Loading...
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 .