[OldNorth] 2Dennis Dinemans on the Old North issues for the City Council

[Robin&Dennis]

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