HomeMy WebLinkAboutRE Follow up after our meeting (13)1
Christian, Kevin
From:Oetzell, Walter
Sent:Friday, January 17, 2020 12:05 PM
To:Scott Romaine
Cc:Heidi Gibson
Subject:RE: Follow up after our meeting
Hello Scott,
That will depend on the maximum permitted density for the property.
Density is discussed in §17.70.040 or our Zoning Regulations. It is measured in “density units” allowed per “net
acre.” Calculating Lot Area, including “Net Lot Area” is described in Zoning §17.70.110 (it excludes habitat area
and area between top of creek banks, for example).
In the R-2 Zone, the maximum permitted density is 12 density units per net acre. Once you know the net lot
area (in net acres) you can then multiply to determine the maximum number of permitted density units that
could be permitted on the site.
As you have existing development, you will need to “subtract” from that maximum to account for the existing
development. Zoning §17.70.040 (Density) provides you with a table (subsection A.1) that tells you the density
unit values for dwellings, based on how many bedrooms the dwelling has.
After subtracting the existing development from the maximum density, you will see whether any potential
density remains. If so, the table provided in §17.70.040(A)(1) gives you a guide as to how many more
dwellings, with how many bedrooms in each, might be permitted on the site.
I see that the site is about 2 acres in size, but that it has a creek through it. The area between the creek banks
(and the area of any other feature listed in Zoning §17.70.110(B), such as habitat) will have to be subtracted to
arrive at the “net lot area.” Assessor records suggest that there are three dwellings on site: 4-BR; 2-BR; 2-BR.
Those, if that information is correct, would account for 4 “density units” of development, according to the table
in §17.70.040(A)(1). Roughly speaking, that raw information suggests there may be, in general terms,
development potential for additional dwellings, in absence of further knowledge about this specific property.
However, I do not know what lies behind the advice you were given about allowing more residential use on the
site. Perhaps there are additional restrictions on the property that limit further development, of which I am
unaware? I would get back to the person providing those comments, for more information about their
conclusion and advice. As Kyle Bell has familiarity with the property, he may be a good contact, if the source of
the comment cannot be queried. We certainly want to look deeper into that before giving any positive indication
about additional development potential.
--
Walter Oetzell
Assistant Planner
(805) 781-7593
From: Scott Romaine <scottr@studio‐2g.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 4:21 PM
To: Oetzell, Walter <woetzell@slocity.org>
Cc: Heidi Gibson <heidi@studio‐2g.com>
Subject: Follow up after our meeting
2
Walter,
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me today.
I do have a follow up question and am seeking clarity regarding our site and its maximum allowed uses.
We referenced the original design several times (which had a cabana on the second story over the garage/shop) and it
seems that even though the footprint was larger that the massing was less offensive. The main reason we departed
from that design concept was that we got a comment along the way stating planning would not allow another
residential use on the site. The cabana was getting classified as residential (R) use so it was omitted from the design
which has led to difficulty resolving the clients desire to have height and a way to resolve the massing architecturally.
Can you please clarify if planning will allow another residential use as part of this project? Would we need some type of
exception or variance? Please advise.
Also, please confirm you've received this email so that I know you are aware of the question.
Thanks,
‐‐
S c o t t R o m a i n e
studio 2G Architects, LLP
1540 Marsh street, suite 230
san luis obispo, ca 93401
P : 805.594.0771 ext 113
W : http://www.studio-2g.com
E : scottr@studio-2g.com
FB : studio2G Architects