From rddd at dcn.davis.ca.us Mon Dec 15 01:49:20 2003 From: rddd at dcn.davis.ca.us (Robin&Dennis) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 01:49:20 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] 2Dennis Dinemans on the Old North issues for the City Council Message-ID: Old North zoning issue discussants, I don't think we can or should have an emergency meeting of the Old North association this Monday evening in order to to to adopt an association policy on R-2 zoning (in preparation for the Tuesday night City Council meeting on the tweaking of our R-2 zoning code). I'm going to be at the City Council Tuesday night to suggest that I don't see major problems with the new R-2 zoning definitions insofar as what is proposed seems to be a technical adjustment to accommodate the design guidelines recently approved as city policy for Old North and other older neighborhoods. I will suggest that it would be standard planning policy for the Council to delay the final decision until the Old North neighborhood association has a meeting to see if the Old North wants to come up with a majority recommendation on adopting these changes. In the wider and more important issue of whether Old North should be R-1 or R-2, I'm a long-time fan of down zoning the Old North from R-2 down to R-1. I'd like our organization to take up a discussion of dropping us down to R-1. It is not likely to result in a unanimous decision, but if a strong majority advocates the change, I think it has a chance to make it through the council to a decision in our favor (and drop our zoning down from R-2 to R-1). It was frustrating to be told two years ago during the Design Guidelines writing process that "now is not the time to discuss changing the R-2 zoning for Old North" and I think that discussion should take place soon. It does seem to me that the liberalization of "second unit accessory structures" (mandated by the state and embraced -- not resisted -- by the city) reinforces the argument for ending our R-2 zoning. Our new design guidelines make it possible for relatively modest and tasteful second units to be added as accessory structures to the fabric of our Old North neighborhood. Since we have smaller lots than most of the rest of pre-1990 Davis, our Old North neighborhood will be doing its "fair share" of the job of densification to make for a more efficient urban pattern. We don't need to be R-2 in order to have the allowed 1.5 units (one regular sized and one small sized) for each lot where such a densification is requested by the property owner. ESPECIALLY BECAUSE WE ARE HISTORICALLY A NEIGHBORHOOD OF MODEST HOMES, the R-1 pattern will replicate our traditional situation whereby we are an area of mostly single family homes with few duplexes and a somewhat more common pattern of having a small (accessory structure in scale) second unit where there is more than one housing unit per lot). There are only a handful of actual duplex structures in the whole of the R-2 zoned area of the Old North (and we are the only extensive area of the city where R-2 zoning is more than just a street or part-street of the duplex zoning category). Z Smith's thoughtful email on the subject of R-1 versus R-2 seems to have the data right but misses the incentive for "filling the envelop" that is created by allowing the THREE UNITS permitted in theory by the R-2 zoning (a duplex structure plus an accessory unit structure). I'd feel more confident about continuing our successful "density mix" in Old North if we were R-1 rather than R-2 in our brave new world of officially permitted/encouraged accessory structures. With regard to Ted Puntillo's enthusiasm for densifying the neighborhoods close to the downtown and close to the university, I await his views on whether the College Park, Miller Drive, and Oak Avenue neighborhoods should be densified by up zoning to R-2 or even R-3 (apartment house) status. Those three other neighborhoods are even closer to the University than are we in the Old North and they have an average lot-coverage that is way lower than in our neighborhood -- so presumably they could absorb densification for the good of the greater community. I'm reminded that the University Avenue neighborhoods were once more clearly zoned (than they are now) for R-2 and R-3 densification. The dominant trend there over the past three decades (even until the latest revision of PD 2-87) as been to reduce the zoning intensity there. What a hornets nest would be stirred by proposing higher density in University Avenue (which is THE CLOSEST neighborhood to both the University and to the downtown). Dennis Dingemans Vice President of the Old North neighborhood association 645 C. Street At 10:20 PM -0800 12/14/03, John Lofland wrote: >Hi Z, > >Are you saying that Council Member Ted Puntillo is wrong when he >declares about the measure in question that "This is densification >-- big time!" > >If you do not respond otherwise, I and others will conclude that you >think Council Member Puntillo is wrong. > >Can we tell him that you think he is wrong? > >Many thanks. > >Best, John > >>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 >> >>_______________________________________________ >>oldnorth mailing list >>oldnorth at mailman.dcn.org >>http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/oldnorth > > >_______________________________________________ >oldnorth mailing list >oldnorth at mailman.dcn.org >http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/oldnorth From MikeH at dcn.davis.ca.us Mon Dec 15 09:07:17 2003 From: MikeH at dcn.davis.ca.us (Michael Harrington) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 09:07:17 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] Re: Reality check on density and R-2 Old North References: Message-ID: <015201c3c32d$e518d3a0$6401a8c0@Michael> Z, Thanks for the thoughtful analysis. I am confused by the timeline: staff told Peter and the CC last meeting that it would come back for a second reading on 1/5/04. Mike Harrington Member Davis City Council ----- Original Message ----- From: "Z Smith" To: ; ; ; ; ; ; Cc: ; Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 9:10 PM Subject: Reality check on density and R-2 Old North > 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 > From zesmith at hotmail.com Mon Dec 15 09:35:54 2003 From: zesmith at hotmail.com (Z Smith) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:35:54 +0000 Subject: [OldNorth] RE: "Filling the Envelope" (short) Message-ID: Dennis: I've discussed the "filling the envelope" issue with Esther and others on the Planning staff. They certainly intend to use the mandatory Design Review process embodied in the new ordinance to restrict that. You raise the point of a three-dwelling-unit-on-a-lot project--- It's kinda impossible to put a duplex and an accessory structure on an Old North lot under the existing --or proposed-- ordinance. I happen to *live* next to one built in the 1960's, but it's completely non-conforming. Believe me, I work out what's possible under zoning for a living, so I know. The reason I actually like R2 over (R1+cottage) for putting two dwellings on a lot is that it makes possible the kind of quirky Old-North places where you see two modest dwelllings on a lot-- say, 501 /503 E street-- rather than just big house + tiny cottage. I'm for variety. But that's a discussion for next month. Z _________________________________________________________________ Cell phone ?switch? rules are taking effect ? find out more here. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/consumeradvocate.armx From jflofland at ucdavis.edu Mon Dec 15 14:29:27 2003 From: jflofland at ucdavis.edu (John Lofland) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:29:27 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] Fwd: Fw: Second reading of R2-CD zoning ordinance Message-ID: As per Mike's request. John >X-POP3-Rcpt: jlofland at orvieto >From: "Michael Harrington" >To: "John Lofland" >Subject: Fw: Second reading of R2-CD zoning ordinance >Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:59:02 -0800 >X-Priority: 3 >X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 > >John, > >Would you please distribute this email? > >Thanks, > >Mike Harrington >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Esther Polito" >To: >Cc: "Bill Emlen" ; "Katherine Hess" >; >Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 11:38 AM >Subject: Second reading of R2-CD zoning ordinance > > >> Dear Angela, >> >> As per your request on behalf of the Old North Neighborhood >> Association, the second reading of the R2-CD ordinance has been >> continued. It will be rescheduled for the first regular Council meeting >> in January, currently planned for Jan. 13. >> >> I will be out of the office until Jan. 5, but I will be available by >> email or in person if the association has a meeting and wishes me to be >> there. Hopefully, however, a meeting can wait until after Jan. 5. >> >> Sincerely, >> Esther >> >> >> >> Esther Polito >> Cultural Services Manager >> City of Davis >> phone: 530/757-5610 >> fax: 530/757-5660 >> epolito at ci.davis.ca.us >>