HomeMy WebLinkAboutREDmurryc2RECEIVED RED FILE
DEC 07 2010 MEETING AGENDA
SLO CITY CLERK DATE.11-/7//d ITEM #
council memoRanOu m
December 6, 201 0
City Counci l
Katie Lichtig, City Manage r
John Mandeville, Community Development Direc
t BY:
Kim Murry, Deputy Director of Community Development
SUBJECT:
Historic Preservation Ordinance — 2 nd Reading and Constituent Question s
Two questions have been raised recently by a constituent regarding the Historic Preservatio n
Ordinance and Guidelines . In order that all of the Council members may have access to both th e
questions and the answers, staff has prepared this memo to share the information .
Question #1 :
Under Section 14 .01 .100(J)(1) of the proposed Ordinance, the economic hardship provisio n
refers to consideration of "changes in allowed uses". Does this mean the Ordinance still retain s
the provision that allows the Director of Community Development to grant a change in us e
without due process ?
Answer #1
The language from Section 14 .01 .100(J)(1) is shown below for reference with the languag e
referred to in the question above shown in bold font :
In determining whether extreme hardship exists, the Committee and Council shall conside r
evidence that demonstrates :
(1)Denial of the application will diminish the value of the subject property so as to leav e
substantially no economic value, after considering other means of offsetting the costs of
retaining the historic resource, including, but not limited to, tax abatements, financia l
assistance, building code modifications,changes in allowed uses,grants,; or
(2)Sale or rental of the property is impractical, when compared to the cost of holding suc h
property for uses permitted in the zoning district; or
(3)Utilization of the property for lawful purposes is prohibited or impractical ;
The reference to "changes in allowed uses" is in the context of several actions a property owner
may take to avoid being in a hardship situation . It is not about Community Developmen t
Director authority. The various actions a property owner may take are listed as items the CH C
I I
DATE :
TO :
VIA :
FROM :
a COUNCIL
a CITY MGR
o ASST CM
a ATPORNEY
a CLERKIORI G
o PI B
a TRIBUNE
a NEW TIMES
o SLO CITY NEWS
o CDD D1R
o FIT DIR
o FIRE CHIE F
o PW DIR
a POLICE CHIEF
a PARKS &REC DIR
a UTIL DIR
o HR DIR
o COUNCIL
o CITY MGR
a CLERK
and Council will consider when determining whether or not the property warrants a
determination of extreme hardship . This may include applying for property tax savings through
Mills Act contracts or determining whether use of the historic building codes would make a
difference in the cost of making the structure more conducive to business opportunities, o r
exploring other, potentially more profitable uses already allowed by zoning code . This provision
does not modify the current public process required to evaluate any proposed changes in use, no r
does it give the Director the ability to authorize uses that are prohibited under zoning code .
Question #2 (see attachment of email correspondence )
How is the provision for a transfer of development credit (TDC) in the Historical Ordinance no t
'spot zoning'?
Answer #2
The Historic Preservation Ordinance does not contain provisions for TDCs . The potential
incentives for historic preservation are contained in Chapter 4 of the updated Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines that were approved by Council on November 9 t . The potentia l
incentives listed under the Guidelines include reconstruction after loss ; modified development
standards subject to use permit approval ; rehabilitation tax credits and grants ; historic and facad e
easements ; transfer of development credits ; fee waiver or reduction ; and financial assistance ; as
well as the historic plaque program and access to the City's historic library .
The TDC provision contained in the adopted Historic Preservation Program Guidelines is liste d
below for reference :
4.1 .6 Transfer of development credit .For projects that preserve cultural or historic resource s
on site. the City may enter into an agreement to transfer development credit or density to anothe r
appropriate site proportional to the commercial floor area or number of dwellings possible t o
develop under current zoning if the resource were removed .
Although the City has not enacted a TDC program, the General Plan and the Histori c
Preservation Program Guidelines include policy support for a TDC program . These provisions
allow for development potential to be sent from sites that are not appropriate for development, t o
sites that are more conducive to development within the parameters of an adopted program . The
General Plan identifies several types of properties as appropriate "sender" sites including prim e
agricultural land, residential land outside of the Urban Reserve Line, properties with histori c
resources and conservation/open space areas . The General Plan also identifies appropriate
receiver areas such as the Downtown commercial core, the Irish Hills (now fully developed),
Margarita Area and Orcutt Area. The General Plan also contains a program that indicates the
City should add a development transfer section to its Zoning Regulations to implement a TD C
program .
While a TDC program has not been developed, the Zoning Regulations were modified severa l
years ago to include provisions to allow additional floor area and height in the Downtow n
Commercial Zone in exchange for community benefits associated with conserving open space o r
for preserving historic resources . Because these provisions are already a part of the existin g
zoning in the Downtown, no rezoning or zoning amendments would be involved in a project tha t
receives development capacity in the form of additional floor area or height, provided the ne w
development that receives development credits is consistent with all of the other applicabl e
-2-
development standards and general plan policies for compatibility with existing development.
This potential to incorporate additional floor area and height applies to the entire Downtow n
Commercial zone, so no spot zoning is involved .
In contrast, Nolo's Plain-English Law Dictionary defines spot zoning as :"Zoning a parcel of
land differently from the parcels around it . For example, a school might be allowed in a
residential zone if the local zoning authority decides it benefits the public welfare and i s
consistent with the city's general land use plan . If a particular instance of spot zoning is
challenged in court, the court might find it illegal if it violates the general plan, allow s
development that is very different from the current surrounding uses, or appears to favor a n
individual property owner to the detriment of the public ."
It should also be noted that the compatibility requirements of the General Plan and existing
zoning regulations may limit the potential for many properties in the Downtown Commercia l
zone to substantially increase their height or floor area ratio to incorporate a density transfe r
from somewhere else, especially those parcels adjacent to an existing historic building . At th e
same time, there are sites that could be effective receiver sites, and Section 4 .1 .6 of the updated
Guidelines recognizes that Council can consider those instances where implementing the Zonin g
Code provisions for additional height or floor area makes sense .
This Zoning Code provision for the Downtown Commercial Zone is the only place in the Zonin g
Regulations where "transferred" credit has been addressed . The Historic Preservation Guideline s
section 4 .1 .6 indicates that properties with historic resources are appropriate sender sites .
Additional receiver sites were envisioned in the General Plan and would help create a mor e
robust incentive for historic preservation in the Downtown . Additional areas would need to b e
identified, along with a program for documenting transfers, as part of a more vigorous program .
In the meantime, the City's General Plan policies and existing provisions in the Zonin g
Regulations do provide for the opportunities for density transfers within the Downtow n
Commercial Zone that are referenced in the updated Historic Preservation Guidelines .
Attachment
Email from Peg Pinard
Attachmen t
From :pinardmat@aol .com [mailto :pinardmat@aol .com]
Sent:Friday, December 03, 2010 2 :24 PM
To :Lichtig, Kati e
Cc : Marx, Jan ; sarogrizzo@charter .net; babaknaficy@sbcglobal .net; susan@mrcoward .com ; shelly-
j@earthlink .net ; Carter, Andrew ; Ashbaugh, John ; Smith, Kathy ; rmcdonald@newtimes ;
bmorem@thetribunenews .com ; dcongalton@charter .net
Subject :request for information has not been forthcomin g
Dec .3
Katie ,
We asked the Community Development some questions that, as of today, have yet t o
be answered . While we appreciate that some questions have been answered, the mos t
important one, regarding the Transfer of Development Credit program has not bee n
clarified . As you know, this item is scheduled to go back to the council in just a coupl e
of days .
The most important issue is regarding the inclusion of a Transfer of Development Credi t
program in the historic ordinance/guidelines . Since all of the land in the historic district s
have an existing zoning classification with certain densities and building parameter s
already designated, how is the provision for 'receiver sites' supposed to work withou t
changing a particular parcel's density and/or height limit? We asked for a description o f
how this program is supposed to work for the historic districts and, if this is going to b e
an 'ad hoc' increase in a particular parcel's zoning, then how is this not'spot zoninq ?
Spot Zoning is defined as : "The zoning of an isolated parcel in a manner which i s
inconsistent or incompatible with surrounding zoning or land uses, particularly if done t o
favor a particular landowner ."
And, as was stated in a 2007 staff report : "A TDC program would allow development o f
tall buildings on receiver sites ..."
This issue is of particular importance because such programs have previously run int o
trouble being implemented specifically because of the issue of 'receiver sites'. M y
understanding is that most of those programs have had to be discontinued precisel y
because of the problem with 'receiver sites'.
We are very concerned with this in the residential areas since there is an expectation o f
height limits within our neighborhoods, as well as with the densities . If any of thos e
provisions were to change, it would result in a very significant environmental impac t
for our neighborhood .
Sincerely ,
Peg Pinard
4