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'