Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/23/1988, 1 - FOLLOW-UP STUDY SESSION ON ""DENSITY AND UNIT SIZE"" INCLUDING ""GROUP HOUSING"""i.lrmy� �bn..,T_ uW 1 F.i'p�J��1�_�� May 16, 1988 To: City Council -EYING AGENDA DATE mm" ea ITEM # Am city of s hAis oBispo 990 Palm Street /Post Office Box 8100 - San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 -8100 Via: John Dunn, CAO From: Michael Multari, Community Development Director^ Subject: Follow -up Study Session on "Density and Unit Size" including "Group Housing" On March 19, the city held a community workshop on "Density and Unit Size ". The session was well- attended and a lot of interesting and valuable input was collected regarding problems associated with excessive density, inadequate parking, insufficient open space, incompatible height and mass, loss of. neighborhood character, need for student housing, etc. At the end of the workshop, staff stated that they would do the following: 1. Summarize the small group discussion comments and send them out to the participants to help make sure that what was recorded reflected the actual discussion. This was done. Attachment "B" is a further refinement of the list of issues /observations. Attachment "C" includes the actually comments recorded for each discussion group and follow -up comments from participants. 2. Contact other cities which seemed to be facing similar situations to gather ideas about how they are dealing with these problems. This was done. The cities of Davis, Santa Cruz, Chico, Monterey and Palo Alto were contacted. A summary of their responses is included in Attachment "D ". Interestingly, the City of Palo Alto has just completed a study of their multi - family zones which led to several changes in their regulations. That report is included. 3. Schedule a follow -up study session to go over the comments and ideas discussed that day. That is the purpose of May 23 study session. The Council is not expected to take any specific actions but to recap the workshop, review the materials and direct staff as to next steps. It was also pointed out that several concerns raised about parking and "lifestyle" conflicts between groups of unrelated adults living together in neighborhoods with more - traditional families were the same issues that the Planning Commission had worked on the previous year under the heading of "group 1. -1 Density Follow -up Page 2 housing ". The PC's report and recommendations had been on the Council's pending agenda for several months. It seemed timely then to bring that work back in the present context- -the group housing issues were seen as a subset of the issues raised at the workshop - -and have been included as the "B" item on this agenda. The group housing materials include a memorandum from the City Attorney, the recommendations from the Planning Commission and a background report prepared by an administrative intern, Noelle Norton, in 1986. (Note: the last two were previously distributed to the Council last year; new copies are attached.) Another point raised at the workshop was that Cal Poly should be more actively involved in trying to help to solve some of these problems. A meeting with student and administration representatives from the university was held on May 3. Staff reviewed for them the principal issues raised at the density workshop and in the PC's report on group housing. The staff is suggesting several next steps which are outlined in Attachment "A ". The Council may, of course, add, delete or modify these as deemed appropriate. The reason we are suggesting six months before several of the items return is our realistic assessment of workloads and priorities during the general plan update which is proceeding now at a demanding pace. The actions recommended in Attachment "A" are important but also time consuming; (for example, the density workshop and follow -up to this writing - -not counting the group housing materials -- involved over 250 hours of staff time at various levels.) We expect to be able to begin to free up some advance planning time to address these by late summer or fall. Summary Recommendation Review the various attachments, particularly the recommended next steps. Add, delete or modify as deemed appropriate and direct staff to begin implementation of same. Attachments: A. Recommended next steps, responsible agencies and timeframe B. Staff summary of issues /observations from Density Workshop C. Actual comments and responses from workshop small group discussions D. Summary of information from other cities E. City Attorney's memo on Group Housing F. Planning Commission recommendations on group housing G. Background Report on group housing prepared by Noelle Norton 1--Z ATTACHMENT A - RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS Task Cal Poly and Student Housing 1. Clarify through Cal Poly administration, as much as possible, the expected growth at the university. 2. Working with Cal Poly administration, explore possibility of additional on- campus housing, including a possible policy requiring all freshmen to live on- campus and providing housing for same. 3. With student and administration representatives, explore ways to make existing housing near campus more attractive for students. 4. Research the characteristics of housing desired by students so that those features can be built into new housing through new standards, if necessary, near campus. 5. Review vacant land and areas where recycling is possible near campus with regard to increasing zoning to allow more units there. 6. Research the pros and cons of allowing fraternities /sororities (including a "Greek Row ") in non - residential zones on larger sites where conflicts can be minimized. 7. Initiate consideration of zoning changes to amortize non - conforming fraternities in inappropriate zones. Old Town Standards 8. Review present zoning standards for the Old Town area re: density, open space, bulk /height of secondary units, landscaping, etc., to improve compatibility with neighborhood character. Consider ideas from other cities. 9. Review Old Town zoning and identify small lots zoned R -3 and R -4. Evaluate suitability of these higher zones on small lots. Resnonsible Agency Timeframe City staff with Cal September Poly administration. City staff with Cal January Poly administration. City staff with January "Student Community Liaison Committee ". City staff with September "Student Community Liaison Committee." City staff. September City staff and Cal January Poly administration and "Interfraternity and Panhellenic Councils ". City staff and October Planning Commission. City staff with January Planning Commission and ARC subcommittee. City staff. January 1 -3 Attachment A Page 2 Task Responsible Agency Timeframe 10. Review expansion areas to ensure they can City staff. January absorb population now planned for in -fill in Old Town which may not be accommodated there. Group Housing 11. Direct the City Attorney to outline City Attorney January possible changes to strengthen existing city ordinances to deal with the most commonly received complaints (i.e., noise, parking, property maintenance). 12. Institute better way of gathering data to monitor these problems; report back on new information /records system. 13. Institute on a trial basis a neighborhood mediation program. Community Development September Dept. (property maintenance); Police (noise /parking). City staff /HRC. September 14. Request Cal Poly and Cuesta establish City staff /City September contact persons at administrative level to Council. receive complaints, give direction and answer questions re: group housing problems involving students. "Cheater Units" 15. Research alternative ways of preventing or City staff. January reducing "cheater units" besides unit size for Planning Commission and council consideration. I -4 ATTACHMENT "B" PRINCIPAL ISSUES /OBSERVATIONS abstracted from the GROUP DISCUSSIONS ON "DENSITY AND UNIT SIZE" Comments from the two discussion groups are summarized below under major issue headings: PARKING When the number of parking spaces is inadequate, on- street parking is often tied up for residents and guests; frequently, people will park their cars on front yards which is unsightly. The amount of parking provided in a project should be more closely tied to the number of people who actually will live in the development, not necessarily to other variables like the number of bedrooms. On the one hand, many developments suffer from inadequate parking; on the other hand, paved parking areas contribute to a sense of "overbuilding" and crowd out landscaping. Providing more area for parking without commensurate landscape area may not be appropriate; density, parking and landscaping standards need to balance these concerns. COST OF PUBLIC SERVICES On the one hand, higher population densities lead to higher total costs for public services (cg: police, fire) and for infrastructure. On the other hand, there may be lower average costs realized through economies of scale in providing some of these services. OWNERS AND RENTERS Students sharing the rent in apartments and single - family homes usually can pay more rent collectively than is affordable to young families. This leads to higher resale value and higher rents, which in turn may displace or preclude young families. A sense of neighborhood stability and safety tends to result from a high percentage of owners in an area. A high percentage of renters may lead to impressions of higher turn -over and, thus, more "strangers" living there. This makes it harder to implement programs like neighborhood watch. Further, with home ownership there frequently is a greater sense of pride in the homes and in the area, thus, resulting in better property maintenance and appearance. Condominiums are frequently rented and thus may function like apartments; however, to the extent that they are owner- occupied, they may bring to neighborhoods the benefits which may be associated with owner- occupied homes (eg: longer residencies and greater sense of neighborhood, improved property maintenance). 1-5 Issues /Observations Page 2 The purchase of a condominium is often a precursor to the purchase of a detached single family house; thus, providing smaller, higher density, for -sale units may be important in providing affordable entry to home ownership. DENSITY AND LOT SIZES Development of large vacant lots is different from development on small in -fill lots and from additional building on already partially developed lots. The latter two circumstances are usually more difficult and may be less cost - effective, encouraging lower quality and straining of the development standards. Development of small lots in high density areas is particularly difficult to do in a sensitive way and tends to lead to compromises in usable outdoor space and landscaping. On the other hand, larger project sites allow for inclusion of more amenities and project facilities and are generally the more successful high density residential projects, in terms of compatibility and attractiveness. Some sites, for example in Old Town, might not be appropriately zoned R -3 or R -4. This may be especially true of smaller lots. The expectations of the city in terms of quality of development and compatibility and those of the developer in terms of economic return, do not always match. This appears to be especially so on smaller lots in higher density zones, or on lots with physical limitations like creeks, steep topography or irregular shapes. LOCATION /TYPE OF HOUSING The retention of residential areas surrounding downtown are important to the vitality of downtown, not only because these residents contribute to the downtown economy but also, and perhaps more importantly, because they lend a sense of security and stability to the entire area helping to keep crime low. Deterioration of the quality of life in the surrounding residential areas, if it leads to instability and loss of concern or pride in the area, may have negative effects on the quality of downtown itself. Cal Poly should provide more on- campus housing especially if enrollments increase further; Cal Poly should help provide additional student housing in locations near campus and with the characteristics preferred by students. Housing near the campus intended to attract /serve students must be of higher quality and have more amenities desired by students to effectively serve this purpose. The city should investigate providing more R -4 zoning near the campus. 11-06 Issues /Observations Page 3 Different housing markets will desire different locations and different characteristics; for example, students will prefer housing units which can be divided into a number of smaller spaces for privacy and so rent can be shared. If these can not be provided near campus in an attractive environment, then students will tend to look for housing in other areas where larger houses can provide these amenities. The Old Town area has characteristics different from many other residential neighborhoods; this may warrant special consideration and, perhaps, special standards. If the number of units in the Old Town is reduced, alternative locations need to be provided to absorb this demand. Allowing for new housing in expansion areas can reduce the pressure for infill and intensification in Old Town and other existing residential neighborhoods. The demand for senior housing will increase. This fact may influence the type of housing built in the future. OPEN SPACE /ATTRACTIVENESS Larger units, especially on smaller lots, may mean greater lot coverage and smaller yards between buildings on adjacent lots. There is a wide variety in quality of projects in terms of compatibility and attractiveness. Density is not the only factor; in fact, it may not be the most important factor in determining the "success" of a project. Other contributing elements are quality of design, workmanship and materials and the amount of landscaping and its maintenance. GROUP HOUSING ISSUES The city can not effectively control life style preferences of individuals; these life style differences can cause problems among neighbors. A greater number of adults living together in a unit (often students but not necessarily so) usually means more parking demand and higher noise levels from parties, traffic and visitors. (See also, Owners and Renters, above.) ECONOMICS The likely effect of the proposed regulations, which related density to unit size, on the economics of development was unclear. 1, -'7'