Bruce Feb 2 2022 at 2:41PM on page 73 Content Not sure if the Sustainable Transportation Fund is needed now but if so it should be amended - see bike parking in lieu as one way to amend/get more revenue. Also parking fee in lieu should be assessed, esp. in light of the parking minimum exemption in place now with proximity to transit --> is it moot? 0 replies
Bruce Feb 2 2022 at 2:39PM on page 73 Content OTHER: The bus transit facilities requirements should be changed. It should not automatically require a shelter on a site based on the existing stds. It should not also call for a bus pull-out lane. They need a general overhaul. 0 replies
Bruce Feb 2 2022 at 2:06PM on page 73 Content Develop pre-permitted ADU/ACU provisions and prototypes - have seen references to it in other places. 0 replies
Bruce Feb 2 2022 at 1:58PM on page 66 Content The provisions for covered parking are also weak, exempting some uses from the requirement. See prior comment about 'a bike parking fund'. 0 replies
Bruce Feb 2 2022 at 1:57PM on page 64 Content Add SOME specificity related to the parking minimums exemption and expectations for the TDM plans - right now there is nothing about that - should they be more stringent/aggressive to 'earn' that exemption???? 0 replies
Bruce Feb 2 2022 at 1:41PM on page 13 Content ... but eliminate or adjust the exemptions that have allowed for example auto-oriented/strip/suburban-style development in Bayside if they keep one wall from the existing building (or whatever they latch on to to do so). 0 replies
Bruce Feb 2 2022 at 1:37PM on page 11 Content Changes to bike parking should include provisions similar to the tree fund in some respects. If a location doesn't 'need' all the bike parking the existing (or adjusted) ratios to vehicular parking requires, the they should pay into a bike parking fund (or the Sustainable Transportation Fund). 0 replies
JamesR Jan 4 2022 at 4:41PM on page 57 General Comment 100% this, this is unintuitive for staff (let alone the development community or public). 0 replies
JamesR Jan 4 2022 at 4:40PM on page 54 General Comment Does this language mean that we'd consider integrating FAR into our peninsular zones as a regulatory tool? 0 replies
JamesR Jan 4 2022 at 4:33PM on page 44 General Comment From the perspective of administering the land use requirements for island projects - they feel like a black box to me, like another weird mini-jurisdiction within our existing regime. I can read what the IR zone requirements state well enough, but the rationale for them isn't always clear. For example, there is a TDR-ish provision for island parcels related to conservation easements that I don't fully understand. Why? And if we have it here, why not elsewhere in the city? 0 replies
JamesR Jan 4 2022 at 4:25PM on page 40 General Comment Please, yes. The small residential lot provisions are confusing and unwieldly. 0 replies
JamesR Jan 4 2022 at 4:24PM on page 39 General Comment Is this all we want to say about R-4? There's some language in R-4 regarding exterior fire escapes and other exterior design elements that is problematic, and is ostensibly intended to stall production of multifamily housing, and is otherwise inconsistent with that of our other residential zones. 0 replies
bubble to view comments.
Loading Glossary…
Comments
Close