Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-24-2014 PC MinutesSAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 24, 2014 CALL TO ORDER /PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, John Fowler, Ronald Malak, Vice - Chairperson Michael Multari, and Chairperson John Larson Absent: Commissioner William Riggs Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson, Assistant Planner Erik Berg- Johansen, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, and Recording Secretary Diane Clement ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. MINUTES: Minutes of September 10, 2014, were approved as amended. Minutes of September 11, 2014, were approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 1941 Slack Street. AP -PC 95 -14: Appeal of the Director's decision to deny an application for an addition to a nonconforming structure; R -1 zone; SLOCA, LLC, applicant; Stalwork, Inc., appellant Erik Berg- Johansen) Assistant Planner Berg- Johansen presented the staff report, recommending adoption of the Draft Resolution denying the appeal and supporting the Director's decision to deny the project. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Linda White, SLO, stated she lives less than 1.5 blocks from 1941 Slack Street and, if the Commission approves this mini -dorm, it will be responsible for further erosion of her neighborhood. She added that the City has stressed the need for workforce housing, which this six - bedroom project goes against, and described the single - family home nature of the neighborhood, which she illustrated with photographs she gave to the Commissioners. She noted previous errors in allowing other mini -dorms and gave photographs of examples to the Commissioners. She stated that Policy 7.1 of the Housing Element (under Goal 7 — Neighborhood Quality) has been neglected too often and these mini -dorms have spread like a cancer in the neighborhood. She added that Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 2 Slack Street is a substandard street, narrow with parking on only one side that has to accommodate two -way traffic, pedestrians, skateboarders, and bicycles. Carolyn Smith, SLO, speaking for Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN), supported denial of the appeal because these neighborhoods of small homes built in the 1940s -50s are overly impacted. She noted that six or more students, each with a vehicle, some likely to be very large, would add to the existing parking and noise problems, and the only recourse would be more enforcement. She added that allowing investors to buy these homes and convert them into mini -dorms would set a dangerous precedent. Paul Allen, SLO, stated he lives in another neighborhood but feels passionate about the problems here. He added that Monterey Heights and Alta Vista have been subjected to increasing pressure from Cal Poly and absentee owners have been buying up the houses and converting them into rentals for as many as 12 students which overwhelms neighborhoods throughout the City. He noted that the nature of the City has changed dramatically and long -time residents are leaving. He stated strong action is needed to stop this, this proposal is insensitive to the neighborhood, and it may be part of the owner's plan to drive more residents away. He added that students bring their own vehicles and create difficulties for emergency response vehicles and that this neighborhood is not zoned for this density. Rebecca Keisler, SLO, long -time resident of this neighborhood, stated this house is currently a two - bedroom, one -bath home in an R -1 neighborhood that could be enlarged to accommodate a family but this is a proposal for six institutional bedrooms. She supported denial of the appeal. John Keisler, SLO, stated he supports staff's findings because the project is too big and will have only two parking spaces and one of those spaces, in the garage, will not actually be used for parking. He stated that you can call that room designated a family room anything, but it can end up being a space for two college students. He added the proposal does not promote compatibility, does not encourage occupancy by a family or an owner; the house would be larger than other residences in the neighborhood and would not have the characteristics of a family home; and this use is inconsistent with the Land Use Element. He noted the potential to make life miserable in the neighborhood because of over - parking on a substandard street with no sidewalk on the north side. He stated that if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it probably is a bedroom for 1 -2 students, whether it is called a family room, a garage, or a duck. He concluded that approval of the appeal could set a precedent for mini -dorm conversions citywide. Claudia Andersen, SLO, stated the neighborhood has had to bear the consequences of poor planning in the past and added that, since her neighbor died and his house was sold, six students have been living there and parking is a problem. She noted that parking is not just about a space for a car, but involves slamming doors and other noise. She stated she does not understand why these homes are called single - family residences when lies are told about occupancy. She asserted that there are college towns that limit the number of student houses per street and asked when does the City step in. Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 3 Camille Small, SLO, stated she is concerned about this neighborhood, her heart goes out to those who have been "chased" from their neighborhoods, and she knows the City cannot control what Cal Poly does, but she does not think the university has met its goal for new housing. She added she is not talking negatively toward students but noted they do not make for a normal neighborhood. She suggested that the City may need to look for stricter wording for the guidelines. Ben Kulick, SLO, Stalwork, Inc., stated he agrees with every comment made and that his company is trying to work within the guidelines. He added that he was born and raised here and is vested in this community. He noted that people want to do these projects and a lot of these issues have nothing to do with this project. He stated that he blames property managers and that there is an enforcement problem. He added that the City cannot deny projects when people are trying to meet the codes and the only reason for this hearing is that the original house has a non - conforming setback. Commr. Draze asked Mr. Kulick to explain how this helps solve the problem of the parking issue. Mr. Kulick replied that it puts students close to campus within walking distance. Evy Justesen, SLO, stated she lives close to a home Stalwork just did and it does have beautiful landscaping but the building plans showed five bedrooms and a nursery and there is no nursery. She supported denial of the appeal. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Larson noted that the Commission received five letters and some additional late correspondence from three other residents, and all are of the same tenor as the comments tonight. Commr. Draze stated doubling the size of the house is not a minor addition. He noted that he is concerned about parking because the street is extremely narrow with no parking allowed on one side. He added that the driveway could be used for parking but there is not room to park two cars on the street in front of the house. He stated that he is convinced there will be six bedrooms and he has a serious problem with this. He supported the staff position and stated he will have several additions to findings. Commr. Multari agreed that doubling the size is hardly a minor addition and that, quite clearly, this will be occupied by several students and there is only one parking space. He noted it is a little unfair to say that Cal Poly has not provided any new housing since its Master Plan Update. He stated that about 4500 have been added since then, which, he noted, is not enough and more is needed. He supported the staff's denial. Commr. Malak stated that one letter the Commission received talked about ten unrelated occupants living at 2045 Slack Street. He asked staff if codes are being enforced in this area. Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 4 Deputy Director Davidson stated Code enforcement is an ongoing effort and the City is taking an extra step this month with a meet - and -greet around the neighborhood. He noted that the Neighborhood Wellness program is proactive in nature so there has been increased enforcement activity. He added that 2045 Slack has had seven code violations in recent years. Commr. Malak stated he will support the denial, Commr. Fowler stated this project is in an R -1 zone and nothing about it gives the impression it is an enhancement to an R -1 residence. He added he drove by the house and had trouble negotiating Slack Street. He stated he will support the denial. Commr. Draze stated that he appreciates all the speakers and noted that one woman brought up the issue of limiting the number of students on a street. He stated he does not think that can be done legally. Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere confirmed that student residents cannot be legally limited. He suggested eliminating Finding #1 and adding language to Findings #5 and #6. He stated that there is no designation in the High Occupancy use definition for "unrelated adults;" there are only "adults." Commr. Malak stated that the City limited the number of cars allowed for a sorority and asked if that could be done here. Commr. Draze stated there is a lot more flexibility in dealing with sororities. Deputy Director Davidson stated that the sorority at 1716 Osos Street was applying for a conditional use permit and a sorority is group housing. Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere stated trying to impose conditions related to parking is not a good idea and the Commission should look more at compatibility and quality of life. Commr. Multari stated it is important to acknowledge the difficulty of having property next to a major popular State university which creates intense pressure for students to live in these neighborhoods. He noted these older homes are not designed for that so there is an inherent tension. He suggested that an overlay zone be created that sets out the rules more clearly for parking, and for when and how residences can be enlarged in the upcoming zoning ordinance update. He added that the current zoning was written for single - family homes, not for the reality of this kind of situation. Commr. Dandekar stated that this project is not in conformance with R -1 zoning but this neighborhood is in transition. Without a sixth bedroom, this sort of conforms so, in the future, an overlay zone as an effort to protect quality of life should be strongly recommended. She stated that she is swayed by the quality of life issue. She asked the attorney how to justify a denial based on quality of life and stated she supports denial. She noted that the intent has been voiced to create housing for students. Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 5 Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere stated that the City adopts policies which the Commission interprets. Deputy Director Davidson stated that Findings 3, 4, 5, and 7 are about the policies with which the project is inconsistent and that is what staff presented to support the staff recommendation. Commr. Larson stated he has a tendency to support the staff recommendation and that there are aspects of the project he likes and aspects of the presentation that were handled quite well, but staff makes a compelling argument and, if you step back, you can see the difficulties. Commr. Draze made a motion, seconded by Commr. Malak to support the staff position with some added findings. Discussion ensued. Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere suggested deleting Finding #1 and putting that language in Finding #5 because the denial is not dealing with the High Occupancy regulations and these concerns relate to compatibility of this project and what it would impose on the surrounding neighborhood. He noted the project does have potential for high occupancy. Commr. Larson stated that he did not want to lose staff's interpretation that there is a mechanical difficulty in approving this project separate from compatibility with the neighborhood, given the lot geometry and the family room which is really going to be a bedroom triggering high occupancy and the inability to meet the parking regulations. Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere suggested adding to the end of the sentence in Finding #5 "it facilitates high occupancy uses not compatible with R -1 neighborhoods and creates a high likelihood of exacerbating neighborhood parking deficiencies." He also suggested adding to the last sentence in Finding #6: "The property's existing nonconforming parking layout coupled with the substandard nature of Slack Street and proposed number of bedrooms creates a scenario where adequate parking cannot be provided to accommodate the number of adult drivers the occupancy could support..." He added that the appeal is being denied, not the action. Commrs. Draze and Malak accepted those changes as part of the motion. Commr. Multari stated that he appreciates those language changes but he is not comfortable with the statement in Finding #5 that "it does not encourage owner occupancy' because the City has other policies that say student housing adjacent to Cal Poly is encouraged. He added he wants to take that statement out. Commrs. Draze and Malak supported that removal of language. Commr. Fowler stated he is still concerned about calling this a minor addition. He asked if there is an opportunity to do something about clarifying the definition of a minor addition. Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 6 Deputy Director Davidson stated that this is something to consider for the future and is on the working list. There were no further comments made from the Commission. On motion by Commr. Draze, seconded by Commr. Malak, to support the staff position by dopting the Draft Resolution denying the appeal and supporting the Director's decision to deny the project with the following changes to Findings: a. Finding #1: Delete b. Finding #4: Add "one- third" after "includes a house that is" and before "larger than others.... " c. Findinq #5: Remove "it does not encourage owner occupancy." d. Findinq #5: Add to the end of the sentence "it facilitates high- occupancy use not compatible with R -1 neighborhoods and creates a high likelihood of exacerbating neighborhood parking deficiencies." e. Finding 6: Add after "parking layout" and before "coupled with" the following "and the substandard nature of Slack Street" f. Finding 6: Add "to accommodate the number of adult drivers the occupancy could support' after "cannot be provided" and before "and this deficiency...' g. Action: Change "deny the application" to "deny the appeal." AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, and Multari NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Riggs The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 2. Staff a. Agenda Forecast by Davidson • Oct 8 —home stay ordinance, water supply presentation • Oct 22— General Plan report, Calle Joaquin property with proposed zone change for a hotel next to Alfano Motors. 3. Commission – no comments ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:44 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 7 Respectfully submitted by, Diane Clement Recording Secretary Approved by the Planning Commission on October 8, 2014. Lauri Thomas Administrative Assistant III