1. home and garden

STAFF REPORT
DATE:
April 8, 2015
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Eric Lee, Planner
Bob Wolcott, Principal Planner
Mike Webb, Community Development and Sustainability Director
SUBJECT:
201 Second Street: Preliminary Review of A 2nd Domaine Apartment Project.
Planning Application #15-07 for Specific Plan Amendment #01-15, Preliminary
Planned Development #02-15, Final Planned Development #01-15, Demolition
#01-15, Design Review #01-15, Affordable Housing Plan #01-15, EIR#01-15
Objectives of Preliminary Review
The objectives of this pre-application review prior to formal application review are:
1. Information. Receive a preliminary overview of the proposal and how it relates to
adopted policies, codes and guidelines.
2. Feedback and input. Provide preliminary feedback and input to the proponent, staff and
City Council on the proposal and processing.
Note: The pre-application review does not constitute an official approval or denial, or establish
conditions. The Planning Commission is asked to provide preliminary comments (and perhaps
“straw votes”) that would help guide the applicant and staff on potential next steps. No formal
decisions on a project are being made at this time. Neighborhood comments and additional
commission input will be requested prior to a project coming to Planning Commission and City
Council for formal actions on entitlements.
Summary of Staff Report
Proposed project. The project is for a new 4-story building on a 0.23 acre site at the southeast
corner of Second and A streets. The project consists of 19 one- and two-bedroom apartments,
with 10 extended stay units and 9 market rate apartments. The net density is 59 units per acre if
19 units are counted (and the net density is 39 units per acre if the 9 apartments are counted
toward the density and the 10 extended stay apartments are considered hotel units and are not
counted). The site currently has two designated historic Merit Resources, the Barovetto house
and tank house, a duplex, and a surface parking lot.
Relationship to adopted plans and zoning. The following summarizes the project’s
relationship to adopted plans and zoning:
The uses and density would require an amendment to the Core Area Specific Plan
(CASP).
The uses, density, and development standards (including density, height, setbacks, lot
coverage, and open space) would require an amendment to the Planned Development
(PD) zoning or a Rezone.
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 1
The design is not consistent with several key elements of the Davis Downtown
Traditional Residential Neighborhood Guidelines (DDTRNG).
The project is inconsistent with several key elements of the Interim Infill Development
Guidelines.
The project would require demolition of (or potentially relocate) two designated historic
Merit Resources.
City Council goal and stated objective of “densification.” The adopted 2014-2016 City
Council goal includes “Build and Promote a Viable Downtown” and a stated objective has been
“Densification.” In addition, the project site is on the east side of A Street across the street from
UC Davis and is near existing apartment buildings; arguments could be made for a
redevelopment density to some level higher than existing or zoned density.
Staff suggestion for reconciling competing goals. The project is largely inconsistent with
adopted plans, codes and guidelines (as listed above and described later in this report) but could
be argued as consistent with current City Council goals.
Amendments to plans, zoning and guidelines would take resources which are not currently
available, and would be more appropriately addressed on a more comprehensive level. A
Planning Commission subcommittee is considering how to address problems and needs with the
Core Area Specific Plan (CASP). The outcome of such amendments after community input
cannot be known at this time.
Until new plans, zoning and guidelines are adopted by the City Council, staff suggests that the
City and applicants seek a balance between competing adopted objectives and current City
Council goals. Staff suggests that all emphasis should not be placed with one goal or that all
adopted plans, zoning and guidelines be set aside or dismissed. Such a balance would allow a
moderate increase in density while respecting historic resources and the scale / character of the
area.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide feedback and input in the following
areas:
A. Key topics. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the following
key topics (addressed in the “Staff Analysis” section of this report):
1. Basis for decisions on amendments. What considerations / factors should guide
decisions on infill projects that involve amendments to adopted plans, zoning and
guidelines?
2. Area of amendments. Should amendments be considered on individual sites or
larger logical areas?
3. Consideration of alternatives.
3.1 Should alternatives be considered? Should alternatives include intervening
alternatives between existing policies and the proposed amendment? Can
significant modifications to the proposal be considered?
3.2 Should the existing historical Merit Resources be demolished or retained as
part of the project? Should the project design around the Merit Resources?
What are the overriding benefits that justify demolishing the buildings?
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 2
4. Land use and overall benefits. Is the land use consisting of market rate rental
apartments (9) and extended stay rental units (10) appropriate? Should the zoning
be changed to allow rental apartments or should ownership condominiums be
emphasized to a greater extent? What are the overall benefits of the proposed land
use and project?
5. Other comments and observations. Does the Planning Commission want to
forward any other comments and observations to the applicant, staff, or City
Council?
Note: This pre-application review does not address the policy issue of the appropriate
amount of infill growth that should be pursued in the downtown and citywide. This policy
issue affects why the city would want to approve amendments. Possible rationales for
growth include providing for local employee growth, regional fair share allocations,
general densification of downtown, or other reasons.
B. Balance between competing objectives and goals. Staff recommends that until such
time as new plans, zoning and guidelines are adopted, the City and applicant seek a
balance between competing adopted objectives / standards and current City Council
goals. Such a balance would allow a moderate increase in density while respecting
historic resources and the scale / character of the area. Such a balance could be
implemented in a new project specific PD zone.
Staff suggestion until new plans, zoning and guidelines are adopted:
Existing adopted plans,
zoning and guidelines
Balance competing
objectives
2014-2016 Council goals
Moderate density increase
Respect historic resources
Respect scale and character of area
C. Additional items to be considered in review of formal applications. Staff
recommends that the following additional items be considered in the review of formal
applications for the project:
1. Provide additional definition and clarification of the “extended stay” units,
management and operations.
2. Applicant shall explore and analyze opportunities for ownership condominiums.
3. Applicant shall explore and analyze below grade or partial below grade parking to
reduce height of building.
4. Applicant shall demonstrate how any proposed decks and balconies do not create
significant privacy and noise impacts on adjacent properties.
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 3
5. Clarify how building codes will be met in the “extended stay” units and apartment
units.
6. Confirm infrastructure capacities, including water and sewer.
7. Confirm adequate alley access and width for services.
8. Evaluate proposed parking and related traffic
9. Provide information on accessibility, sustainability and energy efficiency measures.
10. Provide an Affordable Housing Plan and Arborist Report.
Council Goals
The most relevant 2014-2016 goal is: “Build and Promote a Vibrant Downtown.” In addition, a
stated objective has been for “densification” as part of limiting peripheral growth and focusing
growth toward infill sites.
Project Description
The proposed project would redevelop an existing residential site at 201, 205, 209 and 213
Second Street, which currently contains four residential units, and replace them with a 4-story,
19-unit apartment building. The building would be approximately 43 feet tall. The four existing
units consisting of one duplex structure and two historic structures, the Barovetto House (209
Second Street) and Barovetto Tank House (213 Second Street) would be demolished. The new
26,956 square-foot building proposes a mix of 9 luxury apartments and 10 extended stay rental
units (from one week to several months), though the exact mix may vary depending on demand
(Attachment 1 – Project Narrative). An Affordable Housing Plan is also required.
Proposed Project
West (A Street) Elevation
The ground floor of the building would provide for 21 parking spaces, outdoor patio areas, and
indoor common spaces including a lobby area, conference room, fitness room, and sauna. The
apartment units would be located on the upper three floors and consist of one- and two-bedroom
units except for one three-bedroom unit. Units would range in size from 795 square feet to 1,950
square feet. The project includes tree removal, landscaping, parking and other site
improvements. Proposed building square footage is:
Building
1st Floor
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
Square Feet Use
2,880 square feet Lobby and Common Facilities
07 - 4
2nd Floor
9,200 square feet
rd
3 Floor
9,200 square feet
4th Floor
5,676 square feet
Total 26,956 square feet
Garage
6,144 square feet
8 Units
8 Units
3 Units
19 Units
Covered Parking
Overview of Entitlements Needed and Key Steps in Review Process
The entitlements needed for the proposed project include:
1. Core Area Specific Plan amendment for the land use and text changes.
2. Rezone site for Preliminary Planned Development to address proposed use and general
standards.
3. Final Planned Development for overall site layout and development standards.
4. Demolition Certificate for the Merit Resources with review by the Historic Resources
Management Commission.
5. Design Review for the replacement project and consistency with design guidelines.
6. Affordable Housing Plan with review by the Social Services Commission.
7. A Focused Environmental Impact Report pursuant to CEQA due to proposed demolition
of historic resources and other potential impacts.
The entitlements would require formal review by the Planning Commission and other
appropriate commissions with a recommendation to City Council for final action.
Roles of the Planning Commission
The roles of the Planning Commission, per State code and City Council resolution, include:
Implement the general plan, specific plans, and zoning.
Promote public interest in the general plan and regulations related to it.
Serve as the agency to hear matters related to plan amendments, rezonings, and ordinance
amendments.
Review and make recommendations to City Council on amendments to general and
specific plans.
Staff Analysis
Staff finds that it would be helpful to the applicant, staff and City Council if feedback and input
is provided on the key topics listed above. The topics are noted as citywide infill (big picture)
issues, site specific project issues, or both.
TOPIC #1 – BASIS FOR DECISIONS ON AMENDMENTS. (a citywide and site specific
topic) What considerations / factors should guide decisions on infill projects that involve
amendments to adopted plans, zoning and guidelines?
Analysis
Purpose of adopted plans, zoning and guidelines. The purpose of these documents is
summarized in Attachment 2.
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 5
Consistency and inconsistency with adopted policies, ordinance and guidelines. Attached to this
staff report are tables of consistency and inconsistency with the adopted documents (see
Attachment 3).
The following is a summary of how the project is not consistent.
The uses and density are not allowed by the Core Area Specific Plan (CASP).
The site is in the “University Avenue Residential Overlay District” subarea of the CASP.
The existing CASP subarea land use description includes detached and attached single
family dwellings, townhouses and condominiums with a maximum density of 12 units
per acre. The description does not include apartments or hotels in the permitted or
conditional uses. The land use description states that: “The site plan and building design
of any new or intensified residential use shall be compatible and complimentary with the
historic cottage and single-family character of the University Avenue neighborhood.”
The highest density allowed in the other subareas of the Core area is 30 units per acre,
except for the Mission Residences project on B Street with a density of 42.4 units per
acre approved by City Council in August 2013.
The uses, density, and development standards (including density, height, setbacks, lot
coverage, and open space) do not comply with the Planned Development (PD) zoning.
The site is in the “University Avenue Residential Overlay District, Subarea B of PD
zoning #2-86C. The zoning, consistent with the CASP, allows detached and attached
single family dwellings, townhouses and condominiums with a maximum density of 12
units per acre. The stated purpose of Subarea B is: “To allow flexibility for uses that may
more intense but are compatible with and respect the historic residential architecture and
single-family character and use of the district. University related uses and condominium
and townhouse development of moderate density compatible with the residential scale
may be considered.”
The design is inconsistent with the Davis Downtown Traditional Residential
Neighborhood Guidelines (DDTRNG).
The site is in the “University / Rice Neighborhood” subarea of the DDTRNG. The
guidelines state that the design objectives are “to encourage the continued health and
vitality of the single-family residential character and to stabilize the existing mix of uses
… by encouraging compatible reuse, maintenance and renovation.”
The project is inconsistent with the Interim Infill Development Guidelines.
The guidelines include “design with the neighborhood and for compatibility” and that the
“scale of new structures on all sides is compatible with the scale and mass of existing
adjacent structures.”
The project would demolish (or potentially relocate) two historic Merit Resources.
The City recently has been, currently is, and in the foreseeable future will be faced with how to
review proposed infill developments which are inconsistent with uses, densities and intensities in
the General Plan, Core Area Specific Plan, zoning, and Downtown Davis and Traditional
Residential Neighborhood Design Guidelines (DDTRNDG). Examples include the Parkview
Place / Pena House and the Mission Residences projects. The current Council goals include
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 6
“densification” but there are many other adopted policies to be considered along with those
supportive of densification.
One of the key areas of balancing adopted polices and codes: Which is more important,
“densification”, “fitting in / scale transitions”, or a balance of both? The table in Attachment 4
summarizes relevant policies and codes. Staff finds that the adopted policies and codes suggest a
balance of both.
Reasons for adopting and following plans, codes and guidelines. These include:
Property owners in the area have relied on these rules when they bought their property or
decided to stay in the area.
Property owners in the area have contributed to the recently adopted guidelines.
A vision for the area can be implemented through time.
Individual amendments can encourage speculators rather than long term property owners.
Reasons for considering the proposed site-specific amendment at this time. These include:
The adopted 2014-2016 City Council goal includes “Build and Promote a Vibrant
Downtown” and a stated objective has been “Densification.”
The project site is located on the east side of A Street across the street from UC Davis
and is near existing apartment buildings; arguments could be made for a redevelopment
density to some level higher than existing or zoned density.
The project would provide 10 extended stay apartments for visiting faculty.
Options
a. Densification is the primary goal which overrides other policies, codes and guidelines.
Action: Process project and consider densification the primary goal. The balancing of other
policies and codes is of secondary concern.
b. Balance all relevant policies, and allow amendments to plans, codes and guidelines.
Action: Process project but decision will be based on how well the project adequately
balances all relevant policies and codes, especially with respect to project context and
surroundings.
c. Create a new vision and adopt new policies, standards and guidelines, then use to review
proposals. This would effectively place a moratorium on projects not wholly consistent with
existing policies and goals.
d. Other
Preliminary Staff Recommendation
Option 1b. Shown in bold above.
TOPIC #2 – AREA OF AMENDMENTS. (a citywide and site specific topic) Should
amendments be considered on individual sites or larger logical areas?
Analysis
Comprehensive amendments to plans, zoning and guidelines would take resources which are not
currently available. The outcome of such amendments after community input cannot be known at
this time.
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 7
Until new plans, zoning and guidelines are adopted by City Council, staff suggests that in this
and other site specific amendments that the City and applicants seek a balance between
competing adopted objectives and current City Council goals.
Options
a. Consider amendments on individual sites.
b. Consider amendments on individual sites but decision will be based on how well the
project adequately balances all relevant policies and codes.
c. Consider amendments on a larger logical area, such as a block or blocks.
Action: City, possibly with involvement of the applicant, develops new policies and codes.
d. Create a new vision and adopt new policies, standards and guidelines, then use to review
proposals.
Action: City, possibly with involvement of the applicant, develops new policies and codes.
This would be a major effort of time and money, not currently available.
(Regarding Options c and d above: The City Council agrees that updates to the General Plan
and Core Area Specific Plan are needed. A Planning Commission subcommittee has been
charged with analyzing and developing alternatives for the Core area. In the interim, the City
is not placing project proposals on hold.)
e. Other
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 8
Preliminary Staff Recommendation
Option 2b. Shown in bold above.
TOPIC #3 – CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES.
1. Alternatives and modifications. (site specific topic) Should alternatives include
intervening alternatives between existing policies and the proposed amendment? Should
significant modifications to the proposal be considered?
2. Merit Resources. (site specific topic) Should the existing historical Merit Resources be
demolished or retained as part of the project? Should the project design around the Merit
Resources? What are the overriding benefits that justify demolishing the buildings?
These topics (3.1 and 3.2) are addressed below.
TOPIC #3.1 – ALTERNATIVES AND MODIFICATIONS. (site specific topic) Should
alternatives be considered? Should alternatives include intervening alternatives between existing
policies and the proposed amendment? Should significant modifications to the proposal be
considered?
Analysis
Staff has identified a wide range of alternatives for the site in between the existing development
of the site and the applicant’s proposal. These alternatives provide a range of densities based on
units, densities based on bedrooms, bulk and mass, varying levels of consistency with adopted
plans, codes and guidelines. See the following table.
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 9
A range of conceptual alternatives for the 201 A Street Site
Varying by scale/bulk and density
Conceptual alternative
Existing development. Existing development on site (.32 acre)
Existing zoning. Maximum development per existing zoning
(on 3 merged lots)
Retain east two buildings and add townhomes. Retain two existing
historic structures and add townhomes along A Street.
Townhomes. Density similar to Jefferson Square townhomes
immediately to south (6 on .39 acre)
Townhomes. Density similar to Central Park West townhomes on west
side of B Street (CASP “B Street Transitional District” area and PD
zone) *(7 on .344 acre)
Condominiums or apartments. Density similar to Parkview Place at
4th and D Streets, or other design with 3 stories and parking part of first
floor (CASP “Retail With Offices” area and PD zone)
Illustrated concept 1: Condominiums or apartments. Retain existing
Merit Resource house and add two buildings or townhouses along A
Street. An interpretation of downtown area design guidelines. Buildings
to look like large houses with 2-3 units per building, and a parking
court.
Illustrated concept 3: Condominiums or apartments. Three new
buildings facing street. An interpretation of downtown area design
guidelines. Buildings to look like large houses with 2–3 units per
building, and a parking court.
Illustrated concept 2: Condominiums or apartments. Retain existing
Merit Resource house and add one building at corner and one larger
building at rear, possibly with parking under. An interpretation of
downtown area design guidelines.
Illustrated concept 4: Condominiums or apartments. Two or three
new buildings facing street, parking under. An interpretation of
downtown area guidelines.
Illustrated concept 5: Condominiums or apartments. Three stories
with upper story set back, parking under. One story less than proposal.
Parking part of first floor or below ground.
Condominiums or apartments, with fourth story set back. Density
similar to Mission Residences project approved on west side of B Street
(CASP “B” Street Transitional District” and PD zone) (14 on .33 acre)
Proposed apartments. 3 stories plus 4th floor penthouses and parking
part of first floor (19 units = 10 one-bedroom units, eight 2-bedroom
units, and one 3-bedroom unit)
# Units
Density
in units
per ac.
4
12.5
8
2.88
9 max
per
zoning
18.75
5.7611.52 if
2-4/du*
12*
18-36 if
2-4/du
18.75
12*
37.5
7
21.9
19
59.3
8
25
16
50
6-9
18.7528.12
12-18
37.556.25
6-9
18.7528.12
12-18
37.556.25
8-12
25-37.5
16-24
50-75
8-12
25-37.5
16-24
50-75
12-14
37.543.75
24-28
75-87.5
14
43.75
28
87.5
59.4
29
93.75
6
(2e+2n)
6
19
# Bedrooms
Density
in bedrooms
per ac.
25
37.5
(or 39.1
du/ac if
10 du)
*Assumes an average of bedrooms of 2 per unit. Assumes that a higher average of bedrooms per unit (such as 3 or
4 ) would not be supported in a discretionary review because of concerns about encouraging additional rental
apartments oriented to students by design.
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 10
Staff suggests that the following conceptual alternatives illustrated below be further explored and
considered. These balance many of the competing objectives.
Conceptual alternative 1
Increases density above existing zoning.
Provides condominiums or apartments.
Respects the historic resources by retaining the Barovetto House.
Respects the scale and character of the area, by constructing new buildings that reflect the
rhythm / pattern of the existing smaller houses in the area.
Conceptual Alternative 1
Retains existing designated house and adds new buildings on ‘A’ Street
Hillel House, 2012
Example of a relatively large building that reflects rhythm / pattern of the existing smaller houses in the area
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 11
Conceptual alternative 5
Increases density above existing zoning.
Provides condominiums or apartments.
Respects the scale and character of the area.
Conceptual Alternative 5
Three story building with upper story set back and parking below ground or part of first floor (see dashed lines).
Building divided into modules which reduce the scale and mass.
Options
a. Review of the applicant’s proposal should be pursued.
b. Consideration should be given by the applicant of other alternatives with lower density
and/or alternative designs, such as those described above. (Note: The applicant may state
that other factors, including economic feasibility, make other alternatives infeasible.)
c. In addition to reviewing the applicant’s proposal, request that the applicant also
present their analysis and consideration of two to three lower intensity/alternative
design alternatives, such as those set forth in the table of alternatives by staff.
d. Consider the applicant’s proposal and other identified alternatives not acceptable.
e. Other.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation
Further explain and consider Option 3.1b or 3.1c. Shown in bold above.
TOPIC 3.2 – MERIT RESOURCES. (a site specific topic) Should the existing historical Merit
Resources be demolished, relocated, or retained as part of the project? Should the project be
designed around one or both of the Merit Resources? What are the overriding benefits that justify
demolishing the buildings?
Analysis
The Barovetto house and tank house at 209 Second Street were built in 1915 by Giovanni
Barovetto, an early employee of the University Viticulture Department. These structures are two
of the City’s designated Merit Resources. There are a total of 18 Merit Resources and 18
Landmark Resources in the Davis Register list of historical resources.
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 12
The Craftsman Bungalow house and tank house were identified in the 1980 and 1996 City
surveys as good examples of their style type and important for their association with Mr.
Barovetto. The main house remains substantially unchanged and retains historical integrity of
materials, workmanship, setting, location, feeling and association. It contributes to the historic
character of the neighborhood, as well.
The applicant proposes to demolish, and not retain, the Barovetto house and tank house.
A Historical Resource Analysis (HRA) study prepared in February 2015 evaluated the subject
site relative to the proposed project. Its findings and conclusions include that:
The two Merit Resources on the site, the Barovetto House and Barovetto Tank House at
209 and 209½-213 Second Street still retain their Merit Resource standing.
The duplex structure at 201 and 205 Second Street does not meet the eligibility criteria
for historical designation.
On February 23, 2015, the Historic Resources Management Commission (HRMC) reviewed the
“Historical Resource Analysis (HRA) Study” for the subject property. The HRMC confirmed
that the two designated resources retain their integrity and should be acknowledged as historic
resources. On the issue of possible relocation, a relocation to an inappropriate location is a
“demolition” under City ordinances. A relocation, if considered, should occur within an area of
the City of Davis that shares a common history or identity with the subject property, such as the
University Avenue / Rice Lane neighborhood. There are no known vacant sites with such
characteristics.
Pursuant to the HRMC’s comments, a supplement to the HRA dated March 2015 was prepared
to more clearly address the potential historical impacts of the project relative to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The supplement concluded that demolition of either of the
Merit Resources would result in a significant environmental impact under CEQA. It would
require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. The supplement also recommended
several potential mitigation measures, but acknowledged that even with mitigation demolition
would be a significant and unavoidable impact.
However, as an alternative to their demolition, the historic character of the Barovetto house and
tank house would not be fundamentally altered if they could be retained and the new buildings
were to surround them. A new development project could be built along A Street and retain one
or both of these structures. While the setting along Second Street would be altered, the change in
setting may not adversely impact the two merit resources if the new structures are sympathetic in
design and follow the University-Rice Lane district design guidelines. It would potentially
reduce the impacts to a less than significant level for one or both of the Merit Resources.
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 13
Barovetto House
Second Street frontage
Barovetto Tank House
Options
a. Demolish both the Merit Resources.
b. Preserve one of the Merit Resources, the Barovetto House.
c. Preserve both of the Merit Resources.
Attempt to find someone who would move the Merit Resource(s) to another location (out of
context). Ideally relocation would occur within an area of the City of Davis that shares a
common history or identity with the subject properties, such as the University Neighborhood.
d. Place a plaque on the property describing the history of the house and its residents.
e. With any demolition, consider with the HRMC other mitigations such as but not limited to a
mitigation fee to use for other historic preservation programs.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation
Option 3.2b. Shown in bold above.
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 14
TOPIC #4 – LAND USE AND OVERALL BENEFIT. (a site specific topic) Is the land use
consisting of market rate rental apartments (9) and extended stay rental units (10) appropriate?
Should the zoning be changed to allow rental apartments or should ownership condominiums be
emphasized to a greater extent? What are the overall benefits of the proposed land use and
project?
Analysis
The trend in the University Avenue / Rice Lane neighborhood toward more rental units could be
stabilized by more ownership housing units. On the other hand, the citywide vacancy rate for
rental apartments is only 0.3% (UC Davis, Annual apartments survey by Office of Student
Housing for Fall 2014). Not all apartments should be large complexes. Higher end apartments
are desirable to professionals, empty nesters, graduate and postdoctoral scholars or researchers.
The potential categories of benefit to the City would appear to be:
Provide 10 “extended stay” apartments and 9 luxury apartments.
Provide an incremental benefit to downtown retailers and restaurants.
Reduce the outflow of lodging and food entertainment dollars that could go to other
communities if the “extended stay” guests do not stay in Davis hotels.
Encourage walking and cycling to UC Davis and downtown.
Increased property sales tax.
Incremental increase in the number of available apartment units in the city.
City collection of transient occupancy taxes for the 10 “extended stay” units.
Options
a. Approve the proposed 10 “extended stay” units and 9 apartments.
b. Require the applicant to explore and analyze opportunities for ownership
condominiums.
c. Establish ownership condominiums as the principal permitted use in the proposed PD zone
and establish rental apartments as a conditionally permitted use.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation
Option 4b. Shown in bold.
TOPIC #5 – OTHER COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS. (a site specific topic) Does the
Planning Commission want to forward any other comments and observations to the City
Council?
Options
Comments and observations could include:
Applicant shall explore and analyze below grade or partial below grade parking to reduce
height of building.
Applicant shall demonstrate how any proposed decks and balconies do not create
significant privacy and noise impacts on adjacent properties.
Architectural design of the building. Staff recommends that the applicant pursue
additional modulation and articulation in the design (see one illustrative example below).
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 15
Preliminary Staff Recommendation.
All of the options above.
Proposed 4-Story Building
Illustrative example of 3-Story Building.
A 2 and 3 story composition with highest element screened by lower elements.
Size and mass related to human scale.
(Downtown Santa Barbara, CA)
Attachments
1. Applicant’s Project Narrative and Unit Matrix
2. Purpose of Adopted Plans, Policies, Zoning and Guidelines
3. Table of Policy Consistency and Zoning Compliance
4. Table of Policies Related to “Densification” and Related to “Fitting In / Scale
Transitions”
5. Conceptual Alternatives by Staff
6. Proposed Plans and Other Exhibits Submitted by Applicant
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 16
Attachment 1
Project Justification for A 2nd Domaine Apartment Project
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 17
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 18
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 19
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 20
Attachment 2
Purpose of Adopted Plans, Policies, Zoning and Guidelines
The purpose language directly from these documents includes:
General Plan: Articulates the community’s vision of its long-term physical form and
development. Serves as the basis for decision-making. The plan directs decision-makers,
who must balance competing community objectives, which sometimes present trade-offs.
Provide citizens with opportunities to participate in the planning and decision-making
processes of their communities. Informs citizens, developers, and decision-makers of the
ground rules that guide development. The land use element designates the distributions
and general location and extent of the uses of land for housing and other uses. Classifies
land uses and levels of intensities.
Amendments to any element of the General Plan are limited to four times in one calendar
year. If the Planning Commission or City Council finds itself making frequent piecemeal
amendments, major defects may exist in the General Plan (which has not been
determined in this case). In these cases, the jurisdiction should consider a plan update or
a major plan revision to address these issues. The key issue in a General Plan amendment
is whether it is in the community interest, after balancing competing community
objectives.
Core Area Specific Plan (CASP): The CASP is incorporated by reference into the
General Plan for the Core area and provides policies and land use standards for the Core
Area. The CASP is to provide a comprehensive set of policies, guidelines and
implementation strategies for promoting, guiding and regulating growth in the Core Area.
Zoning chapter of Municipal Code. The zoning chapter is a precise and detailed plan for
use of land in the city based on the General Plan and is enacted to promote the health and
welfare throughout the city. The chapter recognizes the need for uses to be compatible
and the importance of order and beauty through the review of buildings and uses, and to
require site plan review.
Zoning PD#2-86C. This specific Planned Development zone for the University Avenue
and Rice Lane District recognizes the district’s unique location between downtown and
the university. A Street functions as the visible division between the university and the
city. Structures are traditional residential with some adaptive use. Historically, residents
have taken an active role to preserve and enhance the historic elements and residential
character of the area. Zoning efforts have effectively eliminated the continuation of
commercial and high-density residential development in the residential portions of the
neighborhood.
The CASP and more recent Davis Downtown and Traditional Residential Neighborhood
Guidelines (DDTRNG) have provided further refinement regarding allowable uses and
expected design quality. Community goals for reinvestment along portions of B Street
and Third Street are planned but have not fully occurred. The purpose of this planned
development zone is to encourage the continued health and vitality of the neighborhood
and the downtown. This PD zone is also intended to allow redevelopment along portions
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 21
of B Street and Third Street; these goals represent a balance of the community goals to
support historic preservation and higher density, mixed-use development. The PD zone is
to implement the General Plan and CASP through the subareas including the “Subarea
B, University Avenue Residential Overlay District.” The purpose of Subarea B is to
allow flexibility for uses that may be more intense but are compatible with and respect
the historic residential architecture and single-family character and use of the district.
University related uses and condominium and townhouse development of moderate
density compatible with the residential scale may be considered (italics added by staff to
this key purpose statement).
Interim Infill Development Guidelines: To provide guidance for the review of infill
development projects until more specific final guidelines for more specific types of
development are adopted. The intent is to encourage and maximize opportunities for infill
projects which are beneficial to the community, protective of existing neighborhoods, and
well designed. The intent is to facilitate the seamless infill of potential sites that minimize
impacts on the City as a whole and on existing residential neighborhoods (including but
not limited to neighborhood character, aesthetics).
Davis Downtown and Traditional Residential Neighborhood Guidelines (DDTRNG):
The purpose of the design guidelines respond to community concerns about the manner
in which new investment in the center of Davis can enhance, rather than erode, its valued
character. The goals are to:
o Conserve the transitional neighborhood character, fabric and setting while guiding
future development, reuse and reinvestment.
o Discourage the demolition of structures consistent with the district’s historic
character by providing incentives for reuse of non-designated contributing
structures.
o Plan for new residential infill construction that is compatible and complementary
to the character of existing neighborhood areas within the district.
o Support the unique function of special character area in balance with community
goals.
o Foster redevelopment that is consistent with historic conservation.
o Provide guidelines to clarify the community’s expectations for the types and
quality of development within the district.
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 22
Attachment 3
Table of Policy Consistency and Zoning Compliance
Consistent and/or in compliance
General Plan
Focus growth inward… infill is supported as an
appropriate means of meeting some of the city’s
housing needs. Create housing patterns to promote
energy conserving transportation methods.
(Principles Used in Land Use Map)
Core Area Specific Plan Development of dwelling units shall be encouraged
in the Core Area (Land Use Policy 2.6.I).
Zoning PD #2-86C Subarea B – University Ave.
Residential Overlay District
University related uses (that is, the 10 extended stay
units are suited for visiting faculty)
Interim Infill Development Guidelines
The project contributes to the variety of housing
types, densities, prices and rents, and designs in the
neighborhood. (#2) Contributes higher price units.
The project contributes to the efficient utilization of
existing infrastructure and provision of public
services. (#7)
Higher density uses are sited in areas which are
conducive to alternative forms of transportation
(including walking, biking and transit use) and
where facilities are readily available. (#15)
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
Not consistent and/or not in compliance
Encourage carefully-planned, sensitively-designed
infill and new development to a scale in keeping
with existing city character (Vision 2)
Require an architectural “fit” with Davis’ existing
scale for new development projects. (General Plan
Policy UD 2.3)
There should be a scale transition between
intensified land uses and adjoining low intensity
land uses. (General Plan Standard UD 2.3a)
Taller buildings should be stepped back at upper
levels in areas with a relatively smaller scale
character. (General Plan Standard UD 2.3b)
Multi-family development design should be
compatible with adjoining single family areas.
(General Plan Standard UD 2.4b)
University Avenue Residential Overlay District
does not include apartment/hotel under list of
allowable uses.
Densities limited to 12 units per gross acre (9 units
per net acre) in University Ave. Residential Overlay
District.
Existing residential neighborhoods and their
character shall be protected. (CASP Aesthetic
Elements 4.2.e Architecture - Existing Residential
Neighborhoods).
PD Subarea B does not address proposed
apartment/extended stay use.
9-12 Units per Acre Density (35-59 proposed)
20% Open Space min. (proposed unknown)
40% Lot Coverage max. (approx. 65% proposed)
30’ Building Height (43’ proposed)
Various Setbacks
The project contributes to a mix of uses in the
neighborhood. (#1) The neighborhood has an
increasing number of non-owner / rental
apartments.
The project preserves and protects historic
resources. (#3)
Higher density housing is organized around usual
common (outdoor) open space. (#5)
The scale of new structures on all sides is
compatible with the scale and mass of existing
07 - 23
Consistent and/or in compliance
The project consists of an overall “green building”
approach and measures… and energy
efficiency…and water conservation. (#16,17, 18)
The project provides a balance between the need to
provide adequate parking with the benefits of
reducing automobile travel. (#23)
Davis Downtown and Traditional Residential
Neighborhood Guidelines
Maintain traditional landscape character and
sidewalk design.
Maintain progression of public to private space.
Orient structure to street.
Access parking from alley.
Mixed-use or Commercial Design Guidelines may
also be applicable.
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
Not consistent and/or not in compliance
adjacent structures. “Compatible” does not mean the
same size but appropriate scale transitions are part
of the design. These might include stepped setbacks
of upper stories or breaking up large box like forms
into smaller masses. (#9)
Portions of building abutting a street… relate to the
street frontage through use of transparent elements
including windows. (#14)
The applicant has made a good faith effort to obtain
input from interested citizens and respond to the
concerns. (#19) Staff has not seen the input and
responses yet.
Primarily single-family guidelines including:
Preserve the sense of open space in front, side and
rear yards.
Align front and sides with other structures in
neighborhood.
Mass and scale should be similar to that of singlefamily structures in the neighborhood.
Use building and roof forms similar to those seen
traditionally.
Key Neighborhood Features: Pitched/gable roofs,
Predominantly one and one-and-a-half stories;
Mixed materials; Balance of uses with residential
character; Bungalows and Cottages
07 - 24
Attachment 4
Table of Policies Related to “Densification” and “Fitting In / Scale Transitions”
Policies Related to “Densification.”
Adopted policies and codes related to “densification” (including other locations in the core area)
include:
Small town character. Maintain Davis as a …compact… city. Encourage carefullyplanned, sensitively-designed infill and new development to a scale in keeping with
existing city character (General Plan Vision 2)
Focus growth inward… infill is supported as an appropriate means of meeting some of
the city’s housing needs. Create housing patterns to promote energy conserving
transportation methods. (General Plan Principles Used in Land Use Map)
Initiate a study of older apartment complexes… that could be developed and / or
densified. (General Plan Action LU 2.1h)
Ensure future development supports SACOG Blueprint Principles X (General Plan
Action TRANS 1.1a)
Encourage higher density residential, commercial, and mixed use development near
existing activity centers and along corridors well served by non-motorized transportation
infrastructure and public transportation (General Plan Action TRANS 1.3). Residential
… and redevelopment projects should achieve transit supportive densities within ¼ mile
of multi-modal corridors. Such densities would consist of 10 units per acre or greater, if
compatible with neighborhood context.
Land use intensification shall be concentrated first in the area bounded by First and
Fourth streets and D Street and the railroad tracks; areas to the west (of D) and north shall
densify more slowly. (Core Area Specific Plan Land Use Policy 6)
A. City staff shall inventory buildings in the area (above) that are suited for second
and third story additions.
B. All second and third story additions (in the area above) shall be of the proper
scale and proportion in relation to the existing and surrounding buildings and to
the street. The additions shall continue the architectural theme and context of the
existing building while being sensitive to the design of adjacent buildings. In
some instances, it may be necessary to step back the second or third story addition
in order to achieve the appropriate human scale and to create a transition from
smaller to taller buildings. When projects are submitted to the City, the applicant
shall provide streetscape elevations and drawings that indicatd the height,
setbacks, window proportions, … for not only the proposed project but also of the
adjacent buildings. This information will assist… in determining the
appropriateness of the proposed project and how it contributes to unifying and
enhancing the street and neighborhood.
The intent of this zoning district is to retain neighborhood residential uses, allow an
increase in residential units on portions of B Street and facilitate higher density mixed use
development along Third Street. (Zoning PD #2-86C, Purpose)
The purpose of Subarea B is to allow flexibility for uses that may more intense but are
compatible with and respect the historic residential architecture and single-family
character and use of the district. University related uses and condominium and townhouse
development of moderate density compatible with the residential scale may be
considered. (Zoning PD #2-86C, Purpose of Subarea B)
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 25
The existing policies and codes have considered the site’s location across the street from UC
Davis, which is unique to properties along A Street and Russell Boulevard. This location,
however, could be considered as a reason to support some densification above single family
dwellings and duplexes as stated in the purpose of Subarea B of the Planned Development
zoning:
Policies Related to “Fitting in / Scale Transitions.”
Adopted policies and codes related to “fitting in / scale transitions” include:
Small town character. Maintain Davis as a …compact… city. Encourage carefullyplanned, sensitively-designed infill and new development to a scale in keeping with
existing city character (General Plan Vision 2)
In infill projects, respect setback requirements… and respect existing uses and privacy on
adjacent parcels. (General Plan Policy LU A.1)
Define the types… and intensity of infill development consistent with
neighborhood…policies. (General Plan Goal LU 2)
Develop residential infill and densification guidelines and strategies …may include floor
area ratios, second story setback requirements, below grade construction to address mas
and bulk issues, ..and other buffering. (General Plan Action LU 2.1e) This led to the
“Interim Infill Development Guidelines.”
Require an architectural “fit” with Davis’ existing scale for new development projects.
(General Plan Policy UD 2.3)
There should be a scale transition between intensified land uses and adjoining low
intensity land uses. (General Plan Standard UD 2.3a)
Taller buildings should be stepped back at upper levels in areas with a relatively smaller
scale character. (General Plan Standard UD 2.3b)
Multi-family development design should be compatible with adjoining single family
areas. (General Plan Standard UD 2.4b)
Land use intensification shall be concentrated first in the area bounded by First and
Fourth streets and D Street and the railroad tracks; areas to the west (of D) and north shall
densify more slowly. (Core Area Specific Plan Land Use Policy 6)
A. City staff shall inventory buildings in the area (above) that are suited for second
and third story additions.
B. All second and third story additions (in the area above) shall be of the proper
scale and proportion in relation to the existing and surrounding buildings and to
the street. The additions shall continue the architectural theme and context of the
existing building while being sensitive to the design of adjacent buildings. In
some instances, it may be necessary to step back the second or third story addition
in order to achieve the appropriate human scale and to create a transition from
smaller to taller buildings. When projects are submitted to the City, the applicant
shall provide streetscape elevations and drawings that indicatd the height,
setbacks, window proportions, … for not only the proposed project but also of the
adjacent buildings. This information will assist… in determining the
appropriateness of the proposed project and how it contributes to unifying and
enhancing the street and neighborhood.
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 26
The purpose of this PD zoning is to stabilize the existing mix of uses within the
neighborhood by encouraging compatible reuse, maintenance and renovation. (Zoning
PD #2-86C, Purpose)
The purpose of Subarea B is to allow flexibility for uses that may more intense but are
compatible with and respect the historic residential architecture and single-family
character and use of the district. University related uses and condominium and townhouse
development of moderate density compatible with the residential scale may be
considered. (Zoning PD #2-86C, Purpose of Subarea B)
Design with the neighborhood and for compatibility(Interim Infill Development
Guidelines #9, 10)
(9) The project design enhances and does not erode existing neighborhood
character. The scale of new structures on all sides is compatible with the scale and
mass of existing adjacent structures. “Compatible” does not necessarily mean the
same size but does mean that appropriate scale transitions are part of the project
design. These might include a stepped setback of upper stories or a breaking up
large box-like forms into smaller masses.
(10) The project is designed to be compatible with adjacent uses. Compatibility
includes provision of privacy and protection from noise. The project should
carefully consider the placement of windows, balconies, roof decks, outdoor
activity areas, landscaped buffers, parking areas, trash facilities, etc.
Applying the General Residential Guidelines (Davis Downtown and Traditional
Residential Neighborhood Guidelines, University Avenue / Rice Lane, p. 118)
o On blocks where non-traditional structures exist, projects should be planned to
be compatible with the traditional building style. Proposals to remodel nontraditional structures should utilize as many guidelines as possible to improve
compatibility with the traditional building stock.
o Due to the variety of land uses allowed in the neighborhood, applicants should
first consult with Planning staff for information on density and uses allowed
for their specific parcel.
o Encourage the maintenance of the existing mix of uses within the
neighborhood.
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 27
Attachment 5
Conceptual Alternatives by Staff
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 28
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 29
Attachment 6
Proposed Plans and Other Exhibits Submitted by Applicant
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 30
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 31
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 32
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 33
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 34
Chinese Pistache
(Pistacia chinensis)
Pomegranite
(Punica granatum)
Chinese hackberry
(Celtis sinensis)
10 @ 3'
13,13,14 @ 3.5'
2,3,5,3,3
24
11
10
Chinese Pistache
(Pistacia chinensis)
Chinese Tallow
(Sapium sebiferum)
16
14
15
Camphor
(Cinnamomum camphora)
Chinese Tallow
(Sapium sebiferum)
21 @ 5.5'
Common hackberry
(Celtis occidentalis)
Siberian Elm
(Ulmas pumila)
Chinese hackberry
(Celtis sinensis)
24
18@ 3'
5,4
Chinese Tallow
(Sapium sebiferum)
21
12
Glossy privet
(Ligustrum lucidum)
Maple
(Acer sp.)
Elm
(Ulmas sp.)
Chinese Tallow
(Sapium sebiferum)
TO BE REMOVED
MARCH 17, 2015
07 - 35
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 36
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 37
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 38
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 39
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 40
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 41
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 42
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 43
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 44
A Street Context Photosimulation
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 45
04-08-15 Planning Commission Meeting
07 - 46
Photosimulation
View from A and 2
Street Corner