Napa Residential Design Guidelines Builders
Focus Group Summary
On October 30, 2001 fifteen people attended
a development community focus group to discuss preparation of residential
design guidelines. The objectives for the meeting included:
- Review design guideline process;
- Discuss infill residential design and
development issues; and
- Discuss how the design guidelines can
improve the development and design review process.
Participants were asked four questions.
They were to provide a perspective on how Napa is changing, and in particular,
the market trends. In addition, participants shared what they felt new
infill sites look like, gave examples of good local infill projects, and
discussed the existing design review process.
Key Themes
The participants' comments reflected three
key themes.
- The easy housing sites have been developed.
Remaining development sites are "non-standard" and uniquely constrained.
These sites need design solutions that can not be developed using existing
standards.
- There is a "reality gap" between
incentives to provide more housing and project feasibility.
- The design guidelines should provide
ways of increasing density and streamline the process. Rather than add
another layer.
How is Napa changing?
- Retirement lifestyles - - "downsizing"
but not "down pricing"
- Higher rents may start to support apartment projects
for "move-up" renters
- Still a strong market for single family housing,
even at $450,000 entry level prices
- There maybe an emerging condo market as single
family prices rise
- There are affordability challenges especially
for farm and service workers
What do residential infill sites look
like in Napa?
- Most are small (3-acres or less) and have "problems"
- Lack of infrastructure
- In the flood plain
- Often there is a low-density context - - challenged
by neighbors
- More reuse and recycling of land and buildings
- Historic preservation can limit "change"
- Land is expensive
- Small subdivisions
- Incentives offered for hard sites are not enough
- - there is a "reality gap"
What does a successful infill project
look like? What are good local examples?
- Central Villas, about 30 du's on 3-4 acres
- Hayes Street Apartments, 21 du's on about 2 acres
- Casswall - - nice subdivision for a tough hillside
site
- Laurel Lane
- Oak Creek Village
(However, these are not really constrained sites.
It is a big leap to the next generation of housing sites that have a new
set of challenges.)
How can the guidelines make the design
review process more clear, consistent and fair?
Existing standards are not practical for remaining
sites
- Hillside overlay grading standards limits units
- Street and cul-de-sac standards
- Parking
- Fire department access
- Post Office
- Fish and Game
- The definition of "gross" and "net"
densities
Politics
- NIMBY's
- Political solutions rather than practical standards
- Concern the guidelines will add to and costs
to the review process
- Politics of unit counts and demand for affordable
housing
Neighborhood Design
- Design, especially home design, has not been
an issue - - instead it is a standards-based review
- Connecting streets
Process
- Disconnect between departments
- Disconnect between Planning Commission, City
Council and staff
- Long internal review time
- Inconsistent review findings and conditions
- Napa does not use technology to support review
process
Purpose of design guidelines
- Streamline the process and provide for higher
density
- Provide opportunity to have "design solutions"
for tough sites
- Add to the predictability of the process
- Concern over the use of "context" to
shape new projects
Return to Napa Residential Design Guidelines Home
Page