Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/12/2024 Item 4b, Rowley Sandra Rowley < To:Advisory Bodies Cc:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Subject:Item 4b, Review of Zoning Regulations Text Amendment This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Reference: LUE Policy 2.2.7, Housing and Businesses (adopted August 1994, last revised June, 2010). Where housing can be compatible with offices or other businesses, mixed-use projects should be encouraged. \[Crossroads Center (C-S- PD) was an example of this\] * Reference: LUE Policy 2.3.6, Housing and Businesses (adopted December 2014). The City shall encourage mixed use projects, where appropriate and compatible with existing and planned development on the site and with adjacent and nearby properties. The City shall support the location of mixed use projects and community and neighborhood commercial centers near major activity nodes and transportation corridors / transit opportunities where appropriate. \[This was annotated as a New Policy during the update\] * Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission, Yes, subsequent to the 2014 adoption of the Land Use Element update, omitting neighborhood-commercial (N-C) from the Zoning Regulations was apparently a mistake. However, possibly a fortunate one. The history of the mixed-use projects developed on community-commercial properties after this was allowed demonstrates a universal disregard for the setbacks, size and scale of the adjoining neighborhood and an inconsistency regarding the amount of commercial to be included in the project. In the years since the 2014 Land Use Element update was adopted there have been several community-commercial (C- C) properties that have been the site of mixed-use developments. For example: -- The ICON project, located at Taft and Kentucky, was the first mixed-use project to be built on a C-C parcel. It opened in 2016. Where previously there had been a one-story building (a gas station), there are now two, three-story apartment buildings with a coffee shop, tattoo parlor, Tiki restaurant and an app-based storefront on the ground floor facing Taft. The project seemingly extends to the sidewalk, is mostly residential and has some community-serving commercial. However, most importantly, the buildings are two stories higher than the small one-story houses behind, across the street, and in the general area of the project. Basically, it does not respect the setbacks, size and scale of homes in the neighborhood. -- In 2016 a mixed-use project at 22 Chorro, also a C-C site, was proposed. This project when completed appeared to extended to the sidewalk, was four stories high and had about 5% of the total floor area as commercial. This project is primarily residential with only 'insomnia cookies' as their commercial portion. With four stories the building towers over single-family homes behind and across the street, as well as in the general area - most of which are one-story homes. Like ICON it does not respect the setback, size and scale of homes in the neighborhood. Since then there has been at least one other mixed-use project on a C-C site - 790 Foothill at the corner of North Chorro. It is a large four-story project, heavy on residential while including only 6,758 square feet of community-serving commercial space, apparently extending to the sidewalk. A lot of the surrounding area is commercial and the residential properties are primarily two stories. Again the setbacks, size and scale of area properties was not considered. My point? Since mixed-use projects have been developed on community-commercial sites we should look to them to see if there are any disparities or conflicts between the mixed-use developments and the adjacent residential properties, identify them and see if they can be mitigated. Disparities and conflicts are obvious in the difference in setbacks, size and scale between the C-C site and adjacent residential properties. 1 Neighborhood-commercial zones were designed to be amenities for the surrounding neighborhood. They are by their very nature within the serviced neighborhoods, not at their boundary. Development on C-N sites, if they were held only to the standards allowed for the C-C sites would be as out of sync with the nearby residential neighborhood as those on the C-C sites, but they would be far more intrusive. The above policy allows mixed-use development on C-N sites, but it does not preclude conditions being added. Request you provide a recommendation to the City Council that the Zoning Regulations specify that the following conditions be included for mixed-use developments located on neighborhood-commercial sites so they would be compatible with the neighborhood in which they are located. 1. Require lot setbacks that are comparable to the average residential setbacks in the immediate area. 2. Require the proposed structure respect the size and scale of residential properties adjoining and in close proximity to the site, using floor setbacks as needed. 3. Require the site to either retain existing commercial properties or devote a set portion of the site to neighborhood- serving commercial spaces. Additionally, it is unclear if only single-family homes would be allowed when the neighborhood is R-1, and only single- family and duplexes would be allowed when the neighborhood is R-2. Would properties within 300 feet be noticed? Although this type of development may be covered under a Minor Use Permit, depending on the proposal it may not be considered minor to near-by residents. Thank you for your time and attention. Sandra Rowley SLO resident * I was a member of the 2014 Task Force that participated in the update of the Land Use Element. These references were copied from the 1994 version, and from the version that went to the City Council in 2014 - including the notation "New Policy." 2