HomeMy WebLinkAbout02082007 ZPC Agenda Item 2
AGENDA REQUEST
BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE, TEXAS
F OF: January 22, 2007 ITEM NO. 07-05
BMITTED: January 17, 2007 DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Public Works
PREPARED BY: D. Scarcella, Bldg. Official PRESENTER: C. Peifer, ACM/PW Director;
S. Brown, ZPC Chair
SUBJECT: Front Porches
EXHIBITS: L Ordinance Number 1840,
2. Final Report from ZPC
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: N/A
AMOUNT BUDGETED: N/A
ACCOUNT NO.: N/A
ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION REQUIRED: N/A
ACCOUNT NO.: N/A
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A joint public hearing with the City Council and members of the Zoning and Planning Commission
(ZPC) was held on November 13, 2006. The members of the ZPC voted on December 14, 2006 to
forward a final report and proposed amendment to the City Council for consideration.
The final report and proposed ordinance amendment limits the height of front porches that project into
a front yard (front building setback) in single-family residential districts. The amendment pertains to
single-family residential districts with a minimum front yard (setback) of twenty feet, and further
limits the height of the projecting portion of the porch to an amount equal to the required depth of the
front yard (setback). For example, if the depth of a front yard is 20 feet, the height of the projecting
part may not exceed 20 feet. The existing requirements for porch projections (i.e., not designed or
used for motor vehicles, volume limits, and required open areas) are not changed.
This proposed ordinance amendment is an additional restriction that applies to West University
Place's unusual allowance for projections or encroachments into a front yard or setback. In most
other jurisdictions, front yards or setbacks are stringently preserved, allowing only minor
encroachments or projections such as small front stoops or access steps. This amendment is not
designed to discourage front porches or a sense of community and neighborhood familiarity, but is
intended to control additional encroachments into the front yard or setback and preserve an open
streetscape and allow adequate light and ventilation along those streetscapes.
RECOMMENDATION
The Zoning and Planning Commission and City Staff recommend that City Council adopt Ordinance
No. 1840 on first reading, which limits front porch projections into the front yard setback.
City of West University Place
Harris County, Texas
Ordinance No. 1840
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
OF WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE, TEXAS REGARDING FRONT
PORCHES; AND CONTAINING FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS
RELATING TO THE SUBJECT.
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Zoning & Planning Commission ("Z&PC") of
the City of West University Place, Texas ("City") have held a joint public hearing on a
proposal to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City, as last re-formatted and re-
adopted by Ordinance No. 1672, adopted March 12, 2001 and as subsequently
amended ("Zoning Ordinance");
WHEREAS, the Z&PC has made a final report to the City Council with respect to
such proposal, which report is attached as Exhibit A and made a part of this ordinance;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the report of the Z&PC and now
formally approves and adopts that report; and
WHEREAS, all notices, hearings and procedures relating to amending the
Zoning Ordinance, as may be required by law, the City Charter or the Zoning
Ordinance, have been duly given, held and followed, and the City Council has
jurisdiction to amend the Zoning Ordinance as provided herein;
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST
UNIVERSITY PLACE:
Section 1. The City Council officially finds, determines, declares and adopts all
of the matters set out in the preamble of this ordinance, and the Zoning Ordinance is
hereby amended as recommended by the Z&PC, according to the Z&PC's final report in
Exhibit A, which is attached and made a part of this ordinance for all purposes.
Section 2. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby
repealed to the extent of the conflict only.
Section 3. If any word, phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, section or other
part of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall
ever be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction,
neither the remainder of this ordinance, nor the application of such word, phrase,
f 0
clause, sentence, paragraph, section or other part of this ordinance to any other
persons or circumstances, shall be affected thereby.
Section 4. The City Council officially finds, determines and declares that a
sufficient written notice of the date, hour, place and subject of each meeting at which
this ordinance was discussed, considered or acted upon was given in the manner
required by the Texas Open Meetings Act, as amended, and that each such meeting
has been open to the public as required by law at all times during such discussion,
consideration and action. The City Council ratifies, approves and confirms such notices
and the contents and posting thereof. The City Council officially finds, determines and
declares that sufficient notices of the joint public hearing were given, and the City
Council ratifies, approves and confirms such notices, including the contents and the
method in which they were given.
Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective on the tenth day following its
publication, as provided in the City Charter.
CONSIDERED, PASSED AND APPROVED on first reading on
Councilmembers Voting Aye:
Councilmembers Voting No:
Councilmembers Absent:
CONSIDERED, PASSED AND APPROVED on second reading, AND SIGNED,
on ,
Councilmembers Voting Aye:
Councilmembers Voting No:
Councilmembers Absent:
Attest: Signed:
City Secretary (Seal) Mayor
Recommended:
City Manager
Prepared by J.L.Dougherty, Jr.; approved as to legal form:
City Attorney
W UPcodes/updates to/54 o front porch height ADOPTING
f • •
Exhibit A
Zoning & Planning Commission
City of West University Place, Texas
3800 University Boulevard
West University Place, Texas 77005
December 14, 2006
Honorable Mayor &
Members of the City Council
City of West University Place
3808 University Boulevard
Houston, Texas 77005
Subject: Final report on a proposal to amend the zoning
ordinance of the City of West University Place,
Texas ("City") relating to FRONT PORCHES
To the Honorable Mayor
& Members of City Council:
The Zoning & Planning Commission of the City submits this,
its final report, on the subject proposal, for the assistance of
the Council as well as other interested persons.
Scope of Proposal. The proposal would add a separate limit
on the height of porches that project into front yard areas. The
height limit would be the same as the depth of the front yard.
For example, on a site with a 20-foot front yard depth, the
maximum height of a projecting front porch would also be 20 feet.
(Note: The Zoning Ordinance already limits the volume and design
of porches in front yards.) The proposal would clarify that such
front-yard porches are only allowed on a building site in a
residential district with a front-yard depth of 20 feet or more.
One of the principal purposes of the amendment is to impose
a height limit based on the size and scale of the site. The
limit should help prevent overcrowding and help provide adequate
light and air.
Proceedings After Preliminary Report. Pursuant to public
notices, the Zoning & Planning Commission and the City Council
held a joint public hearing on November 13, 2006. The hearing
provided an opportunity for parties in interest and citizens to
be heard in relation to the proposal. At the hearing, City staff
explained the proposal, and a number of witnesses made
presenations. The Commission has considered all of this
information and the Comprehensive Plan.
The Commission recommends no amendments to the proposal.
Recommendation. Based on the review given this proposal,
the Commission: (i) finds that the proposal would be in the
public interest and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, (ii)
finds that the proposal reasonably addresses circumstances which
have arisen since the last comprehensive revision of the zoning
ordinance, (iii) makes its final recommendation favorable to the
proposal, and (iv) recommends that the City Council adopt the
proposal.
The Vote. This report was authorized by the Commission at
its meeting held on the date of this report. The vote was as
follows : Commissioners Tnab[Z~ Brow.-), Albin, Mac-M6cnLto) -5; IV% 2.1QfF voted
"aye;" no "noes;"m Cne absent.
Respectfully submitted:
ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE, TEXAS
By: For the Commission
Amendment
relating to
front porch height
7-13-06 (preliminary report version)
Amend Note 1.2 of Table 7-6 as follows:
Note 1.2. Porch In Front Yard. On a building site in a residential district with a front yard depth
of 20 feet or more, a porch may project up to 120 inches into the front yard if it meets all of the
following criteria:
(i) It is neither designed nor usable for motor vehicles;
(ii) The volume of the projecting part of the porch does not exceed 50 cubic feet per
foot of front street line (Example: the maximum projecting volume on a 521/2-foot
wide site would be 50 cubic feet x 52.5, or 2,625 cubic feet).
(iii) The porch's outside perimeter is open and unobstructed, except for the following
features: (a) Ordinary window screens. (b) A solid or partially open safety rail not
higher than 3.5 feet above the porch floor. (c) Supporting vertical columns, if the
total width of the outer faces of the columns does not exceed either 50% of the
outside perimeter of the porch or 25% of the theoretical outside perimeter of a
maximum-sized porch. The width of a column is measured at its thickest point
above 3.5 feet above the porch floor. The "maximum-sized porch" is 120 inches
deep and extends from one side yard line to the other, but it is limited by the open
area requirement for the front yard. The "outside perimeter" of a porch is the
portion of the perimeter out in the front yard; it does not include the portion of the
perimeter adjacent to a building or lying along the front setback line.
iv At no point in the front yard does the porch have a height greater than the depth
of the front yard (Example: If the depth of the front yard is 20 feet, the maximum
height in the front yard is also 20 feet.l
Please keep and bring back
the University Park and City
of Austin Zoning information
to future meetings for further
discussion.
i i
Zoning Comparison of 6 Texas Cities:
West University Place, Alamo Heights, Highland Park, Castle Hills, University Park and Southside Place
(Main Sin le-Fa Residential Districts)
City Height Side Setback Maximum Lot coverage - Floor Area Pervious area Comments
Buildings Ratio (minimum)
West 35' (2 t/2 stories) 10%/min 5' 0.80 (special
University 25'accessory 40% (entire building site); definition of 24% (entire
Place 60% (front and rear yards) ( "trained area") building site);
50% (front yard)
Alamo 35' Min 5' 2sy=25% 35% Not restricted for
Heights SFD
Highland 3 story 45' 5' to 20' * 20 to 40 % Only regulated
Park 2.5 story 35' 10% *depending on for multi and
district 20% for large lots in excess of other type
Flat roofs 26'* 50,000' buildings
Castle Not to exceed "Two 10', comer lots 20' 33% No definition of
Hills standard stories" "Standard Story"
University 35'/25'accessory 22% on lots < 60' Building envelope: Roof pitch, Rear yard 50% FAR mentioned in
Park + Top Plate height wide, 2417c on lots> gables, dormer and building wall open definitions but not
depends on lot 60' wide regulations also (length of wall found in main body
width, i.e. width of 10% if One story and setbacks from front and rear of ordinance
less than 60' top building lines
late must be 23'4"
Southside 357 2.5 story 3' or 4' 40% lot (You can build on Bldg
Place Area), 35% front yard, 40% rear
and
I
SUBCHAPTER F: RESIDENTIAL DESIGN AND
COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS
Austin, Texas
e
v ~ S
}
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
ON SEPTEMBER 28, 2006
BASED ON THE JUNE 22, 2006
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE AND
SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS
SUBCHAPTER F: RESIDENTIAL DESIGN AND COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS
CONTENTS
ARTICLE 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS 1
1.1. Intent l
1.2. Applicability ..................................................................................................................1
1.3. Exceptions ......................................................................................................................3
1.4. Conflicting Provisions ....................................................................................................3
ARTICLE 2: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 5
2.1. Maximum Development Permitted ................................................................................5
2.2. Building Height ..............................................................................................................5
2.3. Front Yard Setback .........................................................................................................5
2.4. Rear Yard Setback ..........................................................................................................6
2.5. Side Yard Setbacks .........................................................................................................6
2.6. Setback Planes ...............................................................................................................7
2.7. Side Wall Articulation ..................................................................................................18
2.8. Modifications by the Residential Design and Compatibility Commission 20
2.8.1. Modifications that May be Approved 20
2.8.2. Modification Procedures 20
2.9. Modifications Within Neighborhood Plan (NP) Combining Districts ............................21
ARTICLE 3: DEFINITIONS AND MEASUREMENT 22
3.1. Buildable Area .............................................................................................................22
3.2. Building Line ................................................................................................................22
3.3. Gross Floor Area ..........................................................................................................22
3.4. Height ..........................................................................................................................23
3.5. Natural Grade ..............................................................................................................24
City of Austin i
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
ARTICLE 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS
1.1. INTENT
This Subchapter is intended to minimize the impact of new construction, remodeling, and
additions to existing buildings on surrounding properties in residential neighborhoods by
defining an acceptable buildable area for each lot within which new development may
occur. The standards are designed to protect the character of Austin's older
neighborhoods by ensuring that new construction and additions are compatible in scale
and bulk with existing neighborhoods.
1.2. APPLICABILITY
Except as provided in Section 1.3, this Subchapter applies to property that is:
1.2.1. Within the area bounded by:
A. Highway 1 83 from Loop 360 to Ben White Boulevard;
B. Ben White Boulevard from Highway 183 to Loop 360;
C. Loop 360 from Ben White Boulevard to Loop 1 ;
D. Loop 1 from Loop 360 to the Colorado River;
E. The Colorado River from Loop 1 to Loop 360; and
F. Loop 360 from the Colorado River to Highway 183; and
City of Austin 1
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
Article 1: General Provisions
Section 1.2. Applicability
Residential Design & Compatibility Standards Ordinance Boundary
NORTH
SHOAL
CREEK
NORTHWEST `••,,c
HILLS
P
•r" CRESTVIEW
k
ALLANDALE a
BRENTWOOD
HIGHLAND 3 ST JOHNS
HIGHLAND CQRONADO
PARK HILLS - ,
{r ~
NORTH LOOP r UNIVERSITY
z HILLS
ROSEDALE sr WINDSOR
PARK_
HYDE Y..
PARK 'a
^HINDS R "PECAN SPRINGS.`
ROAD
TARRYTOWN
RMMA ~ » 5PR[NGDALE
_ {~vyivtgS~TY ' UPPER Y B
S
SOGGY
CREEK ~
WIST ,J
yy
UT _MLK
-CHESTNUv,
E, OLD WEST MLK-
At75TiN OQWNTOWN ~ ~ 1&3
RO5EWQQD
CENTRAL
EAST AUSTIN
JOHNSTON
GOVALtE
EAST TERRACE
CESAR & erF.
HA R~QN ZLLKER CHAVEZ` HOLLY
eoutDIN
CREEK %M_
SOUTH t?s,...w
RIVER
OTY
;f.AffNO0,.
SOUTH RIVERSIDE
LAhAR PLEASANT
VALLEY
EDWARDS MONTOPOLAS
PARKER
LANE°
"Oes
City of Austin 2
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
• s
Article 1: General Provisions
Section 1.3. Exceptions
1.2.2. Used for a:
A. Bed and breakfast (group 1) residential use;
B. Bed and breakfast (group 2) residential use;
C. Cottage special use;
D. Duplex residential use;
E. Secondary apartment special use;
F. Single-family attached residential use;
G. Single-family residential use;
H. Small lot single-family residential use;
1. Two-family residential use; or
I Urban home special use.
1.3. EXCEPTIONS
1.3.1. This Subchapter does not apply to a lot zoned as a single-family residence small lot (SF-
4A) district unless the lot is adjacent to property zoned as a single-family residence
standard lot (SF-2) district or family residence (SF-3) district.
1.3.2. This Subchapter does not apply to the approximately 698.7 acres of land known as the
Mueller Planned Unit Development, which was zoned as a planned unit development (PUD)
district by Ordinance Number 040826-61.
1.3.3. The side wall articulation requirement does not apply to new construction that is less than
2,000 square feet in gross floor area and that is less than 32 feet in height.
1.4. CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
1.4.1. To the extent of conflict, this Subchapter supersedes:
A. Section 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations);
B. Section 25-2-555 (Family Residence (SF-3) District Regulations);
C. Section 25-2-773 (Duplex Residential Use);
D. Section 25-2-774 (Two-Family Residential Use);
E. Section 25-2-778 (Front Yard Setback for Certain Residential Uses);
City of Austin 3
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
Article 1: General Provisions
Section 1.4. Conflicting Provisions
F. Section 25-2-779 (Small Lot Single-Family Residential Uses); and
G. Section 25-4-232 (Small Lot Subdivisions).
1.4.2. To the extent of conflict, the following provisions supersede this Subchapter:
A. Section 25-2-1424 (Urban Home Regulations);
B. Section 25-2-1444 (Cottage Regulations);
C. Section 25-2-1463 (Secondary Apartment Regulations); or
D. The provisions of an ordinance designating property as a:
1. Neighborhood plan (NP) combining district;
2. Neighborhood conservation (NC) combining district; or
3. Historic area (HD) combining district.
City of Austin 4
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
ARTICLE 2: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
2.1. MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED
The maximum amount of development permitted on a property subject to this Subchapter
is limited to the greater of 0.4 to 1.0 floor-to-area ratio or 2,300 square feet of gross
floor area, as defined in Section 3.3. Floor-to-area ratio shall be measured using gross
floor area as defined in Section 3.3.
2.2. BUILDING HEIGHT
Except where these regulations are superseded, the maximum building height for
development subject to this Subchapter is 32 feet. Section 25-2-531 (Height Limit
Exceptions) does not apply to development subject to this Subchapter, except for a
chimney, vent, antenna, or energy conservation or production equipment or feature not
designed for occupancy. Building height shall be measured under the requirements
defined in Section 3.4.
2.3. FRONT YARD SETBACK
A. Minimum Setback Required
The minimum front yard setback required for development subject to this Subchapter is
the lesser of:
1. The minimum front yard setback prescribed by the other provisions of this
Code; or
2. The average front yard setback, if an average may be determined as
provided in subsection B. below.
B. Average Front Yard Setback
1. An average front yard setback is determined based on the setbacks of each
principal residential structure that is built within 50 feet of its front lot line.
2. Except as provided in paragraph 3., the four structures that are closest to
the subject property on the same side of the block shall be used in the
calculation of average front yard setback. If there are less than four
structures on the same side of the block, the lesser number of structures is
used in the calculation.
3. If there are no structures on the same side of the block, the four structures
that are closest to the subject property and across the street are used in the
calculation. If there are less than four structures across the street, the lesser
number is used in the calculation. See Figure 1.
City of Austin 5
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.4. Rear Yard Setback
A B C D E
°s
i
F 7
' +
60
i
- ' s
I
Figure 1: Average Front Yard Setback
In this example, the minimum required front setback in the underlying zoning district is 25 feet. However, because of the
variety in existing setbacks of buildings on the same block face, new development on lot C may be located with a setback
of only 20 feet, which is the average of the setbacks of lots B, D, and E. The building on lot A is not included in the
average because it is located more than 50 feet from the property line.
2.4. REAR YARD SETBACK
The principal structure shall ALLEY
comply with the rear yard
setback prescribed by other
provisions of this Code. All other
Principal 8uildmy ' -Rear Settm<k for
structures shall comply with the pet z^niny Di, se-.d ary D_emny U.4
May be Reduced to
rear yard setback provisions of s Feet when Ad,aaont
an
this Code, but the minimum rear t^ Alley
yard setback may be reduced to
five feet if the rear lot line is
adjacent to an alley. See Figure
2.
2.5. SIDE YARD SETBACKS
FRONT
All structures shall comply with
Figure 2: Rear Yard Setback
the side yard setbacks
prescribed by other provisions of this Code.
City of Austin 6
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.6. Setback Planes
2.6. SETBACK PLANES
This subsection prescribes side and rear setback planes in order to minimize the impact of
new development and rear development on adjacent properties. A structure may not
extend beyond a setback plane except as authorized by subsection D. below. The height
of a setback plane shall be measured under the requirements defined in Section 3.4.
A. Side Setback Plane
Except as provided in subsection B. below, an inwardly sloping 45-degree angle side
setback plane begins at a horizontal line 15 feet directly above the side property
line. The 1 5-foot height of the horizontal line is established for 40-foot deep portions
of the lot beginning at the building line and extending to the rear of the lot, except
that the last portion at the rear of the lot may be less than 40 feet deep. See Figures
3 through 5.
1. For the first portion, the 1 5-foot height of the horizontal line is measured at
the highest of the elevations of the four intersections of the side lot lines, the
building line, and a line 40 feet from and parallel to the building line.
2. For successive portions other than the last portion, the 15-foot height of the
horizontal line is measured at the highest of the elevations of the four
intersections of the side lot lines and the appropriate two lines that are 40
feet apart and parallel to the building line.
3. For the last portion, the 15-foot height of the horizontal line is measured at
the highest of the elevations of the four intersections of the side lot lines, the
appropriate line parallel to the building line, and the rear lot line.
15
- side prsperty Ie~e
Figure 3: Side Setback Plane Measured From Side Property Line
City of Austin 7
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.6. Setback Planes
i
0
e p4
- 10' -
X23 3 =ale~~ n t+nc
Figure 4: (Elevation View) Dividing Lot into 40-foot Portions to Create Side Setback Planes (Rear Setback Plane
Not Shown)
V -w 7
103' REAR "
102'
t
FRONT
Figure 5: Determining High Points on a Sloping Lot
For each portion of the side setback plane, the 15-foot height of the horizontal line is measured starting from the highest
point of the four intersections defining the portion. In this example, topography lines indicate that the lot is sloping
downward from the rear to the front of the lot, and from the right to the left. The high points for Portions 1, 2, and 3
are indicated, along with the Building Line.
City of Austin 8
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft September 28, 2006
• s
Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.6. Setback Planes
B. Rear Setback Plane
An inwardly sloping 45-degree angle rear setback plane begins at a horizontal line
directly above the rear property line at the same elevation as the horizontal line for
the last portion of the side setback plane established in paragraph A.3. See Figures 6
through 9.
y = s
• B9
• ~ e
i5
?_>.nen I - mown for^-s^ 3__..
:>{,ertp t=rr~.
Figure 6: (Elevation View) Rear Setback Plane (Level Ground)
O
,00
a
d.
r m
~i'e A~Lha
Figure 7: (Elevation View) Rear Setback Plane (Sloping Ground)
City of Austin 9
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.6. Setback Planes
Side Setback - Renr Satback
Planes J - - t Plane
45° 4"-
aF* ;
19
y
Defined by
Z-ng District
F-nt, Rear &
Side Setbacks Building Line
Figure 8: Side and Rear Setback Planes on Level Ground
The side and rear setback planes form a "tent" over the lot, rising from the property lines for 15 feet and then
angling in at 45-degree angles from the side and rear. The required front, rear, and side yard setbacks are
indicated by the darker shading on the ground.
-
Y
y
, ;10
I
n
.
Building Line '
I
t1
Figure 9: Side and Rear Setback Planes on Sloping Ground
City of Austin 10
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.6. Setback Planes
C. Buildable Area
The buildable area, as defined in Section 3.3., consists of the smallest area within the
front, side, and rear yard setbacks; maximum height limit; and the combined side and
rear setback planes. See Figures 10 and 1 1.
4
BuiEeie~t.tc arerzx ~ m
Figure 10: Buildable Area (Combination of Yard Setbacks, Maximum Height Limit, and Setback
Planes)
The heavy blue line indicates the "tent" formed by the side and rear setback planes. The buildable area is
the smallest area included within the front, side, and rear yard setbacks; maximum height limit; and the
combined side and rear setback planes (shown here as the green area).
City of Austin 11
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.6. Setback Planes
s
i
t t ,
i
: ~ tlett y+Z~
is
ry~t S~
t
~~tsG S'
yet ;ids
Figure 11: Buildable Area on Corner Lot
This figure shows the same concept illustrated in Figure 10 but for a corner lot that has a greater street
side yard setback requirement. In this example, the minimum required street side yard setback in the
underlying zoning district is 15 feet. Because the side setback plane is measured from the side property
line, the height of the setback plane is 30 feet at the 15-foot street side yard setback line.
D. Side Setback Plane Exception for Existing One-Story Buildings
This subsection applies to a one-story building that was originally constructed or
received a building permit for the original construction before October 1, 2006, and
that is remodeled to add a second story.
1. For the portion of the construction that is within the footprint of the building
that was originally constructed or received a building permit before
October 1, 2006, the inwardly sloping 45-degree angle side setback plane
begins at a horizontal line directly above the outermost side wall at a
height that is equal to the height of the first floor wall plate that was
originally constructed or received a building permit before October 1,
2006, plus ten feet. See Figure 12.
2. For the portion of the construction that is outside the footprint of the building
that was originally constructed or received a building permit before
October 1, 2006, the side setback plane prescribed by subsection A. above
applies.
City of Austin 12
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.6. Setback Planes
Stand-d Setback Plunc^s
Apply OuatFdn Exiatmy
`a+#sxro.rom
B urldirxr3 Foott:rinl was; - _
MndiPied $efix➢tk PIUt~es
Based an Wnll HP19111 trt
s' Existing S.-jle-Story Bwlduig
3 "roapa - ~ a'~ r
y' J417
,
! a? dfl
r
40,
Figure 12: Side Setback Plane Exception for Existing Single-Story Buildings
The side setback planes for an existing single-story building are determined based on the height of the sidewall. In this
example, the horizontal line that forms the base of the setback plane is placed ten feet above the sidewall height (12
feet). The revised plane rises above the standard setback plane within the area of the building footprint. The standard
setback planes created in sections 2.6.A. and B. apply outside of the existing footprint.
E. Exceptions
A structure may not extend beyond a setback plane, except for:
1. A structure authorized by the Residential Design and Compatibility
Commission in accordance with Section 2.8. below;
2. A roof overhang or eave, up to two feet beyond the setback plane;
3. A chimney, vent, antenna, or energy conservation or production equipment
or feature not designed for occupancy; and
4. Either:
a. 30-Foot Side-Gabled Roof Exception
A side-gabled roof structure on each side of the building, with a total
horizontal length of not more than 30 feet, measured from the building line
along the intersection with the side setback plane (See Figure 13.); or
City of Austin 13
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.6. Setback Planes
X -30' MAX -q.. -'21 - .._.f
wJ
Figure 13: Side-Gabled Roof Exception
A side-gabled roof may project through the side setback plane for a horizontal distance of up to
a maximum of 30 feet, measured from the building line. In this example, the gable intrudes into
the setback plane beginning 9 feet behind the building line. Therefore, the maximum length of the
gable intrusion would be 2 7 feet.
b. Gables Plus Dormers Exception
(i) Gables or a shed roof, with a total horizontal length of not more than 18
feet on each side of the building, measured along the intersection with the
setback plane (See Figures 14 and 17.); and
(ii) Dormers, with a total horizontal length of not more than 15 feet on each
side of the building, measured along the intersection with the setback
plane. (See Figures 15 and 16.)
City of Austin 14
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.6. Setback Planes
Shed Roof witb a -
Maximum Width of 18'
4t "S
4 "
t
t
, MW
Figure 14: 18-foot Exception for Shed Roof
City of Austin 15
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.6. Setback Planes
15 Ft. Maximorn
Combined Width of
Dormers (A+B)
d
y R - _ _ _ ' ..ate
III
Figure I
Figure 15 & 16: Dormer Exception (Gable or Shed)
One or more dormers with a combined width of 15 feet or less on each side of the roof may extend beyond the
setback plane. The width of the dormer is measured at the point that it intersects the setback plane.
City of Austin 16
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.6. Setback Planes
C'iabl~ Roof. -18` Moximonn Width Dormers
ctt Imams Ui~~it with 1 S' Cornbmed Width
Sethock PIOne - at Intersection with
Setback Plane
-
' 7 ` r1 T1 ~`y !
11
t Y T
a~
Figure 17: Combination of Roof and Dormer Exceptions
City of Austin 17
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.7. Side Wall Articulation
2.7. SIDE WALL ARTICULATION
A side wall of a building that is more than 15 feet high and is an average distance of 15
feet or less from an interior lot line may not extend in an unbroken plane for more than 32
feet along a side lot line. To break the plane, a perpendicular wall articulation of not less
than four feet, for a distance along the side property line of not less than 10 feet, is
required. See Figures 18 through 20.
Existing Building
-New Construction
Side Wall Exceeds 32' _ 32' Max. Length
-'--3-- Walwut Side wall
Artw;&,hon
t
i
r
x
r
Figure 18: Side Wall Articulation (Existing Side Wall Exceeds 32 Feet)
Articulation is required for side walls on additions or new construction that are 15 feet or taller and located within 15
feet of the side lot line. No wall may extend for more than 32 feet without a projection or recession of at least 4 feet in
depth and 10 feet in length.
City of Austin 18
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
s ~
Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.7. Side Wall Articulation
Esi5line} E§tlitc€say r-;, 1rra~a
If1~11 i f,,,t
1. E
L
.k
Add,hl .n 1" Exls U
SA, W,111 Up To Mcc--,
{ 32 East In Total L,,mjth i
i
I
Re:qulrc cf Arttcl!};.til~n
Figure 19: Side Wall Articulation (Existing Side Wall Less Than or Equal to 32 Feet)
An addition to an existing building may extend a side wall up to a maximum of 32' in total length without articulation.
y
Figure 20: Side Wall Articulation (New Construction)
All new construction must meet the sidewall articulation standards.
City of Austin 19
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.8. Modifications by the Residential Design and Compatibility Commission
2.8. MODIFICATIONS BY THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN AND COMPATIBILITY
COMMISSION
This section provides for modification by the Residential Design and Compatibility
Commission of certain requirements of this Subchapter for a proposed development.
2.8.1. Modifications that May be Approved
The Residential Design and Compatibility Commission may approve:
A. An increase of up to 25 percent in the:
1. Maximum floor-to-area ratio or maximum square footage of gross floor
area;
2. Maximum linear feet of gables or dormers protruding from the setback
plane;
3. Maximum side wall length before articulation is required; or
4. Maximum height of the side or rear setback plane; or
B. A decrease of up to 25 percent in the minimum depth or length of a required wall
articulation.
2.8.2. Modification Procedures
A. Application and Notice
1. A person may request a modification listed in subsection 2.8.1. above by
filing an application with the Director on a form provided by the Director.
2. Not later than the 14th day after an application is filed, the Director shall:
a. Mail notice of the application to:
(i) Each notice owner of property immediately adjacent to the subject
property;
(ii) The appropriate neighborhood association, if any; and,
(iii)The neighborhood plan team, if any; and
b. Post notice of the application in accordance with Section 25-1 -1 35 (Posting of
Signs).
B. Approval Criteria
The Residential Design and Compatibility Commission may, after a public hearing,
approve a modification if it determines that the proposed development is compatible
in scale and bulk with the structures in the vicinity of the development. In making this
determination, the commission shall consider:
1. The recommendation of the neighborhood plan team, if any;
2. The development's:
City of Austin 20
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
i •
Article 2: Development Standards
Section 2.9. Modifications Within Neighborhood Plan (NP) Combining Districts
a. Compliance with neighborhood design guidelines, if any;
b. Consistency with the streetscape of the properties in the vicinity;
c. Consistency with the massing, scale, and proximity of structures located on
either side of or behind the development;
d. Impact on privacy of adjacent rear yards; and
e. Topography and lot shape; and
3. For a development of an entire block, whether the development will have a
negative impact on adjacent property.
C. Additional Criteria for Historic Properties
The Residential Design and Compatibility Commission may not approve a modification
for:
1. A local, state, or national historic landmark, if the modification would
adversely impact the landmark's historic status;
2. A "contributing structure," as defined in Section 25-2-351 (Contributing
Structure Defined), or a contributing structure in a National Register historic
district, if the modification would adversely impact its status as a
contributing structure; or
3. A property listed as Priority 1 or Priority 2 on the City's most current survey
of historic assets, if the modification would adversely impact the property's
architectural integrity or change its priority rating.
D. Appeals
An interested party may appeal the Residential Design and Compatibility
Commission's decision to the City Council.
E. Board of Adjustment May Grant Variances
This subsection does not prohibit the Board of Adjustment from granting a variance
from a requirement of this Subchapter under 25-2-473 (Variance Requirements).
2.9. MODIFICATIONS WITHIN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN (NP) COMBINING
DISTRICTS
Under Section 25-2-1406 of the Code, an ordinance zoning or rezoning property as a
neighborhood plan (NP) combining district may modify certain development standards of
this subchapter.
City of Austin 21
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
ARTICLE 3: DEFINITIONS AND MEASUREMENT
3.1. BUILDABLE AREA
In this Subchapter, BUILDABLE AREA means the area in which development subject to this
Subchapter may occur, and which is defined by the side and rear setback planes required
by this Subchapter, together with the area defined by the front, side, and rear yard
setbacks and the maximum height limit.
3.2. BUILDING LINE
In this Subchapter, BUILDING LINE
means a line that is parallel to the front
lot line and that intersects the principal
residential structure at the point where
the structure is closest to the front lot
line, including any allowed projections
into the front yard setback. See Figure
21.
3.3. GROSS FLOOR AREA
In this Subchapter, GROSS FLOOR Building Line
AREA has the meaning assigned by
Section 25-1 -21 (Definitions), with the
Front Lot Line --following modifications:
Figure 21: Building Line
3.3.1. The following shall be included in the calculation of gross floor area:
A. The portion of a second or third story of a building that is covered by a roof,
including a porch, portico, breezeway, passageway, or corridor;
B. A mezzanine or loft; and
C. The covered portion of a parking area, except for:
1. Up to 450 square feet of:
a. A detached rear parking area that is separated from the principal structure by
not less than 10 feet; or
b. A parking area that is open on two or more sides, if it does not have habitable
space above it; and
2. Up to 200 square feet of an attached parking area if it used to meet the
minimum parking requirement.
3.3.2. The following shall be excluded from the calculation of gross floor area:
City of Austin 22
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
Article 3: Definitions and Measurement
Section 3.4. Height
A. A ground floor porch, including a screened porch;
B. A habitable portion of a building that is below grade if:
1. It does not extend beyond the first-story footprint; and
2. The finished floor of the first story is not more than three feet above the
average elevation at the intersections of the minimum front yard setback
line and the side property lines; and
C. A habitable portion of an attic, if:
1. The roof above it is not a flat or mansard roof and has a slope of 3 to 12
or greater;
2. It is fully contained within the roof structure;
3. It has only one floor;
4. It does not extend beyond the footprint of the floors below;
5. It is the highest habitable portion of the building; and
6. Fifty percent or more of the area has a ceiling height of seven feet or less.
3.3.3. An area with a ceiling height greater than 15 feet is counted twice.
3.4. HEIGHT
For purposes of this Subchapter, the HEIGHT of a building or setback plane shall be
measured as follows:
3.4.1. Height shall be measured vertically from the average of the highest and lowest grades
adjacent to the building to:
A. For a flat roof, the highest point of the coping;
B. For a mansard roof, the deck line;
C. For a pitched or hip roof, the average height of the highest gable; or
D. For other roof styles, the highest point of the building.
3.4.2. The grade used in the measurement of height for a building or setback plane shall be the
lower of natural grade or finished grade, except height shall be measured from finished
grade if:
A. The site's grade is modified to elevate it out of the 100-year floodplain; or
B. The site is located on the approximately 698.7 acres of land known as the Mueller
Planned Unit Development, which was zoned as a planned unit development (PUD)
district by Ordinance Number 040826-61.
3.4.3. For a stepped or terraced building, the height of each segment is determined individually.
City of Austin 23
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
Article 3: Definitions and Measurement
Section 3.5. Natural Grade
3.4.4. The height of a structure other than a building is measured vertically from the ground level
immediately under the structure to the top of the structure. The height of a fence on top of
a retaining wall is measured from the bottom of the retaining wall.
3.4.5. A maximum height is limited by both number of feet and number of stores if both
measurements are prescribed, regardless of whether the measurements are conjoined with
"or" or "and."
3.5. NATURAL GRADE
3.5.1. In this Subchapter, NATURAL GRADE is:
A. The grade of a site before it is modified by moving earth, adding or removing fill,
or installing a berm, retaining wall, or architectural or landscape feature; or
B. For a site with a grade that was legally modified before October 1, 2006, the
grade that existed on October 1, 2006.
3.5.2. Natural grade is determined by reference to an on-ground survey, City-approved
topographic map, or other information approved by the director. The director may
require an applicant to provide a third-party report that shows the natural grade of a
site.
City of Austin 24
Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards
Revised Draft I September 28, 2006
02/01/2007 12:46 28122089 JAMES L DOUGHERT PAGE 01/09
Cliapter 4, Tic Toe-Big Douse 49
helped shape the desired character. In urban neighborhoods, architectural
context is ignored, and the house looks completely out of place.
While the problem has other roots, zoning only has the tools to regulate
the symptoms, rather than the cause- There are a number of approaches to
regulating bulk that can be introduced into zoning and land development
codes,
BULK REGULATION STANDARDS
There are six tools planners can use to regulate bulk, lot setbacks, building
coverage, floor area ratios, height, building volume ratios, and landscape
volume ratio. These tools will be explored in this section. The building
volume ratio is the best of these measures, while all the other bulk regula-
tions are approximations.
Lot Setbacks
Lot setbacks are the original zoning control for bulk; they prevent the build
ing from occupying more than a certain percentage of the lot. This is a
relatively crude measure, however, since it is only a two-dimensional stan-
dard and ignores height. With the exception of small urban lots, nobody
traditionally thought much about this standard, In most jurisdictions, the
setback easily accommodated the house and various elements, such as decks Setbacks do an excellent lob
and rear garages. Only in the last 20 years has there been a trend toward
homes that occupy the full area created by the setback lines. As a result, of controlling how close two
nobody is evaluating what a building that fills the building pad will look
like in comparison to its neighbors on similar lots. A lot that was gracious buildings may be, but they do
in 1950, when the average home was 983 square feet, may not graciously little to address bulk,
accept a 2,265-square-foot average house size (the average size in the year
2000).
As an example, a. 7,500-square-foot lot with typical setbacks (the lot is 70
feet by 100 feet with a 25-foot front yard, a 30-foot rear yard„ and a total of
20 feet of side yard(s)) results in a buildable area within the setbacks of
2,475 square feet. This is approximately 2.5 times the floor area of the aver-
age .hom,c in 1.950, including the ranch house. Today, that same lot will
barely accommodate a 2,400-square-foot ranch home. Hence, setbacks do
an excellent job of controlling how close two buildings maybe, but they do
little to address bulk, One thought is that they can be modified to maintain
the building setback or pad size. This requires the planner to evaluate the
type of house that can be built within the setbacks and increase the set-
backs to limit house size. Another approach that also needs to be consid-
ered is whether decks should be permitted in the yards to eliminate the
need for variances when the house fills the area within the setback.
Building Coverage
Some communities recognize the limitations of setbacks by adding a build
ing coverage requirement, which is the percentage or ratio of the building
coverage to the lot area (Figure 4-2). A, 10,000-square-foot lot might have a
building pad inside the setback line of 3,850 square feet (assuming a lot 80
feet by 1.25 feet with a minimum 25-foot front yard, a. 30-foot rear years,
and a minimum total of 25 feet of side yard(s)). A two-story home occupy-
ing the entire building pad would be 7,700 square feet, an enormous
by any standard. A building coverage ratio determines how much of a site
The concept n} Building
may be covered by the dwelling. The building coverage ratio is the area Covc,a er e (73(').
covered by the building divided by lot area.. Ili.-us, on the 10,000-square- nz~foot lot, a building coverage ratio of 0.20 limits buildings to 20 percent of
the lot area, 2,000 square feet, or 53 percent of the building pad. Thus, a
two-story house could reach a maximum size of 4,000 square feet, a sub-
021'011'2007 12:45 28122099 JAMES L DOUGHERT* PAGE 02!69
50 Tao Big, Baring, or Ugly
stantial reduction from 7,700 square feet. Further, there would be 1.,800
square feet available for decks or other areas within the setback lines. The
principal problem with building coverage as a standard is that it totally
fails to deal with the vertical, the third dimension. Abuilding coverage set
when ranch homes were the standard is apt to permit a vastly oversize
two-story unit. On the other hand, too tight of a limit might prohibit ranch-
style homes. -
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Vey-) A great many communities have replaced building coverage regulations
with FAR. ) AR is the ratio of total building.floor area to the area of the site
(Figure 4-3). Unlike building coverage, FAR takes multiple floors into
ac- count. 'thus it uses floors as a surrogate for height. Figures 4-4 and 4-5
illustrate two buildings with similar lots and building coverages, but very
different FARs.
In general, FAR is a better measure of bulk. Nevertheless, floor area
is still a surrogate that provides some idea about bulk but can never be.
completely accurate- The greatest inaccuracies are likely to occur in non-
residential structures where building heights can vary quite significantly
(the one-story office building with. a height of 13 to 18 feet versus a.
warehouse with 50-foot heights). With residential structures, the differ.-
~
(Aboz,e, 1 eft) FiQurrz 4-3: Ffvvr
Area Ratic; (right) Figures 4-4
and 4-5. Trvo houses with on
similar-size lots with similar
building coveragr_, brit with venj
different FA Rs.
1
ences are not likely to be so dramatic, but serious problems do occur.
One problem is how to count basements. On a flat site, basements are
underground and do not contribute to building volume. However., look-
out basements (that is, basements partially aboveground with windows
but no doors) add substantial building volume to the house. A set of
rules is needed to address how to count floor area for all types of base-
ments including those that are below ground. Similarly, cathedral ceil-
ing, two-story spaces, and attic space also cause problems by creating
substantial volumes over and above what would. be anticipated from
the floor-area measuxe.tnents.
Thus, while it is possible to create a series of rules to measure floor
area (for example, some ordinances require any space with a ceiling higher
than 12 feet or some other figure to be counted as two stories), such rules
are difficult to write clearly and broadly enough to deal with the variety of
~/CS possible physical conditions.
02/01/2007 121:16 281220890 ,JAMES L DUUGHEPTPAGE 03/09
rr'^
ChaptAt-.i. The Too-Big.House 51
Height
Height measures building bulk in only one dimension and is an essential
addition to the various two-dimensional standards. Tt is important to note
the definition. of height is a critical issue. No matter what the definition,
with pitched roofs, the chance is the total volume of the house will be inac-
curately measured. The following is a short review of different aspects of
height. Note that a number of these factors may be combined in an ordi-
nance definition.
k • Height above grade. A very constraining definition that measures t;he~
maximum height from lowest point on the site.
Y►~1~
• Height above average grade- This adds to the building height on sloped
sites.
a4 ~,ro o~c~
t'. • Height above natural grade. This seeks to prevent filling of sites to pro-
vide walkout basements.
Height to roof peak. This measures the highest point on the building.
• Height to midpoint of pitched roof, Tliis attempts to get at volume by al-
lowing a building with a pitched roof to be taller than one with a flat roof.
The midpoint definition accurately accounts for a gabled. roof, however,
it overestimates hipped roofs. If there are dormers, the result will be an,
underestimation of volume. The basement problem carries over to height's,
particularly where the site is sloped.
Grade is another issue that creates problems for the measurement of
height. Tdeally, the measurement used is the finished grade of the house,
which means measuring the average grade around the building. Some sort
of limitation on altering grade may be needed to avoid benning to mask
the real height.
Building Volume Ratio (BVR)
The BVR is a true volume indicator that requires measuring the entire val-
u.mF of the building above finished grade, or the visible portion of the build-
ing (Figure 4-6). Basements, attics, cathedral ceilings, and higher floor-to-
ceiling heights are all accounted for by BVR. The building volume ratio is
as follows:
BVR = BV/7.Q/L/1
Where BV is building volume and LA is lot area
While m.a.ny people think the calculation is very difficult, the reality is Figure 4-6: Building Volume Ratio
that with the widespread use of computer-aided design (CAD) systems by (BVR)
architects and architectural firms that produce plans for production build-
ers, it is not much .more difficult than working through the floor area rules
for most production housing. ,Further„ one may find that the building in-
spector is already doing most~of these calculations. Tor example, the in-
spector may be checking floor area calculations for permit fees and report-
ing them to the assessor's office. In addition, some are using building
volume to get a better handle on the total construction costs in order to
maximize building permit revenue, The calculation should be required of
the architect or designer and sealed to ensure accuracy. This is the best
measure of building volume or bulk, It is the only three-dimensional Mea-
sure and is h.igh.ly recommended.
One additional benefit to the BVR is that architects or builders can ma-
nipulate t'he house plan to maximize floor area or any other housing at-
tribute within the maximum 13V Z, Lower roof pitches lower rota,l volume,
02/01/2007 12:45 2812208910 JAMES L DOUGHERT'S, PAGE 04/09
52 TOO Big, Borillg, Or U911Y
thus permitting additional floor area if that is the goal.. Likewise, grand.
spaces with high ceilings can be provided, resulting in lower floor areas.
The BV,R is not tied to any singic element (floor area or grotuld coverage)
and, thus, provides maximum flexibility for the designer to achieve their
most important elements.
Landscape Volume Ratio (LYR)
Landscaping has been shown to be effective in controlling monotony and
the Monopoly-set house. Landscape volume is similar to the building vol-
ume, except that it measures the volu ne of the landscape material (Figure
4-7). The landscape volume is calculated as follows
14W &0 y vl LSR W T,.SV / 10AA
Where 3V is building volume and TA is lot area
1 U The landscape volume can achieve several things: it can shelter the build
4 ing where frees are taller than the buildings, can screen buildings, and can
provide camouflage as illustrated in Figure 4-8. The result is a softening of
the impact of the building. The concern with the barren look of new subdi-
visions with very small trees is recognizes this problem
a
tii• w r" , ~ ,
i
re `
~F
121
k
6*ove) Pigure 4-7:
Landscape Voluine Rating
(right) Figure 4-8:
Landscaping c,an screen bulk to
diininissh the effect of the
too-big house.
THE "NOT-SO-BIG HOUSE"
The root of the problem exemplified by the "too big house" is America's
romance with size, which is a recurring theme in American. architectural
history-. While the craftsman school of architecture of the end of the nine-
teenth century was a response to the crude nature of many mass-produced
products, critiques of the current American fascination with the too-big
house have arisen. (The best, example is Sarah Susanka's The Not 5o Big
House CnIlechon (Taunton. Press 2002), which includes two of the books
she's written on the concept.)
A look at homes from the early part of the twentieth century finds com-
pact floor plans, including small kitchens and reasonably proportioned
master suites and. closets- Similarly, bathrooms, whose numbers have also
increased, typically went into a 50-square-foot space and now routinely
exceed 100 square feet. While status fuels the desire for multistory spaces
for living rooms, master bedrooms, and hails, none of these things are re-
ally related to the quality or even to the cost of the house. Craftsmanship
and careful design can create more attractive rooms, more livable spaces,
and. show that care and, design went into the building.
r 02101/2007 12:46 28122089 JAMES L DOUGHERT`o PAGE 05109
Chapter 4. The Too-Big Horse 53
Work needs to be done to get the pres5, home builders, and the building
in.dvstry in general to encourage higher-quality housing for all price lev-
els. The cycle of bigger is better needs to be broken, and education is essen-
tial in this. It is not uncommon to hear complaints of how cheap, entry-
level housing is a rationale against small lots or attached housing.
Unfortunately, the some mentality is found in McMansions and starter
castles. Instead of building moms with higher ceilings and two-story spaces,
the money could be better used in quality materials, detailing, and archi-
tecture designed to accommodate the family's needs, rather than perpetu-
ate the ostentatious display of wealth. Amore discerning approach would
be to recognize the quality of the design or at least quality materials, Fig-
ures 4-9 and 4-1.0 represent several homes designed as "not-so-big houses."
Work needs to be done to
get the press, home
builders, and the building
y
industry in general to
encourage higher-quality
~ n
housing for all price levels.
Figure 4-9: Affordable Comfort.,
l)df~,3r 1i ~ 1}; ,ai w1
.I
f =
Fi rive 4-10: Coinpared io the "affordable ca n7 ,0),C rf 117e ,7170vc "rrn!••;n-Mi"
llmise, this r1lorWer home on are infill lot overwhelms i1,s iia4gItborhood,
srrov rin,$ "look at inn, /rink at. rrye," -
p
02101/2007 12:46 281220890 JAMES L DOUGHERTYI& PAGE 06/09
58 Tenrdnruns
vulnerable. The 90o- to 1.,400-square-Foot house is clearly vulnerable since-
these are close to half the size of the average house in. 2000..E second indi-
cator of vulnerability is the number of stories. Ranch houses will be vul-
nerable in an era when tH7o-story homes are the standard. Similarly, the
split-level, which was popular in some parts of the country, is also a vul-
nerable housing format. Thus, a planner can identify neighborhoods with
homes vulnerable to teardowns simply by driving around town.
Once planners identify neighborhoods as prime candidates for
teardowns, they should look for a gap between neighborhood house size
and zoning district regulations. This can be found by comparing the aver-
age house size and footprint with the building pad defined by the set-
backs. On small lots, anywhere that the house footprint is less than 60 per-
cent of the building pad, teardowns or major reconstruction with the same
net impact are likely,
if a community can identify neighborhoods at risk before problems arise,
solutions will be much easier. Regulations are far easier to revise when the
regulations do not create a burden for buyers or people who want to up-
grade the home. Aside from the political issue, it would be better to plan
for redevelopment and have a strategy in place before the market begins
to dictate teardowns.
Once planners identify
REGULATING as rime TEARDOWNS
p The same regulations used for the too-big house apply here: setbacks, build-
candidates for teardowns ing coverage, floor area ratio, height, and building volume ratio. In look-
ing at these same indicators again for teardowns, we will, focus on what
they should look for a gap can be done in each case. Recognizing the realities of obsolescence and
small size, it is important to base planning on recognition of the need for
between neighborhood some home expansion. Prohibiting any expansion is undesirable, as this
will ultimately least to disinvestment as owners became frustrated with
house size and zoning the ability to adapt the units to modern needs.
Once a neighborhood. is identified as being at risk for teardowns, the
district regulations. first objective should be to work out reasonable expansion plans to permit
modernization and reasonable expansion without destroying neighborhood
character. An example of this type of analysis can be found in Avi
Friedm.an's Planning the New Suburbia (University of British Columbia Press,
2001), which discusses and illustrates this type of analysis in Canadian
cities. Figures 5-2 and 5-3 illustrate the concept.
Ideally, the regulations allow normal upgrading of the neighborhood
to retain vitality without permitting the too-big house, which turns the
neighborhood over to another economic class. Acomplete study would
look at typical floor plans of the dominant housing in the neighbor-
hood and think through expansion strategies related to the floor plans
in order to provide guidance to the homeowners. Such a study is best
carried out by architects because they will be able to deal with floor
plan revisions. The planner and architect then. need to work together to
evaluate all the zoning standards. Having both architectural, lot .lay-
out, and. design concepts available can educate the community and
builders. There may be a shortcut available. If there has been a history
of contextual additions in the neighborhood, they should be reviewed
to determine if they represent a sound basis for regulations. Once plan-
ners can create some estimate of the extent and nature of suitable ex-
tensions, they can draft regulations. (See also pages 49-52 above.)
Setbacks
When setbacks are such that they allow a major expansion of building size,
they should be increased to reduce the pod.. The goal should be to allow a
/ 02/01/2007 12:46 28122089 JAMES L DOUGHERT)o PAGE 07109
CFapter 5, T'e4rda7nn5 59
err ~
I
y - Ir I~
X14 ' w .
Exftdnp ground fMPr d
ExlmNnp houxa ~ i ~ g
r i 11 /
~ ! 3
~r
Modified side elevauorl dAadrgod Rmunr noon
Figvre 5-2; TO accom1710date the opening of a neighborhood business, a beauty salon, an. addition was
made to ran cxistin.g unit. In addition, the second floor was developed as a home office and recreation
morn,
Edspnq grauntl floor 6.
s
FxlVing houae ` -
fAnanad amund noon
f r
e 'r
Y
3 r i~
I
,*6*d srdn nn.rripn MMlrlaa ;artrlnn
Figure 3-3; T77.e creation of another local business, a desktop publislihn, office, required an raddition in
the rear o f a unit. A separate etrtrance was needed, acrd the space o{ the exisiting unit zoos rroramrized. A
nell) recreational space-a rai.^>rd wooden d,,ek-was added.
02/01x'2007 12:46 28122089 JAMES L DOUGHERTO PAGE 08/09
r vU acarie~wris
modest expansion of the building-not expansion to the point of filling the
building pad, This simple and effective tool can be used in existing n.eigl,-
borhonds where homes arc2 all built to the setback line and have similar
ground. coverage as long as the height issue can be effectively addressed. In
one-story neighborhoods, a new room would be added to the ground floor'
this may mean a less drastic cutback in the building pad and a reduction of
height to main tain the one-story character of the neighborhood, if remodels
in the neighborhood were conversions to Cape Cod style, a tighter setback
range would be used- For example, the zoning might have setbacks that
permitted a 7,700-square-foot house on a 1.0,000-5quare-foot lot while the
neighborhood has homes of 1,100 to 1,500 square feet. Revising the setbacks
to permit a 3,200-square-foot house would be less damaging,
Building Coverage
Building coverage follows the model of setbacks, Since both regulate only
the ground coverage, there are no essential differences between them as a
useful technique for regulating tea rdowns. Building coverage, like setbacks,
requires a height standard. The choice between setbacks and building cov-
erage might be the standard currently in use.
Building volume Ratio (M)
Floor Area Ratios (FAR)
remains the most flexible of The model here is similar but requires a bit more care since floor area is a
more precise measure and. directly involves the potential of multiple floors.
the regulations because any The need to consider height is even more critical because FAR does not
distinguish between ground-floor and upper-floor expansion, Using FAR
change is automatically may be a. better choice as a tool for regulating teardowns in neighborhoods
tracked and forces the where there is a mix of housing: ranches, Cape Cods, and two-story units,
each built by a different builder, but all having a similar range of sizes.
architect to make trade-offs.
Height
Height is very important. Both the number of stories and roof pitches arc
likely to be common features of the neighborhood. Dramatic changes in
height can be a problem- In ranch, Cape Cod, or split-level neighborhoods,
it is very likely the maximum height established by zoning district regula-
tions is substantially higher than current building heights, Thus, those stan-
dards should be rolled back to a level that respects the existing character.
Even in two-story areas, the original homes may have low roof pitches--
3/12, for example. With end gables, adding 1.3 feet to the rear of a 24-foot-
wide house would raise the roof from five feet to a little more than eight
feet. If, the remodeling involved a change in roof pitch to 9/12, the roof
height would nearly triple, from five feet to more than 14.6 feet, The three-
foot change would be noticeable, but not threatening, while a 9.6-foot
change is similar to an added story and would alter the character.
Building Volume Ratio (BVR)
Buitding volume Ratio (BV.R) remains the most flexible of the regulations
because any change is automatically tracked and forces the architect to
make trade-offs. In general, use of BVR as the primary regulatory tool in
dealing with teardowns is not recommended in existing neighborhoods
because it requires so much explanation and a change in the regulation.
format with which residents are familiar. (Also see page 51 above,)
There is one exception to this--a community or neighborhood where
there is a significant gradient in size reflecting historic development pat-
terns. In many New England seaport towns, for example, there may be a
shift from captain's houses to small historic Cape Cods within. blocks of
rach o he.r. While it is possible to attempt to break the neighborhood into
0210112007 12:46 28122089 TAME_ L UEUGHEP,T# PAGE 09/09
Chapter S. Teardowns 61
smaller units with. an overlay to designate areas of different BVRs, this
may result in mapping battles with some homeowners wanting to move
the boundary lines of overlay districts for their own advantage. Thus, the
building volume can be tied to a radius around the lot in question so that
lines for overlay districts do not need to be drawn.
ADDITIONAL MEASURES
The five controls above are all that is really needed. if action is taken early
enough. They should be able to accommodate the types of actions resi-
dents are currently taking to upgrade their homes.
There are several additional strategies that may be useful if regulations
are being formulated. in a neighborhood where the teardown. process has
already begun. Because there are likely to be different views within the
neiglmborh.ood, more flexibility to increase house size would produce less
opposition to the regulations. Community character is not completely re-
lated to house size in mature neighborhoods because trees have also ma-
tured, The little 1.5-inch tree that was seven to eight teet high wher, the The Site Volume Ratio (SVR)
subdivision was developed is now 40 to 60 feet high. Vegetation is equally
important in determining the character of the neighborhood. A very strict r'ntroduces some flexibility in
requirement to preserve front yard vegetation will be helpful. Two addi-
tional volume measures enable an increase in floor area. or BVR to be offset that it rewards the landowner
by increases vm. landscape volume ratio.
who preserves existing trees
Landscape Volume Ratio (LVR)
Landscape Volume Ratio (T VR) is a parallel to the BVR but measures the and plants new trees with
soft vegetative volume, which, in mature residential communities, is as
important as building volume since the streets are likely to be lined with more volume. The landowner
mature trees and the landscaping on the lot is likely to be mature as well.
Tn many older neighborhoods, in fact, the landscape volume may be larger who seeks to cut down
than the building volume. The construction of a too-big teardown, is likely existing trees to make room
to result in a loss of mature vegetation, further exacerbating the loss of
character as a result of the teardown. The LVR provides a means of mea- for expansion would have a
curing this element of the neighborhood. character, (Also see page 52 above.)
reduced building volume.
Site Volume Ratio (SVR)
Site Volume Ratio (SVR) combines the two volume measures, BVR and
LVR, and is calculated by subtracting the 13VR from the TVR. Thus, a posi-
tve SVR indicates a landscape volume greater than the building volume,
and a negative value indicates building volume is the dominant value. The
SVR is a means of calculating the existing community character in a man-
ner accounting for both, the building and the landscaping.
Tlme SVR introduces some flexibility in that it rewards the landowner who
preserves existing trees and plants new trees with more volume. The land-
owner who seeks to cut down existing trees to make room for expansion would
have a reduced building volume. Once the teardown process has begun, ev-
ery bit of flexibility in the regulations will be valuable to the proponents of
teardown., and, if community character is'retained, those seeking to eliminate
or limit the teardow.ns are less likely to adamantly oppose teardowns.
The precision and flexibility of the SVR makes it easier to demonstrate
the impact of options. For example, a family may have fallen in love with a
house plan with. 1.0-font ceilings and a 9/12 roof pitch, but the house is
over the SVR. The relative impact: of di Fferent ceiling heights or roof pitclmes
can be instantly calculated, so trade-offs between roof, ceilings, and floor
areas can be understood. Perhaps only one room needs the higher ceiling,
and the roof pitch can be retained to meet the regulations. And adding
four, 12-foot-high Evergreen trees alight avoid resizing one room.
3 2 3 2
B - 3 0 6
2
9 7 3 9
R A S 6 S S g S
C
b e a
a s s s s
2 e E
Lot Area 80%4000+.5(lot area-5000) 70% Open Area e 0
y ~
5000 4000 4000 3500 56.30% - _n
5720 4576 4360 4004' 5_7.80% _ 4523
6000 4800 4500 4200
6720 5376 - 4860 4704 65.60% 5307 -
7440 5952 5220 5208 _ 590/. - - - - - - - - - -
4144 5920'
7500 6000 _ 5250 5250 59% . 5843
7700 6160 5350 5390 51%
- 5033 -
7875 6300 _ 5438 5513 6291 -
9000 7200 6000 6300 _ 58% _
9066 7253 6033 6346 7137
10000 8000 6500 7000 7191
- 53%
12500 10000 7750 8750 56% - - - - - - - T - - -
- - -
13500 10800, 8250 9450 63%
- _ - - 1- - -
15000 12000._ 9000 10500 630%
16200 12960! 9600 11340 - --T ~-y--
17500 14000 10250 12250
- T - - - t- - -
20000 16000- 11500, 14000- - - - - - - - ~ - -
N
O
r
N
~ N o d-~ E ~
I ~ O
m
I ~ ~
I
i I I i ~
i t- ~ -
- I T I~ IL
o„~ ~oo_~=_~o ~ ~ ~