Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03/17/1992, 4 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY A REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT (LUE) MAP AND ZONING MAP (GP/R 1545) FROM MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-3-H, R-3) TO OFFICE (O-H, O) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER O
ll'N�lyllll�llllllllll I�I MEETING DATE: tltl liA►��f� city o san 1L.:js ogIspo 3- 17-92 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: n- o FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director; w� By: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner ; / SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission's action to deny a request to amend the Land Use Element (LUE) map and zoning map (GP/R 1545) from Medium-High Density Residential (R-3-H, R-3) to Office (O-H, 0) for property located on the northwest corner of Peach and Toro Streets (1206, 1208/1214 Peach Street) . CAO RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution "A" denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's action to deny the request to amend the LUE and zoning maps from Medium-High Density Residential (R-3-H, R-3) to Office (0-H, 0) . DISCUSSION On January 29, 1992 , the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the requests to change the zoning and land use designations of the two properties from Medium-High Density Residential to Office. The Commission agreed with staff that the site was beyond the periphery of downtown envisioned for offices and indicated concern for the loss of housing units. They felt that the history behind the establishment of the adjacent Fremont Plaza office complex did not support expansion of office uses in the vicinity. The applicants' representative maintains that the proposal is consistent with general plan policies (see attached appeal letter and previous statements) and appealed the Commission's action on February 7, 1992 . The Planning Commission report prepared for the January 29, 1992 hearing is attached. The report provides an evaluation of the request's consistency with current general plan policies. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt Resolution "B" upholding the appeal and approving the request to amend the LUE map from Medium-High Density Residential to Office, and introduce to print Ordinance "C" amending the zoning map from R- 3-H and R-3 to 0-H and 0. 2 . Continue with direction to the staff and appellant if the Council desires further information or analysis to render a decision. Attached: Resolution "A" denying appeal Resolution "B" upholding appeal and approving general plan (LUE map) amendment Ordinance "C" approving rezoning Planning Commission Resolution No. 5083-92 Draft 1-29-92 Planning Commission Minutes (forthcoming) Appeal to City Council Planning Commission Staff Report f _� RESOLUTION "A" RESOLUTION NO. (1992 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY A REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT MAP AND ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATIONS FROM MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-3-H, R-3) TO OFFICE (O-H, 0) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PEACH AND. TORO STREETS (1206, 1208/1214 PEACH STREET) BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after consideration of public testimony, the applicants ' request GP/R 1545, the appellants' statements, the Planning Commission's action, staff recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings: 1. The proposed general plan amendment/rezoning is inconsistent with policies contained in the general plan which call for office development in designated areas on the periphery of the downtown. 2 . The proposed general plan amendment/rezoning is inappropriate as an expansion of an existing office complex given existing Land Use Element policies. SECTION 2 . The request for amendments to the Land Use Element map and zoning map to change designations from Medium-High Density Residential (R-3-H, R-3) to Office (O-H, 0) for property located on the northwest corner of Peach and Toro Streets (1206, 1208/1214 Peach Street) is hereby denied. Resolution No. (1992 Series) On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 1992 . Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: City A inistrative Officer t e Community Deveop ent Director �-3 RESOLUTION "B" RESOLUTION NO. (1992 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY A REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT MAP TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION FROM MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO OFFICE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PEACH AND TORO STREETS (1206, 1208/1214 PEACH STREET) BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after consideration of public testimony, the applicants' request GP/R 1545, the appellants' statements, and the Planning Commission's action, staff recommendations .and reports thereon, makes the following findings: 1. The proposed general plan amendment/rezoning is consistent with policies contained in the general plan for expansion of offices outside the periphery of the downtown. 2. The proposed general plan amendment/rezoning is appropriate as an expansion of an existing office complex given existing Land Use Element policies. SECTION 2 . The request for an amendment to the Land Use Element map to change the designation from Medium-High Density Residential to Office for property located on the northwest corner of Peach and Toro Streets (1206, 1208/1214 Peach Street) , as shown on the map attached marked Exhibit "A" and included herein by reference, is hereby approved. Resolution No. (1992 Series) On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 1992. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: A trative Officer t tt e Community Development Director �-5 EXHIBIT A y lD R 4 <lop/ v` .,... �2 o # 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ �s 41 R 4P e . `'' �'�� '� ' � :`"�•.j gar•�„" ` •• '�•�' O d O '0 - - n ? ` 1206 Peach From R-3-H to ,v .� CC '°: 1208-14 Peadc From R-3 to 0 u s GIs OF GRApmiC SCALL, '� PGS+�`� d� . •` \\/>`• `` •�w •�� �(�TC 014 `J I 0 SO 100 200 700 ZONING MAP GP/R 1545 NORTH 1206 1208 1214 PEACH ORDINANCE "C" ORDINANCE NO. (1992 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONE MAP FROM R-3-H TO 0-H FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1206 PEACH STREET AND FROM R-3 TO 0 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1208/1214 PEACH STREET WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held hearings to consider appropriate zoning for the subject properties in accordance with Section 65800 et. seq. of the California Government Code; and BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Zoning Man Designation. That the properties be zoned "O-H" and "O" as shown on the map attached marked Exhibit "B" and included herein by reference. SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council has determined that the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the rezoning. SECTION 3 . Findings. 1. The proposed rezoning will not be detrimental. to the health safety and welfare of persons living or working in the area or at the site. 2 . The proposed rezoning is consistent with the general plan. 3 . The proposed rezoning is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding land uses. 4 . The rezoning will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and has been granted a negative declaration. 4- 7 Ordinance No. (1992 Series) Page 2 SECTION 4 . Implementation. A summary of this ordinance, together with the ayes and noes, shall be published, at least three (3) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in said city, and the same shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, at its meeting held on the day of 1992, on motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Ordinance No. (1992 Series) Page 3 APPROVED: ity A inistrative Officer A!!At r y Community Deve ment Director �- g EXHIBIT B { at """we«eeeie ' ....�eee«« `°�'t ted>•c+e .L ... ... C:::: •. -....use«e.e .[.!: .:e[x:c / "Ojeeeeeeee KEOew,eie Li04. >OCL Ot •' •' n«0:000 'LE000i00LOEi[L[ / -••- aei -• :4eee• e0 O ,•°e �[`t[E t>c eeiL]t / ;C,rl '..`.CC./'Tf[- :: .!'.i',"C.•: :T•C CfU I • { w� 6 C 1 +-i ..................... cc .................... ........... ... .. ..... .::::. ... 1.... r�i,,� °Y�..�::: :......:-• est e:.::: — ecce .� ... ... ... .. [ is / -•- 1206-1208-1214 _ :-� ,. •� ..�� ._ " PEACH cerci: ... ...... l - i E' iLeii e.eeLe...:. — e From High-Density Residential to Office> `::>-: 1q1� .:i-_ � _ �•_ L7ec>e 11� �: +L,: j. 2. •,:..•i.•.:�� :Iii _• •w •••e ilii.• _ �,-y{`'(jj(��{{ L ti �y 0]L• • ,,.eel�°' • •.''V.l�'.�•_.'.•.•:::.:'•:: _ i 4 -e _ .>..- �� ]:'.:.mow._.. ..• .. .� •..... • �`.�::: .s";:::::: ::. as•. +� — II_:e °e:` ace:v.:: � — y�; .e c.` '°est°ee°tc a '� I ares eec•e.::::e.. ....._.. ....•• — �•�•� •.,meu. acct stet= ' i x• eel ....... � .::. .''.iii- ^• .•.�:L— •TOOK. _OteC .:::: ...•...� — _ •e >c"-�' ti° •sew.:: .. _ .w ......,�� �. ,—..if ... ::: Vign _r-.::: – — :et.::ee.:r:-:.e[ \ •— GRAPHIC<; ALE - 0 1,000 2,000 3,000soo LEGEND Tourist Commercial � ��Public•'Senipublic Low Density ResidentlalNeighborhood Commercial `s Park Medium Density Residential ® Retail Commercial i Consarvation/Opon Space Medium-High Density Resident—, Service-CommereiailUght Ind. -- Interim Conserv+fOpen Space High Density Residanttal ......; Office FTRural Induatr{al I■. Urban Reserve Llns Development Limit Une — Major Expansion Area LUE MAP . GP/R 1545 NORTH 1206 1208 1214 PEACH 14-10 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5083-92 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chamber of the San Luis Obispo City Hall, San Luis Obispo, California, on January 29, 1992, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application No. GP/R 1545, by Dan and Sue Phalen, applicants. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING REQUESTED: To amend the Land Use Element map and zoning map to change the designations from Medium-high Density Residential, Historical and Architectural Preservation (R-3-H) to Office; Historical and Architectural Preservation (O-H). PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: On file in the office of Community Development, City Hall. GENERAL LOCATION: 1206-1214 Peach Street. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT: Medium-high Density Residential. EXISTING PRESENT ZONING: R-3. WHEREAS, said commission as a result of its inspections, investigations, and studies made by itself, and in behalf and of testimonies offered at said hearing, has - established existence of the following circumstances: 1. The proposed general plan amendment/rezoning is inconsistent with policies contained in the general plan which call for office development in designated areas on the periphery of the downtown. 2. The proposed general plan amendment/rezoning is inappropriate as an expansion of an exiting office complex given existing Land Use Element policies. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that application No. GP/R 1545 be denied. ��/ Resolution No. 5083-92 General Plan Amendment & Rezoning GP/R 1545 Page 2 The foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo upon the motion of Commr. Hoffman, seconded by Commr. Karleskint, and upon the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Hoffman, Karleskint, Kourakis, and Peterson NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Williams, Gurnee, and Schmidt Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary Planning Commission DATED: January 29, 1992 446 4i ►al���llAll �I 1111 city osAn luis oBispo Mia 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code,the undersigned herebyappealsfrom thedecision of rendered on which decision conslsted of the following (.e. set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal. Use additional sheets as needed): The undersigned discussed the.decision being appealed with: on DATE &TIME APPEAL RECEIVED: Appellant: Narnefritle � IVE ® Representative loci ITY CLERK Address "M LUIS Qf;tS?O,CA . Phone Original to City Clerk Calendared forCity Attorney ,� .�� y� Copy to AdmInWtmtive Officer Copytothe-following department(s): CLERK � l3 R R \I DES IGN GROUP February 7, 1992 The Honorable Ron Dunin Mayor of the City of San Luis Obispo c/o Pam Voges, City Clerk 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: PHALEN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING APPEAL Dear Mayor Dunin and Members of the Council: On behalf of Dan and Sue Phalen, owners of the property at the corner of Toro and Peach Streets in San Luis Obispo, we wish to appeal the Planning Commission's decision denying their application for a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning from R-3-H and R-3 to O-H and O (Professional Office). We feel the staff and the Planning Commission has misinterpreted the General Plan with respect to this application and we ask that the Council give serious consideration to the materials we have attached to this letter. We will be. asking the Council to uphold our appeal for the following reasons: 1. It is consistent -- not inconsistent -- with those policies of the Land Use Element that encourage offices on the periphery of the downtown. 2. It is consistent — not inconsistent -- with those policies in the Land Use Element that further encourage offices around existing office complexes. 3. When converted to an office there will no noticeable exterior changes in the building at the corner of Toro and Peach Streets and there is ample room to provide for the parking necessary to serve an office use in this structure. We respectfully request the Council consider this appeal at their earliest convenience and we look forward to the opportunity of presenting the Phalen's most reasonable request. Sincerely, _ " r RRM DESIGN GROUP w W T. Keith Gurnee Senior Vice President Planning Division cc: Dan & Sue Phalen Dorothy Wallace Theron Brown c/kg-phaln.app MEETING DATE: ���H�!�►►�1111@�P ii�l� city of San LUIS OBISpo /-a9 9a PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM ?UMBER: BY: P{K Pam Ricci, Associate Planner FILE# GP/R 1545 SUBJECT: Consideration of amending the Land Use Element and zoning maps from Medium- High Density Residential (R-3-H, R-3) to Office (O-H, O) for property located on the northwest comer of Peach and Toro Streets (1206, 1208/1214 Peach Street). SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Deny the request based on findings. BACKGROUND Situation The applicant wants to change the land use designation and zoning for the two sites from Medium-High Density Residential, R-3 and R-3-H, to Office, O and O-H. The proposal is to convert the residential structure at 1206 Peach to an office adding parking to meet ordinance parking requirements. There are no immediate plans to convert the residences at 1208 and 1214 Peach to offices. Residential uses are also allowed in the Office zone up to a density of 12 units per net acre. Data Summaa Addresses: 1206, 1208/1214 Peach Street Applicant: Dan & Sue Phalen Representative: Mark Marnev, RRM Design Group Existing Zoning (1206 Peach Street): R-3-H (Historical Preservation Overlay Zoning) Proposed Zoning (1206 Peach Street): O-H Existing Zoning (1208/1214 Peach Street): R-3 Proposed Zoning (1208/1214 Peach Street): O Existing General Plan: Medium-High Density Residential (see discussion under Evaluation, Section 1.) Proposed General Plan: Office Environmental Status: A Negative Declaration of environmental impact was issued by the Director on January 13, 1992. Site Description The site of the proposed rezoning consists of two separate parcels located adjacent to one another on Peach Street at its intersection with Toro Street. The parcel at 1206 Peach Street is zoned R-3-H and consists of 7200 square feet. It is developed with an approximately 1200 square-foot rowhouse that has been remodeled in a Queen Anne Victorian architectural style. The house is included on the city's list of contributing historical properties. � -/5 GP/R 1545 Page 2 . The other property, 1208 and 1214 Peach Street, is zoned R-3, also contains 7200 square feet and is developed with two buildings. The front building contains three apartments (2 1-bedroom, 1 studio) and the rear building also contains three units (2 1-bedroom, 1 2- bedroom). The structures on this site are not historically or architecturally significant. Surrounding land uses include the Fremont Plaza office complex to the immediate northeast, and a variety of single-family residences and apartments to the north, south and west. The properties are about a block to the southeast of Highway 101. EVALUATION In the attached initial study, staff concludes that the requests are not consistent with the general plan and are not an appropriate expansion of an existing office complex. The following paragraphs summarize the discussion included in the initial study: 1. General Plan Consistena In analyzing the requests to allow office development on the two sites, staff found inconsistencies between the proposal and policies contained in both the Land Use Element (LUE) and Housing Element. The focus of the City's land use strategy related to offices has been to locate general professional office districts on the periphery of downtown near the government and retail center of the city, to locate medical offices near hospitals and to keep government offices downtown, or in approved areas outside downtown with other offices that they have a functional relationship with. The subject requests are inconsistent with professional office policies 1. and 2. contained in Section C.3.b. of the adopted LUE, which stipulate that office development should take place on the periphery of the Central Business District. The subject properties are located outside the peripheral area of the downtown envisioned for office development. The proposal is also inconsistent with Housing Element goals to maintain the existing housing stock where feasible. Short-range plans of the current property owners would result in the loss of only one residential unit at 1206 Peach Street. However, there is the potential for another six residential units on the intermediate property at 1208/1214 Peach Street to be lost with eventual redevelopment of that property to office uses. From recent staff studies, there is more of a demand for residential units then there is for small-scale offices citywide. The land use designation for the subject sites as well as the other R-3 zoned properties on the same side of Toro Street are shown on the current LUE map as High Density Residential. This discrepancy was noted by staff when reviewing the LUE map as part of the current update. The map will be corrected to show the properties as Medium-High Density Residential consistent with their R-3 zoning. GP/R 1545 Page 3 2. Appropriateness of Land Use Part of the supporting rationale for the proposed amendments is that the two sites included in the request are located immediately adjacent to an office complex. The idea behind the rationale is that the proposal is an expansion of an existing office complex, rather than introduction of a commercial land use to a residential neighborhood. The adjacent office complex known as Fremont Plaza is located on property that was formerly used as a school site. In 1968, the former school site was rezoned from R-3 to R-O. It was developed in the early 1970s with the office project. The site was rezoned from R-O to O as part of the citywide rezoning following adoption of the current LUE in 1977. The office complex was recognized at the time of the citywide rezoning as being an island of office development in a residential neighborhood inconsistent with the policies of the new LUE. The O zoning was applied to the site as the best zoning given existing development and to avoid creation of a major nonconforming use, rather than the best zoning for the site given policy directives and goals. The contemporary, and clearly commercial structures, included in the office complex differentiate it from surrounding residences and were another reason that office zoning was selected over residential zoning. It was never envisioned that office uses should be expanded to residential sites beyond Fremont Plaza. 3. Densitv Issues One ancillary issue with the proposed rezoning is that the Office zoning of the 1208/1214 Peach Street site will increase the nonconformity of existing residences in terms of density standards. With the existing R-3 zoning of the site, allowing up to 18 equivalent dwelling units per net acre, the site has a maximum development potential of 2.97 equivalent units. While the O zone allows residential uses, the maximum allowed density is less than allowed in the R-3 zone, 12 equivalent dwelling units per net acre, rather than 18. For the site at 1208/1214 Peach Street, the maximum development potential with the O zoning would be 1.98 equivalent units. The six residential units existing on the site have a combined equivalent density of 4.14 units. Conclusion The applicant's request is not appropriate primarily because of its inconsistency with the primary goals of the LUE's office policies. As the applicant's letter indicates and the initial study points out, it would be possible to find the proposal consistent with the criteria which allows some dispersed offices, if the history of the adjacent office complex's establishment and its relationship to city plans was not known. However, it is not in the best interest of the city's comprehensive land use plan to rezone the subject properties to office based on full historical knowledge of the establishment of the existing office complex. A/-/ 7 GP/R 1545 Page 4 ALTERNATIVES 1. Deny the requests based on appropriate findings. Planning Commission action is final unless appealed to the City Council 2. Recommend the City Council approve the requests based on findings. 3. Recommend the City Council adopt some other land use designation for this site. 4. Continue review with direction to the applicant and staff. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS No other department has objected to approval of the requested changes to the LUE and zoning maps. Other departments reviewed the conceptual site plan submitted by the applicant. The Fire Department noted that the change in use will trigger the requirement for fire sprinkler system installation. The Building Division commented on possible building code issues with the conversion, but could not make a definitive list of requirements without more detailed information. Building also indicated concerns with the proposed location of the handicapped stall, a handicapped person would have to wheel or walk behind other parked cars, and that cars would have to back out onto the street when exiting the parking lot. RECOMMENDATION Deny the requests to amend the Land Use Element and zoning map from Medium High Density Residential (R-3-H, R-3) to Office (O-H, O) for property located at 1206 and 1208/1214 Peach Street based on the following findings: Findings 1. The proposed general plan amendment/rezoning is inconsistent with policies contained in the general plan which call for office development in designated areas on the periphery of the downtown. 2. The proposed general plan amendment/rezoning is inappropriate as an expansion of an existing office complex given existing LUE policies. Attached: Initial Study ER 44-91 Letter from RRM dated 11-13-91 Property Owners' Statement dated 11-14-91 Proposed Site Plan Excerpts from adopted LUE and P.C. Draft LUE � _ O city ol� San US OBISp0 INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SITE LOCATION 1206 &1208/1214 Peach Street APPLICATION N044-91 General Plan Amendment/Rezoning of two sites PROJECT DESCRIPTION consisting of a total 14 , 400 square feet from Medium-High Density Residential (R-3-H, R-3) to Office (0-H, O) . Dan and Sue Phalen APPLICANT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: X NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION INCLUDED EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REOUIRED _E-NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT =,EOUI=.ED PREPARED 6Y �* Pam Ricci, Associate Planner DiIuary 13, 1992 l3 IG92 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S CTIOK: � \�., DAT'ccam. �IC�t�tJ� SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING II..POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS A COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS .... ........... . . .. ...... . ...... ..... . . . .. . ... . .. .. NO?QE B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH ..... ... ..................... . . . .. .... . . .. NONE* C. LAND USE .... .. ... .. . ......................... .................. .... . .. .... .. ... NONE D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .............. ........................ ....... NONE E PUBLIC SERVICES .. . . . ................... ...................... ...... .. .. .... . .. NONE F. UTILITIES..... .... . .. . ... . ..................... ..... ................. . .. ...... ... NONE ' ' G. NOISE LEVELS . ...... .. ....................... ...................... ...... ....... NONE H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS ........... .. .. . . ... NONE I. AIR OUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS........................................ ... ..... NONE J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND OUALITY ................................... ........... NONE KPLANT LIFE ...................................... ................................ NONE LANIMAL LIFE....... ... ................... ........... .................. ..... . . . ... NONE M. ARCHAEOLOGICALIHISTORICAL ..... .. . . ... ... .... .................... .. ...... .... NONE N. AESTHETIC . ... .. . .. . . ............ ..... . ... .. .. ............. .......... .. ...... ... NONE O. ENERGYIRESOURCE USE . .. . ...... .............. .... .... ............... .... ....... NONE P. OTHER ... . . ... . . . . . . . . ...... . .... ..... ..... .. . .. ........................ . . . . . .. . 111.STAFF RECOMMENDATION .. 4 w NEGATIVE DECLARATION (7y •SEE ATTACHED REPORT ee-ss INITIAL STUDY ER 44-91 I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENN IRONTMENTAL SETTING The site of the proposed rezoning consists of two separate parcels located adjacent to one another on Peach Street at its intersection with Toro Street. The parcel at 1206 Peach Street is zoned R-3-H (Medium-High Density with the Historical Preservation Zone overlay) and consists of 7'00 square feet. It is developed with an approximately 1200 square-foot rowhouse that has been remodeled in a Queen Anne Victorian architectural style. The house is included on the city's list of contributing historical properties. The other property, 1208 and 1214 Peach Street, is zoned R-3, also contains 7200 square feet and is developed with two buildings. The front building contains three apartments (2 1-bedroom, 1 studio) and the rear building also contains three units (2 1-bedroom, 1 "- bedroom). The structures on this site are not historically or architecturally significant. The applicant wants to change the land use designation and zoning for the two sites from Medium-High Den=sity Residential, R-3 and R-3-H, to Office, O and O-H. The proposal is to convert the residential structure at 1206 Peach to an office adding parking to meet ordinance parking requirements. There are no immediate plans to com'ert the residences at 1208 and 1214 Peach to offices. Residential uses are also allowed in the Office zone up to a density of 12 units per net acre. Surrounding land uses include the Fremont Plaza office complex to the immediate northeast, and a variety of single-family residences and apartments to the north, south and west. The properties are about a block to the southeast of Highway 101. II. POTE\TIAL IMPACT REVIEW A. Communitv Plans and Goals: 1. Land Use Element (LUE) Consistency There have been no discussions during the review of the General Plan LUE update to expand office zones in the vicinity of the TWO properties. The proposal to change the land use and zoning for the two residential properties to office could be found consistent with some office policies, but seems inherently inconsistent with other offi-ce policies, contained in the adopted LUE. Professional office policies 1. and 2. contained in Section C.3.b. of the adopted LLTE stipulate that office development should take place on the periphery of the Central Business District. The rationale behind this land use strategy is that offices should generally be located near the governmental and retail center of downtown and provide a desirable transition between more intensive commercial development and residential neighborhoods. The subject properties are not included in the peripheral area of the dow•ntowzt envisioned for office development. �O ER 44-91 Page 2 The proposed land use element map change and rezoning could be found consistent with the criteria listed in LUE professional office policy 2. for establishment of office use outside the periphery of downtown. Establishment of office uses on the site will not appreciably add to commercial traffic traveling through residential areas given the scale of the project and the proximity of the site to Santa Rosa Street and Highway 101, could serve as transitional use and is adjacent to an office complex. The proposal could also be found consistent with LUE professional office policy 3. which calls for conservation of historical buildings. 2. Housing Element Consistency The proposal also seems to contradict goals included in the Housing Element to retain existing housing stock when feasible. The developer's statement indicates that only one residence is proposed to be converted as a result of the rezoning in the near future. However, there is the potential for another six residential units to be lost if the property at 1208/1214 Peach Street is eventually redeveloped. From studies of land use done in conjunction with the update of the LUE, there is currently more demand citywide for housing than there is for new small offices. In evaluating the need for more office zoning on the periphery of downtown in 1990, it was found that there were 220 dwellings located in existing office zones. In seven of those blocks of office zoning, there were at least 509c' residential uses remaining. It appears that with this large inventory of residential structures available for conversion in existing office zones that there is even less incentive to approve requests to add more office sites. Conclusion: The proposed general plan amendment/rezoning requires the approval of both the Planning Commission and City Council. Since approval of the requests requires a finding of consistency with general plan policies, no further mitigation is necessary. C. Land Use: 1. History and Development of Adjacent Office Complex Part of the supporting rationale for the proposed amendments is that the two sites included in the request are located immediately adjacent to an office complex. The idea behind the rationale is that the proposal is an expansion of an existing office complex, rather than introduction of a commercial land use to a residential neighborhood. From a purely physical perspective, there is some validity in this pretense. However, given the goals and policies contained in the adopted and draft LUE documents which provide for a more comprehensive strategy for establishing office zones, the appropriateness of expanding office uses on the subject sites is questionable. /V ER 44-91 Page-3 The adjacent office complex is named Fremont Plaza. Its name is derived from the school that used to be located on the same property. The former school site included all of the property that the office complex is located on, as well as a major portion of the R-4 property located to the immediate northwest that is now developed with 90 apartments. The former school site was rezoned from R-3 to R-O in .January of 1968. Concerns discussed with that zone change were the establishment of a spot zoning and compatibility with adjacent residential uses, rather then consistency with general plan policies. The R-O zone is a now defunct zoning category which allowed a mix of residential and office uses. The school site was divided into two parcels and developed \;ith the apartments and the office complex during the early part of the 1970s. Following the adoption of the current LliE in 1977, components of the plan were implemented through a cirv_ ,;Ide rezoning effort. As part of the ciryMde rezoning, the zoning of the Fremont Plaza office complex was changed from R-O to O, and the apartment project was rezoned from R-0 to R-4. The office complex was recognized at that time as being an island of office development in a residential neighborhood inconsistent with the policies of the new LUE. The O zoning was applied to the site as the best zoning given existing development and to avoid creation of a major nonconforming use, rather than the best zoning for the site given policy directives and goals. The contemporary. and clearly corrmnercial structures, included in the office complex differentiate it from surrounding residences and were another reason that office zoning was selected over residential zoning. It was never em°isiored that office uses should be expanded to residential sites beyond Fremont Plaza. .Conclusion: The history of zoning changes and development in the neighborhood do not support the proposed expansion of offices on the two subject sites. Issues will be considered in evaluating the proposal, no mitigation is necessary. 2. Density Issues (1208/1214 Peach Street) The proposed rezoning will result in the increased nonconformity of the residences at 1208 and 1214 Peach Street in terms of density. With the existing R-3 zoning of the site, allowing up to 18 equivalent dwelling units per net acre, the site has a maximum development potential of 2.97 equivalent units. While the O zone allows residential uses, the maximum allowed density is less than allowed in the R-3 zone, 12 equivalent dwelling units per net acre, rather than 18. For the site at 1208/1214 Peach Street, the maximum development potential with the O zoning would be 1.98 equivalent units. The six residential units existing on the site have a combined equivalent density of 4.14 units. ER 44-91 Page 4 Conclusion: The increased nonconformity of uses with zoning changes often occur and is not in itself an environmental impact. However, it is a factor that the Planning Commission and City Council will consider when reviewing the appropriateness of the proposed land use and zoning for the sites. No mitigation is necessary. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that a Negative Declaration of environmental impact be prepared for the project. /00W/00� R R N4 D E S I G N G R O U P November 13, 1991 Mr. Arnold Jonas Community Development Director City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street NOV 18 19� San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: PHALEN REZONING Dear Mr. Jonas: Enclosed are all the necessary application forms and exhibits constituting Dan and Sue Phalen's application to rezone two parcels on Peach Street from their present R-3-H and R-3 zoning to O-H and O - "Professional Offices" zoning. The driver of the zoning is the corner parcel owned by and currently occupied by the Phalen's refurbished Victorian residence that thev propose be converted to office uses once the rezoning and General Plan Amendment is approved. We have incorporated a schematic site plan that demonstrates how this parcel and the approximately 1,200 s.f. structure that occupies it could be served with adequate parking without detracting from the property's exterior appearance. The owners of the adjacent 1208 Peach Street parcel, which is sandwiched between the Phalen's property and a large office complex known as Fremont Plaza, is not proposed to be converted to office uses. Indeed. the present owners of the property who have agreed in writing to the filing of this application, Theron Brown and Dorthea Wallace, propose to keep it in residential use as is allowed to occur under the O - "Office" designation. We've attached a Property Owner's Statement outlining how the amendment carries out the existing policies of the General Plan and how this change is warranted to assist you in your review and consideration of this application. Should you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to give us a call. Otherwise, we look forward. to working with your office to process this application in a timely manner. Sincerely, RRM DESIGN GRO P T. Keith Gurnee Senior Vice President Planning Division cc: Dan & Sue Phalen, Theron Brown, Dorthea Wallace c/kg-phaln.jon �•,:..,., . �� PHALEN REZONING PROPERTY OWNERS STATEMENT November 14, 1991 I. INTRODUCTION The following Property Owners Statement is being submitted on behalf of Dan and Sue Phalen in support of their application to rezone two properties at the corner of Toro and Peach Streets near downtown San Luis Obispo and adjacent to the Fremont Plaza office complex on Peach Street. The proposal calls for amending the City's General Plan and rezoning the properties from R-3-H (High Density Residential with Historical Preservation overlay) and R-3 to 0-H ((5ffice with Historical Preservation overlay) and 0 (Office). The parcel at 1206 Peach Street is the Phalen's refurbished victorian residence that has been occupied by them since they completed their remodeling back in the early 1980's. They now propose to convert it to an office use in such a manner that wIII cause no outward changes to the appearance of the existing structure, while providing for adequate parking to serve an office use per the attached conceptual site plan. The property between the Phalens and the Fremont Plaza complex is currently occupied by five dwelling units in two structures that will remain in residential use as allowed in the office zone. The owners of that property at 1208 through 1214 Peach Street have consented in written form to the filing of this application with the stated intention of retaining the dwelling units currently occupying the property in residential use. It would be unlikely, given the a)dsting development on this particular site, that these buildings could be converted to office uses due to parking and building construction constraints. Nonetheless, the rezoning of these two properties represents a logical expansion of the existing office zoning covering the adjacent Fremont Plaza complex without negatively impacting affordable housing opportunities. 4;C PHALEN REZONING — Property Owners Statement Page 2 November 14, 1991 H. CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN POLICIES The application is consistent with the following Professional Office policies set forth in the City's General Plan Land Use Element on pages 16 and 17 of that document: M The application is consistent with the policy that encourages professional offices to develop in peripheral areas of the central business district and other specialized centers as these parcels are on the periphery of downtown and adjacent to the existing Fremont Plaza office complex and would serve as a transition zone between the residential areas to the west and existing offices to the east of the proposed rezoning. b.2 (1) The parking area that would serve the Phalen property would be accessed via Toro Street which is characterized by a variety of mixed uses. While the character of much of Toro Street is residential, it is an on- and off-ramp from Highway 1 and a primary connection into the downtown area, and it is already frequently used by commercial traffic. b.2 (2) The zoning proposed would provide a transition between the residential uses to the south and west of Toro Street and the existing Fremont Plaza office complex to the immediate east. b.2 (3) A proposed rezoning would expand upon an existing nucleus of office zoning that currently covers the Fremont Plaza complex. b3 The application is consistent with the policy wherein historically or architecturally significant buildings may be designated for offices provided such buildings are preserved and conserved rather than replaced. The H (Historical overlay) is proposed to assure that any proposals to formally convert the Phalen residence to an office will be done consistent with the goals of conserving and preserving the character of this building. P13ALEN REZONING — Property Owners Statement Page 3 November 14, 1991 b.4 The application is consistent with this policy in that it is ideally suited as an office use and could be converted to such use with minimal revisions to the interior and to the site in a manner that would preserve the historic and architectural character of the structure. The attached site plan demonstrates that adequate parking can be provided to the site without requiring any notable modifications that would alter the exterior appearance of the building as viewed from any public street. b.7 The application is consistent with this policy in that medium density residential uses will be retained on the parcel between the Phalen property and the Fremont Plaza office complex. v/kg-phaln.pos 2 POWER POLE EXISTING o o ST TREES LANDSCAPING I� PROPOSED HEDGE i 4.2 1 ON EXISTING EXISTING 6'FENCE DRIVEWAY � LANDSCAPING LIFT AP LIFT 98.0' F- LANDSCAPING W c I.11 N r fA 15. q EXISTING RESIDENCE 0 ~ 3 Y 3 a y o EXISTING 5'H DGE EXISTING DRIVEWAY LANDSCAPING DN EXISTING 10' HEDGE • 1O o 98.5 \ FIRE HYDRANT 80' EXISTING STREET TREES SIDEWALK HANDICAP RAMP PEACH STREET SITE PLAN SCALE: V _ 10'-0• LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PORTION OF BLOCK 40 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA A.P.N. 01-211-08 RUM III ! 1 C M G Y .1 " , pda�}e� 4-77 LU E 3. The city should evaluate the need for and desirability of additions to existing neighborhood commercial centers as specific development proposals are made. Criteria for evaluating such proposals are: (1) Uses are in fact those which will serve nearby residents, not the community as a whole. (2) Expansion areas have access from arterial streets. (3) Expansion areas will reduce the area used by or designated for offices or service commercial uses and not areas designated for or used by residences. 4. New convenience centers within residential suburban expansion areas should be permitted only when it is clearly demonstrated that population density and excessive commuter distances to existing facilities would warrant such a development. 5. Convenience commercial centers should have direct service access from the city's arterial and collector circulation system so as to avoid the concentrated use of residential collector or local streets for truck delivery and customer traffic. 6. Scattered, small-scale, convenience commercial stores within established residential neighborhoods may be retained where their operation has proven compatible with surrounding uses. Existing stores should be evaluated as to the conditions and character of their operations and encouraged to improve, where necessary, to better integrate with surrounding residential land uses. Where evaluations show compatibility and/or lack of market needs, the city should prohibit the intensification and/or expansion of isolated neighborhood commercial facilities and should provide for their long-term replacement with land uses typical of the surrounding neighborhood. 7. Scattered convenience commercial uses within retail or industrial districts should be consolidated to form more efficient convenience centers or relocated to more suitable sites adjacent to residential districts: 8. Specialized retail stores, and recreational uses may be established within neighborhood commercial areas so long as (1) individually, their size would not constitute a major citywide attraction and (2) cumulatively, they would not displace more general, convenience uses. b. Professional Office Policies 1. Professional office uses should be encouraged to develop in peripheral areas of the Central Business District and other specialized centers such as medical complexes to (1) take advantage of close proximity to governmental and retail uses in the downtown, and (2) provide a transition between the heavily used central commercial core and surrounding residential neighborhoods. =6 2. Isolated office uses within residential areas or convenience commercial centers should be discouraged. Top priority should be given lo infill of professional office development in areas adjacent to the Central Business District. Continued use and limited expansion of office areas outside the periphery of the Central Business District may be provided for only when such areas (1) have direct access from other than residential streets, and will not require or encourage circulation of commercial traffic through residential areas, (2) provide transition between residential and existing commercial or industrial uses, and (3) are based on an established group of offices. Commercial or professional office uses locating in such areas should be limited to those with no close functional relationship to medical and legal-government-financial centers elsewhere in the city. Large professional office buildings which can include multiple tenants but with no single tenant space less than 2,500 square feet may be established in service commercial/light industrial areas subject to the approval of a Planned Development (PD) zoning application and compliance with criteria set forth in the zoning regulations. This last provision notwithstanding the dispersion of banks, real estate offices, financial institutions, medical clinics, and doctors offices, and lawyers offices throughout the city is prohibited. 3. Where historic or architecturally significant buildings are located in districts designated for office use, the city should encourage their long-term conversion and conservation rather than replacement. 4. The city should review all requests for conversion of residential uses to professional office activities to ensure (1) their ability to adequately function as office uses, compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and (2) the preservation of the historic and architectural character of the structure where such features are considered significant. 5. Professional office uses should be conditionally permitted within comparison retail commercial areas of the Central Business District and encouraged to utilize floor space above street level, thereby avoiding interference with or the reduction of valuable ground-floor retail activities. 6. Primary access to professional office activities should be provided from commercial arterial or collector streets and should avoid the use of local residential circulation. 7. As an alternative to or as a transition in professional office areas, medium-density residential uses may be conditionally considered. 8. Regional administrative and financial offices shall be considered as appropriate uses in certain comparison retail commercial areas and shall not be allowed to disperse to convenience shopping, service commercial/light industrial or professional office areas. �-3u 17 Land Use Element Update Planning Commission Draft 3.6 New or expanded neighborhood commercial centers should: A Be created within, or extended into, adjacent nonresidential areas; B. Provide uses to serve nearby residents, not the whole city; C. Have access from arterial streets, and not increase traffic on local residential streets; D. Have safe and pleasant pedestrian access from the surrounding service area, as well as good internal circulation; E. Provide landscaped areas with public seating; F. Provide indoor or outdoor space for public use, designed to provide a focus for some neighborhood activities. 3.7 The city should evaluate the need for and desirability of additions to existing neighborhood commercial centers only when specific development proposals are made, and not in response to rezoning requests which do no incorporate a development plan. 3.8 Small, individual stores within established residential areas may be retained when they are compatible with surrounding uses. Other isolated commercial uses which are not compatible with residential surroundings eventually should be replaced with compatible uses. Offices 3.9 The city should have sufficient land for office development to meet the demands of city residents and the specialized needs of county residents. Office development includes professional and financial services (such as doctors, architects, and insurance companies and banks) and government agencies. However, not all types of offices are appropriate in all locations, as explained in the following policies. (The Public Facilities section, page 49, also offers guidance on development of government offices.) 3.10 All types of offices are appropriate in the downtown commercial area. Also, all types of office activities are appropriate in the surrounding office district, though offices needing very large buildings or generating substantial traffic may not be appropriate within that district, which provides a transition to residential neighborhoods. Some types of offices may be accommodated in locations other than downtown: A. Medical services should be near the hospitals; B. Government offices emphasizing social services should be near South Higuera Street and Prado Road; _ gmIX LL:F.co%il.wp 34 Land Use Element Update Planning Commission Draft C. Large offices having no substantial public visitation or need for access to downtown government services may be in service-commercial or industrial areas. 3.11 Existing office buildings outside the areas described in policy 3.10 may continue to be used and may have minor expansions if they: A. Have access directly from collectors or arterials, not local residential streets; B. Will not significantly increase traffic in residential areas; C. Will not have significant adverse impacts on nearby uses. 3.12 Historic or architecturally significant buildings located in office districts should be conserved, not replaced. Tourist commercial 3.13 The city should accommodate tourist commercial uses, those which primarily serve the travelling public, where such uses have already concentrated: along upper Monterey Street; at the Madonna Road area; at certain freeway interchanges; and in the downtown. 3.14 Tourist commercial areas should accommodate motels, restaurants, service stations, and minor retail sales for the convenience of travellers. These areas should not include offices, general retail stores, auto repair, or business services. 3.15 Site planning, building design, and types of activities for new tourist-commercial development adjacent to residential areas should be carefully reviewed to assure compatibility. Services and manufacturing 3.16 The city should have sufficient land designated for services and manufacturing to meet most demands of the city, and some demands of the region, for activities - such as wholesaling, building contractors, utility company yards, auto repair, printing, bakeries, and retail sales of large items and those often stored outdoors (vehicles, building materials, plants). Areas reserved for these uses may also accommodate convenience restaurants and other activities primarily serving area workers. 3.17 The city's general plan previously designated "service-commercial/light- industrial" areas. A "service commercial" (C-S) zone and a "manufacturing" (M) zone have been applied to these areas. Each zone allowed a wide range of gma. LUE-coMi.wr 35 4-3 MEtiING�,� 9�AGENDA, El*Denotes DATE ITEM # ❑•Denotes nc5oa ❑ FYl March 13, 1991 V Q/CDDDHL FCAO ❑ FX Dix. ?�ACAO ❑ MECHIEF V�ATMRNEY CCLSWOP1G. 0 FIN CEM RECEIVED ❑ MGW.MAN4 ❑ P.EC DIK °�` FILE °�QnL Pam Ricci MAR 1 31992 CRY of SAN LUIS 09ISPo Associate Planner CCIANNRYDEVELOPtEHr Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo P.O. sox 8100 RECEIVED San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 1 3 AA" ,992 RE: General Plan Amendment & Rezoning GP/R 1545 CI LE S LUIS OBI CA We concur with the Planning Commission's recommendation denying an amendment to the Land Use Element map and zoning map to change the designations from Medium-high Density Residential, Historical and Architectural Preservation (R-3-H) to Office, Historial and Architectural Preservation (O 'H) for property located at 1206 and 1214 Peach Street. As property owners at 1221 since December 6, 1941 we have seen many changes in the neighborhood which include the addition of apartment complexes and a professional office building on the site of the former Fremont School. These changes have brought increased traffic to this block and any day during the week parking is at a premium. Rezoning the properties at 1206 & 1214 Peach Street we feel would bring additional traffic/parking problems. As it is now, it is very difficult to back out of our driveway onto the street safely. Not only does one have to look up the street, down the street, but across the street (where there is an exit from the professional building directly across the street) and that is further complicated by large vehicles (trucks oftentimes) parked close to the driveway thus impairing visibility. Numerous times people have even parked IN or across our driveway thereby making it impossible to leave or return whichever the case may be. It is frustrating to have to go to offices and apartments to try and locate owners of vehicles and sometimes having to resort to calling our City Police. Perhaps selfishing speaking, we would like to see the properties remain the same (especially the house at 1206 since it looks so nice with the yard and adds to the neighborhood) without additional asphalt. However, if the rezoning does occur, we would strongly recommend that adequate off street parking be provided not only for the office employees, but for the clients. We note that an office complex is being planned for Walnut and Santa Rosa -- do we really need to rezone the residential area? As mentioned above, we have lived at 12.21 Peach Street for 50 years and we want to continue to maintain our family home here where we are within walking distance to downtown; and, we would hope that this area would continue to be designated as residential. We hope that our response to your notice will be of value in your deliberations. Sincerely, E Ethe M. P w� Pa4)W 1 Norma une Powell MEETING AGENDA kp Drrc J-/7-U ITEM# Commr . Ka leskint said the applicant for Item 3 requested that the i em be heard later in the evening . The Commissi n agreed to move Item 3 to th' e meeting after Item 5 . ❑•Da,otmAmon /❑CDD FYI �CamW DIIt PUBLIC j06- 0 ,per COMMENT: Ci s a citizen nt app ica ' s r n e t $'4DDL bee e a e h to tPoilam �DIX 1 ea t d 1 ❑�C READFILE ❑.1]TIL �'_ FILZ The minutes o f a g tober 1 91 were approved as submitted. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Item 2 . General Plan Amendment & Rezonini GP/R 1545 . Consideration of amending the Land Use Element map and zoning map to change the designations from Medium-high Density Residential , Historical and Architectural Preservation (R- 3-H) to Office , Historical and Architectural Preservation (0-H) ; 1206-1214 Peach Street ; Dan & Sue Phalen, applicants . -------------------------------------------------------------------- Pam Ricci presented the staff report and advised that staff found the request inconsistent with General Plan policies and recommended the request be denied based on the findings in the staff report . Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing . 3026 S.Nevus, Victor Montgomery , applicants ' representative , said the neighbors in between the Freemont office complex and the corner support the request . He passed out photographs of the residence prior to remodeling in 1980 , which he said showed that the house did not have historic value at that time. He said the request was consistent with some General Plan policies, but inconsistent with others . He explained a downtown site plan showing land uses . He said the proposal was basically one for mixed use . He said he lives downtown because of the mixed use in the area. Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing. Commr . Peterson said he was for on the Downtown Physical Concept Plan Committee and the committee was concerned about expansion of the downtown core, . Commr . Kourakis said there has been a problem with offices driving housing out of the downtown periphery. She expressed concern about rezoning single lots to offices in downtown residential neighborhoods . Commr . Karleskint said there is nothing wrong with mixed use , but the Commission is trying to get residential units in commercial areas . He said he was reluctant to support this request . Commr . Hoffman felt the site was an extension of an R-3 Zone. Commr . Hoffman moved to deny the request based on the i1' TEAVO& i Me staff report . OR 1 3 1992 Commr . Karleskint seconded- the motion. cm CLERK ce��i i Ito ORIWO.CA IV Commr . Kourakis said she would support the motion and mentioned that she could also support a home occupation at this location . VOTING: AYES - Commrs . Hoffman , Karleskint , Kourakis . and Peterson. NOES - None . ABSENT - Commrs . Schmidt , Williams , and Gurnee . The motion passed . Commr . Gurnee rejoined the meeting. Associate Planner Pam Ricci left the meeting and Associate Planner Greg Smith arrived at the meeting. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Item 4 . General Plan Amendment & Rezoning GP/CR 1537 . Consideration of amending the Land Use Element map and zoning map to change des ' gnations from Neighborhood-Commercial (C-N) to Low-density Residential (R-1 ) ; 399 Foothill Boulevard ; City of San Luis bispo , applicant . ---------------------- --------------------------------------------- Greg Smith presented th staff report and explained the City Council had asked for the rezoni g to be initiated and recommended the Commission indicate suppo t for a rezoning to R-1-S to the City Council. In answer to a question by Commr . Gurnee , Greg Smith said that although R-1 is not general y encouraged on arterial streets , the surrounding existing uses o erride that concern for this site . Chairman Hoffman opened the blic hearing . Donnie Conner , chairperson for the Residents for Quality Neighborhoods , said the group pports the summary recommendation changing the designation from N ighborhood-Commercial (C-N) to Low- density Residential (R-1-S) . Sh said the area is surrounded by R-1 zoning . She said a small grocer store on the site was grandfathered in before zoning changes . She sa d several offices up the street are now vacant . Dan Lemburg , 10 Santa Rosa , asked Co missioners if they received his letter (The Commissioners had receiv the letter) . He said he talked to people in the neighborhood and mos of them felt the site was not appropriate for residential use becaus of noise , traffic , and building constraints of the site . He s id an office use would serve as a buffer between Foothill Boulevar and R-1 behind the site . Mrs . Kenneth Wright , 400 Foothill Bouleva , representing herself and her son who owns property adjacent to the ite , said she did not know what was in Mr . Lemburg ' s letter . Shesaid the City Council unanimously felt R-1 was appropriate for thi site in a meeting on August 20 , 1991 . She mentioned a petition si ned by 34 neighbors supported R-1 zoning. She felt neighbors ' pro erty values should be considered . She said the site has been vacant or three years . Staff gave Mrs . Wright a copy of Mr . Lemburg ' s letter . RRM DESIGN GROUP ir,la;rn;u,••Prr,;niu,� F.,(;ir,rrrr.•�• lntcnrn?•Lrn�<rith�.1r,i,itrr�,ni November 13, 1991 Mr. Arnold Jonas Community Development Director City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: PHALEN REZONING Dear Mr. Jonas: Enclosed are all the necessary application forms and exhibits constituting Dan and Sue Phalen's application to rezone two parcels on Peach Street from their present R-3-H and R-3 zoning to O-H and O - "Professional Offices" zoning. The driver of the zoning is the corner parcel owned by and currently occupied by the Phalen's refurbished Victorian residence that they propose be converted to office uses once the rezoning and General Plan Amendment is approved. We have incorporated a schematic site plan that demonstrates how this parcel and the approximately 1,200 s.f. structure that occupies it could be served with adequate parking without detracting from the property's exterior appearance. The owners of the adjacent 1208 Peach Street parcel, which is sandwiched between the Phalen's property and a large office complex known as Fremont Plaza, is not proposed to be converted to office uses. Indeed, the present owners of the property who have agreed in writing to the filing of this application, Theron Brown and Dorthea Wallace, propose to keep it in residential use as is allowed to occur under the O - "Office" designation. We've attached a Property Owner's Statement outlining how the amendment carries out the existing policies of the General Plan and how this change is warranted to assist you in your review and consideration of this application. Should you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to give us a call. Otherwise, we look forward to working with your office to process this application in a timely manner. Sincerely, RRM DESIGN GRO P moo T. Keith Gurnee Senior Vice President Planning Division cc: Dan & Sue Phalen, Theron Brown, Dorthea Wallace c/kg-phaln.jon ::;,,,,: •.,..; It DANIEL H. PHALEN eo2 SUSAN G. PHALENII 17 8 1206 PEACH ST. I V a Q. l 3 ,s 9 l SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 90-49/1222 PAY TO ORDER OFE G LTY OF= SA4Q L IX(S Oa LSP I $ g6o©0 AW b N 0 /C (23 — DOLLARS AR All s 531 Smith Main Shen Salinas,CA 93901 Union Sack A,4"4-4— MEMO SIG +1: 1 2 2 200490 : 1 194 26 75 2011• 0 178 cIo sa. WIS OBISPO �Y p PLANNING APPLICATION Department of Community Development • 990 Palm Street/P.O.Box 8100 111, San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-8100 111, (805)549-7171 • Print clearly in ball-point or type only in the unshaded area. The back of this form has information about processing your application. • Applicant Dan and Sue Phalen Day Phone 541-3483 Applicant's Address 1206 Peach Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Representative(it any) RRM Design Group (Mark Marney) Day Phone 543-1794 Representative's Address 3026 S. Higuera St. , San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Property Owner(If other than applicant) Day Phone Owner's Address Please indicate if all correspondence is to be sent to [XI the applicant CA the representative ❑ the property owner. ❑ What doyou want to do?What is yourfinal goal? Amend the General Plan and rezone from R-3-H and R-3 to 0-H and "0" to allow for both office and residential uses Project Address 1206 and 1208-1214 Peach Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Name of tract,development or business Legal Description: Lot Block 40 Tract Map of the town of San Luis Obispo (A MB 168) Assessor's Parcel Number 01-211-08,09 Present Zone R-3-H, R-3 APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE: I have reviewed this com- PROPERTY OWNER/AUTHORIZED AGENT: I have read this pleted application and the attached material. The information pro- completed application and consent to its filing. vided is accurate. I understand the city might not approve what I'm applying for,or might set conditions of approval. Signed Date Igned Date '.:CHECK;NEVIEW',z- 'APPLICATION NO "FEEvPAID' t� :ROUTING. Sent i3ec'd ,L �r i Sent Recd 7 " j •, ElRezoning/PD Y � Public Serviceso� r❑ p Builtlm.g Reg =t p w❑ ❑ Use Permit s _.Engin eering N?p ❑; Current Planning ❑ +':: El Variance - *_ '- ,Utlhties ❑ ❑r Advance Planning—p Fp ❑ARC Review btiSt Trees;.(Pk Fmn.)�,❑r ❑: C„ty Attorney ❑ ❑ ❑ Env. Review - �� Fire Department° f7 L3 Police Department _❑ .:❑ ❑Std:Subdivision, x arks&Recreation :❑ ❑- Other- - fl ❑. ❑ Minor;Subdnr...... _ — �.,< .y c❑ Other: , ` Qrior applications on this site ;i ?Fee paiiJ;by ❑Applicant p Representative ❑ Property Owner ' .,~ T� a yul • a Protect Team Planner `Date this appllcatloncertitied complete, .v oTentative Hearing Dates . ' EIR Determination: O"Cat Ex Oft.Dec. O EIR Req 'Date a 4ROJECT ACTIONS: :Date Body Action Resolution.Number Notes to file 74-87 Application received by Date { Li LJ �: �...._._ ... NOSNHOr - . 0 � � O �►v,(� 1 r © = oD oa a p vd Q S O i 0 w x_ 1 w O a , �R aE.- o + ��• c El J .Yr � _ O ❑ r a O J 05 a x O ❑ - W .S, 1..s OUQJL o W ' •rte O Q V -O C 0 0 re 1 0CL a . g e•` ` O ✓ , 1 \1 4L III •�1 e 4 e o \\ 4 b �► v o 7 0 S 0 M�� �� � PHALEN REZONING PROPERTY OWNERS STATEMENT November 14, 1991 I. INTRODUCTION The following Property Owners Statement is being submitted on behalf of Dan and Sue Phalen in support of their application to rezone two properties at the corner of Toro and Peach Streets near downtown San Luis Obispo and adjacent to the Fremont Plaza office complex on Peach Street. The proposal calls for amending the City's General Plan and rezoning the properties from R-3-H (High Density Residential with Historical Preservation overlay) and R-3 to O-H (Office with Historical Preservation overlay) and O (Office). The parcel at 1206 Peach Street is the Phalen's refurbished victorian residence that has been occupied by them since they completed their remodeling back in the early 1980's. They now propose to convert it to an office use in such a manner that will cause no outward changes to the appearance of the existing structure, while providing for adequate parking to serve an office use per the attached conceptual site plan. The property between the Phalens and the Fremont Plaza complex is currently occupied by five dwelling units in two structures that will remain in residential use as allowed in the office zone. The owncrs of that property at 1208 through 1214 Peach Street have consented in written form to the filing of this application with the stated intention of retaining the dwelling units currently occupying the property in residential use. It would be unlikely, given the existing development on this particular site, that these buildings could be converted to office uses due to parking and building construction constraints. Nonetheless, the rezoning of these two properties represents a logical expansion of the existing office zoning covering the adjacent Fremont Plaza complex without negatively impacting affordable housing opportunities. r PHALEN REZONING -- Property Owners Statement Page 2 November 14, 1991 II. CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN POLICIES The application is consistent with the following Professional Office policies set forth in the City's General Plan Land Use Element on pages 16 and 17 of that document: M The application is consistent with the policy that encourages professional offices to develop in peripheral areas of the central business district and other specialized centers as these parcels are on the periphery of downtown and adjacent to the existing Fremont Plaza office complex and would serve as a transition zone between the residential areas to the west and existing offices to the east of the proposed rezoning. b.2 (1) The parldng area that would serve the Phalen property would be accessed via Toro Street which is characterized by a variety of mixed uses. While the character of much of Toro Street is residential, it is an on- and off-ramp from Highway 1 and a primary connection into the downtown area, and it is already frequently used by commercial traffic. b.2 (2) The zoning proposed would provide a transition between the residential uses to the south and west of Toro Street and the existing Fremont Plaza office complex to the immediate east. b.2 (3) A proposed rezoning would expand upon an existing nucleus of office zoning that currently covers the Fremont Plaza complex. b3 The application is consistent with the policy wherein historically or architecturally significant buildings may be designated for offices provided such buildings are preserved and conserved rather than replaced. The H (Historical overlay) is proposed to assure that any proposals to formally convert the Phalen residence to an office will be done consistent with the goals of conserving and preserving the character of this building. r PHALEN REZONING -- Property Owners Statement Page 3 November 14, 1991 b.4 The application is consistent with this policy in that it is ideally suited as an office use and could be converted to such use with minimal revisions to the interior and to the site in a manner that would preserve the historic and architectural character of the structure. The attached site plan demonstrates that adequate parldng can be provided to the site without requiring any notable modifications that would alter the exterior appearance of the building as viewed from any public street. b.7 The application is consistent with this policy in that medium density residential uses will be retained on the parcel between the Phalen property and the Fremont Plaza office complex. v/kg-phaln.po.- S S.' I/1 /E9, 77.62 / O V � • � `e Cv o A Ck CD � D � `P ¢50 32 3• /,> i ti�P I By 9 'os ,o �\ •Sv� Qp' P so / ' " \'mac- ' •rte <�A 207 i 9 f rh � s ` Fri o\� \y Jo Ln I \ ti 3,5 ^l 55 A �. 50 , 50 50 -- p M 15154 /a9.49A 0!/1 a 50 1 0 50 100 60 N (120) ^ (z1a) (las) I 1 O u20 66 2 O n 3 �° ~ O ` ` �C _ ----- -- g� --- - - q-� I 18 1 50 GO1 100 ! 1 15 0 _ I , rl e -- a I 60 60 / O 1 � of 1a I 1 f2 I f3' 14 �----, --- � �) -O 1 5I o ! ' I ` N O `1 l0 16 of 17 0 p , 1 50 5.0 1 , 50 60 60 sS g ;139 ❑ u 9 lla6 :l68 ST . o PEACH STR ET ,s7 U43 liar a63 /v 53 X38 f ' SO p 1 10 0 f50 /00 0 50 ! , o 2 133 33 10 5 y to O 150n 0 50 64 36 I 50 ^ /00 ;�u SO O 45 'S'\S ! 1 8 ,� (DC9 +� ) Oli'` O �. ' S I I ` /? �i 4 -'o 0 , 1 50 64 .1 36 1 50 1 5� =0 '26 .1.79 J99 ::59 .'162 1168 .h'S� J(.`C S T . 212 MILL 60 Page 1 APN ASSESSEE SITUa 011,211,003 R F GARNER 636 TORO ST - 636 TORO ST SLO, CA 93401-2829 001,211,004 DE & L MILLER 638 TORO ST 673 PASATIEMPO DR SLO, CA 93401-1031 001,211 ,005 JF & ND PERKINS 656 TORO ST 1335 CAZADERO SLO, CA 93401-3006 001,211,006 RICHARD H & ADRIAN LENZ 664 TORO ST 3515 HIGHLAND AVE x/101 MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 001 ,211,007 ERMA ROBASCIAOTTI 676 TORO ST 1081 PACIFIC SLO, CA 93401-3623 001,211,009 D WALLACE ETAL 1208 PEACH ST c/o TC BROWN 319 W MISSION SANTA BARBARA, CA 93102 001,211, 020 JOYCE L TREVILLIAN 721 JOHNSON % KAMUNITY PROPERTIES P 0 BOX 30270 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93130-0270 001,121,029 JOHN R & DORIS M BROWN 643 TORO ST 298 COUNTRY CLUB DR SLO, CA 93401-8209 001,121 , 017 CAROLYN M KELLER 637 TORO ST 637 TORO ST SLO, CA 93401-2828 002,207 ,015 JOHN R & DORIS M BROWN 1150 & 11_ WALNUT ST 298 COUNTRY CLUB DR SLO, CA 93401-8209 001 , 212,001 LAURA B HOOVER 758 TORO ST 1085 SAN ADRIANO SLO, CA 93405-6112 001 , 212 ,002 MLR CLAASSEN 762 TORO ST 5098 BARRON PARK DR SAN JOSE, CA 95136 001 , 212, 003 M A ANHOLM 770 TORO ST 1221 NIPOMO SLO, CA 93401-3932 —, Page 2 -APN - ASSESSEE SITDa 001 ,212,004 E M POWELL 1221 PEACH ST 1221 PEACH ST SLO, CA 93401-2820 001 ,212,005 E R & A J JOHNSON 1229 PEACH ST 3350 EDGEWOOD DR SLO, CA 93401-6018 0011212,007 GEORGE B WEIG 1245 PEACH ST 1585 BEE CANYON RD ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93420-4907 001,212,008 JOHN & ANNE PATRIARCA 1253 PEACH ST 7560 EADS AVE #3 LA JOLLA, CA 92037 001,212,011 A P NELSON 778 TORO 1661 HILLCREST PL SLO, CA 93401-2515 001,212,012 CAROLYN E GARVER 1202 MILL ST 10850 CIERVO TRAILWAY ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93420 001, 212,013 DONALD R PIMENTEL 1214 MILL ST 5140 CABALLEROS SLO, CA 93401-7908 001,212,014 ERNESTINE GRACIA 1220 MILL ST 8490 N LOCAN CLOVIS, CA 93612-9258 001,212,015 JOSEPH E & MARY R GRIMES 1228 MILL ST 650 EVANS RD SLO, CA 93401-8121 001 ,212,016 JOSEPH E & MARY R GRIMES 1234 MILL ST 650 EVANS RD SLO, CA 93401-8121 001 , 212,017 WILLIAM H SPORLEDER 1244 MILL ST BOX 163 SLO, CA 93401-0163 001 , 212,021 EMIL E & BERNICE C KREGE 1261 PEACH ST 1261 PEACH ST SLO, CA 93401-2820 001 , 212, 023 ELMER A NORD 1235 PEACH ST 3057 S HIGUERA SP 143 SLO, CA 93401-6614 001 , 215, 012 INVESTMENT PROPERTIES 1250 PEACH ST 1150 PALM ST SLO, CA 93401-3176 Page 3 APN ASSESSEE SITUS 001,215,013 RALPH A KETTLEKAMP 1250 PEACH ST 1250 PEACH ST SLO, CA 93401-2837 001,215,014 INVESTMENT PROPERTIES 1250 PEACH ST 1150 PALM ST SLO, CA 93401-3176 001,2151015 DALE W KING 1250 PEACH ST 1250 PEACH ST #D SLO, CA 93401-2888 001,215,016 RICK VON STEIN 1250 PEACH ST 1250 PEACH ST SLO, CA 93406 001,215,017 MJ & L MCRAE 1250 PEACH ST 1250 PEACH SLO,. CA 93401-2837 001,215,018 PAMELA M DASSENKO 1250 PEACH ST 1320 LONGVIEW PISMO BEACH, CA 93449-2439 001,215,019 JOHN HAMERS 1250 PEACH ST R STEELE MD, INC 1250 PEACH ST, STE H SLO, CA 93401-2837 001,215,020 FREMONT HTS PROF CENTER INC 1250 PEACH ST 1150 PALM ST SLO, CA 93401-3176 001, 215,021 INVESTMENT PROPERTIES 1250 PEACH ST 1150 PALM ST SLO, CA 93401-3176 001, 215,022 PETER C NELSON 1250 PEACH ST 1250 PEACH ST UNIT 6 SLO, CA 93401-2837 001,215,023 TRACT 570 1250 PEACH ST INVESTMENT PROPERTIES 1250 PEACH STE B SLO, CA 93401-2837 002, 315,003 SCOTT E & PAULA LEWIS 671 TORO ST 671 TORO ST SLO, CA 93401-2835 002, 315 ,006 WARREN A SINSHEIMER III 1143 WALNUT ST PO BOX 788 SLO, CA 93401-0788 002 , 315, 007 KEVIN J ROBERTS 655 TORO ST Page 4 APN ASSESSEE SITUS" C/O 525 MARSH SLO, CA 93401 002,315,012 EARL J & EMILIA L HILL 1134 PEACH ST 137 FEL MAR SLO, CA 93401-1015 002,315,013 ANTONIO F SILVEIRA 1150 PEACH ST 1150 PEACH ST SLO, CA 93401-2819 002, 315,014 JOHN W TAYLOR 1154 PEACH ST 1193 PINEWOOD DR CAMBRIA, CA 93418-2926 002,315,015 G L MEINHOLD 675 TORO ST 1502 HIGUERA ST SLO, CA 93401-2987 002,315,016 J E MAGNIA 1156 PEACH ST 1141 DESERET AVE BARSTOW, CA 92311 002,315,017 GARY L BOEHM 1168 PEACH ST 1168 PEACH ST SLO, CA 93401-2819 002, 315,018 LIN HAI FONG & LAI TI 1147 WALNUT ST C/O E SING-CHOU WU 1740 DE ANZA SLO, CA 93401-4702 002, 315,025 WAYNE E VIRGIN 1139 WALNUT ST 1416 6TH ST MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 002, 316,005 CARMELROSE CANNON 1137 PEACH ST 10448 MONTGOMERY AVE GRANADA HILLS CA 91344 002 , 316,012 STEVEN P CAMINITI 1144 MILL ST 551 STONERIDGE DR SLO, CA 93401 002, 316 , 013 JOHN M CAMBIER 1154 MILL ST 1154 MILL SLO, CA 93401-2813 002 , 316 , 016 LORRAINE ZANETTI 1162 & 1168 MILL ST P 0 BOX 67 NIPOMO, CA 93444-0067 =�X' 00 �� r� m mm Z •_ DD � �O 3). I.Z`� o D - — - - --- - oyZ v -= Nao• m - Z „ C/) _ rnx -;c _ r C4 _ - ml im>c'l 0mg u m;0 O 1 M. m - - - - _. m `J m r Fy' ,. Imp •Iry`` t ,'' - _- - _— -- - I Z C 0 �I Z `c P IMS - c L 3• 1