HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/20/1988, 2 - ZONING REGULATIONS AMENDMENT TO ALLOW PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS ON SITES OF LESS THAN ONE ACRE IN THE C-C ZONE. �Tn
11111%IIIII1p�A111 city of San tins OBISPO G���
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 'Tm NU
FROM: Michael Multari, Community Development Director; Prepared By: Jeff Hook-
SUBJECT: Zoning Regulations amendment to allow Planned Developments on sites of less than
one acre in the C-C zone.
CAO RECOMMNDATION:
Concur with the Director's environmental determination and pass=to-print ordinance
amending the Zoning Regulations to allow Planned Developments on sites of at least
one-half acre in the C-C zone, and adding a special finding for PD approval.
BACKGROUND
Discussion
At its Nov. 30th meeting, the Planning Commission considered this text amendment and
voted 6-0 (Commr. Gerety absent) to forward their comments to council without a
recommendation. Most commissioners supported the concept of planned developments on
downtown sites of less than one acre, however there was a range of views on what, if any,
minimum lot area should be required.
As part of a PD rezoning application for the Court Street Center project, the applicant
has proposed a zoning text change. The change would allow planned developments on sites
of less than an acre in C-C zone. The project is proposed on a 2/3 acre site, and the
requested PD rezoning is intended to allow flexibility in building height, and to provide
a public review framework for this public/private project.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The proposed zoning text change would not pose significant adverse impacts. It is
essentially administrative in nature, and would not change the purpose or intent of
planned developments. The change could increase the number of planned developments
requests, since more sites would be eligible for PD rezoning. However, due to the
special findings required for approval, and to the substantial time and cost involved in
processing a PD request, the change is not likely to trigger unusually high numbers of PD
applications or to alter the rate or character of downtown development.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff sees some consequences of not taking the recommended action: the Court Street
Center is proposed as a PD and requests a 18 foot height exception (78 ft. building
height shown, and 50 ft. plus 10 ft. for mechanical and architectural appurtenances is
normally allowed in the C-C zone). The site is less than an acre and doesn't meet the
one acre minimum lot area for PDs. If the text change is not approved, the applicant
would need to request a variance to allow the height exception; or reduce the building
height to conform to the 50 ft. C-C zone height limit. Staff questions whether the
required findings could be made to grant the variance. Another alternative may be a
development agreement.
In the long-term, since all but a handful of downtown lots are much less than one acre,
small commercial and residential PDs will continue to be discouraged downtown.
'1AJJJJJJJJWIX11 city o f say Luis OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 2
BACKGROUND
Planning Commission/Public comment
At its November 30th meeting, commissioners voted 6-0 (Commr. Gerety absent) to forward i
their comments on the text amendment to the council without a recommendation. Most
commissioners supported the concept of PDs on downtown sites of less than an acre;
however, they were unable to reach a consensus on what, if any, minimum lot area should
be required. After three motions failed, commissioners agreed to forward their comments.
Suggestions ranged from deleting the minimum lot area in all zones (Commr. Schmidt), to
setting a 1/2 acre minimum and requiring that an additional finding be required for j
downtown PDs (Commr. Duerk). Commrs. Crotser and Roalman supported smaller minimum lot
sizes of 10,000 and 15,000 sq. ft., respectively. There seemed to be a majority in favor
of adding a finding that commissioners felt would more logically relate to downtown
projects than do the current findings:
"The proposed project provides exceptional public benefits such as parking, open
space, landscaping, public art, and other special amenities which would not be
feasible under conventional development standards."
I
One person spoke in support of the proposed text amendment. There was no other comment
received at the meeting.
Situation
Planned development rezonings allow the city to encourage innovative or high quality
projects by granting certain development incentives, such as reduced yards, height
exceptions, or density bonuses. Zoning regulations prohibit planned developments on j
sites of less than one acre. In addition, they require that special findings be made by
the Planning Commission and City Council in approving a PD.
I
As part of the PD application, the applicant has asked that this provision be amended to
allow PDs on sites of less than an acre in the C-C zone. The proposed change would not
affect PD requirements in other zones, nor change the purpose, intent, or basic
procedures for planned developments. Court Street Center, a 5-story mixed-use
development, is proposed on the city-owned lot bordered by Court, Osos, Higuera, and
Monterey Streets. The applicant has requested PD rezoning to allow a 68 foot tall
building plus 10 feet for roof appurtenances, where 60 feet (50 feet plus 10 feet for
steeples, equipment and similar projections) is normally allowed.
In 1981, the City Council adopted new zoning regulations which made several significant
changes to streamline city processing and achieve greater consistency with the General
Plan. The Planning Commission and council had initiated the changes following the
1977-78 citywide rezoning. Prior to that time, regulations allowed PDs on downtown lots
of at least 6,000 square feet, and on 36,000 square foot lots for other zones. PD i
rezoning requirements were changed in the new zoning regulations to require sites of at
least one acre.
11101111/1111 city of san tuts osispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 3
Data Summary
Location: C-C-H Zone
Applicant: Interwest Investment Group, Inc.
Representative: Rob Strong
General Plan: Civic Center
Environmental Status: Negative Declaration granted by Community Development Director
EVALUATION
PD zoning provisions were first enacted in 1962 (Ordinance No. 240). Like today's PD
provisions, they encouraged innovative planning and land use by granting development
incentives. Phasing, mixed-use projects, relaxation of development standards, and
density bonuses were possible if the commission and council found that such incentives
would result in a superior project. This early version allowed PD's on any parcel or
contiguous parcels capable of being subdivided into six or more conforming lots.
These provisions were in use until 1981 when new PD standards took effect. The main
changes included:
1. Requiring PD sites to be at least one acre.
2. Requiring specific findings to approve "incentive" features.
3. Setting an upper limit on allowed density bonuses of 25% over base density.
4. Revising wording to tie the PD more closely to General Plan policies.
In reviewing the zoning text revisions at that time, commissioners discussed the
appropriate minimum size for a PD. The majority of commissioners felt that since the new
approval criteria would apply to all PD's, any project which could meet the criteria
should be eligible, regardless of lot size. The commission recommended council approval
of the revised PD provisions without a minimum lot area requirement.
The PD zone is intended to encourage innovative development in all zones. However the
one acre minimum, in effect, excludes most downtown lots from consideration. There are
only six parcels in the C-C zone of one acre or larger, and all but one of those are
owned by the City or County and already developed. Downtown was first subdivided in the
late 1800's, with most parcels considerably less than one acre. As the city grew,
downtown lots were commonly resubdivided into still smaller parcels reflecting increasing
land values and commercial growth.
Downtown's pattern of lot ownership continues to be one of mostly small parcels of 6,000
square feet or less under separate ownership. Due to the established development
pattern, it is difficult to assemble sites of one acre or more. The applicant's proposed
text change would allow planned developments on conforming lots in the C-C zone -- lots
of 3,000 square feet or greater. Otherwise, procedures for PD rezoning would remain the
same.
There is no generally recognized standard for an ideal PD size. Any specific area
requirement is, by necessity, somewhat arbitrary. The city's one acre minimum was a
compromise between setting no minimum area and setting a more restrictive standard.
Arguments favoring no minimum lot area in the C-C zone include: �
"11111111rall; city Of Sal I IDIS OBISPO -
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 4
1. Maximum flexibility in dealing with projects of varying scale;
2. The one acre minimum bears no direct relationship to physical design
requirements.
3. Higher land costs and the difficulty of land assembly may discourage planned
developments in the downtown.
Arguments which support keeping a minimum lot area include:
1. Large sites can offer more site planning options, making it easier to
achieve the intent of planned developments.
2. Allowing smaller PD sites may result in more PD requests for projects which
don't meet the regulation's intent.
3. Below some minimum size, planned developments cannot easily provide
desirable PD features like open space, recreational amenities, energy
efficiency, or special design features suited to a particular user group.
Large sites do offer more site planning options, and to some degree, may make innovative
design easier, or more economically feasible. By contrast, small sites are often more
difficult to develop -- particularly downtown. Providing adequate open space, sufficient
on-site parking, and other public amenities on a small site while still meeting
conventional design standards is more difficult from an economic and physical design
standpoint. It's here that a planned development may provide the necessary flexibility
to make a project feasible, i
The change may prompt an increase in PD requests. However, due to the time, difficulty
and cost involved in the PD process as well as the flexibility inherent in the C-C zone,
it's unlikely to be used to relax zoning standards for small projects. Generally, only
large, relatively complex projects would be able to provide sufficient public benefits or
special design features to meet the required PD findings.
Establishing a different minimum area in the C-C zone may be consistent with the approach
taken for other special development standards in the downtown, like parking requirements,
lot coverage, and allowed uses. The General Plan and the Goals for Downtown encourage a
wide range of uses in the C-C zone. Their policies are intended to maintain the downtown
as one of the most concentrated retail, office, and entertainment centers in the County.
To the extent that this text change would encourage greater development flexibility and
innovation, it may help achieve downtown goals.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Maintain a minimum lot area for planned developments in the C-C zone, but less
than one acre, with or without additional findings.
Staff supports this approach. Requiring PD sites of at least 1/2 acre, or one-half the
required lot area for PDs in all other zones, seems consistent with the city's approach
on other downtown development standards, such as parking and lot coverage. This size i
allows considerable site planning flexibility, and is large enough to reasonably
accommodate a variety of public and private amenities. U
4�; .
n� � i�hlll��ju city of san Luis osispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 5
It would make Court Street Center eligible for PD consideration, and increases the number
of other eligible PD sites downtown. Staff also supports adding a finding to the
ordinance as noted above, and as shown in Exhibit "A."
2. Allow PDs on any conforming lot in the C-C zone.
Staff can also support this approach. Lots of at least 3,000 sq. ft. would be eligible
for PD rezoning; however PD requests for sites of less than 10,000 sq. ft. would be
highly unlikely due to the time, cost, and complexity of the process for small projects.
3. Reduce or delete the minimum lot area requirement for PDs in all zones.
Planned developments of less than one acre may be appropriate in zones other than the C-C
zone. Staff believes that the one acre minimum is generally appropriate in other zones,
and does not pose as significant an obstacle to the PDs as in the C-C zone, since lots
are often larger, and development patterns less rigidly established than downtown. This
may be appropriate as a later study item.
4. Do not change the zoning regulations.
In this case, C-C zoned sites would continue to need at least one acre to be eligible for
PD rezoning. To proceed under current regulations, Court Street Center would need to be
reduced in height; or receive a variance to allow a 74 foot tall building where 60 feet
is normally allowed.
The City Council may also interpret current standards to allow Court Street Center to
qualify as a PD since the site totals 1.11 acres if its boundaries are drawn to the
centerline of the adjacent streets. Only one planning commissioner supported this
approach. Normally, staff would interpret site area as "net area", not including
right-of-way.
5. Continue the item.
The council may continue the item. There is no specific deadline for acting on the
request, however action on the Court Street Ccnter PD request will be contingent on
council approval of the text amendment.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the draft ordinance amending the Zoning Regulations to allow Planned Development
zones on lots of at least 1/2 acre in the C-C zone, and adding one finding as shown in
Exhibit "A."
Attachments:
-Draft Ordinance
-Legislative Draft of Proposed Text Amendment, Exhibit "A"
-C-C Zone Map
-Initial Environmental Study
-Draft Planning Commission Minutes
'hl court d
U—Ly_r,.: ter.j. lfln
ORDINANCE NO. (1988 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING
SECTIONS 17.50.010 AND 17.62.040 OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE REGARDING REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS
(TITLE 17 SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held hearings to consider
amending the zoning regulations to allow planned developments on sites of at least
one-half acre in the C-C zone and adding a required finding for planned development
approvals; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed zoning text amendment is consistent
with the general plan; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment helps promote the public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. That the Zoning Ordinance (Title 17 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code) shall be amended as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part of by this
reference.
SECTION 2. After City Council review and consideration, the Community Development
Director's action to grant a negative declaration pursuant to the City Environmental
Procedures and California Environmental Quality Act is hereby affirmed.
SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with
the ayes and noes, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage
in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in said city, and the same
shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its said final passage.
A copy of the full text of this ordinance shall be on file in the office of the City
Clerk on and after the date following introduction and passage to print and shall be
available to any interested member of the public.
Ordinance No. (1988 Series)
Page 2
INTRODUCED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, at its meeting held on
the day of 1988, on motion of
_ seconded by and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City A inistrative Officer
City At rney
Community Development Director
�.
17.50.010_17.52.030 EXHIBIT k
Chapter 1750 and parking may be specified for the project
without conformance to the standards of the
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) underlying zone.
ZONE C. For procedures and performance criteria.
see Chapter 17.62. (Ord 941 § I (part). 1982:
Sections: prior code§9203.14(0))
1750.010 Purpose and application.
1750.020 Allowed uses.
1750.030 Property development Chapter 1752
standards.
SPECIFIC PLAN (SP)
1750.010 Purpose and application. OVERLAY ZONE
The planned develoment zone is intended to
encourage imaginative development and effec- Sections:
tive use of sites. It does this by allowing more 1752.010 Purpose and application.
variation in project design than normal stern- 1752.020 Allowed uses.
dards would allow. Such variation from normal 1752.030 Property development
standards should provide benefits to the project standards.
occupants or to the community as a whole which
could not be provided under conventional reg- 1752.010 Purpose and application.
ulations. PD rezoning must occur simul- The SP zone is intended to translate the provi-
taneously with approval of specific project.TW Bions of an adopted specific plan into regulations
/abftE/rft'a4/FSd/ likfl/t6��d)lEdl/�dEdrf! for the subsequent development of land. It will
�fi'gG6G4/dafrEElf/ot/a4AE�s4/ddo��dr�li'dEdfrhfifr4! be applied to areas for which a specific plan has
lib4t'Mth'kh*/q(uW/46W(Ord.,941 § I (part). been adopted or where the general plan calls fora
1982: prior code§9203.14(A)) specific plan prior to development, generally
In the C-C zone, the PD zone may be within residential expansion areas.(Ord.941 § I
applied to any parcel of at least one- (pact). 1982-• prior code§9203.15(A))
half acre. In all other zones, the
PD zone may be applied to any parcel 1752.020 Allowed uses.
or contiguous parcels of at least Prior to adoption ofa specific plan.areas in the
one acre. SP zone may be used in conformance with the
provisions of the C/OS zone.Once a specific plan
1750.020 ;Allowed uses. hasbeen adopted.uses shall be as provided in the
Any use or combination of uses which con- specific plan. (Ord. 941 § 1 (part). 1982: prior
form with the general plan may be established in code§ 9203.15(B))
the PD zone. (Ord. 941 § I (part). 1982: prior
code§9203.14(13)) 1752.030 Property development standards.
A. Residential density shall be as provided in
1750.030 Property development standards. the specific plan.
A. Residential densities may exceed those B. Height. yards. coverage and parking shall
allowed in the underlying zone by not more than be as Provided in the specific plan. If the specific
twenty-five percent.(In order to approve a devel- plan does not contain explicit provisions on
opment which exceeds the density otherwise these items.they shall be provided in the under-
allowed. the planning commission and council lying zone.
must make certain findings as required by Sec.
tion 17.62.0408.) ;
B. Under an approved development plan. lot
size and configuration, yards. height. coverage i
i
17.6-1.010-17.62.020
Chapter 17.62 to a suitable scale and clearly labeled. showing.
if applicable:
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 1. Existing site conditions. including con-
tours. vegetation and water courses:
Sections: 2. Proposed lot designs:
17.62.010 Preliminary development plan. 3. Location and floor area of existing and
17.62.020 Actions of the planning proposed buildings or outlines of areas within
commission. which buildings may be located:
17.62.030 actions of the council. 4. Location and size of all areas to be con-
17.62.040 Required findings. veyed or reserved as common open spaces or for
17.62.050 Requirement for development public or semipublic uses:
plan. 5. Existing and proposed circulation system
17.62.060 Final development plan. of arterial. collector. and local streets: off-street
17.62.070 Phasing. parking. loading. and emergency access areas:
17.62.080 Amendment of final points of access to public rights-of-way: pro-
development plan. posed ownership of circulation routes:
17.62.090 Revocation of PD zoning. 6. Existing and proposed sidewalks and
paths:
17.62.010 Preliminary development plan. 7. Existing and proposed utility systems.
Application for planned development shall including sanitary sewer.storm drainage.water.
be made to the community development electricity. gas and telephone:
department and shall consist of a preliminary 8. A general landscape plan:
development plan. to include: 9. A general grading plan:
A. A legal description of the total site H. Information on land area adjacent to the
involved: proposed development. indicating important
B. A statement of the objectives to be relationships between the proposal and sur-
achieved by the planned development through rounding land uses. circulation systems. public
the particular approach to be used by the facilities and natural features:
applicant: 1. Any additional information which may be
C. A schedule indicating the approximate required by the director to evaluate the char-
dates when construction of the development or acter and impact of the planned development.
stages of the development are to be started and (Ord. 941 § I (part). 1982: prior code §
completed: 9204.4(A))
D. A statement of the applicant's intentions
regarding future sale or lease of all or portions of 17.62.020 Actions of the planning
the planned development: commission.
E. A quantified description of the total After giving notice as provided in Section
number and type of dwelling units.parcel sizes. 17.70.030.the planning commission shall hold a
coverage. modified and natural open space. public hearing on the application.The planning
grading.residential densities.and areas devoted commission may approve. approve subject to
to nonresidential uses: certain modifications. or deny the application.
F. Identification of portions of the develop- The decision of the planning commission shall
ment which would otherwise require a variance. be in the form of a recommendation to the
and reason for the deviation from normal council and shall be rendered in writing. stating
standards: all modifications or conditions to be reflected in
G. A site plan and supporting maps. drawn
Asan Lon Obispo 7441 484
c ��(
B. In order togrant
a -density bonus" (as explained in
Section 17.50.030), the comission
the final development plan.(Ord.941 § I (part)• and council must find that the proposed develop-
1982: prior code § 9204.4(B)) meat satisfies at least three of the five criteria set
out in subsection A of this section.The applicant
17.62.030 Actions of the council. shall provide adetailed statement indicating how
After giving notice as provided in Section the development satisfies the appropriate criteria
17.70.030. the council shall hold a public hear- set out in subsection A of this section.The max-
ing on the application and the recommenda- imum density bonus is not automatic. In deter-
tions of the planning commission. The council mining the allowable bonus, the commission
may approve.approve subject to certain modifi- and council shall assess the extent to which these
cations. or deny the proposal. The decision of criteria are met
the council shall be rendered in writing, stating C. To approve a planned development allow-
all modifications or conditions to be reflected in ing large professional office buildings which can
the final development plan. If it approves or include multiple tenaats but with no single ten-
conditionally approves the preliminary devel- ant space less than two thousand five hundred
opment plan. the council shall approve the square feet in the CS or M zone, the planning
rezoning and the official zone map shall be commission or council must find that it meets
amended to indicate approval of the planned each of the criteria listed below. The following
development. (Ord. 941 § I (part). 1982: prior office-related uses are prohibited in the PD in
code§9204.4(0)) these zones: Banks. real estate offices, financial
institutions. medical clinics and doctors offices
17 62.040 Required findings. and lawyers'offices.
A. To approve a planned development. the 1. The project will be compatible with existing
planning commission and council must find that and Mowed land uses in the arca.
it meets one or more of the following criteria: 2. The project's location or access arrange-
1. It provides facilities qr amenities suited to a ment do not significantly direct traffic to use
particular occupancy group (such as the elderly local or collector streets in residential areas.
or families with children) which would not be 3. The project will provide adequate mitiga-
feasible under conventional zoning: tion to address potential impacts related to noise.
2. It transfers allowable development. within light and glare and loss of privacy,among others.
a site, from areas of greater environmental sen- imposed by commercial activities on nearby resi-
sitivity or hazard to areas of less sensitivity or dential areas.by using methods such as setbacks.
hazard: landscaping. bcrming and fencing.
3. It provides more affordable housing than 4. The project does not preclude industrial or
would be possible with conventional develop- service commercial uses in aresespecialsuited
meat for such uses when compared
offices.with
4. .Features of the particular design achieve S. The project does not create a shortage of CS
the intent of conventional standards (privacy. and M zoned land available for service commer-
ca
il or industrial development.(Ord. 1087§ l Ex.
usable open space. adequate parking, com-
patibility with neighborhood character, and so A(2). 1987;Ord.941§ 1 (part). 1982:prior code§
on)as well as or better than the standards them- 9204.4(D))
selves:
5. It incorporates features which result in con- 17,62.050 Requirement for development plan.
sumption of less materials,energy or water than No land division may be undertaken and no
conventional development construction begun within an area zoned PD
6. ZYne o Sed ro'ect rovides ark— until a final development plan .has been
ce tional ublic benefits�nQchas public
in open s ace landSCap - ,San lun OEnO"�J 11
others cial amenities which
art, and feasible under colNentional
would not be
develo nt standards- /�
17.62.060-17.62.090
approved.(Ord.941 § l (part). 1982:prior code§ during any given stage. At no time during con-
9204.4(E)) struction of the project shall the density of devel-
oped land exceed the overall density established
17.62.060 Final development plan. in the final development plan. (Ord. 941 § l
A. Within six months of approval or condi- (part), 1982: prior code§9204.4(G))
tional approval of the preliminary development
plan,the applicant shall file with the community 17.62.080 Amendment of final development
development department a final development plan.
plan. At his discretion and for good cause, the A. Minor differences between the approved
director may extend for six months the period for development plan and construction plans may
filing. be allowed by the director.
B. The final development plan shall include B. Written requests for amendments to a final
those items from Section 17.62.0 10(Preliminary development plan may be.approved by the plan-
development plan)which describe the proposal, ningcommission aftera public hearing,notice of
including division of land, type and location of which has been given as provided in Section
all buildings and improvements,and so on,but it 17.70.030. Amendments shall be limited to
need not include information on existing condi- changes in the size and position of buildings:the
tions. number,area or configuration of lou:landscape
C. The director shall review and take action treatment: phasing, and the like.
on the final development plan within thirty days C. Amendments may not include changes in
of filing. He shall approve it upon finding that it proposed use,overall density,or overall conFigu-
is in substantial compliance with the preliminary ration of the land uses and circulation features.
development plan as approved or modified by Changes to these aspects may be accomplished
the council. Upon approval of the final develop- oniv by reapplication and submittal of a new
ment plan, the director shall add the number of preliminary development plan.
the planned development to the official zone D. These procedures apply whether or not all
map(for example.PD(9999)).Subsequently,all or part of the development has been built. (Ord.
grading, construction and landscaping shall 941 § I (part). 1982: prior code§ 9204.4(H))
comply with the approved final development
plan. 17.62.090 Revocation of PD zoning.
D. The final development plan may consist of If Final development plan is not carried out in
final subdivision maps, building construction the time specified in the development plan or
plans,grading plans,and so on, that would nor- within an approved extension period. the plan-
mally be submitted in the course of develop- ning commission and council may remove the
ment,and need not be a separate submittal.The PD designation according to the usual procedure
director shall determine the extent to which any for city-initiated rezoning. (Ord. 941 § I (part).
additional documentation of development plans 1982: prior code§ 9204.4(1)) '
is required.(Ord.941§ I(pan). 1982:prior code§
9204.4(F))
17.62.070 Phasing.
If the construction of the planned develop-
ment is to occur in phases, the open space and
common facilities shall be developed and made
available in proportion to the number of dwell-
ing units or nonresidential floor area occupied
485 1 Sin lmsOthsPo 7-9 r)
'2'//
❑ ❑=
�K[a
600M 1
\ I vi C
•"5
77
O
C5 q � — w� i f •a� r
i o
5
fw^
w0
P •• O
C
5
i n
l
7 / _
\ 1
O
D01
=--
10
11111 P- 11
city of
,I
5
6 f
.... r
San_WI s OBISPO c-c ZONE
Department of Community Uevalopmerrt,990 Palm Street
Post Office Box 321,San Luis Obispo,CA 93408(805)541.1000 /410 Xiil9
city of san tuts osispo
INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION Citywide APPLICATION NO. ER 72-88
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Amend Zoning Regulations to allow Planned Developrent rezonings on
parcels of less than 1 acre in the C-C zone, (City Application No. PD 1418)
APPLICANT Interwest Investment Group, Inc.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
X NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
PREPARED BY Jeff Hook Associate Planner DATE 11/21/88
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION: DATE
NeoQIiie, c/CJrQz'2a/g
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
I.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
11.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ................................................... 'None
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH.......................................... *None
C. LAND USE ....................................................................... None
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .............................................. None
E. PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................. None
F. UTILITIES........................................................................ None
G. NOISE LEVELS ...... .......................................
...................... one
H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS .................... None
1. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS............................................... None
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY .............................................. None
K PLANT LIFE......................................................................
None
LANIMAL LIFE..................................................................... None
M. ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL ................................................... None
N. AESTHETIC ........................................................................ one
O. ENERGYIRESOURCE USE .......................................................... None
P. OTHER ..........................................................................
III.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Negative Declaration
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT se as
� -/3
Initial Environmental Study
Page 2
I. Description of Project and Environmental Setting.
Zoning Regulations allow Planned Development rezonings on any parcel or contiguous
parcels of I acre or larger. The Planned Development (PD) zone designation is intended
to encourages innovative design and more efficient use of development sites and
resources. It does this by allowing variation in design standards where the resulting
project would benefit project users or the community as a whole.
The proposed change would allow PD rezoning on sites of less than one acre in the C-C
zone, San Luis Obispo's downtown commercial core. Most of downtown was subdivided in the
late 1800's, with most parcels considerably less than one acre. As the city grew, it was
common for downtown lots to be resubdivided into smaller parcels of 6,000 sq. ft. or
less. Today, Subdivision Regulations require lots in the C-C zone to have a total area
of at least 3000 sq. ft.
Downtown's pattern of lot ownership continues to be mostly small parcels of 6000 sq. ft.
or less under separate ownership. Due to the established development pattern downtown,
it is difficult to assemble sites of one acre or more to qualify for PD rezoning. If
approved, this Zoning text change would allow conforming lots of 3,000 sq. ft. or larger
in the C-C zone to qualify for PD rezoning. The one acre minimum would still be required
for PD rezonings on lots outside of the C-C zone.
II. Potential Impact Review
A. Community Plans and Goals
The change would not conflict with General Plan goals or policies, or any other adopted
city policies. The General Plan and the Goals for Downtown encourage a wide range of
uses in the C-C zone. Their policies are intended to maintain the downtown as one of the
most concentrated retail, office, and entertainment centers in the County. To the extent
that this text change would allow greater flexibility in downtown development, it may
help acheive downtown goals. The proposed change is essentially administrative in nature
and policy-neutral -- that is, it would not change the purpose or intent of Planned
Developments, or the required findings for approval.
B. Land Use
This text change would increase the number of downtown sites eligible for PD rezoning,
but would not significantly affect land use in the City. Planned developments of less
than an acre would still be subject to environmental and design review to insure that the
project would meet city standards.
Due to the special findings required for PD approval, and to the additional time and cost
for processing a PD application, the change is not likely to substantially increase the
number of PD applications received, or to alter the rate or or character of downtown
development. PD rezonings have been, and will continue to be, used for a limited number
of projects which require flexibility in development standards, and which feature
innovative planning or special amenities not possible under conventional zoning
standards.
Attachments: Vicinity Map, Proposed Zoning Text Change
P .C . Minutest
November 30 , 1988
Page 3.
--------------------------------------------------- ------------------------
Item 2. Public Hearing : Zoninq Re ulations Amendment R1419 .
Consideration of amending t e Zoning a i
Reg ons section 17 . 50.010
to allow planned development zoning on parcels of less than one
acre in the C-C zone; Interwest Investment Group, Inc . , applicant .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commr. Roalman rejoined the meeting .
Jeff Hook presented the staff report and recommended the commission
recommend to council that they amend the Zoning Regulations to allow
Planned Developments on sites of less than one acre in the C-C- zone.
Commr ... Schmi (it did .not _ feel any :of t.he- pl aA.hed. dev.e.l opment findings could -.
be made for- this- project;:
Chairperson Kourakis opened the public hearing.
Marsh.all Ochylski , 949 Osos , applicant , stated this planned deve}opmen.t
app.]-i ed to -the enti re. duwnt�wtt .and :xhat. i.t; a1 fnrde_d design'-options.- He
stated . the publit •amenit es provided. 'ttie; 'r.at :one1*6.:.-fo.r-. the PD.
Rob Strong , 1 Buena Vista , applicant ' s representative , encouraged a broader
scope and innovative design and that some allowance for PD should be
incorporated downtown. He felt variance findings would be harder to
demonstrate for this site and that some PD findings could be made.
Keith Guernee , 108 Broad, did not agree with minimum acreage requirements
and supported the proposal . .
Chairperson Kourakis closed the public hearing .
Commr . Crotser moved to recommend to council that they amend the zoning
regulations and allow PD developments on sites less than 1 acre, with the
staff-recommended additional finding to allow PD in C-C zones .
Commr . Hainline seconded the motion .
Commr . Roalman was not in favor of allowing drastic square footage
reductions and proposed the limit be set at 15 , 000 square feet .
Chairperson Kourakis felt this was a General Plan issue and that the
application was premature . She suggested pursuing a variance instead of a
major zoning change . She suggested reinterpreting the site measurements .
Commr . Duerk was in favor of encouraging innovative designs with a PD
allowance .
Commr . Schmidt supported eliminating the acreage requirement , but was
against rewriting criteria of PD ' s and felt the additionally suggested
finding was subjective . He felt the implications should be explored .
F_
P . C '. Minutes
November 30 , 1988
Page 4_
VOTING.:. AYES - Commrs . Crotser , Hainline , and Duerk .
NOES - Commrs . Roalman , Schmidt , and Kourakis .
ABSENT - Commr . Gerety .
The motion fails .
Commr . Roalman moved to recommend council amend the zoning regulations ,
limiting the -acreage to 15 , 000 square feet .
There was no second .
C.o.mmr : :.cro.tser moved- to recommend-_ council amend the - zoning regulat.ions to
al.l ow- P-1" ' d Deve.l op.men.ts on' si-te.s . of less, than. one acre i n. the C=C. zone.
Commr .-. chmidt`'seconGed the` motion . -
VOTING:. -_ AYES - Commrs. Crotser, Schmidt, and Hainline.
-NOES - -Commrs. Duerk, Roalman and Kourakis .
ABSENT- -. Comms-. . Gerety . :
The 'motion fail s.. ._ <'
Commr . Duerk moved to continue the item to the next available meeting .
There was no second .
Commr. Crotser moved to forward commission comments to city council .
Commr. Schmidt seconded the motion .
VOTING: AYES - Commrs . Crotser , Schmidt , Duerk , Hainline , Roalman and
Kourakis .
NOES - None.
ABSENT - Commr . Gerety .
The motion passes .