Complete Neighborhood Fabric;
Meeting Notes
January 14, 2010
1. Announcements: Business and Land Use Meeting next Thursday re: Arts and Entertainment;
2. Review of 774 Natoma; RED-Mix zoning;
- Proposed new building is an unattached, 2 bedroom addition to a lot with a cottage in the rear with a central open space. The open space aligns with lightwell with adjacent residential structure, yielding 25% -21 foot open space; No rear yard pattern in the block, but with occasional small rear yards 8 lots away.
- Planning has had architect add small, less than 2 foot, setback at western street edge for planting.
- Committee found that the met most of the design standards. It could be improved using the proposed design standard to reduce some of the rear yard by several feet and add it to the front set back to make it 3 to 4 feet to allow for real planting. This would compensate for the proposed minimalist, blank treatment of the garage and entry doors.
3. Review comments on Design Standards; Toby prepared these comments and the italics were comments from the committee;
a. Rear yard location and coverage
In most residential zones, we have “promoted” rear yard at grade; Only in NCT do we call for rear yard at first level of occupancy, instead of at grade. The existing development pattern, often makes location of rear yard less clear, given the development pattern and height of surrounding buildings.
Recommendations: Maybe we should develop some rule of thumb that accounts for proportions of surrounding buildings. Rear yard that is 15’ deep by 25’ wide, with 40’ walls, would be better if it was 10’ above grade. Also need to consider the development potential of surrounding properties that would affect long term rear yard opportunities. Also need to take into consideration geographic exposure.
b. Conflict between parking below grade and desire for planting into dirt. (often underground parking is included under the rear yard, but eliminates the possible of having in dirt planting.
Recommendation: We should be more clear about desiring in grade planting both in rear yard and on street. Require some percentage of permeable surfaces of dirt. Could consider some 3 foot deep of planters, for twice the permeable surface area.
c. Implications of Historic designations on district, massing (required setbacks) and design guidelines.
Recommendation: Add section that clarifies the requirements, such as set backs, as well as the procedure in terms of EE requirements.
d. Coordinate heights of first floors in NCT, SLI, MUO, SSO and MUG. Since we have added 5’ to heights we want that height in the first floor.
Recommendation: Make sure all sections include the Second floor starting not lower than 15’ above grade.
e. Issues with sites that span from major street to alley; lots are deep and development patterns are very mixed.
Recommendation: Look at map to determine how many of those situations there are; in general we do want to promote mid block open space. Add a section related to sites that have bridge two districts, i.e. NCT and RED/RED-MIX.
f. RCD- ways to make pedestrian environment more friendly; widen sidewalks, provide setbacks as refuge. Also clarify health recommendations re second floor uses. Make sure design standards include issues discussed previously like no balconies and focus of open space away from street.
g. Make sure the standards are clear about the task’s force Prioritization of goals; like massing, rear yards and livability
h. Our review sheets were very helpful, but could be condensed…
4. Review of use charts; Discussed office and MUG; need to clarify in light of large sites and underlying zoning.
