12-11-06 PC Agenda
AGENDA
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
Monday, December 11, 2006
7 pm
I. Approval of Minutes
November 27, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting
II. Discussion Regarding In-fill Housing Issues
III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority,
City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
IV. Other Business
V. Adjournment
.
.
.
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 27, 2006
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall,
Council Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on
Monday, November 27,2006. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Kluch
Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning a
Mark Grimes, Director of Finance Sue Virnig, Director of Public Wor
and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman.
I. Approval of Minutes
November 13,2006 Planning Commission Meeting
MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Kluchka an~;Jml
approve the above minutes as submitted.
II.
Presentation of Capital Improve
Finance Director
-2011 - Sue Virnig, City
Sue Virnig, Finance Director, exp"
Improvement Program (CIP) b
stated that there is different
replacement and streets
replacements and impro
receive transfers fro the
sewer are the enter
City's utility bill
Planning Commission reviews the Capital
sipnship to the Comprehensive Plan. She
d for each section of the CIP. The equipment
and municipal state aid to help finance
he k improvement fund and the building fund
fund. Brookview Golf Course, sanitary sewer and storm
are funded with user fees from the golf course and the
. to have the Planning Commission review the CIP. It will then
review and final approval in December. She added that after
be posted on the City's web site.
b t the City's bond rating. Virnig said the City bond rating is AA 1, which
hest rating.
Keysser asked what economic development tools the City has available given its level of
debt. Virnig stated that tax increment financing may be used and there are also some
housing funds available.
Keysser asked if there is a policy against using tax increment financing. Virnig said no
and stated that a tax increment district was just recently set up in North Wirth. Grimes
added that the City Council did pass a policy in 2004 that outlined how tax increment can
be used.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 27, 2006
Page 2
.
Eck asked if there were changes made at the state level that made tax increment less
attractive. Virnig said there are stricter guidelines now than in the past and that is why the
City has to look at each request as they come forward.
Eck referred to the golf course fund on page 9 and asked about the working capital
provided by operations category. Virnig explained that working capital provided by
operations means current assets minus current liabilities. Eck asked about the future
compared to the current year. Virnig stated that they look at projected capital over the
years and explained that there were some one time expenditures this y added
that the golf course transfers approximately $250,000 annually to the al fund.
Kluchka asked if improv
if they are negotiated be
a case-by-case ba .
ogram.
g, the
it and
tis
d to explain
Kluchka asked about how specific projects make it into the Cap'
Virnig explained that staff puts together needs, the City Coun
City Manager reviews the projects with staff, the Planning C
then the City Council reviews it and adopts it. Kluchka asked
obtained. He said that from a communications perspec
how the priorities are aligned with the money.
.
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works, expl
citizen participation regarding the projects
the projects that had a lot of public parti <'
and drainage improvements.
has done a great deal of
She discussed several of
ADA upgrades, sidewalks
Keysser asked if the performan
the financing for the performan
kview is included in the CIP. Virnig said
on contributions.
'n large projects are paid for by the developer or
eve oper and the City. Grimes said it is determined on
Kluchka askedf
developments.
Corridor
kind of budget impact for the 1-394 Corridor
It is a little premature to plan for the street system in the 1-394
wa er contract with the City of Minneapolis. Virnig stated that the
ugh 2008 and the City has a five-year renewal on its current contract.
bout the communication plan for the CIP. Grimes said the CIP will be on
the web s nd will be written about in the newsletter. Kluchka said it would be nice to tie
the CIP back to Envision.
.
MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval of the 2007-2011 Capital Improvement Program as it is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 27, 2006
Page 3
III.
Discussion Regarding In-fill Housing Issues
Keysser stated that he would like to have a more in-depth discussion regarding in-fill
housing issues at the December 11 Planning Commission meeting. He asked that any
information be sent to the Commissioners before their meeting on December 11.
IV. Reports on Meetings of the ijousing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
Waldhauser stated that she attended the November 21 City Council
Council decided to table Colonnade's PUD Amendment request. a
preliminary plan would come back to the Planning Commissio revi w.
no.
V. Other Business
Rescheduling or Canceling the December 25, 20
Meeting
The Commissioners decided to cancel t
meeting.
VI. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourn~
6 Planning Commission
.
.
.
Hey
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
December 8,2006
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Bryan Gadow, Planning Intern
Teresa Murphy, Planning Intern
Subject:
Research Findings on Residential Teardown Development
Per a request from Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, we have prepared this
briefing memorandum to assist the City Planning Commission in their study of various
techniques to address the issue of teardown developments in Golden Valley.
In the course of our research, we reviewed the city's current R-1 Single Family zoning
regulations and examined varioustechniques and schemes of addressing teardown concerns
from model ordinances around the country. Our research on the various options, which is
based upon the list generated from the Planning Commissions' November 13 meeting, is
summarized in the following document. Each example contains a definition of the technique,
the issue that the technique addresses, and references to examples from other communities
where the technique has been implemented.
In addition, we have also attached copies of the Edina study on teardowns, a briefing paper on
teardown trends from the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and a chapter from the City
of Austin, TX design standards which addresses a number of techniques for regulating
teardown and over-scaled developments.
This brief research summary is intended to further discussion on the teardown issue, and is in
no way a comprehensive review of all of the potential techniques available to municipalities. If
the Commission desires additional information on any of the techniques addressed in this
briefing or others not included, please let us know at the meeting on December 11, and we will
conduct more specific research on any particular item.
.
Review of some of Golden Valley's current R-l zoning reguIati~ns:
. ,Minimum lot size of 10,000 sq. ft.
. Lot coverage: (For principal and accessory structures only; does not include
swimming pools or driveways)
o No more than 30% of the lot covered for parcels over 10,000 sq. ft.
o No more than 35 % of the lot covered for parcels between 5,000 sq. ft. and
9,999 sq. ft.
o No more than 40% of the lot covered for parcels less than 5,000 sq. ft.
. Front setback of35 ft. from street w/exceptions for properties with front porches
. Rear setback of 20% of lot depth
. Side setback:
o If the lot is 100 ft. or greater = 15 ft.
o If the lot isbetween 65ft. and 100 ft =12.5 ft.
o If the lot is less than 65 ft. =
· North or West side setback shall be 10% oflot width
· South or East side setback shall be 20% of lot width up to 12.5 ft.
o If principal structure is more than 40ft. in depth along a side yard adjacent
to another property, the side yard setback shall increase by one foot for ,
each additional ten ft. of structure depth greater than 40ft.
. Height maximum for principal structures of30 ft. or 2.5 stories, whichever is less.
. Minimum width of 22 ft for principal structures
. No more than 50% of the front yard shall be covered by driveway surface
.
Re2ulatorv Scheme
Conservation District:
Definition: A zoning overlay district with boundaries that define a specific area or
neighborhood that exhibits shared physical characteristics and development patterns.
Action: Provide individual neighborhoods with design guidelines for key features such as
front and side yard setbacks, building height and width, and garage location. As part of
the district, residents may establish a neighborhood review board to determine if owners'
proposed changes to their properties are acceptable.
Issues addressed: Demolition of existing property and oversized new construction, less
restrictive than a historic district designation.
Examples: Chapel Hill, N.C. (see pgs 22-24 of Edina study for more information).
Re2ulatorv Techniques
Impervious Surface Regulation:
Definition: Regulates the amount of area covered with solid material or that is compacted
to the point where water can not infiltrate underlying soils.
Action: Could be used as part of zoning or in special overlay districts. Could be used for
lot coverage or storm water management. Could dictate an amount or percentage of
impervious surface allowed beyond building coverage or total amount including building
coverage.
.
1
.
Issues addressed: Prevention of potential damage to neighboring lots; Impacts on storm
water management; the amount of natural coverage on a lot.
Examples: Evanston, IL (See Edina study, pg. 30-32).
Average Front Yard Setback:
Definition: Front yard setback is determined by using the average front yard setbacks of
nearby properties.
Action: Could be used as part of zoning or in special overlay districts. Could be used to
maintain. a consistent appearance in neighborhoods.
Issues addressed: Maintains a consistent appearance in areas where homes are set back
significantly further than is required by current front yard setbacks or where setback
requirements are greater than the current average setback.
Examples:. City of Austin, TX, Please see link for more information.
http://www.cLaustin.tx.us/zoning/downloads/austin residential ordinance approved.pdf
Oak Park, IL (please see Edina Study, pg. 34-37)
.
Floor-Area-Ratios and Lot Coverage Requirements
Definition: Regulate the amount of buildable floor area in relation to the size of the lot.
For example, a 0.6 FAR would allow a builder to cover up to 60 percent of a lot with a
one-story building or 30 percent with a two stories.
Action: FAR definitions may be included as part of citywide zoning changes or written
into overlay districts.
. Issues addressed: Overscaled new construction and can eliminate the economic incentive
for teardowns by limiting new square footage. However, FAR ratios do not prevent
demolitions.
Examples: Chapel Hill, NC and Rockville, MD (see pgs. 22-24 and 39-43 of Edina study
for more information).
Building Volume Ratio
Definition: Measures that volume of a building above finished grade. Basements, attics,
cathedral ceilings, and higher floor-to-ceiling heights are all accounted for by BVR. The
formula for the BVR is the building volume (BV) divided by 10, divided by lot area (LA)
or BVR= BV/lO/LA
Action: Calculations can be required of the architect or developers upon submission of
building permits.
Issues addressed: Overscaled new construction and force developers to make tradeoffs
between volume and square footage. However, BVRs do not prevent demolitions.
Side Wall Articulation
Definition: A side wall of a building that is more than 15 feet high and is an average
distance of 15 feet or less from an interior lot line may not extend in an unbroken plane
for more than 32 feet along a side lot line. To break the plane, a perpendicular wall
articulation of not less than four feet, for a distance along the side property line of not less
than 10 feet, is required. Limits max. length of additions without articulation. (See slides
for more information.
.
2
.
Action: Include as part of zoning and subdivision codes for additions upon residential
structures.
Issues addressed: Overscaling of new building constructions and additions. However,
side wall articulations do not prevent demolitions.
Examples: City of Austin, TX, please see link for more information.
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/zoning/ downloads/austin residential ordinance approved. pdf
Setback and Open Space Standards
Definition: Create a minimum distance that new houses must be set back from the street a
particular distance on the front, sid~ and rear yards. Side and rear setbacks can limit the
mass of new structures. Some communities require that a certain percentage of a lot be
maintained as "open space".
Action: Setback and open space requirements can be included into zoning codes to
regulate scale of new building construction.
Issues addressed: Overscaling of new building construction. Changes to the zoning code
may create a number of "nonconforming" properties that were originally in conformance,
but now are unable to make changes to their property without violating the zoning code.
.
Height Limitations
Definition: The height definitions vary by community, depending whether height is
measured from the ground level, top of the basement foundation, curb, or mean street
level. Once height has been defined by the city, it can be used as a means of regulation in
the zoning ordinance.
Action: Determine method of measurement and include height limitations into zoning
ordinance.
Issues addressed: Size of building; scale in comparison to adjacent houses; neighborhood
conformity; allows evolutionary change, not overwhelming change.
Examples: Evanston, IL proposed this height measurement regulation; however it was
ultimately not acted upon. (Please see Edina Study, pgs. 30-32).
Additional methods of regulation (not covered above):
o Minimum rear setback
o Setback planes
o Building coverage
o Landscape volume ratio
o Site volume ratio
o Buildable area/Bulk plane/Building envelope
o Gross floor areas
o Second story regulations
o Daylight plane regulations
o F aceprint/W eighted faceprint
o Covenants
o Neighbor notification
.
3
"
.
.
.
, '
.,
.~j,..:
CONTEMPORARY RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
ISSUES IN REGARDS TO TEAR DOWN DEVELOPMENT IN
Edina, Minnesota
AUGUST 152006
~
US Bank Plaza, Suite 165
220 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
T. 612.338.4590 F. 6/2.337.4042
.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Chapter I
- .
Introduction: Edina's Historic Periods and Change
Chapter II
Case Studies
-Atlanta, Georgia
-Boulder, Colorado
-Chapel Hill, North Carolina
- Evanston, Illinois
-Oak Park, Illinois
- Rockville, Maryland
.
Chapter III Methods of Evaluation
- Faceprints
-National Register Guidelines
-Visual Impact Assessment
Chapter IV Alternate Methods of Regulation
- Flex Zoning
- Community Education
- Tax Incentives
Chapter V Task Force Findings and Recommendations
HAY DOBBS P.A
US Bank Plaza, Suite /65
220 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
612.338.4590
Co,,",. Image:
Soun:e: From ~ CollecllOtlS of the Minnesota Historical Soc:lety
Orca 1940 new ~ng In EdIna
.
Executive Summary
.
The American residential landscape has taken a surprising turn. Over the last
several decades, we've believed that large new houses were only built in "sprawl"
suburbs on the metro edge. But the market and cultural forces behind them is now
heavily affecting established, inner-ring suburbs.
"Tear down" construction can be described as a complement to sprawl, providing the
homeowner the best of both worlds. The process of demolishing an old~ residence
within an established first ring neighborhood gives developers the ability to construct
large homes formerly associated with gated communities and development on former
farmland without the extended commute.
However, as this type of development becomes more frequent, the drawback to tear
down development is becoming increasingly apparent. Immediate concerns are how
these new homes loom over adjacent properties, and how the bulk of the structure
affects the entire neighborhood. Other concerns involve the rights of property
owners and affect the value of surrounding homes.
.
As a historic suburb, Edina is also experiencing the effects of tear down
development. On several occasions, community members have expressed their
concerns regarding new residential construction not in character with their
neighborhood. Recognizing that the phone calls will only increase in number, the
City of Edina created a task force in order to examine tear down construction in
the city. Hay Dobbs, P.A. worked in conjunction with the task force to prepare this
document describing a number of possible future policy, public education and tax
incentive options.
As a national trend, the reaction to tear downs and the policy written to. address
it vary greatly. This report documents the actions and procedures executed by six
communities in order to rp,anage tear down construction while allowing for future
development to occur.
.
.
Introduction
.
Source: From !he CoHectlOl1l of the MinnesOIll Historical Society
Aerial view of Edina and Lake Harvey
American suburbs are not homogenous. Nor are they entirely new. Since the 18'h
century, Americans have lived on the outskirts of the business districts in which
they worked. Like many established suburbs, Edina was once a free-standing farm
community that was later surrounded by urban expansion.
As a community, Edina represents many of the most significant residential
architecture and site planning trends of tIle 20th century. It is a collection of
neighborhoods, often built by One developer and planner. Each has its own scale and
character-defining features. One of the most important lessons of the city's design
history is that no single set of regulations can guide compatible infill development
for the future. Rather, each neighborhood has a character of its own dependent on
street layout, lot size, topography, spatial patterns, vegetation, architectural style,
scale, materials and massing. Each of these variables adds up to a rich tableau with a
character that can be respected by new construction that does not necessarily have
to literally mimic the past.
.
7
-
Chapter I:
Edina's Historic Periods and Change
.
--
,/
"...
. Tbe chalk11,gt tor J'tcwaJdil{1!, nt'{f!,hb<>rbood
ide/diD' if: ((II! 1U:{~bborbood, architecture,
cbarader dJ/d Jalle b(1 dvculJIf.1Ikd ,md
f'I!Jta/ed while
!J?fJr!fl1Z llecdJ? ,.
rrfJ)'/{jiuiJ{g rdf1vfll1t jiw
Source: From the Collectl(),1lS of the Minnesota HistorICal Society
.
In the 20th century, a number of social and entrepreneurial forces shaped the
development and quality of housing in emerging suburbs such as Edina. These
include the Better Homes movement of the 1920s and the influential housing and
subdivision principles of the Federal housing Administration in the 1930s.1 The
Small House Architect' Service Bureau was established in Minneapolis in 1919
with the goal of making architect-designed plans available to builders nationwide.
Sponsored by the American Institute of Architects, this non-profit organization
helped to make quality architect affordable for many.
Edina's oldest neighborhoods such as Morningside reflect the relatively small scale
and stylistic diversity of housing options during this time. Many houses were built
from pattern books like those of the Small House Service Bureau or even pre-
manufactured and shipped to the site offering significant value for the price.
The challenge for stewarding neighborhood identity is: can neighborhood,
architecture, character and scale be documented and respected while remaining
relevant for modern needs.
~v. 8
,
',1_-)'!
.
.
.
.
Source: From the Collectlons of the Minnesota Historical Soclety
THE COUNTRY CLUB ERA
Developed by Thorpe Bros., Edina's Country Club District is the state's premier
example of inter-war era planned residential development. Designed with unified
covenants for housing style and size, the overall neighborhood mirrored national
trends of the time with its picturesque curving roads and accommodation for the
rising importance of the automobile. Houses were designed in nostalgic period-
revival styles including Tudor Revival, Colonial Revival and French Norman Revival
among others. More ominously, Edina's Country Club District, like most of its
counterparts nationwide, was racially-restricted, with minorities allow~d to reside
there only as domestic servants. This policy continued until outlawed by a Supreme
Court fair housing ruling in 1948.
FINE-GRAINED NEIGHBORHOODS: 1935-1950
Just before and after WWII, developers such as Carl Hansen and Bloomberg
Builders built well-detailed houses in the eastern part of the city near France
Avenue. Today, streets such as Halifax Lane contain unified collections of small
houses, many under2,OOO SF at a line-grained scale. Now over fifty years old, such
neighborhoods may be eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic
Places for their architectural quality, integrity and representation of an important
chapter in social history. Yet, because of their fine grained scale, the historic
spatial patterns of such areas is highly vulnerable and could easily be weakened by
renovation or rebuilding of wider or taller houses.
AUTOMOBILE SCALE AND ACCESS
Unlike much of Minneapolis and Saint Paul, Edina was built around the automobile
and not the streetcar. A major factor in Edina's growth was the development of
"Lilac Way" or the beltline highway that is now Hwy. 100. Initiated in the 1930s,
Lilac Way introduced to Minnesota new highway concepts being pioneered in the
German autobahns including limited access, cloverleafs, and directional separation.
As part of the nationwide park improvements efforts of the New Deal CCC and
WPA, relief workers build charming rest stops with limestone pools, benches, tables
and historical markers.
9
-
THE PASTORAL MODERN NEIGHBORHOOD: 1950-1970
After World War II, developer-builders such as Carl Hansen and Ecklund &
Swedlund worked with some of Minnesota's most experienced landscape architects,
especially the venerable firm of Morell & Nichols to plan numerous mid-century
subdivisions.
By the ]950s, the influence of Frank Lloyd Wright's prairie style horizontal roofs
and functional "Usonian" houses had filtered down to the developers' vernacular.
Edina's subdivisions of the 19505, such as Parkview Circle, are home to superb
examples of upper-level housing from this era, with three to five bedroom homes
on large lots. Many Edina houses of this era are well-crafted with stone extenor
elements, hardwood floors and plaster walls.
GROWING SIZES FOR NEW HOUSES:
CONTEXT FOR THE TEAR DOWN PHENOMENON
Throughout all of these historic chapters, the average size of Edina's houses has
grown. This tradition continues today. The median size for a new American house
is today 2162 SF, up more than 600 SF since 1975.2 According to the National
Association of Home builders, 18 percent of the houses built in 2001 provided at
least 3,000 SF of living space. Seventeen percent of American homes now have
garage space for at least three cars.3
In understanding homeowner desires to tear down and build larger, we should
consider how most new houses are produced in the country today. Architects design
fewer than 5% of new houses for specific owners. Rather, builders, as they have
been for over a century, design most houses. Since 1980, many national developers
such as Toll Brothers have come to the Twin Cities to compete with local builders.
They term their houses their "product" and create essentially standardized designs
that can be customized with options for home entertainment systems, bathrooms,
kitchens and detailing. Developers compete on the allure of live-in kitchens, spa
baths, and impressive "Great Rooms," all of which add to the overall footprint.
ronllll 10
HAV .
i
-.
Source: From the conectlons of the MInnesota HIstorfcaI
Society
.
Source: From the CoRectlons of the Min.....ta Historical Society
Source: From the CoRectlons 01 the Minnesota Historical Society
ll' . .1:::"j !.; ~}..J
.
.
.
.
Source: From tho Collections of tho Mlnnsou Historical Society
( Endnotes)
1. National Register Bulletin. Historic
Residential Suburbs: Guidelines for
Evaluation and Documentation for the
National Register of Historic Places,
National Park Service, 2002.
2. "Are McMansions Going Out of Style?"
by Fred A. Bernstein, New York Times.
October 2,2005.
3. National Association of Homebuilders,
Housing Facts, Figures and Trends, 2001.
4. "Big builder on the prowl: Jon Gertner,
New York Times
5. Protecting America's Historic
Neighborhoods: Taming the Teardown
Trend, by Adrian Scott Fine and Jim
Lindberg, National Trust for Historic
Preservation, 2002.
According to a New 'York Times article reprinted in the Star Tribune, one in four new
American houses is built by a large publically-traded builder. "Several Wall Street
analysts and most of the big home builders seem confident that their companies will
build half of all new houses in the United States within 10 years.''''
One of the greatest challenges for these "custom" builders is to acquire land on
which to develop new houses either on speculation or as pre-sold. The gtowth
limitation of the Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA) posed by the Metropolitan
Council limit new building and available land. Increasing traffic to distant suburbs
such as Plymouth, Maple Grove and Victoria are also making inner-ring, well-
located suburbs such as Edina increasingly attractive.
The conflict between older Edina neighborhoods and new or renovated
construction today occurs when homeowners seek to live in the community yet
achieve the spatial scale and character of new houses on the suburban fringe where
lots are generally larger and there exist no smaller homes in the context.
NATIONWIDE REACTION TO "MCMANSIONS"
Recently, there has been a growing reaction to the large house trend nationwide
with homeowners seeking new alternatives. Based in Massachusetts, the Taunton
Press publishes "dwell books," the most celebrated of which are the Not So Bi,g HONSe
series by former Minnesota architect, Sarah Susanka. To date, her books have sold
well over a million copies reflecting a deep desire among many to live in smaller, but
more thoughtfully-designed homes tailored to their needs.
In 2002, The National Trust for Historic Preservation documented more than
100 communities in 20 states that are experiencing significant numbers of tear
downs.5 Often located in inner-ring suburbs near vibr~nt economic centers, the tear
down phenomenon introduces new or expanded houses of 3,000 to 10,000 SF in
neighborhoods of much smaller bulk and height.
An Internet search on the pejorative keyword "McMansions" yields surprisingly
abundant results, many of which focus on neighborhood dismay at new
construction. Such a search leads to many of the community ordinances and
policies across the country that are discussed in the pages to follow. The National
Trust Study listed a number of policy and zoning procedures now being applied by
affected communities.
11-
Chapter II:
Case Studies
.
.
To determine the most appropriate course of action if for the City of Edina, the
study of other communities facing similar issues is a valuable tool for considering
regulatory options.
The following case studies describe how six communities addressed tear down
construction through the use of zoning regulation and ordinances. In some cases,
the use of regulation proved controversial and was ultimately rejected or pared back.
These case studies provide context for understanding the nationwide reactions to
tear downs and larger houses. They can help Edina to decide what steps, if any, are
required to address the neighborhood change with architectural guidelines. The list
of communities is as follows:
. Atlanta. Georgia
. Boulder. Colorado
. Chapel Hill. North Carolina
. Evanston. Illinois
. Oak Park. Illinois
. Rockville. Maryland
.
13_
.
l\tlanta and Dekalb County, Georgia
.
Regulation Type: None at this time. Zoning code uPdate under study by task (orce.
Criteria (or Selection: NA
Nomination & Approval: NA
Activities Regulated: NA
Managed By: NA
Approved: NA
=-
14
i,:
.
.
In Atlanta, extreme traffic congestion in new suburbs is accelerating the tear down
phenomenon within the Perimeter, the older core of the region. Many of Atlanta's
new infill houses are three times the national median size (2162 SF). New homes
generally replace hous~s ranging from 1600-1800 SF, only a fraction of their
expanded size.1 Atlanta has once the highest levels of tear downs in the country
and much citizen support for regulation. City Council member Mary N?,=wood has
advocated regulation for several years resulting in a Housing Task Force formed in
2004.
ATLANTA'S SELF-STUDY PROCESS
The City of Atlanta's Infill Housing Task Force worked with the Georgia Tech City
and regional Planning Program to measure infill housing scale.2 The goal was to
create a database of neighborhood housing characteristics to tailor guidelines to
each area.
The Study addressed three questions:
.
· Would current zoning regulations control the scale of single family housesl
· If not, what methods are available to measures the scale of housesl
· Could these measures be used to develop appropriate regulationsl
In December 2004, Council Member Norwood released the study which concluded
that current zoning limitations on height, lot coverage, front and side setbacks
and Roor to area ratio "were not capturing the concept of scale that was needed in
examining infill residential construction," according to the report.
REGULATION THROUGH THE "WEIGHTED FACEPRINT"
The study and task force concluded than none of the current measurements were
appropriate for shaping and respecting neighborhood scale. The study proposed
a new concept called the "weighted faceprint," which has two components:
"Faceprint" and "observed building height."
"Faceprint" is the percentage of a photo frame taken from the curb farthest from
the house that is occupied by the facrade. The same base photo is used to determine
observed height. The composite rating must be compared with the weighted
faceprint of neighboring houses for an accurate sense of scale appropriateness.
.
IS_
.
POLITICAL CONTROVERSY
The prospect of house size regulation in Atlanta and Dekalb County has spurned
heated debate over property rights and government intrusion. Citizens and real
estate groups opposed to new regulations questioned the validity and reliability of
the Georgia Institute of Technology Study and the methodology of the "Weighted
Faceprint" given varying camera types. Citizens have argued that the. method is
subjective and discourages change in even neighborhoods of 1000 SF ramblers that
do not meet contemporary needs.
Citizen arguments in favor of property rights and continued unregulated tear downs
in Atlanta include:
· New infill housing capitalizes on existing infrastructure and often improves it without the use of
public funds
· Intill increases property values and tax revenues
· Intill reduces land consumption on the fringe
· It brings people and jobs closer together and reduces traffic pollution
· It revitalizes depressed areas
In January 2006, Atlanta mayor Shirley Franklin issued a temporary building ban on
large new houses. She called for the city to address the infill issue by rewriting city
zoning codes that have not been updated since 1982.
.
After the city council defeated the highly-controversial moratorium in mid-
February, a new task force of real estate experts is crafting legislation that would
prevent construction of out-of scale homes in existing neighborhoods.
The task force will include engineers, real estate lawyers, developers, residents, some
city's planners and lawyers and others who are vested in the issue
HAY.
16
.
D LB
.
DEKALB COUNTY 2006 SPECIAL ZONING
OVERLAY DISTRICT
In February 2006, response to significant pressure on older neighborhoptls, the
Dekalb County, Georgia commissioners approved a zoning code that allows
neighborhoods to seek special overlay district. At least 55% of residents in a defined
geographic area must sign a petition to request the overlay.
The overlay districts will be regulated by a two-point code that forbids new
houses higher than 28 feet from the front threshold to the highest roof peak. Also
prohibited is raising the threshold more than two feet higher than that of the
previous house.
.
The overlay district approach is a compromise between no regulation and a
proposed countywide in/iIl ordinance that would have limited new houses in
existing neighborhoods to a size not much larger than the houses they replace.
(Endnotes)
1 "Fitting into intown: Incompatible infills anger neighborhoods," by David Pendered, Atlanta Joumal-
Constitution, June 20, 2005.
2 "Measuring the Scale of infill Residential Properties," Georgia Institute Of Technology, December
2004.
.
17_
Boulder County
~f:n
n:um
~~~.
-,h
.\,.""....":01('. .,~,;..;....~
,;:;;1
Regulation Type: Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District Regulations
Criteria for Selection: Neighborhood initiated (minimum 15 homes)
Nomination & Approval: Nomination of the district require signature from a minimum of 50% of the proposed district
residents
Activities Regulated:
Managed By:
Approved:
Approval requires 60% or residents signature
Regulation requires review and Adoption by the Boulder County Land Use Department
County of Boulder after Adoption
June 2002
H1v. 18
,
.
.
("'-'
(~',;
i t ~
.
.
BACKGROUND
In Boulder Colorado, McMansions were originally associated with the development
boom and resulting issues of sprawl. However, with the decline of the first ring
suburbs and old neighborhoods within the limits of the city, the issue of tear
down construction and infill housing became one and the same. The Land Use
Department has received numerous requests to limit the height or footprint of new
development throughout the county, each with a specific set of issues an~ criteria
associated with it. As a result, the question was how the city would control this
type of development without infringing upon the rights or desires within individual
neighborhoods.
.
OVERLAY DISTRICTS
Rather than rely upon the creation of one set of complex rules that applied to the
entire City, the County Land Use Department determined that Overlay Districts
would prove to be a much more efficient use of time and resources.. Overlay
regulations are used, when applicable, in conjunction with the Site Plan Review
currently used by the Land Use Department in order to review projects. The Site
Plan Review does consider the compatibility of any future development within the
neighborhood, but the Overlay District Regulations provide additional governance
regarding the construction provided that they are not in conflict or supersede the
zoning codes regulated by the county.
The goal of the Neighborhood Overlay District is to create a set of guidelines that
reduce the number of conflicts that arise with exiting and new development. At the
same time it is managed in such a way that it also tries to lessen the impact that this
additional regulation would have on the County revie~ process.
LOCAL CONTROL
The unique aspect of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts in Boulder
County is that they are not controlled by the County. Instead of creating another
level of bureaucracy in defining districts or neighborhoods, the County has created
a set of guidelines that members of the community may use in order to establish
a Conservation District. This is submitted for review and adoption to the County
Land Use Department. This proposal process is structured by the Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District Regulations, a document prepared by the County in
order to ensure that each Overlay District organization understand the purpose and
requirements in order to create the District.
.
19_
.
THE PURPOSES OF OVERLAYS
As a document that is designed to assist in the regulation of a range of development
types, the Overlay Regulations, a_general set of provisions weie established as
follows.
.
To preserve and protect the character or valued features of established Neighborhoods
To recognize the diversity of issues and character in individual neighborhoods in the
unincorporated patts of Boulder Count)'.
To reduce conflicts between new construction and existing development in established
neighborhoods.
To provide knowledge and reliallee about the parameters of neighborhood character.
To allow neighborhoods to work together with the County to formulate a plan that defines
their community of common interest and that fosters a defined community character consistent
with COUnty zoning. the Land Use Code, and the Comprehensive Plan.
To cOl11plell1el'lt the County's Site ,Plan Review prqcess in neighborhoods that have defined the_ir
communit)' character pursuant to these regulations.
.
.
.
.
.
These purposes are further defined by the creation of a map delineating a
Neighborhood Conservation District, in which all future development shall be
required to comply with the adopted regulations. However, it is important to note
that the guidelines set forth by the Overlay District do not replace zoning codes
already in place. Nor shall they apply existing strUCtures, making them compliant
or noncompliant, based on the wording of the Overlay. Finally, all Overlay districts
must be incompliance with the County Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Code.
.
I
~~
20
.
COUN"ry,
.
BOTTOM.UP DESIGNATION
The creation of an Overlay District must be initiated by members of the community,
and in no in$l:ances may the County Board of Commissioners or the Planning
Commission initiate the creation of an Overlay District. In order to create a
District, the following requirements must be met for Adoption by the County:
· Shall Include a minimum of 15 adjacent privately-owned parcels. unless the area proposed is an
extension of the boundaries of an approved Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.
· Shall indude privately-owned parcels that are closely settled and of similar size, and which are
associated by common characteristics of geography. development. services. and interests.
· Should consider other adjacent privately-owned parcels having shared distinguishing
character.lstics thl!t c:ou.ld befound to comprise a logical neighborhood unit. when determining
the boundaries of a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.
· Shall exempt prlvately.owned parcels of fIVe acres or greater. unless the owner of the parcel
agrees to indusion of that parcel into the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.
.
The establishment of defined district requires signatures from a minimum of 50
percent of the property owners within the delineated area. In the application for the
Overlay District, it statement of purpose explaining the intent of the District with a
description of the neighborhood and the valued features is required. Also required
is a description of land use within the proposed area and history describing the
evolution of the history. Finally, a list of homeowner associations or other parties
interested in the potential Overlay District must be included in to be considered for
adoption.
Once this information has been compiled for processing, the prop<?sed Overlay
district will go through a series of public meeting reviews prior to final submission
to the County for review and adoption. Signed approval of 60 percent of the
residents of the district is required for this to occur. Subsequently, the County shall
review the proposed Overlay District, evaluating the similar character of the land
use types and sizes, and compliancy with Land Use code.
.
21.
.
Chapel Hill, N orthCarolina
.
Regulation Type:
Criteria for Selection:
Nomination and Approval:
Aaivities Regulated:
materials, garage entrance
Neighborhood Conservation Districts
(see Designation Criteria below)
51% landowner signatures
massing, lot coverage, orientation, hardscape, roof line and Pitch, site planning, floor area ratio, style,
Managed By:
Approved:
Town Manager
January 2003
~y_ '22
I
.
.
BACKGROUND
In January 2003, the Town of Chapel Hill adopted a Land Use Management
Ordinance that includes provision for the creation of Neighborhood Conservation
Districts (NCD). Since that time, live neighborhoods have enrolled or are
undergoing the enrollment process. An application by at least 51% of the land/
property owners within a delined district is needed to begin the process.
The Town of Chapel Hill Website contains the following information on NeD's in
the city:
Purpose Statement
.
Within the Town of Chapel Hill there are unique and distinctive older in-town
residential neighborhoods, or commercial districts, which contribute signilicantly to
the overall character and identity of the Town and are worthy of preservation. and
protection. Some of these districts are designated as historic districts, others may
lack suflicient historical, architectural or cultural significance at the present time to
be designated as Historic Districts. As a matter of public policy, the Town Council
aims to preserve, protect, enhance, and perpetuate the value of these residential
neighborhoods or commercial districts through the establishment of Neighborhood
Conservation Districts.
Purpose
The purposes of a Neighborhood Conservation District in older Town residential
neighborhoods or commercial districts are as follows:
.
to promote and provide for economic revitalization and/or enhancement
to protect and strengthen desirable and unique physical features. design characteristics. and
recogniied identity. charm and flavor;
to protect and enhance the livability of the Town;
to reduce conflict and prevent blighting caused by incompatible and insensitive development. and
to promote new compatible development;
to stabilize property values;
to provide rllsidents and property owners with a planning bargaining tool for futUre
development;
to promote and retain affordable housing;
to encoura:e and strengthen civic. pride; and to encourage the harmonious. orderly and efficient
growth and redevelopment of the Town. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
23 _
.
DESIGNATION CRITERIA
To be designated a Neighborhood Conservation District, the area must meet the
following criteria:
1. The area must contain a minimum of one block face (all the lots on one side of a block);
2. The area must have been platted or developed at least 25 years ago;
3. At .Ieast 75% ofthe land area in the proposed district is presently improved; and
4. The area must possess one or more of the following distinctive features that create a
cohesive identifiable setting, character or association;
a. scale, size, type of construction, or distinctive building materials;
b. lot layouts, setbacks, .street layouts; alleys or sidewalks;
,c.
special natural or streetscape characteristics. such as creek beds, parks,
gardens or street landscaping;
.
d. land use patterns, including mixed or unique uses or activities; or
e. abuts or links designated historic landmarks and/or districts.
5. Tlllil area must be predominantly residential in use and character.
6. Any designated Historic Overlay District shall be deemed to satisfy the criteria listed
abOve.
ZONING AUTHORITY
Separate ordinances are required to designate each district. Ordinances designating
each Neighborhood Conservation District shall identify the designated district
boundaries; and specify the individual purposes and standards for that district.
1. Overlay District - Neighborhood Conservation Districts are designep
as overlays to the regular zoning districts. Property designated within these
districts must also be designated as being within one of the General Use Districts.
Authorized uses must be permitted in both the General Use District and the
overlay district. Property designated as a Neighborhood Conservation District may
have additional designations. Such property shall comply with aU applicable use
restrictions.
~y. 24
.
EL HI LL,
f\\ .0 r~ 1" l'M~
ll!\i/\
.
2. Zoning Designation
a. The zoning designation for property located within a Neighborhood
Conservation District shall consist of the base zone symbol and the overlay district
symbol (CD) as a suffix. Neighbo~hood Conservation Districts shall be numbered
sequentially to distinguish among different districts, i.e., R-4 (CD-I), R-I (CD-2),
etc.
b. The designation of property within a Neighborhood Conservation District
places such property in a new zoning district classification and all procedures and
requirements for zoning/rezoning must be followed.
c. In the event. of a conflict between the provisions of a specific
Neighborhood Conservation District ordinance and the General Use District
regulations, the provisions of the Neighborhood Conservation District ordinance
shall control.
.
d. Except as modified by this Section, the procedures for zoning changes
set forth in Section 4.4 shall otherwise apply to the designation of an area as a
Neighborhood Conservation District.
e. Upon gesignation of an area as a Neighborhood Conservation District, the
Town Council shall cause notice of such designation to be recorded in the official
public records of real property of Orange County.
Application Procedures
1. proposal for designation as a Neighborhood Conservation District may be
initiated:
a. at the direction of Town Council, or
b. at the request of owners representing 51% of the land area within the
proposed district, or
c. at the request of51% of property owners in a proposed district.
2. Following initiation for designation of a Neighborhood Conservation District,
the Planning Board shall develop a neighborhood conservation plan for the
proposed district that includes:
a. maps indicating the boundaries, age of structures and land use of the
proposed district;
.
25 _
.
b. maps and other graphic and written materials identifying and describing
the distinctive neighborhood and building characteristics of the proposed district;
and
c. design standards for new construction, additions or alterations to the street
facades of existing buildings or structures within the proposed district.
3. All property owners within the proposed district shall be afforded the
opportunity to participate in drafting the conservation plan. A conservation plan
shall be approved as part of a ~,qning Atlas Amendment creating a Neighborhood
Conservation District.
DESIGN STANDARDS
1. The conservation plan approved as part of the zoning ordinance creating
a Neighborhood Conservation District shall include design standards for new
construction or placement of any building, structure, foundation, sign, public art
or outdoor apparatus or equipment (including visible utility boxes or mechanical
equipment; trucks; lawn or landscaping equipment, but not including lawnmowers
or hand tools; playground equipment; or sports equipment), and any additions,
alterations, relocation or rehabilitation to the street facades of existing buildings,
structures, foundations, sign, public art, or outdoor apparatus or equipment.
.
2. The conservation plan, and requisite design standards shall not apply to those
activities which constitute ordinary repair and maintenance, i.e., using the same
material and design.
3. The Design Standards f?r the Neighborhood Conservation District shall
include the minimum following elements governing the physical characteristics and
features of all property (public or private) within the proposed district:
a. building height, number of stories;
b. building size, massing (frontage, entrance location/features);
c. lot size, coverage;
d. front and side yard setbacks;
e. off-street parking and loading requirements;
_ 26
.
.
f. roof line and pitch;
g. paving, hardscape covering.
Hi
C LiNI\
In addition, the Design Standards may include, but shall not be limited to, the
following elements:
a. building orientation;
c. density;
b. general site planning (primary, ancillary structures);
d. floor area ratio;
e. signage;
f. architectural style and details;
g. building materials;
h. garage entrance location;
.
j. landscaping;
i. front window, dormer size and location;
k. fences and walls;
I. entrance lighting;
m. driveways and sidewalks;
n. satellite dishes, utility boxes;
o. street furniture;
p. public art;
q. demolition (see subsection E).
.
27 =--
.
ADMINISTRATION.OF ORDINANCE
1. No building permit shall be issued for new construction or an alteration or
addition to the street facade of an existing building or structure within a designated
Neighborhood Conservation District witho\.lt the submission and approval of design
plans and the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit by the Town Manager.
2. The Town Manager shall review the design plans to determine compliance with
the design standards contained in the neighborhoQd conservation plan adopted for
the district.
3. If the Town Manager determines that the design plans are in conformance
with the design standards adopted for the district, the Town Manager shall approve
the plans and issue a Zoning Compliance Permit and the Department of Building
Inspections may issue a building permit.
4. If the Town Manager determines that the design plans are not in conformance
with the design standards adopted for the district, the Town Manager shall not
approve the plans, and will issue Notification of Non-Compliance, identifying the
specific Design Standards violated.
.
5. The applicant may appeal the Town Manager's determination to the Board of
Adjustment for a final determination.
II '''IRa 2 8
HAVl
;.'
.
.
Evanston, Illinois
.
Regulation Type:
Criteria for Selection:
Nomination and Approval:
Aaivities Regulated:
Managed By:
Approved:
Part of zoning code
NA
NA
Height, lot percentage, and garage regulation
City planning office
NA
~. 30
.
.
BACKGROUND
Like Edina, Evanston is a lirst-ring residential suburb just north of Chicago.
Developed along Lake Michigan and commuter rail lines, Evanston focuses on
a historic downtown and nearby Northwestern University. Numerous historic
neighborhoods, especially near the lake and University have faced significant
pressure for larger houses. In 2003, led by Alderman Eb Moran, the Zoning
Committee of the City's Plan Commission worked to develop a Sixth W:ard
Conservation District to lill gaps in the existing zoning ordinance to control large
tear downs and renovations.
REGULATIONS OF .THE PROPOSED
NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT
In a guest essay for The Round Table of Evanston, Alderman Moran wrote that in the
last live years, the city's Sixth Ward had seen a steady rise in new houses that are
much larger than the homes they replaced. In November, the Committee voted
unanimously to create a Neighborhood Conservation District that regulated the
following:
.
1. The maximum height ofahouse will be measured from street level rather than from the top ofthe
basement, often four feet above street level;
2. The height of rebuilds could exceed the height of their predecessors.
However, the height could not exceed l! 20 percent increase in the average height of its four
neighboring houses. Thus, neighborhoods need not be static. Change, however, would be
evolutionary - not overwhelming;
3. The side yard setbacks for rebuilds would have to be at least 15 percent of the lot width but, in any
event, no less than five feet on each side;
4. The impervious surface of the entire lot could not exceed 45 percent;
5. 50 percent of the area of a front porch would be exempt from lot coverage and impervious surface
limitations.
The regulations proved controversial. In February 2004, the Evanston City Council
voted not to consider the conservation overlay district in the Sixth Ward. The case
of Evanston is, as' far as the resear<,:h of this study has found, the only occasion in
which a city council has rejected a task force or planning commission proposed
neighborhood conservation district.
.
31_
.
LIMITED REGULATIONS AS PART OF ZONING CODE
Instead, the Council adopted a few of the Plan Commission's recommendations as
part of the zoning code including:
. a formula for height Iinlltation that Includes a measurement from grade level rather than first
floor
. a limit on percent of a lot that can be covered by Impervious surfaces
. the prohibition of garages with street access, if there is an alley behind the house.
The Round Table of Evanston editorialized the following week:
". .. the City Council took the path 0/ least resistance, adopting a Piecemeal solution, adding a few
more patches to a zoning ordinance that sliU does not ful!J address the problem of single{ami/y home
il1ftll development that is out 0/ scale and fYnc with the barmony of tbe neighborhood. . .
Left unattended is the problem 0/ side-:Jard setbacks. A 40foot-taU house mqy still be built seven feet
aWtf)l from a modest, older home, if that home is onlY two feet awqy from the lot line because it is a legal
non-conforming use. Left unattended is the issue 0/ dwarfing al1d shadowing. A 40foot-taU house mqy
sliU be erected next to an 18foot-taU ranch house. ,#
.
The editorial went on to recommend using a different tool - "the resurrection of
floor area ratios, which would tie the size of a house to the size of the lot, in the
City's Zoning Ordinance."
Since that time, the City's zoning ordinance was supplemented with a "porch
allowance" that permits a builder to increase impermeable surfaces if he or she
could build a house with a front porch. A second change was a clearer definition
of a "remodel" and a "renovation" in the code to prevent projects from being
grand fathered in that are essentially an entirely new, and larger house, built on an
existing structure.
(Endnotes)
1. Evanston Round Table. Feb. 11, 2004
_ 32
.
.
Oak Park Illinois
.
Zoning Ordinance
Tear down construction was defined as construction or remodeling of single-family and
certain two family residences to "at or near the maximum allowable size" under the zoning
ordinance in neighborhoods characteristically containing substantially smaller homes.
Nomination and Approval: Approval Is awarded based on comPliance to the revised Zoning Ordinance
Regulation Type:
Criteria (or Selection:
Activities Regulated:
Managed By:
Approved:
Zoning Districts R-I, R-2, R-3 and R-4 Single Family Districts
Village of Oak Park
January 2003
HAV. 34
U i_"
j -. , ~ : ,
.
.
BACKGROUND
The population of the communitY is approximately 52,000 people with a median
age of 36. More significant is the diversity within the community with a non-white
component of thirty percent. The city claims this that it has one of the most diverse
ranges of ethnicity, race and culture in the region. A goal of the community is to
maintain this range of diversity and providing persons from the City of Chicago
with a means to purchase homes in the suburbs. These goals were effectively
identified in the housing objective of the 1990 Comprehensive Plan, which are as
follows:
"To support racial integration throughout Oak Park and prevent resegregation in any
part of the village.
"To support an economically diverse housing stock for all income and age groups
living or working in Oak Park.
"To enhance and maintain the quality of housing stock for all income and age
groups living or working in Oak Park.
.
"To maintain and enhance the residential character of existing residential areas.
"To preserve and maintain structures of historical or architectural value and their
immediate environment.
"To stabilize the size of Oak Park's population.
Is has been the concern of the community the trend in tear down construction
would be contrary to the goals set forth in the plan, creating a community that did
not reflect their identity with in the greater Chicago region. In September of 2002, a
present a draft ordinance in regarding the tear down phenomenon was presented for
public review.
It was acknowledged .in the proposal that property values were going to continue
to increase, but the concern was that tear down construction was going to create
a situation in which property values would raise at a rate that would transform
Oak Park into an exclusive community. Tear down construction was defined as
construction or remodeling of single-family and certain two family residences to "at
or near the maximum allowable sue" under the zoning ordinance in neighborhoods
characteristically containing substantially smaller homes.
.
35 _
.
THE COMMISSION REPORT
Recognizing the potential for problems relative to future tear down construction,
the Village board directed the Plan Commission to hold a series of public meetings
in order to study the issue relative to the concerns of the community members.
Based on the community input, research and site visits, and case studies the
Commission made recommendations to the Village board. It was proposed that
changes be made to the zoning ordinance regarding the following residential types:
R-l: Single Family District
R-2: Single Family District
R-3: Single Family District
R-4: Single Family District
For each district type, the general description placed emphasis on the preservation
and protection of the physical qualities of the within the respective neighborhoods.
This goal was supported through the revised Zoning regulations, presumably
designed to lessen the impact of tear down construction. These regulations were
structured around the use of set backs in order to maintain a consistent appearance
on the street.
.
In the case of the front street, setback was determined first by a minimum number
off the property line, with the added requirement that it be within the average
setback around the house. The average setback was determined by the following
formula:
a. The average front setback is equal to One half of
the following sum: the Average Adjacent Front
Setback (as hereinafter defined) plus the Average
Non-Adjacent Front Setback (as hereinafter
defined).
(1) The Average Adjacent Front Setback is the
average front setback of the buildings or
structures on the lots immediately adjoining
the subject lot, weighted in accordance with
=- 36
.
"/lL E OF
!LL!!'J is
.
the width of each such lot.
(2) The Average Non-Adjacent Front Setback
is the average front setback of the buildings
or structUres on all of the non-adjacent lots
that are in the same or more-restrictive
district, in the same block and on the same
side of the street as the subject lot,
weighted in accordance with the width of
such lot.
b. For averaging purposes', vacant lots shall be
treated as having the minimum required setback of
.
30 feet. When the subject lot is a corner lot, the
side street shall be treated as a lot having the
minimum required setback of 30 feet.
Side yards were determined by a using a fixed dimension or a percentage of the
lot depth, whichever number was the lesser. Side yards were defined as minimum
distances setback from the property line. Building heights were also defined as a set
maximum height, although exceptions were described for use types that were not
residential.
Because this formula was applied to four different zoning types, they were used
relative to a base dimension appropriate to the zoning district. As an example, in R-t
and R-2 districts the front yard was required to be set back a minimum of 30 feet
whereas the require set back in districts R-3 and R-4 require a set back of only 20
feet.
Based on the recommendations the zoning ordinances for R-t through R-4 Were
revised in January of 2003. However, the Commission did stress the continued
observation would be required in order to determine if this first round of changes
would be appropriate for use as a means to regulate tear down construction.
.
37 .,..
.
.
.
Regulation Type: None at this time. Topic presently under review
Criteria (or Selection: NA
Nomination and Approval: NA
Activities Regulated: NA
Managed By: NA
Approved: NA
39 _
.
BACKGROUND
Rockville and the surrounding Montgomery County is a densely populated
suburb of Washington D.C. While the phenomenon of constructing large houses
was not new to the area it was previously limited to areas of development with
strict development guidelines and review processes. With continued growth and
development of the city and county, this construction trend has increasingly spilled
over into neighborhoods where the houses have smaller footprints and lower roof
heights.
WHITE PAPER STUDY
The City has taken the process of updating zoning ordinances in order to respond
to current needs and concerns. Among these concerns is mansionization and how
it has started to impact the City. As a construction trend, mansionization was not
something that was new in the City or the surrounding Montgomery County, let
alone the entire region surrounding Washington, D.C. Typically, it was managed
through neighborhood covenants and architectural reviews. However, it has become
an issue of increasing concern as the city is continued to be developed.
.
The Study addressed four concerns:
. Property Value
. Infrastructure
. Environment
. Compatibility
SPRAWL AND PROPERTY VALUE
At the heart of the all the concerns regarding mansionziantion are the issues of
sprawl, development and property values. Rockville continues to develop as a
community, but is rapidly becoming built-out, rapidly decreasing the number of lots
available. Residential development opportunities were also limited by the increase of
development of property in the county adjacent to the city limits.
This has resulted in tear down residential development that is increasingly evident
within the limits of the city, but not restricted by any of the residential covenants
used in other neighborhoods. While the pattern of re-development is not entirely
clear, preference is given to areas close to mass transit, location relative to the
central core and the amount of land attached to the property that was purchased.
=- 40
iJ.
! r;
.
!t.OCKViLLE, !"1Ag'(LAND
.
Current residents of the more desirable neighborhoods are concerned that the value
of their homes will be limited by tear down development. They are also concerned
that the sudden change in property values may change the demographic character
of the neighborhood, making the homes less affordable to middle-class home
buyers. Some residents are concerned that the increase property values may result
in increased taxes while other feel their property values may decrease relative to the
new homes. .
.
The city recognizes these concerns, but also is faced with the demands of a highly
competitive housing market within the county and Washington D.C. region.
Rapid transformation of the neighborhood character could place a burden on the
current residents in' the form of taxes. On the other side of this issue is the concern
that a lack of development within a community could generate stagnant market
conditions, resulting in decreased property values. This was compounded with the
fact that housing stock must be repaired or replaced as it becomes inadequate for
use. While renovation is a an option, it had become economically more sensible
to tear down the existing residence in many case. 'Hence the charge of the white
paper was to describe a number of options that could be used in order to regulate
mansionaization, while allowing for development to occur without the use of
covenants or other elaborate forms of regulation.
REGULATION ALTERNATIVES
Within the white paper, five methods of regulating mass were described in addition
to a brief discussion of architectural requirements. The five methods of regulating
mass were as follows:
. Building Envelope Regulations
. Roor Area Ratios
. Cubic Content Ratios
. Second Story regulation
. Daylight Plane Regulation
Building envelope regulations were described as the traditional means of regulating
building construction through the use of defined setbacks on a sliding scale. This
is traditionally defined in terms of the. footprint occupying a percentage of the lot.
This is used with a defined height limit in order to detctmine the cubic voluri1eof
the residence. Presently, the footprint a house may occupy on a lot in Rockville
ranges from 25 to 35 percent. Of significance is the manner in which the building
height is measured. Themaxirnum heightbf II house is 35 feet, measured from
.
41 ttn.
the mid~point on a gabled roof. Depending on the slope of the gable, this meanS
of measurement may allow for what appears to be an additional floor within the
house. This may create a signilicant difference in visual appearance relative to home
neighboring this house.
FLOOR AREA RATIOS
Floor Area Ratios are typically used to regulate commercial development or multiple
residences, units such as apartment buildings. In Rockville, they are typically used
in situations where setbacks were not an issue. The paper does note that FAR
regulations does not allow for ~gulationsregarding the height of a building, as
it delines only the gross area of a house. Hence, a height restriction would still be
required in order ensure that the bulk of a new house does not impede of the exiting
neighboring structures. In agclition to this, the setback regulations would also be
required, as this is not regulated by FAR regulations. Cubic content ratios operate
in a similar manner and face the same regulatory hurdles as Floor Area Ratios.
SECOND STORY REGULATIONS
Second Story Regulation involves control of the allowable square footage of a
second floor on a house in conjunction with defined setbacks in order to diminish
the bulk and visual impact of new construction. Delined as a percentage of
the footprint and additionallixed setbacks, this form of regulation is a stepped
appearance in the house. However, this form of regulation best suites new
construction as exiting homes that are renovated with a second floor may not have
load bearing points that correspond with the setback prescribed by regulations.
DAYLIGHT PLANE REGULATION
Day Light Plane Regulation is the most difficult of all ,five methods to regulate. In
this method, the maximum height of a house is defined by projecting imaginary
planes through the lot from a delined height at the side property lines. The
imaginary planes deline the maximum height of the house at any given location
on the lot. However, there may be exemptions such as towers and dormers, and
sloping topography on the site exaggerates the maximum height through the site.
In addition, as the heights .are determined by the lot area, they requite additional
review for each projC:lct. Finally, the Daylight Plane only serves as a supplement to
regulation regarqillg setbapks and footprillt areas.
IMPLEMENTATION
An equally diflicult task to the means of regulation is the means of implementation.
The methods of implementation discusses were Additional Neighborhood Review,
Overlay Districts and New Permitting Delinitions. The Neighborhood Review
_ 42
,
TMf DAVUQHT PtANf
/~......;:;; ib
,/ lfJil" ti 1
f.4 .'ti"~ ! ~ . ~
j.~' "', "
If:'ij; "".. .
.~ .""....."
~ ........;1;, ...... ""
11.. /'... .'t .:.~
11 ~, .. ij
."'0 I ',.;;
~.. t.~ t "', .
" .,
. ,
~ "
...., $ .'~)
~; .... ; "1if.;;if':'"
"/. '. ;. .,-J' .'
~..'" .
y~. '~//J ft ",. ~#
:.<., "
CROSS HCTlON OF
M OA'Yl.JGHTPUHE
'oz~\
~'.
f .
I
"'>;" i
-.-.4
!
Ai'r"
It"'} .
Ii . !1~'
\iL~,,_.~ ,. ,
II!
~.__ I ).1
Sltle: mOPEnTY ~
.
'~'...
. --'-"",,
....~.
.
.
FZOCi( VILLE, j'/IAl'\.YL/\ND
.
would requue that the proposed construction go through additional review
procedures in order to gai~approval. One~l'le teq~ire$ tl111t tllehouse builders
gai~ the. approval of the property owners on the adjaqef.lt lots after !=o~structic~f.I
exceeded a certain limit.
DEFINING HISTORIC AND CONSERVATION OVERLAY OISTRIC;:TS
Ov-~lay ~isttlct,swe~e se~llt.llted into fWo . s\1bclitegQfies~ Hist6rjcdi$tri~t$.~n~
COns~yation Oveday Qistricts. lit ellqh case speqilk P9lices andrequirerneni:s
atc written in order to protectanc! retain the ViS~lll quality of the~xjsting
neighborhood. In th~ case of Historic O:erlayDistricts, attention ~~y be placed
on material selection and .color.. More sig9ificantly, development is subject to review
~y a board or commission in order to gain approval for constructigp. Cc:wservation
Q-verlay Dis~icts lllck thislinalre~ew and approval procm.Researchintg the
architectural history 1113d chllr!lqter of the specific.. overlay district is reqlJired in orlier
to create a set of regulatipothllt regulates future development in a manner that
reftects the neighboring buildipgs.
.
The ctelltion of new delinitions involves (:ha!iging definitiong€ the terms
'!dernolition" and "substantial alterati()n" in order to discourage te!li dowl:}
coqstruction. This would also il:}volve alteration of reviewp~()ced\1res within the
City or Rockville.
Based on the review, the following recQmmendations were made in th.e white paper
. Limit mansionization regulation to the smallest three lot zones. The remaining
residential lot types were thought to be adequate to absorb any large residential
development without any adverse impact on the adjacent properties.
. Modify and add definitions for demolition and substantial alteration. The
current definitions are too lenient, as they were not written with the expectation that
this construction pattern would occur as a phenomenon,
. Establish polices and procedures to create Neighborhood Conservation
Districts. This will assist in retaining the architectural character of neighborhoods
that are seen as potential areas of redevelopment, while retaining flexibility
applicable to each neighborhood.
. Additional side yard setbacks after a certain level. The recommended additional
setback was 2 feet when the house reached a height beyond 45 feet.
.
43 _
Chapter III:
l\fethods of Evaluation
.
.
Case studies of previous zoning ordinances serves as a useful method of exploring means of regulation, but evaluation is
limited by the definitions set forth in the each case study. This makes it difficult to evaluate the physical conditions of a specific
community relative to the housing stock. In the previous section, a number of approaches were taken according to the respective
social agendas. What was not evident in these case studies was the appearance of the historic building fabric. The appearance of
the homes, placing the previous zoning ordinances into question, also not evident in these studies. Typically, these houses are
described as being "out of scale" or as the odd tooth in a smile. How is it that this is determined?
How the bulk of a building is measured relative to the street and the neighboring properties should be examined as part of this
process. Hay Dobbs has executed a secondary research exercise examining three means of identifying or measuring the bulk of a
residence. The Methods of evaluation are as follows;
.
Faceprint Assessment. the results of a Georgia Tech research project on tear downs
Evaluation Criteria for the National Register. prepared by the National Park Service
Highway Visual Impact Assessment. Prepared by MnDot
.
.
_ 44
.
.
.
.
Face Print Analysis
In 2003, Georgia Tech University was contacted regarding the visual impact that
the tear down development was having on adjacent properties and neighborhoods.
The goal of the project was to address three key questions that were identified by the
City of Atlanta's Inlill Housing Task Force. The questions that were brought to bear
were as follows
. Would current zoning regulations control the scale of single-family residential structures?
. If not, what methods are available (or could be developed) to measure the scale of residential
s~uctures? -
. Could these measures be used to develop appropriate con~1 mechanisms in parts of Atlanta!
The Georgia Tech study took an approach that primarily addressed the second
question in an effort to find answers for the other two. The result of their research
and study was a photogrammetrical process called "faceprinting." Rather than rely
upon more traditional means of measurement, such as measuring the foot print
of a building or using established setbacks, their goal was to create a system of
measurement that would measure the house's visual impact relative to the street.
The first part of the process involves photographing the house from the street.
The photographer would face the house in question with their heels placed against
the curb on the opposite side of the street. The camera settings are to be set at the
widest angle possible in order to get as much of the house in the frame as possible.
The resulting image is then used in order to determine the relative size of the house.
The image would be imported into any computer application that was capable of
measuring polygons, such as cad. This part of the process involves creating an
outline of the house in order to measure the area of the house relative to the area of
the photograph. The measured area of the house is then divided by the area of the
photograph, yielding a percentage. This is then multiplied by the observed building
height, yielding a number that is the weighted faceprint.
While the study does serve as a means to measure the scale of an object relative
to the frame, it does not provide a clear means by which a house may be measured
relative to the context that is in. As ap example, two houses may have identical
faceprint ratios while having drastically different footprints. Secondly, each house
is considered as an object within a frame, with no concern as to how it is situated of
the property. How a residence is placed within the boundaries of the lot play an
important part in their visual impact on the adjacent properties and the neighboring
houses.
45 ..
Technically, there were some parts of this process that are not clear. It is assumed
that the camera used will have settings similar to any other camera used to execute
the same process. These setting include those of the aperture and the physical
position (height) of the camera. Hence, two different cameras could yield drastically
different results when measurements of the same house are taken. Granted, the
measurements for each set of studies would be consistent, but lens selection could
skew the calculations. This would result in lower number, making the house appear
smaller based on the measured value of construction.
In addition, the measured faceptintdoes not take the side elevations of the house
into account. In a effort to be in compliance within the designated range for a
faceprint, a the bulk of a house could be positioned on along the property line. This
would result in a house that was compliant, but would still be visually encroaching
on the adjacent property.
Finally, this appears to be a method of evaluation that is reactionary, using existing
out of scale construction as a means to determine the maximum allowable ratio.
However, it would be difficult to enforce future construction limitations based on
the notion that the house with the highest number exceeds the a number set post
construction.
_ 46
.:- ~ { ; f
.
.
.
.
.
.
National Register Requirements
Another method of determining could be based on restructuring the guidelines
used to designate Historic Suburbs prepared by the U.S. Department of the Interior.
Written in 2002, the Bulletin, Historic Residential Suburbs: Guidelines for Evaluation and
Documentation for the National Register of Historic Places identifies significant suburban
forms in order to preserve their historic fabric for future generations. .'
This Bulletin is of particular relevance to Edina because the community embodies
many of the qualities identified that make properties eligible for the National
Register. Of particular note is the historic Country Club district, which has a
distinct history as a community within Edina. Contemporary construction is still
driven by a strict set of covenants and guidelines. While the rest of the community
may not have the advantage of covenants as construction guidelines, they are all
parts of a rich tapestry of developed landscapes, each with its own unique history
and relationship with the surrounding landscape.
An advantage over the Faceprint study is that the analysis could occur prior to the
construction of any homes that seem out of scale. The resulting guidelines could be
used to ensure that future construction be done in such a manner that is not only
appropriately scaled, but also is in keeping with the architectural fabric surrounding
it. Evaluation involves the following three activities:
. Defining historic significance. and assessing the historic integrity of the community.
· Intensive building and site Inventories of the history and condition of a neighborhood is related
to the historic patterns of suburbanlzation that shaped the locality or metropolitan area where
it is located.
. Final evaluation to determine whether or not a property meets the National Register criteria
for evaluation and is eligible for National Register listing.
47 ..
.
For the purposes of the creating construction guidelines, the second and third
point would not be stressed in favor of a more extensive examination of the physical
attributes of the community in order to generate construction guidelines. In keeping
with the requirements set forth by the Department of the Interior, appropriate
means of evaluating the community could be:
.. Spatial Organization and land Patterns
· Topography
· VegetatiOn
· Circulation
· Structures, Furnishings and Objects
In addition to these points, histories of the developers should be examined, along
with an examination regarding the history of how the parcels were developed. This
would allow for some flexibility in regulation, recognizing that the community was
developed in phases, and not as a single event.
.
While this would have the advantage of allowing for some flexibility in regulation,
the adoption the National Register guidelines as a foundation for construction
regulation could ultimately prove problematic. The first issue would be the
assumption that all the neighborhoods had historic value of some form. If that was
not the case, it could be a contentious matter to determine which neighborhoods
deserve designation versus those that do not. Granted, evaluation on historical merit
could be apparent, but those communities that were not selected for conservation
would most likely experience a backlash possibly resulting in an even faster rate of
tear down construction. This could possibly be interpreted as a form of redlining in
the community.
~. 48
.
.
Highway Visual Impact Assessment,
Prepared by MnDot
The final method of evaluation that could be used to identify restrictions could be
the Highway Visual Impact Assessment prepared by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation. Based on a 1999 visual survey and published in 2001, tlw Visual
Impact Assessment documents the results of three different highway view sheds in
the state of Minnesota.
In each of the surveys the highway view sheds of urban corridors were selected
andused as the basis of examination. In each survey, volunteers were required to ride
as a group through the corridor, calling out points of interest, regardless of whether
they were deemed attractive or otherwise.
.
In the course of the survey, several key elements were identified as a means to
determine the legibility of the surrounding landscape and to identify any unsightly
conditions. Individuals would call out to identify points of significance while the
other volunteers would note and assess the view on a scale of 1-5. While these points
were assessed by the passengers, MnDOT staff gave the point an identification
number and wrote down the mileage to allow for further review and photographs at
a later date. In addition to the areas that were identified by the volunteers, a number
of locations had been identified by MnDOT for asSessment. In these locations,
specific elements of the landscape were evaluated as required.
The advantage of this format was that it allowed for a broad range of considerations
with relative anonymity. Because the volunteers were required to identify and rate
the points on the tour, a more comprehensive assessment of the corridors was
compiled. Based on this, MnDOT was able to identify a number of identifiers that
were common to the evaluation of the highways. These were as follows:
· Maintenance
. Planting design
. Structural design
. Vistas from the highway
.
49
-
.
In the case of evaluating tear downs, this process may provide means of determining
common aesthetic themes in the built community. A similar process in Edina could
involve a tour of the city in order to identify a range of housing conditions in order
to determine how residents of the city feel about recent construction trends. This
information could be used to create a foundation for a set of guidelines to regulate
future development in the city.
As a tool, it combines the means of assessment used in the face print study with
that of the National Register Requirements. It allows people to visually assess and
rank residential construction asa visual exercise, with the ability to compile data for
quantification. That being said, it embodies the problems involved with both of the
methods as well.
The unspoken caveat in the Visual Assessment method is that there is a group of
undesirable residences by default. Most likely these will be determined not by a
common sense of aesthetics but by the tastes of the individual who have volunteered
for the exercise. This could generate dissent among members of the community as
their homes would be singled out as being "bad" or in "poor taste." It could also
have the potentially undesirable effect of creating additional incentives for tear
down construction in areas with smaller homes.
.
r~ 50
HAV!
.
.
.
.
Chapter IV:
Alternate Means of Regulation
LIMITATIONS OF CONVENTIONAL ZONING
Based on our research, the use of conventional methods of zoning will not be
suitable for the regulation of tear down construction patterns as they appear
today. Conventional zoning should be considered as a method of regulation that
determines the maximum bulk that a residence may have relative to the size of
the property, defined by a maximum foot print and defined maximum height or
construction.
What is not taken into account in this method of assessment is context. While a new
residence may be designe~'and constructed in full compliance with the zoning code,
the difference in size may be significant enough to make it "stand out" from the
older homes in the neighborhood. Therefore, it seems clear that part of the process
of regulating tear down construction would be creating policies or process that takes
the neighborhood, or the physical context into account. Any alternate means of
regulation should take into account relationships berween the builder, community
regulation and existing residents in the neighborhood.
To that end, there are possibly three different approaches that may be taken in
order to establish a process in which the physical qualities of new construction are
considered relative to existing physical character of the neighborhood. These are:
flex zoning regulations, community education and tax incentives.
1. Flex Zoning
Flex zoning is a method of encouraging and regulating growth in dense areas
where mixed use types may be effectively combined in a manner not permitted with
traditional zoning definitions. It is important to note that typically, this form of
regulation is not defined as an overlay district, but is intended to serve as part of a
revitalization or redevelopme~t process. Hence, the goal is to encourage growth and
development with areas that are traditionally commercial and residential in nature.
In these cases, bulk is not regulated by building height, but is examined on a case by
case basis, with emphasis placed on the effective combination of use types.
Commonly associated with principles of smart growrh, Flex zoning serves as a
means to create efficient urban environments while preserving undeveloped land
for future use. In the context of saturated building environments, it creates an
oppottunity to make new districts based on the exiting urban fabric. Relative to the
process of regulating residential construction, flex zoning can create opportunities
51_
.
in communities that encourages the continuous evaluation of residential renovation
and construction in order to maintain or encourage growth. As a principle of smart
growth, it is recommended that flex zoning be used as part of a comprehensive set
of regulations and guidelines thatinclude community education and tax incentives.
It must be stressed that flex zoning typically does not address bulk specifically.
Instead, new regulations and guidelines would be required in order to properly
address how new construction is situated within the existing residential fabric.
I
m,..!
.UNGAl.OW : S"'UNAS
, d
-..................'....;....
,..., "',,',;..
,- "c., ',,", . . ~.,
"('>/X':dLJ..:~:::"J
tdl;t;"".':....
.
...c....,/
(,',-
\..":'.1'1')1
,;;;~
p "
/ \ '"
\,
'-"
,
;.../','............
"(.:-'" //\
f;<:\,,1,"
\,,:.,'(9.. ')
'-. \~,_.J ~,
. ....i
"."
~-!. .,.f" -l . ~,_: . ','J.., '.,
Form-based building code from Salinas, CA
showing setback and massing limitations. This
very general level of regulation, tailored to the
scale of each neighborhood, can be written into
Edina} general code in tandem with the update
of the Comprehensive Plan.
~vlllD 52
.
.
.
.
2. Community Education
In addition to regulatory options and visual assessment, Edina has the opportunity
to take an educational outreach approach to addressing neighborhood change. In
many historic districts across the country, business and homeowners are encouraged
to follow voluntary guidelines for materials replacement, setbacks, and signage. For
Edina, there are several strategies through which appropriate yet varied construction
and renovations can take place under voluntary programs with clear recommended
guidelines.
Some of the strategies to disseminate information as follows:
THE EDINA DESIGN FORUM: CITIZENS COMMITTED TO RESIDENTIAL DESIGN
Whatever form they take, Edina's design education, review and outreach programs
will need coordination. The current task-force could continue as the Edina Design
Forum-a mix of residents of varied backgrounds and expertise, this group would
work with city staff to coordinate and evaluate the success of the possible programs.
Overtime, ineffective programs could be phased out and popular programs
improved.
GRAPHIC IllUSTRATIONS AND DISCUSSION MATERIALS
Future forums, discussion groups and consulting will require visual examples of
models for renovation and new design. A first task can be writing an illustrative
booklet demonstrating appropriate massing, setback, window patterns and materials
for various Edina neighborhoods. The book can describe the historic evolution of
Edina, how lots and houses changed in scale, and how best to adapt them to today's
needs without overwhelming smaller nearby properties.
The book would be filled with photo, sketches, simulations of appropriate and
inappropriate alterations, text, and sources for further information and materials.
WEB SITE AND INFORMATION FORUM
The Task Force can operate a website to include the graphic booklet along with links
to appropriate city officials or other information sources.
53 _
.
PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS
Regular public presentations can be planned for each of the city's neighborhoods
to review Edina's history and change, the contents of graphic booklet and to
answer homeowner questions. This presentation can also be brought to specific
neighborhoods at their request.
ARCHITECT AND CONTRACTOR CONTINUING EDUCATION
Because most residential projects involve contractors and designers, the Forum
can host special workshops fonhe building trades and professions. Topics can
include Edina codes, review process, recommended materials, appropriate scale and
approaches for conflict resolution with neighbors. Relevant city staff can also attend
to introduce themselves. The goal would be to create a common understanding of
high-quality design that can avoid community protest, delayed approvals, and costly
redesigns.
VOLUNTARY DESIGN REVIEW
Homeowners seeking to build or renovate should be able to come to the Forum
for voluntary design review. A volunteer panel of design professionals from Edina
can provide advice, critique and support for projects when they are in the eady
schematic design phase. This input will help owners and contractors to have a clear
sense of expectations and the opportunity to address them in the most cost-effective
way possible.
.
PRO-BONO PROFESSIONAL ADVICE
The Forum can also establish a program whereby local design experts can provide
2-3 hours of pro-bono advice for residents who are beginning to consider a building
project.
ANNUAL AWARDS PROGRAM
This program can recognize complementary new construction and renovation in
Edina while also lauding the work of specific volunteers or groups. Models include
awards programs from the Minneapolis Committee on the Urban Environment
(CUE) and awards programs from the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota. See the
Preservation Alliance website and awards at:
www.mnpreserv4tion.orglawards2005
M!~tBel 5..
I
.
.
.
.
3. Tax Incentives
With a possible model of historic preservation tax credits at the federal level, Edina
can offer tax incentives in the form of delayed valuation increases or abatements for
homeowners who pursue the voluntary design review process and follow volunteer
panel advice.
Current house assessed values could be frozen for five years after the project's
completion. A second option is to reduce the tax mill rate for a set period of time.
55 _
Chapter V:
Task Force Findings
and Recommendations
The following findings and
recommendations are supported by
the Task Force based on discussion
and the research presented herein:
Findings:
I. Massing is a nationwide
issue. The Task Force defines
"massing" as:
'The over aU volume and scale of a building
relative to the height, roof peek, setbacks, width,
and silk yards of neighboring houses. 'Massing'
is not an absolute set of measurements but
is contextual Massing is based on existing
neighborhood character, especialty that
experienced when moving along the street. "
· Many cities are addressing the issue.
. No city has found an ideal solution.
. The Issue revolves around property rights.
2. Overall, residential rebuilding
in Edina has been positive
· Design has been pleasing and a good fit for
the neighborhood;
· Construction has been of good quality;
· While the mass of new houses generally
has been larger than neighboring
houses, the mass has typically not been
overwhelming; and
· Residential rebuilding signals rebirth of
neighborhoods.
.. S6
3. Where residential
reconstruction has raised
concerns, the following were
generally true:
. The rebuilt house was in a neighborhood
of small and/or narrow lots; and
. The most common concern was that the
rebuilt house was "too high," and/or too
close to the lot line or too large for the lot
relative to neighbors.
4. Residents expressed concern
about lack of notification for
teardowns and expansions.
5. Residents expressed strong
concerns about disruption and
neighborhood livability during the
construction of a new house or a
major remodeling of an existing
house.
.
6. To address neighborhood
livability, the existing city codes
may not be adequate to regulate
residential projects. Some
projects meeting city codes have
raised citizen concerns.
.
7. In addressing new residential
construction and expansions.
the challenge is to find the
appropriate balance between:
-The right of a land owner to develop
property; and
. The right of neighboring land owners to the
"peaceful enjoyment" of their property.
.
.
.
.
Recommendations:
I. Mandatory neighbor
notification prior to permit
letting.
Property owners who intepd to build a
new house or substantially rebuild an'
existing house should be required to
notify neighboring property owners.
The notification should involve
demolition and construction start and
completion dates along with elevation
and site plans. Preferably, a perspective
drawing showing the view of the
completed project from the street
should also be provided as part of the
notification.
The City should not issue a building
permit until the notification has taken
place. Ideally, the city should post these
and other permit-related drawings on
the city web site for public review.
2. Neighborhood design
education.
Create and support an ongoing
outreach program for neighborhood
education and project review. Staffed by
the city, volun.teers, and possibly outside
consultants, this group could create
"neighborhood handbooks" tailored
to the scale, history, style and setbacks
of each neighborhood. This handbook
could identify character-defining
features for each neighborhood and
how to meet modern needs while
protecting them.
3. Neighborhood focus for
comprehensive plan update.
When the Comprehensive Plan is
updated in 2008, neighborhood
geographic definition and character
should be addressed. After completion
of the update, the zoning and building
codes could be adjusted to address
issues including: height, bulk, driveway
coverage, and setback. These guidelines
would be customized by lot size and
neighborhood context. They would not
restrict style, materials, or colors.
4. Voluntary Neighborhood
Conservation Districts,.
Groups of adjoining homeowners could
have the option to create their own
Neighborhood Conservation Oistricts
which could further guide construction
activity.
5. Proactive Residential
Construction Oversight and
Regulation:
. Start time
. Parking
. Congestion
. Safety
. Damage to adjoining property
. Time to complete
. Trees - loss & damage
. Road damage
. Storm water system damage
. Propane tanks
. Dumpsters
. Portable toilets
57 _
Appendix-
.
This Appendix is divided into the
following sub-sections:
. National and regional news artides
. Community case studies and white papers
. National Trust for Historic Preservation
Studies
· Sample research and perception~tudy
methodologies
. Task Force Meeting Minutes
. Other
All of these sources informed
the contents of this study and
recommended options.
.
-
58
.
Protecting Amerlca"s Historic Neighborhoods
,',' - -"-': -'-- - - -.:-' - - ,-
TAMING THE TEAR DOWN TREND
by Adrian Scott Fine & Jim Lindberg
June 2002
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
National Trust staff who contributed significantly in the writing of this report include:
Constance Beaumont, Megan Brown, Julia Miller, Anthony Veerkamp, and Dwight Young.
Peter Brink provided overall guidance and support.
Other National Trust staff who assisted with this project include Kathy Adams, Mike Buhler, Daniel Carey,
Greg Coble, Amy Cole, Hap Connors, Marilyn Fenollosa, Mary Ruffin Hanbery, Kitty Higgins, John Hildr~th,
Alicia Lay Leuba, Jim Peterson, Beth Newburger, Wendy Nicholas, Barbara Pahl, and Royce Yeater.
Others who contributed information, photos, or stories of teardowns I3nd solutions include:
Dan Becker, William L. Bruning, Meredith Arms Bzdak, Boyd Coon, Alice DeSol!za,Laurie deVegter, Jean
Follett, Betsy Friedberg, David Goldfarb, Bridget Hartman, Dwayne Jones, George Kramer, Lara.Kritzer,
Bruce Kriviskey, Patricia Lake, Meg Lousteau, Weiming Lu, Amy Lucas, Mike Mathews, John McCall, Nancy
McCoy, Vincent Michael, Richard Michaelson, Marya Morris, John Payne, Sue Scherner,Gretchen,Schuler,
Ellen Shubart, Christopher Skelly, David Swift, Kevin Tremble, Steve Turner, and Nore Winter.
The following organizatior)s provided information for this report:. American Planning Association, Atlanta
Preservation Center, Citizens for Historic Preservation (Ocean City, NJ), City and County of Denver
Community Planning and Development Agency, Massachusetts Historical Commission,NationalAlliance of
Preservation Commissions, Preservation League of Staten Island (NY), Preservl3tion Park Cities (Dallas,
TX), and the Preservation Resource Center of New Orleans,
Cover photo credits: Julia Miller, David Swift, Sue Schemer.
.
.
.
CONTENTS
.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PART I: AN ALARMING EPIDEMIC
. What is a Teardown?
. Historic Neighborhoods are Teardown Targets
PART II: THE IMPACT OF TEAR DOWNS ON HISTORIC PLACES
. Aren't Historic Properties Protected From Demolition?
. Destroying Architectural Heritage
. How Oversized New Houses are Damaging Historic Neighborhoods
. Reducing Affordable Housing and Community Diversity
. Losing Control of the Neighborhood
PART III: WHAT IS CAUSING THE TEAR DOWN EPIDEMIC?
. Rising Real Estate Prices
. ThEfSupersizing of the American House
. Back to the City (and Older Suburbs)
. The Attraction of Historic Neighborhoods
. What Baby Boomers Want
PART IV: THE ECONOMICS OF TEARDOWNS
. The Rule of Three
. The Influence of Speculators
. When the Ride is Over
.
PART V: ARE TEARDOWNS SMART GROWTH?
. Compatible Infill: the Win-Win Solution
. The Tradition of Additions
PART VI: TOOLS TO TAME THE TEARDOWN TREND
. Planning Ahead
. Demolition Moratoriums and Delays
. Moving Threatened Homes
. Historic Districts
. Conservation Districts
. Design Review
. FARs and Lot Coverage Requirements
. Setbacks and Open Space Standards
. Bulk Limits
. Development Incentives and Bonuses
. Downzowning
. Easements and Covenants
. Community Land Trusts
. Historic Real Estate Marketing and Education Programs
. Financial Incentives and Technical Assistance
CONCLUSION
FIVE TEARDOWN CASE STUDIES
.
ENDNOTES
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
TAIIlNemE TEAIIDO_1REND
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
TAMING THE
TEAR DOWN TREND
A disturbing pattern of demolitions is
approaching epidemic proportions in
historic neighborhoods across
America:
. In two neighborhoods just outside
downtown Dallas, more than
1,000 early 20th century homes
have been purchased, bulldozed
and sent to the dump, making
way for the construction of luxury
homes of up to 10,000 square
feet each.
. In Denver, some 200 homes -
most of them brick bungalows
from the 1920s and 1930s -
were demolished last year and
replaced with stucco-clad houses
three times their size.
. In the Chicago suburb of
Winnetka, a rare pre-Civil War
house was purchased for $12
million and leveled by a new
owner who planned a vast luxury
home but has since moved to
California.
. In Rancho Mirage, Calif., a
museum-quality,5,000-square-
foot home designed in 1962 by
famed architect Richard Neutra
was demolished without warning
by its new owners, who plan to
build a much larger new house.
. Even the work of Frank Lloyd
Wright is at risk. In the close-in
Chicago suburb of Bannockburn,
a house designed by Wright in
1956 was purchased last year by
an owner who announced plans -
later dropped - to demolish it
and build new.
What is behind this rush to demolish
historic houses? It is the teardown
trend, a real estate development
practice that is devastating historic
neighborhoods across the nation.
The National Trust has documented
more than 100 communities in 20
states that are experiencing
significant numbers of teardowns,
and that number is climbing fast.
The term "teardown" refers to the
practice of demolishing an existing
house to make way for a dramatically
larger new house on the same site.
While teardowns are sometimes
acceptable, the National Trust is
specifically concerned about those
that are wreaking havoc in historic
neighborhoods, whether they are
officially designated historic or are
potentially eligible for such
designation at the federal, state or
local level.
The. most obvious impact of
teardowns in historic neighborhoods
is the loss of older houses that
become "scrape-offs" because they
are seen as outdated or too small.
Perhaps even more damaging are the
replacements for these demolished
homes: massive, out-of-scale new
structures that completely ignore the
historic character of the existing
neighborhood.
Shoehorning massive, suburban-style
homes into historic neighborhoods is
not a good fit. Typically measuring
from 3,000 to 10,000 square feet,
these new structures overshadow
neighboring homes and threaten the
very qualities that make historic
neighborhoods so attractive in the
first place. The large new houses are
often dominated in front by driveways
and three and four-car garages, and
oriented to private interior spaces
rather than the community life of
front porches and sidewalks.
Incrementally, as the number of
teardowns increases, the overall
character and charm of a historic
neighborhood begins to disappear,
replaced by a hodgepodge of boxy
new mansions and forlorn-looking
older homes. Neighborhood livability
is diminished when mature trees and
landscaping are removed, backyards
are eliminated, and sunlight is
blocked by towering new structures
built up to the property lines.
Economic and social diversity is
reduced when modest, affordable
homes are replaced with structures .
costing three times as much. Finally,
any sense of neighborhood continuity
and stability is lost when teardowns
are a constant threat and speculative
developers, rather than residents,
control the neighborhood's destiny.
What has caused the recent increase
in teardowns? The trend is driven in
part by the growing economy and
substantial wealth that many
households have accumulated over
the past decade. But teardowns are
also occurring because a growing
number of people are looking for
alternatives to long, congested
commutes. As more people look for
housing in urban and close-in
suburban locations, they are often
drawn to well-preserved historic
neighborhoods. Many of these new
residents, however, are bringing
suburban-style housing preferences
back to the city with them, including
the desire for vast square footage,
numerous amenities and multi-car .
garages. These features are difficult
to fit into many historic
neighborhoods. The challenge is to
accommodate changing housing
tastes and needs without sacrificing
the character and long-term stability
of older neighborhoods.
While some argue that teardowns are
a component of smart growth that
brings density back to cities, this is
often not the case. Most teardowns
do not add density, but simply
replace existing homes with larger
and more costly structures. There is,
however, a "win-win" alternative to
teardowns. Architecturally
compatible new infill construction is a
true smart-growth strategy that
directs higher density and new
investment to appropriate areas.
Development opportunities -
including underused historic
structures and vacant land in older
neighborhoods - abound in most
American cities. Even in areas where
large parcels of open land are scarce, ..
teardowns can be avoided by
encouraging sensitive additions to
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
T.1II81HE1IAIIDOWN mEND
2
existing properties and identifying
parcels where compatibly-designed,
. appropriately-scaled new homes can
complement the established historic
character of the neighborhood.
SOLUTIONS:
What steps can communities take to
prevent teardowns or better manage
their impact? First and most
important, residents must develop a
vision for the future, deciding where
and how growth and change can be
accommodated. Then, mechanisms
must be put in place to ensure that
this vision is not compromised by
speculative teardown developers. In
places where the pace of teardowns
has already reached a crisis point, it
may be necessary to provide a
"cooling-off" period, through a
temporary moratorium on teardowns,
to allow time for the community to
develop a consensus about what to
do. Another useful early step is to
prepare visual simulations of what a
neighborhood would look like if it
. were fully "built out" under current
zoning. Often the difference between
the "build out" scenario and current
conditions is dramatic, suggesting the
need to develop strategies to manage
development more carefully.
Communities can choose from a
variety of effective planning and
preservation tools to implement their
vision and tame teardowns. Several
of these tools aim to protect existing
structures, in part by requiring the
review of proposed demolitions and
by limiting the scale of new
construction to reduc.e the pressure
for teardowns. Other tools are
designed to guide sensitive additions
to existing homes. and to ensure that
new construction respectS a
neighborhood's historic character
rather than damaging it.
In considering techniques to protect
the character of historic
neighborhoods, communities should
keep in mind that there is no "magic
. bullet" that will stop teardowns. A
variety of strategies will be needed,
including these:
. Placing a temporary moratorium
on demolitions, with high
penalties for violations, can
prevent the loss of significant
structures and allow time to
develop alternatives to
demolition.
. Designating historic districts
enables local boards to review
and prevent demolitions and
ensure that new construction is
compatible with the established
building patterns and styles of
designated historic
neighborhoods.
. Establishing neighborhood
conservation districts helps
ensure that traditional
neighborhood character is not
destroyed by demolitions or out-
of-scale new construction.
. Providing for design review of
new construction projects in
residential areas, whether for all
new homes or for projects above
a certain size, allows city planning
staff to suggest alternatives to
incompatible construction
proposals.
. Setting f1oor-area-ratios and lot
coverage requirements keeps the
scale of new construction
compatible with existing homes
by capping the percentage of a
residential lot that may be built
upon.
. Revising development standards
to define criteria for building
height and width, roof pitch,
garage and driveway locations,
front and side setbacks and other
building features helps ensure
that new houses and additions
are consistent with existing
community character.
. Downzowning can adjust the mix
of uses and densities permitted
in specific areas to fit more
closely with what residents want
their neighborhood to be in the
future.
. Negotiating VOluntary easements
and covenants for selected
individual properties, either
through donation or purchase,
can ensure that the architectural
character and affordability of
landmark properties are
permanently protected.
. DeVeloping historic real estate
marketing and education
programs is a way to inform
realtors and potential new
residents about the history of
older neighborhoods and provide
guidance in areas such as
rehabilitating historic homes and
building compatible additions.
. Providing financial incentives and
technical assistance, such as tax
abatements, low-interest loans
and referrals to qualified
contractors, helps residents
acquire and rehabilitate historic
houses.
Residents have worked for decades
to protect and nurture the slow,
incremental revitalization of many
historic neighborhoods across the
country. Now, suddenly, some of
these very same places are
threatened - not by people leaving
the neighborhood but by newcomers
wanting to move in on their own
terms. The challenge today is to
manage this new investment so that
it respects the character and
distinctiveness that made these
neighborhoods so valuable and
desirable in the first place.
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
TAMING 1IIE 'IUIIDOWN mEND
3
PART I: AN ALARMING EPIDEMIC
Until a few years ago, the "teardown" was a relatively
isolated phenomenon, occurring most often in the
nation's wealthiest communities,.. places like Aspen,
Nantucket and Beverly Hills. Elsewhere in America, the
term was largely unfamiliar - but not anymore. Articles
about controversial teardowns appear regularly in
newspapers around the country. On the tree-lined
streets of once-quiet older neighborhoods in scores of
communities, bulldozers are moving in and battles are
erupting between developers and neighbors.
Teardowns, in short, have reached epidemic
proportions.
Evidence of the teardown trend can be found among
the older, inner-ring suburbs surrounding Chicago and
Boston, in desirable urban neighborhoods in Atlanta
and Denver, in the "techno-boom" towns around San
Francisco and Seattle, in conveniently-located
commuter suburbs in New Jersey and Maryland, and in
historic resort towns from Palm Beach to Palm Springs.
In some communities the practice is just beginning. In
other places, the trend has become so firmly
entrenched that it is not uncommon to see older homes
demolished almost daily.
Once teardownS start, they proliferate. "It's a trend that
keeps on rolling," says a New Jersey builder. "Builders
used to be afraid to be the first person in a
neighborhood to tear a house down. But now they're
looking around and saying they don't mind taking the
risk."1 To date, the National Trust has documented
more than 100 communities in 20 states that are
experiencing significant numbers of teardowns.
What Is a Teardown?
The term "teardown" refers to the practice of
demolishing an existing house to make way for a
dramatically larger new house on the same site.
Here's how the practice typically works: Developers
look for properties in established neighborhoods where
there is a potential to build far more square footage
than is contained in the existing home. The existing
house is purchased and bulldozed, the lot is scraped
clean, a much larger new house is erected, and the
completed project is offered for sale. Variations exist: In
some cases, large estates are subdivided and leveled to
make way for two or more new homes, while in other
instances several smaller houses are cleared to provide
space for one massive, single-family home. In most
teardown situations the existing house is removed
completely, though occasionally a small portion is left
.
After
Neighborhood experiencing teardowns. Small,
older homes are often demolished and replaced With
a new house three times the size of any existing
house on the block. Drawing: Adrian Scott Fine.
.
.
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
TAMING TNE tEARDOWN IREND
4
standing, engulfed by new construction. As more
. houses are purchased and demolished and massive
new homes take their place, the character of a
neighborhood is permanently changed.
Hlstort~ Neighborhoods are Teardown Targets
The impact of teardowns is especially disturbing in
historic neighborhoods, whether these areas are
officially designated historic or are potentially eligible for
such designation at the federal, state or local level.
Built before the automobile became dominant in
American cities, these urban neighborhoods and inner-
ring suburbs are highly prized for their pedestrian
orientation, convenient location near mass transit lines,
attractive tree-lined streets, historic residential
architecture, public amenities such as parks and
libraries, local shopping districts l;lnd good schools.
Many of them are stable and nearly built out, with
relatively few houses for sale and even fewer lots
available for construction of new homes. With many
people wanting to move into such desirable areas but
also preferring large new houses, the pressure for
teardowns can be intense.
.
Teardown Target.. Modest historic houses located on
large lots are typical targets, such as this Craftsmen
style bungalow. Photo: Patricia Lake
It is common to find teardowns concentrated in areas
where the homes are relatively small, typically featuring
two or three bedrooms and ranging from 1,000 to
1,800 square feet. Many of these homes were built in
the early 2()th century, when a 'growing economy and
more accessible lending policies allowed large numbers
of city-clwellers to buy private homes for the first time.
Lot sizes in these areas vary from 5,000 to 10,000
square feet, with the house typically covering only 20
percent of the lot. With today's preference for larger
. homes, many older neighborhoods are considered
. underbuilt.
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
"Scrap&Off." Older house recently demolished and
lot graded to street level. Photo: Adrian Scott Fine
PART II: THE IMPACT OF TEAR DOWNS
ON HISTORIC PLACES
As cities evolve and grow, the periodic replacement of
outdated and inefficient structures is both inevitable
and desirable. Tearing down an older buiiding that
lacks historic significance or architectural distinction
can be appropriate and positive, especially in areas that
are not historic. Even in historic neighborhoods,
structures that do not contribute to the overall character
of the area may be candidates for replacement with
higher-quality, better-designed buildings. In recent
years, however, demolitions have often been as hasty
and ill-considered as in the heyday of urban renewal in
the 1950s and 1960s. Today's teardown trend is
another example of how We sometimes carelessly throw
away our valuable heritage in the name of progress and
change.
Teardowns' impact on historic neighborhoods is twofold.
First, as fine historic homes are reduced to rubble to
make way for much larger new houses, the architectural
heritage of our communities is eroded. Second, the
massive, out-of-scale structures that are built to replace
older homes do not fit well in historic neighborhoods
and threaten the very qualities that make these
neighborhoods attractive and desirable.
TAMING !HE 'I'EARDOWN 1REND
5
Aren't Historic Properties Protected from
Teardowns?
Although it is frequently assumed that properties and
districts that are designated "historic" are protected
from demolition, this is often not the case. Historic
designation at the federal level, through the National
Register ofHi~toric Places, offers recognition and some
financial il1centives for preservation, but such listing
does not prevent private owners from demolishing their
homes. The same is generally true for properties listed
on state. registers of hist()ric places. Real protection for
historic properties comes with local designation,
typically through historic preservation ordinances that
have been enacted in some 2,500 communities around
the nation. The level of protection provided by these
ordinances varies greatly. Many ordinances are simply
advisory or can only delay proposed demolitions
temporarily, and their effectiveness may be
compromised by shifts in the local political climate.
Demolition In Progress. Increasing numbers of
historic properties are being lost to the wrecking ball
Photo: David Swift
Although many of the neighborhoods threatened by
tea rd owns. are considered historic, most of these areas
currently lack designation of any type. There are many
reasons for this, including the fact that some of these
areas have not been adequately studied and
documented.2 Historic designation is often not
seriously considered until a threat emerges and
demolitions begin to occur. In addition, many local
governments are stretching their resources to manage
existing historic districts and have not had the time,
funding or staffing needed to survey and designate
additional historic neighborhoods. As a result, great
numbers of historic places - ranging from Victorian
neighborhoods in Staten Island, N. Y., to Craftsmen-style
bungalow enclaves in Santa Monica, Calif. - are
essentially unprotected and vulnerable to future
teardowns.
.
Teardowns are Destroying Arcllltectural
Heritage
As the teardown trend continues, increasing numbers of
historic properties are being lost to the wrecking ball.
The losses usually start slowly, with the demolition of a
few homes scattered through the neighborhoOd. If
teardowns are allowed to continue, a domino effect
often takes over, and entire blocks of smaller historic
homes can disappear in the co.urse of a building
season. Lost in the process are the types of houses
that define the common, vernacular architectural
heritage of a community. These include early 2()th-
century lake cottages in Minneapolis, Queen Anne
homes in Seattle, Prairie-style bungalows in the Chicago
suburbs, Colonial Revival houses near Washington, D.C.
and early Modernist designs in Connecticut and
California.
In addition, many noteworthy landmarkS have been
demolished and replaced:
. In Palo Alto, Calif., an 1899 Craftsman-style house
designed by Julia Morgan, architect of San Simeon
and California's first woman architect, was
demolished.
. In the Main Line suburbs outside Philadelphia, a
1905 home that was one of the finest remaining
residential structures designed by Horace
Trumbauer, architect of the Philadelphia Art
Museum, was bulldozed.
. In the Chicago suburb of Winnetka, a rare pre-Civil
War house was purchased for $12 million and
leveled by a new owner who planned a vast luxury
home but has since moved to California.
. In North Hempstead, N. Y., the Tristram Dodge
House, built .in 1719 and once owned by members
of the Astor family, is proposed for a "scrape-off."
. In Tenafly, N. J., the historic 1909 Hensel House
was demolished in 2000. This American
Foursquare-style house on a one-acre lot was
considered one of the most significant in Tenafly,
but developer Steve Konefsky said, "I don't look at
this house as being historic. I look at it as being a
potentially unique situation for subdividing that is
allowable by ordinance."3
.
.
NATIONAl TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
1'AIIIN8 'IIIE 1EARDOWM IREND
6
Teardowns also are seen in residential areas developed
after World War II. Early postwar homes were fairly
. small and located on spacious lots - perfect teardown
targets in today's real estate market. While the vast
majority of hornes in these areas are not yet considered
historic by most people, an increasing number of
neighborhoods and individual homes from the 1950s
and 1960s are being recognized for their architectural
and historic significance. In California, homes in 1950s
subdivisions designed by Joseph Eichler are now
coveted like classic cars. These homes are fairly small
by today's new home standards, however, and
controversies have erupted over recent teardowns and
large additions in Eichler neighborhoods. "In the next
five years, a lot of this 50s stuff will be gone," says
Kevin Tremble, chair of the Tenafly [N. J.] Historic
Preservation Commission.
Modern homes designed by some of the 20th century's
best-known architects have been lost to teardowns. For
example:
. In New Canaan, Conn., more than a dozen classic
1950s modernist homes designed by architects
such as Marcel Breuer have been razed and
replaced by spraWling new homes.
In Rancho Mirage, Calif., a museum-quality, 5,000-
square-foot home designed in 1962 by famed
architect Richard Neutra was demolished without
warning by its new owners, who plan to build an
even larger new home.
. Even the work of Frank Lloyd Wright is at risk. In the
close-in Chicago suburb of Bannockburn, a spacious
house designed by Wright in 1956 was purchased
last year by an owner who announced plans to
demolish it and build new. Fortunately, the ensuing
public outcry resulted in the sale of the house to a
preservation-minded buyer.
.
.
How OVersized New Ho.s.
are Damaging Historic Neighborhoods
The damage caused by teardowns in historic
neighborhoods only begins with the demolition of
historic houses. What comes next can be even more
destructive: the construction of new, oversized
structures that disrupt architectural character, diminish
livability and reduce economic and social diversity
throughout the neighborhood.
In neighborhoods experiencing teardowns, it is not
uncommon for small, older houses to be demolished
and replaced with new houses three times the size of
any e.xisting home on the block. This greatly increased
. square footage frequently results in tall, bulky
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
structures that loom over adjacent houses and break
the established building patterns of the area. "When
you inject one of these McMansions into the middle of
this otherwise homogeneous neighborhood, it sticks out
like a sore thumb," Robert Griffin, former president of
the Bergen County Historical Society, told the Bergen
Record in a story about teardowns in New Jersey, a
state where homes are 25 percent larger than the
national average.4 The size of these new homes
reflects American consume.rs' appetite for more and
more special amenities, greater interior space. and
bigger garages. Though it may not last indefinitely, the
current trend toward larger home.s is difficult to
accommodate in historic neighborhoOds where space is
limited.
Out of Scale. Tall, bulky new homes often loom over
adjacent, historic houses. Photo: Adrian Scott Fine
The livability of historic neighborhoods is erOded when
new houses are built out to the lot lines, all but
eliminating side and back yards. In many cases, mature
trees and landscaping are cut down to make way for
these massive new houses, which block sunlight to
neighboring yards and cast permanent shadows onto
adjacent homes. When homeowner Jeannene
Przyblyski learned that a large new structure was
proposed next door to her home outside San Francisco,
she said to the developer, "What you're telling me is
that the rear of my house, my deck and garden will
effectively become the Iightwell for your building."5
The new mini-castles often seem like stand--alone
developments, their plans oriented to private interior
spaces rather than the community life of front porches
and sidewalks. A report on teardowns prepared for the
City of Geneva, III., noted that large replacement homes
"tend to be somewhat isolating, like fortresses ... in
TAMlNe1ME 'lEARDOWN mEND
7
some instances, they may actually discourage
neighborhood interaction."6
The automobile orientation of many of these homes is
particularly damaging to neighborhood character. In
many older neighborhoods, garages and driveways are
located off rear service alleys; front yards are kept free
of driveways and cars, creating a pleasant environment
for porch-sitting, walking and socializing. All too often,
the new homes being built in historic neighborhoods
today are designed in accordance with car-oriented
subdivision formulas: Front yards are given over to
driveways and house facades are dominated by garage
doors rather than porches. Some communities have
taken steps to address the impact of front garages on
historic neighborhoods. In Portland, Ore.,the so-called
"snout" house,with its protruding, front-facing garage
doors, was banned from th~ city's older neighborhoods
in 1999. "We are not anti-automobile so much as we
are pro-pedestrian," says a Portland city planner.7
'..rdOw,. afit4ace. Affordable Housing
and Cc>>mmalllty Diversity
In addition to their negative impact on architecture and
neighborhO()d Character, teardowns can greatly alter the
economic and socia I balanc.e of historic communities.
One ()f the great attributes of older nei~hborhoods is
that they are built in a way that encourages people of
different ages, householdtype~, income leve.ls and
cultures to live together. The existence of small homes,
"granny flats," basement apartments and carriage
houses fosters diversity in historic neighborhoods.
Without ca'reful integration into an established
neighborhood, teardowns eliminate many of these
housing options, including affordable houses that
previously at/owed many young families a chance at
homeownership. Once known as "starter homes," these
modest but sturdy bungalows, Cape Cods, Colonials,
ranches and other all-American house types are now
seen as "teardown targets." In some communities
experiencing teardowns, the starter house has become
an endangered species.
For communities that are concerned only with the
bottom line, the teardown trend may have a short-term
payoff in that property tax revenues often increase
temporarily. These higher taxes, however, can be
enough to drive out many single householdS, moderate-
income famili~ and older homeowners living on fixed
incomes. When Elaine Kadish of Englewood, N. J., saw
her property taxes rise 40 percent in a single year, she
Before
After
Change In Character. Replacement houses are often
more automobile oriented, with front yards given over to
driveways. Drawing: Adrian Scott Fine
had to sell the Victorian home she had lived in for years
- only to see it to become a teardown. A Palisades
Park, N. J., developer finds this process beneficial,
providing a kind of social service. "The old people can
get a good price and move somewhere else where they
can afford to live," he says.s
Many long-time residents of historic neighborhoods are
afraid that teardowns will turn formerly mixed-income
communities into homogeneous, upper-class enclaves.
In the Boston suburb of Arlington, Selectman Charles
Lyons proposed a task force to look at teardowns and
affordable housing, saying, "Down the road, I don't want
my children and their children raised in a community
where you have to be upper middle-class to Iive."9
.
losing Control of the Neighborhood
As teardowns advance, property owners may feel
powerless to intervene or have a say in hbw their
historic neighborhood changes. Often it seems that the
developers and builders have taken control of the
community. In neighborhoods where the home market
is extremely tight, houses simply transfer quietly to
developers instead of going up for sale. Some owners
are solicited through mail and telephone by realtors
encouraging them to sell toa developer who plans a
teardown. A Chicago builder says, "We do everything
imaginable, including scanning the classified pages of
newspapers, driving around neighborhoods, and
knocking on doors."10 A resident of Chevy Chase, Md.,
remembers when teardowns first arrived. "As the real
estate market took off, several agents began their
assault on our neighborhood. Our smaller houses came
down and Big Box Victorians sprouted up all over the
.
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
TAMIN81HE1EARDOWN 1REND
8
place." She adds, "I am saddened that it is the
.. realtor/developers dictating the size, scale, and
massing of these new homes and shaping the future of
our community, and not WE the community who are
determining our own future."11
Without careful management and planning by residents
and government leaders who have a long-term
investment in the community, the teardown epidemic
threatens to destroy the very qualities that have made
historic neighborhoods so attractive over the years.
Unfortunately, some places have already passed the
point of no return. In these communities, streets are
cluttered with a jumble of oversized monster houses
sitting uncomfortably next to forlorn-looking older
homes waiting for the wrecking ball. Increasingly,
historic houses look out of place in these
neighborhoods, whose chaI~cter and charm have been
irreparably damaged. Most long-time residents have
left.
The good news is that in most communities it is not too
late to stop teardowns. Residents and community
leaders still have a chance to develop alternatives to
teardowns, to guide development and change in ways
that respect the historic character and diversity of their
older neighborhoods, and to ensure the long-term
. sustainability of their communities. The following
sections are intended to help arm neighborhood
residents, preservationists and local government
officials with information and tools to stem the
teardown epidemic.
PART III: WHAT HAS CAUSED
THE TEAR DOWN EPIDEMIC?
What caused the teardown trend to spread so quickly
across the country over the past few years? Is it likely
to continue, or will it slow down? The answers to these
questions are still being sorted out, but it is clear that
several major economic, demographic and market
trends have conspired to bring intense development
pressure to certain older neighborhoods. A better
understanding of these trends m~y lead us to solutions
that encourage investment in historic neighborhoods
without sacrificing their historic character, diversity and
affordability.
Here are some of the factors influencing the teardown
trend nationally:
.
Before
Stand-Alone Houses. New, oversized structures can
radically disrupt the character of a historic
neighborhood. Drawing: Adrian Scott Fine
Rising .eal Estate Prices
Perhaps the key factor contributing to the teardown
trend has been the booming economy, which took off in
the early 1990s and helped spark a rapid rise in real
estate prices. Increased demand and historically low
interest rates also helped keep home prices moving up.
According to a recent report from the Joint Center for
Housing Studies at Harvard University, housing prices
have outpaced inflation by sixteen percent since
1993.12 In some of the hottest metropolitan markets,
home values have doubled and even tripled over the
last decade. Even during the recent economic
slowdown, housing prices have continued to climb.i3
Rising residential real estate values have led developers
to look for "undervalued" properties, including those
that are located in stable, older neighborhoods in urban
centers and inner-ring suburbs. Many of these
undervalued properties are teardown targets. In
addition, sellers in the current hot market are pocketing
considerable capital gains to invest in their next home.
With .extra cash in hand, many people are buying as
much house as they can afford, hoping to ride the
"equity wave" that has been so powerful in recent years.
This increases the demand for larger homes.
The Superslzlng of the American House
Like almost everything else in today's society, American
houses are getting bigger. In 1950, the average new
home incorporated 1,000 square feet, including two
bedrooms, one bath, a small living room, dining room.
and kitchen. In 1970, the size of new homes had
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
TAIlING 1ME 1EARDOWN tREND
9
jumped to 1,500 square feet. Last year, the average
new home measured 2,265 square fe~t and included
three bedrooms, two baths and a two-car garage.14
While that is the average size of new homes, many
houses are being built at a far grander scale. According
to the National Association of Homebuilders, eighteen
percent of the houses built in 2001 (more than
200,000 houses) provided at least 3,000 square feet of
living space. New subdivisions of luxury homes
reaching 5,000 square feet and up are commonplace
on the edges of most cities. The list of desired features
in new homes has changed as well, and now includes
amenities such as great rooms, kitchen islands, spa
bathrooms, his-and-hers walk-in closets, home offices,
nanny suites, media rooms and multi-car attached
garages. Seventeen percent of American homes now
have garage space for at least three cars.15
Recent experience in many communities shows that it is
the larger homes - 3,000 square feet and more, with
plenty of amenities - that are typically b~ing built on the
site of teardowns. Many older homes do not meet
today's average new-home standards and few offer the
amenities of the large new luxury houses. Will American
houses keep getting bigger? Perhaps not. "America's
long-running love affair with big houses may finally be
fizzling," notes a recent Wall Street Journal Online
report on how homebuilders are beginning to offer
smaller designs that are more compatible with older
neighborhoods.16 The popularity of Minneapolis
architect Sarah Susanka's book, The Not So Big House,
is another indicator that bigger is not better for every
household tOdayP And it shouldn't be forgotten that
historic homes, including small ones, maintain a strong
market appeal of their own. Architectural detailing,
high-quality materials, craftsmanship, historic character,
charm - these qualities still matter to many buyers
looking for homes in historic neighborhoods.
Back to the City (and Older SUbUrbs)
After years of losing residents to the suburbs, some of
the nation's largest cities experienced net population
increases in the last decade, many for the first time
since before World War II. 2000 Census figures show
that thirty-five of the fifty largest American cities gained
residents between 1990 and 2000.18 The potential
significance of the urban market is indicated by the fact
that the National Association of Homebuilders recently
prepared a stUdy called The Next Frontier: Building
Homes in American Cities that cites a number of
reasons for the interest in city living: "Some are looking
to cities again because of their proximity to jobs,
Shopping and urban amenities. Some are looking to
cities because of the great energy, history and sense of
place. And some are looking to cities to escape the lOng.
commutes associated with suburban living. Regardless
of the reason, it is clear that the market for urban
housing is gaining momentum. "19
The influx of new residents to cities is surely a welcome
trend to preservationists. But unless it is managed well,
this trend may also increase the pressure for teardowns
in convenient, established urban neighborhoods and
close-in suburbs. A key question is whether those
people who are moving into historic areas will insist on
incompatible, out-of-scale suburban building styles or
adapt to the traditional patterns of older neighborhoods.
To make the most of the emerging "back to the city"
movement, local governments and nonprofit groups
must encourage the rehabilitation and development of
additional urban and inner-suburban neighborhoods.
This would provide more housing choices for future
buyers and take away some of the pressure for
teardowns in established neighborhoods.
TIle Attraction of Historic Neighborhoods
Almost without exception, population incr~ases and
urban revitalization are happening in exactly thoSe
places where local residents and preservationists have
been successful in protecting the high-qu~lity
architecture, mature landscaping and pedestrian .
orientation oftraditional, historic neighborhoods. "The
most important factor in urban revitalization [is] the
folks of all ages and social classes who never gave up
on their old neighborhoods, who rolled up their sleeves
to hold the line on urban decay, and who ultimately
brought real improvements to their communities" notes
Peter Katz, a real estate consultant and writer on urban
development.2o
In those historic neighborhoods where teardowns have
now begun, residents and preservationists must feel
Domino Effect. It may be only a matter of time before
the historic house next door becomes a teardown.
Photo: Adrian Scott Fine
.
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
TAMlN81HE1EAIIDOWN 1REND
10
like victims of their own success. As residents come
. back to many cities, historic neighborhoods without
adequate protections in place will continue to be
teardown targets. Along with stronger protections to
prevent demolitions and out-of-scale additions,
preservationists must seek "win-win" solutions by
identifying appropriate infill sites and developing flexible
guidelines to encourage compatible new construction.
What Baby Boomers Want
Members of the massive baby boom generation (born
between 1946 and 1964) head 40 percent of American
households and control 70 percent of the nation's
wealth (cite). The tastes and preferences of this
generation will certainly influence housing trends in
coming years. Last year, the first group of baby
boomers turned 55; by 2010 there will be an estimated
37 million "boomers" 55 or.older.21 Their children, the
"echo boomers," are now becoming young adults and
are expected to be starting families during this same
period.
The Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard
University predicts: "With many of the baby boomers
becoming empty-nesters and their children starting to
marry, the fastest growing household type will be
. marri.ed couples Wit.h.out minor children living at
home. "22 For these empty-nesters, housing choices will
be determined less by factors such as school districts
and yard size and more by convenience, weather and
proximity to cultural and recreational amenities.
Attractive urban neighborhoods and lively downtown
areas are likely to become preferred home locations for
many empty-nesters in coming years. Many of their
children, meanwhile, will be seeking starter homes in
older suburban areas. If not managed carefully, the
teardown trend threatens to negatively impact both of
these potential future markets.
PART IV: THE ECONOMICS OF
TEAR DOWNS
At first glance, the idea of a teardown defies common
sense. Why woulcl someone pay hundreds of thousands
of dollars - in some cases even millions of dollars - to
buy a house, only to tear it down? The answer is that
the buyers of these properties are not buying houses,
they are buying land - or "buildable lots," to use real
estate terminology. The existing houses on these lots
become almost incidental when the value of the land is
.. actually higher than the value of t. he house that sits on
it.
Before
After
Bigger Houses. New houses being built on the site
of teardowns are typically 3,000 sq. ft. or larger.
Drawing: Adrian Scott Fine
Lot values are determined in part by physical features
and size, but even more by location. In real estate, the
, most important quality of a property is how things look
next door and across the street. We all know that
waterfront properties command greater prices than lots
a block or two away. Similarly, a quarter-acre lot in a
conveniently located, well-kept neighborhood with good
schools is worth more than a similar lot in a
neighborhood that does not have those qualities. Add
amenities such as historic architecture, mature trees
and traditional pedestrian-oriented streetscapes, and
the land value goes even higher. The final factor in
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
TAMING 1111 1EARDOWN 1REND
11
determining land values is how a site is zoned: what
size and type of structure can be built on the property.
If the value of the land exceeds the value of the house
that sits on it, then a teardown scenario begins to make
economic sense. "A house is most likely a goner if the
property it's on is worth far more than the structure,"
says a recent BusinessWeek Online article on the
teardown trend.23
The RUle of Three
Real estate agents and developers talk about the "Rule
of Three" when it comes to teardowns. If you can sell a
finished new home for about three times what you paid
for the property, the conventional wisdom goes, then a
teardown will payoff. Consider a hypothetical "hot"
neighborhood where houses are selling for $200 per
square foot. Average new construction costs in the
same neighborhood are $100 per square foot. A
developer finds a 1,350- square-foot 1920s house and
purchases it for $270,000. He then pays $30,000 to
demolish the house, spends another $400,000 to build
a new 4,000-square-foot house an(l sells it for
$800,000 - just about three times what he paid for the
property. After deducting $700,000 for the costs of
acquisition, demolition and construction, the developer
is left with a handsome $100,000 profit.
The Rule of Three is particularly imp()rtant for
commt,mities to keep in mind when thinking about how
to slow the teardown trend. Using various tools to limit
house sizes to less than three times the size of existing
homes will make teardowns far less attractive
economically, espeCially for speculators.
The laflueaee of Speculators
"People have a right to tear down their house if they
want to," is one comment often heard when the
teardown issue is discussed. But that is not what is
really happening. Only a tiny fraction of teardowns are
carried out by the long-time owners of the houses being
demolished. A somewhat larger number of teardowns
are "custom" jobs, paid for by new residents who have
recently purchased an existing home and have hired a
contractor to tear it down and build a new house for
them befOre they actually move into the neighborhood.
The majority of teardowns, according to many sources,
are the work of speculative developers. This comes as
no surprise. Once a few people started making money
doing teardowns, it didn't take long for the real estate
and construction industry to catch on. The speculators
are often fairly small operators who have finally found a
way to get into the homebuilding game. Building homes
in new S.Ubdivisions takes major financial backing and is .
generally carried out by large corporate builders.
Teardowns are different. All ofthe necessary
infrastructure is in place and developers can take on
one house at a time, building capital as they go. Still,
the profit margins from teardowns can be so appealing
that larger entities are starting to get involved. For
example, in the Dallas suburb of Highland Park, a local
builders' association recently purchased thirty large
historic homes and has begun tearing them down to
make way for even larger new luxury homes of 5,000
square feet and more.
Whea the Ride Is OYer
"If you see a wave of teardowns in your area, enjoy the
ride, because it may not last," warns a BusinessWeek
Online report. "In such neighborhoods, builders often
do the teardowns and put up new houses on spec. To
make money, they have to build houses that are more
expensive than others in the area. As long as those new
houses keep selling, they pull up prices of existing
properties. But when the market says enough already,
builders pull out and the merry-go-round stops. "24
This is the economic downside of the teardown trend.
Once the houses in a neighborhood are seen as mere
buildable lots rather than homes, the tendency is for .
people to move out of older properties as quickly as
possible. Prices for viable historic homes usually hit a
ceiling at this point or even start to decline, and
properties once praised by realtors as "charming and
historic" are now described as "older home on
expansive lot" - realtor code for a potential teardown.
"Any historic house that comes on the market now has
a deep discount because it is old," said Jean Follett, a
historic preservation commission member in Hinsdale,
III., where teardowns have consumed 20 percent of the
historic housing stock.25 The attractiveness and lasting
economic value of historic neighborhoods can be
permanently lost if the teardown syndrome is allowed to
progress beyond the pOint of no return.
The boom-and-bust cycle of teardown zones stands in
marked contrast to the steady appreciation of property
values seen in neighborhoods protected by local historic
district designation. Dozens of economic studies have
shown that property values in historic districts
consistently increase - and moreover, they rise at a
faster rate than properties in similar, but unprotected,
neighborhoods nearby.26
.
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
TAMINe11lE TEA__IREND
12
PART V: ARE TEAR DOWNS SMART
. GROWTH?
Some have argued that teardowns represent a kind of
"smart growth" that brings density back to cities and
helps prevent suburban sprawl, but this is often not the
case. Tearing down a smaller existing house to build a
larger new one simply adds square footage, not
population density. In fact, as increasing numbers of
modest, affordable homes suitable for young families
are removed from the urban inventory, densities in
some neighborhoods may actually be decreasing due to
teardowns.
There is no question that the revitalization of existing
urban areas is one of the most effective weapons in the
fight against sprawl, since re-densifying cities reduces
the pressure to continually expand the suburban
frontier. Cities need new residents and new investment
to stay healthy, but new investment in existing
neighborhoods need not come at the cost of the
community's heritage and character.
Compatible Inflll: the Win-Win Solation
Often, a teardown is a missed opportunity for true smart
growth. Rather than demolishing older homes, new infill
. development can be inserted sensitively into the urban
fabric. As the National Association of Homebuilders
states in The Next Frontier: Building Homes ;n American
Cities:
"Revitalizing older suburban and inner city markets
and encouraging infill development is universally
accepted as good public policy. Infill development,
done wisely, can take advantage of existing
infrastructure; provide higher densities in locations
where mass transportation is already in place; and
integrate new housing into the fabric of the
community. "27
The promise of infill development is based on the
recognition that open land and development
opportunities abound in most cities. Potential infill sites
range from scattered individual parcels and old parking
lots to large swaths that were cleared as part of urban
renewal in the 1960s, such as the Midtown
neighborhoods in Memphis, where hundreds of new
houses are now being built. Obsolete freeways are
being removed to make way for new infill development
in places such as Boston, Milwaukee and San
Francisco. In Denver, two old airfields within the city
~ limits - Lowry Air Force Base and Stapleton airport -
. are being redeveloped as urban neighborhoods, each
NATIONAl TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
New Houses that Rtthe Nel~borhQOf:l.5000 block
of Munger Place Historic District in Dallas, Photo: Nancy
McCoy
with thousands of new homes, schools, offices and
businesses.
Brownfields are another major infill opportunity. These
include sites of old gas stations, dry cleaners and larger
industrial operations that can be cleaned up and made
ready for new uses, including housing. A survey by the
U.S. Conference of Mayors reported that there are more
than 18,000 brownfield sites covering 81,000 acres
with potential for urban redevelopment.28 In Pittsburgh,
for example, a former industrial site is being
redeveloped to create a new urban neighborhood of
700 homes and apartments.
Such large urban infill parcels provide opportunities for
the construction of entire new neighborhoods to help
knit cities back together, increase urban densities,
provide more affordable housing and add vitality and
activity. Fewer large parcels of open land are typically
available in older suburban areas. In these areas, the
challenge is to insert well-designed individual infill
housing into the existing neighborhood fabric and to
encourage sensitive additions to existing properties.
Typical modern suburban building formulas don't make
sense in historic neighborhoods because they break
with the pedestrian orientation of communities that
were laid out before cars began to dominate the
landscape. Along with maintaining a pedestrian-friendly
appearance, the other key issue in most neighborhood
infill situations is scale. No amount of period detailing
can lessen the impact of a new home that is simply too
big for its site. Building height, width, setback, lot
coverage - these are the elements that must be in
TAMING1IIE 'lUllDOWN mEND
13
keeping with existing patterns. New architectural styles
and innovative designs can often fit in well among older
homes if the scale and orientation are COQ1patible.
Rebuilding to Scale. New infill, American Foursquare
style house in Munger Place Historic District in Dallas.
Photo: Nancy McCoy
Tbe Tradition of Additions
Americans have along history of altering the homes
they live in to meet changing needs. The ability to
expand an older house can be a deciding factor in
whether a family stays in an older neighborhood or
moves to the far suburbs. As with new infill projects,
the key to achieving compatible additions is scale.
Additions that triple the size of existing houses are
difficult to do well. Usually the older home is left
standing in front, practically a fa<:ade, while the new
addition looms behind. In Aspen, where massive, high-
ceilinged additions stick out behind tiny old miner's
shacks, these are called "bustle houses" for their
resemblance to the large, padded dresses that women
once wore. A compatible addition is usually not larger
than the size of the existing house and should be
designed to avoid the appearance of adding one large
mass. Thousands of compatible additions have been
completed in historic districts around the country in the
last few decades, guided by the advice of citizen
commissions, professional architects and planning
staff.
PART VI: TOOLS TO TAME THE
TEAR DOWN TREND
.
Those who live in neighborhoods affected by the
teardown trend often feel powerless. How can private
homeowners stop the developers and contractors who
roam their streets, looking for their next "teardown
target?" How can residents speak out against the s~ze
of houses that their new neighbors have chosen to live
in? Local government leaders are also torn. What is
the right balance between protecting historic character
and respecting private property rights? What is the best
way to limit the size of new homes without turning away
new investment?
Planning Abead
An important first step is to initiate dialogue about the
future of the community and what residents want it to
look like. Opinion surveys, town meetings, focus groups
and interviews with key leaders and neighborhood
representatives are some of the ways to build
consensus about the future. The goal is to develop a
common vision. "We're an old community that has
been rediscovered," said an Oak Park, III., village
trustee at a recent meeting about the teardown trend.
"We have to deCide what we like about the community,
what character the village should protect."29
.
Ideally, these conversations about the future occur ~s
part of a comprehensive planning process, but that IS
often not possible in a reasonable time frame. In
places where the pace of teardowns has already .
reached a crisis point, it may be necessary to prOVide a
"cooling-off" period by imposing a temporary
moratorium on teardowns, to allow time for the
community to develop a consensus about what to do.
Some local governments have appointed task forces or
committees to look at the impact of teardowns and
possible solutions. To help build trust and eas~ the .
tensions that typically arise over the tea rd own Issue, It
is important to involve a range of stakeholders in these
discussions, including neighborhood groups,
preservationists, architects, builders, developers and
realtors.
Some cities have responded to the teardown threat by
organizing community design "charrettes" and
"visioning" workshops, where architects and planners
help sketch out alternative development scenarios for
residents to consider. Itmay be helpful to use models
or computer simulation software to prepare a "build-
out" diagram showing the extent to which each property
could be developed under the current zoning
.
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
TAMINGlIIE1EARDOWN 1REND
14
regulations. These diagrams can be a shock to long-
. time residents and often lead to calls for more careful
. management of future development.
Before. proceeding with specific strategies, it is often
useful to conduct an "audit" of current development
policies and their effects - positive or negative ~ on the
teardown trend. This will help identify problem areas
that need to be a~dressed before engaging in the
debate over specific solutions. Many zoning codes
include language that was developed in the 1950s and
1960s to guide the development of booming postwar
subdivisions. These codes often contain outdated
construction standards that may allow or even
encourage design that is not compatible with the
character of historic neighborhoods. Revisions to these
standards can help make new construction more
compatible and prevent sOl;Yle teardowns.
Communities across the country are using a variety of
specifiC tools - some new, others well-tested - in their
efforts to tame the teardown trend. These tools
generally slow teardowns in one of two ways:
. by reducing or eliminating the economic pressure
for teardowns through changes to zoning
regulations that limit the square footage that can be
. built on a given lot, or
. by encouraging compatible design through various
means, including new construction standards,
design review procedures, special neighborhood
"overlay" districts, financial incentives and
education programs.
These tools can be combined and packaged for
implementation at a citywide scale though zoning code
revisions or improved development standards, or at the
neighborhood level through targeted zoning overlay
districts of various types.
Following are descriptions of some of the most common
responses to the teardown trend, along with brief
commentary on the effectiveness of each tool. Because
there is no "magic bullet" that will stop teardowns,
communities should expect to use a variety of
strategies, perhaps combining several of the tools
described below.
.
Demolition Moratoriums and Delays
It is particularly upsetting to long-time residents when a
historic home is demolished without warning. Left
behind is a lingering sense that the house might have
been saved - if only there had been adequate notice
and more time to develop alternatives. A demolition
moratorium makes it illegal to demolish properties in
the community or neighborhood during a defined
period, usually from six months to a year. This buys
time for residents and local governments to develop
permanent policies to better manage development and
limit teardowns. Demolition-delay ordinances establish
a required waiting period (90 days up to one year is
typical) before demolition permits are issued for specific
properties. This allows time for community input and
the development of alternatives. In Newton, Mass., a
one-year demolition delay period was instituted to slow
the pace of teardowns. In Highland Park, III., the delay
period is specifically used to determine whether a
property is historic and merits preservation.
Comments. This approach is most appropriate in
communities where the pace of teardowns is
accelerating and few, if any, management tools are
in place. Moratoriums and delays must have
defined and reasonable time frames to avoid legal
challenges. The definition of "demolition" must be
clear so as to avoid "alterations" where all but a few
exterior walls are bulldozed. Penalties must be
severe enough to discourage violations.
Moving Tti....tened Homes
Moving threatened historic homes is a last resQrt that
should be considered only when all other options have
failed to protect the property. If possible, endangered
homes should be movedto hearby lots within the
neighborhood that are similar to their original. location in
setting, orientation and surrounding architectural
character. Examples of succeS$fully rnoved~in histQric
houses may pe found in the Munger Place Historic
District in Dallas and in Glencoe, Illinois.
Comments... Moved homes can make attractive,
compatible infill projects if h~ndled sensitively. If
employed too often or easily, however, this option
can become a habit and the re-shuffling of
properties eventually creates a confused and false
sense of neighborhood history.
Historic Districts
First enacted in the 1930s, local historic districts have
now been established in more than 2,500 communities
across the nation to protect historic sites and
neighborhoods from demolition, insenSitive alterations
and out~f-character new construction. About 75
percent of local historiC district ordinances include
design guidelines that provide speCific information on
how to build compatible, appropriately-scaled additions
and infill structures. Many historic district ordinances in
large cities include the authority to deny demolition of
NATIONAL TllUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
TAM_1HE 1EAJlDOWN mEND
16
significant structures. In many suburban communities,
however, ordinances are simply advisory or provide only
temporary demolition delays. Historic districts are a
type of zoning overlay, meaning that they are added to
the underlying zoning regulations, which remain in
effect. Well-known historic districts include Georgetown
in Washington, D.C., Society Hill in Philadelphia and the
Garden District in New Orleans.
Comments: This approach can provide the most
complete protection for historic properties,
including the power to deny demolition as well as
mandatory review and approval of all exterior
alterations, additions and new infill construction -
but it requires significant staff resources to
administer effectively, especially in large
neighborhoods. In many older neighborhoods, all
blocks may not meet eligibility standards, resulting
in a patchwork of protected and unprotected
properties. Considerable time will likely be required
to research eligible properties, establish proposed
boundaries and win political approval.
Neighborhood of Bungalows. Historic District in
Denver. Photo: Jim Lindberg
Conservation Districts
Like historic districts, conservation districts are usually
a type of zoning overlay, with boundaries that define a
specific area or neighborhood that exhibits certain
shared physical characteristics and development
patterns. Conservation districts generally provide for
review of demolitions and other major changes to
existing properties, such as large additions.
Conservation districts can be tailored to meet individual
neighborhood needs and typically include design
guidelines for front and side setbacks, building height
and width, roof pitch and garage location. Generally not
included in conservation district ordinances are the
"fine grain" design review items that appear in .
traditional historic district ordinances, such as windows, .
doors, trim, building materials, etc. About two dozen
cities around the country have active, well-established
conservation district programs. They are known by a
variety of names: "Special Planning Districts" in
Phoenix, "Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts"
in Raleigh, N. C., and "Historic Conservation Districts"
in Memphis, for example.
Comments: Conservation districts address issues
such as demolition and oversized new construction
with less administrative burden than historic
districts. Boundaries and eligibility criteria can be
more inclusive than traditional historic districts.
While it is likely to encounter less political
resistance than historic district designation, this
approach may lead to calls for loosening of design
review in nearby traditional historic districts.
Design Review
Several communities have tried to address the impact
of oversized new houses by imposing a design-review
zoning overlay that is not necessarily tied to the historic
character of the neighborhood. "Urban design districts"
or "design overlay districts" allow staff to review major .
development proposals and suggest ways to improve
their appearance and compatibility with existing
structures. Design review may be triggered when
projects exceed a certain size, or it may be required in
exchange for allowing slightly larger square footage.
The suburban community of Park Ridge, 111., developed
an "Appearance Code" that applies design review
criteria to all new home construction in the community.
Comments. While this approach can lead to
significant design improvements and compatibility,
it does not change the underlying zoning, so size
and scale may not be affected. It requires
significant administrative resources and staff with
design training.
Floo....Area.Ratlos and Lot Coverage
Requirements
Traditionally used in commercial districts, the Floor-to-
Area-Ratio (FAR) concept is increasingly being applied in
residential areas to limit the size of homes relative to
the lots they occupy. Floor area ratios regulate the
amount of buildable floor area in relation to the size of
the lot. For example, a .6 FAR would allow a builder to
cover up to 60 percent of a lot with a one-story structure
or 30 percent of the lot with two stories. FAR definitions .
may be included as part of citywide zoning changes or ,.
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
TAMING 1ME 1EARDOWN mEND
16
written into overlay district language for specific
. neighborhoods. Some cities have used maximum lot
, coverage formulas to get at the same result as FARs.
These tools are most effective when used in
combination with other building standards, such as
setback requirements and height limits. To address
oversized new construction, the town of Gulf Stream,
Fla., developed the Gulf Stream Design Manual, which
combines FAR requirements and detailed design
standards.
Comments: These regulations directly address the
problem of overSea led new construction and ean
eliminate the economic incentive for teardowns by
limiting new square footage, but they do not directly
prevent demolitions. Formulas for determining FAR
ratios can be cumbersome and difficult to calculate,
and a high level of admlnistrative staff review is
needed.
.
Setbacks and Open Space Standards
Most city zoning codes stipulate a minimum distance
that new houses must be set back from the street.
These standard setbacks may not be in keeping with
historic patterns, however, allowing new construction to
break with the established line of older houses on a
block. Defining side and rear setback lines can also
limit the mass of new houses. Along with setbacks,
many communities require that a certain percentage of
a lot be maintained as "open space." Often,
clarifications are needed to define.whether driveways,
garages, window wells and porches qualify as open
space. As part of setback or open space requirements,
many zoning codes include language regarding garage
and driveway size and placement, landscaping and tree
preservation - all of which can be written or revised to
be compatible with historic development patterns
Comments: Like FARs and lot coverage ratios,
setbacks and open space requirements can be
effective ways to limit the scale of new construction
and maintain basic neighborhood building patterns.
They may create "nonconforming" properties,
meaning that owners of properties that do not meet
standards in their current state cannot make
changes without violating the zoning code.
.
Bulk Limits
Some communities have developed standards to
establish maximum "bulk planes" or "encroachment
planes" to limit the scale of new construction, lessen
impacts and insure that adequate air and sunlight reach
neighboring properties ("solar access ordinance" is
another term used). The formulas used to determine
bulk planes can be fairly complex, but they generally
work by defining the allowable dimensions of exterior
walls, roof heights and roof pitches.
Comments. Bulk limits can reduce the scale of new
construction and impacts on neithboring
properties. However, these limits do not insure
compatible design and may lead to awkward
attempts to "build to the rule" without considering
historic patterns. For instance, Denver's current
standards encourage pitched roofs, but in doing so
also prohibit the traditional two-story, flat-roofed
"Denver Square" - one of the city's most common
historic house types.
Development Incentives and Bonuses
A variety of incentives can be developed to encourage
compatible design and direct new construction toward
appropriate areas. Often, square footage bonuses are
provided for projects that include particularly
compatible features, such as front porches, detached
garages or the use of exterior brick. Incentives to allow
detached garage apartments (also known as "Accessory
Dwelling Units") offer a number of advantages for most
historic neighborhoods: They increase square footage in
a way that maintains historic building patterns, provide
a potential source of income for the owners of the
primary dwelling on the lot, and increase the diversity of
housing options in the neighborhood. Seattle recently
passed an ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units
for single-family homes. In Portland, Ore., a higher
density of development is allowed on lots that have
been vacant for five years or more.
Comments. Incentives ean be packaged to help
make other, more restrictive development
standards politically palatable. Experience in most
cities suggests that developers will use all
incentives available to achieve greater square
footage.
Downzownlng
In many historic neighborhoods, a blanket of highly
permissive zoning was applied years ago to account for
the fact that older neighborhoods typically included a
mix of uses and building types. Where still in place
today, such blanket zoning allows "by right" a density of
development that is far greater than currently exists.
For example, a wall of large new duplexes might be
allowable on blocks that are currently all single-family.
Perhaps the quickest way to stop this is to change the
zoning to eliminate certain uses.
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
TAMIN81HE __mEND
17
Comments: Downzoning reduces or eliminates the
economic incentive to demolish older homes for
large, multi-unit properties. It may create numerous
non-conforming properties, and may reduce
traditional neighborhood economic and
architectural diversity by eliminating rental and
mixed-use properties. It may be difficult to
accomplish politically, though prospects improve if
downzoning is part of comprehensive, citywide
zoning code revisions.
Easements and Covenants
Not all solutions require local government action. In
some communities, organizations have protected key
historic properties through easements and covenants.
These tools can prevent demolitions or overscaled
additions by attaching permanent deed restrictions that
are monitored by qualified easement holding-entities
such as local preservation groups. Easements are
voluntary and therefore must be acquired one property
at a time, either through purchase or donation. (This is
in contrast with many new residential subdivisions and
gated communities where strict covenants are put in
place on all properties immediately after construction).
Comments: Easements provide permanent
protection, can be tailored to the needs of an
individual property and do not require governmental
involvement. Because easements are voluntary,
protection may be limited and piecemeal. An
effective easement program requires strong local
organizational capacity and expertise.
Community Land Trusts
The land trust concept, most often used as a way to
protect open space and rural landscapes, has been
used in some communities to maintain a stock of
affordable housing. Typically, a house is donated to or
purchased by the land trust, which then re-sells it,
retaining the rights to the land on which the house sits
through permanent easement. By controlling the
development rights for the land, the trust can effectively
set the resale price of the house. Prices are managed
to allow for modest appreciation while preventing
speculation. Examples include the Burlington
Community Land Trust (Vermont) and Durham
Community Land Trustees (North Carolina).
Comments: This approach eliminates the economic
incentive for teardowns through purChase of
development rights, maintains the stock of
affordable housing and does not require
government involvement. However, not all land
trusts are set up to monitor changes to building
exteriors. Strong local organizational capaCity and .
a voluntary donor or seller is required. ..
Historic Real Estate Marketing and
EducaUon Programs
Educating the people who buy and sell homes about the
advantages of maintaining historic neighborhood
character is another strategy to prevent the negative
impacts of teardowns. Preservation groups or other
local organizations can offer a variety of programs.
including historic home tours, training for realtors,
classes in home rehabilitation techniques and awards
programs to publicize good examples of rehabilitation
and compatible new construction. NE;lighborhood
marketing centers, such the Intown Living Center
operated by Preservation Dallas and the New Orleans
Preservation Resource Center, provide information to
potential homebuyers on neighborhood characteristics,
available properties, rehabilitation teChniques and
financial incentives.
Comments: This approach can help build long-term
public support for neighborhood conservation.
Such outreach can also bring visibility and
credibility to the preservation cause and increase
political support for further protection measures. It ..
is most effective if combined with other tools such
as financial incentives and design review.
Financial and Technical Asslstallce
Many local governments and preservation organizations
have developed financial incentives to encourage
rehabilitation of historic homes and neighborhoods.
Small grants, low-interest loans, property tax
abatements and freezes are the most common
incentives. These are usually combined with some level
of technical assistance, such as financial guidance for
first-time homebuyers or referrals to experienced
craftspeople and contractors. Examples include the
Cleveland Restoration Society's Heritage Home Loan
Program, the Providence Preservation SocielY's
Revolving Loan Fund, and the City of Chicago's newly
established Bungalow Initiative, which provides low-
interest loans to help with acquisition and rehabilitation
of historic bungalows.
Comments. Some of these programs h(;fve targeted
neighborhoods "at risk" due to disinvestment and
may need to be re-packaged and marketed
specifically to meet the needs of neighborhoods
experiencing tear downs. They can be combined
with protection tools - such as historic districts, ...
conservation districts or easement programs - to
ensure that investments will have lasting impact.
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
TAM__ 1EARDOWN 1REND
18
.
.
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
'_lIIE _DOWN 1REND
FIVE TEARDOWN CASE STUDIES
19
Chicago, illinois.
Demolition dust is flying in the Chicago area, with at
least twenty inner-ring suburbs and several urban
neighborhoods currently dealing with teardown threats.
The western suburb of Hinsdale is the most heavily
impacted: Since 1986, Hinsdale has seen more than
1,200 homes - 20% of its housing stock - demolished.
30 Approximately half of the homes torn down were
historic, including 19th-century Victorians, Sears "kit
houses," Prairie-style bungalows and Tudor Revival
homes designed by local architects. "A certain amount
of change is inevitable, I know, but you get too many
teardowns and you start losing the character of your
community," said Brian Norkus, a planner in the
northern suburb of Winnetka, where dozens of older
homes have been demolished in recent years.31
Before and After. Demolition and replacement of
modest Second Empire style house in Hinsdale, III.
Photos: Jean Follett.
.
The teardown trend has even begun to affect Oak Park,
a turn-of-the-century suburb just west of Chicago that is
internationally renowned for its historic architecture.
Oak Park residents became alarmed last year when
several historic homes were gutted and then rebuilt at a
much greater scale. "It doesn't seem possible that
could happen in Oak Park," said one resident. "You're
ruining the historic district that countless people have
invested fortunes in improving."32 Oak Park community
leaders are looking at ways to tighten the local historic
preservation ordinance.
Other Chicago-area communities have scramb1ed to put
in place new planning and zoning measures. For
example, Park Ridge established an "Appearance Code"
requiring review of proposed new projects, Highland
Park added a demolition-clelay ordinance for historic
structures, Glencoe defined house bulk limits, and Lake
Forest set maximums for garage size.
Denver, Colorado.
At least a dozen historic neighborhoods in Denver are
experiencing significant numbers of teardowns. Last ..
year, some 200 homes, many of them brick bungalows
from the 1920s and 1930s, were demolished and
replaced with stucco-clad houses three times their size.
"People want to live in old neighborhoods because of
their charm and amenities and accessibility," realtor
Deborah Hart told Denver's 5280 magazine. "But they
also want a lot of floor space. "33
Beginning in the early 1990s, large second-story
additions or "pop-tops" become common in several
historic neighborhoods as owners sought ways to
expand the typical two-bedroom Denver bungalow.
Recently, however, teardowns have become a more
common practice. Developers have found profit in
demolishing older single-story bungalows and replacing
them with massive two-story structures, often called
"long houses," that stretch from the front yard all the
way to the rear alley. Neighbors are upset. "When you
have a peach orchard and you plop a giant sequoia in
the middle of it, some people don't like it," said a
Denver city councilman.34 The loss of sunlight, privacy,
mature trees and historic neighborhood character are
common complaints among residents.
Several groups are working to establish new local
historic districts, which would prevent the demolition of .
historic homes and require design review of all
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
TAMING 'IIIE 'lEARDOWN tREND
20
.
construction in designated neighborhoods. The
research and approval process for new historic districts
can take several years, however, so Denver's
Community Development and Planning Agency has
convened the so-called "Quick Wins Committee" to look
at tools that could be put in place quickly. The
committee, which includes representatives from Historic
Denver and numerous neighborhood organizations as
well as several architects, developers and realtors,
hopes to forward its recommendations to the City
Council sometime this year.
Site Preparation. Demolition of Craftsmen style
. bungalow in Denver. Photo: Sue Schemer
Dallas, Texas.
More than 1,000 homes have been demolished in the
historic Highland Park and adjacent University Park
neighborhoods, developed in the early 20th century as
the area's first fully planned suburbs.
Teardown Target. One of more than 1,000 historic
. homes already demolished in Dallas as a teardown.
Photo: Mike Mathews.
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Large Colonial Revivals as well as relatively modest
Tudor-style cottages are routinely torn down and
replaced by new houses ranging from 6,000 to 10,000
square feet. To date, nearly 50 percent of the original
housing stock has been lost. If past experience is any
indicator, residents can expect to see an average of
130 homes demolished each year. In May of 2002, five
homes were demolished over a ten-day period, despite
community protest and their significance as some of the
best examples of Arts and Crafts architecture in
northern Texas.
''You do not have to tear old houses down to maintain
property values or to have modern amenities," says Ron
Emrich, a Dallas-based preservationist. "MarY of these
houses canbeexpanded, adapted for mQdern living -
peoplecanhav(:}s~bstantially highersquare footage
and still protect ~he historic architecture of the
house. "35
"This is a real tragedy," says Mike Mathews, president
of Preservation Park Cities, an organization formed in
2001 in response to teardowns. "You never want to see
an historic home come down without a rational reason.
Here perfectly good houses are being demolished solely
to build a house three times as big, for three times as
much money." With approximately 650 members,
Preservation Park Cities is advocating for tools to help
slow the pace of demolitions.
New Jersey.
Teardowns are happening all across the state, from
historic Cape May, America's oldest seashore resort, to
the architecturally rich bedroom communities of Bergen
County, just outside New York City. In the historic shore
community of Ocean City, entire neighborhood blocks
are being transformed, with more than 300 small
bungalows and cottages demolished in recent years. In
the local historic district, an 1885 residence that was
originally a life-saving station has been tangled up in a
legal battle for several years as its owner proposes to
demolish it and subdivide the lot for three new houses.
In most instances, the scale of new construction is
visually jarring, as replacement houses are built high off
the ground with raised basements and two or more
garages fronting the street. A group called Citizens for
Historic Preservation has formed to advocate on behalf
of Ocean City's historic architecture, but a preservation
consultant says, "If the teardown trend continues as it
has been, it may be too late."
In the Bergen County community of Tenafly, an 1840s
frame house believed to be one of the oldest in town
'AMINelllE 1EARDOWN TREND
21
was demolished in April.of 2002. In the mid~1990s, a
1901 five-bedroom Colonial Revival house was torn
down in Ridgewood. An outraged neighbor said at the
time, "If you start tearing down the old homes, we're
going to be like anybody else. How much of the town
are we willing to let gO?"36 Teardowns in th~e and
other affluent communities are on the rise in Bergen
County, which saw a 45 percent increase in demolition
activity between 1995 and 1999.37 One of these
controversial teardowns was enough to convince
Tenafly residents to take action, resulting in the creation
of the Magnolia Avenue Historic District in 1999.
House Removal Demolition of historic house in
Ocean City, NJ. Photo: David Swift
Newton, Massachusetts.
Close-in communities just outside Boston, such as
Lexington and Winchester, are fertile ground for
teardowns. In Newton, good schools, convenient
location and historic character are qualities that make
this community attractive. In the early 1990s, the
Historical Commission reviewed about 20 to 30
demolition requests per year. In recent years, it has
become common for the commission to review more
than 100 demolition requests annually.
Teardowns are happening mainly in neighborhoods of
small homes around 1,200 square feet each. Not all
are historic, but the Oak Hill Park neighborhood is an
exception. Built between 1947 and 1949, this
community of 412 veterans' houses is noteworthy as
one of the first planned developments in Newton. It is
also considered historically significant forits unique
internal pathway system, which reduces the visibility of
streets and automobiles. For years, the neighborhood's
modest 3-bedroom houses have been starter homes for
first-time homebuyers. This practice continues today,
although about a quarter of the old houses have been
demolished and new houses are dramatically driving up .
the neighborhood's median home price. The character .
of Oak Hill Park is changing, as two-story houses with
raised basements replace the older single-story homes.
House by house, the historic pattern of Oak Hill Park is
also being altered, with new houses turning their backs
to the pathway system and oriented completely
opposite from the original homes.
.
.
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
TAMING1HIlEARDO_1RIND
22
.
. ENDNOTES
1 Candy Cooper, .Gigantic new houses have fans and foes," The Bergen Record, November 26, 2000.
2 For example, only fifteen percent of the city of Los Angeles has been surveyed, according to The Los Angeles Histone Resource Suwey Assessment Project, The Getty
Conservation Institute, November, 2001.
3 Candy Cooper, "The economics of demolition," The Bergen Record, November 27, 2000.
4 Ibid.
5 Jeannene Przyblyski, .Monster homes creeping into Noe," The Noe Valley VoIce, April, 2000.
6 Report and Recommendations on Incompatible Teardown and Inf/II House ConstrucUon In the CIty of Geneva, Kane County, illinoIs, Mayor's Task Force on
Teardownjlnfill Development, City of Geneva, Illinois, February, 2002.
7 Timothy Eagen, .In Portland, Houses are Friendly. Or Else," The New Yolk Times, April 20, 2000.
8 Ann Hall, .Affordablllty in area housing is worth saving," NorthWest Week(y, February 7, 1999.
9 Bill Lurz, .Interesting Infill, Baby boomers are moving back to the city, joining the younger set. They are wanting to be where the walking is easy," HouslngZone, July
1, 1999.
10 Ibid.
11 Bridget Hartman, e-mail correspondence, AprilS, 2002.
12 Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University, State olthe Nation's Housing: 2001, p. 6.
13 .Going Through the Roof," The Economist, March 30, 2002.
14 National Association of Homebuilders, HousIng Facts, FIgures and Trends, 2001, p. 2.
15 National Association of Homebullders, Housing Facts, FIgures and Trends, 2001, p. 14.
16 June Retcher, .Buyers Are Choosing Modest Over Massive," Wall StreetJoumal Online, 2002.
17 Sarah Susanka, The Not So Big House, Taunton Press, 1998.
18 Cities that gained population from 1990-2000 include Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Denver, Houston, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Memphis, Minneapolis,
New York and Seattle. The exceptions to this trend were primarily older urban centers located in the Northeast and Midwest, such as Hartford, Philadelphia,
Cleveland, Detroit and St. Louis. Source: Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University, State olthe Nation's Housing: 2001, p. 30.
19 National Association of Homebuilders, The Next Frontier.Building Homes In American Cities, 2000.
20 Peter Katz, .Great American Cities: twe that are getting it right," essay for Elm Street Writers Group, Michigan Land Use Institute, July 20, 2001.
21 National Association of Homebuilders, Housing Facts, FIgures and Trends, 2001, p. 53.
22 Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University, State olthe Nation's Housing: 2001, p. 10.
23 .Should You Tear the Dam Thing Down?" BusinessWeekOnline, June 25, 2001.
24 Ibid.
25 Jean Follett, phone conversation with author, May 7, 2002.
26 See Ann Bennett, "The Economic Benefits of Historic Designation, Knoxville, Tennessee," Knoxville Knox County Metropolitan Commission, 1996; Jo Ramsey
Lelmenstall, .Assessing the Impact of Local Historic Districts on Property Values in Greensboro, North Carolina," University of North Carolina at Greensboro; and "The
Economic Benefits of Preserving Community Character: A Case Study from Galveston, Texas," Government Finance Research Center.
27 The Next Frontier. Building Homes inAmenca's Cities, National Association of Homebullders, 2000, p.2.
28 Recycling America's Land: A National Report on Brownf/elds Redevelopment, U.S. Conference of Mayors, February 2000.
29 Cheri Bentrup, .OP looking for way to control teardowns," Oak Leaves, April 10, 2002.
30 Charlotte Cooper, .Officials watching teardown activity," Oak Leaves, June 27,2001.
31 Ibid.
32 Cheri Bentrup, "Tear-downs raise residents' ire," Oak Leaves, February 13, 2002.
33 Jennie Shortridge, .Preservatlon Blues," 5280 Magazine, December 2001jJanuary 2002.
34 Ibid.
35 Lelf Strickland, .Demolitlons dishearten local preservationists," The Dallas Moming News, May 15, 2002.
36 Lisa Prevost, "Teardowns, trophies and angry neighbors," The New Yolk Tlmes, September 27, 1998.
31 Candy Cooper, "The economics of demolition," The Bergen Record, November 27,2000.
.
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
TAIIINGI1IIE 1EARDOWN tREND
Attachment A
. SUBCHAPTER F: RESIDENTIAL DESIGN AND
COMPATIBiliTY STANDARDS
Austin, Texas
.
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
ON SEPTEMBER 28, 2006
BASED ON THE JUNE 22, 2006
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE AND
SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS
.
ARTICLE 1:
1.1.
1.2.
1.3..
1.4.
ARTICLE 2:
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
2.4.
2.5.
2.6.
2.7.
2.8.
2.9.
ARTICLE 3:
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
3.4.
3.5.
SUBCHAPTER F: RESIDENTIAL DESIGN AND COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS
.
CONTENTS
GEN ERA L PR 0 VISIO NS.. ............. ................. ..... ......... ..... ... ....... ................ ... ..... ...... ..... ... ... 1
Intent ............ ................................ ......... ................. .......................... ................................. 1
Applica bi I ity ........ ....................... .... ............... .................. ..... .......... ....... .......................... 1
Exceptions.........................................................................................................................3
Conflidi ng Provi si ons ........................ ...................... ........................... .................... ........ 3
DEVELOP MENT STAN D.A R DS .......................... ....... ....... .... ........ ..... ........ ..... ...... ....... 5
Maxi mu m 'Development Permiffed ............. ................. .................................................. 5
B.ui Iding Height ...................................................... ...... .................................... ................ 5
Front Y Qrd Setback......................................................................................................... 5
Rea r Yard Setback ................................~.................... ..................................................... 6
Side' Yard Setbacks ................. ............ ........... .......................................... ..~..................... 6
Setba'c;k Pia nes ............................ ...................................................................................7
SideWall Articu lation .......... ........................................................................................ 1 8
Modifications by the Residential Design and Compatibility Commission.................... 20
2.8.1 . Modifications that May be Approved............................................................................ 20
2.8.2. Modification P rocedures ................................................................................................... 20
Modifications Within Neighborhood Plan (NP) Combining Districts ............................21
DEFINITIONS AND MEASUREMENT ...................................................................... 22
Builda b Ie Area ........ ................................................... ................... ........... ........... ............ 22
Bui Idi.ng Li ne . ...................... .... ............ ........ ............. ... ................................. ................ 22
Gross Floor Area.. ... .... ..................... ............ ........ .......................... ...................... ......... 22
Heig ht ................................ ......... ....... .......... ........ ... ........ ............................................. 23
Natu ra I Grade ..... .......................... ........ ................ ....... ....... ....................... ..................... 24
.
.
City of Austin
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
. ARTICLE 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS
1 .1 . INTENT
This Subchapter is intended to minimize the impact of new construction, remodeling, and
additions to existing buildings on surrounding properties in residential neighborhoods by
defining an acceptable buildable area for each lot within which new development may
occur. The standards are designed to protect the character of Austin's older
neighborhoods by ensuring that new construction and additions are compatible in scale
and bulk with existing neighborhoods.
1 .2. APPLICABILITY
Except as provided in Section 1.3, this Subchapter applies to property that is:
1.2.1. Within the area bounded by:
A. Highway 1 83 from Loop 360 to Ben White Boulevard;
B.
c.
. D.
E.
F.
Ben White Boulevard from Highway 183 to Loop 360;
Loop 360 from Ben White Boulevard to Loop 1;
Loop 1 from Loop 360 to the Colorado River;
The Colorado River from Loop 1 to Loop 360; and
Loop 360 from the Colorado River to Highway 183; and
.
City of Austin
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards'
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
Article 1. General ProvisiOll$
Section 1.2. Applicability
.
.
City of Austin
Subchapter F. Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
2
.
.
1.2.2. Used for a:
A. Bed and breakfast (group 1) residential use;
8. Bed and breakfast (group 2) residential use;
c. Cottage special use;
D. Duplex residential use;
E. Secondary apartment special use;
F. Single-family attached residential use;
G. Single-family residential use;
H. Small lot single-family residential use;
I. Two-family residential use; or
J. Urban home special use.
. 1.3. EXCEPTIONS
Article 1: General Provisions
Section 1.3. Exceptions
1.3.1. This Subchapter does not apply to a lot zoned as a single-family residence small lot (SF-
4A) district unless the lot is adjacent to property zoned as a single-family residence
standard lot (SF-2) district or family residence (SF-3) district.
1.3.2. This Subchapter does not apply to the approximately 698.7 acres of land known as the
Mueller Planned Unit Development, which was zoned as a planned unit development (PUD)
district by Ordinance Number 040826-61 .
1.3.3. The side wall articulation requirement does not apply to new construction that is less than
2,000 square feet in gross floor area and that is less than 32 feet in height.
1.4. CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
1.4.1. To the extent of conflict, this Subchapter supersedes:
A. Section 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations);
B. Section 25-2-555 (Family Residence (SF-3) District Regulations);
c. Section 25-2-773 (Duplex Residential Use);
D. Section 25-2-774 (Two-Family Residential Use);
E. Section 25-2-778 (Front Yard Setback for Certain Residential Uses);
.
City of Austin
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
3
Article 1: General Provisions
Section 1.4. Conflicting Provisions
F. Section 25-2-779 (Small Lot Single-Family Residential Uses); and
G. Section 25-4-232 (Small Lot Subdivisions).
1.4.2. To the extent of conflict, the following provisions supersede this Subchapter:
A. Section 25-2-1424 (Urban Home Regulations);
B. Section 25-2-1444 (Cottage Regulations);
C. Section 25-2-1463 (Secondary Apartment Regulations); or
D. The provisions of an ordinance designating property as a:
1. Neighborhood plan (NP) combining district;
2. Neighborhood conservation (NC) combining district; or
3. Historic area (HD) combining district.
City of Austin
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
4
.
.
.
. ARTICLE 2: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
2.1. MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT PERMlnED
The maximum amount of development permitted on a property subject to this Subchapter
is limited to the greater of 0.4 to 1.0 floor-to-area ratio or 2,300 square feet of gross
floor area, as defined in Section 3.3. Floor-to-area ratio sholl be measured using gross
floor area as defined in Section 3.3.
2.2. BUILDING HEIGHT
Except where these regulations are superseded, the maximum building height "for
development subject to this Subchapter is 32 feet. Section 25-2-531 (Height Limit
Exceptions) does not apply to development subject to this Subchapter, except for a
chimney, vent, antenna, or energy conservation or production equipment or feature not
designed for occupancy. Building height shall be measured under the requirements
defined in Section 3.4.
2.3.
FRONT YARD SETBACK
.
A. Minimum Setback Required
The minimum front yard setback required for development subject to this Subchapter is
the lesser of:
1. The minimum front yard setback prescribed by the other provisions of this
Code; or
2. The average front yard setback, if an average may be determined as
provided in subsection B. below.
B. Average Front Yard Setback
1. An average front yard setback is determined based on the setbacks of each
principal residential structure that is built within 50 feet of its front lot line.
2. Except os provided in paragraph 3., the four structures that are closest to
the subject property on the same side of the block shall be used in the
colculation of average front yard setback. If there are less than four
structures on the same side of the block, the lesser number of structures is
used in the calculation.
3. If there are no structures on the same side of the block, the four structures
that are closest to the subject property and across the street are used in the
calculation. If there are less than four structures across the street, the lesser
number is used in the calculation. See Figure 1.
.
City of Austin
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
5
Article 2: Development Standards .
Section 2.4. Rear Yard Setback
A
B
c
D
E
15'
20'
25'
20'
25'
........50'....1................. ...................
50'+
Figure 1: Average Front Yard Setback
In this example, the minimum required front setback in the underlying zoning district is 25 feet. However,because of the
variety in existing setbacks of buildings on the same block face, new development on lot C may be located with a setback
of only 20 feet, which is the average of the setbacks of lots B, 0, and E. The building on lot A is not included in the
average because it is located more than 50 feet from the property line.
.
2.4. REAR YARD SETBACK
The principal structure shall
comply with the rear yard
setback prescribed by other
provisions of this Code. All other
structures shall comply with the
rear yard setback provisions of
this Code, but the minimum rear
yard setback may be reduced to
five feet if the rea r lot line is
adjacent to an alley. See Figure
2.
AllEY
Rear Setback for
Prl.clp.1 a_11d1ng
pet Zoning DI<\rId
R......Selbacl<for
Secondary Dwelllng Unit
May be Reduced to
S Feet When Adto<-
to .. Alley
2.5. SIDE YARD SETBACKS
FRONT
All structures shall comply with
the side yard setbacks
prescribed by other provisions of this Code.
Figure 2: Rear Yard Setback
City of Austin
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
6
.
.
.
.
Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.6. Setback Planes
2.6.
SETBACK PLANES
This subsection prescribes side and rear setback planes in order to minimize the impact of
new development and rear development on adjacent properties. A structure may not
extend beyond a setback plane except as authorized by subsection D. below. The height
of a setback plane shall be measured under the requirements defined in Section 3.4.
A. Side Setback Plane
Except as provided in subsection B. below, an inwardly sloping 45-degree angle side
setback plane begins at a horizontal line 15 feet directly above the side property
line. The 15-foot height of the horizontal line is established for 40-foot deep portions
of the lot beginning at the building line and extending to the rear of the lot, except
that the last portion at the rear of the lot may be less than 40 feet deep. See Figures
3 through 5.
1.
For the first portion, the 15-foot height of the horizontal line is measured at
the highest of the elevations of the four intersections of the side lot lines, the
building line, and a line 40 feet from and parallel to the building line.
For successive portions other than the last portion, the 15-foot height of the
horizontal line is measured at the highest of the elevations of the four
intersections of the side lot lines and the appropriate two lines that are 40
feet apart and parallel to the building line.
For the last portion, the 15-foot height of the horizontal line is measured at
the highest of the elevations of the four intersections of the side lot lines, the
appropriate line parallel to the building line, and the rear lot line.
2.
3.
1.5'
sid, PI'Of"I1Y ...
Figure 3: Side Setback Plane Measured From Side Property Line
City of Austin
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
7
Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.6. Setback Planes
.
Portion I
Portion 2
Portion 3
~ ~..
Fr_ ~ 8ulldll19l.....
ProP9rty line
t
40'.
t
S40'
~
Figure 4: (Elevation View) Dividing Lot into 40-foot Portions to Create Side Setback Planes (Rear Setback Plane
Not Shown)
High Polnl 3 '\
HlQh Polnl 2 \
.
HlQh Point 1 -
FRONT
Figure 5: Determining High Points on a Sloping Lot
For each portion of the side setback plane, the 15-foot height of the horizontal line is measured starting from the highest
point of the four intersections defining the portion~ 'n this example, topography lines indicate that the lot is sloping
downward from the rear to the front of the lot, and from the right to the left. The high points for Portions 1, 2, and 3
are indicated, along with the Building Line.
City of Austin
Subchapter F, Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
.
8
.
.
.
Articl~ 2. D~velopment Standards
Section 2.6. Setback Planes
B.
Rear Setback Plane
An inwardly slc:>ping 45-degree angle rear setback plane begins at a horizontal line
directly above the rear property line at the same elevation as the horizontal line for
the last portion of the side setback plane established in paragraph A.3. See Figures 6
through 9.
Rear Plane
45' Angle
---Portion 1
Portion 2
Portion 3-
~ ~~..-
Front '- Building Line
Property line
t------40.-------J---~ 40.----J.
Figure 6: (Elevation View) Rear Setback Plane (Level Ground)
/- Renr Plane
45' Angle
/
ortlon 1
Portion 2
1
15'
1
40'
Building limt
Property Une
Figure 7: (Elevation View) Rear Setback Plane (Sloping Ground)
City of Austin
Subchapter F. Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
C)
Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.6. Setback Planes
.
Defined by
Zoning Dislrlcl
Front, Rear &
Side Sefbacks
Figure 8: Side and Rear Setback Planes on Level Ground
The side and rear setback planes form a "tent" over the lot, rising from the property lines for 15 feet and then
angling in at 45-degree angles from the side and rear. The required front, rear, and side yard setbaclcs are
indicated by the darker shading on the ground.
.
Figure 9: Side and Rear Setback Planes on Sloping Ground
City of Austin
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
10
.
.
.
.
Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.6. Setback Planes
c.
Buildable Area
The buildable area, as defined in Section 3.3., consists of the smallest area within the
front, side, and rear yard setbacks; maximum height limit; and the combined side and
rear setback planes. See Figures 10 and 11.
i-.-
... . .--.--
.......
32'
Il-..glloe\
IS'
',-
Figure 10: Buildable Area (CombinCltion of Yard Setbacks, Maximum Height Limit, and Setback
Planes)
The heavy blue line indicates the "tent" formed by the side and rear setback planes. The .buildab/e area is
the smallest area included within the front, side, cmd rear yard setbacks; maximum height limit; and the
combined side and rear setback planes (shown here as the green area).
City of Austin
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
11
Article 2: Development Standards .
Section 2.6. Setback Planes
Figure 11: Buildable Area on Corner Lot
This figure shows the some concept illustrated in Figure 10 but for a corner lot that has a greater street
side yard setback requirement. In this example, the minimum required street side yard setback in the .
underlying zoning district is 15 feet. Because the side setback plane is measured from the side property
line, the height of the setback plane is 30 feet at the 75-foot street side yard setback line.
D. Side Setback Plane Exception for Existing One-Story Buildings
This subsection applies to a one-story building that was originally constructed or
received a building permit for the original construction before October 1, 2006, and
that is remodeled to add a second story.
1. For the portion of the construction that is within the footprint of the building
that was originally constructed or received a building permit before
October 1, 2006, the inwardly sloping 45-degree angle side setback plane
begins at a horizontal line directly above the outermost side wall at a
height that is equal to the height of the first floor wall plate that was
originally constructed or received a building permit before October 1,
2006, plus ten feet. See Figure 12.
2. For the portion of the construction that is outside the footprint of the building
that was originally constructed or received a building permit before
October 1, 2006, the side setback plane prescribed by subsection A. above
applies.
City of Austin
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
.
12
.
.
.
Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.6. Setback Planes
Standard Setback Planes
Apply Oustlde blsllng
aulldlng footprint
Modified Setback Planes
Based on Wall Height of
Existing Single-Story Building
Figure 12: Side Setback Plane Exception for Existing Single-Story Buildings
The side. setback planes for on existing single-story building ore determined based on the height of the sidewall. In this
example, the horizontal line that forms the base of the setback plane is placed ten feet above the sidewall height (12
feet). The revised plane rises above the standard setback plane within the area of the building footprint. The standard
setback planes created in sections 2.6.A. and B. apply outside of the existing footprint.
E. Exceptions
A structure may not extend beyond a setback plane, except for:
1. A structure authorized by the Residential Design and Compatibility
Commission in accordance with Section 2.8. below;
2. A roof overhang or eave, up to two feet beyond the setback plane;
3. A chimney, vent, antenna, or energy conservation or production equipment
or feature not designed for occupancy; and
4. Either:
a. 30-Foot Side-Gabled Roof Exception
A side-gabled roof structure on each side of the building, with a total
horizontal length of not more than 30 feet, measured from the building line
along the intersection with the side setback plane (See Figure 13.); or
City of Austin
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
13
Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.6. Setback Planes
.
Figure 13; Side-Gabled Roof Exception
A side-gabled roof may projed thr~ugh the side setback plane for a horiz~ntal distance of up t~
a maximum of 30 feet, measured from t~ building line. In this example, the gable intrudes into
t~ setback plane beginning 9 feet behind t~ building line. Therefore, the maximum length of the
gable intrusion would be 21 feet.
.
b. Gables Plus Dormers Exception
(i) Gables or a shed roof, with a total horizontal length of not more than 18
feet on each side of the building, measured along the intersection with the
setback plane (See Figures 14 and 17.); and
(ii) Dormers, with a total horizontal length of not more than 15 feet on each
side of the building, measured along the intersection with the setback
plane. (See Figures 15 and 16.)
City of Austin
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
.
14
.
.
.
Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.6. Setback Planes
Figure 14: 18..foot Exception for Shed Roof
City of Austin
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
15
Article 2: Development Standards .
Section 2.6. Setback Planes
15 Ft. It\9xlmum
COmbined Width of
Donnen; (A+B)
Figure 15 & 16: Dormer Exception (Gable or Shed)
One or more dormers with a combined width of 15 feet or less on each side of the roof may extend beyond the
setback plane. The width of the dormer is measured at the point that it intersects the setback plane.
City of Austin
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
16
.
.
.
.
.
Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.6. Setback Planes
Gable Roof:
18' Motlmum Wicltb
dt 11i'4i!r$edlon with
Setback Plane
Dormers:
1 S'~mbllled Width
dt IlIter$edloll with
Setback Plane
Figure 17: Combination of Roof and Dormer Exceptions
City of Austin
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
17
Article 2: Development Standards .
Section 2.7. Side Wall Articulation
2.7. SIDE WALL ARTICULATION
A side wall of a building that is more than 15 feet high and is an average distance of 15
feet or less from an interior lot line mtly not extend in an unbroken plane for more than 32
feet along a side lot line. To break the plane, a perpendicular wall articulation of not less
than four feet, for a distance along the side property line of not less than 10 feet, is
required. See Figures 18 through 20.
",,-/stIng .811Ildlll9
Side Wall ae..... 32'
.
Figure 18: Side Wall Articulation (Existing Side Wall Exceeds 32 Feet)
Articulation is required for side walls on additions or new construction that are 15 feet or taller and located within 15
feet of the side lot line. No wall may extend for more than 32 feet without a projection or recession of at least 4 feet in
depth and 10 feet in length.
City of Austin
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
18
.
.
.
.
Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.7. Side Wall Articulation
existing Building ~
Side Wall less
Than 32 Feet
Required Artkulatlon
Figure 19: Side Wall Articulation (Existing Side Wall Less Than or Equal to 32 Feet)
An addition to an existing building may extend a side wall up to a maximum of 32' in total length without articulation.
Required Side Wall ArtltUlation
Figure 20: Side Wall Articulation (New Construction)
All new construction must meet the sidewall articulation standards.
City of Austin
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
19
Article 2: Development Standards .
Section 2.8. Modifications by the Residential Design and Compatibility Commission .
2.8. MODIFICATIONS BY THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN AND COMPATIBILITY
COMMISSION
This section provides for modification by the Residential Design and Compatibility
Commission of certain requirements of this Subchapter for a proposed development.
2.8.1. Modification$ that May be Approved
The Residential Design and Compatibility Commission may approve:
A. An increase of up to 25 percent in the:
1. Maximum floor-to-area ratio or maximum square footage of gross floor
area;
2. Maximum linear feet of gables or dormers protruding from the setback
plane;
3. Maximum side wall length before articulation is required; or
4. Maximum height of the side or rear setback plane; or
B. A decrease of up to 25 percent in the minimum depth or length of a required wall
articulation.
2.8.2. Modification Procedures .
A. Application and Notice
1. A person may request a modification listed in subsection 2.8.1. above by
filing an applicc:rtion with the Director on a form provided by the Director.
2. Not later than the 14th day after an application is filed, the Director shall:
a. Mail notice of the application to:
(i) Each notice owner of property immediately adjacent to the subject
property;
(ii) The appropriate n~ighborhood association, if any; and,
(iii) The neighborhood plan team, if any; and
b. Post notiCe of the application in accordance with Section 25-1 -1 35 (Posting of
Signs).
B. Approval Criteria
The Residential Design and Compatibility Commission may, after a public hearing,
approve a modification if it determines that the proposed development is compatible
in scale and bulk with the structures in the vicinity of the development. In making this
determination, the commission shall consider:
1. The recommendation of the neighborhood plan team, if any;
2. The development's:
City of Austin
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
.
20
.
.
.
Article 2. Development Standards
Section 2.9. Modifications Within Neighborhood Plan (NP) Combining Districts
a. Compliance with neighborhood design guidelines, if any;
b. Consistency with the streetscape of the properties in the vicinity;
c. Consistency with the massing, scale, and proximity of structures located on
either side of or behind the development;
d. Impact on privacy of adjacent rear yards; and
e. Topography and lot shape; and
3. For a development of an entire block, whether the development will have a
negative impact on adjacent property.
C. Additional Criteria for Historic Properties
The Residential Design and Compatibility Commission may not approve a modification
for:
1. A local, state, or national historic landmark, if the modification would
adversely impact the landmark's historic status;
2. A "contributing structure," as defined in Section 25-2-351 (Contributing
Structure Defined), or a contributing structure in a National Register historic
district, if the modification would adversely impact its status as a
contributing structure; or
3. A property listed as Priority 1 or Priority 2 on the City's most current survey
of historic assets, if the modification would adversely impact the property's
architectural integrity or change its priority rating.
D. Appeals
An interested party may appeal the Residential Design and Compatibility
Commission's decision to the City Council.
E. Board of Adjustment May Grant Variances
This subsection does not prohibit the Board of Adjustment from granting a variance
from a requirement of this Subchapter under 25-2-473 (Variance Requirements).
2.9. MODIFICATIONS WITHIN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN (NP) COMBINING
DISTRICTS
Under Section 25-2-1406 of the Code, an ordinance zoning or rezoning property as a
neighborhood plan (NP) combining district may modify certain development standards of
this subchapter.
City of Austin
Subchapter F. Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
21
ARTICLE 3: DEFINITIONS AND MEASUREMENT
.
3.1. BUILDABLE AREA
In this Subchapter, BUILDABLE AREAmeans the area in which development subject to this
Subchapter may occur, and which is defined by the side and rear setback planes required
by this Subchapter, together with the area defined by the front, side, and rear yard
setbacks and the maximum height limit.
3.2. BUILDING LINE
In this Subchapter, BUILDING LINE
means a line that is parallel to the front
lot line and that intersects. the principal
residential structure at the point where
the structure is closest to the front lot
line, including any allowed projections
into the front yard setback. See Figure
21.
3.3. GROSS FLOOR AREA
In this Subchapter, GROSS FLOOR
AREA has the meaning assigned by
Section 25-1-21 (Definitions), with the
following modifications:
.
Front Lot Liile
Figure 21: Building Line
3.3.1. The following shall be included in the calculation of gross floor area:
A. The portion of a second or third story of a building that Is covered by a roof,
including a porch, portico, breezeway, passageway, or corridor;
B. A mezzanine or loft; and
1. Up to 450 square feet of:
c. The covered portion of a parking area, except for:
a. A detached rear parking area that is separated from the principal structure by
not less than 1 0 feet; or
b. A parking area that is open on two or more sides, if it does not have habitable
space above it; and
2. Up to 200 square feet of an attached parking area if it used to meet the
minimum parking requirement.
3.3.2. The following shall be excluded from the calculation of gross floor area:
.
City of Austin
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
22
.
.
.
Article 3: Definitions and Measurement
Section 3.4. Height
A.
A ground floor porch, including a screened porch;
B.
A habitable portion of a building that is below grade if:
1. It does not extend beyond the first-story footprint; and
2. The finished floor of the first story is not more than three feet above the
average elevation at the intersections of the minimum front yard setback
line and the side property lines; and
C. A habitable portion of an attic, if:
1. The roof above it is not a flat or mansard roof and has a slope of 3 to 1 2
or greater;
2. It is fully contained within the roof structure;
3. It has only one floor;
4. It does not extend beyond the footprint of the floors below;
5. It is the highest habitable portion of the building; and
6. Fifty percent or more of the area has a ceiling height of seven feet or less.
3.3.3. An area with a ceiling height greater than 15 feet is counted twice.
3.4.
HEIGHT
For purposes of this Subchapter, the HEIGHT of a building or setback plane shall be
measured as follows:
3.4.1.
Height shall be measured vertically from the average of the highest and lowest grades
adjacent to the building to:
A. For a flat roof, the highest point of the coping;
B. For a mansard roof, the deck line;
C. For a pitched or hip roof, the average height of the highest gable; or
D. For other roof styles, the highest point of the building.
3.4.2. The grade used in the measurement of height for a building or setback plane shall be the
lower of natural grade or finished grade, except height shall be measured from finished
grade if:
A. The site's grade is modified to elevate it out of the 1 OO-year floodplain; or
B. The site is located on the approximately 698.7 acres of land known as the Mueller
Planned Unit Development, which was zoned as a planned unit development (PUD)
district by Ordinance Number 040826-61.
3.4.3. For a stepped or terraced building, the height of each segment is determined individually.
City of Austin
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
23
Article 3. Definitions and Measurement .
Section 3.5. Natural Grade
3.4.4. The height of a structure other than a building is measured vertically from the ground level
immediately under the structure to the top of the structure. The height of a fence on top of
a retaining wallis measured from the bottom of the retaining wall.
3.4.5. A maximum height is limited by both number of feet and number of stores if both
measurements are prescribed, regardless of whether the measurements are conjoined with
"or" or "and."
3.5. NA rURAL GRADE
3.5.1. In this Subchapter, NATURAL GRADE is:
A. The grade of a site before it is modified by moving earth, adding or removing fill,
or installing a berm, retaining wall, or architectural or landscape feature; or
B. For a site with a grade that was legally modified before October 1, 2006, the
grade that existed on October 1, 2006.
3.5.2. Natural grade is determined by reference to an on-ground survey, City-approved
topographic map, or other information approved by the director. The director may
require an applicant to provide a third-party report that shows the natural grade of a
site.
.
City of Austin
Subchapter F. Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
.
24