Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-12-2017 Item 1, Cooper (2)RECEIVED COUNCIL MEETING: `1-12-1 ITEM NO.: _ �L APR 11 2017 - SLO_ CITY CLERK From: Allan Cooper [ Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 11:23 PM To: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; Davidson, Doug <ddavidson@slocity.org>; Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Harmon, Heidi <hharmon@slocity.org>; Christianson, Carlyn <cchristianson@slocity.org>; Rivoire, Dan <DRivoire@slocity.org>; Pease, Andy <apease@slocity.org>; Gomez, Aaron <agomez@slocity.org> Subject: April 12, 2017 Joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session on the Zoning Regulations Update Dear Michael and Doug - Would you kindly forward the attached letter below to both the City Council and the Planning Commission before their April 12, 2017 meeting? Thanks! - Allan To: SLO City Council and Planning Commission Re: Zoning Regulations Update From: Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown Date: April 10, 2017 Honorable Mayor, Council Members and Planning Commissioners - We have read through the report prepared by your staff and by your consultant MIG which includes a "List of Issues to be Addressed" and the "Summary of Stakeholder Interviews". Our reactions are outlined below. Under the "List of Issues to be Addressed" we are delighted that you will be revisiting your policy on roof decks. We are not convinced that roof decks should be incentivized as a form of public open space. We are also pleased that you will be revisiting the definition of "mixed use". We believe that you should establish a minimum pro rata square foot requirement for the underlying zone enabling the mixed-use to qualify for parking reductions and other incentives. On the other hand, we are concerned with the implication that you might reconsider the policy that only commercial uses will be allowed on the ground floor in the downtown core. Our downtown will die as a commercial center if we fail to maintain retail activities at the street level. We are also concerned that you maintain the same incentives for accessory dwelling units on non -conforming lots as well as for conforming lots. Most of the residential lots within the downtown core are non -conforming yet this is where we would especially like to increase housing densities without increasing building heights. Under "Land Use Regulations" we are concerned that you have chosen to revisit "tattoo parlors" yet there is no mention under this same category of the much greater negative impacts on public health and safety associated with the proliferation of alcohol outlets downtown. Under the "Summary of Stakeholder Interviews" we are delighted with the comments stating that parking requirements should be based on how bedrooms are used and on the size of bedrooms because large bedrooms can accommodate more occupants. We agree that bedroom count (and perhaps size) should be the only way to calculate density. However, we are concerned with comments suggesting that the ToCho" district could accommodate 5- to 6 -story buildings particularly where these buildings are contiguous to R-1 neighborhoods. We are also concerned with the many comments about "frivolous" appeals suggesting that public input on in -fill projects are no longer welcome. Under the category "Downtown", we adamantly insist that the transfer of density credits not be applied to non-contiguous downtown properties. Instead, properties within the Downtown Core should only be able to transfer their density credits to properties outside the Downtown Core thereby maintaining the overall height of downtown buildings at 2 to 3 stories. Finally, a height minimum precluding one-story structures downtown should not apply when the lot is contiguous to a one-story historic property, Thank you for your time and consideration! Critique of April 12, 2017 SLO Zoning Regulations Update: Issues to Address and "Fix It" List List of Issues to be Addressed in the Zonina Regulations Undate Development Standards and Zones Good: Revisit use of interior space in single family homes to avoid conversion to bedrooms Revisit roof decks and standards... S.O.D.: particularly with regards to qualifying as public open space Revisit so called "community benefits" tied to height increases Bad: S.O.D.: Do not revisit ground floor commercial requirement particularly in the Downtown Core Missing S Overlay for C -T backing onto Lincoln Slreel - listed under "Comments" for `Zones" S Overlay zone for C -D backing onto Dana Street - listed under "Comments" for `Zones" Land Use Regulations Good: Revisit mixed use definitions. S.O.D.: To establish a minimum pro rata square foot requirement for the underlying zone which would qualify for parking reductions and(ordefine a maximum percentage (20%) of a retail zone that can be used for office Missing; Revisit alcohol outlets - listed under "Comments" for "Other Specific Uses" (versus addressing revisiting tattoo shops) Accessory Dwelling Units Bad: S.O.D.: Do not differentiate between ADU's on conforming and non -conforming lots Summary of Stakeholder Interviews - Additional Issues to Evaluate & Consider Opportunity Areas Bad. FoCho (Foothill Chorro) district could increase density to five- or six -story buildings S.O.D.: Where is the on -street parking in this district? What about contiguous to R-1 neighborhoods? Residential MSA il7p; Should require minimum square footage and/or number of bedrooms for affordable housing - listed under "Comments" for "Multi -Family Standards" Occupancy Good: Consider how bedrooms will be used (large bedrooms will be shared) Bedroom count should be the only way of calculating density Code Administration and Permitting Processes Bad: Streamlining the review process by substituting administrative approvals for review body approvals. Stifles public input S.O.D.: Appeals by residents should not be based on cost recovery as this will stifle public input Where are the comments below coming from? Developers? Too many appeals occur. The appeal process appears easy from the Code language but does not reflect the work and cost involved in responding to the appeal. All residential projects are getting appealed to the City Council. Perhaps appeals should be based on cost recovery The section describing the appeal process could be much more descriptive, laying out the limitations and responsibilities. This would put appellants on notice about what they will need to present—and the efforts that will be involved—and would discourage frivolous appeals. Appeals of projects should be clear about the scope of the appeal and the particular project components of concern. Downtown Bad: Prioritize residential development over commercial development Consider expanding transfer of density credits. Re-examine the ability for density transfers to noncontiguous properties within the Downtown core. S.O.D.: Why not re-examine transferring density credits from Downtown into the surrounding suburban development? Allow height increases for buildings if the first story is used for stacked parking and mechanical parking lift. Include a height minimum requirement for Downtown to preclude one-story structures. S.O.D.: What about development contiguous to one-story historical properties?