Jordan Rockerbie May 9 2025 at 2:47PM on page 58
Answer
Agree. Residential adjacency should be considered again in a later module to find opportunities for consistency.
×
Warning message
The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.RAC Review - Module 1A Zoning Districts
Provide comments by April 17
All comments are public record.
Loading Glossary…
AI Tools
Hide
Welcome to your personal document assistant, powered by AI.
You can ask me questions and I will review the document to provide answers with page references for you. Please be patient, it might take a second and note that I might not always get it right - if you have questions it's easy to check the page sources or contact staff to clarify.
Start with a general question and then follow up with additional questions to narrow the focus of the response if needed.
What would you like to know?
Powered by Konveio
Commenting is closed for this document.
in reply to Phyllis Jarrell's comment
Jordan Rockerbie May 9 2025 at 2:46PM on page 27
Resolution
This is an existing regulation for three-story buildings. Limit has been raised to 35 feet. Can discuss with RAC to gain consensus, if needed.
in reply to Phyllis Jarrell's comment
Jordan Rockerbie May 9 2025 at 2:46PM on page 27
Answer
Having this minimum limits development of small-scale multifamily buildings. Action RGM9 in the comprehensive plan states that small-scale multifamily should be limited to developments that are min. 10 acres with a unit mix of no more than 25% multifamily.
in reply to Phyllis Jarrell's comment
Jordan Rockerbie May 9 2025 at 2:45PM on page 26
Resolution
Revised to add "that exceed the maximum height permitted in any adjacent Residential or Mixed-Use Zoning district". Residential adjacency should be considered again in a later module to find opportunities for consistency.
in reply to Phyllis Jarrell's comment
Jordan Rockerbie May 9 2025 at 2:44PM on page 25
Answer
While similar, the subdistricts have some significant differences, including number of units per lot, lot area, and maximum lot coverage. Can discuss with RAC to gain consensus, if needed.
in reply to Phyllis Jarrell's comment
Jordan Rockerbie May 9 2025 at 2:41PM on page 12
Resolution
Agreed. Revised to clarify: "The overall minimum lot area of a Cottage Court development is 2,000 square feet per dwelling, calculated based on the entire development, including the shared court."
in reply to tfirgens's comment
Jordan Rockerbie May 9 2025 at 2:41PM on page 12
Resolution
Goal is to have at least 40 feet of distance between the units. Language has been revised.
in reply to tfirgens's comment
Jordan Rockerbie May 9 2025 at 2:40PM on page 12
Resolution
Revised to clarify.
in reply to tfirgens's comment
Jordan Rockerbie May 9 2025 at 2:39PM on page 12
Answer
The setback standards were negotiated as part of Envision Oak Point and the zoning case that created the current NBD and RCD districts. The rationale at the time was that these districts would often be replacing retail developments, so a similar setback to an existing retail center (i.e. accomodating a rear drive aisle around the building) should be maintained.
Revised to add "that exceed the maximum height permitted in any adjacent Residential or Mixed-Use Zoning district". Residential adjacency should be considered again in a later module to find opportunities for consistency.
Revised to add "that exceed the maximum height permitted in any adjacent Residential or Mixed-Use Zoning district". Residential adjacency should be considered again in a later module to find opportunities for consistency.
in reply to Phyllis Jarrell's comment
Jordan Rockerbie May 9 2025 at 2:38PM on page 12
Resolution
Revised to add "that exceed the maximum height permitted in any adjacent Residential or Mixed-Use Zoning district". Residential adjacency should be considered again in a later module to find opportunities for consistency.
in reply to llfultz's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 4:06PM on page 67
Answer
Neighborhood Conservation Districts and HOAs operate independently. A CD may or may not have an HOA and vice-versa.
in reply to Phyllis Jarrell's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 4:05PM on page 62
Answer
A 50 foot front yard is consistent among most other nonresidential districts, so revised to be consistent. There is an existing, similar standard to allow a shorter front yard in 13.500.2.Q, which will be reviewed in a future module.
in reply to Phyllis Jarrell's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 4:05PM on page 59
Answer
These uses were 'grandfathered' in this district in the current code; however, the use terms have been revised during this update. The definitions included here are to retain the existing grandfathering. (i.e., there isn't a use called "Mid-Rise Residential" in the new code.)
in reply to Karen Chavez's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 4:05PM on page 58
Resolution
Revised per Committee direction at the 4/3/2025 meeting.
in reply to Phyllis Jarrell's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 4:04PM on page 54
Answer
From zoning boundary line; revised text to match other similar requirements.
in reply to Phyllis Jarrell's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 4:04PM on page 54
Answer
The intent was to 1) allow significantly more lenient standards for parks, and 2) be more transparent via the zoning map regarding land uses.
in reply to Karen Chavez's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 4:03PM on page 51
Resolution
Revised per Committee direction at the 4/3/2025 meeting. See discussion of alternatives in Staff Report.
in reply to Phyllis Jarrell's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 4:03PM on page 51
Resolution
Can discuss with RAC to gain consensus, if needed. "Legacy" is the name of the neighborhood on city wayfinding signs and upcoming Legacy area plan.
in reply to Phyllis Jarrell's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 4:02PM on page 50
Resolution
Revised.
in reply to Phyllis Jarrell's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 4:02PM on page 49
Answer
Agree. Revised.
in reply to Karen Chavez's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 4:01PM on page 45
Resolution
Revised per Committee direction at the 4/3/2025 meeting.
in reply to Karen Chavez's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 4:01PM on page 40
Resolution
Revised per Committee direction at the 4/3/2025 meeting.
in reply to Karen Chavez's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 4:00PM on page 39
Resolution
Revised per Committee direction at the 4/3/2025 meeting.
in reply to Phyllis Jarrell's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 3:59PM on page 39
Answer
A minimum density is already included in this district's Dimensional Standards (10 DUA, to align with the DT FLU category), so this can be removed.
in reply to Phyllis Jarrell's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 3:58PM on page 39
Answer
This language applied to parking in the current ordinance and has been removed from the new draft.
in reply to Phyllis Jarrell's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 3:58PM on page 35
Resolution
50 DUA is the maximum DUA for the Downtown Corridors FLU category, although an exception is included for TOD Areas, up to 100 DUA. A separate provision for a TOD boundary for 100 DUA MF and 40 DUA SF has been made to address this concern.
in reply to Phyllis Jarrell's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 3:57PM on page 31
Answer
The owners of the residential uses are required to maintain. Language added.
in reply to Phyllis Jarrell's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 3:57PM on page 26
Answer
2.A. is intended to regulate the minimum side yard between end units that are not attached. The minimum separation between the buildings is 10 feet, so each end unit would require a minimum side yard of 5 feet. This is intended to split the burden equally between the two lots. To clarify, this standard has been written as "5 feet."
in reply to Phyllis Jarrell's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 3:55PM on page 24
Resolution
The fire wall requirements in the current building code are the same for dwellings in a duplex whether platted as a single lot or separated by a property line.
in reply to Phyllis Jarrell's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 3:55PM on page 23
Answer
This is for one unit per lot.
in reply to Phyllis Jarrell's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 3:54PM on page 23
Answer
Agreed. Revised.
in reply to llfultz's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 3:54PM on page 19
Answer
The existing district standards are silent on the allocation of private yard space between units. Open space requirements and other development standards will be discussed in Module 4.
in reply to tfirgens's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 3:53PM on page 13
Resolution
Agree with this change, will make the same revision in MAC and MNB.
in reply to Phyllis Jarrell's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 3:53PM on page 13
Answer
The RND district allows for a comprehensive development with a variety of housing types to be located in the same zoning district, and also has allowances for multifamily housing types. The RDS and RTS districts - which have subdistricts based on the RND standards - would allow smaller sites that do not meet the size requirement for RND to be redeveloped with infill housing types.
in reply to tfirgens's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 3:52PM on page 12
Answer
Revised to "must."
in reply to Phyllis Jarrell's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 3:51PM on page 12
Answer
Revised to "a street" to help clarify.
in reply to Karen Chavez's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 3:50PM on page 11
Resolution
Did not revise, based on direction at 4/3/2025 meeting.
in reply to tfirgens's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 3:49PM on page 10
Answer
State law allows for some material regulation for architectural and cultural importance, hence this language in 2.2.C.4.D.1.
in reply to Phyllis Jarrell's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 3:49PM on page 10
Answer
Yes, reference to the RDD-2 should be added here for clarity.
in reply to tfirgens's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 3:48PM on page 9
Answer
This limit is from the existing GR district, which also restricts buildings to one story with an allowance for up to 50% of the attic to be used as a second story living space.
in reply to Karen Chavez's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 3:48PM on page 9
Resolution
Addressed in 4/3/2025 meeting.
in reply to Phyllis Jarrell's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 3:47PM on page 9
Resolution
Will review this note in Module 4.
in reply to tfirgens's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 3:47PM on page 8
Answer
"May," since RDN-3 aren't required to be developed as zero lot lines.
in reply to Phyllis Jarrell's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 3:47PM on page 8
Resolution
Revised.
in reply to Phyllis Jarrell's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 3:46PM on page 8
Resolution
Revised.
in reply to tfirgens's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 3:45PM on page 7
Resolution
Revised all RDN subdistricts to 5' side yards, as per Committee direction on 4/3/2025.
in reply to Phyllis Jarrell's comment
Karen Chavez May 8 2025 at 3:45PM on page 7
Resolution
Will review this note in Module 4.
View all
Comments
Close