Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/00/1990, - COMMUNITY WORKSHOP DENSITY AND UNIT SIZE ��►►►illlllli i ��!II►ii lllli�l city of san tins osispo • COMMUNrrY WORKSHOP "DENSI'T'Y AND UNIT SIZE" C �{ 1 Iwo % r 90 � O • CITY HALL c . MARCH 19, 1988 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP DENSITY AND DWELLING UNIT SIZE and JOINT MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SATURDAY, MARCH 19, 1988 - 9:15 A.M. - 2:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET City Council: Peg Pinard, Vice-Mayor Penny Rappa, Jerry Reiss, Allen K. Settle and Mayor Ron Dunin Planning Commission: Janet Kourakis (Chair), Charles Crotser, Donna Duerk (Vice-Chair), Patrick Gerety, Linda Hainline, Bill Roalman and Richard Schmidt Architectural Review Commission: Allan Cooper (Chair), Fred Baur, Paul Jones, Duane Morris, Pierre Rademaker (Vice-Chair) and Brian Starr (one vacancy) COMMUNITY WORKSHOP 9:15 - 9:30 a.m. Registration, Coffee and Rolls 9:30 - 10:20 a.m. Introduction and Overview (Michael Multari) 1. Parking and Population Density (Patrick Gerety) 2. Neighborhood Compatibility (Peg Pinard) 3. Mass and Scale of Buildings (Allan Cooper) 4. Affordability and Economics of Construction (Randy Dettmer) 10:20 10:30 a.m. Break and Bus Boarding 10:30 - 12:30 p.m. Bus Tour to Six Sites (see map) 12:30 - 1:00 p.m. Lunch at City Hall 1:00 - 1:45 p.m. Small Discussion Groups - 5 groups of approximately 10 persons each 1:45 - 2:15 p.m. Report back by small discussion groups 2:15 - 2:30 p.m. Recap and direction for next steps Density Workshop City of San Luis Obispo City Hall March 19, 1988 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1. Introduction Section 2. Tour Map Section 3. Background Summaries of Projects Visited Section 4. Floor Plan Examples Submitted by Dettmer Architecture Section 5. Data Summary 1985-87: Nos. of units and their sizes Section 6. Multi-family Zoning Map (4 sheets) Section 7. Survey of Other Cities Section 8. Rent Data Section 9. Notes lid III I I�II�� I'IIII III Ili I�� � �I; �I I II Ity of sAn luis oBispo TNEr 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100 March 19, 1988 To: Density Workshop Participants From: Community Development Department Staff Subject: Introduction--relating density to unit size for multi-family residential zones INTRODUCTION/HISTORY Currently, the city's zoning ordinance determines the density allowed in the multi-family residential zones based on the number of bedrooms in units. While each zone allows only a certain number of units per acre', the number of "units" a particular residence is considered to be, varies with how many bedrooms it has. In our ordinance a studio is counted as .5 units; a one-bedroom residence as .66 units; a two-bedroom residence as 1.0 units; a three-bedroom residence as 1.5 units; and residences with four or more bedrooms count as 2.0 units. Thus, density is actually tied to the number of bedrooms in a project. An example might help. If a particular site had an allowable density of "two units", a developer would have the option of building four studios (.5 x 4 = 2.0), or three one-bedroom units (3 x .66 = 1.98), or a three-bedroom and a studio (1.5 + .5 = 2.0) or house.with four or more bedrooms(1 x 2.0 = 2:0), or any other combination so long as the total did not exceed 2.0. This approach is not typical. Most ordinances simply base density on units per acre, with no regard to the number of bedrooms or to the sizes of the residences. Our current density regulations grew out of the 1977 General Plan amendments and citywide rezonings. The intent of the General Plan is to try to relate density to population (and to the availability of resources and services). Considering the number of bedrooms was viewed as a more accurate way of estimating actual population than simply relying on "units per acre". Problems occasionally arise when very large residences are proposed which have only one or two nominal bedrooms...but with other rooms labeled "dens", "studies" and "sewing rooms". In many cases, these alternative uses of rooms are legitimate. In others, however, they are quickly converted to additional sleeping quarters. This tends to frustrate the intent of the regulations. These are sometimes called "cheater" units by the staff charged with reviewing project applications. ------------------ •In the R-2 zone, up to 12 units are permitted per acre; in the R-3, up to 18 units per acre; in the R4, up to 24 units per acre. Density Page 2 Therefore, staff and the Planning Commission, in response to suggestions by the ARC, recommended that some "outer limit" should be set for the size of certain units. For example, if a one-bedroom condominium or apartment was larger than 850 square feet, it would be counted as a two-bedroom unit for purposes of calculating density. This would set some objective criterion for judging when, a unit had crossed a threshold to a higher density rather than the more subjective analysis of whether "dens" or "studies" were really going to end up being bedrooms. The recommended limits suggested by the staff and Planning Commission were as .follows: Studio 450 sq. ft. One Bedroom 850 sq. ft. Two Bedroom 1300 sq. ft. Three Bedroom 1600 sq. ft. Again, this meant, for example, that if a unit which had only one bedroom was greater than 850 square feet, it would be counted for density purposes as a two bedroom unit. When this recommendation reached the City Council, a number of other concerns were discussed that went beyond the attempt to simply screen out some of the more blatant "cheater" units. Their discussion focused on the correlation between the size of apartment units and several factors: number of tenants per unit, parking demand, impact on appearance of projects, and the affordability and desirability of new units. In attempting to address these concerns, the Council proposed limits that were, in some cases, more restrictive: Studio 450 sq. ft. One Bedroom 600 sq. ft.. Two Bedroom 1000 sq. ft. Three Bedroom 1600 sq. ft. Keep in mind that this did not mean that one bedroom units could not exceed 600 square feet. But, if a one bedroom unit did exceed 600 square feet, it would be counted as a two bedroom unit for density calculation purposes. Another point to keep in mind is that these standards would only apply in the multi-family zones and would not affect the R-I districts. When this item was reviewed by the Council there was considerable public input. Many suggested that further study was necessary to fully understand the implications of the proposed regulations. Some felt that they were unnecessarily strict. Others believed that there might be other better ways of addressing the concerns of the Council. Thus, the Council directed staff to set up a community workshop to begin to address these concerns. That is the genesis of today's session. Density Page 3 SUMMARY OF ISSUES The following summarizes the issues associated with unit sizes that were raised by the Council: 1. Neighborhood Compatibility. A major concern was that, especially in older established residential neighborhoods, the influx of large rental units was adversely affecting the character of those areas. There was a feeling that neighborhood cohesion, generated by home-ownership and familiarity with neighbors, was being eroded. This further contributed to a loss of a sense of security and less pride in the care of individual units and in the neighborhood generally. 2. Mass and Bulk of Structures. New multiple unit projects are sometimes taller and bulkier than older surrounding buildings. Such projects sometimes do not fit well into the existing neighborhood, affecting their character and the visual aesthetics of the area. The size of individual units can have an important effect on the overall size of a new project. 3. Ponulation Density. As noted above, the residential density standards are ultimately tied to the city's plan for overall population (which is in turned tied to plans for services and availability of resources). Larger units may result in more people living in them. 4. Parking. If larger units tend to have more people living in them, there may not be adequate parking provided to serve the actually needs of the project. Inadequate on-site parking can result in undesirable impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. 5. Economics and Affordability. There was a feeling that if units are kept smaller they may be more affordable. However, the economics of development are complicated and this conclusion may not be justified. Further, there may be changes in the demographics and in the marketplace driving developers to build larger units. These need to be examined more fully. SOME IDEAS TO CONSIDER Since the Council directed staff to set up the workshop, there have been a some discussions about the issues (for example, at the Chamber of Commerce Board luncheon). Some interesting, and possibly very useful, ideas have come up in those discussions. They are offered here for your consideration and further discussion. While problems associated with excessive density are not limited to specific neighborhoods, it does seem that the concerns are most focused on areas near Cal Poly and on Old Town. Further, the issues related to changes in the neighborhood character seem most relevant to Old Town. If this is the case, then it may be helpful to direct particular attention in our discussions toward this part of the city. Density Page 4 If in our discussion, we see the need to address issues in ways in which the traditional R-2, R-3, R4 zones do not function well, then we should be willing to explore alternative approaches. An idea brought up recently was some kind of "heritage neighborhood zoning district" which could spell out special criteria for the Old Town area. In creating such a zone, we would need to think about. the qualities and characteristics of the area we wish to preserve, then write standards that promote them. Another idea recently suggested is that provision of additional housing, including multi-family housing, in designated expansion areas away from the sensitive neighborhoods may help relieve some of the pressure now focused on existing areas. Another suggestion is that in new residential expansion areas, rather than the usual strategy of separately blocking out large areas for single family residences and for multi-family, perhaps an approach to integrate smaller "islands" of multi-family within larger single family areas may be more successful in creating a viable, long-term neighborhood character. Lastly, we should keep in mind that the workshop will not likely solve all the issues.-it may simply help us to better understand the nature of the problems, to identify areas for additional research, and to set a course for further efforts. We hope you find the day pleasant and useful. If there is anything we can do to help you before, during or after the workshop, please let us know. C01W= WORKSHOP - FIELD TRIP �_-__--___ _ I 1 I I I � 1 1 CAL POLY I i ( I I I I 1 ( I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I 1 _ I � I ♦ I / l ♦ I / LAMM LAKE ♦ �{ L I I _p I 1 � I I / I / 1♦ / I / 1 / 1 C 6 � I I r� I _J 1 1 1 ^ a W CITY LIMIT LINE----- J' 1 . 1185 Foothill Boulevard - Pinecreek Condominiums 2. 1239 Foothill Boulevard - Carhill Condominiums 3. 1045 Southwood Drive - Parkside Apartments 4. 1626 Broad Street - Victoria Square Condomin.iums 5. 469 Pacific Street - 4-unit Apartment 6. 415 Dana STreet Dana Gardens Condominiums M� The following sheets include a summary of data about the projects we are visiting today. We've included such information as number of units, their sizes, parking and lot coverage. We also provided floor plans to help people see what the units we visit looked like on paper...before they were built. Unfortunately, some of the plans are retained only on micro-fiche; most had to be reduced to fit into the workbook. Thus, in some cases there may be legibility problems, especially with regard to dimensions. With the exception of those on micro-fiche, we will have the full-scale plans with us on the tour, if people wish to refer to them. i PINECREEK CONDOMINIUMS PROJECT PROFILE Address: 1185 Foothill Boulevard Zoning: R-4 Date Approved: October 15, 1984 Number of Units: 36 Site Area: 1.51 acres Density: 23.8 units/acre Unit Type: Two bedroom (with loft) Floor Area: 1,035 sq. ft. Parking Spaces/Unit: 2.8 Covered Parking Spaces/Uncovered: 72/28 (the 72 spaces are in tandem pairs) Building Coverage (Footprint): 41% (allowed 60%) Parking/Other Impervious Surfaces: 36% Landscaping: 23% gml/density CA m POLY R-4 S IMi \ �\ � I I I 1 �� O • Q I-7-R 190 X R-4 lip IFO WONO o � R - -R 4 e O � r . 1-8-L Ir zipQ E t It ff v r 23 So saw ���• 3 Y • I +1ip � ' � 11 � I � s.I g• ag t r t n _ __ _ _e C • it _ _ e W e i — — — — — — — cc •'' O �S UJ J .�l.r �' al L - -- — s. (j ` a Q Fl .� i J Q 00 • 00 e.. 4.0 e _ z law m ad r - - '�'• i pp a S x I 3 . c x x M I c WA= Y O ,►., I -v I m a O • C'' > > 0 — U Gro ey dl v Q Q 7 06 U7.0 M M �. cv CARHILL CONDOMINIUMS PROJECT PROFILE Address: 1239 Foothill Boulevard Zoning: R-4 Date Approved: October 28, 1985 Number of Units: 21 Site Area: 0.92 acre Density:.22.82 units/acre Unit Type: Two Bedroom Floor Area Range: 1166 sq.ft. to 1388 sq.ft. Parking Spaces/Unit;- 2.52 Covered Parking Spaces/Uncovered: 31/22 Building Coverage (Footprint): 47.5% (allowed 60%) Parking/Other Impervious Surfaces: 26.9% Landscaping: 25.6% pr/data:carhill VICINITY MAP CARHILL CONDOMINIUMS o �Q r w O i v � � O �C CAL m O b� �tcl. '� POLY O -47 0, O a Q O � s R-3 7-4 0O O . 0 G r O Ij B R- U� C r` P C 1. - �a w o wTra i 1 9 O R-4 r s R-4 r' BOND. 4 L .� e^ R- TZ - r - � Site Plan - 21 units CARPENTER ST. 118 C z }�� 2o-�,nJ- - Located at: 1239 Foothill Blvd. 208,112 San Luis Obispo i� ,C C— California, 93401 205,111 i C C yi ,*' Addressi -Plan -j - - - m 208,110 g Brov ! cJ ..F I t 203,109 F�I 0 i —� 4 0 B B i _ 1 202,108 I i 111 B B _ 1► 201, fog �I j4 _� I ,�...�^�:l ' -fi• �`� y yIAQII1 Ni _ Ctr' r ��{� t� . 106I 105 108 I fOJ I 102 I 101 - 0.,0.,1,--- Ric A A I A I A A I A CARHILL CONDO iv,AUMS 1 239 FOOTHILL FLOOR PLAN C 1388 sc�f�-• �-a I dl ENTRY FAMU-Y S R. LIVING ROOM G.Q C�7 0 0 1 UN c o i DINING i Oar ,ocl BUILDIN A FIRST LEVEL CARHiLL CONDOMIK )MS �J 1239 FOOTHILL FLOOR PLAN C►3 8 b sc� A- +otal CLO. BEDROOM I I TM Q O e I O BEDROOM BUILDING A SECOND LEVEL 79 v 7S 5 PARKSIDE APARTMENTS PROJECT PROFILE Address: 1045 Southwood Drive Zoning: R-3-PD Date Approved: August 21, 1984 Number of Units: 168 Site Area: 7.67 acres Density: 19.94 units/acre Unit Type: Two bedrooms/two bath (78 units - 985 sq. ft.) Two bedrooms/one bath (38 units - 885 sq. ft.) Two bedroom townhouse (6 units - 1109 sq. ft.) Two bedroom townhouse with loft (6 units - 1173 sq. ft.) One bedroom (22 units - 724 sq. ft.) One bedroom townhouse (4 units - 708 sq. ft.) One bedroom townhouse with loft (4 units - 756 sq.. ft.) Studio (4 units - 445 sq. ft.) Parking Spaces/Unit: 2.25 Covered Parking Spaces/Uncovered: 26 covered/352 uncovered Building Coverage (Footprint): 75,066 sq. ft. (22% of site) Parking/Other Impervious Surfaces: 38% Landscaping: 40% I P A n • � g iT Mm) • i Lu 9 Fir 3' Ti g = � i �� � . P j y 1 I � i n. - - . g c, 77 00 0 C ' I ror--- V f: o Eg ■ r , � o i 1 / i d, yi Qz- Op kr it X At 1-t kk 016" I L� u I. i i<} •• 7E8 �] It ! R, 1 , Iffilkil I I VICTORIA SQUARE CONDOMINIUMS PROJECT PROFILE Address: 1626 Broad Street Zoning: R-2 Date Approved: October 11, 1976 Number of Units: 12 Site Area: .96 acres Density: 12.5 units/acre (Note: Density allowance was based on previous zoning code which would have permited 15.5 units on the site.) Unit Type: a. Five three bedroom units (refer to attached map) b. Seven two bedroom units Floor Area: a. Three bedroom units range from 1412 to 1548 square feet (refer below) b. Two bedroom units range from 1062 to 1526 square feet Parking Spaces/Unit: 2.25 Covered Parking Spaces/Uncovered: 12/15 Building Coverage (Footprint): 24% (allowed 50%) Parking/Other Impervious Surfaces: 48% Landscaping: 53% Unit Distribution Three Bedroom Units: 709 Islay; 1470 sq-ft 705 Islay; 1548 sq-ft 721 Islay; 1530 sq-ft 715 Islay; 1500 sq-ft 708 Leff; 1412 sq-ft Two Bedroom Units: 711 Islay; 1220 sq-ft 703 Islay; 1062 sq-ft 717 Islay; 1500 sq-ft (includes a large "sitting room") 714 Leff; 1220 sq-ft 744 Leff; 1412 sq-ft 720 Leff; 1526 sq-ft 732 Leff; 1526 sq-ft Attachments: Site Plan Various Floor Plans $ opt c�/ ,fie''` s .r • f� • -fir `4'`�tf+ O c O -gip O � O s p jo et+ 1 O � L v^` O Opp do 3 p V �A 01� S� C O .. O ° 10 ��� Ve p s, O O .� O O �p O p s�,� O 0 O O daO ,�6 O '�1t 1 .sem 1 B•: 5 :::�e:.. S e O -- - -- �' -- � v z ti'' •.� y�r til - - c O - ISLAY STREET sor* fe 0 0 0 o o V OI N • W N W V V ppV ooV eV V N V O W N o m `•� •s < � •c rc �n�w `st v a NSN — ft 4b • • j 1 td o = 4bID a r r r ♦ r D v , oro o � crn rn - - N / s a^1 v 0 p 1 00 1sN � Neal N LEFF STREET r - - - - Q.•1 � ' -F- a .,fir wv�.s•••.•r �YI• 1 �{ r 1{•: 1A M � 14 A CA 711 IS )eA 4f&S 41A 44P .I ►'s'�, .tea. r .. ._ '7 ' •'f ::�r• w ` ....s ..�. -� 709 10 •r..-wr`r`«� •' a.� !rt , • Jko �lR S _ - -- l 1 P tt LAVIW - . : ; g r dmp 70 1 s L Q r 4—r — — �_.. .. 71 'f . - MAP= ow.lb a Pelt 4b Aga, d .tia Alr a • .•• �' �o01A 11 L OOR1 .IUWIT ! LOP T T r'?iyd +.� .. 9 u; i ♦ Mr'Ir. bw / .� tet• 4 One L .y/• w �,.� .� /. ` \ ■ DIIJ�Aii ,� . . • (�)W,.lT._. E 1 j�•� Mn rs&P-w 61vlw rd i .. -r ♦ .♦ i .♦ 5 �' - ^• 1 t. d.! • '• Y y� il Limon of AMOS wwo FF- - r• _ F �- oC) d o N 1 •� -� � w.• n•a Mi 1♦1 1 •1 • , r• •, 4. VON • � . ` i fit ��•.�� � ;.� � :� IG • • • a. 77 • ♦ 4♦ i. ♦ � J we ♦ :�� �• -" j.'.. 0 ••.•ami 91- F t' i.` L J• '1 � M dtoo SNI tC .C , *. .fr AA r u ,TLdb , i ad r ( •� K +i m, w , r ....• •ate ( � J- �I ri • - � n1 �, : ft • n l - -• a log ' -- .ice�,��- •.d,., i �•,: � : Tar' i•.•' s_o t•i' t•' v .M\ a+4 so& •�.Ivx t- i rw rt #sp lk III � • ���,•�'=y . UNIT �LoO(z -.r. � _ _ 703 r UIT ' G ; ' •• e � t fi . •i4• a , i Icing JV N.o: - • C 0 • U �Oo - �I 404*w PAI* • • � i V ♦ � r � , � •t 7 " . SAAt • LjuiT Dqr : • ; CON 2 ~..•� �_ !� � •rte.ti• —_ Y 707> i • �I + � ►�+s-ce soor� a� • , IJN w4 � /C , • I ' r1lZ ST rLoort , ry ter. 407 7 ti ...� .• :.�w: -y nA.T y 1. � � OIL � T .� � l r l I MR ngllA.r ■tea 1 ■o .9. ..■. .-.. 0 dr i i i I ' , h �g C DVI ,• ooY . i W P416;&L4 71 -7 l SLA Y ei T , �� • T n w •�.' i .. � x. 71 �h • _ i moot S r Y / r e: I I •�Vi ••l act Q 011� A 1e � 7 / 5 ' y'ti'�y air .• f A DOW _ x w ' goo +.w.. , .J r 11 J • .• t ` • `. S Coro FL vc� V I]/ 11'1 J 7 zo � M• i 1 1 'rmJlr�'• da. , ii'':•. ire f .. OL 166.,/� all .r • S� � .!j'ra�V4 .f%O III W•� Z �� As '�. Aw/. Yrs I I H / t •y�iyr . r air l� Y: Nyl.r }, UNIT W LII r._. i e1. y • _ -73Z 1 �L co* 44 i LAI uLPT j • • ,ao•. • j 'j • fir! � � '1` �) qe . ; �j �-�. o. i ra+�+eeww •..ffa ` i �- 4-Unit Apartment Project Profile Address: 469-471 Pacific Street Zoning: R-4 Date Approved: August 2, 1982 Number of Units: 2 existing, 2 new Site Area: 7750 square feet Density: 2.64 Unit Type: One bedroom Floor. Area Range: 588 sq. ft. Parking Spaces/Unit: 1.5 Covered Parking Spaces/Uncovered: 4/2 Building Coverage (Footprint): 37.8% (allowed 60%) Parking/Other Impervious Surfaces: 30% Landscaping: 32.2% << a /' r Vii.::''%° C \ � s C Je LLM ,A t ,1 A, a L F 46 . OZ D � S ' O `v' •'_/ A Opti�^ ` ' Y / GQ O v` • ' d r o r ± ♦ S t �• 15� s� �� O �•� ��,� •1 'I • y w O • s .Z <ir ^ y4X4 O40 Is � � 'sc i �� Llv�v�/[SINE. r :' � LN�JA/t�hJL i Memo 558 SO. FT. - 1 BEDROOM UNITS t _ • � � f L COPY 1. MOLL iAA Z o :o z J 8 0 TI I W' I •I It I' IP YA r ` a� b'•O� T Z R �C C 91 it • 9 � J �� f � ZIP JL r-ot le-0 { � I r i I I 1 ' � I ' � I r � I I r v , , --------y �•. -101 r so' 1 021•ac e�ts�F� smoltf' DANA GARDENS PROJECT PROFILE Address: 415 Dana Street, Units 1-8 Zoning: R-3 Date Approved: June 1, 1982. Number of Units: 8 Site Area: 40,017 sq. ft. (0.94 acres) Density: 8.51 units/acre Unit Type: Two bedrooms/two bathrooms (with loft) Floor Area: 1250 sq. ft. (includes 140 sq. ft. den loft) Parking Spaces/Unit: 2.3 Covered Parking Spaces/Uncovered: 16 covered/3 uncovered Building Coverage (Footprint): 10,000 sq. ft. (25% of site) Parking/Other Impervious Surfaces: 10% Landscaping: 65% lar• —�- - --.. q S � , 5 1 C I I 0 > I i ? I .I I�illl IIL �t I I 4 31� W� I a I I i I !III{11i1 n I I i I•� I I iil��l { �i I a i+ a '' 1 I ' �I. li �I�III� , II•� ,I � II i " III J . Y _ kk A RI a l A• H �I Lld 41 OiR wiLm WtSL r...rA,�.F.♦.p. K qJ J 4u �ONi •w WE / wwrei'wv�vib N •• � . d•wO/��Ow•+gd�a.Ww.Pro �`,� � Y..••.a.r i s' Y_.- ' ' -...� — ' ��� M . .. t� ... _ - .tel•. _ � � � S ti•�Y! o '� � ��'•• a r� \ goo f t - JLJ Lj 'tit El j C Y Y _ 4Y A e �v ^l. c •• �j 11 Sal 16 H � y Ym� � � d� leN •1 } - 1��� COQ V� ori\\a� M14 �� Po �iiiliillil! ; ����II►`I�I��� city of San IDIS OBISPO Sidi COMMUNITY WORKSHOP FLOOR PLAN EXAMPLES SUB BY DFITNER ARCHI'TECT'URE W-00 ¢ J.,�.. -7 Z i � i N• No W i t z ) 7 r- I TL.I i 010 ITCHENw v EZ Lr 7 s Z f STOR. rt .ani � I U 0IlkV _I 11r 6 Co r ,0 LIVING \ 4 ENTRY NOi ID A ----------------- r AL 2 BEDROOM UNIT TOTAL 1187 SF MAGNOLIA TOWNHOMES DETTMER ARCHITECTURE 1 4-VW L= 7" µ-2 �. R 'A R ` O I I I M1, .• BEDROOM Z �sw � pav I- FA �U { Z!3 /.4 BATH Vl1Z 9 AAW. Owev. �I 4'.G• � ov v ov. i 13 I `m ' ^ BATH )4 W .r' I I — I 2 BEDROOM \ I N _ I 2ND FLOOR 655 SF - MAGNOLIA TOWNHOMES DETTMER ARCHITECTURE ©: Ax `n m42 'C F Y�q a.a f6 O i Ul) 3 Li O all m Z a ® � .............................. D mm a a� 0 8: :: S 0 I o 8 Ln op 1c N v, t EWO N D cry of san Luis oBispo COMMtJNTTY WORKSHOP DATA SUMMARY 1985-87: NO. OF UNITS AND SIZES j Dwelling Unit Size Summary For Projects Receiving ARC Approval In 1985, 1986, and 1987 (In Square Feet) 1985 Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom Number Of Units 24 26 42 5 Average Unit Size 450 745 1258 1791 Smallest In Sample 450 520 912 1763 Largest In Sample 450 1058 1622 1875 Standard Deviation 0 147 191 48 1986 Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom Number Of Units 22 4 66 12 Average Unit Size 432 788 1118 1072 Smallest In Sample 220 628 926 1072 Largest In Sample 450 1264 1260 1072 Standard Deviation 50 275 126 0 1987 Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom Number Of Units 2 12 31 7 Average Unit Size 450 698 980 1007 Smallest In Sample 450 550 756 1007 Largest In Sample 450 912 1540 1007 Standard Deviation 0 122 272 0 Three Year Summary Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom Number Of Units 48 42 139 24 Average Unit Size 444 743 1118 1290 Smallest In Sample 220 520 756 1007 Largest In Sample 450 1264 1622 1875 city of san lues osispo COMMUNTTY WORKSHOP MULTI-FAMILY ZONING MAP —__________� ` 1 I I S ET i I I S CAL POLY I 1 l-� V I c a � I I I I I I I - I SH 2 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I �1 /SHEET 4 LAaiNA LAKE ` � 6 4 I , I ,f. I I I i AIPIPOFrrr ' IN SCALE 1•=asoo• / a PI CITY LMIT UNE:----- J'/ INDEX TO MAPS ��iii►.I►N!i'il���'ip ��i�ll city of san tuts osispo 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100•San Luis Obispo,CA 93403.8100 T2-M SHEET 1 R-2 GITI LIMITS R 4 �V i •I \ R t I � i - � << :off❑= 17 ..�: SHEET 2 /.' LAGi1N*A% � i LAKE Aw ./ - C �! R'3- r'. I . i SHEET 3 tI 7717 -- L "\ L lEl �' 4 d "NAM40M MW IF R FIT, R-2 \ \ -2 R-2 \ SHEET 4 �i. ,. r,w n. L• ili� i r--+r—•• R-2 a R's Dom. a •�� I /son a I ; •°�• R-2 SL �� A % �� G11AW4DA DR i►►►►►IIIIII i���IIIII► I�i�� city of san lues oBispo CONSIUNrrY WORKSHOP EXAMPLES FROM OTHER CITIES 1 / WHAT DO OTHER CALIFORNIA CITIES DO? The following were contacted to see if other California cities have regulations governing the maximum size of dwelling units. League of California Cities State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research California Association of Realtors Initial research found no other city or county using such methods, except the maximum size for a studio apartment is regulated by several jurisdictions. Additional, more thorough research is needed to be sure there aren't other relevant examples from other jurisdictions. SUMMARY OF MONTHLY RENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL P%, =- IES IN SAN LUIS 4ui�fO COUNTY MAR 14 1988 Gty 01 4.n Lws Obl= COMPILED FROM 71fE DATA DANK. OF THE CLAEMSIFIED COMPUTER Community Cevelepment ',JULY 16 NOVEMDER 15, 1987 H44* CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO H4Ft * FIVE CITIES LOW HIGH AVERAGE LOW HIGH AVERAGE STUDIO APARTMENT........ALL SLO ARECAS....$260 $500 $373 STUDIO........................$325 $450 $387 1 DIMM APAR110T........... 375 550 449 STUDIO COTTAGE..........ALL SLO AREAS.... 450 450 450 1 BEDROOM HOUSE............... 330 595 446 1 BEDROOM APARTM04T.....ALL SLO AREAS.... 315 600 440 2 BEDROOM APARTMENT........... 395 1200 546 DOWNTOWN AND POLY.... 315 600 436 2 BEDROOM HOUSE............... 404 990 626 SOUTH OF SOUTH STREET.... 355 530 436 3 BEDROOM HOUSE............... 550 1250 320 LAMM LAKE.... 450 565 505 F9.IVATE ROOM.................. 190 350 272 1 BEDROOM HOUSE.........ALL SLO AREAS.... 335 550 455 * LOS OSOS & MOF,'RO BAY 2 BEDROOM APARTMENT.....ALL SLO AREAS.... 354 960 593 DOWNTOWN AND POLY.... 350 960 598 STUDIO........................ 235 450 337 SOUTH OF SOUTH STREET.... 430 695 560 1 BEDROOM APARTMENT........... ?25 550 392 LAGUNA LAKE.... 540 675 612 1 BEDROOM HOLM............... 325 600 453 2 DEDROOM APARTMENT........... 410 750 557 2 BEDROOM CONDOMINIUM...ALL SLO AREAS.... 500 1100 732 Z BEDROOM NOUS[............... 454 954 618 2 DOM HOUSE ........ALL SLO AREAS.... 400 850 643 3 BEDROOM HOU Y............... 560 1000 760 PRIVATE ROOM.................. 165 3rD 263 3 BEDROOM APT & CONDO...ALL SLO AREAS.... 760 1150 393 3 BEDROOM HOUSE.........ALL 51_0 AREAS.... 690 1544 910 NORTH SLO COUNTY *.m+** PRIVATE ROOM............ALL SLO AREAS.... 150 475 260 STUDIO........................ 225 205 ^ 5 DOWNTOWN AND POLY.... 150 475 269 1 BmRDOM APARTMENT........... 304 550 417 SOUTH OF SOUTH STREET.... 150 375 262 1 BEDROOM HOUSE............... 300 650 462 LAGUNA LAKE.... 176 400 2ME 2 DEDROOM APARTMENT........... 390 725 485 LANDLORDS AND PROPERTY MANAGERS•--- 2 BEDROOM HOUSE............... 450 950 694 FREE ADVERTISING OF YOUR RENTAL PROPERTIES. CALL 543-•0321 3 BEDROOM HOUSE............... 425 800 699 EMPLOYERS AND PEIrMa MANAGERS-- PRIVATE ROOM.................. 150 350 233 FREE ADVERTISING OF YOUR SNOB OPENINGS. CALL 54^x0321 *•INSUFFICIENT DATA THE CLA,aIrIED COMPUTER RENTAL SERVICE, 756 SAMA R,0iA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 TRC !'?05i 543.0321 COPYRIGHT 1987 CLASSIFIED COMI'UTCR Reprinted by permission of Classified Computer �` ..^ �,•.. ':�Y•.. _ t�,:.. ;.OF, THE ; CITY *OF am..LUIS O •. � "': 487 Lao'Sttaet ! P.O.Baz 638 r �.:San Lass Oho K CA 93406 • W5 _ F.seead& D&wc9*ft&c ecm y Tr George J. Moylan Date: March 11, 1987 AVERAGES FROM: Newspapers, Realtors, Madonna Rd. Apts.; HAP Contras LOCATION . BEDR00:4 SIZE 0 1 2 3 4 PASO ROBLES , TESPLTM 280 379 478 655 700 ATASCADERO 290 375 520 690 745 y SAN LUIS OBISPO 356 430 560 750 795 CAYUCDS MORRO BAY 335 400 545 725 790 PISMO BEAD! 320 425 545 735 780 ARROYO GRANDE GROVER CITY NIPOW OCEANO 329 399 520 675 760 BAYWOOD 335 420 550 725 795 LOS OSOS OTILr=Es NOT INC: mm IN ABCVE RENT AVERAGES: LANDLORD PAY=G iC►=. SEWER, GARBAGE. TENANT PAYING GAS S ELECTRICITY. ELEVATOR OMITS CE $ 440.00 Anderson Hotel 18 $ 480.00 955 Monterey street Owner pays all utilities. San Luis Obispo, CA Rents effective: 3-11-87 OE $ 341.00 544 Pacific street Owner pays water, sewer, trash. 1E $ 390.00 San Luis Obispo, CA Tenant pays electricity, all electric. - - - - - - - 43 — - �Illnlllllllll�����1A�����ll City of san Luis oBispo COMMUNITY WORKSHOP NOTES city of San WIS OBISPO COMMUNITY WORKSHOP NOTES city of San IDIS OBISPO COMMUNITY WORKSHOP NOTES city of san lues oBispo CO MMUNrrY WORKSHOP NOTES city of san lues oi3ispo COMMUNI'T'Y WORKSHOP NOTES city of san lues osispo � COMMUNITY WORKSHOP TDUR. MAP Acity of san lues osispo COMMUNITY WORKSHOP BACKGROUND SUMMARIES OF PROJECTS VISITED r , ��iuiillll!I ►����jli�l�ll�� city of san lues oBispo COMMUNrrY WORKSHOP INTRODUCTION �ii�i►!ilillll lil��i'1°�►�'�i��ll city of san tuts oBispo COMMUNrI Y WORKSHOP RENTS