[OldNorth] ONDNA, This Week

[sheryl lynn gerety]

Saturday, 14 August, 2004

Old North Neighbors:

	Two issues of significance to ON occupied many hours of meeting time 
this past week.  Thursday there were four separate meetings affecting 
ON and projects of the ONDNA.

Fifth Street Safety and Traffic Calming:

	In the first meeting, Steve Tracey initiated a request to meet and he 
and I subsequently met with Roxanne Namazi and Pat Fitsimmons to talk 
about the agenda and issues to be raised in the public meeting later 
that evening on the ON Fifth St. proposal.  We specifically objected to 
the way Namazi and Fitsimmons characterized the project’s pluses and 
minuses in the flier sent to the community by the traffic planners, 
with negative outcomes stressed over positive ones.
	ON representatives at the evening meeting were Steve Tracey, Dennis 
Dingemans, Angela Wilson and Dan Quickert.  There will be more about 
the public discussion on the Fifth St. proposal when Steve has returned 
from traveling and can add his notes to Angela’s.  As you might 
imagine, there were proponents for and opponents against our ideas.

Zoning and In-fill:

	In the early afternoon, Z Smith, Dan Quickert, Val Smith and I met at 
Hattie Webber for two hours with Esther Polito and another planner from 
the City to discuss issues related to the Design Guidelines, R2-CD 
Zoning and infill in ON. Our goal was to get a clear sense of the 
advantageous and disadvantageous consequences of three zoning options, 
as well as the different procedures for implementing each:  (i) down 
zone to R-1; and/or (ii) ask for official listing on the California 
Register of Historical Resources, for which we qualify; and/or (iii) 
amend specific elements of the R2-CD zoning code so that they better 
address the community’s wish to adhere to the Design Guidelines so far 
as the scale and character of architecture in our neighborhood.  I will 
have a tabular summary of the results of that meeting ready for 
discussion at the next monthly meeting.

	In the evening there were two meetings scheduled for 7-9 PM.  The 
first, mentioned above, was the public review of the ON 5th  proposal.  
As I indicated above, more on that to come.

	The second, which I will summarize here, was the first of several 
gatherings scheduled as a follow-up to the City Council resolution, 
adopted at the request of ON in January along with the R2-CD zoning, to 
explore further zoning changes that would protect the ambiance, 
diversity, scale and historical character of the Residential Design 
Guideline (RDG) neighborhoods.  Those neighborhoods include Rice/U 
Lane, Old North and Old East.  This issue was given urgency by the 
emergence of several high-density infill proposals for projects along B 
Street and in Old East.

	This gathering on August 12th was specific to a project proposed for 
the Old East neighborhood, to be located at 532 J Street.  Valerie Vann 
and I attended as representatives of ON; Sue Greenwald and Stephen 
Sousa were there as the City Council subcommittee on infill in the RDG 
neighborhoods.  I should note that we, that is ON, also will meet with 
the City Council subcommittee, perhaps at our next monthly meeting, 
prior to a combined neighborhood meeting.

	The developer and architect presented their proposal, which had been 
modified based on earlier input from OE residents.  To simplify, their 
initial proposal was to demolish the present, pre-1900 residence and 
build four single-family homes on what are now two adjacent lots 
(approx 13,000 sq ft).  After input they revised so as to preserve and 
renovate the older home to its original appearance, relocating it to 
the corner lot.  However they still would build three additional, 
two-story (above ground) family homes on the balance of the combined 
lots with a common central space or courtyard.  The historic home would 
be sited on the street-facing corner.  Those three additional homes 
would have exterior features appropriate to the latter part of the time 
period in which OE developed, the 1930s and 1940s.  The architect and 
developer argue that this new proposal faithfully addresses the 
Residential Design Guidelines.

	OE residents lauded the decision to save and restore the older 
structure, but expressed concern and frustration at the density, height 
and mass, and street presentation of the three additional structures.  
Adjacent lot owners spoke with particular eloquence and concern about 
the impact these tall, near and close-set units would have on them.  
Although the developer emphasized window placements that would help to 
preserve the privacy of adjacent homes, the owners of  those residents 
expressed their objections more in terms of inappropriate mass and the 
unrelieved height and width of the exterior walls.
	
	As had been intended by the City staff who arranged this meeting, the 
particulars of this project led to a discussion of what residents felt 
was appropriate vs. inappropriate infill in their neighborhood.  In 
terms of the example, the modal answer appeared to be two houses, one 
restored, one new, with two granny-flat type cottages of one story 
behind them.  More generally, the discussion kept returning to the idea 
that “mass” should be comparable to that of adjacent structures.  Mass 
became the way of expressing an aesthetic feeling of being crowded, 
loomed-over, screened-in, out-scaled and dominated by nearby 
structures.  There also was concern that the design of the three new 
units emphasized a private, interior courtyard rather than the public 
spaces of a front porch and lawn.  Although there were moments of 
tension, the meeting appeared to me to be quite productive, resulting 
in both more concrete definitions of appropriate fill and direction for 
a proposal that would be more acceptable to the neighborhood: two 
full-sized homes with a granny flat attached to each.

	Some summary comments:

	i)  City staff did a great job of directing the discussion so that it 
elicited ideas.  Souza and Greenwald got to hear firsthand what we and 
our OE neighbors are trying to achieve: not a veto of all infill in our 
parts of Davis, but assurance that any infill that occurs is 
appropriate to our neighborhoods.
	ii)  Sue Greenwald mentioned a City report of several years ago which 
suggested that it would not be reasonable  for the RDG neighborhoods to 
absorb more than a very small fraction of the City’s target for 
regional infill.  I will follow-up and try to locate this document.
	iii)  We should think carefully and hard about the concept of “mass.”  
It appears to summarize quite a few intuitions about what is and is not 
right for the Design Guideline neighborhoods, and it may be susceptible 
to a clear, quantitative definition that can be written into code, to 
everyone’s benefit.  *
	
Bruce Winterhalder
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 6971 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/oldnorth/attachments/20040814/ac729b67/attachment.bin>