HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/27/2018 Item 1, Lucas
Purrington, Teresa
From:Davidson, Doug
Sent:Friday, June 22, 2018 10:07 AM
To:Tonikian, Victoria
Subject:FW: zoning and edge conditions
PC 6/27 Zoning Ordinance correspondence. Thanks !
From: Bob \[ ]
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 9:58 AM
To: Davidson, Doug <ddavidson@slocity.org>
Subject: zoning and edge conditions
Would you please forward the following to the Planning Commission:
At your June 14 meeting, during the discussion of edge conditions (17.70.050), a Commissioner raised an
important question about lowering the height of non-residential buildings providing transition to a residential
area. Specifically, he inquired about the advisability of prohibiting a fourth story on non-residential buildings
adjacent to an R-1 or an R-2 residential zone. The commissioners discussed the matter, but dwelled primarily on
the potential conflict between two different residential zones. Because that discussion was rather lengthy, the
important issue that the Commissioner seems to have intended to bring up--the interface between a residential
and a non-residential zone—apparently got lost, even though he stated that distinction on three separate
occasions.
It is true, staff pointed out that large projects—those of more than 10,000 square feet—would come to the
Planning Commission for review, and that Commissioners could then require an applicant to remove the fourth
story, But the Commission would have nothing in writing that would indicate a community preference to soften
such interfaces, and would be put at a severe disadvantage in arguing a reduction in height. In effect, the
Planning Commission’s hands would be tied.
To address this situation, language could be inserted in this section to the effect that “in edge conditions, where
a residential R1 or R2 receives impact from an immediately adjacent non-residential development, the Planning
Commission shall require extraordinary arguments to justify what would normally be an allowable fourth (or
top) story.”
This would put developers on notice that proposing a fourth story would be an uphill battle, and they ought to
be prepared to provide compelling arguments to justify it. (“It doesn’t pencil out” does not, in my mind,
constitute such an argument.) Thus, the onus of proof would be on the developer, and the Planning Commission
could the more comfortably exercise its mandate to protect the community.
Thank you,
Bob Lucas
1831 San Luis Drive
SLO
1