Comments on Regulation draft 3-31-09 – Alice Thomas

Note: page numbers refer to hard copy version and not version on the web

Below are some questions/comments about specific language in the current version.
There are, however, three areas of general concern: 1) the diminished role of
neighborhood input in the process (an important aspect of any design purporting to be
related to form-based - as I understand the literature that has been provided to us), 2) an
extremely limited role of a design professional in providing input to guide us in the goal
of insuring compatibility, 3) lack of clarity regarding the neighborhood serving
commercial centers and 4) lack of clarity/lack of discussion about the Permitted Principal
Uses chart on p. 22-25.

p. 6 2.1.4 (F) Why shouldn’t the Official Zoning Map be referenced as it is in (C)
above?

p.11 2.3.5 (B) Limit of 2,500 ft was eliminated – is still unclear how big such a
structure should be – the size of a multi family structure?

p. 14 (B) (1) (b) What is the meaning of the phrase, “at the boundaries of the CD-S
zoning district that are not adjacent to a CD-S district”?

The neighborhood compatibility and collaborative planning in the 300 ft. buffer
has been removed. Why? Where is any statement about compatibility with the
neighborhood?

p. 15 (3) Why not a Type 4 that requires a neighborhood meeting?

p. 15 2.4.3 The neighborhood compatibility and collaborative planning has been

removed. Why?

p. 20 2.6.1 (C) I am still concerned about commercial centers in neighborhoods that

would be closer than 1 mile from our existing commercial centers. We are
making some existing businesses even more vulnerable than they already are.

p. 22 Table 2.7-1 Apparently I didn’t make my point clear previously. The response
didn’t address my concern that we are discriminating against R4 by not allowing
several uses that are given to R-1 for reasons I can’t imagine. I thought that when
I raised this at our advisory meeting that people agreed. I thought that this table
was going to be discussed “at a future meeting”. Is that meeting this Friday?

I have several other questions about the table that don’t relate to R4.

p. 38 2.9.2 (B) Part A makes it sound like we should worry about the distance between
adult use establishments but I don’t see that concern reflected in the Table on p.
39.
p. 41 Is not obvious in the figure where the front yard is.

p. 49 2.9.12 (C) The illustrations certainly don’t show 40% of the front setback being
paved. We need to discuss this. It seems like a lot to me and if (D) is the case, is
it necessary?

p. 50 The exemptions given provide a lot of flexibility and some we may not want.

p. 59 (new J?) I still think we should require that accessory structures that are visible
from the street should be parallel with a street.

p. 61 Table. This indicates it is for “Accessory Uses and Structures” but the “uses” of
Day Care and Home Businesses are already in another table on p. 22-25 Why not
make this solely a “Structure” table. I thought that someplace I read that
businesses couldn’t be in an accessory building? I don’t see the logic for
including those two uses in this table.

p. 63 (4) My original comment was apparently not clear. I am talking about house
owners in an R-1 district who rent out the first story and use the second story as
their business (but they live elsewhere). This seems to violate the code (and I
think it should) but that isn’t clear here. See also p. 65 (3) (b) which relates to this
issue – seems to say – or should it say “residence BY OWNER”?

p. 64 (2) 70 feet sounds very high at a permitted use – would depend on many
circumstances.

p. 67 (H) (2) (new (c?) Outdoor furnaces shall use a permanent chimney that extends
15 ft. The furnaces shall be registered?? (to avoid “home construction” versions)
– other cities specify this.

p. 68 (I) The issue of what is “enclosed” may be a problem. If it is even partially

enclosed, e.g., 3 ft. wall around edge of porch, the appearance is imposing if it is
allowed to encroach into a setback. If totally open, that might be a different case
but any enclosure at all presents a very different image.

p. 83. The same issue identified on p. 68 above is reflected in Table 3.1-1 on p. 83 in

terms of projection into setbacks. In addition, I have a problem with any deck,
porch, stoop etc. projecting to a property line on the side or rear and within 5 ft. in
the front!

p. 85 (D) What if a tower were “habitable” but if “uninhabitable” and 25 ft. higher
would be okay? Needs rewording – maybe I am just missing something.

p. 87 Table needs some clarifications. Am I correct that R1-B footnote might say
“infill and redevelopment structures will be required to meet neighborhood
compatibility standards in 3.5”?
 N1-B still needs to be clarified for the commercial center size, setback, etc since
this chart is referenced in the earlier text on p. 11.

p. 89 (B) What about houses that don’t “face” the street, i.e., whose entrance is on the
side? That was the point of my original comments. On p. 103 the text requires
that multi-family dwellings be oriented so that the primary entrance faces the
street but what about other residential houses?

p. 91 3.2.4 The response to my original comment indicated lots could share walls but is
that clear/encouraged in this code language?

p. 93 (9) If there is some concern about liability, could we require retaining walls as
shown on p. 94 in instances where staff determined a drop-off/incline was
dangerous?

p. 96 (e) (iv) Who is responsible for marking off the parking lot? This seems like
“overkill” for a temporary situation.

p. 99 3.3.4 Should some reference be made to a later section that talks about the
consequences of not adhering to these performance standards?

p. 110 (4) Is this asymmetric/dynamic roof compatible/consistent/complementary of the

“Northfield” look? Doesn’t look like any other illustration examples that have
been provided.

p. 111 3.5 Neighborhood compatibility standards. There are two main aspects that seem
to be sorely missing in this section given that we have some version of a form-
based framework.
1) Where is the neighborhood input that is so evident in all of the literature that
we have had about form-based? Appears it is now only in a Type 4 review – not
adequate.
2) Where is the assurance that a design professional will assist in making
judgments about compatibility – to the DRC and eventually to the City
Council/Planning Commission? Appears to be no designation of the types of
applications that would be reviewed by such a professional.

p. 112 3.5.3 (A) I do think we need to require that accessory buildings be parallel to the
street which would not make them “exempt.

p. 114 (C) (c) If an applicant can’t demonstrate there is no parking alternative then
perhaps they should not develop a commercial building there. At the very least
should require a neighborhood meeting and a CUP.

p. 118 (E) The language here in 1-5 requires “pavement”. We need to be encouraging
permeable surfaces such as gravel, rock & stone pavers. What are we
saying/encouraging here?
p. 145 (D) Indicates that trucks can be parked only when loading, etc. I think we should
specify hours when this can be done in a residential neighborhood if we are going
to have commercial buildings.

p. 147 Table 3.8-1 I recognize the need to make sure there are adequate parking spaces,
but all of these are minimums – don’t we need to insert language about
maximums to encourage no more than absolutely necessary? I’m not an expert
in number needed but Steve’s comments made sense to me – particularly 1 space
for every 2 beds in a nursing/convalescent home. After parking and visiting my
mother-in-law for 7 years locally, this ratio doesn’t have validity for me.

p. 149 The above issue is evident on this page by allowing applicants to provide 10%
more as of right.

p. 156 (F) (6) Why limit the % of parking spaces that can use pervious surface? I would
think we shouldn’t set any limit for pervious. What is the issue here – durability?

p. 156 (G) The response to my original comment about the preferred curbing seemed to
indicate this section was going to be revised. It hasn’t been revised at all and I
think we need to reverse our preferences as presented in this section. See my
original comments.

p. 156 3.8.12 (B) (1) Why not mention pervious surfaces as options? Why, if a
homeowner wants to spend more money acting on their values by using pavers,
would we say they would be required to install a “driveway of similar properties
in the vicinity”? Maybe everyone else has concrete driveways – would they be
prevented from using pavers? Makes no sense.

p. 159 (D) (1) (g) I agree that times for loading and deliveries should be restricted when
located closer than 100 ft. from residences. But, I think we need to follow
through and specify what those hours should be.

p. 160 3.8.14 (1) (a) Why require “paved” driveway?

(2) (b) 30 feet in length sounds big

p. 176 Table 3.11-1 I don’t understand the minimum distance between driveways in
residential areas of 20 ft. This seems unduly prescriptive – is this a safety issue?

p. 179 Do the recent street projects in the older part of town meet these specifications?
Where are the major changes from past practice?

p. 201 3.13.1 Is it not possible to have more strict regulations than those of the state?

(A) (4) 30% sounds like a lot to me.

p. 209 4.7.3 (B) two “may”s in this statement make me very uncomfortable.
Not satisfactory for the code. See my earlier comments about the use of a design
professional. I think we need a list of application types where it would be
mandatory that such a professional were asked to review with the DRC. I also
would like to see that person’s comments forwarded to the City Council/Planning
Commission and at their request, asked to sit in on their meeting about the issue if
deemed appropriate by the body.

p. 210 4.8.2 Who can raise these legal issues?

p. 212 5.3.5 Can neighborhood groups request an official meeting with the applicant?

p. 220 Types 1-4 Procedures

I think the advisory committee needs to discuss 1) where and when neighborhood
meetings fit into these procedures and 2) when and how a design professional
should have input in the pre-application meeting. See my earlier comments about
the minor role that both seem to have in the current version.

p. 227 5.5.1 (1) (c) Wouldn’t infill and redevelopment need a compatibility review by a
design professional?

p. 235 5.5.6 (D) (1) 25% of the original floor area seems a lot.

p. 240 (2) (c) Will the statements from the design professional be forwarded to the
Planning Commission? Can the PC ask the professional to sit in on the meeting if
seems warranted?

(i) Sorry, but I don’t know what “Levels of Services” means – it isn’t in the
definition section and I can’t figure out what it means.

p. 245 (D) (2) (c) Will the deviations from the preliminary approved by the Planning
Commission be noted for the City Council?

p. 249 5.5.16 (C) (d) Will the statements from the design professional be forwarded to the
Planning Commission? Can the PC ask the professional to sit in on the meeting if
seems warranted?