8-B-23-OA Christina (37921), August 2, 2023 at 8:15 PM
If I have a C-N lot next to RN and want to build a single family house (permissible in C-N), I’m subject to a residential abutment setback of 20’. A single family in RN only needs 5’ / 15’ combined. That is a pretty absurd discrepancy, especially problematic for an average city lot 50’ wide. This application raises an important question: what is the purpose of residential abutment setbacks? Not just for C-N but for other zones too (I-MU, C-G, etc). If the setback is intended for larger developments, why are these rules broadly applied for all uses? And for medium density developments, if you can build townhouses in RN-7 with 15’ combined setback, why 20’ residential abutment setback for townhouses in C-N, I-MU, or anywhere? Needless to say, I support this amendment and would actually support an expansion of the amendment to include consideration of other zones as well. Maybe address the use matrix while you’re at it (e.g. why is SF permissible in commercial districts?).
8-E-23-OA Christina (37921), August 2, 2023 at 8:24 PM
This application again reveals that the code was written with exclusive expectation for heavy development in these districts (not just C-N, but also I-MU, C-G, etc). Why are buffer yards required for low density housing developments in C-N (and others) but not for the same developments in any RN district? Obviously there is a discrepancy here that needs to be corrected.
