Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/08/2005

Home

nomic impact, makes the problem far more diE- cult to address. feardowns can also mean a mass §entrifi- cation of the nei§hborhood, threatening a com- munity's supply of affordable housing. The most vulnerable neighborhoods are those where housin§ costs are lowest, because the market considers the neighborhood desirable but the dwellings are not in keeping with modem tastes. Teardowns and §entdfication reduce the community's ability to ensure the availability of housin§ for municipal employees, service work- ers, and workin§-class residents. PREDICTING TEARDOWNS Predicting the potential for teardowns before the,/occur is an essential first step in combating thorn, feardowns are market-driven. Th~ vulner- able neighborhood is a hi§hly desirable one, and market trends help identify a teardown problem in its early stages, in lar§er cities, nei§hborhaods must be studied for signs of chon§in§ economics (See "The Two Faces of Gentrification: Can Zonin§ Help?" Zoning News, june ~oo~), while in the suburbs, the whole community is likely to exhibit the change. Access to public transportation, waterfronts, recreational opportunities, and tourist ameni- ties can also help create the shill (See "Short- Term Vacation Rentals; Residential or Commercial Use?" Zoning News, March 2oo2). Teardowns are typically found in communi- ties where the avera§e size ora new house is well above the national average. Census data about the community and regional comparisons can also reveal a potential for teardowns. For example, a community whose average income is increasing at a faster rate than its neighbor's has a §real[er potential for teardowns. Teardown locations are somewhat pre- dictable. First, they occur in neighborhoods where the standard unit is amon§ the smallesl: in the community. Depression-era hames and those from the late ~94os to t95os are particu- larly vulnerable. The 9oo- to 1,4oo-square-foot house is at risk because it is about half the size of the average home in 2ooo. A second indica- tor of vulnerability is the number of stories. For example, ranch houses are vulnerable in an era when two-story homes are the standard. Planners cag identify at-risk nei§hbor- hoods by first ddvin§ around town and then Iookin!~, for a gap between neighborhood house size and zoning district regulations, ~sin~ ~ comparison of avera§e house size and fontprint with the building pad defined by the setbacks. On small lots, teardowns or major reconstruction (with the same net impact) are likely anywhere the house footprint is ~ess than 6o percent of the building pad. If community officials can identify at-risk neighborhoods before problems arise, it will be much easier to find solutions. Regulations are far easier to revise when they do not cre- ate a burden for buyers or residents who want to upgrade a home. REGULATING TEARDOWNS Zoning tools to regulate teardowns !nclude set- back, building coverage, floor area ratio, height, and building volume ratio. Once a neighbor- hood is identified as being at dsk for teardowns, the first objective for planners is to create a process that allows for "reasonable" home · expansion but also preserves nei§hborhood character. The realities of modern livin§ require planning efforts to acknowled§e and permit the expansions. Without it, long-term residents and potential buyers may Jook elsewhere to live. Ideally, regulations wil'l ~llow normal neighborhood upgrades to retain vitalib/and prevent the infiltration of the too-bi§ house, which turns the neighborhood over to another economic class. A complete study would look at typical floor plans of the neighborhood's dominant housing sty(e, exploring various expansion strategies to provide guidance for homeowners. Such a study is best done by an architect who can understand and handle floor plan revisions. The planner and architect would then work together to evaluate the zoning stan- dards. Making architectural, lot layout, and design concepts available to the public will educate both the community and its builders. If the neighborhood has a tradition of context-sensitive home additions, planners can determine {f they provide a reasonable basis on which to draft new regulations. Setback. Setbacks that allow for a major expansion of building size should be reduced. The goal is'modest expansion, not filling the building pad. This simple and effective tool works for existing nei§hborhoods where homes are built to the setback line and have similar ground coverage. In such cases, planners must address building height. For example, in neigh- borhoods with single-story houses, room addi- tions h'appen on the ground floor, which may mean a less drastic cutback fn the building pad and a height reduction to maintain the one-story character of the neighborhood. Cape Cod-style conversions require a tighter setback range. For example, current zon- ing might have setbacks permitting a 7,7oo- square-foot house on a ~o,ooo-square-foot though the neighborhood has homes averaging ~j. oo to ~,5oo square feet. Revisin§ the set- backs to permit a 3,~oo-square-foot house is less damaging to the neighborhood's character. Building Coverage. Building coverage fol- lows the model of setbacks. Because it regu- lates ground coverage only, there are no essential differences betWeen it and setback as a useful technique for teardown regulation. Building coverage also requires a height sta'n- dard. The choice between setbacks and build- lng coverage might be determined by the start- dard currently in use. ZONING PRACTICE 6.05 AMERICAN PLANNING AS$OCIATI~J~ge