Coronado City Council Candidate Derik Mundt - Coronado Eagle & Journal | Coronado News | Coronado Island News: Coronado City News

Coronado City Council Candidate Derik Mundt

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Monday, October 29, 2018 11:07 am

Q: Residential density, as well as new building construction mass and height are still areas of concern in Coronado. Are you satisfied with the current R-3 Residential Zone housing standards for multiple-family residential dwellings and the more restrictive R-1 Residential Zone standards? If not, what changes would you like to see implemented?

A: I’m never satisfied with anything that can be improved. Re-zoning should still be considered. The first step may be to provide more options to existing home owners. We must consider what more can be done to protect Coronado’s long term character. RSIP3 is a step in the right direction and the committee members should receive our highest praise. My personal feelings are that this is an ongoing issue our City must stay on top of. Design review is a nuisance for the developers who have not pushed the limits, but unfortunately it’s necessary to give residents some sense of protection going forward. I’m in favor of staying on top of this issue with serious attention. If that means we have an RSIP4, RSIP5, etc… We keep going until we get it right and are left with Coronado RIPS: The Residential Improvement Protection Standards.

A hard number I am looking into is how many undeveloped R3 properties actually exist. Coronado is so unique we may decide to look at all the remaining R3’s and treat them on an individual basis. Again, much like a historical designation, I would only consider looking at re-zoning if it was not forced on home owners but presented as an option where a home owner could choose to designate. RSIP 3 has helped to reduce height and bulk in the R-3 zones. I feel we have some great new standards and should now see how well they will work. 

Many Changes have occurred to single-family residential standards over the past 30 years. In particular, the FAR has been reduced at least four times. In the early 80’s, a dwelling and garage on a typical 50’ x 140’ lot in the R-1A zone had no FAR limitation. Based only on setback and coverage restrictions, a dwelling and garage of up to 7,000 square feet of floor area or an effective FAR of 1.00 would have been permitted. Today, a dwelling and garage on the same 7,000 square foot lot would be limited to a Base FAR of .475 or 3,325 square feet. Only by incorporating additional “design features” into the project can the FAR be increased up to a maximum of .595 or 4,165 square feet. On the identical 7,000 square foot lot, the maximum floor area allowed for a combined dwelling and garage, comparing today to 1980, has been reduced by 2,835 square feet or 40.5%. Between 2000 and today, the combined floor area permitted on the same lot decreased by 1,485 square feet or 26.3%

I am very in favor of more open unenclosed parking spots. I’ve noticed not many people use their garages. Having non-enclosed parking spaces on these properties will take a small burden off our parking problem.

The point system in effect could still be modified. After speaking with local architects, I understand how the point system still incentivizes maximum FAR. The point system should be restructured to provide incentives to non-conforming structures to build back to within current conforming limits.

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.