Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-09-2018 - Item 1 - Cooper1 Tonikian, Victoria From:Allan Cooper < Sent:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 1:33 PM To:Davidson, Doug; Bell, Kyle; Advisory Bodies; CityClerk Subject:Zoning Regulations Update - Specific Items for Consideration are: a. Article 7 (Administration of Zoning Regulations) b. Article 3 (Regulations and Standards Applicable to All Zones) Attachments:805_08_18...lettertopc.pdf Dear Doug and Kyle - Would you kindly forward the letter attached below to the Planning Commission prior to their Wednesday, May 9, 2018 meeting? I'm sorry to say that due to a conflict, I'm unable to attend this important May 9th meeting. However, I'm hoping that representatives from neighborhoods flanking commercial development (downtown and elsewhere) will be able to attend as these topics have direct bearing on their neighborhoods. Thanks! - Allan To: SLO Planning Commission Re: Zoning Regulations Update - Specific Items for Consideration are: a. Article 7 (Administration of Zoning Regulations) b. Article 3 (Regulations and Standards Applicable to All Zones) From: Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown Date: May 8, 2018 Honorable Chair Stevenson and Commissioners - On Wednesday you will be discussing a number of issues that are of great interest to Save Our Downtown. Although you might be discussing the very important topics of “Open Space Requirements”, “Hillside Development Standards” and a proposed FAR of 0.5 for R-1 infill, Save Our Downtown would instead like to focus on “Public Notices & Hearings”, “Mixed Use Thresholds” and “Edge Conditions”. With regards to “Public Notices & Hearings”: 1)In light of the possibility that there will be a “loosening up” of ADU requirements and in light of today’s (May 8, 2018) Tribune front page article describing the potential problems related to ADU’s, we would encourage you to insure that public notices and hearings be incorporated into Tier 1 projects particularly if they involve ADU’s. 2)In light of the fact that our “high occupancy residential use ordinance” may be rescinded, we urge you to insure that public notices and hearings be incorporated into Tier 1 projects involving high occupancy use. 3)Should you agree that all CHC & ARC decisions pertaining to Tier 2 projects be routed on a strictly advisory basis to the Director, then we urge you to require that the Director’s final decision be made in the context of a public hearing and that this public hearing be noticed. However, Save Our Downtown would prefer that the ARC not be, like the CHC, downgraded to “committee” status. What we mean by this is that the ARC should not be disallowed the opportunity to make “final” decisions on matters related to architectural design as neither the Director, Planning Commission or Council are expected to have the expertise to adjudicate on design issues. What also concerns us is that, under these circumstances, if the ARC should deny or continue a project, instead of the project returning to the ARC, it could be forwarded to the Director or PC without alteration. 4)We were informed at the May 3, 2018 Zoning Reg Update Workshop that it’s not likely that the CHC and ARC would be meeting on the same day and at the same time. If this were to happen, this would of course prevent the public, interested in both meetings, to attend both meetings. However, our larger concern is that concurrent scheduling of their meetings will prevent the ARC from hearing the CHC’s recommendations. Why is it that the PC should benefit from hearing the ARC’s decisions but that it has been determined that the ARC no longer needs to be informed of the historical or archeological concerns raised by the CHC? This could only increase the chances that the CHC and the ARC would come up with conflicting decisions and these decisions would have to be resolved by the Director. With regards to “Mixed Use Thresholds”: 1)Should housing be built in the downtown commercial zone, we insist that the entire street frontage be retail. Outside of the C-D zone we recommend that the City use the same formula for retail street frontage that applies to parking garages. With regards to “Edge Conditions”: 1)Where commercial development flanks residential, we support greater setbacks for upper floors of commercial development using plan line setbacks. 2)We support restricting window orientation, balconies and roof decks on commercial projects flanking residential development. This should be done to prevent overlook and noise intrusion. 3)We support requiring noise buffering walls and car headlight screening for parking garages flanking residential development. 4)We support further limiting hours of operation for roof decks and patio dining in commercial development flanking residential development. 5)We urge the City to eliminate parking reductions as an incentive for providing mixed-use, low-income housing, especially when it is located adjacent to residential development. This is because the unmet parking needs of these future developments will adversely impact on- street parking in the adjoining neighborhoods. 6)We urge the City to eliminate building height increases as an incentive for providing mixed- use, low-income housing, especially when it is located adjacent to residential development. This is because these increased building heights will cast shadows and encroach on the privacy of adjoining residences. In conclusion, we hope that you will not engage in too much discussion regarding the very important topics of “Open Space Requirements”, “Hillside Development Standards” and a proposed FAR of 0.5 for R-1 infill development because your staff report lacks the necessary background information that concerned citizens will need to adequately prepare for your Wednesday meeting. Thank you!