Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-18-2017 ARC Correspondence - Item 1 (Hepner) From: Iry Hepner < Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 11:56 PM To: Advisory Bodies Cc: Cohen, Rachel; 'K.C. Victor' Subject: 1027 Nipomo Street (ARC -3216-2016) Attachments: 2017-09-15 Letter to SLO ARC.pdf RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SEP 18 nq COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Attached is a letter that with comments on the project at 1027 Nipomo Street. Please confirm that this letter will be brought to the attention of the Architectural Review Commission before or at the hearing on Monday, September 18. Thanks very much, Iry Hepner irv.hepner@gmail.com 0: (213) 892-5245 M: (310) 849-1708 September 15, 2017 By E -Mail (adviso bodies a slocity.org,) San Luis Obispo City Architectural Review Commission Community Development Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 1027 Nipomo Street (ARC -3216-2016) Ladies and Gentlemen: IRV HEPNER 1971 Westridge Road Los Angeles, California 90049 (310)849-1708 irv.hepner@gmaii.com My wife (K.C. Victor) and I are the owners of property at 547 Dana Street in San Luis Obispo, which is on the same block as the proposed development at 1027 Nipomo Street. Our property is currently occupied by other family members, and my wife and I plan to retire there in the next few years. We have reviewed the file on this matter as it appears on the City's website. Although we do not object in principal to the proposed development, and applaud many of the changes that have been made from the original proposal as submitted in 2016, we do have one overriding concern about the project as currently proposed. As you know, the project includes both a significant retail component and 47 hotel rooms. But the project provides only 22 parking spaces. This means that, if the hotel is fully occupied, the project will likely burden the area with 25 vehicles for which the project itself does not provide parking, and this is without regard to the parking needs of shoppers attracted to the retail uses. It is already very difficult to find on -street parking for visitors to our home on Dana Street, and the additional parking needs for the proposed project will likely make the current parking situation on Dana Street far worse. We urge the Architectural Review Commission to require this project to provide substantially more dedicated parking than the current proposal. 4Respectf,ly s bmitted,