HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-10-14_Ockert_summary commentary From: fanfh-carole(aleurooa.com
To: Olson,Erik
Cc: randvarthur7Cnamail.com
Subject: summary commentary
Date: Thursday,October 14,2021 11:40:31 AM
Hi Erik,
I appreciate your asking for me to write up my comment notes and send them
in to you.I am referring in all cases to the Preliminary Key Issues
Summary Memo, 11 pages.
Item 1 a. starting on pg. 1.
'Revise the definition of"demolition to be more inclusive of significant
structural removal.'
The summary does not accurately reflect the question as put to the committee.
"Should the city modify the current definition of demolition tax and/or
demolition code to include remodels that remove more than 50%of the
exterior walls of the house?
The MHCAC summary needs to clearly reflect that as a group we understood
the discussion to revolve around'more than 50%' to be considered a
demolition.Yes of course the PC can expand that discussion,and yes
indeed there can be feasibility testing as recommended next steps,but our
committee
perspective was focused on more than 50%structural removal gets it
categorized as demolished.
Going next to 2 c.on pg. 5.
"Enhance existing single-family garage appearance standards to better
address the negative visual impacts of front-facing garages and
driveways."
The committee considered a very specific question,"For driveways and
garages,should the City apply existing standards for single-family
dwellings to townhouses or use Model Code standards developed by DLCD."
There was a strong trend in the answers to this question.a.Apply
existing single-family standards,64%and b.Apply existing single-family,
but I am concerned about negative impacts of wide garages and driveways,
27%.This very robust discussion and strong result indicating that the
committee is recommending against DLCD model code standards with respect
to driveway width,not just garage appearance,needs to be better
reflected in the summary.
Going next to 2 d.on pg. 5.
"If landscaping is required for all new single-family and middle housing
developments,include tree canopy requirements."
The committee discussion for this item along with the polling results
indicated that there was strong support for Tree Canopy.The way that the
answers were posed to the committee for that question were:
a.Front yard landscaping 64%
b.Foundation landscaping 18%
c.Tree canopy;e.g.at least one approved tree,existing or newly planted
that will provide a minimum percentage of canopy at maturity 91%
In separating out landscaping and tree canopy in these answers,staff
brings out the overwhelming support in the committee for tree canopy,far
exceeding either version of'landscaping'. It would be accurate in the
summary to also represent that the number of 91%for tree canopy far
exceeded a 66%consensus threshold.I believe it was the only one that
pinged that high,and that could also be stated.
Going next to 2 f.on pg. 6.
"Require additional design standards for cottage cluster housing,as long
as those standards do not conflict with the DLCD Model Code."
The committee answer was phrased,"Yes apply any standards that apply to
single-family housing in that zone so long as it does not conflict with
the DLCD Model Code."73%
So this reads that if there are standards in a zone for single-family,
apply them to middle housing,not a cherry picking of maybe this one or
maybe not that one,but apply those standards in that zone.And at a 73%
polling,that is a strong message that needs to be captured in the summary
and not leave room for misunderstanding of what the MHCAC intended.
Thanks for asking for me to recap this information that I related verbally
last night during the meeting.
Carole