Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/08/2005

Home

borhoud? If build-out eliminates such ele- ments, code changes are needed irrespective of the teardown issue. When developers in new neighborhoods pack the site, variance requests come pouring in within a year. Because teardowns typically occur on smaller, older lots, simple and conventional regulations (see subsections below) are better than complex volume controls because they require adjustments rather than a new genera- tion of regulation. If regulations change slightly--well before the first teardown-resi- dents and homebuilders will likely not take issue with them. New regulations will invari- ably generate greater suspicion than the mod- ification of old ones. Further, explaining new concepts to existing residents is challenging because new regulatiqns always invoke fear. The exception is when new regulations are done as part of a comprehensive update of the code. When new standards are applied community-wide, and not exclusively to neigh- harhoods at risk for teardowns, residents feel less singled out and thus less resistant to chan§e. Setback ~nd Height. Chances are, existing re§ulations address only setback and height. As a result, reg'ulations need to be revised to con: form to tile neighborhood's existing houses- old homes are not necessarily built to those standards--to keep the new houses in character with the neighborhood. The first step is to determine the building coverage of existing homes and then to com- pare it to the setbacks in the zoning.ordinance. This is best done with hi'h-quality aerial photos or GIS data placing the building footprint directly on the lot, Anyone familiar with building practice can gauge height, and a planner and building inspector can make dose determina- tions with minimal measurements. Better yet are floor plans of typical nei~'hborhood units that a jurisdiction may have on file. The second step is to draft regulations that permit reasonable increases in house size so genuine community improvements remain pos- sible. Home expansions must not destroy com- munity character, and there is no model for appropriate expansion size. Providing a size range and using imaging tools (e.g., build-out scenarios iuxtaposin§ photos of existing units with proposed units) can help residents meas- ure the overall effect ora change. Adiustin§ setbacks may create prob- lems for :~'ara§es or patios. Fortunately, this is easily alleviated. Most ordinances have a section of permitted intrusions into set- backs, including chimneys, roofs, stairs, and other elements. When increasing setbacks to limit house size, the impact on outdoor spaces or secondary buildings is an impor- rant consideration. It may be more difficult to adjust height standards because it is likely that existing homes are substantially below the maximum allowable height predicated by the ordinance. A common maximum height for many commu- nities is 35 feet. Ranch houses built in the ~95os scarcely approach 2o feet. Cape Cods and split- and tri-levels also have heights substantially lower than 35 feet. A hei'ght reduction in such neighborhoods limits the possible detrimental impact ofteardowns. Even in neighborhoods with two-story houses, roof heights may be well below 35 feet due to shallower roof pitches than those currently popular. Building Coverage and Floor Area Ratio (FAR). If communities have standards for building coverage and FAR, limiting home size on tear- down sites can be accomplished by ad[ustin§ the general ordinance standard. Ifa community is [[oing to use building' coverage and FAR with set- back and height standards, a careful study of existing houses can determine allowable changes, including increases to the standards. Overlay District. Overlay districts keep replacement houses in character with neigh- boring properties, permitting the protection of a wide variety of neighborhoods. Once neigh- borhood standards are identified, the critical element is the purpose statement for the over- lay district, The purpose of the overlay is to protect the character of the existing neighbor- hood, which was built [o a standard substan- tially lower than the one permitted by the dis- trict standards. In effect, the neighborhood is over-zoned because out-of-scale buildings are permitted. Planners can explain to citizens that the neighborhood is different in character than areas built to the district standards, and that the overlay's reduced bulk standards are needed to preserve character. The overlay des- i§nat[on offers what other districts do not- pre- serving lot size and limiting homes to a com- patible size. Creating a new zoning category simply clutters the ordinance. The uses in the district will not change. Bulk standards for the overlay add only a line to a table in the code for bulk and lot standards. Neighborhood Conservatfon Districts. Neighborhood conservation districts are varia- tions of overlay districts. They apply additional setback, ~oor area, or height standards for neigh- borhoods built well below the maximum intensity of the zoning district. These are areas where the character would be damaged or destroyed by homes built to the maximum standards of the district. Such district designation is also useful where the zoning has changed over the years so that lots built under the old zoning became non- conforming under the new regulations. Downzoning. Oownzoning is necessary in many older cities and some older suburbs. Milwaukee and Chicago underwent comprehen- sive rezoning tn recent years. Those cities found blacks or sections of neighborhoods zoned far more intensively than was necessary given the existing building stock. Suburban landowners often oppose downzoning, but in cities, protect- ins the i:haracter of an existing neighborhood of similar buildings is likely to.garner support. Waiting Period. This approach gets to the heart of the teardown phenomenon--the eco-' nomic conditions that create it. In Lake Forest, Illinois, an old and affluent Chicago rail sub- urb, most new housing and much old.housing is very large, but a portion of the town dating back to its earliest period contains small lots with modest homes. Though many are pro- tected by a historic district designation, some were prime candidates for teardowns. Lake Forest's code requires a two-year waiting period ifa demolition permit is refused. The prospect of a two-year delay before tearing down a recently purchased ZONING PRACTIC£' 6.05 AMERIC,~N PLANNING ASSOCIATION