HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-24-2016 PC Correspondence - Item 3 (Rowley)1
Lomeli, Monique
Subject:Planning Commission, Item 3 Neighborhood Compatibility
From: Sandra Rowley [
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 8:20 AM
To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org>
Cc: Gallagher, Carrie <CGallagher@slocity.org>
Subject: Planning Commission, Item 3 Neighborhood Compatibility
Please add the attached to the Planning Commission correspondence. Thank you.
Meeting: PC 08-24-2016
Item 3
Received By: Community Development Dept. 08-24-16
August 24, 2016
SUBJECT: Item 3, Neighborhood Compatibility Study Session
Dear Planning Commissioners,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on what RQN considers a significant part of
Neighborhood Wellness. We, also, appreciate staff’s identification of neighborhood
compatibility as an issue of special importance that needs to be addressed with additional
guidance to supplement and complement current regulations.
Our review of the attachments showed that, although the neighborhood compatibility guidelines
of the selected cities are similar, they include distinct variations that are particular to new
development in all or some of the established neighborhoods in their respective cities. We think
the Modesto document says it best: It states in part that their compatibility guidelines are not
intended to serve as design guidelines in the traditional sense, but rather to focus on the
neighborhood compatibility issues most relevant to the community. (emphasis added)
This statement, this focus, speaks to the diversity of our own neighborhoods. For instance, in
some parts of the city high density zones are juxtaposed with low density zones; in other areas
this situation does not exist. In some neighborhoods new development is significantly larger,
often 2-story, and with more bedrooms than the majority of homes in the area; in other areas
this is not the case. There are neighborhoods where on-street parking is impossible to find;
other neighborhoods do not experience this problem. Additionally, the relatively new practice of
adding multiple residences to neighborhood-commercial projects has had the unintended
consequence of limiting the amount of neighborhood-serving establishments while placing
medium-high and high residential projects in R-1 and R-2 zones.
Workshops and the ARC study session produced several approaches that could be taken to
address neighborhood compatibility in San Luis Obispo. One of these was to use a goal approach
with policies and bullets listed. The lists of comments from the workshops, especially the first,
provide an excellent source of topics that are of relevance to members of the community, and,
also, contain several commonly heard comments that can easily be translated into goals. The
samples from other cities provide potential policies. Obviously, a one-size-fits-all approach will
not work for all neighborhoods, so the order of importance in any list of goals may be different
for different neighborhoods in the city depending on the compatibility issues that are present.
1
Suggested Goals
Privacy (overlook) and Solar Access*
Noise potential
Parking
View shed
Height/Mass/Scale/Size
Notification enhancement & clarity/Time for project review
* In areas where disparate zones abut, additional care will be needed to ensure that the privacy and solar
access for the lower zoned property(s) are maintained.
Privacy and Solar Access. Privacy and solar access are two basic concepts that are and have
been very important to SLO residents as evidenced by the fact that these items have been part of
our regulations and guidelines for decades; however, additional emphasis on these concepts is
still needed. Where different zones abut one another, added emphasis is needed to ensure that
the privacy and solar access for lower zoned properties are respected. Replacing “should” with
“shall” in related documents will help focus attention on these items as will requiring
neighborhood compatibility review.
Several mitigation techniques. Privacy can be better assured with careful window and door
placement, use of clerestory windows, skylights that can be opened for ventilation, careful
placement of balconies and upper-level doors so the privacy of adjacent properties cannot be
invaded, elimination of proposed balconies when invasion of another’s privacy cannot be
mitigated, exclusion of roof decks in or near a residential neighborhood, increasing side and back
yard setbacks, and expansion of the San Luis Drive ordinance to cover all neighborhoods that
abut the creek. Solar access to the adjoining houses and yards can be almost assured if the
developer depicts solar access for all four seasons, and the planner independently verifies the
calculations. Some techniques for non-interference with solar access include lowering the roof,
providing upper story setbacks and increasing side and back yard setbacks.
Noise potential. In impacted neighborhoods, regardless of where they are located, the biggest
detriment to neighborhoods is noise and the design features that enable its dispersal: balconies
and doorways that face outward toward neighboring homes and the now-popular roof deck.
Some mitigation techniques to reduce noise impacts are to face balconies toward the interior of
the parcel or toward the street or to eliminate them, and to exclude roof decks.
Parking. Current policies and practices have caused or worsened the lack of on-street parking
in many neighborhoods or portions of neighborhoods. The consequence of the calculations for
determining the number of required parking spaces in apartment and condominium projects and
the reduced parking allowances for mixed-use projects, especially those with a residential
component, is “overflow” parking - much of which ends up on nearby residential streets. This is
2
in addition to college students who are doubling/tripling up in single family houses. It may not
sound like much of a problem, unless you would like to have dinner guests or family come visit.
City residents may use bicycles or walk frequently, but they also have cars; not acknowledging
that fact, and addressing it, continues to negatively affect our established neighborhoods.
Possible actions to address “overflow” parking are to update our woefully inadequate parking
standards, require residential projects and projects with a residential component that are within
one-half mile of an established neighborhood to provide 100% of the required parking spaces -
preferably in outdoor spaces or carports, and ease the requirements for establishing a parking
district along with increasing enforcement of the districts. There is little that can be done to
correct parking deficiencies that currently exist, but we can stop making it worse by updating our
parking requirements and by refusing to approve projects that have inadequate on-site parking.
View shed. Access to views of the sky and surrounding hills has been a touchstone for
residents for decades and development in and around our residential neighborhoods mostly
respects that. However, recently multi-story buildings adjacent to established neighborhoods
have been proposed, and some approved, that will disrupt those views. If we wish to keep that
San Luis Obispo feel in our neighborhoods, we will need to ensure that policies are in place to
require breaks within large projects to allow for views of the sky and hills.
Possible actions to address loss of view shed. Acknowledge the relevance and importance of the
view shed to the community by enacting policies to reduce height limits and/or require housing
developments in and around established neighborhoods to construct separate buildings or
provide upper-level openings of sufficient size to allow views of the sky and hills; review the
preferred location of parking lots to see if alternate placement would provide the desired views.
Height/Mass/Scale. In San Luis Obispo, disparity in the height, mass and scale of infill dwellings
and older dwellings occurs primarily in two types of neighborhoods: single-family neighborhoods
where most houses are single-story and single-family neighborhoods that abut medium-high or
high density zones. Infill houses tend to be significantly greater in size and bulk; neighbors call
them mini-dorms. And, obviously, infill projects on medium-high or high density parcels are
substantially larger than the adjacent one-story homes.
Mitigation techniques. The City’s design guidelines include mitigation techniques for assuring
privacy and solar access for 1-story structures that are next to 2-story structures, although they
are not always used. Other techniques such as the use of clerestory windows and skylights, side
yard set backs, and elimination of balconies if they pose a privacy problem, could be added.
However, to our knowledge, there is nothing that specifically addresses incompatible zoning, i.e.,
where R-1 directly abuts R-4, or when a single-family dwelling is on an R-4 property and a multi-
family dwelling is proposed for the adjacent R-4 parcel. Would the height be reduced or the
setback increased on the R-1 side of the property? What about the 1-story home on the R-4 lot?
3
Notification enhancement/clarity and Time for project review. The notification process has
improved, both in number of days required for notifications and in the verbiage printed on the
cards. However, for individuals unfamiliar with the development process, which is most of us,
the allotted seven or ten day notice is insufficient if there has been no prior indication that a
particular project is planned for a particular site. Planners receive project proposals and review
them well in advance of the preparation of the staff report and the official post card notification
that a project will go before an advisory body. Sometimes, but not always, applicants are
encouraged to contact neighbors and discuss the proposal. The bottom line is that those most
affected by a project are often the last to know about it.
Possible mitigation. Presumably there is a checklist each planner uses to ensure all required
actions are taken; add to the checklist “strongly encourage applicant to meet with area residents
early in the process as part of design review...” or whatever the appropriate time and wording.
An alternative could be early post card notice that a such-and-such a project has started the
approval process, questions can be directed to (planner’s name). Reference the post cards, they
are far more explanatory than previously; however, for the neophyte more project description is
needed, for example, for a mixed-use project - number of stories of the project, location on the
site, parking reductions if applicable - something that actually tells them about the project.
Summary
In addition to the current directives and guidelines and the above comments, we believe other
techniques and processes will be necessary to address the particular compatibility issues in our
diverse established neighborhoods. We encourage further consideration and discussion with
neighborhood groups and neighborhoods regarding a design review for infill projects, remodels,
and additions, the use of overlay districts, and the use of the Floor Area Ratio, and we strongly
support both the use of graphics and additional specificity in text to, hopefully, preclude the
expansion of the terms compatibility and similar.
Thank you for your time and your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Sandra Rowley
Chairperson, RQN
4