Tonight the latest iteration of Trackside goes before the Davis Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will not have the final say over the project, however, it has the capacity to forge a number of key questions facing the project.
The Trackside project in its latest iteration proposes to redevelop two existing commercial buildings just to the east of the railroad tracks north of Third Street. The current design has a new four-story, 47,983-square-foot building with 8,950 square feet of commercial retail space on the ground floor, and 27 apartment units on the three floors above.
The project also includes 30 covered and uncovered parking spaces, an outdoor plaza on the west side, landscaping, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, alley improvements, and other site improvements.
The proposal would change the existing alleyway from a two-way to a one-way alley. Apartment units include a mix of studio, 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units ranging in size from 705 square feet to 1,537 square feet plus balconies.
Here are some key questions that are raised by this project.
Is the Project inconsistent with design guidelines and the Core Area Specific Plan?
Once again city staff has made the decision to simply ignore city guidelines when a project does not comport. Staff writes, “Consistency with design guidelines are an aesthetic issue…”
They continue: “The City’s Planning documents work together to implement the City’s vision for the community. A General Plan and Specific Plans are general by nature and consist of a wide array of policies and goals. The policies describe desired outcomes, but do not require compliance with every single policy. Design guidelines are similar in that way, but provide more focused guidance.”
Staff argues, “The Design Guidelines must be considered as part of a project review, but do not establish mandatory requirements in contrast to Zoning standards which are mandatory. While the DDTRN [Davis Downtown and Traditional Residential Neighborhoods] Design Guidelines includes several quantitative guidelines with specific limitations that function as a standard, by and large the language of the guidelines indicates preferences and recommendations.”
How tall should the Trackside Project be?
This is one of the key issues for the neighborhood. The original proposal was for it to be six stories. The revised model calls for four stories. The neighbors have hung onto the current Core Area Specific Plan which calls for two to three stories in the core – they have argued this is a transition area and have called on it to be two stories.
“The newly proposed, four-story Trackside Center fails to make an appropriate transition in any direction,” they write. “To the west will be a new two-story commercial building: the new Ace Hardware addition that the Old East Davis Neighborhood Association supported. To the north is a ground-level rock yard. To the east is a row of traditional one-story homes and infill units. To the south is a row of one-story commercial buildings.
“The Design Guidelines clearly state that a two-story, mixed-use building — with a clearly set-back third story — is a desirable transition from downtown to the historic neighborhood.”
Should the city revise its Core Area Specific Plan first?
Part of the problem that you have right now is that the neighbors are claiming that the project is in violation of current Design Guidelines and the Core Area Specific Plan (CASP). They are effectively right about this – the proposal is in violation.
The city staff has chosen to deal with that conflict by simply ignoring the design guidelines. That is not appropriate.
The problem is clear – the Core Area Specific Plan is out of date and therefore not a useful guideline for policy.
Currently the CASP puts a height limitation of two to three stories – but the CASP was designed pre-2000, pre-Measure J. If you revise the CASP, the next iteration should put the height limitations at five to six stories in the core. That would allow for ground floor of retail and restaurants, a second floor of office space and three or four floors of residential.
If downtown is reset to five or six stories, a two-story Trackside makes little sense.
Bottom line: I agree that Trackside is a transition zone, but that’s a transition between six-story core buildings and two-story neighborhood buildings, which again puts us at three or four, not two stories, at Trackside.
The city should update the Core Area Specific Plan rather than attempt to simply ignore the Design Guidelines, as they did in the approval of the Davis Ace building.
Is Trackside precedent-setting?
Concerns have been raised about the impact of “zoning change regarding mass and scale for all parcels in the transition area is not analyzed. Concern about project setting precedent for area in terms of mass and scale.”
Staff attempts to punt this question as well.
Staff responds, “The proposed rezone and CASP amendment have limited applicability and no projects are currently proposed on similar parcels in the transition area along the railroad. Any future project will be considered based on the merits of the project and would undergo full planning review.”
But staff is ignoring clear problems here that go beyond the specifics of this particular project. It is not that other projects are likely to come up along this particular transition boundary, but rather there is a whole perimeter around the core area that could potentially be redeveloped. There are implications along B Street, and along the potential northern boundary of the core area as well.
Moreover, as mentioned before, the precedent-setting nature of this does not just extend in one direction. Building a two-story Trackside when the core area will be envisioned, at least potentially, to go up to five or six stories is equally problematic.
Finally, the precedent-setting nature of this is not just limited to the transition area, so the fact that city staff is now ignoring Design Guidelines for two consecutive projects is equally problematic and potentially precedent setting.
When the neighbors complained about the B Street Residence project, staff was able to respond that the project was clearly within the bounds of existing zoning and infill guidelines. But they actually undermine that by their comments here that they can simply ignore Design Guidelines that are inconvenient.
The Vanguard does not make a recommendation here on what the city should do, but simply believes that the course laid out in the staff report is fraught with problems and potentially unintended consequences.
The Vanguard has been very critical of the Planning Commission overstepping their authority, but in this case you have a rather clear-cut violation of the current Design Guidelines and Core Area Specific Plan, and city staff is simply ignoring those inconvenient guidelines. Here the Planning Commission would have full authority to weigh in and call out city staff.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Your article is critical of planning staff in several areas. Why do you think they are, in your words, ignoring guidelines and precedent? Was planning staff in favor of all previous Trackside proposals?
That’s a good question for which I don’t really have an answer.
Actually, there were two questions… you say one is good… typo? intentional?
They are not two forms of the same question… care to clarify?
I don’t know the answer to either question.
Fair enough… you gave me the clarity I sought…
Professional staff need to either do their analysis, writings and recommendations ‘segregated’ from their personal feelings/opinions, or recuse, or leave public service permanently.
Most professionals I know/knew could, and did that… I did that… call me ‘bi-polar’… had to present facts that would ‘hurt’ something I would have liked to see, and vice versa… part of my job and my responsibility as a professional…
I agree with your comment.
I’m failing to see the “problem” with adhering to these guidelines (which actually allow for a 3-story building).
“I’m failing to see the “problem” with adhering to these guidelines (which actually allow for a 3-story building).”
I am in agreement with this statement. I had requested of the developers at a community outreach meeting, an architects rendering of what a 3-story building that would be within guidelines and was informed by the developer that this was not feasible and it was not provided.
It depends on how you define “problem.” My problem is I think the design guidelines and the core area specific plan are both antiquated and that we need to revise them. Until we do that, I think we are putting the cart before the horse. Can we go as low as three stories? Maybe, but I’m not sure that four is the wrong answer either.
“Can we go as low as three stories? Maybe, but I’m not sure that four is the wrong answer either.”
And that is precisely why any guideline changes need to be dealt with prior to arbitrarily accepting major changes. The “right” number of stories should be a matter of planning, not a matter of exception or personal preference on a “case by case” basis.
That point I agree with
It is a matter of planning. Trackside is a mixed-use opportunity site within the core and part of the 3rd Street special character area.
From the Design Guidelines:
A taller building at this site (compared to a site on 4th Street for instance) is specifically allowed in the Design Guidelines. It is not a matter of exception or personal whim.
From the CASP:
It is a ‘matter of planning’ that the City Council has the authority to make adjustments to our zoning and planning documents as needed (by a vote of the majority, not personal preference).
The council can always make changes to plans and zoning, but staff’s argument here as before has been, it’s only a guideline. I’m agnostic on the project itself and probably would prefer four stories over 3 and certainly over 2, but I’m troubled by this issue as I was by the issue you rightly raised with Davis ACE.
It is important to understand that the details matter when considering the underlying planning documents. If you are claiming that the Design Guidelines should be followed, as many do, then you have to accept that all aspects of those guidelines are equally valid. The section I quoted above allows for taller buildings on this particular site because of the pre-existing ‘special character area’ along 3rd Street.
In the case of ACE, I thought that Staff overstepped their authority (I was wrong), and certainly ignored the ‘spirit’ of the planning documents (I still think I was right here), but they were technically correct as a parking lot was allowed on the site as a conditional use (even though that contradicted everything else). In the case of Trackside, Staff is also correct. There is nothing in either the zoning or design guidelines that preclude approval of a four story (or even six stories) structure.
The really interesting thing, as I see it, is how some of the opponents of Trackside have negated their own arguments against the project through their support of the ACE project. They essentially argued that the zoning and design guidelines were inviolate in one case (Trackside) but unimportant in the other (ACE). I think the hypocrisy of their positions were noticed by those who will ultimately make the decision.
Not sure that all Trackside opponents weighed in, regarding ACE. Regardless, the guidelines which applied to the area around ACE did not account for the needs of a rather unique business (a key hardware store, located on the edge of downtown). Unlike ACE, Trackside has immediate/existing residential neighbors, who would be directly impacted by a decision to disregard existing guidelines.
Actually, that allegation can be (and has been) made regarding your conflicting arguments (e.g., regarding existing guidelines). However, I think it’s better if all commenters avoided making these types of statements, and stuck to the actual concerns.
Another concern regarding ACE had to do with the city’s plans to eliminate free parking in the area (thereby impacting their customers). I appreciate the responsibility (and cost) that ACE is willing to assume on behalf of their customers, the immediate neighborhood, and the city as a whole.
My relevant statement: “how some of the opponents of Trackside have negated their own arguments…” [emphasis added]. Reading comprehension is frequently an issue here.
They are not meant to as they are general guidelines for the specified area, and are not specifically for a single business. I don’t know why you would think otherwise.
True, but as I stated before, all of the guidelines are relevant, not just the ones you (or the neighbors) prefer. Aren’t the neighbors disregarding the guidelines when they claim that a taller structure is not allowed?
Regarding the ACE parking issue that came before City Council:
Although many residents of Old East Davis attended the City Council meeting, we were not there unanimously in support of Davis Lumber. We met as a neighborhood association prior to the meeting to discuss the appeal submitted by Mark West. Although many members of the neighborhood association sympathized with Davis Lumber’s request to provide customer parking (and appreciated the aesthetic improvement inherent in removing the corrugated metal shed), we also recognized that the grounds for Mark’s appeal were valid: the proposed project did not align with the CASP or meet the requirements of the Design Guidelines, and we strongly support the adherence to CASP, Design Guidelines, and zoning.
After discussing the issue, the neighborhood association did not take an official stance either for or against the appeal.
I and many of my neighbors attended the meeting because we thought that the meeting would include an open discussion of adherence (or lack thereof) to the Design Guidelines, and we are interested in the City Council’s thoughts on this issue.
Two of the neighbors did speak in favor of denying Mark’s appeal, but they were not speaking on behalf of all of us.
This all agrees with Mark’s statements above — just adds a bit more detail.
Regarding the ACE parking issue that came before City Council:
Although many residents of Old East Davis attended the City Council meeting, we were not there unanimously in support of Davis Lumber. We met as a neighborhood association prior to the meeting to discuss the appeal submitted by Mark West. Although many members of the neighborhood association sympathized with Davis Lumber’s request to provide customer parking (and appreciated the aesthetic improvement inherent in removing the corrugated metal shed), we also recognized that the grounds for Mark’s appeal were valid: the proposed project did not align with the CASP or meet the requirements of the Design Guidelines, and we strongly support the adherence to CASP, Design Guidelines, and zoning.
After discussing the issue, the neighborhood association did not take an official stance either for or against the appeal.
I and many of my neighbors attended the meeting because we thought that the meeting would include an open discussion of adherence (or lack thereof) to the Design Guidelines, and we were interested in the City Council’s thoughts on this issue.
Two of the neighbors did speak in favor of denying Mark’s appeal, but they were not speaking on behalf of all of us.
This all agrees with Mark’s statements above — just adds a bit more detail.
I appreciate Ashley Hill adding her comments to the discussion, especially explaining the current position of the Association. I will, however, point out this comment from the Staff Report about the presentation made to the Planning Commission on 16 May 2016 during consideration of the first iteration of the ACE project.
From the Staff Report (Page 06A-40):
I did not think “otherwise”. However, when you have a rather unique business (e.g., a hardware store on the edge of downtown), then guidelines (which might theoretically be sufficient for most activities in a given area) can create an unnecessary hindrance to business operations, and inconvenience for customers. (Especially when the city is simultaneously considering eliminating free parking in the area.)
Again, this type of statement might just as easily apply to the types of arguments you’ve made. (As noted by Ashley, the neighborhood association apparently did not take a position, regarding ACE.)
The “reason” that I supported the ACE proposal, while simultaneously oppose the Trackside proposal are stated above. (Unlike ACE, the Trackside proposal is surrounded by existing residences.)
In addition, I did not see much “downside” regarding ACE’s proposal to accommodate its customers, especially as the city considers eliminating free parking in the area. I viewed this as a responsible decision and investment, from a key local business. It’s difficult for me to understand why anyone would oppose it. (Especially from anyone concerned about the viability of businesses downtown, and financial impacts to the city if those businesses cease operations.)
Get real. Nominee for ‘wrongest’ statement of the day…
Howard: Yeah, I thought about that, before you even brought it up. You’re right – it’s not exactly “surrounded”. (Wrong word.) However, the point remains the same. Unlike the Trackside proposal, the parking lot which will be constructed for ACE is not next to existing residences. (In fact, constructing the lot might IMPROVE the parking situation for the entire neighborhood.)