[OldNorth] new infill-growth ideas

[Z Smith]

I opened the PDF of James Mullen's letter to the editor hoping to read a 
"new" infill growth idea.  But it just seemed to just propose the same old 
idea: infill means degrading the quality of life, better to sprawl in a 
"planned community."  Let's remember that Mace Ranch and Wildhorse both 
advertise themselves as "planned communities."

What is most odd is that Mr. Mullen seems to think that the choice is infill 
mini-dorms with 12 students in 8-bedroom houses vs. Covell Village.   I 
actually like a lot of the ideas in Covell Village, but one thing it doesn't 
provide much of is student housing.  Covell may go forward, but it won't 
take the pressure off that is pushing towards these "mini-dorms."

The mini-dorms are objected to because of 3 issues:

  1) inappropriate scale to the neighborhoods
       -- fine, let's modify zoning so that massing of infill matches the 
surrounding structures
           (I've propsed a mechanism where FAR of infill would be limited to 
125% of the adjacent properties up to the statutory limit of 0.4)   8 
bedroom houses simply wouldn't be possible.

  2) parking
       -- fine, let's limit street parking to one permit per address and 
onsite parking to no more than 2 spaces; if students live less than a mile 
to campus,  they can get by on their bikes or share one car per 3 or 4 
students.

  3) noise / parties
       -- fine, let's have *stiff fines* for violations of the noise 
ordinances ($1000)
               and let's license rentals that lack onsite managers and 
revoke licenses for properties that violate noise or public order 
ordinances-- that would provide them the leverage with tenants, since it 
would trigger their eviction

Z