HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 08202002 Meeting Sheet
IIIIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII
102889
BOX: 27
Folder: PL PACKETS 2000-2004
Document: PL PACKET 08202002
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 07/10/02 MEETING DATE: 07/16/02
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Susan M.H. Hall, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Discuss amendment relating to the definition of"garage" and
"accessory building" and to regulate the size of garages
Background:
On June 25, 2002, a number of residents attended the City Council meeting and had
comments about the subject. It was decided by the City Council that the issue should be
sent back to the Planning Commission for further review and discussion. Please review
the attached minutes regarding the City Council's discussion.
One of the ideas brought forward was to have an architect draw out what the proposed
ordinance change could do to a house from how it is today with the current ordinance. In
other words, how different would it look? Would drawings be helpful to Commissioners
to study this issue? If so, they could be presented as early as next month's Planning
Commission meeting, August 20. The Planning Commission could then make a
recommendation to the City Council to postpone the second and third readings on the
ordinance until after August 20.
Perhaps drawings will not -be necessary; the issue can be studied from a conceptual
level. One thought about the ordinance is that the garage square footage should be left
out of computing the floor area ratio (FAR) all together, like it has been interpreted in the
past. The City Attorney's Office felt the definitions "garage" and "accessory building"
needed clarification. As far as the garage square footage total, it can be either in or out
of the FAR. The Building Official feels that it should be left in, like it has been interpreted
in the past. He thinks doing more changing will create more loopholes, which seem to
exist no matter how the ordinance is written. Finally, another thought is to increase the
floor area ratio from .30 to something larger.
The complaints about the new home at 3501 Downer's Drive pertain to the sheer mass
and height in relation to the rest of the neighborhood. Will the proposed ordinance be
promoting similarly sized homes residents aren't comfortable with?
Staff Recommendation:
Please be prepared to discuss these items and offer a recommendation to the City
Council on July 23.
Attachment:
e Excerpts from June 25, 2002, City Council Minutes
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 25, 2002
Page 3
1 which is a very easy and common adjustment to make. He added that he was
2 comfortable with the proposed changes.
3
4
5 Motion by Councilmember Faust, second by Councilmember Thuesen,to approve
6 Resolution 02-054, re: Considering the four conditions as set by the Planning
7 Commission to allow construction of a Culver's Family Restaurant at 4000/4001 Silver
8 Lake Road.
9
10 Motion carried unanimously.
11
12 In addition, at their June 18, 2002 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended Council
13 approval of the following ordinance amendments:
14
15 2. Consider amendment to City Ordinance relating to the definition of"garage" and
16 "accessory building" and to regulate the size of garages in residential districts.Is'
17 reading.
18 Councilmember Sparks asked if this ordinance would effect how something
19 would look from the outside. Stille stated that he did not think that it would.
20
21 Jerry Gilligan stated that, regarding the particular house in question, the
22 appearance from the outside would not change. He continued that, as the code
23 reads now,the flooring of an attached garage is included in the building footprint;
241 a detached garage is not included in the floor area ratio.
25
26 Gilligan suggested that a garage should either be included in the floor area ratio,
27 or not, regardless of whether or not the garage is attached.
28
29 Councilmember Horst stated that he felt that a garage should be included as space
30 in the floor area ratio, but the amount of land coverage needs to be determined.
31
32 Mornson stated that this ordinance is regarding the blueprint of the building in
33 relation to the lot. He continued that they still have to comply with lot coverage,
34 which will still restrict the size of the house as well as setbacks.
35
36 Mornson stated that the ordinance was to control the size of the house and that
37 there still exists a lot coverage ordinance.
38
39 Mayor Hodson asked why they would want to make such a restriction. Mornson
40 stated that they are attempting to clear up the ordinance because the inspector has
41 interpreted garages as part of the principle structure.
42
43 Mornson added that the way that the ordinance was written benefits the
44 ' homeowner in question.
45
46 Resident Mike Ptak, 3505 Downers Drive, lives just to the east of the discussed
47 house, which, he stated, was massive. He stated that he disagrees with the
48 Planning Commission on this issue, as he feels that the homeowner would have a
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 25, 2002
Page 4
1 much less significant pitch on the house if he was unable to build above the
2 garage.
3
4 Ptak continued that nothing as been violated up to this point regarding the house,
5 but he does not think that one house should have the potential to change an
6 ordinance. He added that he does not feel that a home of such a large stature
7 belongs in the City of St. Anthony.
8
9 Resident Stan Nelson, 3504 Maplewood Drive, came forward and presented an
10 illustration of his view of the discussed home. He stated that they were looking at
11 a structure that looks very different from the front than the b_ack.
12
13 He continued that the new code would give the homeowner the opportunity to
14 further enlarge the structure. He showed the Council an example of a typical
15 home in St. Anthony, and pointed out the ways that it could be changed, if the
16 proposed ordinance was approved.
17
18 Nelson recommended that the city hire an architect/expert to do some
19 hypothetical scenarios to determine the likelihood of promoting these large homes
20 because of the proposed ordinance change.
21
22 Councilmember Horst stated that the comments from the residents were beneficial
23 and echoed the feelings of many of the residents of St. Anthony Village. He
24 added that Nelson's recommendation to hire an architect to review the discussed
25 situation and determine if the standard is right regarding the floor area ratio. He
26 added that he was not ready to vote on this amendment tonight.
27
28 Mayor Hodson stated that he had difficulty in telling a resident that he is unable to
29 expand square footage if he is going up and maintains the proper height
30 requirements, etc.
31
32 Mayor Hodson added that keeping the houses small does nothing for the city's tax
33 base.
34
35 Councilmember Horst stated that he was not interested in keeping houses small,
36 but would like to set a maximum square footage based on the lot size.
37
38 Gilligan stated that the difficulty was coming up with objective standards in the
39 zoning code, as well as coming up with a hardship.
40
41 Councilmember Faust stated that he did not feel it was appropriate to determine
42 the size of house that a resident can have when the lot coverage ordinance already
43 does that. He s� that they move this along to a se—url reading, take a
44 look at the thousand square foot again with the Planning Commission_ .
45
46 Councilmember Thuesen stated that a garage is part of the overall structure of a
47 house. He stated that he was comfortable enough to move this along to a second
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 25, 2002
Page 5
1 reading, but had several unanswered questions before he felt that he could
2 approve an amendment to the ordinance.
3
4 Councilmember Sparks stated that, if they were interested in limiting the size of a
5 house, this was not the way. She added that perhaps what they needed to change
6 was the floor area ratio.
7
8 Stille stated that he felt that the Planning Commission should further examine the
9 issue and bring it back to the Council at a later date.
10
11 Morrison informed the Council that the homeowner still does not have the ability
12 to finish the living space above the garage, even if they move forward to the
13 second reading.
14
15 Councilmember Faust stated that there were three readings for the purpose of
16 public input. He added that moving the resolution along allows the Planning
17 Commission to come back to the Council with a proposed amendment.
18
19 Councilmember Sparks clarified that the thousand square feet was not the issue,
20 but that the floor area ratio was what needed to be changed.
21
22 Mayor Hodson stated that the Planning Commission should come back to the
23 Council with a recommendation and some information after they have gone
24 through this first reading.
25
26 Motion by Councilmember Sparks, second by Councilmember Faust, to consider
27 an amendment to City Ordinance 2002-002.
28
29 Motion carried 4-1, Horst opposed.
30
31 3. Consider amendment to City Ordinance regulating the placement of ground signs.
32 1 st reading.
33 Stille stated that the Planning Commission was recommending that the placement
34 of ground signs be 15 feet from the curb.
35
36 Morrison indicated that the Animal Hospital sign on 37th Avenue was an example
37 of a sign that was 15 feet from the curb, which is the way that they have been
38 interpreting the ordinance.
39
40 Motion by Councilmember Faust, second by Councilmember Sparks, to amend
41 City Ordinance 2002-003.
42
43 Motion carried unanimously.
44
45 4. Consider amendment to City Ordinance to delete Section relating to wax in the
46 production of candles and the production of home fragrance products as a
47 manufacturing permitted use in the Light Industrial district. 1St reading.
48
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 06/12/02 MEETING DATE: 06/18/02
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Susan M.H. Hall, Assistant City Manage
SUBJECT: Floor area ratio and garage/accessory building
Requested Action:
Amend the City Ordinance relating to the definition of "garage" and "accessory building"
in relation to the "floor area ratio" and to regulate the size of garages in residential
districts.
Background:
Calculation of the floor area ratio came up this past spring in the plans for a new single
family home at 3501 Downers Drive in St. Anthony. The builder, Tom Brama, didn't
agree with how the floor area ratio was figured and had a different interpretation of the
code than the Building Official (see Castle Inspection letter attached). Mr. Brama did not
believe the garage should be treated as part of the floor area of the home.
The City Ordinance requires a floor area ratio not to exceed 30% of the lot area in order
to limit the mass of the structure. The floor area ratio is defined as "the ratio of the
maximum permitted floor area of the principal building or buildings to the area of the lot
on which they are located or to be located. The maximum allowable floor area on a lot is
determined by multiplying the lot area by the floor area ratio." The City's Building Official
and staff have read the City Ordinance to mean floor area is to include all floor areas
except the basement and there have been no exception for garages, unfinished, or
uninhabitable areas.
The City Attorney's Office recently reviewed the code and believe the definitions of
accessory building and garage is ambiguous to the definition of floor area ratio (see
Dorsey and Whitney letter attached). For clarity sake, the City Attorney's Office
recommends amending the City Ordinance as follows:
(Redefine the term) Garage: An accessory building or portion of a principal
building which is principally used for the storage of motor vehicles owned by
occupants of the principal building.
(Redefine the term) Accessory Building: A separate building or structure or a
portion of a principal building or structure used for accessory uses.
(Add to/Amend) Floor Area Ratio: The garage is not included in determining the
floor area ratio as it is considered an accessory building.
In addition to the above, the City may want to restrict the gross floor area of a garage
cannot exceed 1000 square feet. Also, the City may want to add the garage cannot be
bigger than the principal structure.
Page 2 — Floor Area Ratio
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the amendments, as outlined above. It is advisable these
changes be made to the R-1, R-1A, and R-2 residential districts, where floor area ratios
are .30. All other zoning districts will remain unchanged.
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
AUGUST 20, 2002
7 p.m., Council Chambers
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4. PUBLIC INPUT
Individuals may address the Planning Commission about any item not included on the regular
agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, state their name and address for the
Clerk's record, and limit their remarks to five minutes.
5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
6. MEETING MINUTES
6.1 Review and Approve Planning Commission Minutes of July 16, 2002
7. COMMUNICATION FROM CITY COUNCIL
7.1 Designate a Planning Commission Member to the August 27, 2002 City Council Meeting
8. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION
8.1 Review preliminary site plan for Business Data Record Services, 3015 37th Ave NE
8.2 Review survey information and make recommendation to City Council re: amendment to
city ordinance relating to the' definition of "garage" and "accessory building" and to
regulate the size of garages in relation to the floor area ratio (FAR) in residential districts
8.3 Northwest Quadrant/Apache Redevelopment Update
9. ANNOUNCEMENTS
10. ADJOURNMENT
ATTENTION PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS:
IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING, PLEASE CONTACT SUSAN HALL AT
612-706-1324.
t 1
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 16, 2002
Page 1
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2
3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
4
5 JULY 16, 2002
6 7:00 p.m.
7
8 I. CALL TO ORDER.
9 Chair Melsha called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
10
11 II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
12 Chair Melsha invited the Council and the audience to join in the Pledge of Allegiance.
13
14 III. ROLL CALL.
15 Commissioners present: Chair Melsha; Vice Chair Stille, Commissioners Hanson, Hoska,
16 Steeves, Tillman, and Thomas.
17
18 Absent: None.
19
20 Also present: Assistant City Manager Susan Hall.
21
22 IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
23 Motion by Commissioner Thomas, second by Commissioner Hoska, to approve the meeting
24 agenda.
25
26 Motion carried unanimously.
27
28 V. PUBLIC INPUT.
29 Hearing no comments, Chair Melsha moved forward with the agenda.
30
31 VI. MEETING MINUTES.
32 6.1 Review/Approval of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of June 18, 2002.
33 Commissioner Thomas requested the following changes:
34 Page 3, line 23: "north" and"left" to be changed to "south' and "right".
35 Page 4, line 24 to be added: "Commissioner Thomas asked about the developer receiving
36 a $314,000 subsidy from the city, and why he could not comply with the
37 recommendation from DSU."
38 Vice Chair Stille requested the following change to Page 6, line 17: "Commissioner
39 Stille" to be changed to"Commissioner Steeves."
40
41 Motion by Chair Melsha, second by Commissioner Hanson, to approve the Planning
42 Commission meeting minutes of June,18, 2002, as amended above.
43
44 Motion carried unanimously.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 16, 2002
Page 2
1
2 VII. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL.
3 7.1 Designate a Planning Commission member to the City Council regular meeting g_ f July
4 23, 2002.
5 Chair Melsha indicated that he and Commissioner Hoska would determine who, between
6 them, was available to attend the next City Council meeting on July 23, 2002.
7
8 VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
9 8.1 Drs. Hellickson, Larson, Portis and Associates: Si rage variance to allow fora jzround
10 sign consisting of 60 square feet for two copy surfaces, for a total of 120 square feet,
11 exceeding City Ordinance by 40 square feet.
12 Chair Melsha opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m.
13
14 Susan Hall stated that the petitioner Drs. Hellickson, Larson, Portis and Associates,
15 located at 3909 Silver Lake Road, is requesting a sign variance to allow for two copy
16 services, for a total of 120 square feet.
17
18 She added that the petitioner's current sign at 80 square feet is not meeting the business
19 needs, which is why they were requesting the larger sign of 120 square feet.
20
21 According to City Ordinance, buildings with two or more businesses/tenants are allowed
22 80 square feet of copy surface area. Hall indicated that the petitioner states in the request
23 there will be no change in landscaping and no change in the location of the enlarged sign.
30 Dr. Karen Portis came forward to further explain the.need for.the request. She stated that .
31 the current sign has only two of the three tenants listed.
32
33 She added that the letter size of the current sign is also very small, and they would like to
34 see it enlarged for greater visibility from the street.
35
36 Chair Melsha asked if the doctors have thought about not listing their individual names,
37 but the name of the clinic instead. Portis indicated that they would take that route, if
38 necessary. She added that one of the problems in doing so is that the dentist group is sub-
39 leasing space in their office to two other doctors, who would like their names displayed.
40
41 Chair Melsha asked if turning the sign from a vertical position to a horizontal position
42 would meet their needs. Portis stated that she thought that horizontal positioning of the
43 sign would be better, but that they would still be forced to take off all of the names.
44
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 16, 2002
Page 3
1 Chair Melsha asked about a comment made by one of the doctors that their sign needed to
2 compete with the other signs along the Silver Lake Road corridor. Portis stated that she
3 was unable to personally respond to the comment.
4
5 Commissioner Thomas stated that he thought that Chair Melsha made a good point that
6 re-configuring the current sign would be beneficial. Portis stated that they could that, if
7 the variance was not granted.
8
9 Chair Melsha stated that his personal feeling was that there was not a true hardship to
10 warrant approval of the sign variance request.
11
12 Resident Martin Lunde, 3425 33`d Avenue Northeast, came forward and asked what
13 precedence was for other professional signs in St. Anthony. Chair Melsha stated that he
14 could not think of any other businesses in a building of this size in St. Anthony that listed
15 the individual names.
16
17 Chair Melsha closed the public hearing at 7:17 p.m.
18
19 Vice Chair Stille stated that his feeling was that he would be looking for an address when
20 going to his doctor, rather than the names of doctors on a sign, and stated that he could
21 not find hardship in the request.
22
23 Commissioner Hoska stated that he agreed with Vice Chair Stille, and would be looking
24 for an address, not names, on a sign.
25
26 Portis came forward to propose a different sort of sign to represent the different offices
27 within the building. Chair Melsha stated that they would need to work with staff on the
28 issue.
29
30 Commissioner Hanson urged them to go with a new horizontal sign, rather than a vertical
31 one.
32
33 Motion by Commissioner Thomas, second by Commissioner Hoska, to deny the sign
34 variance request by Drs. Hellickson, Larson, Portis and Associates for a sign variance.
35
36 Motion carried unanimously.
37
38 IX. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION.
39 9.1 Discuss amendment to city ordinance relating to the definition of"garage" and"accessory
40 building" and to regulate the size of garages in residential districts.
41 Chair Melsha invited resident Stan Nelson to come forward and address the Commission.
42
43 Nelson, 3504 Maplewood Drive, came forward and invited every commissioner to visit
44 his home and see the view of the house at 3501 Downers from the back. Vice Chair Stille
45 has already been to Nelson's home to see his view.
46
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 16, 2002
Page 4
1 Nelson stated that he has taken the proposed change in the city ordinance that is
2 recommended, and added his recommended changes to the changes already proposed for
3 select sections of the city ordinance.
4
5 Nelson's recommendation included the deletion of the last line of Section 1605,
6 subdivision 31. He added 2 options to subdivision 31:
7 • Floor Area Determination, Option 1: The garage is included as floor area in the
8 comparison calculation to determine compliance with the maximum floor area
9 allowed.
10 • Floor Area Determination, Option 2: An attached garage need not be included in
11 the area calculation to determine compliance with the maximum floor area
12 allowed, providing that the garage height does not exceed xx feet when measured
13 from the garage floor to its roof peak.
14
15 Nelson stated that he believes that his additions/modifications to the currently proposed
16 ordinance change provide a needed degree of protection so that new homes or remodeled
17 homes cannot be built that turn out to be visual eyesores.
18
19 Nelson added that he was not making direct reference to the house at 3501 Downers as,
20 structurally, it does meet the building codes.
21
22 Nelson stated that his ultimate goal was to soften the profile that is seen from the rear.
23
24 Resident Lunde asked if, in determining floor area for the lot, is it total floor area in the
25 house,or ground floor projected area. Chair Melsha stated that it does not count the
26 basement, but it does count all of the other floors.
27
28 Lunde asked how they deal with tuck-under garages. He added that he thought that it is
29 the architectural design in blocking and massing is what makes the difference in
30 designing a house.
31
32 Lunde suggested that they keep aesthetics in mind when they make this amendment.
33
34 Vice Chair Stille stated that a Design Review Board might be a viable option to help with
35 this problem. He added that he spoke with a builder who stated that most communities
36 are maintaining a 1000 square foot maximum on garages.
37
38 Vice Chair Stille asked if staff has looked into other communities and how the issue is
39 handled. Hall indicated that they have not looked into other cities, but that it was an
40 option.
41
42 Commissioner Thomas came forward with photographs of a several different homes. He
43 stated that he does a lot of research regarding preserving neighborhoods versus building
44 monster homes.
45
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 16, 2002
Page 5
1 Commissioner Thomas suggested that a neighborhood meeting take place for the purpose
2 of discussing how a new house will fit into an existing neighborhood be part of the
3 application process.
4
5 Commissioner Thomas stated that certain design features need to be set. He added that
6 they need to maintain the lot size ratio, and examine the option of a greater floor area
7 ratio (FAR).
8
9 Commissioner Thomas recommended that the city get a student from the Department of
10 Housing to do a housing and neighborhood analysis this fall. The study should examine
11 the age, size, physical condition, neighborhood characteristics, demographics, etc.
12
13 Commissioner Steeves stated that he would like to see what some other communities are
14 doing with regard to FAR and their code, versus hiring an architect to draw some
15 examples. He added that some of Commissioner Thomas' other comments were
16 valuable.
17
18 Chair Melsha stated that he agreed with the City Attorney that an attached garage, or a
19 detached garage should be treated the same.
20
21 The Commission questioned what they should pass along to Council. It was determined
22 that they would recommend postponement of the second reading of the amendment.
23
24 Lunde asked what the function of FAR was. Chair Melsha stated that it was the ratio of
25 the amount of floor space versus the lot size.
26
27 Lunde stated that a lot of communities have an architectural review board where people
28 volunteer their time for a couple of years. He added that he liked the idea of talking to the
29 neighbors.
30
31 Chair Melsha stated that it would be a good idea to have staff pull together some
32 information for City Council, perhaps comprise a sub-committee to come up with a
33 recommendation.
34
35 It was determined that they would provide the Council with a summation of what some
36 other cities are doing regarding FAR and Design Review Boards.
37
38 Vice Chair Stille and the rest of the Commission thanked Nelson for his work presented
39 this evening.
40
41 9.2 Northwest Ouadrant Redevelopment Update.
42 Susan Hall stated that the City Council submitted a Metropolitan Council Livable
43 Communities Grant this past Monday.
44
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 16, 2002
Page 6
1 Hall indicated that the development team and the city meet every two weeks. They are
2 currently working out feasibility issues, and other issues related to property acquisition,
3 funding, etc.
4
5 Hall stated that if residents are interested in housing, they should contact the developer,
6 Pratt-Ordway at (651)631-8059.
7
8 X. ANNOUNCEMENTS.
9 Commissioner Hanson stated that some beautification was happening at the shopping center this
10 evening. He added that the shop owners were going to meet next Tuesday and see what is
11 possible for green space down at the shopping center.
12
13 Commissioner Thomas stated that he felt it was a very productive meeting.
14
15 XI. ADJOURNMENT.
16 Motion by Commissioner Steeves, second by Commissioner Hoska, to adjourn the meeting at
17 8:12 p.m.
18
19 Motion carried unanimously.
20
21
22
23 Respectfully submitted,
24
25
26 Courtney Seesz
27 Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
28
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 08/12/02 MEETING DATE: 08/20/02
TO: Chair Melsha & Planning Commission Members
FROM: Susan M.H. Hall, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Business Data Record Services Expansion
Background:
City staff has met twice with President Mark Cloutier of Business Data Record Services
and their contractor Mark Murlowski of Belair Excavating regarding their plans for
demolition and expansion at 3015 37'h Avenue Northeast. At this point, they would like
to bring their plans forward for informal review and discussion to get feedback on their
preliminary site plan. They hope. to bring final plans to the September 17 Planning
Commission meeting. They anticipate construction beginning Fall 2002 or Spring 2003.
Their plans call for demolition of four existing buildings and construction of a new 40,000
s.f. building. Although not marked on the preliminary site plan, the applicants may need
a variance as they have mentioned a building height of 43-44 feet. Maximum building
height in a Light Industrial zoning district is 35,feet. A good example of what this will look
like is Business Data Record Services, which was recently constructed at 200 Old
Highway 8 in New Brighton. That building stands 42 feet in height. Mr. Cloutier stated
his electronic storage business is growing and hence the need for more space.
The city engineer has asked that drainage be addressed so that the runoff from the site
goes to a water retention pond. A new retention pond is shown on the preliminary site
plan. Parking is adequate at the site, per city code, because this is a warehousing
facility which requires the facility must have at least one space per employee on the
largest shift plus one parking space per company vehicle. There are 40 parking stalls
shown on the site plan, which will be enough spots for employees per Mr. Cloutier.
Although the setbacks are not clearly marked on the preliminary plan, the applicants
have discussed the need for a variance for setbacks for the front yard (County Road D)
and the side yard (Macalester Drive). The zoning ordinance states the front yard must
have a depth equal to the greater of 40 feet or a distance equal to the average of the
setbacks of structures on two adjoining lots; side yards adjoining a street must be at
least 40 feet; and rear yards must be at least 15 feet in depth. The proposed plan does
line of up the new building with the existing buildings.
Floor area ratio for this development is not an issue as the maximum in the Light
Industrial zoning district is 1.5.
Attachments:
• Preliminary Site Plan
I
!
I !
4 � !
sa
I �HIM g�
—-— —.—-— — — —-— —-— — — _.— —.— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
- — — — — —— — — — — — He M
i
!
I 1
I i I I '•Y
i
I i I •\ `''•\ C .o 'O
EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING ! EXISTING BUILDING
TO REMAIN TO REMAIN TO REMAIN TO REMAIN
cr
\ V A \\ � AAvA\ ��\� tea'-s• � ` \� \� \� �\`V\ �o
�' `� ". A\\�\\,\`�VV
0 I 2 I I \ .\V \\\\ \\\ \\ \\\\\V�V A� A� `�•
Q I ! VV ` �V AV A�A\ V �\\\A.\\
vA vvv;v\\\\\X yvy\ y
v\\v\v A\�
I I SITE SECTION \. A \\\\\\\� vAV\\\V \\A.AV
\\ \\ \NEW 40,000 SF \ \ \\\o
\, \\\BUILDING
55'TRUCK TURNING RADIUS \\\\\ \\\ \ \\ \\ \ \ \\
H.C.
EXISTING BUILDING m\ \ \ \:\•.\\ — RETAINING \
TO REMAIN \\V��\\ V V\\\\ \ � ,� W\ ALL
\v`A\�
i I 14 PARKING STALLS \\ \\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\ \\\
\ \\� \
14 PARKING STALLS \\\\\\\ \\\\ ;\\\ NORMAL
\'" WATER LEVEL
V\ \\\AA v\.v\\\v
.:�,`, �,. ��\�:�.� �\\�`:��.��\ ♦..�`...�� 200-0' \\�.,� \.\.\\��...\.\�\\ � \\\\'_` -- - -- -- -I Y�- � I �
j 12"RCP OUTLET
TO CITY STORM j
MACALASTER DRIVE CATCH BASIN
SITE INFORMATION
1 J '
LAND AREA 157,500 SF 9 202 ~ Ln
EXTG.BUILDING AREA 83,300 SF ����ED AUG SITE PLAN IS BASED ON SURVEY BY o a
EXTG.F.A.R. 53 JAMES M.HALVERSON DATED 1/20/1960 N cr
o ; cr
Lu
PROPOSED BLDG.AREA 102,000 SF North 00
PROPOSED F.A.R. .65 c`
PROOF OF PARKING 40 ;,' PROPOSED SITE PLAN =�
%SK-7 SCALE: 1"=20'-0
i
;'a$3
�5
COUNTY ROAD D 130-0" 138'-0" 127'-0" 144'-0"—1
EXISTING WAREHOUSE NEW WAREHOUSE DETENTION POND
EXISTING WAREHOUSE
100,-0"
North
SITE SECTION
-10 SCALE: 1°=20'-0°
L
Lu
0
Lu
cc t
Lu
w
CE I-,
Vews. SEPTEMBER 1999
Z0 AMERICAN I• •,
PLANNING
ASSOCIATION
Torn Over Teardowns:
Protect inn
Nei hbor%ood _
Character RESIDENTIAL
BULK
!I REGULATIONS
By N. Drew Petterson,AICP � "
ANALYSIS
Across the nation in older,
traditional residential
neighborhoods, the phenomenon
referred to as"teardowns"is
threatening to erode community
character.Tn the Chicago's
Lakeview neighborhood,housing
replacement is transforming the
character of the turn-of-the- .
r pan
century working class housing
stock into an exclusive
neighborhood.In the older
Chicago suburb of Hinsdale, a
developers have demolished and s
replaced about 750 homes since `� f
1986—more than 15 percent of Traditional-style,homes in modest residential
the community's single-family housing 5V neighborhoods are being torn down and
stock. The New York Times recently reported replaced with more expensive homes that
how teardowns are changing the historic (!1 differ in size and character from the existing
landscape of Nantucket Island, housing stock.Such differences include
Massachusetts,by replacing vintage cottages attachedgarages and wide lots(top)and
with multimillion dollar homes. imposing house heights(center and bottom).
There are many reasons why teardowns
are a common and controversial housing strategy and why perception vs. Reality
they have evolved into a conflict between the property rights Public reaction to teardowns is negative when there is a
of homeowners and a desire to serve recognized community perception that a new structure is grossly different in size or
needs. Older neighborhoods have become highly desirable character from what was formerly on the property. It is
for affluent residents looking for a walkable, pedestrian- therefore necessary for the municipality to document size and
friendly environment with mature, tree-lined streets and dimension characteristics of the new and old structures,
convenient neighborhood amenities such as schools, parks, including setbacks,height, floor area ratio,building coverage,
and shopping. These homebuyers also want a range of and impermeable coverage.A photograph or a sketch will help
features frequently associated with suburban sprawl: three-car to illustrate the homes more accurately,serving as a tool for
attached garages, large kitchens, master bedroom suites, comparison and providing a visual means of deciphering how
basements with adequate ceiling heights for family living, existing or proposed regulations apply to the homes.
bigger closets, efficient layouts, and modern heating and
cooling systems. Older Homes and Modern Regulations
Zoning requirements for home construction prior to World War II
Contemporary Housing Demands and were not as demanding as they are today.Modern regulations such
Changing Demographics as floor area ratios,impervious surface ratios,and setback
Teardowns may be appropriate when older and smaller homes requirements can unfairly penalize the owners of older homes that
cannot meet the needs of contemporary homebuyers. become nonconforming.While new residential construction can
Traditional homes tend to have smaller rooms,insufficient total meet contemporary regulations,the layout and design of older
floor area,and poor layouts.Structural problems are costly to repair homes may not comply,thus creating a possible nonconforming
and these homes often lack efficient heating and air conditioning. status and perhaps preventing any renovation efforts or
Many older homes have insufficient garage space for cars and modernization of the home.More restrictive regulations might
storage and lack the comforts and safety of an attached garage. even cause a homeowner to tear down the existing home and scan
These homes may also have negligible character or historic value. over rather than renovate and try to conform to the new
r
eardown. The construction or remodeling of Implications Hinders flexibility in home design,possibly
limiting floor heights.
Basement Height. Basements that extend above grade have a
single-family homes to the maximum allowable s g
significant visual impact,a typical characteristic of older homes.
Tsize permitted by land-use and zoning regulation This architectural feature can be displayed using a variety of
quality materials,including brick or stone. Raised basements
� - in neighborhoods distinct) characterized b also allow light and air to reach the basement floors ace.
9 V V g P
Implications.Reducing basement height above grade limits light,
� - considerably smaller homes. (Glendale, California) perhaps restricting the functional capability of the basement.This
also removes a unique architectural feature from the home.
regulations.Zoning requirements that are too permissive can make Setbacks—Corner Side.Ideally,corner lots should be greater in
' it economical to tear down smaller,older homes and replace them size and width than interior lots.But in many communities,corner
with much larger structures.Building envelopes have historically lots tend to be undersized and lack setbacks on each frontage.
been defined by the setbacks and provide flexibility for siting Consequently,structures that are located close to the road have an
modest homes.Today,the entirety of the building envelope at the inappropriate and imposing appearance and insufficient room for
front setback line may be filled with the structure,thus requiring landscaping.Larger setbacks for corner lots and front yard setbacks
regulations that were previously unnecessary. on each street would solve this problem.
Implications Creating nonconforming lots and increasing the
j The Implications of Revised Regulations minimum setback for lots of minimum width could have the
Regulations that consider the scale of the existing housing stock effect of narrowing a house width and disrupting neighborhood
can eliminate the incentive for a teardown.The following character.
section reviews the options for modifying zoning regulations to Setbacks—Side. On lots where the available building
limit new development and identifies some of the negative envelope.is of proportionate size, increasing the minimum side
implications that can be associated with the modifications. yard setback would provide additional light and air onto the lot.
" Zoning District Purpose Statement.The purpose statement Also,a public safety rationale for increased setbacks is to provide
x. for the zoning ordinance,and for the relevant zoning districts, greater separation between homes in case of fire.
°i should emphasize the importance of quietness, privacy, Implications Creating nonconforming structures and
adequate light and air,pedestrian-scale development, attractive minimizing the flexibility in where a house can be placed on the
streetscape, and neighborliness as the foundation for new site.
z _ teardown regulations. Floor Area Ratio (FAR).FARs have traditionally been used in
€ Lot Areas and Lot Widths.Increasing the lot size and/or lot nonresidential developments.But as home sizes increased,FARs
width will not reduce building size,but will reduce the number of were applied in residential districts as well.Developing an FAR for
lots that can be subdivided,resulting in fewer newer and larger existing residential neighborhoods can be particularly challenging
homes.This is particularly important when traditional homes are because,unlike nonresidential districts,where a specified numerical
built on lots substantially larger than allowed in the district. FAR is used,determining the FAR requirement for a residential
Implications Creation of nonconforming lots and reduction neighborhood includes the use of a formula.
of the value of larger lots. The following is a sample FAR formula for a district with a
"H Maximum Building Coverage.The ratio of maximum minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet:
building square footage to lot size can limit the appearance of
.T 3,000 square feet+ [(lot area-7,500)x .21
bulk on the site and maximize the amount of open space, a
particularly critical element on smaller lots. Lot area
Implications. Creation of nonconforming structures and This essentially means that a 3,000-square-foot home is
reduction of the flexibility in house design, forcing homes to be permitted on a minimum 7,500-square-foot lot (0.4 FAR),with
x""rs taller in order to minimize the house footprint. additional building square footage based on a 0.2 FAR for the
p � g q g
Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage.Limiting portion of the lot exceeding 7,500 square feet.
impervious surface is important for aesthetic reasons, but vital Gross floor area(GFA) must first be determined before
for surface water runoff and flooding, particularly in areas calculating FAR.The exclusion of certain structural amenities of
within or near a floodplain. a home from the GFA may encourage home design that will
Implications.An impervious surface ratio could preclude locating complement neighborhood character. Such amenities could
a garage at the rear lot line because the additional pavement. include garages behind the front building facade(or toward the
required to reach such a location would be in excess of the rear portion of the lot where alleys are available),basements that
impervious surface requirement.Other amenities important to do not exceed a specified height above grade, bay windows,
- contemporary living,such as patios,might also be prohibited. porches,or attic space. Using FAR bonus provisions to
:,.. . Height.The height requirement in many older districts is 35 encourage specific structural features is also an option.
feet, or two and a half to three stories, whichever is less. Implications Creating nonconforming structures and preventing
However, many new homes are built at 30 feet or less, homebuyers from building a custom-style home;requires
precluding the need for a radical change in height requirements. substantial staff resources to evaluate plans and determine gross
Rather,height might be defined in a way that encourages square footage based on ordinance requirements.
�-'•" pitched instead of flat roofs. Regulating Building Configuration.Some communities have
a established a setback plane to reduce the looming effect of the
structure and encourage itched roofs.The setback lane.
g P P
N. Drew Petterson is Senior Vice President at Thompson Dyke er requires the roof line to recede at a specified angle and height
Associates, Ltd. in Northbrook, Illinois. above grade, for example:45 degrees at 17 feet above grade.
ti
For what reasons might zoning regulations limit or prohibit teardowns?
• Demolition of older and smaller homes,where the focal point of the ■ Larger families often move into the newer homes,increasing traffic
facade is the front door and where the facade relates comfortably to a congestion.
pedestrian-oriented street,removes the essential elements of a ■ Inconsistent stoup(main entrances to a building)heights detract from
traditional neighborhood. the street scene.
• New homes with front-loaded garages detract from the street scene; ■ The impact of a teardown increases if there is a failure to provide
views of garage doors and driveway pavement in the front yard erode sufficient landscaping to soften the visual impact of a new structure.
the pedestrian character of the street. ■ The facade designs of custom-built homes may have characteristics of tract
• Taller and bulkier new homes create a"looming"presence on the street homes that are architecturally inconsistent with traditional neighborhoods.
scene and can,because of die destruction of street character,encourage ■ Removing the older and smaller homes that serve young families,empty
the reardown of an adjacent smaller house. nesters,and homeowners with modest incomes impacts the social
• A new home that extends further into the back yard reduces the light structure of a community by reducing the neighborhood's economic
penetration and air movement to adjacent homes. and social diversity.
Exclusions may be required for dormers and chimneys. Other the sidewalk and street. Municipalities might consider requiring
options include limiting the maximum width of a house facade a percentage of building cost to be spent on landscaping.
or requiring an increase in side yard setback toward the rear of Implications Landscaping adds additional costs to a new ..
the building envelope to limit the appearance of bulk and home and makes it difficult for modest-income homebuyers to
provide for additional light and air on adjacent lots. live in a desirable neighborhood.
Implications Creating nonconformities and restrictions on
architectural design.
Regulating Garage Configuration and Location.Attached
garages with large asphalt driveways can negatively impact NEWS BRIEFS =°'f
ti.
neighborhood streetscape, particularly in neighborhoods with r
alleys,where detached garages are often located at the rear of the Field of Bad Dreams
lot. Regulations may prohibit front-loading garages facing the The 1989 movie Field of Dreams was set in an Iowa cornfield where
street,or limit the amount of garage door facing the street. In the ghosts of baseball stars came back to play the game they loved.
P;�r iveG,d
Winnetka, Illinois,garage door widths cannot exceed 33 percent "Is this heaven?"asked the long-deceased"Shoeless"Joe Jackson to
of the lot width, or 18 feet,whichever is less, provided that no Ray Kinsella,the farmer who constructed a baseball field in the
individual door shall extend more than nine feet when facing middle of his corn crop."No,It's Iowa,"answered Ray.The actual
the primary front yard.The Winnetka ordinance also field where the film was shot in Dyersville,Iowa,is still intact,and
encourages locating the garages away from the front of the home remains one of the top tourist destinations in the state.
by providing a 200-square-foot floor area exclusion for locating But all is not level on this playing field.A property line runs _ ,
an attached garage to the rear of the house, and a 400-square- through the left side of the infield; to the right are the
foot exclusion for locating a detached garage in the rear one- farmhouse and the property of Don and Becky Lansing, and to
quarter of the lot. Where alleys are available,a community the left, the rest of the playing field and cornfields,owned by Al
might consider requiring that garages be accessed from the alley. and Rita Ameskamp. Both parties have souvenir stands on the
Implications Loss of the comfort, convenience, and safety of site, and charge no admission to play ball on the actual field.
an attached garage. The portion of the field owned by the Ameskamps has
Design Review.A design review process may be necessary to undergone significant changes.The property manager that oversees ;.
minimize development that is out of character with the the commercial aspects of their land,a group called"Left and =
neighborhood. Design review can determine whether an Center Field of Dreams,"successfully petitioned for a zoning
addition to the structure is viable over demolition and change of the farmland from A-1 to B-1 in order to support
rebuilding and whether the design of a new structure meets the increased commercial ventures.The field is two and a half miles
standards and guidelines of the community. outside of Dyersville and has the only business zoning classification
Design review may also be appropriate for each variance in the area.All the surrounding land is zoned as agricultural.The
application that results in a greater floor area. Cities may use reason for the change is a three-mile maze through the cornfields
permit applications for demolition,which require the use of cut in the image of Shoeless Joe,which features trivia questions and
either a design review process or substantial waiting period. factual markers throughout.A$6 admission fee is charged for
Implications Additional cost and time required to construct a entrance to the maze,which was completed well before the
single-family home.A debate over the legality or desirability of approval for the zoning change on June 21.Also under
design review procedures may slow down or preclude development consideration is a 50-foot-high tower from which to
authorization of the home by the community. view to the maze in its entirety.
Landscaping Requirements and Tree Ordinance Application. The Lansing family is opposed to the extreme exploitation
Many new homes lack adequate front yard landscaping,giving and commercialization of the site,on which they have banned
the home a"bulky"appearance. Landscaping is often useful for television commercial shoots and weddings,preferring to keep
softening the impact of building mass.Trees and shrubs also their portion of the site as"authentic"as possible.The Lansings
increase street appeal by screening driveways and garages from are not in agreement with the developments on the Ameskamps
side. "The issue here is money,with a lot of bad blood between Dekalb,who is facilitating the task force says, "It is a real 50-50
the two camps,"says Paul Buss,the Dubuque County zoning. group with both sides being equally represented."The group
administrator. "What the county would like is to rezone the two will meet once a week and was expected to present
farms as C-1,a very strict commercial conditional zoning recommendations to the mayor by the beginning of September.
prohibiting anything but Field of Dreams-related uses.No fast- This should allow time for suggested changes to the city's
food restaurants or anything of the sort would be allowed,and if ordinance by the end of the moratorium.Possible changes may
the cornfield closed down, the zoning would revert to A-1." range from an all-out ban on billboards to adopting the
The Lansings are challenging the B-1 designation,telling The proposed increase in spacing between signs.
New York Times it could lead to a proliferation of"hotels,bowling While other cities are invoking the right to amortize
alleys(and)bus depots,"though Buss says none of those uses would billboards,essentially making them nonconforming uses and
be permitted:And with what Buss says is"a multi-million dollar compensating billboard owners with time rather than money,
business"and the leading tourist attraction in the region at stake, Lincoln no longer has this power.
this zoning dispute is a sure candidate to head into extra innings. In an odd twist,the person who aided in taking away the power
Joseph Bornstein of Nebraska cities to amortize is the same newly elected Mayor
Don Wesley who made billboard reform a pan of his 1999
Billboard Moratorium: Signs of the Times campaign platform.In the early 1980s,Wesley was a state senator
In Lincoln,Nebraska,a seven-month moratorium on billboard who sponsored legislation effectively removing amortization from
permits was imposed until a special task force can make the state law.Wesley has maintained that billboards were not the
recommendations for revising the city's zoning ordinance for problem they are today.If Lincoln decides to ban billboards
off-premises billboards.The moratorium,effective July 23, without amortization,Wesley says in the Lincoln Journal Star
1999,comes after a significant increase in billboard permits "taking these billboards down—because of that state law that
issued in the past year. Senator Don Wesley passed—is going to be very expensive."
For most of this decade the billboard market in Lincoln Jerome Cleland
maintained a low profile,issuing an annual average of four new
permits between 1991 and 1997.The 1990s market was
dominated by Lamar Outdoor Advertising, laying claim to most
of the prime billboard locations. But in 1998,industry Gkeports
competitor Gray Outdoor Advertising emerged to start
purchasing secondary locations,sending new permit requests
skyrocketing.Forty new only to s
o be matched the first billboard
six months of 1999 by anothe8 Charting a Course for
40. Lincoln city planner Mike Dekalb,says"the market went Smith Mountain Lake:
from practically nothing to a perceived explosion. Most of the The Vision
billboards are going in locations that have never had billboards Franklin County Department of Planning 6-Community Develop-
before,so their impact is perceived to be even greater." ment, 70 E. Court St., Suite 301,Rocky Mount, VA 24151.May
The increase in billboards became a political topic in this 1998. 32 pp. $15.
year's spring election.Two city council members and the newly The problem confronted by Franklin County and a number
elected mayor made billboard reform a part of their campaigns. of jurisdictions around Smith Lake was how to manage
Council member Jon Camp says,"It was an important part of development in a way that would preserve.this artificial lake
the larger issue that addressed how Lincoln citizens wanted their originally developed to supply hydroelectric power to western
city to look."Camp quickly acted on the matter by proposing Virginia.Lakes are attractive development sites, but the wrong
that the city change its ordinance to increase the distance types of development can ruin the very scenery and water
between billboards larger than 150 square feet from 300 to 800 quality that drew people in the first place.This plan,the
feet. Camp's proposal is pending while a task force discusses the recipient of a Virginia APA chapter award,aims to concentrate
issue in more depth. development in village centers, to coordinate zoning and
The 15-member task force convened at the request of the development controls around the lake edge,and to control
mayor includes representatives of the planning commission, environmental impacts within the watershed,such as soil
billboard industry,local chapter of the American Institute of erosion,agricultural runoff,and septic tank leakage.
Architects, Dark Sky Society,_and chamber of commerce.
Downtown Plan:
Richmond
Zoning News is a monthly newsletter published by the American Planning Association.
Subscriptions are available for$55(U.S.)and$78(foreign).Frank S.So,Executive Director; Richmond Department of Community Development, Comprehen-
William R.Klein,Director of Research. side Planning Division,900 E Broad St., Richmond, VA 23219.
Zoning Neur is produced at APA.Jim Schwab and Mike Davidson,Editors;Shannon October 1997 128 pp.plus maps. $10.
Armstrong,Barry Bain,Joseph Bornstein,Jerome Cleland,Fay Dolnick,Sanjay Jeer,Megan
Lewis,Marya Morris,Reporters;Cynthia Cheski.Assistant Editor;Lisa Barton,Design and Reviving the downtown of any major city is no easy challenge,
Production. but this plan,another Virginia chapter award winner,is a
Copyright 01999 by American Planning Association,122 S.Michigan Ave.,Suite 1600, remarkably thorough piece of work with clear visions for the
Chicago,IL 60603.The American Planning Association also has offices at 1776 Massachusetts Various distinct subsections of downtown Richmond.The plan
Ave.,N.W.,Washington,DC 20036;www.planning.org P
All rights reserved.No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by addresses riverfront uses along the James River corridor;
any means,electronic or mechanical,including photocopying,recording,or by any information development of downtown housing;the integration of
storage and retrieval system,without permission in writing from the American Planning
Association. institutional,commercial,and governmental uses in a state capital;
Printed on recycled paper,including 50-70%recycled fiber and numerous other planning and zoning concerns in a Well-
and 10%postconsumer waste. ® organized format,complete with easily understood foldout maps.
December.. 2001
Michi
ga y
ti
lJ
A publication of-the Michigan Society of Planning Volume 6 Number 5 .
IN-.:cam•:•s =��_,�r�--=-�.� �-;�-'
0 U SIM--- A
s= ` . ti
: 'b y
Affects Choracter 'of
Community
he term "living large" is - The imposition of these larger homes
applicable to popular life on smaller lots within established
styles within the United neighborhoods is.often referred to as
States. It is indicative of.a passion for "bi foot" or "mansionization." .-
az a cars; supersized fries, oversized `'�
l
g P The U:S. Census.Bureau
sport"utility vehicles (SUV's). - - %
reports that the average size
and even applies to our
residentialPP house in the early.70s
was appro ximately
dwelling nits.
g 1,500 sq.. ft. By 1998;. . ._
Jerry Herron, q the average-size
Director of house has -
American ballooned to -
Studies at Wayne over 2,000 Y-
State University reports Q Q sq: ft. for
"What we buy won't a nearly s
necessarily be good.:It just has � � 449b
to be huge." increase in
This observation of American life-style size. This
is also applicable to residential size increase -
is indicative of the residential
this
preferences. However, preference
preferences for larger.homes, larger
can negatively impact older
established neighborhoods where the bedrooms and larger garages, etc.
predominant lot size and house is Unfortunately, newer, .larger homes
Smaller. will often have negative impacts on
attractive neighborhoods. This
BERRY'S WORLD phenomenon is occurring in older
established residential communities
where .remodeling, home additions,
teardowns or new construction on .
vacant lots is often coupled with the
desire for the bigfoot which is out.of
character and out of scale with
�,r I existing single-family neighborhoods.
F It is difficult to develop a concise
definition for mansionization. Rather
"THIS IS TERRIBLE." someone i5 building the term is often loosely applied and'
another trophy home in the neighborhood and
. Dlg,yoox ri.ousin (continued from page 1)
will be dependent upon the years or older. Older housing stock within a.community is a small .
• individual perspective of a passerby does not afford many of the percentage of total housing, these
or neighboring resident. amenities of modern housing.,This types of structures make a
A.judge once defined pornography would include.a three-car.attached significant.'impact.upon existing
as .... I will know it when I see it...
garage, large kitchen, master neighborhood areas. They have also
In,many ways,.mansionization or
bedroom suites, walk-in closets, raised the ire of.neighboring
bigfoot is similarly described. The finished basements, modern heating residences and.have garnered .
viewer will know it when they see it and cooling.systems, etc: extensive attention:by local
as .evidenced by the emotional As a result, the new homeowners planners. Because of the emotional
response created in many- examine the housing stock as and architectural.impact, 'bigfoot
neighborhood areas.- potential.candidates for extensive can often lead to big problems.
The remodeling, teardown and possible It.is interesting to note that the
phenomenon mansionization . problems of bigfoot exist even
of bigfoot _ .
or bigfoot.. when communities have adequate
has been The desire zoning regulations pertaining to
propelled by for modern setbacks and lot coverage. Many
a healthy conveniences, bigfoot homes conform_ to existing
economy . which result zoning regulations. Unfortunately,
that has seen the architectural compatibility, size,
an increase remodeling scale and mass often_ deviates
in:property - dramatically
values. The.: from existing
phenomenon neighborhood
has also
trend patterns.
been Communities
advanced by an appreciation of or and local
older neighborhoods within teardown, planners within
Michigan communities. is often.in Michigan have
Communities such as Ann Arbor, conflict developed
Birmingham, Plymouth, Northville, with the strategies for
Rochester, Huntington Woods and established_ dealing.with the
the Grosse Pointes have all had to architecture problems of
develop mechanisms to.deal with . of older bigfoot and
the issue of bigfoot and teardowns. neighborhood. . mansionization.
areas. What was once.a small 1,200
These communities all contain older. The following is a survey of selected
sq.-ft: turn of the century
attractive,neighborhood areas that Michigan communities who have
bungalow now has become a 3,000
have.become highly desirable for had problems with.this trend and
sq. ft. contemporary structure.-In:
affluent residents looking.fora have developed zoning strategies to
some cases, gaudy architecture has
walkable, pedestrian friendly contend with bigfoot and
replaced.quaint established.
environment with mature tree lined mansionization.
streets..These communities and . neighborhood homes. Architectural
neighborhoods are.also attractive compatibility involving height, scale Survey Of
because of convenient and mass is at odds with the
neighborhood .character. The Community
neighborhood shopping, excellent �roblemS�s01llt1ollS
schools, parks and proximity to incompatibility is also pronounced
:jobs. by an examination .of window
styles, roof pitches, front porch City of Birmingham
While the housing is located within treatment and garage doors. The city.of Birmingham probably
attractive neighborhoods, therage of bigfoot contains more foot and
the housing stock can-be sixty (60) While the actual_number of g
teardowns and bigfoot'structures teardown situations than any other
Illustration The city discussed .40% open space.was.established.
ft wing"elght.nd eras.Plane P P .
control measures such Accessory buildings limited to
as floor.area ratio 10% of lot area.
(FAR), daylight'plane,
adjusting setbacks, etc. Drainage.plan required for new
. Previously, the city had construction. .
„N„r no lot coverage or open
space regulations. Illustration
/ Lot Coverage
Zoning ordinance
amendments were
drafted and'approved
ea in May of 2000
i • regarding drainage,
building height, lot-
community within southeastern coverage,.open.space !
Michigan. The older attractive and impervious surfaces. I z
housing stock, coupled with tree- These regulations are explored
lined streets and pedestrian oriented below:
shopping, makes the city-of .
Birmingham a popular community Definition of building height
for suburban families. changed.to be measured from a
-grade plane" to the peak or
Since 1983, the city of Birmingham ridge of the roof. 1
has wrestled the teardown.and
bigfoot.issues which prompted the, Eave height regulated.
city commission to direct the City of Northville
planning board.to deal with the _ _ _ _ The city of Northville's
bigfoot issue in October 1998. experience with bigfoot has
The city planning staff has spent. �D..74Kmwa. !r focused on recent Iot splits
extensive hours working with local ; and the infill development of
residences, members of several t` new residential homes. The
.committees and planning board ! lot splits'have occurred on
members defining the problem and vacant or larger parcels
developing draft regulations to which were previously
control the bigfoot: i :9 unused.
Within these vacant areas of
Illustration crr the;city, large bigfoot type
Building Height and trade Plane homes have emerged..The
Figure 4•side P.Nillahti Plane sty has reacted t0 the
NOTE ALLOWA LE EAYE POTFUSION
bigfoot and.infill problem by
incorporating new zoning
New definitions for regulations pertaining to the
® lot coverage, open
following:
space and impervious `
surface. •_ Average front yard setbacks based
/ 1 o upon an average of homes within
30/o lot coverage
300 ft.
was established, .
A including'accessory Reduction of.lot coverage
�` buildings. regulations.from 35%.to 30%.
1 31111
u
IN ROOM=
i!j_FOOX__-. Inco) . sin
(continued from page 7)
• . Corner lot setback regulations. While the city examined these situations involving bigfoot garages
requiring a double front yard. regulations' it was determined that (big toe) and accessory structures.
• Lot area definitions that exclude a lower FAR will not necessarily After a number of large bigfoot
land area of private road result in smaller homes. This is
P i garages were constructed within the
easements, because many of the lots within the city, the planning commission
city of Northville contain sufficient
• Private road/ rivate examined regulations pertaining to
P driveway. size in excess of 10,000 sq. ft. A FAR
• regulations. accessor y structures—specifically
Y .
three-car garages—in areas where the
The city of Northville _ predominate use involved one or
also examined issues
o two car garage.
'involving the use of
space,above detached Lot coverage studies 'and regulations
garage areas for habitable were reviewed, as well,as height
living areas and the # limitations for accessory structures.
examination of daylight The use of the upper floor of a
plane ordinances such as garage for occupiable or habitable
adopted within the city „. space was also examined.I.
of Elgin, Illinois and Palo New zoning regulations include the
Alto, California.. following:
Daylight plane Definitions for occupiable space
establishes restrictions and habitable space above
on an imaginary line restriction of 35% would.allow a buildings or garage areas.
referred to as the daylight plane.. . 50 home to be built as large as 3,
The,line begins at a point in the air ;Q Special garage height and mass
sq. ft.,and resulting in a home' restrictions.
directly above the property line and much larger than neighboring
angles inwards towards the top of properties. Grosse Pointe Woods
the house.
In summary, the The,rising property values within
•city of Northville,
The name daylight plane is derived the Grosse Pointes have also led to
decided not to implement FAR
from the amount of sunlight that teardown and bigfoot problems.in
restrictions or daylight plane
can pass the house and penetrate these communities:
restrictions but:rather to
onto neighboring homes. In other concentrate on setbacks,'lot The city of Grosse Pointe-Woods
words, daylight plane restrictions coverage, height regulations and reports approximately five to six
are intended to restrict the size of historic district guidelines. teardowns or infill projects per year.
the.shadow that a house casts on its A special problem.in Grosse Pointe .
neighbors.The city of.Northville City of Plymouth Woods has been the new
examined these regulations but The city of Plymouth has witnessed construction of two-story bigfoot
determined that with sufficient side
yard setback (8 ft.) and height
restrictions (21h story) that daylight
plane restrictions.were not
applicable to the city of Northville.
The city of Northville also examined
floor area ratios. The floor area
ratio (FAR) limits the square footage
of a-home in proportion to the total
square footage of the lot. For
example,:if.the-city has a.50% FAR, a
home built.on 5,000.sq..ft. could.
have a maximum of 2,500 sq., ft. of
floor space.
y '
homes..within established visual impact is significant and has bigfoot situations. Finally,
I.neighborhood areas containing raised the ire of neighborhood communities should also examine
single-story ranch homes. This has _ residents and .the attention of:. regulations pertaining to lot splits,
prompted.the planning commission planning officials. The issue of private road regulations, private
and city council to review bigfoot is further complicated by an road setback regulations and other
regulations that consider average intrinsic dilemma,pitting the charm infill controls to help manage
height restrictions that are based of older neighborhood areas verses future impacts to established
upon homes within three hundred the bulk or size and'conveniences of neighborhood areas.
(300) feet of proposed construction. new housing. An array of regulations is available
I_n other words, total height could to control the bigfoot and infill
not exceed the average height of
trend. It is important to note
structures.within a three hundred
however, that a "one'size fits all"
(300) foot radius. Other height ' .
approach does not work since
restrictions. considered by the city
each community s regulations
include a maximum.eave height and '
must be adapted for the
a maximum peak height. ' individual characteristics of that
City of Huntington community. Housing.trends and
H/OOdS . . . styles, lot sizes, etc., will also
vary from one area to another,
The city of Huntington Woods is
taking a unique approach in _
reviewing the issues involving -
bigfoot and infill development.
They are examining existing
housing styles, bulk, area and mass Unfortunately, current `1
on a block-by-block basis. Specific zoning regulations are ill
Zoning regulations are being equipped to`deal.with the -
considered for each neighborhood bigfoot issue. Many
area in order to.help ensure bigfoots comply with
architectural compatibility and zoning.regulations:
neighborhood compatibility. Planning commissioners
The regulations.would vary and-planning staff must be
depending upon typical building vigilant in examining.
heights, setbacks and lot coverage current regulations regarding lot size, and a specific approach adapted to
on a block-by-block or . ' lot coverage, height, setbacks, etc., to each.style and:or concern should
neighborhood basis. _ "help minimize the intrusion.of . be employed. Finally, any
bigfoot on neighborhood areas. considered regulations must also
The city-has a unique advantage be based upon general planning
Communities such as.Birmingham,
over.larger communities in than policies enacted to protect_
specific zoning. ulation Northville, Plymouth, Grosse Pointe,
P g regulation. Woods and Rochester are neighborhood areas. By first
governing bigfoot can be adopted recognizing neighborhood
depending upon specific subareas-of in the process of developing
regulations to.help govern the impact preservation policies, zoning
the city. regulations will be more_easily
of'bigfoot. Many of these regulations
Summary & are innovative and include implemented.
regulations that consider average bulk
Conclusions . regulations of neighboring housing
within.a certain radius of a bigfoot B R. Donald Wortman Carlisle/
.The issue of bigfoot/teardowns.is Y
often emotionally charged and site.Other communities are relying Wortman Associates,Inc. and Keith
.while only a few lots,are often on historic district regulations. or Edwards, City of Fenton.
affected within a community, the appearance.codes in governing
s
A
-r
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Newton is a community of approximately 83,000 people on eighteen square miles of land
immediately west of Boston. It was settled in 1630,but.a significant part of the city's
development took place in the,late 1800's as a result of the introduction of a rail line from
Boston to the west. There was another burst of development after World War II, '
particularly in the southern part of the city. Newton is a.very attractive community today
because of its well.maintained residential neighborhoods, its good schools,;its proximity
to downtown Boston (eight miles) and its location at the intersection of two major
regional roads - I-90 (Massachusetts Turnpike) and I-95, a circumferential highway
around the city.
Socio-economically, although there are areas of low and moderate income.households,
Newton is considered an affluent community where the average single family homes
sales are above $425,000. Seventy-three percent of the homes are single family.
2.0 CONTEXT FOR CHANGE
The predominant feature of the community is the fact.that there is.no one center, but
thirteen villages, each with its own character. People tend to relate more to their villages.
with tree-lined residential neighborhoods, rather than the city as a whole. Thus, when the
housing market heated up several years ago, and developers started to take advantage of
Newton's real estate market by tearing down smaller.homes to build larger ones, citizens
reacted strongly to their changing neighborhoods. Residents besieged their aldermen. .
(there are twenty-four of them, three from each of eight wards) and the Planning
Department with pleas for how to stop the "monster homes".
3.0=PLANNING DEPARTMENT EFFORTS
First the Planning Department had to define the issue. What were residents reacting to
and what did they want? In addition to the market pressures to build in Newton,
developers were building very large structures out of scale with the neighborhoods in
which they were located. For example; 21 Puddingstone Road has a 6,600 sf. house on a
27,000 sf: lot. In other neighborhoods, developers were tearing down single-family homes
and, where allowed,building by right two-family homes. For example, 16-18..
Tanglewood Road has a 5,136 sf. two-family house on a 11,500 sf. lot. In this case, a
1.
developer bought several single.family homes that were about.,1,200 sf. each and replaced
them with.two-family homes. Since this was aMulti"Residence I'District, the
construction was allowed by right. The houses being torn down were modest.single
family homes, the homes people buy to get in to the community. The "affordable
housing" stock was.being threatened..In other cases, owners were adding a second unit to.
their existing single family homes. For example, 63-65 Highland Avenue is a 7,622 s£
two-family home on a. 16,128 sf. lot. The existing'home was 3,094 sf.The overriding .
issue, however, was,the,size and,scale of these new homes that changed,the character of
the neighborhood.
The Planning Department consulted with'a number of neighboring communities that were
experiencing the same issue. There were a number of common aspects to our problem:
• The developers believed that it is cheaper to tear down a small home•rather than
remodel it.
• The new larger housing reflected a desire for larger rooms and features that older .
homes-did not have.
• ' Initially, very large expensive homes were custom.built,.rather than built on
speculation. However, more of the large homes selling at over$1 million are now .
built on'speculation.
• Large homes were being built without variances indicating that in the past
developers were not building to the full buildout potential. In.Newton,,many of
the homes were built before zoning (1922).,
Some people were reluctant to change the zoning for fear.'of creating non.
conformities.
Since the;aldermen were sure of the best solution to the problem at that point., the
Planning Department put forward an array of ideas to focus the discussion:
•. Change the allowed height in feet and in number of stories and redefine ",height".
• Limit the amount of construction allowed by right.
• Require.a special permit to demolish a home that is 50 years old or older.
•
Create.a limit on the mass of the structure.
3.1-Revise The Definition Of"Height"
Heightmas one of the obvious things to look at. The Zoning Ordinance definition
of building.height at that time was the measurement from the mean.grade around
the structure to the top of the ceiling rafters of the uppermost floor(eave line).
The height restriction at that time:was three stories and thirty-six feet. The
proposed changedn.the definition of height changed the measuring points. Instead
of measuring to the top of the uppermost habitable floor(the eave line);the
proposal changed the measurement to the mid-point of the highest roof surface.
This change:encouraged the use of sloped roofs.
3.2 Reduce The Height 3n Feet That Could Be Built
Not only was the definition of height changed, but the maximum height in feet
was reduced from 36 feet to 30 feet. Here is an example of a larger home that is
2
r
three stories and thirty-six feet.high.220 Winchester Street is a 5,526 sf. home on
a 18,780 sf. lot in a SR 2 district that requires a minimum lot size of 15,000 sf. for
new lots. Under the old ordinance,this home met all of the requirements. Under
the new 30 foot height requirement,.a 36 foot home.would not be allowed: In
other cases, many of,the "monster homes" receiving attention had,garages on the
first floor with two full stories of living-space above (3 Troy Lane).This not only,
pushed the structure to'the maximum height allowed, it left an unattractive garage
door at the street level. With a reduction in'the allowed height from thirty-six feet.
to thirty feet,it is less likely that a developer would commit an entire story to
garage space. Exceptions to the height.limits'are chimneys, spires, architectural
ornaments,etc.
3.3 Reduce The Number Of Stories That Could Be Built .
Accompanying the reduction in measured height was the reduction in the number
of stories. If a new home is limited to thirty feet in.height with three stories of
living space, a flat roof might be required to fit the,three story home under the
thirty foot height restriction. This is exactly what one developer did (example-8
W. yckhAm Road, a three story flat roofed residence).With the proposal to reduce
the number of stories from three to two and one-half, a Builder might still build a
two story home with a flat roof,but achieve the maximum footage, he would
have to.add a sloped roof to gain the extra half.-story. The final version of-this
amendment resulted in allowing a third story by special permit, if.the construction .
was consistent with the design,.size and scale of other structures in the .
neighborhood. In this way,a three story,home could be built-in a_neighborhood of
other large homes.
3.4 Add A Definition-Of One-Half Story ".
Related to the reduction in the number of stories was the need to define "half-.
story.. The proposed limited on the amount of livable square footage in the half- ..
story so that a half-story was considered as being less than two-thirds of the
square footage of the floor below. This.prevented attic space from being excessive .
and encouraged the construction of.sloped roofs:
3.6 Limit The:Amount Of Reconstruction That Could Occur By Right
A proposal arose.in an effort to make new building size consistent.with its
surrounding neighborhood.A new structure would have a height limitation of
either the average height of the'abuttin ' residences or the height of the structure .
being'replaced;'whichever-was greater. The idea was to prevent homes from being
too large for the neighborhood, while allowing large homes to.occur where
appropriate. The proposal had several technical problems including the fact that
records.of building heights did not exist in city records and when they did,they
were unreliable. Determining heights of abutting structures would put an,undue
burden on'staff and to ask the property owner.to do the measuring could lead to
biased numbers. Finally, if a home:was placed next to a large homer the new
home would be allowed much greater height than the home directly across the
street where no "monster home" abutted.'Staff felt that the issue of neighborhood
context-was better addressed by allowing.larger homes than zoning permits by
special permit with criteria for such a determination.
3.7 Require A Special Permit To Demolish A Home Fifty.Years Old Or Older
3
This proposal intended to curb,demolition of residential structures. The City
already had a demolition delay ordinance whereby the Historical Commission
could delay demolition for up to one year on structures or.portions of them that
were fifty years old or older if the commission found that the structure is
"preferably preserved". The applicant could come back to the Commission within
the one year period with revisions to the design incorporating the size, massing or
architecture features of the structure to.be demolished.,The idea behind requiring
the review,and,potential data.to develop is to get developers to think about
restoring a structure before tearing it down.This proposal to allow demolitions by
special permit was not adopted because it did.not-directly address the issue.of.
building size and'scale and it would have substantially.reduced the Historical
Commission's power and,purpose. Although this zoning technique was not
adopted in Newton,-it might be helpful in addressing the issue of teardowns in,.
communities where there is no demolition delay ordinance or by-law or where the
Historical Commission does-not have any power.
3.8 Create A Floor Area Ratio Requirement
This was the most complex and controversial of all of the proposals. Although the
City had floor area ratios for buildings in business and-manufacturing districts, it
had none in the residential districts, in part because of the sentimerit.that people
had a right to build whatever size home they wanted, so long as.the setback
requirements.were.met.
A floor area ratio requirement would.limit building mass by restricting the.
maximum size of a building as.it related to the size of the lot on which it sat. The
first consideration was how to determine the gross floor area. Staff recommended
using all floors above grade.(excluding basements and free-standing garages)
whether.there was.livable space.in them or not. This proposal addressed the issue
of visible building mass. The.next challenge was.to determinethe best ratio for
Newton.
The Planning Department developed a sliding scale of ratios based on the
minimum lots size which,in Newton, went from 25,000.sf. in Single.Residence 1
to 10,000 sf. in Single Residence 3 and Multi-Residence Districts. The FARs
proposed initially ranged fiom':3 to .45. When the Inspectional Services
Department started applying the FAR requirements, some aldermen realized that
they had gone too far by including attics in the FAR calculation. Thus, although
the ordinance.,was still freshly minted,-it was changed again, this time excluding
attics from the calculation and instituting a new set of requirements ranging from
.2 to .4.
Because there.was a concern about older homes on smaller lots another provision..
was added to allow an additional .05.for pre-1953.lots when the more restrictive
post-1953 setbacks and lot coverage requirements were met. .
The final version of the ordinance made clear what types of structures FAR
applied to. Requiring application for all structures would have penalized the ,
4
property owner who wanted an addition of his/her home. Thus, the ordinance
specified that FAR requirements would apply to:
• New construction of single and two family houses.
• Reconstruction of such structures where more than 50% of an existing structure is
demolished.
• Construction of a two family house that replaces a demolished single family
house: .
• Construction of a second unit in a multi-residence zoning district.
4.0 CONCLUSION.
What.can be learned from all of this? First, it is important to define the issue carefully.Is
reaction to the construction of"monster homes".economic, the loss of affordable housing;
the pace of demolition, the perceived loss of open space or change-to neighborhood
character. Second,there is no one "fix" for curbing"monster homes''. A multi-step
approach may be needed. The Newton aldermen, despite all of the amendments that they .
adopted, still feel as though the "monster homes" are still somewhat out of control "There
is something missing", one alderman said recently, "but I don't know what it is," referring
to why one large house looks okay, but another does not. The.answer may be in design
regulations, but the aldermen are reluctant to impose design limitations. A house may
appear large to one person and modest to another. Keeping new homes,in scale with their
surroundings.is still going to be difficult. Even when Newton reduced,height, number of
stories,,and instituted an FAR, big houses are still being built and the aldermen are
reluctant to change the zoning ordinance again for fear of unintended consequences.
While_the real estate market is hot, developers will build to the maximum allowed. When
the market cools off, they may not.The real estate market has been driving up the size of
homes,but it may not go on forever. As one.recent:(March 17") article in the Wall Street
Journal put it, "The bloating of the nation's homes may finally be peaking .... as the
(baby)boomers ....:become empty nesters, and families.with children become a less
significant segment of the population." In the,meantime, planners will have their hands
full keeping the "monster homes" under control.
#456-96.
CITY OF.NEWTON BOARD OF ALDERMEN
April 23, 1997.
ORDINANCE NO. V-1 11
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF.NEWTON
AS FOLLOWS:
That the Zoning regulations, Chapter 30 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of
Newton,Mass. 1995, as amended, be and are-hereby further amended-as follows:
5
1. Substitute for the existing height definition in Section 30=1 the following:
Height. The vertical distance from grade plane to the average height of the highest
roof surface. Not included in such measurements are-1) cornices which do not
extend more than five feet above the roof line; 2) chimneys, vents,:ventilators and.
enclosures for machinery of elevators which do not.exceed fifteen'(15) feet in
height above the roof line; 3) enclosures for tanks which do not exceed twenty
(20) feet in height above the roof line and do not exceed in aggregate area ten (10)
per cent of the area of the roof;_and 4).towers, spires,.domes and ornamental
features. Further,no space above the maximum height established in Section 30=
15, Table 1;shall be habitable.
2. Amend the building height limitation,in Section 30-5,Table I to 30 feet.
3. Add a definition of Grade plane to Section 30-1:
Grade plane: A reference plane representing the average of finished ground level
'adjoining the building at all exterior walls.
Approved as to legal form and character
Daniel.M. Funk
City Solicitor
#457-96
CITY OF NEWTON BOARD OF ALDERMEN .
A pril 23, 1997
ORDINANCE NO. V-112
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF NEWTON
AS FOLLOWS:
That.the Zoning regulations, Chapter 30 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of
Newton, Mass. 1995, as amended, be and are hereby further amended as follows:
1. Amend the existing definition of floor area ratio in Section.30-1 to read as follows:
Floor area ratio:
A. For residential structures in residential districts, gross floor area of a building
on the lot divided by total lot area.
B. For all others: gross,floor area of all buildings on.the lot divided by total lot
area. Any portion of a basement not used foi storage,parking'or building
mechanicals-shall be included in determining the floor area ratio.
6
2. Amend the existing definition of floor area, gross in,Section 30-1 to read as follows:
Floor area, gross:
A.For.residential structures.in residential districts, the sum of the floor area.
within the perimeter of the outside.walls of the building without deduction for
garage space, attics, hallways, stairs, closets, thickness of walls,columns, atria,
open wells and other vertical open spaces, or other features exclusive of any
portion of abasement as defined in this section. For atria,open wells and other
vertical open spaces, floor area shall be calculated by multiplying the floor level
area of such space by a factor equal to the average height in feet divided by ten.
Excluded from the calculation are bays or bay windows which are cantilevered.
and do not have foundations and`which occupy no-more than ten(10)percent of
the wall area on which they are mounted:.
B. For all others: the floor area within the perimeter of the outside walls of the
building without deduction for hallways,:stairs, closets, thickness of walls,.
columns or other features..
..#457-96
V-112
Page 2. .
3. Add to Section 30-15; Table 1 the following floor area ratio requirements by district in
the column headed TOTAL FLOOR AREA RATIO:
Single Residence 1: .
Single Dwelling Units .3
Lots created before 12/7153 .3
Single Residence 2.
Singlel Dwelling Units .35
Lots created before 12/7153 .35
Single Residence 3:
Single Dwelling Units .4
Lots created before 12/7/53 .4
Multi-Residence 1:
7.
Single &Two Family Dwellings .45
Lots created before 12/7/53 .45
Multi-Residence 2:
Single &Two Family Dwellings .45
Lots created before 12/7153 .45 ,
Multi-Residence 3:
Single &Two Family Dwellings .45
Lots created before 12/7153 .45 .
Multi-Residence 4:
Single &Two Family Dwellings
4. Add a subscript 5 to the column headed TOTAL FLOOR AREA RATIO_and add a ,
Footnote#5 to Section 30-15,Table 1, as follows:
Allow an increased FAR by special permit if the proposed structure is consistent
with and not in derogation of the.size, scale and design of other structures in the.
neighborhood.,
4457=96 V-112 Page 3
5. Add a subscript 6 to the column headed TOTAL FLOOR AREA RATIO and add a
Footnote#6 to Section 30-15,Table 1; as.follows:
An additional TAR of.05,shall be allowed for construction on pre-1953 lots.when
post-1953 lot setback and lot coverage requirements are met.
6: FAR requirements shall apply only to: (1) all above-grade.new construction; (2) total
demolition of a single family residential structure.or.dwelling when the owner seeks to ,
replace it with a two family structure or dwelling; (3)reconstruction where more than
fifty (50)percent of an existing structure is demolished; and (4) in a.multi-residence
zoning district, construction of a second residential dwelling unit which lies in whole or
in part:outside the walls; i.e.,.the existing footprint, of any existing residential dwelling .
unit.
Approved as to legal form and character
Daniel M.-Funk City Solicitor
Under Suspension of Rules
8
Readings Waived.and Adopted
18 yeas 2 nays (Ald. Bullwinkle, Salvucci)
3 absent(Ald. Antonellis, Ciccone, Lipsitt) 1 vacancy
#27-97
CITY OF NEWTON BOARD OF ALDERMEN
April 23, 1997 .
ORDINANCE NO. V-113.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN ORTHE CITY OF NEWTON
AS FOLLOWS:
That the Zoning regulations, Chapter.30 of the Revised.Ordinances of the City of .
Newton, Mass-'1995, as amended,be and are hereby further amended as follows:
Amend the maximum number of stories allowed in the column headed MAXIMUM
NUMBER OF STORIES in Section 30-15;Table l;.from 3 to 2 1/2 in all residential
districts except.for Garden Apartments,-More than Two Dwelling Units on a Lot, and
Residential Care Facility:
2. Add to Section 30-1 a definition for Half-Story: ,
A story directly under a sloping roof where the area with a ceiling height of 73"
or greater is less than 2/3 the area of the story next below...:..
3. Add to.Section 30-15, density and dimensional requirements, a new subsection (q) as
follows:
(q) Any residential structure that is replacing a previously.existing three-story
residential structure shall be allowed three stories,but only insofar as the absolute
height does not exceed that of the previously existing structure.
4. Add a Subscript.4 to the column headed MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES and
add a Footnote#4 to Section 30-15,Table 1, as follows:
Allow three stories by special permit if the proposed structure is consistent with
and not in derogation of the size, scale and design of other structures in the
neighborhood.
Approved as to legal form and character
Daniel M.Funk City Solicitor
Under Suspension of Rules
Readings Waived and Adopted
19 yeas 1 nay (Ald. Salvucci)
3 absent (Ald. Antonellis, Ciccone, Lipsitt)
1 vacancy
#457-96(2)
9
CITY OF NEWTON BOARD OF ALDERMEN
July 14, 1997
ORDINANCE NO. V-122 .
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF NEWTON
AS FOLLOWS:
That the Zoning regulations,Chapter 30 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of
Newton, Mass. 1995, as amended, be.and are hereby further amended as follows:
1. In Section 30-1. Definitions. amend the definition of floor area, gross, as most recently
amended by Ordinance V-112, dated April 23, 1997 by deleting the existing subsection
(a) and substituting in place thereof the following:
(a) For residential structures in residential districts, the sum.of the floor area
within the perimeter of the outside walls of the building without deduction for
garage space,hallways,stairs,closets, thickness of walls,columns, atria, open
wells and other vertical open spaces, or other features exclusive of any portion of
a basement as defined in this section. For atria,open wells and other vertical open
spaces, floor area shall be calculated by multiplying the floor level area of such
space by a factor equal to the average height in feet divided by ten. Excluded from
the calculation are bays or bay windows which are cantilevered and do not have
foundations and which occupy no more than ten (10) per cent of the wall area on
which they are mounted and any space in an attic.or.1/2 story as.defined in this
ordinance.
(2)'In Section 30-15 TABLE 1, delete the existing floor.area ratio requirements by
district in-the.column headed.TOTAL FLOOR AREA RATIO,.as most recently
established by Ordinance V-.l 12, dated.April 23, 1997, and substitute in place thereof the
following:
Single Residence 1:
Single Dwelling Units .2
Lots created before l 2/7/53 _25
Single Residence 2:
Single Dwelling Units. 3
Lots created-before 12/7153 .3
Single Residence 3:
10
y .
Single Dwelling Units 35...
Lots created before'12/7/53 .35
..Multi-Residence 1:
Single & Two Family. .4
Dwellings
Lots created before 12/7/53 .4
Multi-Residence 2:
.Single & Two Family .4
Dwellings
Lots created before 12/7153 4
-Multi-Residence 3:
Single& Two Family. .4
Dwellings
Lots created before 12/7153 .4
Multi-Residence 4:
Single.&Two Family .4.
Dwellings
(3) Add to Section 30-1. Defmitions:.the following new definition:
Attic: the space in-a building between the ceiling beams of the top story and the
roof rafters.
Approved as to legal form and character:
DANIEL M.FUNK
City Solicitor
Under Suspension of Rules
Readings Waived and Adopted
23 yeas 0 nays'1 absent (Ald. Antonellis)
Approved July 16, 1997
11.
Author and Copyright Information
Copyright 2000 By Author
Susan.M. Glazer
Beals..and Thomas; Inc.
. 12
-ry -
. • •. erV'
T1es Official Sitc of ..".'.. the City of Napervillc •
Orm
_ 1■1— �����'��� • "'�'96n roA i ct.�i!>.E��.- ,::-�- +-Lr' ,5���
LGovemmentl[rransvortationl lEmironment Home [Public Safely [Recreation Commuruta [Search
News
{
• E S
Taskforce reaches consensus on recommendations! NEW
• Background • Task Force Committee Members
• Resident Involvement • TeardoumAnfill Development Stud•Index
• .Contact Information .Status Report
• Boundary Man
BACKGROUND.
In April 1999,.Nlayor A- George Pradel established a task force to assist.the city in-recommending
guidelines to protect existing.residential development from the encroachment of incompatible infill
development and to allow for reasonable redevelopment and additions. The Task Force first convened
with staff in late April 1999 and.conducted a series of eight meetings over the subsequent five months.
Construction'of new homes and additions represents a personal investment in the community and
reinvestment in the.neighborhoods is important for continued ecgn. I . health and stability. As such, the
recommendations of the teardown task:.force focus on guiding, not preventing;new development so that it
is consistent with the existing development pattern of the neighborhood.
To accomplish this the task force has identified six recommendations for•teardowns, new construction,
and additions in an identified overlay. district. The proposed district boundaries generally follow those of
the R1 B and R2 zoning districts.and include the areas that the Task Force'and.staff felt were most
susceptible to teardowns:
Additional detail on these recommendations is available in the full report.
• Link Side Yard Setbacks to Lot-Width .
Currently in the zoning code.a total combined setback of 16 feet'for the two side yards with each
side yard a minimum of six feet is.required for.R1 B and R2 districts. The task force is
recommending that the side yard setback requirements become'linked to the width of the lot by
requiring the combined side:yard setbacks to be a percentage of the lot width.measured at the
building setback. Currently the task force is recommending a 32%o setback for lots 50-69 feet-with
no single.side yard setback less than 6 feet and 28% for lots 70:feet and up.with no single side yard
setback less than 8 feet. This type of regulation is designed to limit the horizontal bulk of structures
on oversized lots and to preserve open space between structures.
• Adiu=nt Yard Setbacks
Currently the zoning code requires a_30 foot front yard setback in the R1 B district and a 25 foot
front yard setback in the R2 district. Many of the homes in the identified area were constructed prior
to these:regulations with setbacks ranging from 1.0-15 feet. As a result, the task force is.
recommending that new development and additions maintain the current development patterns by
NaperView=;V.idow4nfill Devclopment http://www.naperviuc.H.us/D.CD/4eardown/indb'X.htm
regulating the required front yard setbacks based on the median of the closest four residential
properties or the minimum established by.the zoning ordinance, whichever is lesser.
• Increase Minimum Lot Width
Currently our zoning ordinance requires'a.minimum lot Width-of 50 feet for RIB and R2 Districts.
The task force is recommending that the minimum lot width.be'increased to better reflect existing
conditions and to prevent incompatible infill subdivisions. This would be.applied by requiring the
average lot width of the block face to be.used when determining the required lot width of
resubdivided lots:
• Establish a.Floor Area Ratio and a Front Elevation Ratio
Floor area ratio is the total square:footage of the building divided by the total square.footage of the
lot. The front elevation ratio.is the area of the front elevation divided by the maximum building
height allowed in the zoning district times the lot width. The task force is recommending to
establish floor area requirements to control the maximum square footage that could be obtained on a
-lot by establishing a relationship between the size.of the home.and the size of the lot and to use .
front elevation requirements to limit visual bulk from the right'of-way. By'using'a combination of
these,flexibility and creativity in design can be encouraged. One note on this is that since properties
in the local historic district are already subject to design review through the Historic Sites
Commission, the task force is recommending that this area be exempt from the FER regulation.-
Also noted in the report is.that the task force has forwarded two proposals for this recommendation.
• Encourage Rear-Loading and/or Detached Garaees.
In the six study areas identified for this study,approximately 73% of the homes had detached
garages. In an effort to encourage preservation of this design characteristic,the task force has-
recommended to.provide incentives to build detached garages and/or garages not visible from the
public right-of-way-by offering a bonus to the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Additionally it is
recommended that the square footages of garages not visible from the public right of way be
excluded from the.Floor Area Ratio calculation..
• Establish Driveway Placement Guidelines
In:order-to'increase distance between driveways;the teardown task force has recommended that .
driveways be placed a minimum of 1 foot.from the property.line.
[Return to ton ofnage]
RESIDENT INVOLVEMENT.
Public participation is critical to the success of this planning project. We.encourage you to attend and
participate in the public hearings..The next public hearing for establishing specific regulations-pertaining
to.teardowns, new construction, and additions in residential districts has been continued to 7:30 p.m. on
Wednesday,January 26,.2000 at the City.of Naperville Municipal Center, 400 South Eagle Street.
[Return to ton of nape]
CONTACT INFORMATION
The project is being.managed by the Department of Community Development.
If you have questions or need additional information;please contact the Department of Community
:perViybv;•Teardo4/JAMl Development http://www:napervWe.il.us/DCD/teardowntiridex.htm
Development at (630).420-6081 or e-mail at planning @riaperville.il.us.
[Return to ton of page].
Send mail to city departments with questions or comments about the City of Naperville or this web site.
City of Naperville.*400 S.Eagle Street•PO Box 3020•Naperville,IL 60566-7020.630-420-61.11.
Copyright®1996 2.000•All rights reserved Disclaimer
NaperVi;w:'Full Report. http://www.naperville.il.us/DCD/teardolw'n/rep6rt.htm.
Nkliv
elr
The C}If3cisF Sete of --%:- the City bf NaiCri�ilr
ggy p�t�.�ry
,. ..y -.... �'
SWIM 99 a M
rL®,.
1Governmerttl ITransoortationl fEnvironmentl Home (Public Safety l[Recreation'(Communityl Search
FET
Return to Teardown/Infill Development main naee
�. Purpose Staff Recommendation .
•. Overview of Research • Attachment 1:Evaluation and Comparative Analysis of
• Teardown Task Force Recommendations , Bulk Re ations
• Items'For Further Consideration 0 Attachment 2. Summary of Teardown Task Force
Recommendations for Zoning Ordinance Text
Amendments
Send mail to city deaartments with questions or comments about the City of Naperville or this web site:
City of Naperville•400 S.Eagle Street•PO Box 3020•Naperville,IL 60566-7020.630420-6111,
Copyright®1996-2000•All rights reserved•Disclaimer
perView';Teardotiy[rTaskforca-Full.Report:Purpose http://www.napervil le.il.us/DCD/tcardown/purpose.htm
The Orrit Al Sited, the City of hlapervillc
[Government][Transportation][Environment] Home [Public Safetvl Recreation [Communitvl Search
QMI
i 4 s. . RMOVAIM
Return to Study In
PURPOSE.
This report serves to.provide an overview of the work that has been conducted by staff and the Teardown .
Task Force on the City's Teardown/Infill Development Study which.began in December 1998. The Task
Force first convened with staff in late April 1999 and conducted a series of eight meetings over the
subsequent five months. The purpose of this study is to analyze opportunities for`infill development
(resulting from teardowns, infill subdivisions, or construction on vacantlots)and to recommend
guidelines to protect existing residential development from.the encroachment of'incompatible infill
development and to allow.for reasonable redevelopment and additions.
[Return to ton.ofnaQe]
Send mail to city departments with questions or comments about the City of Naperville or this web site.
City of Naperville•460 S.Eagle Street•PO Box 3020.o Naperville,IL 646.7020
Copyright®1996••2000•All rights reserved•,Disclaimer
NaperView-jeardown Taskforoe—Full Report:Overview of Research http://www.naperviU.e.it.us/DCD/teardown/researdh.htm
Now
2 'Yj
7�te C1<fCfri�t Sltc al a s the C ity of Nkpervitic
]UM RU
[Govemment [TransaortatiOnl[Erivironinentl.fHorrie [Public Safetyl ecreation [Community [Search .
x(nx,;r. ..,xo.a,Xa, »'^'>C,"\':.0.:''ati'.'..,;»»>*,ry :. •> 9'yc•.;»':A�w: y',n« »}.. .�..
Return to Study Index
OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH
DCD staff began this study by researching residential infill development'that has occurred in Naperville:
over'the past five years as a result of.a teardown. Staff compiled general information on each of these
-properties (including photographs, square footage of the.demolished structure, square footage of the new
home; lot size, zoning,'and recent sales data) in order to gain an understanding of the current trend and to
anticipate future locations for teardown,activity. Based on.this initial'inventory, staff identified six study
areas (generally-Iodated around Downtown Naperville) that might be susceptible to continued teardown
activity:
Staff found that the bulk of infill development was the.primary problem related to residential teardowns.
Because bulk-is contextual(i e. a new home is ':out of character"when it is significantly larger than its
neighbors),the existing,bulk characteristics of each study area needed:to be defined in order to establish a
context for evaluating the bulk.of.infill development. Thorough analyses of the six study areas were
conducted.(based on data taken-from building permit records, the City's GIS data base, County data, and
Township Assessors information)to determine the existing bulk characteristics of each area including: lot
size, lot width,,floor area ratio (FAR),'and front yard setbacks. Other,character-defining elements of these.
study areas were also identified as appropriate (i.e. the number of homes with detached.garages and,with
alley access), sample teardown scenarios were constructed in order to understand the actual bulk.potential
on an "average" lot;and redevelopment.potentials in each study area were analyzed; Key findings from.this
analysis are summarized in the "Findings" section below.
Staff also conducted a survey to evaluate-the residential bulk regulations contained in Naperville's Zoning
Ordinance against standards utilized by other communities. In addition to information obtained from the
American Planning Association and Innovations Group, zoning ordinances and related materials were
collected from several communities including the following: Aurora,Barrington,Bolingbrook,Downers
Grove,Dublin (Ohio), Elgin, Highland Park, Hinsdale,Hoffman Estates, Lake Forest,Lombard, Orland
Park,Park Ridge, Schaumburg, Warrenville, and Wheaton. Key findings from this analysis are
summarized in Attachment 2.
[-eturn to ton of pate]
Findings•
Please find below a summary of the key findings of the above referenced research.
l)Residential teardowns and the resulting infill development will continue to occur in
Naperville-
To date,:the number of residential tear downs occurring in Naperville has not been a
erview-,Tcardo�yp'Taskforce.-Full Report:Overview of Research http://www.naperville.il.usfDCD/tearbown/research.htm
.y
significant problem. Approximately 5-6 residential teardowns have occurred each year
since 1995. However,at least sixteen properties have already been slated for
demolition this year.
• Teardowns are becoming more of an.issue in Naperville because of changes in the
housing market.Previously, it was impractical to build a home that was much larger
than other homes because the cost of building the larger home could not'be recouped
upon resale:However, as the real estate market has strengthened in Naperville's older
neighborhoods, conditions are.in place to support the construction or enlargement of
houses that are much larger than the adjacent homes. When the value of land on which
a house is built increases relative to.the value of the structure, it becomes economically
viable to build.a neW larger home-on that lot. Naperville's strong housing market
suggests:that bulk control will continue to be an issue for the community.
• .Areas adjacent to the downtown are especially prone to teardowns as the.existing
residential structures may be quite small (800 - 1,200 square feet) compared to the
building envelope currently permitted.by the Zoning Ordinance which exceeds 2,600
square feet.for a single-story:home, or 5,200 square feet for a two story home, on a
6,000 square foot lot.
• In addition..to infill development occurring as:a result of residential teardowns on
individual lots, infill development has also.occurred through the subdivision process. .
Several small infill subdivisions have occurred where oversized,lots could be
resubdivided and has resulted in the construction of relatively large homes on standard
sized lots. Examples of this can be found in Pleasant Oaks Unit 2, Siebeit's
Subdivision, Stacy-'s Corner, and Van Someren's 8th Avenue Subdivision..There are
over 90 other locations within our study, areas where additional infill subdivisions
could occur under the City's current zoning.and subdivision standards by subdividing
one oversized lot into two smaller lots or dividing two lots into three Pots.-This did not.
however take into account the 90%rule(ordinance#99-112).
[Return to to ofnage]
2)Primary issues resulting from,inf 11 development are excessive bulk (visible from the
public right-of-way) and impact on neighborhood character. These impacts can be
mitigated through effective zoning controls.
• It is recognized that teardowns have in impact on the affordability of Naperville's.
housing stock(by demolishing.some ofNaperville's most'affordable housing and.
raising property values) and may threaten some historically or architecturally.
significant structures. However,the primary concerns that have been voiced to date are
not so much related to the loss of the previous residential structures(which have.often
been marginal), but relatedto the size of the replacement structures and their impact on
neighborhood character. Research found that most communities have focused their
attention on bulk issues associated with teardo.wns as they can be readily addressed
through amended zoning regulations. Issues related to housing affordability and the
preservation of significant structures are complex and more difficult to regulate.
4 Excessive residential bulk,describes the construction or enlargement of houses that are
overly large and out.of character.with the surrounding neighborhood.Bulk includes the
number of stories of a home, setbacks, building height, building size, and lot size... .
While several insensitive teardown/infill developments have occurred with excessive
bulk;infill development is not necessarily detrimental to neighborhood character and
in some instances can be an improvement. There were a few examples.where the
impacts of new construction were.mitigated through.sensitive architecture and site
Naperview:•T&rd6� Taskforce-Full Report:Overview of Research http://www.naperville.it.us/DCD/`teardown/researa.htm
design. It is possible that zoning ordinance---regulations could be modified to better .
control residential bulk-and site design in order to encourage compatible infill
development.
• Aside from bulk issues; some neighborhoods have specific design elements (i.e.
detached garages)that help define the character of the area:For.instance, approximately
80% of the.existing homes in half of the study areas have detached garages. When infill .
development does not incorporate compatible design features,the new construction
seems out of character with its neighbors. These features need to be recognized and can
be.preserved through.zoning regulations. .
• Naperville's current Zoning prdinance is inconsistent with existing development.
conditions in some neighborhoods. For'instance,many homes in Naperville'.s R2
Zoning Districts were developed.in advance of the current regulations (which require a
25 foot front yard setback)with front yard setbacks ranging from 10 to 15 feet. These
inconsistencies need to be addressed:because when infill development is required to
adhere to standards that do not reflect the existing development pattern, new
construction is out of character with the existing neighborhood (i.e. new construction is
set back 10-15 feet further than existing houses).
[Return to ton of pdke]
3)Naperville's current Zoning Ordinance is inadequate to control the bulk of residential
structures and needs to be modified
•
An analysis was conducted to determine the maximum building envelope(in square
feet)that is permitted under the City's existing R2 and RIB zoning regulations. It was
found that the maximum building envelope on a 7,500 square,foot lot designated R2 is
3,800 square feet; or 50.7% of the total lot area. The maximum,building envelope on a
7,500 square foot lot designated RIB is 3,420 square feet, or.45.6% of the:total lot .
area. Please note that these figures reflect.the buildable area.at the ground level. The
actual building size could be doubled to approximately 7,000 square feet by adding a
second story.
•
Most of the homes that had been demolished were between.700 - 1,500 squareTfeet in
size, while the replacement construction has generally ranged between 2,000 4,'000
square feet..While in some instances the size of this infill construction appears t be
too large and 'but of character" with its neighbors,the structures are actually well
..below the maximum size(as described above)that could have been constructed on the.
lot.
• When comparing the existing conditions to the requirements of the zoning ordinance,.
it is clear that greater bulk could occur on most of the existing lots. The:Teardown
Task Force,and staff believe the City's zoning regulations need to be modified to better
control the potential size of infill construction and additions onto.existing structures.
[Return to ton of haze]
4) There is no single solution that can be utilized.to addressteardownlinfill development.
• Bulk issues are contextual. Regulations that work well to control the.bulk of infill
development in'one neighborhood may be inadequate(or too restrictive)for other
neighborhoods. Existing development patterns and bulk characteristics need to be the
basis for establishing new standards.
Neighborhood character,issues are somewhat subjective. While bulk regulations can be
erView o TeardowNaskforco-.Full Report:Overview of Research.
http://www.napervil le.il.us/DCD/teardown/research.htm
utilized to mitigate the impact of infill development oxi the existing character of a
neighborhood (in terms of size, height, and setbacks), they do not determine the
architectural design of a structure. Without design standards,a home that meets the
modified bulk regulations may still be architecturally incompatible with its neighbors.
• Issues associated with teardown/infill development are very complex and require
comprehensive solutions.No single form of bulk control is suitable for every
neighborhood or is capable of addressing all of the relevant issues. Therefore, a
combination of bulk regulations should be considered.
[Return to top of nape]
.. �,, . r :,r<.�u:<«::.0<n<:awsw nuscerssxaxttmuceez,.::::cxaru.::o::;:«ccm.-mac:<mxew,..,..:,:,•r�••m -
Send mail to city'departments with questions or comments about the City of Naperville or this web site.
City of Naperville.400 S.Eagle Street•PO.Box 3020 4 Naperville,IL 60566=7020.630420-6111
Copyright®1996-2000•All rights reserved•Disclaimer
r '
laperVipy Teardotvn Taskforce.-Full Report:Task Force Recommendations http://www.napervWe.it.us/DCD/teardow...a/recommen6.htm
„ .,.•:.
� *■/eta f _.:.....
✓r l_ . .... .._ .. .1 .........
T1W oiliarial Site of" the.C itv o l�opery lie
L02 S!
? Cfi3*��ai�iP�: i�iR ����•'•� � !M ':71i1�1�3�f1+�€7l'� a�''
l.Govenvneritl lTransoortati onl rEnvironmerrtl fliornel 1Publk Safetyl oxmition 1Com iunityl''Search...
t:g
Return to Study Index
TEARDONVN TASK FORCE RECOIVIIVIT;NDATIONS
-In general, the construction of new homes and additions represents personal investment in the community
and is important for the continued economic health and stability of.a neighborhood. The Task Force
recommends that regulations focus on guiding, not preventing, new development so that it is consistent
with the existing development pattern of the neighborhood._An.overview of the Teardown Task Force
.recommendations follows. Additional detail on these recommendations are provided in Attachment 3
('Summary of Teardown Task Force Recommendations for Zoning Ordinance Text Revisions"). All of the
recommendations will apply to.the overlay district shown and described in Attachment 4. The task force is
also recommending that staff work with legal to include language which allows existing structures to be
rebuilt to their existing FAR; FER, and setbacks in the case of a natural disaster or fire.
1. Link Side Yard Setbacks to Lot Width -Link side yard setback requirements to the width of a lot
by requiring the combined side yard setbacks to be a.percentage of the lot-width measured at the
building setback, with no single side setback less than six feet for lots with widths of 50-69 feet or
less than eight feet for lots 70 feet and greater. This type of regulation.will limit the horizontal bulk
of structures on oversized lots and preserve open space between structures.
2, Adjust Front Yard Setbacks-Regulate minimum required front yard setbacks based on the average
of the closest four residential properties(provided that specific conditions are met)or the.minimum
established by the zoning ordinance,whichever is'lesser: As many homes in the overlay district. .
Were developed in advance of the current regulations with front yard setbacks ranging from, 10 to 15
feet, this regulation may be effective in maintaining the character of an area by relating standards for
new development to the existing development pattern of a neighborhood.
3. Increase Minimum Lot Width -Increase minimum lot widths to better reflect existing conditions
and to prevent incompatible infill subdivisions (i.e. one oversized lot into two smaller'.lots that are .
inconsistent with the character of the area,or two lots into three lots). This would be applied by .
requiring the average lot width.of the block face to be used when,determining the'required lot width
ofresubdivided lots-When three or less lots are on that block face, the opposite block face will be
used.:If there is.no intersection present the average lot width within a 250 foot radius will be used.
4. Establish a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and Front Elevation Rdtio'(FER)-Establish floor area
requirements to control the maximum square footage that could be obtained on a lot by establishing
a relationship between the size,of the home-and the size of the lot. Use front elevation requirements
to limit visual bulk from the right-of-way. A combination of these could allow for flexibility and .
creativity in design. Since the local historic district is alreadysubject to design review through the
Historic Sites Commission,the task force recommends that this area be exempt from the FER.
regulation. Please note that the.task force has forwarded two proposals for this recommendation (see
Attachment 3, page 3 for specifics).
5. Encourage Detached and/or.Rear-Loading Garages--Provide incentives to build detached garages
and/or garages not visible from the public right-of-way by offering a bonus to the Floor Area Ratio
(FAR): Approximately 80%of the homes in half the study areas have detached garages. This type of .
iperVidW-Teardoust Taskforce-Full Report:Task Force Recommendations http://www.naperville.it.us/DCD./teardown/re.commend.htm
regulation would encourage a design element.(detached garage)to retain the existing character of
the area..:
6. Establish Driveway.Placement Guidelines -Increase space between driveways by requiring a
driveway be placed a minimum distance from the.property line.
[Return to ton ofnage}
Staff has worked with the task force to evaluate the impact of these regulations and has determined that
while the combined regulations would significantly impact the bulk of new construction, they are not .
unreasonable and would allow for continued infill construction and additions. Member Mike Whaley
(architect) had,his staff develop.a number of test cases.on average R2 lots, average RIB lots, and
minimum R2 lots to.determine what the combined effect of these regulations would be. On the average R2
lots(60.' x 145') it was found that with these regulations one could build a house of approximately 3,915
square feet as compared.to 4,560 square feet fora one story house or 9,120 square feet for a two story .
house allowed under the current standards. On the average RIB lots (70' x 136') it was found that a house
of approximately 4,284 square feet could be built.as compared,to 4,408 for a one-story house and 8,81.6
square feet for a two-story house allowed under the current standards. On the minimum R2 lots (50' x
120') it was found that a house of approximately 2,700 square feet as.compared to 2,660 square feet for a
one-story house or 5;320 square feet fora two-story house allowed under the current standaYds. The.
drawings showing these test cases and comparison to today's standards are enclosed in attachments 5 and
6. Additional test cases have also been-conducted and will be presented to the Plan Commission during
the presentation and discussion on this matter.
Staff and the task force believe that teardowns are not to be avoided, but to be managed. The regulations
proposed by the task force accomplish this objective. These regulations will increase side yard setbacks as
lot widths increase,manage bulk and visual impact through a FAR aria FER, and work to retain the
existing.character of the area identified in the overlay district through design characteristics such as
detached garages and front porches, the use of average lot widths for subdivided.properties, and the.
flexibility to adjust front-yard setbacks based on current development patterns. Task force members would
like to reconvene in 12-18 months to evaluate the construction that has occurred under the new standards
to determine if additional modifications are required.
[Return to ton o-tAne]
Send mail to city departments with questions or comments about the City of Naperville or this web site.'
City ofNaperville•'400 S.Eagle Street•PO Box 3020•Naperville,IL 60566-7020.630-420-6111
Copyright m 1996-2000•All rights reserved.Disclaimer
NaperView: Teardq-�vn Taskforce•-Full Report:Items for Further Consideration http://www.naperville.it.us/DCD/teasdown/consider.htm
now
Tht OffitisI Site a1` l ^..R� the f:itytfhia,petvillc
.
��' r o s
[Government l[Transportation l[Environment). ome [Public Safetyl ecreation [Community l Search
Y,a...; . .:..
b.
Retum to StudyIndex
ITEMS FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION .
• Stormwater Management/Lot Coverage Requirements The Teardown Task Force examined the
issues of lot coverage and stormwater management and agreed.that new additions and infil.1
development should not unreasonably add to stormwater problems..They felt additional research
was needed prior to recommending regulations. The Task Force is recommending that Council
direct staff to study this issue further and prepare stormwater management guidelines for teardowns,
additions, and infill development. The Task Force recommends that staff work.with an advisory
committee to develop recommendations:
• Develop Recommendations for Teardowns/Infill Development in Additional Residential Districts '
- The Teardown Task Force feels there is a need for regulations.for other zoning districts including
the Rl;RI A,and additional R1 and R2 districts,to be further explored. Staff estimates that the
initial research for this would take approximately six months. After the research stage is complete,
this task force could reconvene or another task force could be set up to further examine additional
areas. Since different-areas of the city.have different development characteristics; staff and the task.
force feels that it is important to examine these areas individually and create regulations that fit each
area rather than applying a.policy to the city as a whole:
[Return to top'ofpage]
Send.mail to city deaartment9 with questions or comments about the City'of Naperville or this web site.
City of Naperville•400 S.Eagle Street•PO Box 3020•.Naperville,IL,60366-7020.630-420-6111
Copyright®1996-2000•All rights reserved a Disclaimer
perViea%-.Teardq.;m Taskforco-Full Report: Staff'Recommendati on http://www.naperville.il.us/DCD/teardown/staff.htm
e
Cltfiti l Site'ai" >:;ri the City of Na CM
A I
Yr11�
tag Irma
(Government)gransoortationl[Environment) Home [Public Safety Recreation .ICommunitvl Search
' v.roz ...... „:>v:' n'.>: '^.•. - .st�...�y ::Y^:of 'N:s,:. -
Return to Study Index
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
1f council-concurs with the Teardown Task Force's findings and recommendations for the zoning
ordinance text amendments 1-6 as described above,they should refer this item to Plan Commission for
public hearing, review, and recommendation. If Council feels that more explanation is needed, they should
schedule a joint workshop'with Council, Plan Commission, and the Teardown Task 1~orce.
[Mum to top of page] 1
Send mail to city departments with questions or comments.about the.City of Naperville or this web site.
City.of Naperville e.400 S.Eagle Street•PO Box 3020•Naperville.IL40566-7020.630420-611.1
Copyright®1996-2000•All rights reserved•Disclaimer
NaperView,-TWdq?vn Taskforce-Full Report:Attachment 1 httpW www.naperville.il.us/DCD/teardown/attack l.htm
FAR/Maximum Lot Coverage
All of the communities surveyed (with the.exception of Downers Grove)utilized either floor area ratios or
lot coverage requirements to regulate the amount of building that can occur on a lot. Naperville does not
currently utilize either method to control bulk in its residential districts.
Required Setbacks .
14aperville's required setbacks are generally_consistent,with the standards utilized by.other communities
surveyed, with the exception of corner side yard setbacks where most of the communities utilize more' .
stringent standards. Staff found that several.communities relate side yard setbacks to lot width, requiring a
combined total:side,yard setback equal'to some.percentage of lot width.
Findings
In summary, the standards contained in Naperville's,Zoning Ordinance are generally consistent with
standards utilized by other municipalities. Drawing conclusions from this type of comparative research is
difficult because zoning regulations are customized to meet a community's specific needs and are often
based on the historic development pattern of an area..Standards that work well in one community may be
inappropriate,for another: The most important finding from t ls'research was that(unlike Naperville)
fourteen of the sixteen municipalities surveyed utilize either floor area ratios or lot coverage restrictions to
regulate the bulk of residential.construction. This finding may indicate that setbacks and height
restrictions alone may be unable to adequately control residential bulk.
[Return to ton of nape]
Zoning Requirements for.Residential Districts Similar.to Naperville's R2
....................................................................................................................................................................................:...............
..........................................................:...................................................
Min. : Min: Max. 1 ' Min.Front Min.
Max. Min.Side Comer i Min.Rear
€ Lot Lot : Building ' Max.Lot ? Yard
Building ; FAR. Yard Side Yard
Size-:Width; Height :Coverage: Setback
stories Setback(ft.): Yard Setback
s(sq.1t.) (ft.) (g,) . S j (ft) Setback
to ' s '
.................................;..................................;....................... .... ;...
_................. . ...........
............
;((lot area. ((lot area
-6,000) 6,000)x
Elgin 6000 : '0 none . none ., x , 20 6 20 20
.20) ] .1729)
x �
_ 2;700. ]. 2,685
15' t 25%of lot
Dublin,Ohio s 4500 € 80 35 30% 30 ! combined 30 : depth up to
: total,5'min. : 50'
_
Gumee 5000 80 35 0 35 30- 10 ( `_ qu
Pre-1989:ti
min.Post-
Na
Naperville : 6000 50 40 ( 3 ? 25 € 1989:16 15 25
P combined
total,6'min. :
Wheaton, 6500 50. 3.5 a 40% 25 varies' 20. 25. .
'The sideyard setback requirement varies based on height of the structure and lot width.
[Return to top ofnaQe]
Zoning Requirements for Residential Districts Similar to Naperville's RIB.
. ,..,,,,. � .-.._......_.,.._.._.. Min.
Min. ` Min. Max. 3
"
Max. ° Min.Font€ Min.Side Comer Min.Rear
Lot : Lot : Building Max.Lot Yard Yard. Side Yard .
Size Width_: Height Buiidmgj FAR :Coverage:
Stories Setback !Setback(ft.) Yard Setback
(ft.) (ft.) , € Setback
....................................... ....................................................... .............::.........:...............
perViAm',Tdardgwm Taskforce•-Full Report:Attachment 1 http://www.naperville.il.us/DCD/teardown/attachl.htm
!gic offidAl Ss te'ai OR ti -city of MiC•rviile
'It-am 0
It
[Govemmentl f7rransoortationl[Environment l ome [Public Safetvl -Recreation [Communitvl Search
-
5�
Return to.Study In
Attachment 1:
Evaluation and Comparative Analysis of Bulk Regulations
INTRODUCTION
In conjunction with DCD's teardown analysis, staff conducted a survey to evaluate the residential bulk .
regulations contained in Naperville's Zoning Ordinance against standards utilized by other communities.
In addition to information obtained from the American Planning Association.and Innovations Group,
zoning ordinances.and related materials were collected from several communities including the following:
Aurora,Barrington,Bolingbrook- Downers Grove,.Dublin (Ohio),Elgin,Highland Park, Hinsdale,
Hoffman Estates, Lake Forest,Lombard, Orland Park, Schaumburg,Warrenville, and Wheaton. The
"Comparative Zoning Summary" below provides a.summary of our findings.
[Return to ton ofnage]_
COMPARATIVE ZONING SUMMARY
This section provides a brief analysis of how Naperville's residential bulk regulations for the R2 and RIB
Zoning Districts (primarily those areas impacted by.the teardown.phenomenon)compare against standards
utilized by other communities. This section focuses on traditional bulk regulations related to lot size, lot.. .
width, floor area, and setbacks. A summary matrix of this information has been.prepared and is
included in this report. . ,
Lot Size.
Napery'Ile's minimum lot size requirements are generally consistent with the lot size requirements
contained in other municipalities' zoning ordinances, although few comparative examples could be found
for the R2 Single-Family and Low Density Multiple-Family.District.
Lot Width
The minimum lot width requirement of 50 feet for the R2 district is generally consistent with other
communities surveyed, although two of the five communities surveyed required lot widths of 80 feet. The
lot width requirement of 50 feet in the RIB district is lower than the standards utilized by most of the
communities surveyed, which generally range between 60 and 75 feet.
Maximum Building�Height/BuiIding Stories
The maximum building heights.(40 feet or 3 stories in the R2 district and 35 feet or 2.5 stories in the RIB
district) contained in Naperville's Zoning Ordinance are generally consistent with the standards contained
in other municipalities' ordinances. However, seven of the communities surveyed were more restrictive in
controlling building height and allowed buildings to a maximum height between 25 and 30 feet.
NaperVievi.-Td'ardovvn Taskforce. Full Report:Attachment 1 http://www.naperville.il.us/DCD/te�rdown/atiaciii.htm
(Aurora 8000 ! .60 35 _ 2.5 40%. '�30 8 I 10 .20.3.
a
Barrington 7500 ' 75 25 10 30
��
Bolingbrook 8750 75 35. 2.5 35% 30 . 8.5 25 30
!��
Downers
Grove......................: ..._50..... . 35...... . 2.5 ..............:........•'.........................:.....:....:25..:_:...:..; F............... ............,I.a.............
........... ...:....................
((lot area !((lot area-
-7,500)' 7,500)x ? Etotalln.
.Elgin 7500 60 none none 25 25 30
x31 .13 042+
25%.lot 20%of lot
Highland Park 7260 50 30 40% 25 25 depth up to
:width,6 min.: 25'.-- ,
Ave.of
_ 35%on block on
30%+ interior lot/: same side .
Hinsdale 7000 50 34 3 ! 6. 15 25
800 ft. .45%on of street
comer lot (max.45
ft.
Hoffman t;_._.._._
w )
combined
_
Estates 8500 65 35 40% = 25. 25 20
f. ...............
........: .............. ............ ........ .. . . ................. .... .... {......... 1
total of 15'
Lombard.:....:........ .:.7500:... ....60:._.:......30 ...... :5 ............ '... % 'I .........20.. 35
....... _... _..._....._ ............
Pre-1989:6'
F min.Post-
Naperville 8000 j 50 35 2.5 30 1989:16 15 _ 30
combined
i a
total,6
15%of lot.
Orland Park 8500 70 . 50 4 45% 30 15 30
3'
.width
IS.chaumburg. ...8750... ....?0.....'1.......28........It... . . .. . .. ..............32%. 30 10%do�f lot 30 30
......................._......_.
r-
Warrenville .7000 ! 50 30 2.5. s 30% 30 'I _ V 30...... E.
1 ........................ ...................... ........................�.......
...................
Wheaton.......:.......i._7260.:..�..._60..._i......_35......... ......_ 5......... ....:................. ...33.309G.... ..:.....30............ ........varies'........il...:.....
........... .:...:......25..................
.
'The sideyard setback requirement varies based on height of the structure and lot width..
[Return to top ofpat�e]
Send mail to city departments with questions or comments about the City of Naperville or this web site.
City of Naperville•400 S.Eagle Street•1'O Box 3020•Naperville,IL 60566-7020.630-420-6111
Copyright®1996-2000•All rights reserved•Disclaimer
perVieik:Teardgv6 Taskforce.Full Report Attachment-2 hnp://www.naperville.il.us/DCD/teardown/attach2.htm
e VI
m;
:.
'11W 0(f, isr[S'rtr'al' ihik City of hlapervilhe
j® m%� a► Asia. !'� + " ��.::
(Govemmentl[Transoortationl[Environment] Home [Public Safetyl Recreation [Community [Search
,... ,>,....,:
y
.._ :.. : ._. : s .....
it
A.
Retum to Study Index
Attachment 2 .
Summary of Teardown Task Force Recommendations for Zoning Ordinance Text
Amendments
• Link Side Yard Setbacks To Lot Width •.`.Establish A Floor Area Ration(Far)&Front Elevation
•
Adjust Front Yard Setbacks Ratio(Fer)
• Increase Minimum Lot Width Restrict Front-Loading Attached Garages
• :Establish Driveway Placement Guidelines
LINK SIDE YARD SETBACKS TO LOT WIDTH
Current Standard
Minimum Lot Width `FInierior Side Yard Requirement:
" Requirement• .
.. ................ . . ..................................................................................
......................
.................................
R1B i 6 ft. total,for the two side yards
50 ft. with each side yard a minimum of
District: six(6) feet:
................................................................................................._....... ._.._......_......--
........................ _
16 ft. total for the two side yards
R2 District: : 50 ft. with each side yard a minim_um of
six(6) feet.
Proposed Regulation
Interior Side Yard: For lots up to 69 feet, each side yard setback-shall be a minimum of six(6)feet with a,
combined total sideyard setback of not less than thirty-two (32)percent of the lot,width.as measured at the
front yard line. For lots 70 feet and greater, each sideyard setback shall be a minimum of eight (8)feet with
a combined total sideyard setback of not less than twenty-eight(28) percent of the lot width as measured
at the front.yard line.
Naper'fieW-• Teardo4in Taskforca-Full Report:Attachment 2 h4://www.naperville.il.us/DCD/te4rdown/atiach.2.htm
Req. Setback 11 Remaining
. Lot Width Percent
(Combined) Bldg.Width
. .......................................... .......................................................... ..........
..............._........................................................................
..
50 feet 16.0 feet 32% ' .34.0 feet
55 feet 176 feet 32% 37.4.feet
f 60 feet 3 19.2 feet 32% 40.8 feet
t.::.........................:............: :.........:...................:.........................:...
65 feet 20.8 feet 32% 44.2 feet
.............._
70 feet = 19.6 feet 28% 1 50.4 feet
....:.....:... .....................:..:.:..:.......... ..
_................ ................................................................._
................
75.feet . € 2 1.0 feet 28% 54.0 feet
80 feet 22.4 feet.
728% 57.6 feet
...................................................................:................................. ......................:............................................................
.
85 feet 23:8 feet 28% i, 61.2 feet
90"feet i 25.2 feet 28% E.64.8.feet
.................................._.................................. -- ..............._ :................�....._.__—_.
....._... ... _
95 feet 26.6 feet 28% 68.4 feet
...::................ ...:.............: !.........................................................I . _...___
i..........:.......:::......._.............;.:.,.......:.:..
100 feet 28.0 feet 28%, 1 72.0 feet
[Return to ton ofnage]
woo
ADJUST FRONT-YARD SETBACKS
Current Standard
lFront Yard Setback Requirement:
R1B District:j[ M 30$
R2 District: 25 ft.
Proposed Regulation
Front Yard: The minimum front yard setback..of the_the zoning district shall apply except as follows:
The required front yard for a use shall be decreased when all of the following characteristics exist on the
four(4) closest lots on a block face. In such instance the required front yard for the use shall be the median
established front yard on the four(4) closest lots on a block face.
1. At least three(3) of the four.(4) lots are located.in a residential district.
2. At least three(3) of the four(4)lots are-already improved with uses allowed in the district.or
districts in which they are located.
3. The established front yards of at least three (3)of the four(4) lots do not vary by more than six(6)
feet:
peAfi4-;T`ardo�Taskforoo-Full Report:Attachment 2 http://www.xiaperville.il.us/DCD/teardown/attach2.htm
4. The median established front yard of the lots is less than the minimum setback required for the
zoning district:
5. At least three (3) of the four(4) lots are developed at less than the minimum setback
Block face is defined as lots on the same side of the street from intersection to intersection.
[Return to top of page]
INCREASE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH
Current Standard
------- -- _
Minimum Lot Width Requirement:;
R1B District: 50 ft..
R2 District: 50 ft. _
Proposed Reeulation
At the time of adoption, for all resubdivisions of existing platted blocks,the average,lot width of the block
face measured at the front yard line of legal front yards will be used to determine the required minimum
lot width for the resubdivided lots:Non-residential properties and the dimension of side lot lines will be
.excluded from this calculation. If there are not four(4) lots that qualify for the calculation on a block face,
properties on the opposite side of the street facing an adjacent right-of-way will be counted. When there is .
no intersection within 150 feet of the subject lot, the minimum lot Aath shall be determined by
considering.the residential lots within a 250 foot radius as measured from the property lines of the subject
property.
Legal Front Yard is defined as the narrower frontage of a lot for the purposes of calculating lot width.
[Return to top of page]
ESTABLISH A FLOOR AREA RATION(FAR) & FRONT ELEVATION RATIO (FER)
Current Standard
RIB District: None
R2 District:_None
Proposed Regulation
Included in the definition of total building square footage for F.AR should be:
Principal Structure
•
Basements:,If more than 50% above grade is exposed, it will be counted in the FAR
Covered, Attached, and Enclosed Decks.and Porches: Counted in FAR calculation. Exception:
Front porches are exempt from FAR to a maximum depth of 10 feet.
• Garages: Attached garages should be counted in the calculation, detached should not be.
NaperView TeardoW-n Taskforcor-Full Report:Attachment 2 http://ww w:napervil la.H.us/DCD/tewdown/attar.tn2.htm
. 4
'Proposal#1
(majority su orted 5 of 9
.............................................:..................................................�......._ '........PP.................,"................. ................._.......................
............................................:
With detached garages and/or
With front or side loading garage: : garages not,visible from the public
right of way:
F.A.R of up to .40 F.A.R of up to .45.
F,E.R of u to .50 F.E.R of u to .50.
................................................:..........._...p..:................................................... ........................................................._....._.P.........
.............................................
Combined total not to exceed .85. Combined total not to exceed .90
.........................
Proposal#2
........:.:......:_: y ..lored-4of 9)
........................................................... m . . ......................
With detached garages and/or
With front or side loading garage: : garages not visible from the public
right of way:
F.A.R of up to .40 F._R_ of up to .45
.............................................................FE.Rof.up..to....:.55................:.:............. ..............................._F.:E R.._of up to .60.................:.........
......
Combined total not to exceed .95 Combined total not to exceed 1.0
To see a gaghic examples of F.A.R and F.E.R: click here.
[Return to top of page]
RESTRICT FRONT-LOADING ATTACHED GARAGES
Current Standard
RIB District: None
R2 District: None
Proposed Regulation.
Proposal #1 (majority supported-5 of 9)
A.05 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) bonus for the principal structure shall be awarded for residences with
detached garages and/or garages not visible from the public right of way.
Proposal#2.(minority supported-4 of 9)
A.05 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) OR a:OS Front Elevation Ration TER)bonus for the principal structure .
shall be,awarded for residences.with detached garages and/or garages not visible from the public right of
way.
To see graphic examples of proposed Rarage bonus regulation, click here.
[Return to top ofpaPe]
ro http://www.naperviRe.il.us/DCD/teardowri/anach2.htm
rView;-Teardolyn'raskforce•Full Report:Attachment 2
•x Y
I
ESTABLISH DRIVEWAY PLACEMENT GUIDELINES
Current Standard
RIB District: None
R2 District:None
Proposed Reeulatiori
No driveway shall be located.within one Q)foot of the property line.
[Return to top ofnape]
Send mail to city deoartmejs with questions or comments'about the City of Naperville or this web site.'
City of Naperville•400 S.Eagle Street•PO Box 3020 a Naperville,IL 60566-7020.630.420-6111
Copyright®1996-2000•All rights reserved•Disclaimer
EHLERS
& ASSOCIATES INC
To: Mike Morrison,City Manager/Sue Hall Assistant City Manager
From: Jim Prosser,Ehlers &Associates
W Date: August 8, 2002
Subject: Project Update
Project Planning
Pratt-Ordway preliminary development activities have been focused in three areas,refining the
development program, identifying alternate revenue sources and undertaking preliminary land
assembly activities. The development program is the outline of what will be included in the
development.
Given the cost to acquire land(including relocation)and the public improvements Pratt-Ordway is
seeking high value uses that support higher land costs and generate more tax increment and still be
compatible with the original concept plan for the area. This is a typical and necessary activity during
the preliminary development period. The goal is to close the gap between project revenues and costs.
The revenues are basically the land sales proceeds,tax increment and any grants that might be
received. The costs include; land acquisition, relocation, demolition,clean up, site preparation and
public improvements(roads; streetscape, storm water holding areas,utilities, etc.). Special focus has
been placed on assessing interest for commercial and retail users for the site. Typically, these types
of users will pay more for land and generate higher taxes per square foot than residential. Given
Pratt-Ordway's and Dominium's strong residential background the residential development program
will not be as significant an issue.
Pratt-Ordway is also preparing a plan that would permit construction to begin on the Apache parcel
first with other project components to follow as land and funding become available. Key to this
project timing is the need to assure that the entire project will be completed.
Project Communications
An update for the newsletter and newspapers will be prepared once Pratt-Ordway completes the plan
refinement. Pratt-Ordway will be seeking input from the public prior to submitting the refined plan
to the City for consideration with the final development agreement.
Land Acquisition
Preliminary land assembly activities include establishing contact with property owners and
businesses in the project area,developing estimates for land acquisition and relocation and assessing
interest in business relocation to the new development. Pratt-Ordway has initiated discussions with
USBank for an option agreement for the Apache property. The next step will be to develop a better
understanding of property owner expectations. The challenge will be to provide reasonable
compensation for the property while still keeping the project financially feasible. Since it is likely
that the project will need public assistance the land acquisition must meet guidelines for"fair and
just"compensation without exceeding reasonable standards for the use of public funds.
LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE
3060 Centre Pointe Drive Phone:651-697-8503 Fax: 651-697-8555
Roseville, MN 55113-1105 Email: jim @ehlers-
inc.com
Project Funding
Metropolitan Council continues to be very supportive of the redevelopment effort. The City is
seeking funds from at least two different Metropolitan Council sources,the Livable Communities
Demonstration Account(LCDA) and Tax Base Revitalization(asbestos cleanup). Competition for
these funds is very strong and at this time it is clear that the project financing gap will not be closed
by Met Council funds alone.
Tax Increment Financing
Given the likelihood that tax increment financing(TIF)assistance will be requested by the developer,
Ehlers recommends that St.Anthony initiate an assessment to determine if the site would qualify as a
"Redevelopment"district as permitted by State Law. The first step in that process is an inspection of
properties that may be included within the district. An inspection was conducted as part of the
Hillcrest proposal. Jerry Gilligan and Ehlers will review the previous inspection reports to determine
if this inspection can be updated and used for.the Pratt-Ordway development. Tom Goidon prepared
the last Tax Increment Qualification report. Tom Goidon will be meeting with Jim Prosser and Jerry
Gilligan to initiate planning to update the report.
Project Design/Land Use Approvals
DSU will be coordinating development of design standards to assure the consistency with community
standards developed during the planning stages. Land use reviews will be coordinated with the
Planning Commission in the same manner as other development reviews.
Project Components
Pratt-Ordway is researching several value added project components including high tech
communication access, energy conservation designs and transit-orientated design. Project members
have prepared a transportation and communications component that would enhance the site for
development purposes. The City will seek a partner to assist in concept development and funding. A
University of Minnesota team is currently preparing a funding request similar to the concept prepared
by the City. Lisa Raduenz,a project team member will be meeting with the University to gather
information about a partnership. The City has scheduled a meeting with Congressman Martin Sabo
to discuss the transportation component.
Energy Conservation Components
BKV Architects has held several meetings with Xcel Energy to develop energy saving initiatives for
the building and site design.
Housing Issues
The Project Team continues to carefully monitor concerns about housing density. It appears some
concerns relate to the type of housing, rental housing management;traffic,building design and
impact on city services. These issues(and others to be identified)will be the subject of analysis prior
to final project approval.
St.Anthony Redevelopment Update—Ehlers&Associates
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2
3 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
4
5 July 23, 2002
6
7 CALL TO ORDER
8 Mayor Hodson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
9
10 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
11 Mayor Hodson invited the Council and audience to join him in the Pledge of Allegiance.
12
13 ROLL CALL.
14 Present: Mayor Hodson; Councilmembers Horst, Sparks, Thuesen, and Faust.
15 Absent: None.
16 Also Present: City Manager Mike Mornson.
17
18 CONSIDERATION,DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ALL OF THE FOLLOWING
19 ITEMS.
20
21 I. APPROVAL OF JUNE 23, 2002 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA.
22 Motion by Councilmember Sparks, second by Councilmember Thuesen, to approve the City
23 Council Meeting Agenda of June 23, 2002.
24
25 Motion carried unanimously.
26
27 II. PROCLAMATIONS AND RECOGNITIONS.
28 None.
29
30 III. COMMUNITY FORUM.
31 Mayor Hodson invited residents to come forward at this time and address the Council on items
32 that are not on the regular agenda.
33
34 Hearing none, Mayor Hodson moved forward with the agenda.
35
36 IV. CONSENT AGENDA.
37
38 1. Consider June 25, 2002 Council meeting minutes.
39 2. Consider licenses and permits.
40 3. Consider payment of claims.
41 4. Resolution 02-057, re: Special Assessment deferrals for 2002 street improvement
42 rp ojects.
43
44 Motion by Councilmember Thuesen, second by Councilmember Sparks, to approve the Consent
45 Agenda.
46
47 Motion carried unanimously.
48
1 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
2 Page 2
3 July 23, 2002
4
5 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
6 None.
7
8 VI. REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONS AND STAFF.
9 A. Planning Commission report on July 16, 2002 meeting.
10 1. Resolution 02-058, re: Drs. Hellickson, Larson, Portis and Associates, for 3909
11 Silver Lake Road: sign variance request.
12 Planning Commissioner Jim Hoska reviewed the details of the sign request with
13 the Council.
14
15 Hoska reviewed the suggestion made by Planning Commission Chair Chris
16 Melsha to try and reconfigure the sign to the horizontal position.
17
18 Hoska indicated that the Planning Commission determined that they had a
19 difficult time finding hardship with the request, and recommended denying the
20 request.
21
22 Dr. Larson came forward and stated that the doctors at the practice want to have
23 their names on the sign along with the address,because they are not an HMO.
24
25 Councilmember Horst asked Larson if he was aware that the current sign is the
26 second sign for that building, and stated that, for that reason, he was not in favor
27 of approving the sign variance request.
28
29 Motion by Councilmember Horst, second by Councilmember Faust, to adopt
30 Resolution 02-058, re: Denial of the sign variance request by Drs. Hellickson,
31 Larson, Portis and Associates at 3909 Silver Lake Road.
32
33 Motion carried unanimously.
34
35 Councilmember Sparks stated that her feeling was that it might be better to
36 simplify the sign, and not enlarge it.
37
38 Councilmember Thuesen stated that he felt that there were other options available
39 for the sign.
40
41 Councilmember Horst stated that he did not want the doctors to feel
42 unappreciated by the City Council's decision, as he felt that their practice was a
43 great asset to the City of St. Anthony.
44
45 Councilmember Faust echoed Councilmember Horst's statement that their
46 practice is indeed an asset to the community. He added that they have struggled
47 with the ground signs from the early 90's and getting some uniformity along
48 Silver Lake Road.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 23, 2002
Page 3
1
2 2. Ordinance 2002-002,re: Amendment to City Ordinance relating to the definition of
3 garage" and"accessory!building" and to regulate the size of garages in
4 residential districts. 2nd reading-
5 Planning Commissioner Hoska stated that the Commission wanted to gather the
6 necessary information to make an informed recommendation. He added that city
7 staff would contact other cities of similar size and stature and explore their City
8 Ordinance relating to the definition of"garage" and"accessory building."
9
10 Hoska stated that they recommended that the Council postpone the 2nd reading.
11
12 Councilmember Horst stated that there are two issues at hand: the definition of
13 "garage"and"accessory building", and the ratio of square footage to lot size. He
14 added that he felt it was something that needed to be discussed at length, and that
15 they probably should postpone the 2nd reading.
16
17 Councilmember Faust suggested that they go forward with the 2nd reading, and, if
18 necessary, put the Yd reading on hold.
19
20 Councilmember Sparks stated that the larger of the two issues is deciding if they
21 should regulate the size of houses. She stated that she felt that they should define
22 "garage" and "accessory building", but the other issue needs a lot more time, energy
23 and research.
24
25 Mayor Hodson agreed that there were two issues at hand. He.added that he felt that
26 Planning Commissioner Vice Chair Stille made a great suggestion that they look into
27 comprising a Design Review Board. He suggested the city approach DSU and see
28 what they recommend for the City of St. Anthony as related to a Design Review
29 Board.
30
31 Councilmember Thuesen agreed with Mayor Hodson's suggestion to approach DSU
32 regarding a Design Review Board.
33
34 Councilmember Faust stated that he felt that having the Planning Commission go
35 back over the issue is not the best solution, as he felt that the Council was not clear on
36 what they were expecting from the Planning Commission. He suggested that both the
37 City Council and the Planning Commission discuss the issue further, and then take
38 things from there.
39
40 Councilmember Faust indicated that they could get the necessary information
41 regarding a Design Review Board from the League of Minnesota Cities, rather than
42 DSU.
43
44 Mayor Hodson suggested that they proceed with the 2nd reading and stated that it does
45 not clear up the issue of architectural design standards.
46 Mayor Hodson asked Mike Mornson to see what information was available regarding
47 a Design Review Board from the League of Minnesota Cities.
48
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 23, 2002
Page 4
1 Councilmember Sparks wanted to clarify what it was that they wanted the Planning
2 Commission to research. She asked if the need more information in the defining of
3 "garage"and "accessory building".
4
5 It was determined that the planning Commission would research the Floor Area Ratio
6 (FAR) in other communities.
7
8 Mornson read some language that was recommended by the building inspector that is
9 working on the home on Downers Drive.
10
11 Councilmember Thuesen stated that he would like to see what other communities are
12 doing.
13
14 Councilmember Sparks suggested that they discuss the idea of a Design Review
15 Board at a study session.
16
17 Motion by Councilmember Faust, second by Councilmember Sparks, to pass the 2nd
18 reading of Ordinance 2002-003.
19
20 Motion carried unanimously.
21
22 B. Ordinance 2002-003, re: Amendment to City Ordinance regulating the placement of
23 ground signs. 2nd reading
24 Motion by Councilmember Sparks, second by Councilmember Horst, to pass the 2nd
25 reading of Ordinance 2002-003.
26
27 Motion carried unanimously.
28
29 C. Ordinance 2002-004, re: Amendment to City Ordinance to delete Section relating to wax
30 in the production of candles and the production of home fragrance products as a
31 manufacturing nermitted use in the Light Industrial district. 2nd reading
32 Motion by Councilmember Sparks, second by Councilmember Thuesen, to pass the 2nd
33 reading of Ordinance 2002-004.
34
35 Motion carried unanimously.
36
37 VII. GENERAL POLICY BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL.
38 A. Resolution 02-056 re: Receive report and order plans and specifications for proposed
39 2003 street improvement project. Todd Hubmer, WSB &Associates Inc.,will be
40 rep sent.
41 Todd Hubmer, WSB, came forward to review the report,plans and specifications for the
42 proposed 2003 street improvement project.
43
44 Hubmer stated that the project was initiated through the recognition of the following
45 conditions in the project area:
46 • Deterioration of street conditions.
47 • Reoccurring water main breaks in the project limits.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 23, 2002
Page 5
1 • Sanitary sewer system back-ups into adjacent homes.
2 • Streets, sanitary sewer, water main lines are approximately 40 years old and are
3 exhibiting deterioration problems.
4
5 As a result, the City Council provided funding in the 2003 budget for street and utility
6 improvements. On May 28, 2002,the St. Anthony City Council authorized the
7 preparation of an engineering feasibility report for the 2003 Street and Utility
8 Improvement Project.
9
10 Hubmer reviewed the proposed improvements with the Council, which included sanitary
11 sewer, watermain, storm sewer, street,permits and approvals, and detour routes.
12
13 Hubmer reviewed the funding for the project:
14 • Sanitary Sewer $400,600
15 • Watermain Improvement $365,4000
16 a Storm Sewer Improvement $18,500
17 • Street Reconstruction $951,700
18 • Total $1,736,200
19
20 Hubmer reviewed the funding sources with the Council. The assessable total is
21 $364,370, and the City total is $1,371,830, for a grand total of$1,736,200.
22
23 Councilmember Thuesen asked if fixing the project area would help the area south of it
24 that also have back-up problems. Hubmer stated that it would not help individuals to the
25 south.
26
27 Councilmember Thuesen asked about the borings taken on for the streets included in the
28 project. Hubmer indicated that they borings are now complete.
29
30 Councilmember Thuesen asked what the City can do before the project starts, so that
31 residents will know well in advance what alternate routes will be in place for them.
32 Hubmer stated that they will hold a number of public meetings with the residents, that a
33 newsletter will go out to residents every three weeks, and an observer on site full-time
34 (Hank Abbott: 612-998-3675)who can be contacted regarding any questions associated
35 with the project.
36
37 'Hubmer added that they would be going door-to-door along 31" Avenue beginning
38 tomorrow evening to provide residents with additional information on the progress of the
39 project. He added that the 2003 project is not as large as the 2002 project.
40
41 Councilmember Faust asked if they were biting off more than they can chew regarding
42 the 2003 project. Hubmer stated that he would be proposing a different way of staging
43 the project from the way that the 2002 project has been done.
44
45 Councilmember Faust stated that a concern of his was with trash receptacles for elderly
46 people need to be considered, as they should not be expected to drag them two blocks to
t
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 23, 2002
Page 6
1 get them to where they need to go. Hubmer stated that nothing like that should happen,
2 and that Hank Abbott should be notified immediately of anything of the sort.
3
4 Mayor Hodson stated that,he would like to see staging of the project from Stinson
5 Boulevard to Edward Street.
6
7
8
9 Motion by Councilmember Sparks, second by Councilmember Thuesen, to adopt
10 Resolution 02-056, re: Receive report and order plans for proposed 2003 street
11 improvement project.
12
13 Motion carried unanimously.
14
15 B. Resolution 02-055,re: Consider purchase of 4029 Shamrock Drive. Todd Hubmer, WSB
16 &Associates, Inc., will be present.
17 City Manager Mike Mornson indicated that they have received an appraisal on the
18 property at 4029 Shamrock Drive by Forsythe Appraisals, Inc. in the amount of
19 $250,000, which the homeowners have accepted.
20
21 Councilmember Thuesen thanked the homeowners for their cooperation.
22
23 Motion by Councilmember Faust, second by Councilmember Thuesen, to adopt
24 Resolution 02-055,re: Considering purchase of 4029 Shamrock Drive.
25
26 Motion carried unanimously.
27
28 VIII. REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER AND COUNCILMEMDERS.
29 City Manager Mike Morrison provided his report for the Council:
30 • Painting is completed on signal intersection. City received several compliments.
31 • The City is receiving applicants for the Fire/Public Works Task Force. The deadline is
32 August 5, 2002 and the first meeting will be held September 3, 2002.
33 • Construction_70 will probably present a preliminary development agreement to Council
34 on September 10, 2002 relating to the Stonehouse property.
35 • The Joint City/School District meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, July 30, 2002 at 6:00
36 p.m.
37 • The Council Work Session on Monday, August 5, 2002 will start at 7:00 p.m.
38 Discussion will be on:
39 • Financial strategies with Jim Prosser(Ehlers and Associates last meeting with Council).
40 • Presentation of the 2003 City budget.
41 • Application for a Livable Community grant in the amount of approximately$4million
42 has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council. A resolution will be presented to the
43 Council in August.
44 • Northwest Youth &Family Services will be present a report on August 26, 2002.
45 • Planning meetings for the Salvation Army site are scheduled for every 2 weeks.
46
47 Councilmember Horst had no report this evening.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 23, 2002
Page 7
1
2 Councilmember Sparks stated that the St. Anthony Community Theater will have it's
3 performance on August 9-11 at the High School. Tickets will be available before
4 each performance at the door.
5
6
7
8 Councilmember Thuesen stated that he has been very impressed with the drainage at
9 Central Park.
10
11 Councilmember Faust stated that he was appointed to the Fiscal Futures Policy Committee
12 at the League of Minnesota Cities, and attended his first meeting on July 12, 2002. He stated
13 that on July 18, 2002, the City of St. Anthony hosted a Northeast Diagonal Land Use Transit
14 Study and stated that they would be getting copies of the study which will relate to the
15 redevelopment of Apache Plaza.
16
17 Councilmember Faust referred to the flag raising ceremony that will take place on August 7,
18 2002 at 12:00 p.m. in front of City Hall with their contingents from sister-city, Salo, Finland.
19
20 Mayor Hodson congratulated the St. Anthony Patriots Marching Band along with Spring
21 Lake Park were grand champions again this year at the competition in New York. He
22 thanked the Police Department for their escorts of the band in and out of town.
23
24 Mayor Hodson stated that the process for the Northwest Quadrant Redevelopment Project
25 is on-going and constant, and asked for patience on behalf of the community.
26
27 IX. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.
28 None.
29
30 X. MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATIONAL DOCUMENTS.
31 None.
32
33 XI. ADJOURNMENT.
34 Motion by Councilmember Sparks, second by Councilmember Thuesen, to adjourn the meeting
35 at 8:32 p.m.
36
37 Motion carried unanimously.
38
39 Respectfully submitted,
40
41
42 Courtney Seesz
43 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
44
45 Mayor
46 ATTEST:
47 City Clerk
48