HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/21/2018 Item 17, Rowley
August 21, 2018
SUBJECT: Item 17, Review of Zoning Regulations Update
Dear Mayor Harmon and Members of the Council,
A developers job is to maximize profits. City staff’s job is to correctly apply standards. And the
City Council’s job is to look out for the community. There are several items in the Zoning
Regulations update that have not been adequately addressed. A few of these that need your
attention are as follows.
1. Various dwellings and commercial properties have contributed to the lack of available on-
street parking in many of our residential neighborhoods. In addition, some private parking lots
are used by individuals who do not live, work or visit there. This migration of vehicles has been
caused by those dwellings and commercial properties that have insufficient on-site parking,
Discussion. Within the last few years some developers have tried (and succeeded) to get around
the city’s parking requirement for a 4-bedroom unit by designing 2-bedroom units with large
bedrooms - and then installing a movable wall in each bedroom so that two bedrooms become
four bedrooms. The reason for doing this is to limit the number of required on-site parking
spaces; a 4-bedroom unit requires more parking spaces than does a two-bedroom unit. As much
as one may appreciate the ingenuity, this abuse of our regulations exacerbates the on-street and
parking-lot parking problems and is unfair to the tenants of the dwelling.
Recommendation. Specify that in multi-family residences, bedrooms divided by any kind of wall,
including but not limited to a movable or partial wall, shall be considered as separate bedrooms
for the purpose of parking space calculations.
2. The hours of operation for commercial rooftop decks is to be limited to the hours of 7:00 am
to 10:00 pm, thus conforming to our noise regulations. This is a good compromise between
commercial establishments and the needs of nearby residents. However, there is no mention of
limiting the hours of use in residential neighborhoods.
Discussion. Rooftop decks are also located on residential properties, in single-family as well as
multi-family and/or mixed-use properties. Noise from a rooftop deck on a residential property is
no less disturbing or sleep-depriving than noise from a commercial property. If a commercial
property violates this regulation it is subject to receiving a noise violation, a code violation and, if
the infraction occurs frequently, revocation or modification of the use permit. Most residences
do not require use permits, but in the interest of fairness a residence should also be subject to
both a noise violation and a code violation when use of the rooftop deck creates a disturbance.
Recommendation. Limit the hours of use to 7:00 am to 10:00 pm for residential and mixed-use as
well as commercial properties.
1
3. The underlying zone in a neighborhood-serving commercial zone is commercial. When other
uses are added to Neighborhood-Commercial (C-N) parcels, a minimum requirement
(percentage) should be established for commercial uses. The Planning Commission discussed
this, but no agreement on a percentage was reached.
Discussion. Although the underlying zone in neighborhood-serving commercial is commercial,
when the ICON project (Taft & Kentucky) was developed in the C-N zone as mixed-use with
residential, less than one-half of the project (34%) was set aside for commercial enterprises. This
could occur because a mix of uses on a C-N property was not contemplated when regulations
governing use of this zone were established. This is a dense neighborhood with R-4 apartments
as well as R-2 dwellings. Additional neighborhood serving businesses would have been valuable.
Recommendation. Specify that for the C-N zone, commercial uses shall be no less than 50% of
the project’s square footage.
4. The underlying zone in a community-serving commercial zone is commercial A mixed-use
capability has also been added to the Community-Commercial (C-C) zone. When mixed-use is
utilized, a minimum requirement (percentage) should be established for commercial uses. The
Planning Commission discussed this, too, but no agreement on the amount was reached.
Discussion. Although the underlying zone for C-C properties is commercial, when 22 Chorro was
developed and 790 Foothill was proposed, an extremely small amount of space was set aside for
commercial uses. 22 Chorro has only 4% of the project’s square footage devoted to commercial
use and 790 Foothill has only 5% of the proposed project set aside for commercial use. With the
proposed influx of 200+ tenants at 790 Foothill added to the residents of the surrounding R-4
properties, additional commercial amenities would be valued and appreciated.
Recommendation. Specify that for the C-C zone, commercial uses shall be no less than 50% of
the project’s square footage. (For 790 Foothill, if housing is more desirable than commercial at
this location, recommend the parcel be re-zoned to R-4, High Density Residential.)
5. Upper Monterey Street re-zoning. LUE policy 3.13 states the city shall consider allowing
visitor-service uses in office zones adjacent to C-C zones downtown and adjacent to Monterey
between Johnson and Santa Rosa.
Discussion. The city has a Public Engagement Manual that specifies the steps that must be taken
when a change or addition to existing policy is to be made. In this case it would include all of the
business owners and residents of the area and other interested parties to be involved in the
review of this area before such a change is to be considered.
Recommendation. These changes should not be considered until an Area Plan for Upper
Monterey Street is adequately noticed, discussed and finalized.
2
Thank you for your time and your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Sandra Rowley
SLO Resident
3