HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-23-21 Public Comment - L. Semones - NCODFrom:Linda Semones
To:Agenda
Subject:Comment/questions for the joint Planning/Zoning/Clarion meeting on Monday
Date:Thursday, September 23, 2021 12:19:27 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Planning and Zoning Commission Members and Clarion Team,
Below is an email that I sent to Tom Rogers with questions about the process of dissolving the
NCOD. Tom very kindly responded almost immediately, but said that he was unable to answer
the questions at this time, and would forward my email on to the Clarion group. I would very
much like the process of dissolving the NCOD, keeping the current historic districts, and
developing design standards for the downtown neighborhoods to be discussed in detail during
your meeting. I think it would clear up confusion and possibly concerns. Here is the email:
I could use some help understanding the new proposed changes to the UDC concerning the
dissolution of the NCOD. Here is what I have heard in the public forums and read in the
recommendations.
The Clarion report recommends dissolving the NCOD. It recommends keeping the historic
districts separate, in areas regulated by the National Historic Preservation Code, which is fairly
strict. Then, what I am hearing, is that the R neighborhoods would for all intent and purposes
be upzoned. For example R2 zones would go from allowing 2 living units per parcel to
allowing 5 living units per parcel. Each zoning district would increase accordingly. The report
indeed does recommend establishing a transition zone between the B3 and the R zoned areas,
using a gradual decrease in height and gentle density. However with the changes to what is
allowed in the R zones, the gradual decrease in height would probably be from 7 stories to 40
feet or more, since they recommend an increase in height in the residential zones. Here is
what I don't understand. Once the NCOD is dissolved, the neighborhoods would then have
the option of creating their own overlay called a PUD Base Zone. All the homeowners would
have to get together and make application to the city, and the city would have to approve
their application. So, for example, the group of neighbors could request that if a lot were to
be redeveloped to include 5 living units of 40 feet high, the units would be required to have a
certain setback or have certain architectural requirements. So from what I understand, the
whole creation of an existing neighborhood PUD would fall on the shoulders of the
neighborhood group. And it would then have to meet certain requirements and be approved
by the city commission.
Tom, is this a correct read of the documents and meetings or am I way off?? I could use
some help with this. Thanks so much, Linda Semones
I would like to follow these questions up with some other questions and comments. I am
making these comments and asking these questions as a private citizen, although I am a
member of the Historic Preservation Board. First of all, I believe that the necessity of
protecting the downtown neighborhoods from gentrification should be central to any changes
to the NCOD. At this time, with the information available, the idea of an affordable housing
overlay seems to work for the entire community. I understand that within this overlay, existing
housing would be preserved by requiring any new development to keep the footprint of the
existing housing. I am anxiously awaiting any other regulations for an affordable housing
overlay which might include keeping the use of the current structure if it is affordable
apartments. I also, at this time, am supportive of an ordinance to establish a transition zone
between the B3 downtown and the R neighborhoods. I think this zone is crucial to both
preserving affordable housing along the edges of the downtown, and to preserving the
neighborhoods with their urban forest. Of course, my support and many other citizens'
support depends on the actual wording of the ordinances and the order of the process itself.
I firmly believe that these ordinances, the affordability overlay and the transition zone, should
be in place before the NCOD is dissolved, if it is to be dissolved. If there is any gap between
the enactment of the preservation of housing and the dissolution of the NCOD there will be a
mad rush to gentrify the area before the new ordinances are active.
I also believe that the answers to the questions in my above email will also affect how the
public feels about the Clarion recommendations. I know that many citizens worked very hard
for many years to develop the NCOD as it exists today. If there is a better way to preserve
affordable housing, save the urban forest, and preserve the architectural presence of the
downtown neighborhoods, citizens might be in favor. But the plan should be very clear, with
procedures that are transparent to the public.
Thank you for all the work that you do.
Sincerely, Linda Semones 404 S. Church Ave.