HomeMy WebLinkAbout150414 NCOD April 14 Public MeetingNotes
Memorandum
Date: 4/22/2015
To: BHPAB
Copy to: Courtney Kramer
From: John How, Project Manager
RE: NCOD Update
Project Update
KLJ conducted the first public input meeting on April 14, 2015 to collect information
regarding the issues and preliminary solutions associated with the NCOD. Below is a general
summary of the issues raised during the meeting as well as individual responses noted on
sticky pads. Per the scope of work, the next step is to analyze similar communities across the
mountain west to determine how their respective cities apply their codes to historic districts.
The next public input meeting – scheduled for mid-May – will explore ways to improve the
NCOD as well as determine if the NCOD should remain or whether mini-district regulations
should be created. The goal is to craft credible solutions and recommendations.
Issues Raised
• Lack of deviations used
• Multifamily units turned into large, single family homes
• High end homes out pricing long-term residents
• Inconsistent architectural styles in Bonton district; city encourages modern styles that do
not fit
• Demolition of historic structure without permit
• Inability to construct ground-floor ADUs
• Inconsistent application of NCOD/zoning standards
• Traffic management from large-scale, high-density residential complexes
• Lack of incentives for infill; rules encourage green field development
• Infill is difficult because it is SLOW, EXPENSIVE, INCONSISTENT and UNNECESSARY
REGULATIONS
• Is the NCOD still useful? Does it make more sense to have different district guidelines?
Page 2 of 2
• Difficult for neighbors to participate in COA process; paper issuance does not use 21st
century technology for informing
• Important not to confuse inconsistency with design preferences; staff could state how
each application met the minimum design standards
• NCOD guidelines are too broad and too general to be effective
• NCOD is too large to effectively apply one code; each “district” in NCOD is unique
• Parking requirements prohibit infill and multifamily uses
• People with money and connections seem to “breeze” through process; outsiders and
regular people have to “jump through hoops”
• No timetable for review; some applications take 2 weeks, others take 2 months
• ADU requirements are too stringent
• What is the purpose of the NCOD? Not just preservation, but that is the focus
Preliminary Solutions
• Create design guidelines for each mini district in NCOD
• Develop expedited review and approval process for multifamily, infill units
• It is okay to demolish old structures; not all are historic
• Apply health and safety standards to decaying structures; explore use of eminent domain
to demolish structure
• Make it easier to construct affordable units; districts are “snobifying”
• Allow demolition of structures without a building permit
• Revise codes to minimize minimum lot width and size for infill projects
• Put “teeth” into enforcement and make penalties worth something for those that break
the rules (e.g. demo without permit; construct something different than approved)
• Allow egress windows
• Improve COA notification procedure; post on the city’s website, enlarge notification
radius; send emails instead of paper
• Rework codes to minimize parking requirements and lot sizes
• Explore use of green roofs and thus enlarging lot coverages; e.g. 500 sq.ft. of green roof
equals a 500 sq.ft. increase in lot coverage; still keep setbacks
• Reduce lot size requirements for second dwelling unit (ADU)
• Provide property owners with a self-reporting survey on application process so as to
highlight differences in procedures
• Put applications on-line and invite comments
• Remove NCOD boundary and create individual districts per the downtown plan
• Incentives should drive infill within NCOD; reduce fees for review; much easier to develop
outside of NCOD than inside