HomeMy WebLinkAboutComment from Devon HaggiePlanning Commission
I am writing this public comment regarding your Objective Design Standards ODS(CPP21-
0053). Sorry I couldn't attend in person due to another engagement. First off, I would like to give
credit to Kelly Gleason for all her hard work towards this draft resolution. Kelly and her team have
met with me multiple times over the last 2 years to assist with my RMF -24 project. I am not a
professional developer; I just enjoy the design characteristic and building. It has taken me 2 years
to digest your existing development standards and I'm currently working on revision number 10. In
my opinion some of your proposed ODS proposals would benefit development but I would like to
bring your attention to some aspects. All your standard design options would look great as a
completed building. Example: 4 tiers- Required components, Wall Pane Variation, Fenestration and
Materials, Roofs. While each tier contains several elements that the developer can choose to
create a quality building design. I wanted to bring your attention that each element will increase
construction costs. A square would be the cheapest building to build but it's not aesthetically
pleasing. Whenever you change building shape and aspects you will have an increased cost due to
material, engineering, and man hours. This doesn't incentivize affordability by design.
I would also like to bring your attention to parking. Under the current code the practical
buildable envelope is always constrained by the parking requirements. With the proposed ODS
fractional units how will parking be calculated. Would this calculation be based on room numbers
or units. I would like to recommend and hopefully the planning commission would support my
recommendation. With the additional building requirements and costs possibly required by ODS
proposal, could decreased parking requirements be considered with this proposal? This would
allow the building envelope to expand and thus incentivize affordability by design. I would
recommend following the states density bonus law parking requirements as follows.
Studio
1 Space
1 Bedroom
1 Space
2 Bedroom
1.5 Spaces
3 Bedroom
1.5 Spaces
4 Bedroom
2.5 Spaces
https://www.me ersnave•com/wg-content/uploads/California-Density-Bonus-Law 2021.pdf
This decrease in parking requirements is happening in other cities and some have no
parking requirements. You could also consider decreased parking requirements if the project is
close to public transportation.
I would also like to bring your attention to a couple other subjects. 9-3.262 increased
storage space and requiring it to be accessible from the exterior creates an additional design
challenge. Page 52 (iii) Tier 3 Amenities formatting issue. Page 66 9-4.106(b)(1) 15 -foot setback
along street creates a tighter building envelope especially if on corner lot. Please decrease this
setback.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best Regards
Devon Haggie