Minor Code Amendment Process (MiCAP)
Return to page 1
Planning Commission advances proposed code amendments
that may help protect neighborhoods
The Planning Commission met August 29, 2007 and selected 18 proposed sets of
amendments to receive further consideration under this process.
There was a good turnout of neighborhood advocates: four JWN board members, and one
or two from Whiteaker, River RoadO, West University, and Santa Clara (and maybe others).
The Planning Commission advanced all the following Neighborhood Leaders Council
(NLC) priorities:
These other eight topics were also advanced:
The Planning Commission did not advance any of the amendments that the NLC had
identified as potentially harmful to neighborhoods.
The next step is for the consultants and staff to produce a "white paper" for each selected
topic. The white paper would describe one or more ways to implement the proposal and
identify any issues the Planning Commission would need to address before deciding on
their recommendations to Council. This next step by the Planning Commission is expected
to be in October. The schedule is for Council to act on Planning Commission
recommendations for code amendments before the end of the year.
It's taken an enormous amount of work to get this far, and the pivotal step in our success in
getting so many of our proposals selected was the NLC's coming together to present a
unified recommendation for a balanced, well-vetted set of proposals that help
neighborhoods.
We'll need to demonstrate our unified support again when the Planning Commission
reviews the white papers and develops a recommendation for City Council.
==================================
Neighborhood Leaders Council adopts motion recommending code improvements to
help protect neighborhoods and natural resources.
On June 28, 2007 the NLC voted unanimously to recommend the Planning Commission
select for further consideration a set of amendments that would provide increased
protection for neighborhoods and natural resources. In summary, the NLC's "Highly
Recommended" amendments would accomplish the following. (Note: items that received
high ratings from the Planning Commissioners are in bold.)
The NLC's MiCAP report explains how these recommendations were developed.
The NLC subcommittee that developed these recommendations also developed a list of
suggestions for dealing with the other amendments. While the NLC took no action on
these suggestions, they may be helpful in deciding which other amendments should be
considered for further refinement and action.
===================================
Viewpoint: City's plans to amend land use code will impact neighborhood residents
By Paul Conte, former JWN co-chair
The City's "Minor Code Amendment Process" (MiCAP), initiated last December and
continuing through Fall, will likely have more than "minor" impacts on residents of JWN and
other neighborhoods. If MiCAP is conducted in a competent and equitable manner, the
process could potentially bring significant improvements to development standards and
processes that affect established residential neighborhoods. For example, one proposed
amendment would clarify the implementation of City Council's October 2000 prohibition
against alley-access only lots, and thus fix the current code's poorly written language which
(according to some Planning staff) allows developers to circumvent the prohibition.
On the other hand, the residential code could be made considerably worse. There are
proposed amendments, which if adopted, would overturn Council's prohibition against
alley-access only lots and would reduce R-1 zone minimum lots sizes to potentially allow
many new alley-access only lots to be created before adequate infill standards are
adopted.
MiCAP may also make substantial changes – for better or worse – to land use code that
effects natural resource protection and commercial and industrial development.
Information about the process has been posted on the City's MiCAP Web site.
An overview of MiCAP
The project is intended to provide citizens, community organizations, and other groups the
chance to propose amendments to the land use code for consideration by the Planning
Commission and City Council.
You can read the proposed amendments here:
Proposed Amendments as of June 22 (PDF document).
The basic steps in MiCAP are conceptually simple:
1. First, the Planning staff and consultant project team collects proposed land use code
amendments from the public, including individuals, neighborhood associations, and
other groups. (Planning staff themselves are not supposed to originate amendment
proposals through the MiCAP process.)
2. Next, the Planning Commission selects some of the proposed amendments, and
prioritizes them, for further work and consideration.
3. Then there is an opportunity for the public to comment on the selected amendments.
4. In the latter stages, the Planning Commission recommends which proposed
amendments City Council should adopt.
5. And finally, City Council adopts a set of code amendments.
Note the three key decision points in this process:
• Which proposed amendments are selected for further staff work and Planning
Commission consideration, and how is that work prioritized (in case there's insufficient
staff time to complete the work for all the selected proposals).
• Which amendments are recommended to Council for adoption.
• Which amendments are adopted.
With over two hundred amendments proposed, the first decision is critical – which of these
hundreds of proposed amendments gets further consideration.
Continue on page 3
Planning Commission advances proposed code amendments
that may help protect neighborhoods
The Planning Commission met August 29, 2007 and selected 18 proposed sets of
amendments to receive further consideration under this process.
There was a good turnout of neighborhood advocates: four JWN board members, and one
or two from Whiteaker, River RoadO, West University, and Santa Clara (and maybe others).
The Planning Commission advanced all the following Neighborhood Leaders Council
(NLC) priorities:
- Prevent alley-access-only lots (7, 111, 135)
- Prevent “gerrymandered” lots by establishing standards for buildable area and
access corridor(16, 66, 98, 107) - Fix "lot frontage" standard (17, 108
- Don’t count private roads in “lot size” (92)
- Identify standards for flag lots in R-2/R-3/R-4 zones (12, 109)
- Make maximum density standard consistent with policy and more transparent (68,
100) - Rationalize "building height" standard (8, 101)
- Mitigate impacts of parking in RPP zones (192, 193)
- Assure multi-family developments provide adequate open space (191)
- Protect natural storm water drainages (206, 209
- Prevent weakening of residential zoning standards
These other eight topics were also advanced:
- Eliminate SPR requirement for approved PUD (95)
- Final subdivision and lot partition to follow Type I process
- Fence heights and setbacks for lots that abut 2 or more streets (147, 210)
- Multi-plex lots on R-1 plats (151)
- Portable signs (186)Definition of dog kennel (35)
- Earlier input by neighborhoods (114)
The Planning Commission did not advance any of the amendments that the NLC had
identified as potentially harmful to neighborhoods.
The next step is for the consultants and staff to produce a "white paper" for each selected
topic. The white paper would describe one or more ways to implement the proposal and
identify any issues the Planning Commission would need to address before deciding on
their recommendations to Council. This next step by the Planning Commission is expected
to be in October. The schedule is for Council to act on Planning Commission
recommendations for code amendments before the end of the year.
It's taken an enormous amount of work to get this far, and the pivotal step in our success in
getting so many of our proposals selected was the NLC's coming together to present a
unified recommendation for a balanced, well-vetted set of proposals that help
neighborhoods.
We'll need to demonstrate our unified support again when the Planning Commission
reviews the white papers and develops a recommendation for City Council.
==================================
Neighborhood Leaders Council adopts motion recommending code improvements to
help protect neighborhoods and natural resources.
On June 28, 2007 the NLC voted unanimously to recommend the Planning Commission
select for further consideration a set of amendments that would provide increased
protection for neighborhoods and natural resources. In summary, the NLC's "Highly
Recommended" amendments would accomplish the following. (Note: items that received
high ratings from the Planning Commissioners are in bold.)
- Fix loopholes and gaps in approval processes
- Prevent misuse of “adjustments” to waive required standards
- Set appropriate land use fees
- Clarify basic lot standard definitions
- Prevent alley-access-only lots
- Prevent “gerrymandered” lots
- Don’t count private roads in “lot size”
- Mitigate impacts of "flag" lots
- Make maximum density standard consistent with policy and more transparent
- Prevent excessive building height
- Limit impacts from vehicle use areas
- Mitigate impacts of parking
- Assure multi-family developments provide adequate open space
- Protect natural storm water drainages
- Strengthen pollution control
- Assure safe and environmentally-sound hillside development
- Strengthen tree protection
- Prevent weakening of residential zoning standards
The NLC's MiCAP report explains how these recommendations were developed.
The NLC subcommittee that developed these recommendations also developed a list of
suggestions for dealing with the other amendments. While the NLC took no action on
these suggestions, they may be helpful in deciding which other amendments should be
considered for further refinement and action.
===================================
Viewpoint: City's plans to amend land use code will impact neighborhood residents
By Paul Conte, former JWN co-chair
The City's "Minor Code Amendment Process" (MiCAP), initiated last December and
continuing through Fall, will likely have more than "minor" impacts on residents of JWN and
other neighborhoods. If MiCAP is conducted in a competent and equitable manner, the
process could potentially bring significant improvements to development standards and
processes that affect established residential neighborhoods. For example, one proposed
amendment would clarify the implementation of City Council's October 2000 prohibition
against alley-access only lots, and thus fix the current code's poorly written language which
(according to some Planning staff) allows developers to circumvent the prohibition.
On the other hand, the residential code could be made considerably worse. There are
proposed amendments, which if adopted, would overturn Council's prohibition against
alley-access only lots and would reduce R-1 zone minimum lots sizes to potentially allow
many new alley-access only lots to be created before adequate infill standards are
adopted.
MiCAP may also make substantial changes – for better or worse – to land use code that
effects natural resource protection and commercial and industrial development.
Information about the process has been posted on the City's MiCAP Web site.
An overview of MiCAP
The project is intended to provide citizens, community organizations, and other groups the
chance to propose amendments to the land use code for consideration by the Planning
Commission and City Council.
You can read the proposed amendments here:
Proposed Amendments as of June 22 (PDF document).
The basic steps in MiCAP are conceptually simple:
1. First, the Planning staff and consultant project team collects proposed land use code
amendments from the public, including individuals, neighborhood associations, and
other groups. (Planning staff themselves are not supposed to originate amendment
proposals through the MiCAP process.)
2. Next, the Planning Commission selects some of the proposed amendments, and
prioritizes them, for further work and consideration.
3. Then there is an opportunity for the public to comment on the selected amendments.
4. In the latter stages, the Planning Commission recommends which proposed
amendments City Council should adopt.
5. And finally, City Council adopts a set of code amendments.
Note the three key decision points in this process:
• Which proposed amendments are selected for further staff work and Planning
Commission consideration, and how is that work prioritized (in case there's insufficient
staff time to complete the work for all the selected proposals).
• Which amendments are recommended to Council for adoption.
• Which amendments are adopted.
With over two hundred amendments proposed, the first decision is critical – which of these
hundreds of proposed amendments gets further consideration.
Continue on page 3
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Jefferson Westside Neighbors