[OldNorth] FW: misc info

[Andrew P. Wallace]

  _____  

From: sheryl lynn gerety [mailto:winterety at sbcglobal.net] 
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 8:54 PM
To: angela; winterety at sbcglobal.net
Cc: Dennis Dingemans; Andrew P. Wallace; Dan Quickert; Steve & Tracy
Marshall; John Lofland; Ian; Andrew P. Wallace
Subject: Re: misc info

 

Fellow Board Members:

I set up the streaming video and watched the R-2 discussion. A quick summary
(on John's invitation; jump to the asterisk if you want to get straight to
the controversy):
Esther P introduced for first reading the R-2 Cons Dist zoning proposal for
Old North and Old East. Here is what I took to be the high points:
(i) The R-2CD zone would preserve the R-2 guidelines so far as allowing
either single family, duplex, or 2 family unit development.
(ii) Procedure for approval of 'accessory units' would change. If the units
fully met the "very specific" size/setback requirements currently in place,
they would be subject only to administrative approval, not a full
conditional use permit. In effect, neighbors would be notified, but unless
the unit exceeded current guidelines or provoked neighborhood criticism, it
would be approved at the administrative level.
(iii) A new feature is greater flexibility in setbacks, as part of an
attempt to make existing non-legal but habitable structures legal. For
instance, because our lots are so small, virtually none of them meet the
current minimum lot size for the city. Streetside setbacks have been reduced
(I believe she said) from 15 to 10 feet for Old North.
(iv) Parking requirements are to become more flexible and more cognizant of
the current situation in Old North (our small lots and diverse degrees of
conformity with existing guidelines). The calculated numbered of required
spaces, I believe, is reduced by one (a 3 bdrm house and accessory structure
would be required to have two off-street spaces, the third assumed to be
on-street). And, there is a bit of slippage allowed in the requirement,
again in recognition of our small lots and precious open space, in that one
of these might be used for something like a patio, provided it was
'reserved' for future parking if needed. NOTE that in the context of
parking, EP spoke of it being appropriate that our neighborhood 'densify at
a small scale (accessory) rather than via duplexes or secondary structures.'
(v) EP said the neighborhood wanted zoning consistent with the design
guidelines, but she was 'balanced' or non-committal when pressed by council
members on wishes in the neighborhood to move to R-1. She said she had heard
strong opinions in favor, but could not evaluate if they represented broader
sentiment. She said that individuals had taken positions but not the wider
neighborhood or neighborhood organization. She did say that passing the
R-2CD zoning now would not preclude revisiting R-1, and that the current
draft would require little modification to change it to R-1.

Peter G then spoke in the public comment period, the only person to do so,
and gave a spontaneous and eloquent plea for R-1, as the only way to protect
the values of the design guidelines and, in fact, the character, scale and
atmosphere of Old North.

(vi) Michael Harrington expressed skepticism that down-zoning was legal (his
reasoning apparently that it might reduce property values); the city
attorney was clear that the council can change zoning in whatever way it
feels justified for the usual reasons of public safety, appropriate use,
etc.
(vii) *Ted Potillo (spelling?) spoke spontaneously and with conviction that
R-2 was appropriate because densification "big time" was the Davis way and
we were prime territory for it because we were adjacent to downtown. His
cited as rationales protection of agricultural land, promotion of pedestrian
culture, etc.
Harrington worried a bit about not having enough neighborhood input, but he
noted that this was a first reading only, and then went along with the two
other members present and not recused and voted to pass the first reading.
Harrington publicly invited our input prior to a second reading. 

I think we do need to meet quickly and talk about this, especially if the
second reading of the zoning propoal is to be the 16th of this month, as
proposed. I wasn't alarmed before, but have become so by a convergence of
events: the F-street proposal to build to second house to a 55%
Floor-Area-Ratio (combined with Ted P's emphatic statement, which would
appear to endorse this kind of thing on a wide scale); the apparent decision
to subsume our parking petition into a larger review of downtown parking
needs; and, our inattention, until now, to the zoning issue. We've been busy
and focused on other things, but this has become important. Harrington and
city staff explicitly opened the door to our input in statements at this
meeting, and if we don't respond and give it, we will have given away our
chance to have an influence.

Bruce 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/oldnorth/attachments/20031212/2419c237/attachment.html>