City of San José Distinctive Neighborhood Program Policy Options Outreach Presentation.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Landmarks Preservation Commission.
Advertisements

August 20, 2014 Infill Incentive District Revisions 2014.
Planning & Community Development Department Update on Mansionization and Neighborhood Compatibility Study City Council January 26, 2015.
Zoning Ordinance Update Planning Commission February 25, 2015.
CATEGORIES OF COMMENTS REGARDING THE DOWNTOWN MOTOR APARTMENTS From October 28 th meeting.
Planning & Community Development Department 245 South Los Robles Avenue Predevelopment Plan Review City Council December 8, 2014.
1837 Pine Street Project Overview Pine Street - Site Plan 2.
October 4, 2004 Detrich B. Allen City of Los Angeles Environmental Affairs Department 1 Siting New Development Detrich B. Allen General Manager Environmental.
C I T Y O F S A L E M Neighborhood South Salem March 18, 2008 PRESERVATION DISTRICT STUDY.
HRB Meeting June 9, 2015 City Council Remand of AP 14-02/ZC
Community Development Department GRAND HAVEN DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT City Council June 3, 2014.
Draft Zoning Code Residential Focus Neighborhood Meeting May 8, 2007.
Field Survey Introduction. What is a survey? Survey means a process of identifying and gathering data on a community's historic resources. It includes.
PRESENTATION ON ZONING OPTIONS RESEARCH CITY COUNCIL HEARING – SEPTEMBER 21, 2015 MASSAGE MORATORIUM.
Planning & Community Development Department 277 North El Molino Avenue Predevelopment Plan Review City Council Meeting May 5, 2014.
Board of County Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING Lake Avalon Rural Settlement Commercial Design Overlay District March 10, 2009 Board of County Commissioners.
Planning & Community Development Department 1336 and 1347 East Colorado Blvd. Pre Development Plan Review City Council Meeting January 28, 2013.
CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES: A TOOLBOX FOR PRESERVATION - September 5, 2007 A PLANNER’S VIEW: LESSONS LEARNED PAM FIGGE, PRESENTER.
Westside Revised Draft Community Plan and Development Code.
Community Development Department GRAND HAVEN DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT Planning & Land Development Regulation Board May 21, 2014.
An Overview of Garrett Park Building Regulations Harry Gordon, FAIA Chairman GP Setback Advisory Committee May 2009.
NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT STRATEGY Lund Consulting, Inc. Community Outreach Spring 2015 City of Seattle.
Accessory Dwelling Units Regulation Update Planning Commission Hearing October 29, 2014.
Historical Resources SURVEY SAVVY Marie Nelson State Historian II OHP-Survey/CLG Coordinator Sep 07 – Chico.
Planning & Community Development Department Zoning Code Amendment Public Hearing Proposed elimination of the 50% review step from the design review process.
Board of County Commissioners Lake Avalon Rural Settlement Commercial Design Overlay District February 24, 2009 Board of County Commissioners Lake Avalon.
1 Presented to the Fort Worth League of Neighborhood Associations By the City of Fort Worth, Planning and Development Department August 24, 2009 CONSERVATION.
Historic Review Board Continued Public Hearing: DR – th St. October 20, 2015.
Department of Sustainable Development and Construction Proposed Revision to the Historic Preservation Tax Exemptions and Economic Development Incentives.
Department of Public Works Recommended Residential Impact Fee Distribution Methodology Change October 26, 2015.
Planning & Community Development Department Lower Hastings Ranch Moratorium Extension City Council January 25, 2016.
Yorba Linda Survey : Results Presented by: Andrea Galvin Planning Commission/ City Council Joint Session October 13 th, 7:00 p.m.
Cultural Resources office — St. Louis Planning & Urban Design Agency an introduction.
Downtown Development Review The Review Process and Preserving Downtown Character.
Planning & Community Development Department Board of Zoning Appeals: Hillside Development Permit # Hillcrest Place City Council March 14, 2016.
1 City of Portland Bureau of Development Services Staff Presentation to the Historic Landmarks Commission Type II Appeal of Denial LU HDZ – 2327.
1 City of Portland Bureau of Development Services Staff Presentation to the Historic Landmarks Commission Type II Appeal of Approval LU HDZ –
Overview of Residential Reconstruction in Needham Lee Newman Town of Needham Director of Planning and Community Development.
Town of Chapel Hill | 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. | Neighborhood Conservation District Public Information Meeting September.
Highlights  Describe Our Missoula Growth Policy Project  Relationship to Rattlesnake Neighborhood Plan  Next Steps.
Planning & Community Development Department Zoning Code Amendment: Neighborhood District Overlay Zone City Council April 25, 2016.
Town of Chapel Hill | 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. | Land Use Management Ordinance Update Planning Commission September 1,
4650 Alhambra Circle Building Site Separation. Request: The applicant is requesting consideration of a building site separation in accordance with Section.
Planning & Community Development Department Olivewood Village Project (530, 535 E. Union St., 95, 99, 119 N. Madison Ave. and 585 E. Colorado Blvd.) Predevelopment.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE MEETING 1 – ANNEXATION, PLANNING AREA, AND DENSITIES 11/07/2013.
Residential Infill Project Scale of Houses (a primer) Stakeholder Advisory Committee October 6, 2015.
Christopher Brown, Planner II December 4th, 2014 Case No. 14ZONE1036 La Grange Road Office Louisville Metro Planning Commission Public Hearing.
Planning & Community Development Department General Plan Implementation Strategy City Council February 29, 2016.
206 THIRD STREET DR/TRP Appeal of. Planning Commission Hearing March 12, 2014, P/C approved a Design Review Permit: - Demolition of the existing.
City of East Palo Alto Planning Commission
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS: CLEARING UP THE CONFUSION
Zoning Code Amendment: Neighborhood District Overlay Zone
Water Efficiency Ordinance ZCA No. 750
State College Borough Historic and Architectural Review Board
Mansionization and Neighborhood Compatibility
Zoning Code Amendment: Hillside District Overlay Zones
“Palm Coast 145, LLC” Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezoning Planning and Land Development Regulation Board December 21, 2016.
Proposed Thorndike-Madrillo Landmark District Public Hearing
File No A request for a Site Plan Review to construct a 1,425 square-foot covered balcony, a 14.5 square-foot balcony and a 5,157 square-foot.
Preservation of Historically Significant Buildings
Appeal: Time Extension for Variance # East Walnut Street
City Council Meeting February 26, 2018
1211 Wellington Avenue Application for Landmark Designation
Proposed Magnolia Landmark District Public Hearing
Proposed South Grand-Covington Place Landmark District Public Hearing
1600 San Pasqual Street Application for Landmark Designation
Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment & Future Consent Application
2480 Oswego Street Application for Landmark Designation
Browne’s Addition Local Historic District Plan Commission Workshop #1
City Commission Workshop
Presentation transcript:

City of San José Distinctive Neighborhood Program Policy Options Outreach Presentation

Background The City Council approved funding for the development of the Distinctive Neighborhoods Program to address the following concerns: Incompatible New constructionIncompatible Additions Demolitions

A Single-Family House Permit is required if: New construction exceeds 30 feet or 2 stories in height, The floor area ratio (F.A.R.) of the house exceeds 0.45, The house is listed on the Historic Resource Inventory. Existing Permitting Process Currently No Design Review Addition/Demolition below SF House Permit Size Thresholds and not listed on Historic Resource Inventory: Building Permit (No Design Review)

Time Line December Project Initiation Identification of Outcome and Goals AugustSeptemberOctoberNovember 2008 Initial Outreach Compile Data June FebruaryMarchAprilJanuary May 2009 Report on Outreach to Council Evaluation of Policy options Recomm endation to City Council Outreach Follow Up

First Round of Outreach First Round of Outreach October - December 2008 Nine meetings What do you like about your neighborhood? What are your concerns? Should the policy be city wide or neighborhood specific? Five Community Workshops Four Focused Group Meetings

Outreach Results Residents of Older Neighborhoods Residents of Newer/rural Neighborhoods Bulk and Scale Architectural Style and Design Loss of Fabric Open Space

Outreach Results Residents of Older Neighborhoods Residents of Newer/rural Neighborhoods Bulk and Scale Architectural Style and Design Loss of Fabric Open Space Demolitions Loss of architectural elements and details Design of new construction Attached garages Inconsistent setbacks Loss and maintenance of trees High density infill Monster Homes Second stories Loss of privacy Loss of Landscaping and open space Loss and maintenance of trees

Outreach Results 3. Should policy be city wide or neighborhood specific? Residents of Older Neighborhoods Residents of Newer/Rural Neighborhoods City Wide Policy Option A city wide approach is quicker A city wide options can still affect neighborhoods differently Some Neighborhoods are more outspoken than others Neighborhood Specific Policy Option Demolition and significant remodels Relationship of high density to single- family neighborhoods Every neighborhood is different Some neighborhoods prefer tighter regulations while other do not A Conservation Study Area is appropriate for older neighborhoods

Next Step – Policy Analysis Consider adding as SFH Permit Thresholds: Demolitions of houses over a certain age (50) or built before a certain date (1942). City Wide Neighborhood Specific - Neighborhoods will initiate process - City will create a Toolkit of overlays available to community: 1.Conservation Study Area 2.Distinctive Neighborhood Zoning Overlay 3.Neighborhood Specific Design Guidelines

Policy Analysis – Neighborhood Specific Toolkit Option 1 - Conservation Study Area Zoning Overlay Allows for a streamlined survey process Potential Neighborhoods Affected: Northside, Willow Glen, The Rose Garden and other Older neighborhoods Designation Process same as Conservation Areas Except: Context Statement No individual historic evaluations required at this time Design Review SFH Permit required If proposal does not meet Guidelines then, Individual historic evaluation required Incentives State Historic Building Code

Landmark Districts Conservation Areas Historic Districts and Areas in San Jose

Policy Analysis – Neighborhood Specific Toolkit Option 1 - Conservation Study Area Zoning Overlay Pros – Would make survey process quicker and less expensive upfront. Will not require many resources for front end implementation. The Historic Preservation Code would need to be updated. Not affect areas that are not interested in additional regulations. Would address the needs of residents of most of the older neighborhoods. Cons – Would require some resources to implement Code revision. Would require some resources to process application for Conservation Study Area. Would add more SFH Permit applications – more planners.

Policy Analysis – Neighborhood Specific Toolkit Option 2 – Distinctive Neighborhood Zoning Overlay Criteria for Designation: Agreement of 2/3 of property owners. The neighborhood should be clearly delineated. The neighborhood must consist of at least X number of homes. At least 75% of the homes in the neighborhood need to have the characteristic in question. Distinct Development Standards for Designated Area New Thresholds for SFH Permit Requirement Linked to Toolkit 3: Neighborhood Specific Guidelines

Policy Analysis – Neighborhood Specific Toolkit Option 2 – Distinctive Neighborhood Zoning Overlay a. Single-Story District Limits development in certain areas to one story or x feet Potential Neighborhoods Affected: Eichler neighborhoods or other single-story Neighborhoods (Ranch neighborhoods)

Policy Analysis – Neighborhood Specific Toolkit Option 2 – Distinctive Neighborhood Zoning Overlay b. Neighborhood Specific Setback Requires specific setbacks in a certain areas Potential Neighborhoods Affected: Between the Gates, other 50 ft

Policy Analysis – Neighborhood Specific 25 ft Public Right Of Way X ft Detached, or setback at least X feet from face of house, or be side loaded Toolkit Option 2 – Distinctive Neighborhood Zoning Overlay C. Garages in Areas with Detached Garages should be…… Potential Neighborhoods Affected: Willow Glen, The Rose Garden, Other

Policy Analysis – Neighborhood Specific Pros – Will not require many resources for front end implementation. A Code revision would be the only requirement. No additional SFH Permit applications (Development Standard) Not affect areas that are not interested in additional regulations. Cons – This may take longer to establish then neighborhoods want it to. Would require some resources to implement Code revision. Would require some resources to process application for Zoning Overlay. Toolkit Option 2 – Distinctive Neighborhood Zoning Overlay

Policy Analysis – Neighborhood Specific Toolkit Option 3 – Neighborhood Specific Design Guidelines Implementation Implications: Allocate funding Hire consultant to draft guidelines or draft them in-house Allocate planner to work with consultant This process would take at least a year Potential Neighborhoods Affected: Willow Glen, The Rose Garden, Northside, other

Policy Analysis – Neighborhood Specific Toolkit Option 3 – Neighborhood Specific Design Guidelines Pros – Would facilitate a thorough analysis of the characteristics of an area leading to more compatible new construction in that area. Through comprehensive analysis of one particular neighborhood Planning could discover some issues that may be relevant to other parts of the city Cons – Process would take longer and require more resources compared with a Zoning Overlay. Front end implementation would require consultant work. Design Guidelines would need to be combined with a Zoning Overlay that would require additional review.

Policy Analysis - City Wide Demolitions Add one of the following as a SFH permit trigger Neighborhoods Affected: Older neighborhoods b. Demolitions of homes built before a certain date (1942) a.Demolitions of homes over a certain age (50 years)

Policy Analysis - City Wide Demolitions YearNumber of SFH Permits issued per year Cat ICat IICat IIITotal # Building Permits Issued for Alterations/ Addition Number of projects including all types of demolitions Demos approved with a SFH Approx. # of SF demos without planning review # of SF houses demolished that are either over 50 years old or built before over before over before over 50 4 before 1942 History of Single Family House Permits and Demolitions

Policy Analysis - City Wide B. Demolitions of houses built prior to 1942 House is a CEQA resource House does not qualify for the inventory Notification SignCat. I SFH Permit including a historic evaluation Demolitions House qualifies as a Structure of Merit Cat II SFH Permit Hearing Cat I SFH Permit No Hearing

Demolitions Pros – This is a quick solution to a major concern Would increase the chances of saving candidate City Landmarks or properties eligible for the California or National Register. The age requirement focuses attention on areas where residents were most concerned about demolitions. Would build our Historic Resources Inventory Would inform residents who may have additional information regarding the criteria of significance of a house. Cons – Would add more process (especially Cat I SFH permits). Would require some resource to implement Code revision. The process for handling Structures of Merit remains unclear. Policy Analysis - City Wide

Outreach Results and Proposed Solutions Residents of Older Neighborhoods Residents of Newer/rural Neighborhoods Bulk and Scale Architectural Style and Design Loss of Fabric Open Space Demolitions - City Wide Loss of architectural elements and details – T1 Design of new construction – T3 Attached garages – T2 Inconsistent setbacks - T2 Loss and maintenance of trees High density infill Monster Homes – T2 Second stories – T2 Loss of privacy- T2 Loss of Landscaping and open space – T2 Loss and maintenance of trees