A neighborhood preservation district?
The Gold Coast, and other neighborhoods in our city, are some of the most historic in the state. These neighborhoods are rich in tradition and character and are true assets to our community. The challenge with these neighborhoods often center on uses that are not geared towards the intent of the designations some have come to hold (i.e. National Historic Registry, etc ..). This coupled with crime and other challenges make it difficult to revitalize and encourage re-investment in older areas of town.
The problem is not unique to Davenport. Many residential historical districts in the country face similar challenges. It has been addressed by some cities with preservation districts and special ordinance language to preserve the true intent of these areas: restoration of homes, smart residential in fill that fits the character of the neighborhood, and so forth. These districts specifically stipulate what can and cannot be done in these districts.
I have discussed with staff the possibility of implementing such a status on the Gold Coast. I would assume you would need to grandfather in what is in the area as of now, but limit - moving forward what happens in these districts. The East Village now has a special historic designation status on the commercial side.
What are your thoughts? What might be a good track to head down, perhaps starting with the Gold Coast and looking at other areas? Pros? Cons?
Perhaps a neighborhood preservation district could tie into our historic preservation board?
Here are some examples I found:
Madison, WI click here
Gastonia, NC click here
Chapel Hill, NC click here
Let me know your thoughts, thanks - Ian
posted by Ian Frink @ 7:09 PM
13 comments
13 Comments:
Alderman Frink,
I think this is a good start, however, it should not be limited to historic neighborhoods rather extended to all residential neighborhoods. The city should have a limit on the amount of social services in any one area (ward). It wouldn't hurt to also put some restriction in place regarding concentrated low income housing. All of Davenport should share equally and not to exceed a certain percentage of new construction for low income housing.
I agree Ian. You will get support, but if you do this in the Goldcoast, the rest of us SOLO will suffer then. Please consider along with the historic area, an infill ordinance for the rest of the solo area and a limti on the number of social service orgs allowed to operate in one area and ban them inresidential areas - this needs to include low income housing.
Thanks for the posts.
I agree with the comments. I think the historic preservation district might be a first step, followed by a more thorough analysis of the SOLO area. I'm meeting with some city staff tomorrow to see what might be feasible. As always, I welcome your input.
Thanks.
Ian - I don't see staff motivated to create an expanded district, and if you wait until later it will be too late for the rest of SOLO and you will have further fights between neighborhoods and social service organizations. Please Please please consult with the residents all over the central city to make this effective. Infill is a huge problem now with the Habitat HOmes not fitting into the areas they are built. Pleae make this a priority. If you rstrict this activity in only one part of the central city, then you are creating huge problems for the other areas of town. The West end is next as a low income target.
Anon. 8:15,
Thanks for the comments.
I met with staff today to discuss and will post a summary of our preliminary discussion in the next few days.
I agree, we need to take an encompassing look.
Ian
Thank you for your hard work and interest in this Ian. We really apprscite you ideas and work as residents of the SOLO area.
FYI
This relates to the discussion, from Craig Malin's weekly update to the city council - it is a summary of our meeting Friday:
The discussion centered on improving notice practices and creating an index to measure limits, for land uses that might further challenges a given neighborhood.
On the policy/practice side, the C&ED Department will be reviewing notice practices for rezoning, variance, special use and other development petitions to improve early opportunities for neighborhood input. Highly visible signs posted on the property in question for such petitions alerting residents to pending review of petitions is under review as one concept, along with seeking to coordinate notice to established neighborhood groups for cases within their geography. Consideration also may be given to posting notice or establishing other notification processes for other pending City actions of possible concern to neighbors, such as liquor licenses and other licenses or permits which are not part of our zoning and land development regulations. The Council may expect recommendations to be presented for policy adoption, if necessary, in late January or early February.
As part of both the Comprehensive Plan and the Strategic Plan, staff is working toward creating a "wellness index" (a working title, subject to improvement) for neighborhoods that will assist in identifying specific challenges (on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis) for the City and neighborhood associations to work toward improving. The index concept and proposed process will be presented to the Council by June.
The index may provide a basis for either limiting or creating extra majority vote requirements for land uses in challenged neighborhoods that may not support and promote essential residential character of the neighborhood above certain concentrations. The idea is to employ the same principle that permits cities to limit concentrations of certain uses (adult uses, most typically) that are legal, but above certain concentrations that have been demonstrated to impair property values. In theory, the city could establish (either by zoning classification or by wellness index) "ceilings" for the concentration of land uses that would further challenge the neighborhood. Existing uses of these categories (whatever they may be based on research defensible in court) would be legal, non-conforming. They could continue to exist, but could not be introduced at a new location or expanded beyond specific limits at the "grand fathered" location. This potential exercise of the City's zoning authority is just a concept at the moment. Staff will conduct some substantial research over the next three months and will provide a report to the Council on the topic not later than April.
Okay - so they told you no to the ban on social service orgs in one area Ian?
WHY?
Notice may not always help the neighborhood stop a bad project. We need to re-district the goldcoast area Ian. What about that?
Anon. 4:17,
The improved notice project was more of a side note - due to the number of complaints I/we have heard on the council for the need for additional notice on re-zoning in neighborhoods.
The city is working on "measuring uses" in neighborhoods - this will yield what our administrator refers to as an index of sorts. After this data is compiled - the "re-zoning or re-districting" could take place.
We need to also bring city legal into the loop to be sure no violations are committed.
I would like to have a meeting on this next month and try to see what is feasible and realistic, also have some dialogue with residents in SOLO on this. Thanks for the post
Oh great the staff is working on telling us what our neighborhoods can and can't take. Would you care to tell us where the all knowing staff has drawn the neighborhood lines? Staff does not respect the views of homeowners. They will tell us what our neighborhood is and draw whatever lines support THEIR objectives. They will figure out what THEY want followed by the obligatory public meeting to show they consulted with the neighbors.
Anon. 1:17,
Staff is simply collecting data at this juncture. I plan to have a meeting on this in the very near future (next mo.), with staff, and it won't be an obligatory meeting on the back end of anything. These discussions are just beginning to take place. Thanks - Ian
Ian - we need to include the Habitat houses in notice requirements. They keep just "popping" up in our SOLO established areas and do not fit into them. I know these are residential, but they look like glorified garages. They do little to create character. What can be done about this>?
Ian, thanks for addressing this issue. While some might offer constructive criticism and some just criticism many appreciate what you are doing to move our city forward.
Post a Comment
<< Home