Sign up for our Arcata1.com Newsletter

Arcata1.com on your desktop for a bigger view. Learn more about our city.

No menu items!
type here...
Search Arcata1.com


HomeGateway PlanGuides for the Council, Commission, and Community -- to the Gateway Code comments and...
Gateway Plan

Guides for the Council, Commission, and Community — to the Gateway Code comments and suggestions

800 times viewed

A Guide to the Gateway Code

A PDF version of “Comments submitted on the Gateway Code Document” was sent to the Planning Commissioners and City Council members on Friday morning, April 20, 2024. It is available on Arcata1.com with minor improvements. This guide is a companion to the full Comments on the Gateway Code article.

This Comments and Suggestions document contains comments, suggestions, and critique on 63 topics (roughly 75 pages) on the public review draft of the Gateway Code. The Table of Contents is constructed as brief summaries of the topics, so readers can scan and determine which topics are important for them. The online version has direct links from the Table of Contents to the comments.

The full 62-page “Public Review Draft” of the Gateway Area Code, from January 31, 2024, can be viewed here.

A Guide to the Guide

Because of length and depth of this Comments and Suggestions document, it may not be easy to determine which are the important topics.

This article contains abbreviated Tables of Contents, arranged with the these interests in mind. (Tap/click on any line to go to that sub-menu.)

Below here are eight sub-menus, each having a smaller number of topics than the 63-topic full menu. The selection of which topics would be on these sub-menus is subjective. The reader will still want to scan the full menu to see what other topics are of interest.

The same topic can be on more than one of these sub-menus, as that topic may be considered of value to, say the Council, the Commission, and Community. That would be the case for the largest omission of this public review draft of the Gateway Code, the lack of any mention, policies, accommodation, or protection for the L Street corridor linear park.

Instructions

Tapping or clicking on a topic will open a new browser tab and go directly to that topic in the full Comments and Suggestions document. When done reading, you can close that browser tab and return to this Guide.

.

1. Items the City Council may want to look at

1 No mention of the L Street corridor linear park. The Code treats “L Street” the same as an ordinary street.
2 The L Street corridor Linear Park will need its own clarifying policies.
3 Graduated stepbacks would let more light into Public Open Spaces.
4 Graduated stepbacks are better than doing nothing – but there are better solutions. Ideally we should not have block-long buildings next to the linear park.
With sketches from architect Martha Jain.
5 Barrel District “Community Square” ownership
6 Question of “street” setback for buildings alongside the L Street corridor linear park, and along greenways and woonerfs.
7 Do we want to see hotels in the Gateway area?
8 Environmental Review – Contaminated sites in the Gateway area
9 Park in-lieu fees should be kept in the Gateway area
10 Unbundling parking for tenants and employees — Clarify reasonable ranges of in-lieu fees.
11 Shadow Mitigation is part of Arcata’s Land Use Code. This should be made more clear in the Gateway Code.
12 A form-based code does not prevent bad design. If the Planning Commission wants or does not want certain styles of design, the Gateway Code has to be specific.
A bad design for the AmeriGas site, as an example.
13 The effects of Zero setbacks and a disregard for homes on adjoining properties
14 Folding security gates (Scissors gates) are permitted in the Gateway area.
15 3D images are not in compliance with the Gateway Code and/or Gateway Area Plan.
16 Privately-owned Publicly-accessible Open Space, parks, and parklets – a critique.

.

2. Whether this is what the Planning Commission wants

1 No mention of the L Street corridor linear park. The Code treats “L Street” the same as an ordinary street.
2 Unbundling parking for tenants and employees — Clarify reasonable ranges of in-lieu fees.
3 A form-based code does not prevent bad design. If the Planning Commission wants or does not want certain styles of design, the Gateway Code has to be specific.
A bad design for the AmeriGas site, as an example.
4 Folding security gates (Scissors gates) are permitted in the Gateway area.
5 Greenways – Requires discussion on locations and practicality. Important
6 Pedestrian realm dimensions are in conflict with setback dimensions.
7 Shared Garages facing street frontage
8 Barrel District master plan approval – clarification
9 “Limit motorized vehicle traffic to no more than two sides of the square.”
10 Is a parking garage allowed in the Gateway Area?
11 Parking Structures to feature a façade with the appearance of habitable uses.
12 Enhanced Upper-Story Stepback Requirement locations – Maps and suggestions
13 Bike Parking Spaces Required
14 Other bicycle parking issues
15 Does this draft Gateway Code contain all that the Planning Commissioners have asked for?

.

3. Topics that deserve discussion

1 Pedestrian realm dimensions are in conflict with setback dimensions.
2 Is a parking garage allowed in the Gateway Area?
3 Question of “street” setback for buildings alongside the L Street corridor linear park, and along greenways and woonerfs
4 General questions, to achieve greater clarity in the document
5 Commercial uses within the Gateway area: 25,000 to 40,000 square feet
6 The “Gateway Use Permit Requirements” allows Zoning Administrator review if new uses are under 25 units per acre
7 Fences around parking lots facing a street?
8 Complete-block parcels require a new alley?
9 3D images are not in compliance with the Gateway Code and/or Gateway Area Plan.
10 Greenways – Requires discussion on locations and practicality. Important
11 No mention of the L Street corridor linear park. The Code treats “L Street” the same as an ordinary street.
12 A form-based code does not prevent bad design. If the Planning Commission wants or does not want certain styles of design, the Gateway Code has to be specific.
A bad design for the AmeriGas site, as an example.
13 Folding security gates (Scissors gates) are permitted in the Gateway area.
14 Enhanced Upper-Story Stepback Requirement locations – Maps and suggestions
15 Does this draft Gateway Code contain all that the Planning Commissioners have asked for?
16 The L Street corridor Linear Park will need its own clarifying policies.
17 Barrel District “Community Square” ownership
18 Do we want to see hotels in the Gateway area?
19 Environmental Review – Contaminated sites in the Gateway area
20 The effects of Zero setbacks and a disregard for homes on adjoining properties
21 Privately-owned Publicly-accessible Open Space, parks, and parklets – a critique.
22 Vehicle roads in the Barrel District – Important
23 A proposal for the Barrel District circulation – Important
24 Why is the space for non-active frontages larger than the space for active frontages?.
25 Awnings and building entrance coverings will extend beyond the building’s private frontage zone and into the sidewalk area.
26 Pedestrian realm dimensions require discussion and possible revision.
27 Glazing requirements for non-residential transparency
28 Mechanical equipment not facing street frontage, even if enclosed by a fence
29 Consider the required locations of Active Building Frontage types
30 Privately-owned publicly-accessible spaces – Other issues.
31 Site Design for 10th & N Streets – Connect this to the Creamery
32 Enhanced Upper-Story Stepback requirement locations, and suggestions for improvements
33 No standards for electric vehicle charging or community gardens
34 No standards for bus-stop pullouts
35 An Administrative hearing may be continued only one time – and a decision must be issued

.

4. Areas that need clarity

1 Pedestrian realm dimensions are in conflict with setback dimensions.
2 Is a parking garage allowed in the Gateway Area?
3 Question of “street” setback for buildings alongside the L Street corridor linear park, and along greenways and woonerfs
4 General questions, to achieve greater clarity in the document
5 Commercial uses within the Gateway area: 25,000 to 40,000 square feet
6 The “Gateway Use Permit Requirements” allows Zoning Administrator review if new uses are under 25 units per acre
7 Fences around parking lots facing a street?
8 Complete-block parcels require a new alley?
9 Typographic errors, improper definition, bad or wrong diagrams, numeric errors, and other issues that are confusing or misleading and counter to the intents of the Gateway Code.27
10 Barrel District master plan approval – clarification
11 Bike Parking Spaces Required
12 Other bicycle parking issues
13 Shadow Mitigation is part of Arcata’s Land Use Code. This should be made more clear in the Gateway Code.
14 Gateway Prohibited Uses
15 Periodic Planning Commission Review
16 Carpools and Vanpools require 0 or 1 parking space – Pointless
17 Trim and Shutters should not be counted toward window glazing requirements
18 List of options for façade articulation needs to be looked at
19 Material Durability – Timber Protection
20 Roof projections above height limit

.

5. Errors that are necessary to fix

1 Pedestrian realm dimensions are in conflict with setback dimensions.
2 Typographic errors, improper definition, bad or wrong diagrams, numeric errors, and other issues that are confusing or misleading and counter to the intents of the Gateway Code.27
3 Greenways – Requires discussion on locations and practicality. Important
4 Minor typographical and editing errors

.

6. Errors that are optional to fix, with suggestions

1 3D images are not in compliance with the Gateway Code and/or Gateway Area Plan.
2 As this is a form-based code, it would be useful to have the definitions of the terms use shown as diagrams
3 The quality of the isometric Building Massing figures could be improved
4 Adding page numbers to the Sections list, and subsection name on each page

.

7. Topics that Fred Weis regards as especially important

1 3D images are not in compliance with the Gateway Code and/or Gateway Area Plan.
2 Pedestrian realm dimensions are in conflict with setback dimensions.
3 Greenways – Requires discussion on locations and practicality. Important
4 Is a parking garage allowed in the Gateway Area?
5 Question of “street” setback for buildings alongside the L Street corridor linear park, and along greenways and woonerfs
6 General questions, to achieve greater clarity in the document
7 Shadow Mitigation is part of Arcata’s Land Use Code. This should be made more clear in the Gateway Code.
8 No mention of the L Street corridor linear park. The Code treats “L Street” the same as an ordinary street.
9 A form-based code does not prevent bad design. If the Planning Commission wants or does not want certain styles of design, the Gateway Code has to be specific.
A bad design for the AmeriGas site, as an example.
10 The L Street corridor Linear Park will need its own clarifying policies.
11 Environmental Review – Contaminated sites in the Gateway area
12 The effects of Zero setbacks and a disregard for homes on adjoining properties
13 Vehicle roads in the Barrel District – Important
14 A proposal for the Barrel District circulation – Important
15 Why is the space for non-active frontages larger than the space for active frontages?.
16 Awnings and building entrance coverings will extend beyond the building’s private frontage zone and into the sidewalk area.
17 Site Design for 10th & N Streets – Connect this to the Creamery
18 Enhanced Upper-Story Stepback requirement locations, and suggestions for improvements
19 Unbundling parking for tenants and employees — Clarify reasonable ranges of in-lieu fees.
20 Graduated stepbacks would let more light into Public Open Spaces.
21 Graduated stepbacks are better than doing nothing – but there are better solutions. Ideally we should not have block-long buildings next to the linear park.
With sketches from architect Martha Jain.
22 Park in-lieu fees should be kept in the Gateway area

.

8. Topics that are considered important to the community

1 Question of “street” setback for buildings alongside the L Street corridor linear park, and along greenways and woonerfs
2 Shadow Mitigation is part of Arcata’s Land Use Code. This should be made more clear in the Gateway Code.
3 No mention of the L Street corridor linear park. The Code treats “L Street” the same as an ordinary street.
4 A form-based code does not prevent bad design. If the Planning Commission wants or does not want certain styles of design, the Gateway Code has to be specific.
A bad design for the AmeriGas site, as an example.
5 The effects of Zero setbacks and a disregard for homes on adjoining properties
6 Graduated stepbacks would let more light into Public Open Spaces.
7 Graduated stepbacks are better than doing nothing – but there are better solutions. Ideally we should not have block-long buildings next to the linear park.
With sketches from architect Martha Jain.
8 Park in-lieu fees should be kept in the Gateway area
9 Do we want to see hotels in the Gateway area?
10 Privately-owned Publicly-accessible Open Space, parks, and parklets – a critique.
11 3D images are not in compliance with the Gateway Code and/or Gateway Area Plan.

 

 

 

Related articles

Menu

Popular Categories

Top Stories