105-4. Tally of workshop attendee responses on the limited R1 review handout.pdf
Tally of May 24, 2011 workshop attendee responses on the limited R1 review handout
Two Story Design Review
1.second to first story ratio:
Keep existing process – Two-Story Permit, City staff design review, and noticing
8 (57%) Yes 6 (43%) No
No design review, but keep the Two-Story Permit and public noticing process
4 (29%) Yes 10 (71%) No
No design review (apply for building permit)
3 (21%) Yes 11 (79%) No
2.> –
Keep existing process- Two-Story Permit, City staff design review, architectural consultant review, and
noticing
8 (57%) Yes 6 (43%) No
Keep existing process but simplify design principles by illustrating examples of common architectural
styles
5 (36%) Yes 9 (64%) No
No design review, but keep Two-Story Permit and public noticing process
3 (21%) Yes 11 (79%) No
No design review (apply for building permit)
3 (21%) Yes 11 (79%) No
Comments:
I believe if a project is satisfying the guidelines, then the staff can approve without any further review
There should not be any design regulations except for setbacks. We should bring more different designs
into the City instead. All residential homes look similar. Each house should look unique.
Design review process needed.
Please leave everything the way it is. The process works very well now and doesn’t need to be changed.
Neighbors with small lots are at risk if the R1 Ordinance for two-story design review process is changed.
Small lot neighborhoods are at risk if story poles are eliminated. Small lots are at risk if neighborhood
noticing is eliminated.
No option is perfect, all need to modify. Need review, but need to simplify.
Please keep the existing rules.
Keep the existing standards and review.
Use common sense when reviewing architectural style.
Noticing
*one questionnaire was not filled out for this section
1.Noticing radius:
Keep existing radii of 300’ (for 2-story and Exceptions)
11 (85%) Yes 2 (15%) No
Adjacent only and across the street
2 (15%) Yes 11 (85%) No
2.Noticing material:
Keep existing process of mailing notices and 11” x 17” plan sets
8 (62%) Yes 5 (38%) No
Send notices and only site plan and elevations to adjacent property owners and across the street
4 (31%) Yes 9 (69%) No
Send notices only and have onsite notice board
3 (23%) Yes 10 (77%) No
No mailed notice, only onsite notice board
1 (8%) Yes 12 (92%) No
Comments:
Larger radius than 300 feet would be good.
Use the website for all details.
Keep the existing noticing procedures.
Existing process wastes paper and plans should be available online.
Story Poles
*two questionnaires were not filled out for this section
1.Keep the existing requirements to install story poles for all two-story projects
5 (42%) Yes 7 (58%) No
2.Remove the requirements
6 (50%) Yes 6 (50%) No
3.Option of story poles or 3D photo simulation
4 (33%) Yes 8 (66%) No
Comments:
Must have a 3D photosimulation and with a street elevation between neighbor
Maybe add the 3D photosimulation to story poles for window placement, etc.
Please leave story poles alone. They work well now.
It would be great to add the 3D photosimulation along with the story poles.
Use technology to its fullest- 3D photosimulation
Story poles do not properly indicate or describe the true situation and style of the project. Also cost of
installation is expensive.
R1-20/R1 Sloped Lots
*two questionnaires were not filled out for this section
1.-zoned lots with slopes
5 (42%) Yes 5 (42%) No 2 (16%) No Response
2.Development near Steep Slopes- Should there be setback standards for development near slopes
5 (42%) Yes 4 (33%) No 3 (25%) No Response
3.Building off Flat Pad- Should buildi
8 (67%) Yes 4 (33%) No
Grading-
and a maximum of 2,000 sq. ft. area is allowed to be graded for the building pad. Should additional grading
5 (42%) Yes 6 (50%) No 1 (8%) No Response
FAR Restrictions-
4 (33%) Yes 7 (58%) No 1 (8%) No Response
nd
6.Second Floor Area- Should 2Floor Area follow existing R1-
5 (42%) Unlimited 6 (50%) Limited 1 (8%) No Response
7.Fencing- Should there be open fencing requirements for lots that abut RHS-zoned properties (similar to R1-
6 (50%) Yes 5 (42%) No 1 (8%) No Response
Comments:
Don’t change anything.
Please keep things the way they are. We have gone over these issues many times. Let’s keep what we
have.
Do not change the rules that people have spent so much time on before. Do not re-invent the wheel.