1 bd /2ba 870 5744 0.15 657 Park 4 bd /2ba 1800 5654 0.32 1656 Phillips 3 bd /2ba 1393 5250 0.27 1607 Phillips 2 bd /1ba 948 3500 0.27 1656 Phillips 3 bd /2ba 1393 5250 0.27 1607 Phillips 2 bd /1ba 948 3500 0.27 In granting the applicant's request for subdivision of the property, the Planning Commission determined; "All parcels shall be designated "sensitive sites" to ensure that future development will respect existing site constraints, privacy for occupants and neighbors of the project, and be compatible with the scale and character of the existing neighborhood." The proposed development does not respect the site constraints, privacy for occupants and neighbors, and is not in scale with the existing neighborhood. Finally, the applicant represents the proposed development as four 4- bedroom residences, however it is apparent that each of the homes are designed to allow easy conversion of rooms designated as a "Media Room" or "Dining" to bedrooms. The rental market in San Luis Obispo is extremely lucrative and is based on the number of bedrooms in a residence. As a result, some developers have become creative in manipulating the system to convert living spaces to the largest number of bedrooms possible by having media rooms and dens which were later converted to bedrooms. As a result, San Luis Obispo recently adopted a policy that actually defines a bedroom as "any space in a dwelling unit which contains a minimum of seventy square feet of floor area." Our neighborhood is already burdened by the influx of developer -owned properties which are mostly rented to young adults. Although a city ordinance prevents more than 5 adults from occupying a residence, many of these larger homes house 6, 7 or 8 students. Over the past five years the quality of life of our neighborhood has steadily declined with noisy gatherings and droves of young adults that parade through the neighborhood. We constantly deal with discarded trash in our yards and speeding traffic throughout the neighborhood. We've had two cats hit and killed in front of our house, and our parked car was recently hit by an intoxicated 21 -year old neighbor. Two weeks ago some college students broke the back window of our other car which was parked in our driveway. Several neighbors have also been victims of vandalism. The crime and mayhem has increased relative to the increased population around us. We urge you to deny the applicant's proposed development and require that it be scaled down to conform to the existing neighborhood. Sincerely, zfd ❑ ❑ IS ❑ o C, D Steve and Kathie Walker 7G 00 D 0 0 D n� m a 3 c° ca m20X0� p�C) cr c O m m 0 3 3 3 Cr S O A 3 3 uQi cn 3 0 c 0 0 CD CD CD m� CD From: Linda White [mailt :Ilndaleewhitel5()gmall.com] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 3:35 PM To: Carloni, Marcus; Dunsmore, Phil Subject: 323/353 Grand Ave. Linda White 2077 Slack Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 543 -8801 Phone & FAX lindaleewhite I50chartcr.net Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner Architectural Review Committee Re: 323/353 Grand Ave. File Number ARC 25 -13 RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO JAN 2 0 2015 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I am a 40 -year resident of Monterey Heights. I am opposed to the proposed high- occupancy mini -dorm development at 323 /353 Grand Ave. for the following reasons: 1. Each proposed house has an average of 2550 square ft. of living space but neighborhood homes average only 1680 sq. ft, of living space. The proposed project expects to build to a 49% living /lot size ratio but neighborhood homes are built to only a 21% to 24% ratio. Even the Leroy Ct. mini dorm project approved by the City is built to 42% and this is far too dense for the neighborhood and should never have been approved. 3. If this parcel was zoned R -2 (medium density), the speculator according to the City, would be allowed to build only 12 bedrooms - - -not the 16 bedrooms proposed. Remember that the dens or media rooms (which will be used as bedrooms) could be legally and with a permit converted after the fact, to a legal 5th bedroom for a density of 20 bedrooms. 4. This project defies the Community Design Guidelines for infill development which states in Chapter 5.3:... provide infill projects of high architectural quality that are compatible with existing development —and continue existing neighborhood patterns. • This proposed project is far too dense (49 %) for the existing neighborhood • This proposed project is far too large (16 bedrooms with the potential for 20 legally) 5, The City staff has identified parking and circulation difficulties with ingress and egress from one drive on busy Grand Ave. The suggestions made by staff will not alleviate the problems. Please see the attached photos of the similar mini -dorm project approved by the City on McCollum and Grand Ave. Luckily, their ingress and egress is on the less busy McCollum. Staff approved parking and circulation on the McCollum project. It is simply ignored and not working. Disregard at this project will be far more dangerous on busy Grand Ave. 6. How will emergency vehicles ever access the properties when the parking lot looks like McCollum? 7. How will students walking to and from the Classical Acadeiny and Teach School maneuver through the trash cans left on the sidewalk just as they are left out on less busy McCollum. The attached photos were taken on a Saturday and our trash pickup day is Tuesday. Finally, I would like to point out that the City Staff defines your role and limits your purview (2.0 Commissions Purview) "...to the projects consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and applicable City standards ". I have attended three advisory committee meetings recently where the committees have ignored this strict limitation imposed by staff and evaluated the presented project on all the merits and deficiencies. Eg. Cultural Heritage Committee (1267 Fredericks), Planning Commission (Home Stays), City Council (Monterey Street Hotel). I would urge you to do the same with this project. Please act as a true ARC. Re- enforce the fact that guidelines are merely that - -- guidelines. The staff works with the developer to maximize a project. It is your responsibility to uphold the SPIRIT of our "Guidelines and City standards ". It is your responsibility to uphold the SPIRIT of our zoning. Please deny this project and send a strong message that the spirit of San Luis Obispo and preservation of established neighborhoods is alive and well. Thank You, Linda White .'� ' a E, ai tL < u') o VL In, E:0. o t Y �u r , • ti 0��_r.� 4_ 4 ��� a i — RECEIVED CITE' OF SAN LUIS OBISPO JAN 2 0 2015 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Monterey Heights Neighbors January 16, 2015 Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner Architectural Review Commission Re: 323/353 Grand Ave. File Nurriber: ARC 25 -13 I am writing as co- chairman of the Monterey Heights Neighbors about the above named project. We have organized to combat the further erosion of our previously "workforce housing" neighborhood. This project is a prime example of what we oppose. As stated in the staff report, we are an R -I Low Density Residential neighborhood. This project is, in effect, greatly up- zoning our neighborhood. This project is so egregious that if this lot was zoned R -2, the entire project would be limited to 12 bedrooms rather than the proposed 16 (not to mention the extra dens and media rooms that we know are euphemisms for more bedrooms). Grand Ave is the "Gateway" to the University and also a designated "Seenic Roadway" running through R -1 neighborhoods. There should be an effort to have "infill" projects conform to the existing, well - established, neighborhoods and not the more recently approved mini -dorm projects. You can't undo the errors of these recent approvals but you can put a stop to further errors. Please see attached photos of recent high density errors. These are all substandard lots that do not conform to the established neighborhood lots (average7,827 sq. ft.). They are even smaller than the recently approved error of Leroy Court (5,697 sq.ft.). The proposed mini -clorm living space exceeds the existing established neighborhood homes. The average ratio is 21 %- 24% for the established neighborhood, The Leroy Court debacle is 42% which is still less dense than this proposed super -sized maxi -dorm project of 49 %. This project defies the very definition of "infill development" as stated in the Community Design Guidelines (Chapter 53). This project is not compatible with the established neighborhood in terms of size, scale, siting, detailing and overall character. I would urge you to deny this project and return the speculator to the drawing boards, It is not the responsibility of the City staff, ARC, or Planning Commission to lower City standards in order to provide a profit to a speculator who has paid too much for a lot. Please help the permanent residents reclaim workforce housing neighborhoods by denying this egregious project, Linda White, co- chairman Monterey Heights Neighbors m c �, c t a) o ` c E o o f ¢� ch E C U W- E` , 5 CU CL E m :5 o 0 0 2 E U O E VIo�? a- L) <Z L) L) 2 a o n❑ ❑ ❑ ❑I RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO JAN 16 2015 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT From: Sharon Whitney [whitney.sharon @gmail.com] rt ! Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 8:53 AM To: Carloni, Marcus Cc: Council, SloCity; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Rivoire, Dan; Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Johnson, Derek; Murry, Kim; Lichtig, Katie; Mejia, Anthony; dmultari@)slocity.org Subject: Grand Avenue "Infill" Project is a disguise for densification creep in R -1 Marcus Carloni and other members of the ARC, The ARC should not approve the proposed subdivision of 2 lots on Grand Ave between McCollum and Fredericks into 4 Iots. This project makes too dense an R -1 neighborhood under the guise of "infill." There are clearly specific issues of parking and circulation of parked vehicles that need attention, but beyond these and other technical details (compatibility of design, etc), the issue is really about land use development. Infill should be about using empty spaces efficiently, not about making R -1 zones so dense they look more like R -3 zones. I have no doubt that the ultimate use of these houses will be as student rentals. UGH! We in the Alta Vista Neighborhood are already overwhelmed by this kind of development. People who reside here are leaving in droves because of it. It's not fair to those of us who just want to live in the homes that were purchased 50 years ago as modest workforce housing. It feels like a "taking" by the City of the values we bought into, To ignore our rising voices of opposition is to transform our democratic governance into a technocratic bureaucracy. Sharon Whitney >1 - as In a�i c m c ° �t-1 CL L .� EM on o ,��� � •� •���� ❑ E> C -� c E U E U E ' VOO ai •� aU QU U� d i� Cc T 0 5 ❑ r . ❑ 0 'R ❑ ❑ 0 Public Correspondence Planning Commission August 14, 2013 From: Karen Adler <fudge805 a(Dcharter.net> Date: August 12, 2013 8:44:13 PM PDT To: Subject: 323 & 353 Grand Ave. Dear Planning Commission members: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AUG 13 2013 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I apologize for being unable to attend your meeting Wed. night but wanted to express some concerns our neighborhood has over the proposed changes requested for these two (2) lots. First of all let me explain that I am the Chairperson for the Alta Vista Neighborhood Association & these two parcels are within our boundaries. These are our concerns: 1. We are already living with an infill development on Leroy Court, Me Collum St. & one house on Fredericks St. It has turned this area into a mini Isla Vista. All you have to do is look at the SLOPD log for noise disturbances & you will see the majority of the calls on Thurs., Fri. & Sat. nights are in this small compact area. Adding another infill development just adds to the noise level that permanent residents already have to endure. 2. They are listed as family dwelling units in the staff report; we all know that they will be student rentals so therefore LEAVE the lot sizes as they are! 3. The staff report sites that there is already an infill area nearby which is true. But no mention is made of the permanent residences on RI lot sizes adjacent to these two (2) lots on Grand Ave. plus numerous homes on Fredericks St. & Me Collum St. Just because these two (2) lots are two (2) blocks from Cal Poly does not mean they need to be reduced in size to put more students into rental units. This is primarily a residential area & we have been greatly "burned" by the prior infill development. We would appreciate not having that compounded by still another mini - subdivision. We would appreciate the neighborhood concerns be considered. karen adler From: Claudia Andersen [ mailto :andersen.claudia49 @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 11:42 AM To: Carloni, Marcus Subject: 353 Grand Dear Mr Carloni, CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AUG 13 2013 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I am unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting tomorrow night, as I am out of town. I live at 1405 Slack St, in the corner of Slack & Longview. My family bought this house when I was thirteen. I lived there through my HS & college years & have returned home frequently for family gatherings and to bring my own children to see Granny. Since my Mom died in 2012 Sent from my iPad From: Claudia Andersen [ mai Ito- andersen,claudira4J @cgmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 8:29 PM To: Carloni, Marcus; johnslocl2a@sbcglobal.net; Larson, Jody; imnultari @slocity.org; cstevenson@slocity.org; mdraze @slocity. Subject: 323 & 353 Grand Dear Mr Carloni, CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AUG 14 2013 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I am unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting tomorrow night, as I am out of town. I live at 1405 Slack St, on the corner of Slack & Longview. My family bought this house when I was fifteen, 1964. I lived there through my HS & college years & have returned home frequently for family gatherings and to bring my own children to see. Granny. I inherited this home when my Mom died in 2012. We have been living in it 8 mos /year since she was placed in an Alzheimer's Center in 2008. Our own home is in Alaska, but is for sale as we transition to our retired life now at this home in SLO. I relate this to explain that we have a long family history at 1405 Slack and with the city of SLO. We have lived through all the recent encroachments of Cal Poly: the first shock wash the Performing Arts Center. My Mom, along with our neighbors was part of the Alta Vista group that formed over this address, lamented and wrote letters to deter the huge PAC. Then it was the parking facility... both changing the view & quiet of our neighborhood forever. Most recently, the beautiful & valued rugby field was torn up for the enormous Rec Center. Now we no longer just have all the student cars all week, but the increased foot traffic of students wrapped in towels walking to their rentals in our neighborhood. At night, we have -the loud noise from the students on Albert, Hathaway ( yes the Greek noise travels up ), Bond, Chapin, Fredericks, Orange & Kentucky. I honestly carinot have a BBQ in my back patio on Thursday or Friday nights due to the noise from Albert. The buses of the "away" teams for football & BB park directly in front of my house, with motors running for hours, When the games are over, groups walk to the cars they've parked around my hooften late, often clustering on corners to talk, yell, throw red cups in our hedge, or underwear or trash. Now I have been informed of the new student housing that is proposed at the old Pachecho school property. First both lots. Now split the lots into FOUR. >1400 students in a residential area. Of course we are concerned. Scared might be the better word. And somewhat angry as Cal Poly moves into my neighborhood, my family's property and takes over. WHY? with all the acres of empty land to the West of campus, I have a difficult time understanding why Cal Poly must have our neighborhood. Well, of course I know it is all about money. But really? Is there NO consideration for the families who have lived here for decades? Last year, the little house directly next to us sold to students. 1200 sf, 6 male students. 4 in the house, 2 in the detached garage that was converted to living space, we share a fence. They play BB & we hear that in the evenings. We hear even low voices as they gather in their backyard to play music. This does not feel normal to have neighbors imposed upon us like this. SIX young men crammed into a very small space, with friends. 20 feet from my open patio door on any warm day. I share my back fence with Lou Tedone. Because some of our neighbors are hard of hearing, you might think there is not as big a problem as there is. You would be wrong. Is the City Council powerless to protect the residential neighborhoods overly impacted by the encroachment of Cal Poly? Do you not have the authority to say No! Is this ok for you? A shoulder shrug & acceptance that the University controls our town? Please re -think not just the splitting of these lots to double occupancy, but more student housing at all in our residential neighborhoods. We have been abused enough. Choose another area, preferably west and give our neighborhood a break. Thanks for taking the time to read this letter. Respectfully, Claudia Andersen CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AUG 14 2013 From: Claudia Andersen <andersen.claudia49ngmail.com> Date: August 13, 2013 7:29:19 PM AKDT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: mcarloni( , k _ — - g s c "ilarson2slocity.org" <ilarson cr,slocity.org >, "mmultari(a)slocity.org" <mmultarinslocity.org >, "cstevensonnslocity.org" <cstevensongsIo city. org >, "mdraze aslocity.org" <mdraze a,slocit�org> Subject: 323 & 353 Grand Dear Mr Carloni, I am unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting tomorrow night, as I am out of town. I live at 1405 Slack St, on the corner of Slack & Longview. My family bought this house when I was fifteen, 1964. I lived there through my IIS & college years & have returned home frequently for family gatherings and to bring my own children to see Granny. I inherited this home when my Mom died in 2012. We have been living in it 8 mos /year since she was placed in an Alzheimer's Center in 2008. Our own home is in Alaska, but is for sale as we transition to our retired life now at this home in SLO. I relate this to explain that we have a long family history at 1405 Slack and with the city of SLO. We have lived through all the recent encroachments of Cal Poly: the first shock was the Performing Arts Center. My Mom, along with our neighbors was part of the Alta Vista group that formed over this issue, lamented and wrote letters to deter the huge PAC. Then it was the parking facility—both changing the view & quiet of our neighborhood forever. Most recently, the beautiful & valued rugby field was torn up for the enormous Ree Center. Now we no longer just have all the student cars all week, but the increased foot traffic of students wrapped in towels walking to their rentals in our neighborhood. At night, we have the loud noise from the students on Albert, Hathaway ( yes the Greek noise travels up ), Bond, Chapin, Fredericks, Orange & Kentucky. I honestly cannot have a BBQ in my back patio on Thursday or Friday nights due to the noise from Albert. The buses of the "away" teams for football & BB park directly in front of my house, with motors running for hours. When the, games are over, groups walk to the cars they've parked around my house, late, often clustering on corners to talk, yell, throw red cups in our hedge, or underwear or trash. Now I have been informed of the new student housing that is proposed at the old Pachecho school property. First both lots. Now split the lots into FOUR. >1400 students in a residential area. Of course we are concerned. Scared might be the better word. And somewhat angry as Cal Poly moves into my neighborhood, my family's property and takes over. WHY? with all the acres of empty land to the West of campus, I have a difficult time understanding why Cal Poly must have our neighborhood. Well, of course i know it is all about money. But really? Is there NO consideration for the families who have lived here for decades? Last year, the little house directly next to us sold to students. 1200 sf, 6 male students. 4 in the house, 2 in the detached garage that was converted to living space. We share a fence. They play BB & we hear that in the evenings. We hear even low voices as they gather in their backyard to play music. This does not feel normal to have neighbors imposed upon us like this. SIX young men crammed into a very small space, with friends. 20 feet from my open patio door on any warm day. I share my back fence with Lou Tedone. Because some of our neighbors are hard of hearing, you might think there is not as big a problem as there is. You would be wrong. Is the City Council powerless to protect the residential neighborhoods overly impacted by the encroachment of Cal Poly? Do you not have the authority to say No! Is this ok for you? A shoulder shrug & acceptance that the University controls our town? Please re -think not just the splitting of these lots to double occupancy, but more student housing at all in our residential neighborhoods. We have been abused enough. Choose another area, preferably west and give our neighborhood a break. Thanks for taking the time to read this letter. Respectfully, Claudia Andersen CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AUG 14 2013 From: Frederick Andersen [mailto: fredmandersen @gmail. com] I CpMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:36 PM L To: Carloni, Marcus Cc: John Fowler johnsslocpa @sbcglobal.net; John Larson jlarson @slocity.org Mike Multari mmultari @slocity.org. Charles Stevenson cstevenson @slocity.org. Michael Draze mdraze @slocity.org.; Karen Adler fudge805 @charter.net Stephanie and Terry Conner. tc9_rugby (a-charter.net Subject: Proposed new student housing Thank you for the card announcing Cal Poly's plan to construct new student housing units on Grand Avenue. I currently reside at 1405 Slack St., approximately a quarter mile from the proposed construction site. Two things: 1) Slack St_ Carpenter St., Longview Lane and Grand Ave. are extraordinarily busy and excessively noisy thoroughfares. I believe adding 1400 residents to our already congested & overburdened residential neighborhood will only worsen the problems and force the few remaining non- student residents to flee. We're already contemplating that decision. 2) Cal Poly is fortunate to own over 4,000 contiguous and largely undeveloped acres under and around the main campus. As was done with with Poly Canyon Village (7 dorms and 2 parking structures!) I submit that suitable, if not better sites can be located in the NW section of campus. Please be a good and compassionate neighbor and consider alternate sites in the less congested parts of campus. Frederick Andersen From: Kat [mailto:backroads @ fix.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 10:39 AM To: Carloni, Marcus Subject: subdivision of 323 & 353 Grand Ave., SLO To the Planning Commission CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AUG 13 2013 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT We live in the Alta Vista Neighborhood and have serious concerns about the proposed changes requested for the two lots at 323 & 353 Grand Ave. The infill development that took place on Leroy Court was proposed as family dwelling units, however after the units were built they were and have been occupied by students and have had and continue to have a very negative effect on our residential neighborhood. We live close to Grand Ave on Fredericks St, and the place on Fredericks that was supposed to be a family dwelling has continuously been rented to students. We have had to call the police on noise complaints and kids up on the roof drinking and yelling. The noise travels in this neighborhood and we have had to call in noise complaints from dwellings on Leroy Court, Mc Collum St., and Grand Ave. We are affected by all of these student housings in this neighborhood by students wandering our neighborhood streets in groups, yelling, cussing, drinking and urinating on our properties well into the morning hours. To add another development will only increase these disturbances to those of us who are permanent residents. We are absolutely against the subdivision of these two lots on Grand Ave. Chester and Dorothy Brunson Kathryn Atkins rITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AUG 13 2013 From: "Terry Conner" <tc9 rugbyCa charter.net> COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Date: August 13, 2013 10:26:21 AM PDT To: "'John Fowler "' <iohnslocPa(cD-sbcglobal.net >, "'John Larson "' <ilarson(a-),slocity.org >, "'Michael Multari "' <mmultari(a)-slocity.org >, "'Charles Stevenson "' <cstevenson(a-)-slocity.org >, "'Michael Draze "' <mdraze(a.slocity.org> Subject: FW: 323 & 353 Grand Ave. Dear Planning Commission: I am opposed to the to t split at 323 and 353 Grand A ve. Our neighborhood is already burdened by a lot split a few years ago on McCollum St. Please, at least, wait till Cal Poly is back in session before making your decision. Then drive to the Grand location (and McCollum) and see for yourselves the impact of this type of infill. The traffic is horrendous The residents are continuously rowdy. The homes that were supposed to be "single" family are packed with students. Thanks Terry W. Conner, Dream Big, Pursue Your Dreams From: Karen Adler fmailto:fudae805(acharter.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:09 AM To: Carloni, Marcus Subject: Fwd: Grand Avenue lot split FYI: Begin forwarded message: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AUG 13 2013 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT From: sharonna.sharonwhitnev.com Date: August 12, 2013 10:20:25 PM PDT To: "John Fowler" <iohnslocpaC@,sbcglobal.net >, "John Larson" <jlarson anslocity.org >, "Michael Multari" <mmultari .slocity.org >, "Charles Stevenson" <csteven son (a)-slocity.org >, "Michael Draze" <mdraze _slocity.org> Cc: "Karen Adler" <fudge805Ca,charter.net> Subject: Grand Avenue lot split Dear Commissioners, I live at with my 89 year old mother who purchased her home here in 1963. We have seen our neighborhood transition from owner - occupied R1 workforce housing to very dense student - occupied housing, sometimes 6 -7 to a house. Splitting lots certainly does infill, but it also perpetuates the undesirable transition that long -term owner - occupied residents have had to endure over the last few decades. We've seen developers promise their projects won't be for student - occupants but regular workforce housing and break those promises. It's a ruse. Students would be okay if they really acted like STUDENTS who respect the diverse neighborhood they are 'infilling." They don't. When I was a single student at Cal Poly I lived on campus. I certainly did not expect to live off - campus in an upscale middle -class neighborhood with other students; I don't know why our students expect so much from the town. I totally concur with Karen Adler's letter opposing this lot- splitting idea. Why is it necessary? Why is it a good idea?. Sincerely, Sharon G. Whitney, PhD.