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

[Michael Harrington]

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" <zesmith at hotmail.com>
To: <jflofland at ucdavis.edu>; <pgunther at pacbell.net>; <awillson at pacbell.net>;
<oldnorth at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us>; <winterety at sbcglobal.net>;
<dequickert at omsoft.com>; <stracy at davis.com>
Cc: <epolito at ci.davis.ca.us>; <MikeH at dcn.davis.ca.us>
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
>