[OldNorth] Reality check on density and R-2 Old North

[Z Smith]

Folks,

Peter brought up the issue of downzoning at an Old North meeting a month or 
so back, and has made his desire for R-1 clear for, well, as long as I've 
known him.  Some people prefer R-2, others would like to see even higher 
densities allowed.  But, despite the many objections I have to the proposed 
R-2CD ordinance on the table, I really think we should get it passed and 
then work these issues through in a friendly fashion.  Here's why I don't 
think the ordinance makes a huge difference on density:

In light of recent developments, the reality is that there isn't as much of 
a difference between R-2 and R-1 as one might at first think.

* The Davis-wide second-unit ordinance passed in June (allowing second units 
on *all* R-1 lots--forced by a state law intended to slow sprawl), means 
that both R-1 and R-2 lots can have 2 dwelling units.
* The "large home ordinance" passed last year (applying city-wide, 
triggering design review for Floor-Area-Ratio of 0.4), and the more rigorous 
limit imposed by the proposed R-2 CD ordinance for Old North) of an absolute 
limit of 0.4 work to limit bulk and overall floor area.

When you combine these two restrictions, the difference betwen R-1 and R-2 
without a special Conservation District is just this:

   * an R-1 lot can have a 3-5 bedroom house and a rental cottage: 2 
dwelling units, 4-6 bedrooms total
   * an R-2 lot can have the same as an R-1 lot, or it can have a duplex or 
two free-standing small houses-- but once you factor in the usable open 
space, setback, lot coverage, onsite parking and FAR requirements, you end 
up with 2 dwelling units with 2-3 bedrooms each, or 4-6 bedrooms total.

... so you get the same number of dwelling units and the same population 
allowed either way.

The difference in moving from the R-2 applying to Old North today and the 
proposed R-2 CD is that the Design Review process already in place since the 
passage of the Traditional Neighborhood Guildelines--a process that is vague 
and open to the caprice and whim of whichever planner your project 
gets--would become somewhat more explicit with the CD.

Now, unlike Peter or John, I actually live next to one of those ugly 
duplexes that would presumably be illegal if we were to go to R-1.  But, 
truth to tell, it would be illegal under the proposed R-2CD as well--its 
setbacks, lot coverage, FAR, open space, and onsite parking all fail the new 
proposed ordinance.  It is also ugly as sin.  But I do like the fact that it 
is affordable to grad students and single professionals, giving some variety 
to our neighborhood.  It's a toss-up for me.

Soooo, as someone who obviously values our neighborhood and its qualities, 
I'd like to recommend that we *not* de-rail the R-2 CD.   Let's get our act 
together as a Neighborhood on this R-1/R-2 issue (it will take many months) 
and get the protection and clarity afforded by the R-2CD tied down now 
before we risk a change of Council giving us something we like even less.

Z

_________________________________________________________________
Cell phone ‘switch’ rules are taking effect — find out more here. 
http://special.msn.com/msnbc/consumeradvocate.armx