×

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

College Hill Districts - Consolidated Draft 2025.11.12

Please review & comment

Consolidated draft of all proposed sections for the College Hill districts. Additional revisions will be required to other areas of the code, including the proportional compliance and minor adjustments section. Once the regulations for the area are set, those sections will be revised.
File name:

-

File size:

-

Title:

-

Author:

-

Subject:

-

Keywords:

-

Creation Date:

-

Modification Date:

-

Creator:

-

PDF Producer:

-

PDF Version:

-

Page Count:

-

Page Size:

-

Fast Web View:

-
Choose an option Alt text (alternative text) helps when people can’t see the image or when it doesn’t load.
Aim for 1-2 sentences that describe the subject, setting, or actions.
This is used for ornamental images, like borders or watermarks.
Preparing document for printing…
0%

Click anywhere in the document to add a comment. Select a bubble to view comments.
Document is loading Loading Glossary…
Powered by Konveio

Comments

View all Cancel
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 6 2026 at 8:47PM on page 113

Answer
Yes, I agree. I would reduce to 60 sf. But I would also revise the projecting blade sign to be allowed one per building or one per shopfront. That way if you have no shopfront with a commercial business, there are a couple of options.
(Lighting has been managed above.)
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 6 2026 at 8:40PM on page 113

Answer
Added a general lighting std:
In the GX and NX districts, lighting for commercial and civic signs shall be shielded and oriented towards the sidewalk and away from any residential uses. Lighting of signs located above the ground story on a mixed-use building, where the adjacent story is for residential uses, is prohibited.
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 6 2026 at 8:30PM on page 108

Answer
Okay. I was trying to change things as little as possible and this still works as is. But if the payment in lieu will only apply to CHN, perhaps it should be changed anyways..
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 6 2026 at 8:28PM on page 108

Answer
Found it -- in the College Hill overlay. Added.
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 6 2026 at 7:12PM on page 107

Answer
This is already listed in parking exemptions and reductions in 26-210(a)(6).
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 6 2026 at 7:09PM on page 107

Answer
It fell out when downtown was removed.
1 per every 5 beds puls 1 per every 2 employee.
Similar to current nursing home standard.
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 6 2026 at 6:27PM on page 103

Answer
I removed this whole section since the streetlights are referred to in the streetscape section and would be part of the City's streetscape design. This is really building lighting and the site lighting section would address any pole lights they might place on the private lot.
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 6 2026 at 6:26PM on page 103

Answer
It is under K. Architectural Standards: LIghitng and Mechanicals, 3. Exterior Lighting, a. Ped-scale streetlights should be : (iii) coordinated with street tree placement and located at least 10 feet apart from one another.
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 6 2026 at 6:10PM on page 103

Answer
I removed this here, since the tree installation standards are located in 26-209(b) and are more flexible.
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 6 2026 at 5:45PM on page 101

Suggestion
Let's discuss.
The current regulation is a 20-ft setback, which we have maintained. The trees are required to be planted between 5 and 10 ft. from the wall.
I suggest we make it a 5-ft buffer when trees are required. The other side of the fence is likely available for permeable area for the tree. 10 ft. is too much for these sites, in my opinion.
The 3 ft is enough to keep them from paving up to the lot line and ensures overhang from the cars does not hit the fence.

I also would like to revise the fence here to be minimum 6 feet. I'm not sure we should allow a developer to build just a 4-ft. fence.
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 6 2026 at 5:38PM on page 100

Suggestion
Okay, I just removed the reference to types of vehicular areas and added "except for single-unit house driveways".
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 6 2026 at 5:32PM on page 100

Suggestion
Let's discuss this. I think 10 feet is too much. The 2 ft. on the other side of the fence is available permeable surface area to the tree.
If we have street trees, perhaps we could forego the trees here or allow small or medium trees in order to keep the buffer narrower?
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 6 2026 at 5:24PM on page 97

Answer
I just removed the reference to yards. It is not needed.
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 6 2026 at 5:09PM on page 93

Answer
This is in the ground-level plantings section. 26-209(e).
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 6 2026 at 2:42PM on page 90

Answer
Removed.
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 6 2026 at 2:36PM on page 85

Answer
Okay, I removed it.
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 5 2026 at 9:55PM on page 70

Answer
Okay. Usually I use this definition to prevent off-site parking, but we have now limited that in the parking section.
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 5 2026 at 9:47PM on page 69

Question
Okay. Revised it to read wireless communication facilities and reference chapter 22, correct? There is also a communications tower section in 26-134?
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 5 2026 at 9:39PM on page 69

Answer
This is left in here for the downtown... I missed removing the use-specific standards.
I removed it.
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 5 2026 at 9:35PM on page 69

Answer
This is the name of the subcategory in 26-141.6.i.a
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 5 2026 at 8:52PM on page 55

Answer
I revised the encroachment statement to say "unenclosed porches". I don't think screened in porches should be allowed to encroach. Once enclosed, they become private space and less transitional.
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 5 2026 at 8:48PM on page 50

Answer
All of the building design standards apply except those that expressly state which building types apply. So the building Articulation standards do not apply.
All facade elements apply.
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 5 2026 at 8:43PM on page 50

Answer
This is just based on the fact that few new steeples are constructed these days. Existing ones may remain or may be altered with special approval, but a full additional story is allowed by right.
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 5 2026 at 8:39PM on page 47

Answer
Yes. I believe the other uses would fall within the civic and institutional use group already, but residenetial uses do not. So that is why I listed it here separately. I modified it to clarify that is it intended as an adaptive reuse of an existing civic building.
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 5 2026 at 7:57PM on page 44

Answer
Okay, I limited the footprint to 1,000 sf.
The size of the garden court plus the spacing will mean the number of houses will already be limited, but I think it's appropriate to limit it to no more than 6 (3 per side). I don't think 6 will fit on a standard depth lot, but an odd lot like the barracks area could accommodate more.
Limiting it to alley access lots only means they could not create an alley, right?
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 5 2026 at 7:44PM on page 44

Answer
The current cottage court on Walnut at 14th is in N-2. I can limit it only to N-2 and not allow it in N-1, but technically they are single unit houses, just multiple ones on a single lot or around a court.
Let's discuss!

Also, now that the Yard House is allowed in NX-3 and GX-3, someone could build it there.
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 5 2026 at 7:33PM on page 43

Answer
Yes it is a very tall story, but not uncommon. Just more footprint. The term half story is not literal, since we do allow a gambrel roof. I went ahead and reduced it down.
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 5 2026 at 7:30PM on page 43

Answer
Yes. Re-labeled.
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 5 2026 at 7:29PM on page 42

Answer
Yes! Different system!
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 5 2026 at 7:27PM on page 41

Answer
We allow them on the front in N-1, Not allowed on front in N-2. Let's discuss. Not allowing: link;g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTIwOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 5 2026 at 7:23PM on page 41

Answer
I do not usually manage the interior garage, just the actual door, which is typically where the car would be parked. Some garages have laundry attached or other spaces.
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 5 2026 at 7:11PM on page 41

Answer
Many of the N-1 lots have shallower rear yards and sometimes use the side yard as their main private yard area. This is typical of more horizontally oriented lots, especially on corners.
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 5 2026 at 7:06PM on page 41

Answer
Well, first the labels are wrong. I swapped N-1 and N-2. I modified to show only 35% even though it is technically allowed anywhere in the house.
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 5 2026 at 6:43PM on page 22

Answer
Yes, added the word principal before buildings.

SiteAdmin Jan 5 2026 at 4:10PM on page 93

Answer
Karen will ask arborist.

SiteAdmin Jan 5 2026 at 3:32PM on page 82

Question
current code says 9 feet....verify with public works.
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 5 2026 at 2:43PM on page 40

Suggestion
I did add the yard house to the other zones, but the multi-unit house type would work for those single unit houses. I realize the name implies it is multi-unit, but there is nothing that says it has to have more than 1 unit...
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 5 2026 at 2:42PM on page 40

Suggestion
Sort of. It is more about the orientation of the lots. But N-1 and N-2 are flipped!
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 5 2026 at 2:40PM on page 36

Answer
Oops. I did not revise the drawing -- old version of garage setback.
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 5 2026 at 2:36PM on page 35

Answer
Since there will be more street and side yard areas on this building type, and to increase the developability, we discussed a lower open space per unit here. Also, the students will use the campus for outdoor space.
I went ahead and increased it to 50 sf.
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 5 2026 at 2:24PM on page 32

Answer
I have modified this a bit, considering the concern for too small courts.Added that porches and stoops are required off forecourts and disallowed their encroachment into the forecourt area.
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 5 2026 at 2:13PM on page 26

Question
Yes, revised. I also added the phrase about counting the alley r.o.w. to item number 3, to include the r.o.w. within the 40-foot setback. Correct?
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 5 2026 at 2:11PM on page 25

Suggestion
Changed it to "one".
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 5 2026 at 2:05PM on page 20

Answer
So, I am not allowing the half story with the stepped-back. It says a total of 5 stories, not 5.5 stories.
But I agree that the fifth story should not be pitched,, so have added that it must be parpaet or flat.
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 5 2026 at 1:57PM on page 11

Answer
Let's' discuss this.

karenhoward Jan 5 2026 at 1:54PM on page 83

Suggestion
These balconies look like they are recessed at least 3 feet. I'm more concerned about the ones that are really tacked on to the building with no recess. I think we can find a better photo that illustrates this.

karenhoward Jan 5 2026 at 1:51PM on page 91

Suggestion
Let's not use an image wtihin the public ROW.

karenhoward Jan 5 2026 at 1:49PM on page 90

Suggestion
This seems like it will be impractical to enforce particularly with public utility boxes in the ROW.
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 5 2026 at 1:44PM on page 10

Answer
I added a definition of a terrace applicable to the code:
A relatively level paved area or platform adjoining a building (taken from Merriam-Webster)
in reply to karenhoward's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 5 2026 at 1:36PM on page 8

Answer
Yes, this whole section was renumbered to ensure N-zoned lots are not required to meet any of the standards.
View all