Substitute Bill 15-19 CBD Zoning Ordinance Amendment

Home Browse Search

Angela M. Smith From: Greg Kil <gkil@kilarchitecture.com> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 4:53 PM To: Angela M. Smith Cc: Tim Corcoran; Daniel Buckenmeyer Subject: RE: CBD Angela, Thanks for your forward. I have reviewed the CBD text amendment and CBD reform summary as provide the following comments. As an Architect and Planner we many times struggle with older and dated ordinances that reflect past planning principles, and these require extensive requests for variance(s) and is some cases rezoning. I can say that the desire for mixed use development is a strong trend for many clients in the city and the new MU zoning classification has been effective in preliminary site and building design of a number of projects recently completed and in development. The relaxed parking requirements in the MU zoning offer a realistic approach to accommodating the car without having to design for max peak loading and all that asphalt.This especially critical for those projects that have tight sites, but also convenient where street parking nearby can help accommodate peak loading. As it relates to the CBD zoning, I understand that the intent behind this revision is to make narrow focus text amendments to the Ordinance to allow for changes without a wholesale overhaul. 1. Some of the standards just don't apply (like front residential buffer yards in CBD District) so these amendments are simple and common sense. 2. East race setback: Establishing a setback along the east race (15' is proposed). A setback along this public waterway and pathway is a planning principle that would help respect the water's edge, promote daylight access and establish building setback lines for future development. This should help activate the edge of the east race. If a reduction is required by a developer, then a variance can be pursued. This seems appropriate to me. Maybe the setback could be as little as 10'. A residential use might require a bit more (say 15' to 20'), whereas commercial/retail might be fine with 10' to 12'. 15' seems about right. 3. Facade within setback zone along primary street: from 50%to 85%. In principal, I agree with this increase %, but might suggest that this apply to more to corners and can be relaxed to 65% at midblock. The corners are where we need the most definition. 4. The glazing amendment is also effective, and 65% is reasonable.This is common in other jurisdictions where street activation is critical to successful development in the CBD. In reviewing the summary and text, I feel that the changes are adjustments that I believe are reasonable, and would support the amendments. Best, Greg Gregory A. Kil, NCARB, AIA I Architect and Principal Kil Architecture / Planning 1126 Lincolnway East, South Bend, IN 46601 0: 574.288.2654 I M: 574.220.8867 I www.kilarchitecture.com The information contained in this message and attachments.may be confidential or privileged information and is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s)only. If you are not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are not authorized 1