HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/1992, 1 - PD 144-92: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION CONTINUING THEIR ACTION ON A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING MAP FROM C-T TO C-T-R-4-PD, FOR THE BLOCK SURROUNDED BY HENDERSON, BUENA VISTA, GARFIELD, AND HIGHWAY 101. TIN^II^,Illlln�� ��hl vJ MEETING DATE:
II W I1I h�uil CiOf San . ,S OBispO //-/ 7- y L
A -
Eft COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT `7EM NUMBER: /
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Developmen Director,,
BY: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner /
SUBJECT: PD 144-92 : Appeal of Pla ing Commission's action
continuing their action on a request to change the zoning
map from C-T to C-T-R-4-PD, for the block surrounded by
Henderson, Buena Vista, Garfield, and Highway 101.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal, 'and direct the applicant to continue working with
the Planning Commission to generate their recommendation.
DISCUSSION
Background
The Planning Commission reviewed a request to change the zoning map
for the site to C-T-R-4-PD on September 30, 1992, and continued it
with a recommendation to the applicants that they revise their
request and submit additional applications. The applicants have
appealed the continuance. Appeals of Planning Commission actions
are heard by the Council.
Data Summary
Address: 604 and 690 Henderson Avenue
Applicant/property owner: King Ventures
Representative: Rob Strong
Zoning: C-T
General Plan: Tourist commercial
Environmental status: In process of preparation.
Project action deadline: No mandated deadlines for legislative
actions
Project description
The applicants want to amend the zoning map for the site, to allow
a combination of motel and residential uses. Specifically, the
applicants would like to use existing and proposed motel buildings
for motel purposes during part of the year, and for apartments (or
group housing) other times of the year.
EVALUATION
1. As it stands, the application is not approvable. The
application was submitted as a request to change the zoning of
the site to a 11C-T-R-4-PD" zone. The City does not recognize
zones that are a combination of two or more base zones.
Different development and performance standards apply to the
R-4 and C-T zones, so it is not possible to evaluate a request
for a combination C-T and R-4 zone.
���n��►��►��iIIIIIIIIP° llUlh MY Of San I&s OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
VD 144-9-2
604 and 690 Henderson
Page 2 1
2. Alternatives are available. Staff asked the previous
representative to clarify and revise the request, but did not
receive a revised project description. Because of high public
interest in the project, the request was scheduled for a
Planning Commission meeting (see attached Planning Commission
report) . Staff asked the commission to recommend a preferable
land use designation, if it supported the concept of a mix of
uses on the site.
The Planning Commission indicated support of the basic
concept, and continued the request with a recommendation that
the applicant change the request to R-4-14U-PD, and file
applications for land use element amendments as well. During
discussion of the motion, the representative asked instead j
that the Commission act on the request at hand (C-T-R-4-PD) ,
indicating that the applicant did not feel it necessary to
change the request. (Since the meeting, the representative
has indicated that the applicant wants to change the requested
designation to C-T-PD. )
3. The applicants appealed the continuance. The representative's
appeal letter says the Planning Commission required the
applicants to submit a general plan amendment and rezoning
application. The Commission's action was, instead, a
recommendation to change the request. The applicants could
choose not to follow the Commission recommendation, and
request that the item be rescheduled as soon as possible. They
instead filed an appeal.
It is inappropriate to appeal a continuance, except where the
Planning Commission's action is clearly delaying a project
unnecessarily. The Planning Commission has reviewed this
request only once, and continued it in an effort to assist the
applicant with amending the application to make it approvable.
It appears that the applicant's intent in appealing the
continuance is to determine if there is council support for
the project. If there is, then the applicant will make the
necessary additional applications. If not, then the project
will be revised or withdrawn.
The Council. should discuss and act only upon the specific item
appealed: the continuance. If the Council finds that the
Planning Commission's action was inappropriate, then it should
approve the appeal and return the matter to the Commission for
further action. Such action would. not be an approval of the
rezoning request, however, since that action is not before the
Council, and environmental studies have not been completed.
If, however, the Council determines that the Planning
Commission did not have sufficient information to act on the
i-a
������»�HiIVIIIIIIIIII�� IIUIU city Of San 1 _ s OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
604 and 690 Henderson
Page 3
request, and therefore acted appropriately in continuing the
item, the Council should deny the appeal and uphold the
Planning Commission's continuance, thus also returning the
matter to the Commission for further consideration.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may adopt a resolution approving the appeal, based on
finding the Planning Commission's action to be inappropriate.
Action to approve the rezoning request cannot be taken, since that
issue is not before the Council, and environmental studies are not
yet complete. If the Council approves the appeal, the request
should be sent back to the Planning Commission for action.
The Council may continue action on the appeal, with direction to i
staff and the applicants.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Other departments have no opinion on this request.
FISCAL IMPACTS
Either an approval or a denial of the appeal would have no fiscal
impact on the city.
Attached:
Planning Commission report
Draft resolutions
Vicinity map
Representative's appeal statement
Minutes of Sept. 30, 1992 Planning Commission meeting
1-3
CITY OF SANLUIS OBISPO
- -.- _
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT rrEm# i
BY: Judith tautner, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: Seplern.ber:30 1992
FILE NUMBER:. PD 144=92
(PROJECT ADDRESS: 690 and 604 Henderson Avenue ;.
SUBJECT_ : Planned development rezoning to allow a combination of motel and'high=density
residential uses on the same site:
RECOMMENDATION
L. Discuss.the concept.
2. Determine if there is Commission support for the proposed change:
If so;_indicate what elements of the proposal may be acceptable to the Commission; and suggest
whtch.:general plan and zone change technique would be preferable for the applicant to pursue.
Continue to a date uncertain.
.If iupport;is lacking, recommend denial to the Council.
BACKGROUND
Situation
;
-The applicant wants to change the zoning to allow a combination of uses at the site. The applicant.,
wants to have the flexibility to use existing and proposed units as motel units for part of the year;.
and as apartments at other times of the year:
There_are. different ways to accomplish this goal. Each method carnes with 'it advantages and
disadvantages: The applicant has made a specific request for a change from C-T to "C-T-R4-PD":
This7 type of combination zone does not exist, and therefore may not be approved at this time.
Staff. has discussed alternative zoning techniques with the applicant's representative, 'and' 'the
representative indicated an interest in the new "mixed-use" overlay zone. The representative
indicated that he would submit a revised request, asking for a change to C-T-MU-PD, and including
justifications for the request. At the time this report is being written, the representative has:not
submitted any additional information or change to the original request. Without this further
information,.environmental work cannot be completed. J
Because the'site is the subject of significant public interest, staff and the applicant are interested
in getting a-;response from the commission and council as soon as possible, on the merits of the
proposed land use concept, regardless of the exact techniques used to achieve it. Therefore,,we:.
are asking-1he commission to look at the request conceptually, and provide direction to.staff and
the applicant
Data'Summary
Address:, '604 sand 690 Henderson Avenue ,
Applicant/property owner. King Ventures
PD 14492
604 and 690 Henderson Avenue
Page 2
Representative: Jerry Spivy, Spivy & Associates
Zoning: C-T
General Plan: Tourist commercial
Environmental status: In process of preparation.
Project action deadline: No mandated deadlines for legislative actions
Site description
The site is a narrow block, 1.14 acres, bounded by Highway 101, Buena Vista Avenue, Garfield
Street, and Henderson Avenue. Current uses on the site include two motels and an older house.
The site is adjacent to a high-density residential neighborhood on the west side, and a tourist zone
on the east and south. It is two blocks east of Grand Avenue, and about 1/2 mile south of Cal
Poly.
Project Description
The request is to change the site's zoning designation to allow a combination of commercial
(motel) and high-density residential uses. The applicant wants to add a 12-unit motel ("Frontier
Annex") to the site and intends that the buildings be used commercially part of the year, and
residentially for the balance. Both may exist simultaneously on occasion.
EVALUATION
i
1. What it is and what it isn't. The request at this time is simply to have a combination of high-
density residential and motel uses on the site. A part of the request is to replace the existing
house on the site with a twelve-room motel, making a total of three motel buildings on the 1.14-
acre site.
The application does not include a request to use the motels for fraternal housing. The
applicant, however, wants the new zoning to allow group housing with future approval of a
Planning Commission use permit. The discussion below will therefore focus on the use of the
site for high-density housing and motel uses, and peripherally address group housing options.
2. The concept seems reasonable. The concept of combining motel and residential uses seems
reasonable. Several older motels in town do rent rooms for longer terms for part or all of the
year. Some hotels (such as the Anderson) have become strictly residential. The City does not
have any regulations that limit the length of stay of motel clients.
3. Density becomes problematical. The City's regulations define motels and hotels as a
commercial use, and do not assign density values to the rooms. In the Tourist Commercial
zone, the maximum allowable residential density (as contrasted to the commercial motel use)
is "twelve units per net acre, including dwelling units in hotels and motels, but not including
other hotel or motel units." (Section 17.44.020.A) Therefore, if the rooms are used as
apartments part of the time, the density will increase at those times.
The number of units allowed in the highest-density residential zone (R-4) was reduced to 24
units per acre in the 1970's, based on a perception by the Council that existing high-density
developments were too dense. The density allowed in the downtown, however, is 36 units per
acre, the highest currently allowed in the city. Depending on the perception of this site as
1-S
x¢;
M1 ,.}y. rIr h t �, h �1 ,.y4 U jfy •V _
PD 1.4492
604 and;690 Henderson Avem.
41
r
page:
3 -
_ L
rI
primarily commercial or`primanly residential, the appropriate number of=units peracre differs..
Based,on`its nearness,to an R-4 zone; it appears tfiat the,maxi i density 06vwed.on;this site
should not exceed 24, units per acre_:
. i
-The City definesl,a "dwelling unit!'-,as a.two bedroom;apartment- A studio'is'0.501unit. In the
GT zone, twelve units are allowed' per acre: In .the R=4 zone, 24•units':are all`owedi.per acre.
5
As,proposed,jall three motel buildings could be used':as apartments for part of thea;yean. The
density on,,the"site Cat ifiose times, then, would: be . , w
30 (Donnington):studio units
+ 25..(Fr6ntie );studio units
+ 12i(new:building) studio units
67 studio amts s
Each studio unit counts as OSO dwelling unit. Therefore; the maximum density!would be.66 X
050 335 dwelling units or 29.4 units-per acre..-The site is 1 14 aacres Therefore;the allowed,
density:at'[hi!�R-4:rate would be 114 X 24 = 27 dwelling-units,. The maximum density allowed
in the R_ -'4` zdhd would be exceeded when,all motel units were rented as apartments
T .......PFy
4. Tfivacy.afi&storage atmalso concerns; Motels are not designed 16 provide storage,,and'_'rivate
outdoor space`foi clients. The nature of the use is that it is temporary lodging, and cli6nt`,bring
n ,c
only what is needed for a short stay. Apartments, on the other hand, need to t_i63designed 10
,,.accomrnodke •the tenants' total possessions and need,for private recreational 'areas T;;If the
motels odii edI6 be�used as apartments part of the year; then additional storagekando:utdoor
open spaceis needed:., ., wa
At this'n*me;space on the subject site is limned for these needs. If the Tequestt,is supported,
some provision,for storage and usable outdoor open space should be required' Y
5. Parlcmg requirements:differ.. The.parkingxgquirement for motels and hotels'is "o=space per
.room,or-;group, bt fd6ms to be occupied as a suiie, plus one for resident manager's` uar'ters,.
jq
plus eating/assembly area requirements:"The requirement for studio apartments isone per
apartment,plus:one pec five apartments. The two existing motels each contain (or wilhcontain
with completion of building) dining rooms. Parking is (or will be) provided for- those,rodms :at.
th6rate. one space per 60 square feet; therate required.for restaurant"s With provision.:of
the additional-spaces required for the eating meas; the parking.on the site will meet`orrexceed
either requirement
6. Fraternal organizations must comply with different density standards. If>a requests-mal de in
the future, toi.aIlow fraternity and sorority uses on the site, a different set of density`standards
would',aave to..Be :applied. The zoning regulations require that group housing deiisiry'be
calciilatedlon,the;lbasis,of the.number of.persons occupying a premises;,iather than�the,nu ntier
of;bedrooms� !In the R=O zone; the makimum popul itionfdensityy'is 55 persons per acr`eM 'On,this .
site, then, atmaximum of 1.14 X 55 = 62.7 (rounded down to") _-62-D would e&AIlowed.
Cilculations',would be furthei complicated if one building were used for: roup,Ntiousing, and.
another for apartments or 'motel units, The zoning regulationsdo not addressJhow'density
would be ca*tilitedt'in this" kind of case: _ w '
PD 144-92 -
604 and 690 Henderson Avenu
Page 4
A possible solution, to simplify calculations,would be to modify density charts so that they apply
equally for apartments and group housing. For example, Zoning Ordinance Table 1., which sets ;
limits on the number of dwelling units based on the number of bedrooms, could be revised.
Residences with more than four bedrooms could be calculated at the rate of 0.50 unit per
bedroom. And group housing dwellings could be required to meet these new standards. The
result would be that group housing standards would limit the number of bedrooms rather than
the number of persons allowed. A zoning text change would be required to achieve this change.
Parking requirements for group housing is based on the number of occupants Qr the number
of bedrooms: one space per 1.5 occupants or 1.5 spaces per bedroom, whichever is greater.
This number, higher than the requirement for apartments, can be met on this site,once parking
lot improvements at the Frontier are complete.
7. If the applicant is to go ahead, what is.needed? As noted above, there are several ways to
reach the goal of combining motel and residential uses on the site. Below are some options
considered by staff-
Mixed-use zone: One possibility is to use the new Mixed-use overlay zone. A copy of the
ordinance establishing this zone is attached to this report. According to the ordinance,
The primary purpose of the MU zone is to permit combining residential uses and commercial uses
on a single parcel, although any combination of uses may be approved by the City. the MU zone
is intended to promote a compact city, to provide additional housing opportunities (including .
affordable housing opportunities), which is the first priority, and to reduce auto travel by Providing
services, jobs, and housing in proximity. The City desires the safety provided by havingresidential
components in commercial areas.
As with the PD (planned development) overlay zone, approval of the MU zone allows
conditions to be placed on the uses and physical planning of the site. Further, a Planning
Commission use permit needs to be approved to establish any use within the MU zone, except
for changes of use within an existing building. The ordinance is not clear about establishing
MU zones where buildings already exist, but presumably the findings required for approval of
a use permit in a MU zone would need to apply to initial approval of the MU zone, if a use
permit will not later be required.
To approve an MU overlay zone in this case, then, the following findings must be made:
l) The project's mixed uses are consistent with the general plan and are compatible with their
surroundings, with neighboring uses, and with each other.
2) The project's design protects the public health, safety, and welfare.
3) The mixed uses provide greater public benefits than single-use development of the site. This
finding must enumerate those benefits, such as proximity of workplaces and housing, automobile
trip reduction, provision of affordable housing, or other benefits consistent with the purpose of
this chapter.
PD 14492
604-and 690'Henderson.AvenL._ ,y
PageZV.
t
.r
There are probfcins m th general plan consistency (the first finding): The general^plan land use
elemeni"(LUE) does not.allow residential uses in the tourist commercial areas,; i
and t appears
that non-neighborhood=serving commercial businesses are not allowed in the residenttalzones.
.A general plan. LUE tett amendment could mitigate .thi's concern: (See :LUE excerpts,.
attached.)
There is,also a question about the "greater public benefits'` this project would pf&ide._•If.this
approach=is,to be taken, the applicant should be prepared to explain what public:benefits would
accrue and how they are consistent.with the purposes of the MU zone..
The:'`PD=-overlak The applicant has asked for a planned development` overlay zoning
:designation The zoning regulations require that specific findings be made to approve. a
planned,development_ The Commission and Council must make one or.more of -61011 ng:
L) It provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular occupancy group (such as the elderly.or
familid with children which would not 6e feasible under conventional tonin
) f &:' ..
_2) 1 1f ticbufers allowable development, within a site, from areas of greater;environmental
_sensitivity or hazard to areas of less sensitivity or Hazard.
3) �It:proydes-more affordable{lousing than would be possible with conventional development..
i 4) Features of the particular design achieve the intent of conventional standards (privacy, .
'usable'open space, adequate parking, compatibility with neighborhood character, and_ soon)
as ,well as or better than the standards themselves: 1 -
S) It:incorporates features which result in consumption of less materials,, energy, or,water than
conventional development.
4
6) The proposed project provides- exceptional public benefits such as parking, open,space,
;landscaping, public art, and other special amenities which would not be feaszG`le�under
conventional development.standards.
Further;:'if the"applicant chooses to ask for a density bonus (allowing up to 25%higher-A"
ensity
on the site); the Commission and Council must find that the development satisfies at least lir e.
of the-above criteria:, The applicant's statement (attached) suggests that the projectcan,he
found fo meet the first and last criteria: That maybe correct for the first, but not necessarily.
so for the Yogic that the landscaping of public property, already provided, "would n_ot be '`
possible
under.•conventional development standards:"
..
If the applicant is topursue a PD request, then the question remains what, is the proper
underlying zoned .
R-4 zonine -
'Th-- request could be a change to R-4-PD. Again, -tfie intrusion of non-
neighborhood commercial (motel) uses into the R=4 zone would require a LUE text change. '
Withsuch a ckange; the PD over-lay could establish limitations on the allowed:.uses
+ .
PO 144-92
604 and 690 Henderson Avenue
Page 6
C-T zoning: A change to C=T-PD would require a LUE text change to allow residential uses
on the site. A zoning text change'to allow greater residential density in this zone would also
be required. Given the high allowed density in the-downtown (C-C) zone, the applicant may
want to consider requesting a change to increase allowed density in the C-T zone to 36 units.
per acre. .
8. Environmental work. A draft environmental initial study, prepared for a similar request last
year, is attached. It cannot be updated until the current request is clarified. The Commission
may not act to approve this request in any form until the environmental determination is
completed and acted upon.
ALTERNATIVES
The Commission may indicate support for the concept, and provide direction to the applicant on
the appropriate text and map changes needed to achieve the goal.
The Commission may indicate preference for existing zoning and uses, and suggest that the
applicant withdraw the application, or may recommend denial of the request to the City Council.
A denial of the project would not require completion of the environmental determination.
The Commission may support a partial change; for example, it may support use of one of :the
buildings for residential purposes, with the remaining building or buildings used solely as motels.
This alternative may limit the potential for overcrowding and create less of a demand for usable }
open space or storage.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Other departments did not have concerns with this request.
Attached:
site plan
applicant's statement
mixed-use ordinance
excerpts from land use element - high-density residential and tourist commercial objectives
excerpt from zoning regulations - density charts and planned development criteria
letters from citizens
environmental study
0,_a
(1992 .series " :7
RESOLUTION NO ) •,.
A: RESOLUTION OF THE couN_ GIL OF THE' CITY OF SAN' LUIS'. OBISPO,
:DENYING »AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION .`
CONTINUING.',A REZONING REQUEST AT 604 AND 690 .HENDERSON,;,
,THEREBY DIRECTING THE APPLICANT TO RETURN _ ��^ - .,•
,TO THE PLANNING' COMMISSION (PD 144-92)
z., ff. f
' �. r-
BE I;T RESOLVED by the,: Council of, the City of'',Sdhlt LuiS .
.---LY I.,. -.�•Yo — ,4 J C.fail.. n
a ti i r
Obispo, as, follows: .l,'; M1a "�:u aA
r
SECTIION> 1 Findings. That this council;. rafter"
1 .
consideration :i6f.- .public testimony; the applicant';'srequest ,to;
rezone .s.property PD' 144=92; 'the Planning do mm action . to '
continueY the A reque'st;, and. staff .recoAunendat ons and'. ;Arep fits
thereon,, makes', the following findings:
16
1. KThe Planning Commission acted appropriately in continuing
_Ithe ,request; because there was not adequate information
s:.,..
available to make a decision.
1.T11 h
2. The+Planning commission's_ action did not delay the project.
unnecessarily:
SECTION' 2i Appeal denied. The appeal, -of the. Phannng.
v`..a C
Commission's�action is her---by denied; and the applicant, is hereby.
directed to 'return to the Commission for f-ijether ie"ViewrYand Ia•
recommendation nr
- On. motion sof
�..ni ---- and, on `the following;
seconded;by r
roll Call
AYES.".
ABSENT
the :forei o resolution was passed and. 'adopted th°is day:
of -F -- 1992 . Jf ;
LSE 44ti1.: � p � •'.� r
Resolution No-. (1992 Serie_s)
PD 144=92: 604 and 690 Henderson Avenue-
Mayor
venueMayor -— — — -- -- ;
-n w ATTESTa:
'+City Clerk
` APPROVED' y .,,,r_Y 5 �•L;', :
Z D
City A _in'istrative Officer '
rte_'
-or ey
Y i
•;:z�.- - _ ��•'cam:`'
Community Dev went Director
rl. • >� I `
ILI
hr 'Lr A':�V aye tnG
I� vT d IC lii ,
r� .N. �: +
. Z„ r •' ''IC � a 5�:�—, A� .,..'.tel 9.1 '. '
oA.
s y J e ^c i�V �•a}n � b
r -
' RESOLUTION NO.
(19'92 Series) ~` '
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CI_TY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO;.
APPROVING AN APPEAL OF HT E -PLANNING. COMMISSION'S ACTION ,;
CONTINUISNG:. _ACTION ON A REZONING REQUEST AT 604 AND 690 HENDERSON,
AND.:DIRECTING THE COMMISSION TO GIVE FURTHER CONSIDERATIONP2
TH'EZR RECOMMENDATION ON THE MATTER (PD
B&'--`BT RESOLVED by the Counc3..1 of the Cfity, gf r San .;Luis
Obispo?":asfollows; •- �`•• `�� `�` ' -
SECTION 1. Findings. That this couricih after
consideration` of x
public testimony, the applicant"s request to
r n
rezone:;property PD 144-92., and the Planning 6ommisson's acti°on; , .
staff`,'recomfCdhdations and _reports thereon; makes the following .
1.. The Planning Commission action to continue the matter `toa ,
' subsequent hearing delayed unnecessarily r-e� ew a'nd `action
ons the "_request
j. . . max. _�.�-,...". .�m t•M .-k:..•
"'SECTION '2. The appeal is hereby approved and the a�-lican
�- PP ` `� a--t
is directed to return to the Planning .Commission.• The Plannlmg�.
fir ... �r c -
Commission°: as hereby directed to give further_: .consideration ta•
their `r'eco'e--o on" the matter. rt.
4 r
Ori motion of; _ - w
secondedlby; __ , and on the fol3owing rohly ca1T
Vote• ` J r* -4,
y(�f 4 W 4v N4 if Y
AYES �,
u •
• NOES . ' ' z -. ` i
. ABSENT
t'he forego}ing resolution was passed. a'nd adopted this y day '
2 Tr, s. . �y �,,: -, '• >`tit hx i
of "� - 1,99.2 ,s
T'
y 1
-
a
.Y }7 1.. P ._
t r
Resolution No:_ (1992 Series)
PD 144-92: 604 and 690 Henderson Avenue t
a p Ya
- ,� Mayor -4;•��w/Yy,"r
I F•
ATTEST:-
Clerk
TTEST:Clerk J
APPROVED:. e'
, City Administrative Officer
.r .
C_-' - for - - — „-
l J
Y
Community bevel6jJment Director
tt
r
1
_ l
;; /:-/3
C/OS-5
KSS. 3'L?S�"i MYFtL.Ca�f '>
EEBT 4iCC�i 14i J --
� Y1165 YI•Stl
l q4f. 1975 1985 Ij95 *-A.3 •37..
ARC e7 160 LLA 67-Z8 iLg3t�wl �,/
4908 p 0
Z.f Aloo o 2 y
v zz- s�aa
IMI
r.a� �sn>y norEi
aaceo-29 �9- r W 3FRpi4'i'sILR. Nfi''ak.
M300-42_ AVL�( Qftft
N ,
4
4 z
nSBS-3sb r--7
MG85-ii1 i � ul
W
a
O �s� ry9 y,
v.5:•9 Z �h
9001 J h�i� :. ' Axcez•z9 y
R9.0:i S ;s CG`S MM
1942 195o (2024) 7.050 P
GARFI LD ST
3 CATty-t ION
sr
�c
T�
M1�
k-0-1 ��41p0::;Ivbl
*L 0b 0b k �P�G �p Qin' 4b
pS°• \roh.e�o. � .11 y c �•e
PSP..
r` Fy
Vr�,
More"
ry
P�
\� C� 4Rc GRAPHIC SCALE:
r` \ • 0 50 100 200 300
VERY .� ,h \Ak < --
lural
VICINITY MAP PD 144-92 NORTH
694 HENDERSON
1 -�y
All City OSAn hugs OBI
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 015400 '.
Municipalundersigned hCode,the undersi .9 b
9 Yappealsfromthedecisionof '.;. ,,, .,�, ;=, •,
rendered on ,a-I = , which decision consisted of the following (Le. set forth factual
_ situation and the grounds for submkUng this appeal. Use additional sheets as needed):
RECEIVED
OCT 7' 192
CITY COUNCIL;
&AN LUIS OBISPO, Crk
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
on ;
DATE &TIME APPEAL RECEIVED: Appellant
Narnefritle ----
r
Representative
ACIreSs - - -
Mone -
Original to City Clerk
City Attorney
Calendared for. Copy to Administrative Officer
Copy to the-following department(s),CITY C= '
u •+
• ,' ,.. �.r �.L, p ..-y -. +. P of,rl ri'Y .:: " _.
t -I.. ,'"F'13 •
- 'F ,
MAA PLANNIN
G
®® V,,`R V I C L V ONE BLba VISTA •.SAN'LUIS OBISPO;CAWFORNW.93405 a05/543-9560 .......;
-
F—
.• Y.
October. -6, '19.9.2
17,
.t
Mayors.Dun in,-- and City Council .Members- _
CITY,'QF SAN LUIS OBISPO =` W
City Hall,; 990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 9.3401 syr
Subpbtl Appeal of Planning Commission decision, PDl_44 '92+
., '690: and 604 Hende_r-son Ave. , Ring Ventures; applicant:
Dear'Ma or'.'Dunin and Council. Members:
Instead of :approving or denying the above_applicaton for'n°a `
•combination of motel and high-density residential uses in°"the "61 ;bounded by Freeway 101, Buena Vista; Garfield and Henderson
Avenues, on. September 30, 1992 the Planning Commission decided:::to<
require, a general p_1'an amendment and. .rezoning application to R :4fl.
.MU PD== Pursuant to Chapter 17. 66 regarding appeals, on behalf ,bf
the poperfy' owner and applicant, King Ventures,. we appeal
decision to ih_ e City Council,
The 'Pl'annirig C`ommission. decision was appareptly based on the ,
.erroneous staff opinions that the PD zone does not emble .a
combination of uses; and that general plan policies preclude . ,
resldenfial uses in the tourist commercial district. And a180
prevent motels in residential zones.. We contend that PD zone
".is intended. to encourage imaginative development. and efthe fective=
use.` ofstes . ,by allowing more variation in project design than
4 �
normalzstandards would allow, " and that a PD may contain "-any :use,
or, combination_of, uses which con-form. with the generate plan "',.-'
P obl'emsare ifherent, howev , ,n er, the fact that comma-- d a^lf zones ...
dor+njlot' pprescriDd density'! for transient residential uses, yet
some impose relatively low density standards for dwelling un,its;,.•`,'
or ,group housing developments: _ (Unfortunately, the PD zone by ; ` r,
tself'^cannot co=reef these: deficiencies where the "density" may
be. exceeded by%25$:. )
Addtit ovally, "t is apparent that the. 0=T zone "maximum densiiy�1'� ; ,_
provisions Ind a separ-atesection regarding "group housing ;•r :,
occupancy limits ', could &196 be interpreted to conflict
these P D .proposals., or any alternative mixed use rezoning.,
perhaps precluding or complicating further- consideration.
Plann4ng Commission decision did nothing to resolve these
nterna1l�ineonsistencies and. ine- it_ies of the present' zonings
ordinances : ( _ ttpp.�� a ;
. OCT 7 1992 � �_ `•` • `
CrTY_M-L P4dL
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
In any event, we disagree with the Plaru► nq Commission action and
we request City Council discussion, direction, and. decision �;k�
Only by appeal of the Commission decision can we hope tof ae:.c.
' solution to these apparent problems.
4 Sinc rely
-Rob Strong; A 'I:C.P.
n
.r
C Ring Ventures _,.
s
' A fM1. • iY �
_ •1��� ' �.. Fes.
•l.' n Rr,_Y •
351: .\.'. •� r. Y ..
�r
4.: hA.• •L .
',. _tr, ,;1`.y(::'r•�.is r.�'.r.
N aNG- „._._.
or
AGENDA .
E.dL _ITEM
DATa.
DRAFTILW
MINUTES - CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Deno�esAdlon d/ p
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO �r � ,UO CpDDIR
NOV 1 / 1992. SEPTEMBER 30; 1992. ��O FnV DIR
�ACA
' IEF
O_ �';F7RECH
CITY CLERK ��T ' ,O;irvDm
SANILUISOBISPO CA � K(ORIG ❑ �PC)LIC cii.
O MGMr 7P,�h4 [J REC DIR.
'•CALL'TO ORDER PLEDGE=DF ALLEGIANCE ❑ c
PRESENT -
Commissioners Brett Cross, Gilbert Hoffman, Charles Senn, Allen,Settle;
',Dodie.Williams and Chairman Karleskint t
.ABSENT Commissioner Fred Peterson
1
OTHER VRESENT Arnold-.Jonas; Community Development Director.;'Judy Lautner, .
Associate Planner; Glen Matteson; Associate Planner.; Cindy .Clemens;`
Assistant.City Attorney; and Carolyn Munshaur, Recordinr
g Secetary -
PUBLIC]COMMENT There was no public comments:
;The °minutes :for the regular meetings of .May 27, June 24, and August 12, 19.92 were`
approved'-.-,,
. : ._
1 RLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD 14442: A request•to amend the zoning ma_"i
allow for mixed uses of group residential and commercial;• 690 Henderson, GT'
zone„ King Ventures, applicant.
Judithh"Lautner, Assoeiate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending that the.
Commission consider the request conceptually; obtain clarification from the applicantas
to the :typ6 gf zoning requested; and continue this item with direction to staff and,,tt e.
applicant '' 1� .;
Commissioner Settle distributed written copies of his recommendation to help resolv&Kth'e,,
issue�of'rezoning and allow a combination gf uses. He suggested the applicant 6e,given('
9(Ydays to,make additional applicatiofht..,
I N� Ih
If
Chairman Karleskint.opened the public'hearing ➢V ' '
Rob 'Strong, One Buena Vista ,and representing King Ventures, spoke in supportof
proposed development rezoning. He strongly urged the Commission not to contmue'this:
item but rather-j)recommend approval of the application with directionto staff, or 2) deny
the application if the Commission feels the mixed use is inappropriate for the site-- e
discussed different ways to achieve their goals, but.felt,that,a planned d"evelopment`was
V.I
P.C. Minutes
September 30, 1992
Page 2
the best method. He disagreed that the General Plan needed to be changed, to
accommodate mixed uses but rather said the Commission should consider whether or
not this location is logical for this mixed use and the density proposed.
Commissioner Cross felt that not enough detailed information has been received with this
application and would be difficult for the Commission to make a recommendation at this
time.
Upon question, Rob Strong indicated the Donnington and Frontier are currently used .as
apartments during the school months and motels during summer months.
Chairman Karleskint reminded the audience the speak only to the issue of the rezoning.
of the subject property. The issue as to whether or not this property should be allowed!
to be fraternity would be discussed at a later date.
Terry Ray, Manager of La Cuesta Motor Inn, spoke in support of the application.
Howard Case, representing Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, objected to .the
approval of this request.
based on accumulated impacts on the neighborhood, including noise, air quality, and!
traffic. He urged the Commission to not set a precedent with the application:.
Gary Felsman, 2234 Santa Ynez, expressed concern about the project and felt the
applicant needed to meet City requirements as addressed by staff in a report from a year
ago. He felt the city's parking standards were inadequate. He thoughts the request did
not meet requirements for either a planned development or a mixed use zone:
Jonathan Cardoza; 1942 Garfield, spoke in opposition to the application. !He.was
concerned that the traffic would increase through the residential streets more than it.
already has. He said the appearance of the Frontier Motel has deteriorated.
Linda Barlow, 627 Henderson, spoke in opposition to the application and was :also
concerned about the noise, traffic and appearance of the properly. She felt the city, had:
not done enough to control the situation.
John Kellerman, 1995 Abbott and owner of the property across from the sites, spoke"in
opposition to the application. He asked the Commission to consider 1) long-term effects
on the neighborhood; 2) is there a compelling need for this type of use; and 3) are there
more appropriate sites for this usage. He agreed with Rob Strong that the staff report:
was very rough but was deeply concerned with property values and residents' property
rights being violated.
�
i
P C Minutes s
:. k ri �d ^ d', W'�r.Sw+u ° t .0 fl7a +na.�. •�`-(
September 301 1992 1
IT c .p Fume ,J11d.'�"�$ 4�r lk til .ram b I y.
Page
I A 1'v • iy 911 a Y5 f� V d '
Jack:_:;Kellerrnant, 1777 Pinecove; spoke in opposition to 'the application'and was
concerned'about the.PD overlay being placed on the property-before developediantl;not
after. ° t
• zM,
4.a
Debra Van" Damm, 1975 Abbott St, spoke in, opposition to the 5application,{ She
expressed cgncern aboutthe occupancy of the two motels and was fFustrated11hat,the
truth regarding the activities and occupancy was being discussed tornght She was
concerned-About parking.and traffic. ` F
Martha Kelle man; 1995-A Abbott, spoke In opposition to the application and expressed
concerwabout-the noise and occupancy problems. She said the residents h one gfAl e.r
motels were_often noisy late at night and created traffic problems
r;
w.y u yPc. � ito.
John King, applicant, spoke in support of'the application He`said the idea camel up
when bu, lann0,,he motel for college=student use. #o� nine months and 'motet use for; 3
mlonths�and a_permit was prepared to address thig'situation: He'indicated that many of
,.
the neighborin9-
.0 residents-had been notifed to help resolve the parking problem, 'but
overall,"there`is no`interest in participating in.a parking district. He urged the Commission
`to takeFthis,one step,at,a time and approve or deny the applications.
Cornm'r ,S&U6 Aoved to continue this item to allow completion of envlconinentel`studies,
''With las-recommendation that the applicant revise his request _and• submit ;additional `
application materials Within 90 days: k SyrV
--
Comrmr:tHoffman seconded the motion:.
.There wasp commission discussion of the motion Cindy Clemens advised 'that,4the;i
Commission should not require the:applicant to d§ something he doesn't agree toAdoi;'
j I Ta Wr �i P1
AYES. W'w =Settle;, Hoffman; Cross; Karleskint a' '
NOES'i� _Senn, Williams
.AB Peterson
rte..-� a.. 3 r:,• t -.:,x X _ y
The motion;passed . r
t�r ~'° rM rr
"IF I
n b...
2. GENERAL-P_LAN_ANIEND.MENT ANb_PLANNED_bEVEL-OPMENT 0 _Z =D-9-'
A request to add a Planned Development zone to the existingzone C OS-40 ,to
allow,development of three single-family,homes an three lots on.fourteen acres;
Northwest end of Highland Drive, John Rossetti,, applicant:
• 4
f , i� t a � ' IhCS , •'Y-1�'Yn l y h l lZ 4 `
1 1
� n�r`0 7� t 1 r�15T5"Ff.�,i• •.4 JS � a Irl 1
iii
y.•.
J wV44 71Y#
,
MEETING LL �' GENDA
w
kpivj II r r=ITEM"#
Linda Bdr.lOw u u d ry ,�IW � 'J�: { DATE o2
62.7 Henderson"'St: ��7t��;. � � e'3. , ,
:Obispo^ COli _A 93401 OmFSTn J^`
San Luis.:, _, ' . < .
III
November 13,
t o i10 CSD DIR
F � 1
,6 o k °® F1REC3iIEF i''
1992 rroEr '_ FFr WUPL
--- -^
aFIiIVoF,c:
D!4roeICEgI.
City Of Sari ,Cuts Ob1p50 iOITY'CLERK MGMTTFA�4' rREC`D1R
-
City.:
R '190 , UI0 OBISPO;CA D CF&�DM-E D LD•4.R'.
990 Paj4Fi'S't-r•eet-
SanLu1Is_: Obisp^o,, CA 9340,1.
Attn. Mr, ARon Dunin, Mayor and City Council Mebbers
DearCouncil Memlie=s:
air .
i live at -121, Header-s.on Street: This h'as aCymi
been lfaly' homey for•.
43 years.
I feel rather? betrayed by our system: 1 feel that the developer,
John Kingj, .Ihas put this project together- by bits nand pieces, for
his' ow-fi,•financial gain,. rather than to conform to the requir-ed
standard. processes of having proper envirgnmental impact studies,
permits;. etc. The average cifzen has to conform 'and adhere with:, ,
rules and regulations and get the proper permits before_starting �a
pro�ecf; why not this developer. Our one block street is already,
more _im acted than. cur-rent, policies allow. s '
Pa_
How' can 'this `happen??? We, 'the long teem citizens' of SLO ar.e being
forgotten kV lieu of the .developers who do not have to live with"th'
demons they„create:
I haue�enclosed copies of tette=s that cdvgr Safety/Health/Noiwse`
Po'11}uton/Privacy/Traffic. and other- concerns that were sent to the :4 .
P1:annRrcg Commission; to give. you .more background on what has taken
place
Mr`.. gf
Kin ,wants you or-
to vetiurn the Planning Commission decision
to;'requ °re a• General Plan Amendment and .Reigning Application
R74, MUrPD so he can do whatever he desires: Hit plan is to kiuild'
a..Aprartment ,Complex on the Corner- of Hend`e_rson & dark ield ° N
WE ARE!'rSEVERELY IMPACTED NOW...:,. :HOW CAN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TOLERATE;.
MORE77� ,
I respectively ask that .you uphold the Planning Commission decision:
to: require a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application: This
ne ghb -'h- od °is our home were we should be allowed privacy and peace
Of mind..
.ti r - .. .•
Sincerel
t`F. ° C'..r ire r�:.yf Cbh, M•t'v-.A
y, µ. t
I I +
Y
w �
Linda -Barlow ;.F, xk u
, x I
Enclosures 1 �I
v
,o
'4.-,• ;fin%.�,
'Linda .Barlow
627 Henderson St:
San Luis Obispo, CA ,93401
Ai gtist 25, 1992
L Cfy. of. San. Luis ;Obispo
Piannng Cgmmissgn
'...990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attnc Mr. karleskint, Chairman and Commission Member-s
RE =PD 144-92 - 690 Hende_r-son St.
Dear, Conueiss on Members:
I am Linda Barlow: I live at 627 Henderson st. directly °acrossi
ee .the
_ _
strt. from the project at at 604 & 6.90 Henderson, This has�•been our
fainily home for 43 years and 'will continue to be.. my home for:=many
more.
Ihand delivered to City Planning a letter dated July lst to each of
you outlining my concerns about this .project and also delve"red'
letters (with copies for each of you) from several other people. .
- -
statng their concerns. (A copy of my 7-1=91 letter is enclosed)..
A.year- has now passed and my concerns have become a real fy `
The tr_-affic is ekce-ssive, the .noise factor is obnoxious, not'ronly :is
ih- a dangerous situation, it is also an unhealthy one. On anyig ven
night I am either awakened by reckless drivers (tires screeching;
loud voices, stereos, car alarms being activated at a1`1 hours,.
car doors slamming, students who decide to clean their room.`at 1 'AM
and
the. dumpster is repeatedly slammed. In the last two weeks ,w2 ' 16
backing out of. my driveway I have come close to being hit by car's
coming around the corner- of Abbott & Henderson: As I discussed in.•:
my_July 1st letter-, this corner is extremely dangerous, as are a'11 `
`exits from our neighborhood.
Thit -excessive noise, the 1-696 of sleep, is certainly -an invasion .of
mY r-
pivaey: - , k.
Thd, traff°ic patterns from these fraternity students differ greatly
g-din typical motel -traffic patterns which our area was originally," '
.:zoned for. our safety is in .danger .from just the sheer numbers...of.'
acars traveling on our 1 block street.
When King Ventures, in 1985, asked for_- a motel permit at 604; Henderson
son
we felt that the Frontier Motel had been a good neighbor over-the',}
.years and felt that another motel was not out of line, so none of'.us
!opposed this permit. .
. - Y.. y" .. c2 ah,,i __.II r ,Tit•.v{Etl'xM ifW , r'.. II,�rA..�hLi. A.
V
aV,
a' Y .:.� 7
'1grsTy ` J v!'rywtN'
Cee,..
5.
0a
, (7�� 1d.
1., r vJ51 A. ` .'h
It is .now very hard to comprehend that King_ Ventures hn'si4bui�l't this
ct as"a" '
projeSorority House instead of the Motel that tYiey�breceiV.ed
tYieir, permit for- and have also tut-.ned the. xxontier, Motel into. `a
Fraternity House.• I donut understand how a developer can^request;4.a
permit ,for' z motel; which I agreed to as a decent :neighbor _knowing;:
that the, on
,has always 'been, considerate and dr-der- and have
the�pro�j ct, _turned into a nightma W like the one h live with .,everyday
being ,i'rnl such {close prok:imity Ik ,
Furthermore, °when a ter- -; was being asked for an .addition torthe; ..
Frontier Mo.te`l; I' called_Gity Staff and_ talked with Judith hautner ;and
was,told� that this addition should not concern me as it wasusta;k
smaS'l_Tdff=ice addition and was not facing on Henderson S€. I havefybeea
informed ?that this, addition will not be used as an of-free. ad'd'itilon",:_
Is it notlpossib'le, since I was misled as to what this additfon ,would
be.;,used ,lfor�; that City Staf f and the Planning Commission has a1so.`b`een
--,-.'* Y�r S'.-
mrs�led�'as ,to the' actual intent of tfie developer from the sta=t of this
pr.oj,ect? This project has been done in bits `and. pieces• ince its .
concept: f s 'arfs
.. I V-•}w a i tV 2 ^^hy ,.ii 9.^i I �It271
For"those of us who live in the neighborhood. ,I 'am. ext�remely worried
for our,Omental -And physical health,, and our safety:
-
I "respectively task that ,yoiu -feject the. proposed zone change,. This Pis .
- -
our; Yhome�where we should "be allowed Ipr-ivacy and peace of mind. .`, -p
Sincerely ks I a r
1t �r' 8 L''Irt. c sT V.•_t13fF�a,f :�.
Linda!Bar,lowl
I J br`
Jul 1 k ,L47e�.� Khy
..�'
u.
yF`1�
- '• + a�`.i'I :F 1° 1J u'�,•Y�' 1 ,.. fi - I y 1.Y J. ^y,.x,,'�r,:
Mme• .. .. 1 �.J 1
�.'fT
w=l f.l t i517�"y YtJ1 !'
Linda Harlow
.627 Henderson Street r -
' San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 543-7330 r-
.y
July 3, 1991
R: Gilbert Hoffman, Chairman
City of San Luis Obipso
Planning Commission aj
:.990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ;
Re Planned Development Rezoning PD 1525
664 & 690 Henderson Avenue Avenue and 677 Buena Vista Avenue
.Deas Mr; Hoffman,
I•-am located directly across from 604 and 690 Henderson Street: I write not only for
myself and my 85 year old father but fbr all of us that live on Henderson, Abbottand
Garfield w
a
I Vant 'to give you a little back ground on several of the residents that,, live..on
:Henderson: My 85 year old father has lived for over 40 years in our home,. Rubin
Ho=n's family has lived in his home at 691 Henderson since his faiher' built."their
dome in :1918. Thelma McGarbey has lived in her home since 1958.
From just the above you can see that this neighborhood is comprised of'long time :San
Luis Obispo residents who have lived here for years and care aboutthe quahity of
their lives.. These are just a few of the lives that will be affected by.athie�proposed
project..
When Ring_ Ventures asked for a motel permit at 604 Henderson• St. , vie felt:.that the
Frantier" Motel had been a rather good neighbor over the years and felt..:£hati .another
motel viae not out of line, so none of us opposed this permit:
1f". 14 now ver hard to comprehend that King Ventures are building this project
anticipating itbecoming a Sorority House and the Frontier Motel becomi_nq a Fraternity
house instead of the Motel that. they received their permit for.
There are so many issues involved here that it is difficult. to know wheFe to -start.
we.-,&ed; opposed to this project for many reasons.
;..SAFETY TRAFFIC PARKING
Our 1 block residential neighborhood on Henderson already has too mubh'.
traffic. The corner of Abbott and Henderson is extremely dangerous . :_It
..
6 a rounded corner and. people tend to make the turn in the middle of ';. .•
the street. The corner at Henderson and Garfield is vefyy congested: We:
have many people parking on Henderson, Abbott- and Garfield that work' at,`:., '
nearby motels and other business. With the traffic and parking problems ,
we now have it is difficult to back out of our driveways safely.
-. -We Are not able to park in front of our own homes. Fra
_1=
2 •1
trauN }.
� d
n1
• .... ld��.-: �§,. �; A�I'4J'.t '� ,'.Cr i'�" U.1'�'of rY"' 1�. __
s 1. 1,
r
' s o,",1�!'>'F,t { "67�rIn Irgi ,rr� L'�
.1
Mk'` '� d fir'IL
t-• 1 r1L1..1•. ` 1 s r .n V+
The,,traffic .patterns which resuht from fraternity st=udents dif=fer greatly from
typrica1 motel tra_ffic'patteine whi ch, the area was orignally ^zonedv'fb' It
appears ,that thele will be at least °57 roome with two 'to a room, for: a,.possible
total i of-114 students_, 1f- each of f-hese students make only two rounds tr pe per
day to school;• etc ,• that will be approx. 456 vehicles entering and ;eziti'nq
Henderson Street; three round trips per- day would Be 684 vehicles_ 'IThis 'figure
doesN,not include friends and parents that. will visit- The limited pa=king,:
avai3Fable4 in the two loaatione would not 'tie sufficient for two frateini�ty:houses
and theirs 4gj sdie: kk
- k r
*NOTE [ �At,°690 Henderson thele will be only one small entrance
A0=The• traffic din not bit distributed' to any other area: The, ;;..
A.0-The.
W� 6kners of Henderson and Abbott ,and Hende=son and G&Y'f_ield;
dalready,6ad corners, will bear the brunt'. of all the traffic
NOISE / PRIVACYI /. HEALTH',
Noise iekwhat really affects the privacy and mental health of people ; kV ��
It is: difficult rto imagine how it would be with 450+ care dri`v ngoon your
street everyday, or the number of: car doors slamming; the voice of ,the ,°` ,
students ;comitq and .going. Oh top of a1'1 that there will be trie: car;Yand`
st
residence stereos'- `the arties the, lloud voices. etc:
Privacy as'-an important facto"r; and affects the mental health di everyone
My,bedroom,, as do some of t`tie neighbors, faces• onto Hende=son, St: The? noise'
wihl'certainly be an invasion of: my privacy along with my neig)ibpre.. It twill`
be �dingerous `for us who .have family that visit with young children and those ,.
young children that live in our neighborhood: HendersoaTwill lbecomeaa
t� .
extremely dangerous street_:
INCOMPATIBILITY WITH CURRENT NEIGHBORHOOD "
This,1a a' residential neighborhood with establisfie`d homeowners.
MIM
otel guests are generally quiet rand considerate of the neighboring wf
community. A Fraternity and/or Sorority would not be. eompatible to our
neighborhood' The defined description for Fraternity is as organizitiow:.-
formed chiefly ,for, sociil purposes :They have soci_a1 gatheriiige (partys)
cm-post all weekends and also during the week which is completely �, 'rw t;
inappropriate foie a xesidential neighborhood.
I feel that"it is time to :stop letting the entrepreneur, the people who are ut to
m -;d
make the r pockettiooke a lit tle .fu'ller, take advantage of Sto Citi_zena who have •fived
here forf.yeara a_nd care about the, quality, of their lives, no mater- their' what ftieir
economic etfi-us may be. THESE 'PEOPLE 56 l& HAvi TO LIVE WITH THE :1dONSTERS THEY
w�
CREATE' THEY"ROVE ON, IT IS US, SLO CITIZENS ;THAT HAVE TO LIVE WITH ;THESE MONSTE L:.
YES, T&EYVE ,ON AND TARE OUR PRIVACYy HEAI:TH AND SAFETY WITH
THE
I understand that_ .thele .if a. lot of. `available student housing in San Lu s"7p;16 -
�'_ rrr
without takingWaway the Health,, Safety and Welfa=e of another neighliorhood' ; ,j.. ' .
Z would, en..... el the City to set aside an a=ea, fo= Fraternity and Sorori£y „housing
that,will 'sot�affecf the Stizene, of 10. rN � '
For all of` the above I 'ask that you ,reject ,this ro oeed ro act and zone; chnnge;'.and
p i-
let. it rem in asT it, is . p p
r
S' Cerely
IT. • ��.4. � ' y tiµ .��rr swS a . .
-Linda Barlow `"• µ ` :,i,
The traffic patterns which result from fraternity students differ greatly from
typical motel traffic patterns which the area was originally zoned for;.- .It
appears that there will be at least 51 rooms with two to a _room, for a. possible
total of 114 students. If each of these students make only two round,.trips per
day to school, etc. , that will be approx. 456 vehicles entering and exiting
Henderson Street, three round trips per day would be 684 vehiclesc :Thio figure
does not include friends and parents that will visit. The limite3, parking;
available in the two locations would not be sufficient for two fraternity houses
And their guests.
+NOTEz At 690 Henderson there will be only one small entrance/exit,_. ,
The traffic can not be distributed to any other area: The
corners of Henderson and Abbott and Henderson and Garfield;:
already bad corners, will bear the brunt of all the traff=ic.
NOISE / PRIVACY / HEALTH
Noise is what really affects the privacy and mental health of people.
It is difficult to imagine how it would be with 450+ care driving oii.''your
street everyday, or the number. of car doors slamming, the voice of :the:
students coming and going. On top of all that there will be the car and
residence stereos, the parties, the loud voices etc:
Privacy is an important factor and affects the mental health of everyone.
,My bedroom, as do some of the neighbors, faces onto Henderson St. The '.noise
will certainly be an invasion of my privacy along with my neighbors.. It :
will
be dangerous for us who have family that visit with young childrea 'and :those
young children that live in our neighborhood. Henderson will be.come. a''
extremely dangerous street:
INCOMPATIBILITY WITH CURRENT NEIGHBORHOOD
.This is a residential neighborhood with established homeowners.
Motel guests are generally quiet and considerate of the neighboring
community. A Fraternity and/or Sorority would not be compatible to otir.
neighborhood. The defined description for Fraternity is an organiratioa
formed chiefly for social purposes. They have social gatherings (pariy-i)
on most all weekends and also during the week which is completely
inappropriate fax a residential neighborhood.
I feel that it is time to stop letting the entrepreneur, the people who are out to
make their pocketbooks a little fuller, take advantage of SLO Citizens who have .'lived
he=e for years and care about the quality of their lives, no mater their what 'ther.
economic status may be. THESE PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE MONSTERS THEY .
CREATE. THEY MOVE ON, IT IS US, SLO CITIZENS THAT HAVE TO LIVE WITH THESE MONSTERS.
YES; THEY MOVE ON AND TAKE OUR PRIVACY, HEALTH AND SAFETY WITH THEM.
( .'understand that there is a lot of available student housing in San Ldie
without taking away the Health, Safety and welfare of another neighborhood.,
1. would encourage the City to set aside an area for Fraternity .and Soto
rityhoueing .
hat will not affect the citizens cf. SLO.
For all of the above I ask that you reject this proposed project and zone change,. and-
le't ,it remain as it is. - .
S cerely, -
'irid7a Barlow