Laserfiche WebLink
y ' <br /> homes..within established visual impact is significant and has bigfoot situations. Finally, <br /> I.neighborhood areas containing raised the ire of neighborhood communities should also examine <br /> single-story ranch homes. This has _ residents and .the attention of:. regulations pertaining to lot splits, <br /> prompted.the planning commission planning officials. The issue of private road regulations, private <br /> and city council to review bigfoot is further complicated by an road setback regulations and other <br /> regulations that consider average intrinsic dilemma,pitting the charm infill controls to help manage <br /> height restrictions that are based of older neighborhood areas verses future impacts to established <br /> upon homes within three hundred the bulk or size and'conveniences of neighborhood areas. <br /> (300) feet of proposed construction. new housing. An array of regulations is available <br /> I_n other words, total height could to control the bigfoot and infill <br /> not exceed the average height of <br /> trend. It is important to note <br /> structures.within a three hundred <br /> however, that a "one'size fits all" <br /> (300) foot radius. Other height ' . <br /> approach does not work since <br /> restrictions. considered by the city <br /> each community s regulations <br /> include a maximum.eave height and ' <br /> must be adapted for the <br /> a maximum peak height. ' individual characteristics of that <br /> City of Huntington community. Housing.trends and <br /> H/OOdS . . . styles, lot sizes, etc., will also <br /> vary from one area to another, <br /> The city of Huntington Woods is <br /> taking a unique approach in _ <br /> reviewing the issues involving - <br /> bigfoot and infill development. <br /> They are examining existing <br /> housing styles, bulk, area and mass Unfortunately, current `1 <br /> on a block-by-block basis. Specific zoning regulations are ill <br /> Zoning regulations are being equipped to`deal.with the - <br /> considered for each neighborhood bigfoot issue. Many <br /> area in order to.help ensure bigfoots comply with <br /> architectural compatibility and zoning.regulations: <br /> neighborhood compatibility. Planning commissioners <br /> The regulations.would vary and-planning staff must be <br /> depending upon typical building vigilant in examining. <br /> heights, setbacks and lot coverage current regulations regarding lot size, and a specific approach adapted to <br /> on a block-by-block or . ' lot coverage, height, setbacks, etc., to each.style and:or concern should <br /> neighborhood basis. _ "help minimize the intrusion.of . be employed. Finally, any <br /> bigfoot on neighborhood areas. considered regulations must also <br /> The city-has a unique advantage be based upon general planning <br /> Communities such as.Birmingham, <br /> over.larger communities in than policies enacted to protect_ <br /> specific zoning. ulation Northville, Plymouth, Grosse Pointe, <br /> P g regulation. Woods and Rochester are neighborhood areas. By first <br /> governing bigfoot can be adopted recognizing neighborhood <br /> depending upon specific subareas-of in the process of developing <br /> regulations to.help govern the impact preservation policies, zoning <br /> the city. regulations will be more_easily <br /> of'bigfoot. Many of these regulations <br /> Summary & are innovative and include implemented. <br /> regulations that consider average bulk <br /> Conclusions . regulations of neighboring housing <br /> within.a certain radius of a bigfoot B R. Donald Wortman Carlisle/ <br /> .The issue of bigfoot/teardowns.is Y <br /> often emotionally charged and site.Other communities are relying Wortman Associates,Inc. and Keith <br /> .while only a few lots,are often on historic district regulations. or Edwards, City of Fenton. <br /> affected within a community, the appearance.codes in governing <br />