@citykid I'm assuming they're planning all wood construction here? No concrete or steel first floor? I imagine that'd be too expensive but it would make dealing with the flood plain easy: just add first floor parking. I wonder if they can get enough apartments in with a layout like below (just edited in Paint): a 5 floor building, maybe slightly wider for deeper/narrower apartments, courtyard at the corner with the elevator core/common area (yellow) connecting the apartment wings (red).
I'm having trouble finding that lot, I only see two vacant lots on Ferrol near Pleasant Grove and neither appears 150' wide. One to the west of Pleasant Grove between a fire station and townhouse, the other about a half block east of Pleasant Grove between houses. Those townhouses on Wadsworth are pretty decent but most of the rest of the immediate area isn't great. I'm surprised they're talking about building single family homes.
One thing I noticed while looking at this area is that it would make a ton of sense to extend Ferrol over to meet Pompton/Warwick, there'd be a new block of street to develop and may help these neighborhoods feel less isolated, especially Warwick/Pompton. If a prospective future developer wanted to buy a house or two on Holmes they could also add a short north/south street to connect everything better and get a few more lots to build on.
@MichMatters yes the minimum width (contradicted by the zoning ordinance, but the subdivision ordinance governs) and depth-to-width ratio thing is out of control. Even the State's standard is 4:1. Planning & Zoning Office is working on an amendment so this isn't an issue anymore. You're totally right - if it fits a house and a driveway, one should be good to go.
Funny enough Planning & Zoning got a call from a neighbor here arguing against the lot split because the city is trying to cram in more housing. The caller failed to understand the irony that the proposed parcels are the exact same dimensions as their property.
@MichMatters@citykid This is off-topic, but maybe one of you could help... I have a friend who I'm working with on investment properties and sometime in the next few years I'd like to build something from the ground up. I'm specifically going to push for a 3 floor / 3 unit building because I think it would fit well on a house-sized lot and be properly scaled for most older neighborhoods while maximizing the lands use. What zoning would I be looking for if I wanted to build something similar to the picture below?
@MichMatters I finally dug into it a bit, am I reading it right that R-6b allows up to 6 units per lot in single building? The use table also lists 3+ units as conditional use but I'm having trouble finding what those conditions might be. There's a lot more R-6b than R-mx to choose from.
Thanks for the insight, that particular design is 33' tall so would work. It's very good to see that R6b zoning accommodates that kind of building because that zoning covers most of the area I'd be interested in placing it, I also think this sort of housing is generally good for the city.
Agreed. Looking at the map most of r6 areas look like areas that already have older duplexes mixed in, it's a little odd they didn't at least allow duplexes in 6a.
In addition to R-MX and R-6b, you could also look at DT-1 for that triplex model. I'll be pretty frank - FBC was relatively conservative (by this forum's standards) by design because of who was in power and who was designing the actual text. The old planner did not have much zoning experience so there is some wonky stuff, like all the senseless residential district types. We will be doing away with the de facto density limits mentioned before and rely on maximum lot coverage, and parking, instead. Using that equation most developments would need like three parcels to actually accommodate the 3-6 units, which defeats the purpose of gentle density and ruins the built environment. R-1 through R-6a should become one district and R-6b will stay the same. I do think duplexes and ADUs should be allowed by-right given a minimum lot size, but I do not have insight on how Council will feel. I do think the next body will be more progressive than the current one, and honestly there will only be a handful of people who will build this kind of density. There will probably be another round of zoning amendments after the election, they just have to be grounded in the Comprehensive Plan Update then reviewed and vetted.
I'd be surprised by a Washington comeback, and I don't know where she stands on this stuff today, but I will say when Planning and Zoning was conducting presentations and renewed outreach in the lead up to the FBC vote, she was on a call and voiced her support for its passage. Surprised the heck out of us.
@citykid Those are all good things to hear. I like the idea of duplexes/adu's by right with certain restraints, that seems like it's worth pushing a bit for.
One of these days I really gotta get myself into gear and become more involved in the city, going to meetings, voting in the minor elections, all that fun stuff. If a few of us here had been making appearances at council over the years we probably would have had a positive impact, maybe helped council avoid a few missteps.
@hood@MichMatters You both touched on good stuff - The Planning & Zoning Office is keeping track of all comments received about FBC/zoning and over half have been requests for ADUs. I do think it helps for those comments to be laid directly in front of city council too. Joan Nelson, formerly of Allen Neighborhood Center, has picked up the standard so to speak and has actually been writing a monthly column in the City Pulse about this stuff: ADUs, return to co-housing and boarding houses, and the 15-minute city concept. If you want to read - they have been in the first Wednesday issue of the last few months. She hosted two meetings at ANC solely discussing ADUs and steps toward implementation. I think she is brainstorming a southside discussion with one of the builders behind some of the lot splits and rezonings for duplexes that have been Planning Commission cases, once her summer calms down.
Like I mentioned - P&Z is doing a comprehensive plan update right now, and these concepts will be in it so any zoning updates can be based on them per MPEA and MZEA requirements. If you would like to take the survey to make any of your opinions known please feel free to take it when you have the time. https://forms.office.com/g/N7BY59ZdrB It should wrap up by the end of the year.
Informational materials for the zoning amendments will ready right after that and probably be published for review for a few months though. No one cared about the first amendment draft in 2021, but there is still a need for transparency and proper review time. MichMatters - its funny, some council members were against our FBC because they didn't want "to be the first" or experiment, but I think now that its been two years and the city didn't burn down, there is a desire to just make the zoning code business-friendly and to do all the new urbanism stuff that makes a city walkable, safe, and desirable.
Comments
One thing I noticed while looking at this area is that it would make a ton of sense to extend Ferrol over to meet Pompton/Warwick, there'd be a new block of street to develop and may help these neighborhoods feel less isolated, especially Warwick/Pompton. If a prospective future developer wanted to buy a house or two on Holmes they could also add a short north/south street to connect everything better and get a few more lots to build on.
Funny enough Planning & Zoning got a call from a neighbor here arguing against the lot split because the city is trying to cram in more housing. The caller failed to understand the irony that the proposed parcels are the exact same dimensions as their property.
I'd be surprised by a Washington comeback, and I don't know where she stands on this stuff today, but I will say when Planning and Zoning was conducting presentations and renewed outreach in the lead up to the FBC vote, she was on a call and voiced her support for its passage. Surprised the heck out of us.
One of these days I really gotta get myself into gear and become more involved in the city, going to meetings, voting in the minor elections, all that fun stuff. If a few of us here had been making appearances at council over the years we probably would have had a positive impact, maybe helped council avoid a few missteps.
Like I mentioned - P&Z is doing a comprehensive plan update right now, and these concepts will be in it so any zoning updates can be based on them per MPEA and MZEA requirements. If you would like to take the survey to make any of your opinions known please feel free to take it when you have the time. https://forms.office.com/g/N7BY59ZdrB It should wrap up by the end of the year.
Informational materials for the zoning amendments will ready right after that and probably be published for review for a few months though. No one cared about the first amendment draft in 2021, but there is still a need for transparency and proper review time. MichMatters - its funny, some council members were against our FBC because they didn't want "to be the first" or experiment, but I think now that its been two years and the city didn't burn down, there is a desire to just make the zoning code business-friendly and to do all the new urbanism stuff that makes a city walkable, safe, and desirable.