note: entered l0 min late)
the Council was comparing a draft by David, the Town attorney, and a draft with comments by Lance Hoffman (LH).
LBarnes: on page 2 there are comments at bottom of page. perhaps shouldn't be so strong. p 2, 3 lines up.
KS: "several" means 1 or 2 to me; I want to use "a number of cases" of negative, injurious ....
(she, however, doesn't cite which cases, offers no data)
LB I don't want to come back.
LH I'm done
KS the point is to recite the consequences. There has been an increase in storm water issues over a long period of time. Some are unrelated to building; some are related to building.
LH: I want it defensible in Court.
LH: most times a big house was not responsible for water problems when people called in to say it was.
to say negative, injurious and contributed to water management problems is enuous, and gets to the tone issue. "demolition of" is too negative.
LB: this ordinance is going forward due to demolitions of existing structures, so I want to keep it though it's not the definitive reason. (she offers no data to demonstrate any demolitions and consequent water managemetn issues are why ord is going forward)
LH: I can live with it.
MW I still don't see what the language is
KS LH suggests we take storm water out.
Dedrun next to me begins muttering or making choking noises to the extent I asked if she were well.
RE to MW: you can look at both copies to see what LH deleted.
MW I would use "issues" rather than the word "problems"
LH is much better
LB: page 3.
KS instead of "several", say "a number of" (doesn't provide data)
LH I wonder about the phrase looming over other houses and streets. Did they really loom over streets themselves?
Dedrun emphatically says strongly "yes" to herself
(so much for unbiased "data" she provided the Council, I guess)
MW I think it's both; I favor leaving that language in
LB Design Elements I favor changing OK This isn't Design Elements yet. but use building elements as a better term.
RE: Oh, where are you?
LH So you want to change the phrase to building elements? Fine. I lost on "streets"?
MW I've lost a few myself
LB anything else on page 3? moving on to page 4.
MW as we go through the process, number lines on future drafts David.
Atty: OK
LH KS you had something to say?
KS I suggest we .... language of sidewalks and front yard... walkway...as relates to nonvegetative provisions. keep in sidewalks, walkways, location style, entry
.... is not relevant.
LB wants to keep it
LH agrees
LB 2nd Whereas on p 4
LH down to bottom, as a result....Town Council finds that.... The Land Use Committee may have found this, but it bothers me to say the Town Council found it because that skirts on design review. Do we need it to defend this ordinance?
Attorney: it's a history of the Land Use committee's findings in its report. can delete it if you aren't sure it's true.
LB: point is the Town Council needs to find certain things to pass legislation.
Atty: but not all these partial findings. you've deleted walkway as an incentive, so you don't need it as a finding.
KS: you only have a problem with what you deleted, Lance?
LH Yes, because these are design matters, and there's no quantification.
LB: It's 100% houses face the street. (she tended to take global sweeping positions in rebuttal)
LH We say "many houses" but we can't quantify it. it's not most garages that are small and understated and behind the homes. That's not a finding of fact we could say.
KS We don't need front proch. but typical means over half and we can say that. it's relevant.
LH does it butress or make a difference in a legal case?
attorney if you treat accessories differently and want to increase accessory garages rather than placing them in the house, then an explanation is helpful.
LH but is this factually correct? over 50% of the garages are detached?
LB Jakovek and Land use Committee report talked about it. the LU Com walked around to the ll sections and looked around. they talked as a committee about what was typical. they didn't count houses and check off detached garages? (ed note: why not if LUC recommends legislation on a claim about quantitative standard w/o any counting?)
LB a general LU Study, just got a sense of the neighborhood
KS proches and entry can go. The second part should stay
LH all right
KS didn't talk about lst deletions
LH whaht's a "distinct pattern of open space between houses?"
LB in older neighborhoods set backs aren't totally built out. the finding of Roger Berliner's group and Garrett Park's finding (ed's note: how does that relate to character of Town?)
Dedrun asked to add: there's a distinct pattern of shared driveways and setbacks. The LUC found "green/close/green/close pattern" (Where? no data again)
KS Let's just say "have open space between houses."
LH I like what was just said. People haven't traditionally built to maximum and we want to keep it that way.
LH I'd have used different language, but just move on.
attorney: I've lost track.
KS and LB: take all out but leave in ..... (?)
LH lst whereas p 5, lst full paragraph. deleted impervious surface because we can't define impervious surface.
RE correct
KS instead of impervious surface, use the word nonvegetative.
LH fine
LH 2nd full paragraph Whereas
I deleted "promotion of proper storm water run off". These words aren't necessary unless you want it in to buttress something.
KS use "improved" rather than "improper"
LB we already have the water management ordinance
Atty: there's a 700 SF exemption in that ordinance so there could be large additions.
LH deal with it by nonvegetative language
LB use "improved"
LH we aren't enacting to fix storm water run off. how does this ordinance affect water run off?
LB LUC saw this as a way to decrease footprints, increase vegetative surface, and vegetative surfaces absort water run off. controlling size, nonvegetative all helps water run off.
LH if over 7000 SF addition, otherwise, water ordinance does not kick in.
KS do it as "improved", are you happy w/ "improved"?
LH yeah, yeah
LH next whereas. add consultants and residents to tip hat to Dedrun and Miche and Elise
LB Dedrun and Elise were members of LUC.
RE all sorts of people helped out
LB I'm not sure why consultants would be in there
LH Allan has done working data base and it would also include Jakovic
LB middle of p 5 say building elements rather than design elements
KS before we leave the page. in next whereas clause, say "the development could impose burdens taht might outweigh benefits"
LB this is at Davids p 5 and LH's p 6
LH that gets to yoru comments on additions. definition is unnecessary if additions is deleted because the term isn't used in Montgomery County
RE what about attics?
attorney definitions of gross floor area defines existing attic space
RE all right
LH did l/2 story come and go?
LB not there yet.
LB next area is gross floor area, my concern. p l0 of LH and the attorney's drafts both gross floor area shouldn't include l/2 stories because we're exempting attics
attorney meets definitions of 66" clearance ceiling height. irrelevant whether attic or not. not an all inclusive list, want it to be clear you are not excluding things.
LB take it out for clarity
Atty concurs. look at whether we still need a definition of l/2 story?
KS come out.
LB story is in the Code.
Jr Atty - story is elsewhere in the ordinance
LB the last definition is wall plane.
RE: ask about our favorite term, wall plane? we have been using wall plate a lot, but it's not in here.
LH I ran a word search before coming here and it's not used (in the ordinance)
LB we just used wall plate because it aws a term used by Donna ? in ???
Atty: you're regulating wall plane. Wall plate differs.
LB P 12 permit purposes. OK with that?
first provision: max height: lowered 2' from County except for established building height. good on that?
there's also an accessory building section; we didn't say garages because we can't regulate those.
p 13 on LH's draft, the wall plane height is 36' Then the FAR provision, .5 and 3000 SF building minimum. if over 12,000 SF lot, use FAR of .25 for SF over 12,000 SF. Wall plane length is 34'
MW what's the difference between a wall plane and a wall plate?
attorney - goes over in front of Council and draws a house with a roof on paper on the table. Wall plate is line supporting the roof - here to here. Wall plane is measured horizontally and vertically and here to here.
RE gets a demonstration drawing in front of him too and a restatement of the explanation.
RE says: nowi s wall plane height different if there is an indentation here?
atty yes.
RE if there's an indentation - the plate and the plane can be the same ?
atty: yes
RE it's slightly confusing. roofs by definition don't go straight up.
atty and KS and LB chime in
LB draws: "you can't see" "you don't see a peak" LH gets up to view LB's drawing. if roof had shingles here, your plane would go to there.
RE depends on gable orientation?
LB depends on that and on your view. It's not perception. It has to do with the side of the house up to the shingles.
Jr and Sr atty confer.
LH wehn I took math, planes had different definitions. Is this Q material?
RE I understand better now what wall plane means.
LB Nonvegetative surface
atty: a big gap is there between 2. and 3. because we planned to show picutres of a house on a corner lot drawing to show how this applies. we haven't got a picture yet. he gets up and draws again. A front yard is an architectural front yard. we didn't want to argue with builders or develoeprs who'd say "this is my new side yard" (Dedrun giggles) attorney draws "this is what we mean by a front with a house that faces an intersection"
LB section F is the grandfathering clause
MW we haven't reached driveways?
LB now
RE what if there's a fire or disaster. if there's a terrorist attack, is it covered?
atty: would probably include it. what if someone burns their own house to avoid these provisions? (Dedrun ejaculates "Right!")
KS that's your clause "accidental" to exclude intentional burning
attorney could include acts of war or terrorists
LH yes
MW write about calling at 3 am
RE radiation plutonium culd ruin your house
LB add attacks of war and terrorists
LB to RE that's a buzzing?
LB then this is garages?
atty: there was 1
LB garages, fine on that
4.8 that's the public right of way
LH are you at the typo?
atty that's not a typo. at one time section 4.7 had a connection
LB so we have LH's comment. moving to driveways. put section 3 back in as inadvertant error.
who should I let speak?
MW please Madam Mayor let it be me. add a section for houses on boundary streets, Bradley, E-West, connecticut. Say it's because of the burdens these residents ahve...
LB same as previous
LB whereas?
atty: wouldn't hurt to explain the different treatmetn
LB is taht it?
so David, doyou have Questions?
atty No, I ahve notes on everything. I'l circulate a draft tomorrow.
MW we look forward to ......
LB d iscuss 3/15 meeting on a Saturday. if in a.m. we can do at CCES in 3 classrooms, or maybe all purpose room. After 2 p.m. in Town Hall - 2 options.
LB to LH your ideas?
RE don't you have a schedule conflict?
LH we have a CC Historical Society tour in the afternoon. Don't go on top of theirs.
LB isn't it ongoing? If we keep it to one hour, it won't be as much.
LB should we go over my ideas?
l) open house - whatever council members can be there. allan for questions. informal.
2) more formal meeting. break out rooms with various things going on such as Council members on waht went on with this ordinance and questions about it. also green building and architecture with a local architect with building practices, ie Muse or Allen and FARS. This would be ahrder to manage and hard to predict.
LH's idea: some residents are concerned because they couldn't come on a weekday, so Saturdays gets a different group. Question 2 is what do you do in green design. This should not be a come and learn about new and green land use. We should focus on the ordinance and answer residents questions.
LH What's in the ordinance and how does it affect me? use visioning committee's break outs of several years ago. send out the educational material and the ordinance and let [people come in with questions for Council members. don't present. have a member l on each side who listens to people - be unstructured.
LB no intended as a public hearing. people say they want dialogue.
KS focusing on the purpose is important - mailing information and the ordinance summary, and also revised FAR worksheet before the meeting. have available Allen and maybe the attorney Dave.
LH also wants revised FAR worksheets to go out.
(I left for l5 minutes)
resuming:
LB we have to do a budget in April
RE I thought it was later
LH I was treasurer last year. Todd and Andy will work up a good baseline. They'll meet with you next week. they'll tell you any hot buttons such as needing another qtr million for another purple line study (facetiously).
LB or l00,000 for Christo to come and do draping. might be cheaper.
LH to KS the Treasurer this year: you'll have that to give to the Council and public
LB It'll be a work session. last year we didn't do it or the year before (MW not in some time) but we used to. Bill (Hudnut) cut it. We did it my first 2 years on the Council.
LH was not a lot of interest as I recall
MW that's changed. we need a work session. then input. we may have to go back
LB it's set up to work as a work session in March. we don't have time now. at April Council meeting we have to have a draft. that goes to the Town meeting.
MW you understand my point. At March l7th it's a work session and people can't comment. there has to be a time to comment.
LB the purpose of the Annual Mtg is a hearing on the budget.
MW you don't want to wait that long. residents want to give their point of view earlier.
LB in April we can have public comments at the April Council meeting
KS invite written comments also
KS final doesn't have to be adopted until June
LB and LH you can adopt it in May the council may discuss comments in their May meeting.
MW remind Todd of the 3/17 meeting and in April residetns should be invited to comment.
LH we may need 2 meetings in April.
KS could have further comment in April Council meeting
MW that's hard. once we have the first hearing we'll know.
discussion of Lent and Mardi Gras.
LB then I can eat chocolate and girl scout cookies
Attorney clarify exception for a driveway on a border street. is it on the architectual front or in general on either side?
RE to LB any because there is only one house at East and Bradley
RE are we gonna have them take down that post?
LB taht's Mier's
KS have a public hearing data in this week's letter. They decide on Wednesday April 2. Sat March 15 is the public "educational" meeting to "listen and explain"
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Saturday, March 1, 2008
2/28/08 Council Work session notes, part II
LH: My excel spreadsheet on FAR using Beale's 120 houses to date assumes the 3000 SF minimum and various exclusions and caps, with schemes 1-12, later 13, I also used Burda’s count new only plan and J Miche’s schemes. I also used the recent (post 1996) construction #s provided by Dedrun, a LU Committee member.
KS’s proposal – Scenario 13 of LH's chart - was drawn, she said, from the Land Use Com and Visioning Com. It preserves the character of the town and decreases incentive to tear down. She proposes a slightly higher FAR for additions, suggesting .44 or .45 generally but for additions, .50.
RE: I’m torn, conflicted. You have an elegant argument, but I can take it both ways and reach 2 conclusions. A .5 addition can have a greater appearing mass than a .44 new home.
KS: but there’s less building disruption. It’s a small incentive; additions are hidden behind the house; it preserves “character”
RE: that may not happen practically. There may be little houses with big additions with a house more out of scale. .5 isjust a bigger mass.
LH: we have 2 goals (l) increase incentives for additions, and (2) put a lid on height/mass/look and feel. The Q is, are these 2 goals related? Sometimes yes, a lot of the time, no.
Can we say additions are good and incentivize them? Wht do we want to do? Keep your eye on the ball. What’s our goal?
LH: too big, too long, unarticulated is a problem, so I like FAR. The Land Use Com had a very good idea.
RE: you can’t incentivize additions. If someone wants a house, they will tear down. We have independent minded people here.
LH & RE: people are driven by finances, taste; others think it may make no sense to do an addition on their lot.
MW: conceptually incentives are a good idea. But on the numbers, it’s not much of an incentive. On a l0,000 SF lot, it would only add 500 SF more, not much. I don’t advocate greater incentives. We need a # the community understands.
LB: I agree w/KS. .05 as an incentive for additions works. Additions work better in neighborhoods than new building. An original house, enlarged, looks better in “a group”
RE: I propose an extra .1 to give an incentive.
KS: I want it modest, not too big.
RE: the amount isn’t enough?
LB: I can support a higher FAR if we define an addition strictly, one that affects the main roof ridge line.
LB: .6 is way out of line for the character of the town. With your logic, Rob, new building would be a FAR of .4 to enable +.1 more for additions.
LB: KS’s proposal is modest and reasonable. Look at Rockville (Ed’s note: WHY Rockville, on the “character” grounds?) someone there proposes .5 if there is a design review, otherwise .35.
LH: I'm concerned about the Rockville #s
Attorney: you can’t rely on anything from Rockville because they aren’t sure what they’re counting. That affects the # significantly. There could be a 40th%, or another standard; it’s very up in the air.
LH: We’re close if we limit FAR to height/mass/bulk but not close if we are incentivizing additions. You only have a hypo re incentivizing that some think may work.
KS: it’s 3 to 2 on incentivizing the FAR; so I propose to increase the community’s character we do something more complicated (appealing to LH’s stated preference for “simplicity” thus his wish for uniform #s for new and existing housing) In the definitions we grandfather in existing attics. The new part of an attic addition would be counted in FAR. The top l/2 story in a tear down is included. Make it the same if adding on, for new part of attics only in an addition.
LH: now we are getting somewhere.
MW: I agree. Grandfather in existing attics.
LH: one community concern is pull down attics – this would resolve that issue. I liked the definition in the draft ordinance, a 6-l/2’ footprint counts if you can walk around in the attic, then it should count for all, old and new.
If someone has a house, count all attics if you can walk in them.
LB: even if you are not adding space to the attic?
LH Yes
KS grandfather in existing attic, only if you create new space should it count.
MW: FAR implementation will take a lot of measuring. We need clear rules. Grandfather in existing attics as an incentive.
RE: I’m lost here. If you have a house with an attic, it’s not in the FAR, but you don’t grandfather if you are adding onto the attic?
KS: new counts. Existing does not.
Attorney: existing as of x date ’08 for which boundaries aren’t changes. If you change the roof line, then it’s new construction. If you add onto an attic, you only count the add-on space. But if raising the room, all becomes new and all counts.
RE to KS: a builder might add on rather than tear down?
KS my concern is there be an incentive to keep houses
MW FAR concept is one people like but they worry over measurements. If we gradfather people then don’t have to worry about their attics. People don’t understand basements so no basements should be included.
LB take out basements with different rear wall plane and make it lower so full walk out basements on sloping lots aren’t too big. Grandfather existing attics.
KS: what about the wall plane height?
LB in the rear, have a 34’ wall plane.
RE to ABeale: did you measure wall planes of new homes.
AB: only 2 of the 12 new homes have basements, and only Elm St has been constructed. The one behind Lance H’s is not a basement, it’s a cellar.
RE: what was the height of that one?
LB: I meant all rears, I thought, but I hadn’t thought of this issue. There should be basement exceptions to sloping lots.
ABeale: in a survey of town homes, 203 basements or there is a question as to whether there is a basement. 100 of these have sloping lots.
MW reserve the question
LB don’t reserve
KS go forward. Leave wall plane height uniform
LB: basements are not included
Mier Wolf: I want a good plan residents understand
KS: the new FAR and definitions should be ready early next week.
KS to ABeale: please recalculate FARs if residents request that and send a new letter under a revised version of the ordinance.
ABeale: so long as we don’t have to send too many correction letters.
ABeale: can we go back to non-vegetative cover? Handout: lot coverage is the house and accessory buildings, not a driveway. Total coverage would be non-vegetative as well – a patio, walkway, and driveway.
On the handout, the Thornapple property that shows as 13% had no driveway, neither does the property labeled 12%.
The rest are in a 30-40+ range of coverage.
KS: the house on Leland, #4, it has a double driveway and a big walkway so there is 55% non-veg. coverage in front. All but 2 are over 25% and those two have no driveways.
Attorney: with corner lots, the Code says both sides abutting the street are “front” yards.
LB: so it could be 25% for each front yard, or 35% for both?
MW: Corner lots have an extra burden in the setbacks we passed in ’06. So make it for the front entrance of the house side only.
Attorney: architectural front entrance.
LB: primary entrance. Parking pods on the side make this an issue.
LH: keep it simple. The architectural front.
RE: another issue on 35%/front is whether we grandfather in old current front yards who apply for new construction.
LB: goal is to decrease anyone putting paving in the front yard.
RE: how do you know your % if you don’t ask for a permit?
LH laying bricks is like hedges and fences
KS rely on residents. Hedges have to be below 3’.
MW keep it in older resident’s comfort zone; I can see the point to grandfather in existing front yards, I support that
LH grandfathering is a cheap way to get around it. It doesn’t address the problem.
KS what do you mean by grandfather?
RE: doesn’t apply to existing houses, only an increase during doing an addition
LB to RE: I’m frustrated (with you). you didn’t want to do it earlier, and you do want to grandfather now.
RE: I’m flexible. These work sessions are to talk to each other, change our minds.
MW this is America
RE practicality: people want to lay a few stones, make a little terrace, they don’t know if they are out of compliance with the rules.
MW and RE: grandfather
Rest say no
LH: I want it simple, no grandfathering.
A Beale handed out his printing of the 15 new since setbacks and proposed homes (a list that has grown from 12 to 15). There is cacophany as the group scrutinizes. # lot coverage of front yard ranged from .12 to .55. Beale pointed out one .55 front yard % coverage has a larger lot at 20,000 SF.
MW: KS and I are thinking #s. KS proposes .30. It works reasonable here. At .4, the “look of the house” (from the separate pictures list) is less tasteful.
RE: .35
LB .32 going once
RE only one house with a driveway is .30; the others have no driveway.
MW .35 is OK.
MW let’s deal with it now.
LH: what about what ABeale said about measuring?
KS that won’t apply to existing homes unless they alter the front.
MW if we instruct you, you will find a way?
ABeale: we’d do it from the plans. Getting it from the field is challenging.
LH I’m worried too much is in this.
LB the ordinance is really simplified. I’m getting emails that say don’t throw out the baby with the bath.
Council OKs 35%.
MW LH has a good point. This will play out with new information or an uproar.
RE clarifies: l house at .55 is on a border street. Do we deal with this by an exception? I favor a blanket exception for border streets (LB does too). Some lots are double car front garages and will shift anyway.
MW on record that border streets are not included, and they’ve been articulate with us.
KS concurs. Are West and 46th border streets? No, Brandley, Connecticut, East-West only.
RE: eliminate the whole lot. Focus on the front appearance. A 40% total is not needed.
MW agrees
KS says OK, we’ll pass for now, but I have this and many environmental concerns for future ordinances to return to.
Council returns to a FAR #
KS: .44 or .45 “based on data” is in the 90th%.
LB: agrees
LH I’m against .44 or .45 I want at least 90% in compliance. .44 is at 13% and over the threshold. Beale’s data base of 120 homes surveyed to date are S-8, counting attics and basements for now. (.5 excludes basements but counts attics in S-3). Using that (S-2), only 3 of 120 houses are over the new far…old and new homes.
KS the data could have a heavier weighting towards new construction because Beale put in the new construction automatically. If it’s unweighted, then probably .45 would get to your l0% figure.
RE the l5 new homes, the far is 80% are nonconforming at .45. 33% are nonconforming if it is .5.
KS My perspective is the reverse. If 2/3rds of the new homes since the setbacks could be built at a .5, then the FAR should be .45.
LB I agree with that. Refers to Jacoviak’s small sample, but Jancoviak looked at large new homes. There was one at .46. Your house, Lance, was the only suitable building.
RE: in 7 of the 12 new homes pictured on the handout, the FAR is over .55. that includes attics. New attics count. None have basements.
RE waves the pictures of these 12 new homes: “Everyone in Town wants new zoning and land use due to these 12 houses”
LB I like the home at 44th which is at .46 near Lance
RE: It looks better because of its height. It is lower than neighborhood, not the FAR. It is shorter than neighbors, and the garage is much smaller in the back due to the new setbacks.
LB disagrees. It’s also attic size
MW I have a Q regarding statistics. KS says .45 because of Beale’s 120 houses – 90% would be in compliance at .45 if we excluded the 12 new houses. Lees Hartman has looked at Allen’s data. Dedrun’s data from last week from the tax records and Beale’s data showed 90% comply with a .45. Her data was original houses and additions, not tear downs.
Dedrun – Beale’s 123 homes last night I worked out .46 FAR fits 90%, including or excluding new, but not including basements or attics. If you include new construction, it would “pump it up”
LH no basements only (count attics) – 13% is above at .45 of Beale’s 123 which is weighted towards larger homes.
KS we’re grandfathering existing attics
LB: what does weighting affect?
LH 16 don’t conform if .45. ll are not new, only 5 are new. we are defining new as more recent than l996.
Dedrun – 16, very large additions or tear downs of the 123 don’t conform or are new.
MW in a 7000 SF lot, a .45 FAR = a 3150 SF house. A .5 FAR is a 3500 SF house.
If it’s only 350 SF we’r talking about, it seems like a close calculation to me. .5 is only a few hundred extra SF with breathing room and is more acceptable to the community. We’re not squeezing them to .45. At .5, we are close to l0% nonconformance.
RE: it’s also in context of l0’ driveway restriction, l car garage restriction in front, decreasing the height to 28’, a wall plane restriction, an articulation restriction. That’s a lot of regulation, also 35% non-vegetative cover in front max. This ordinance’s impact will be significant.
MW supports .5 FAR and controlling the height, wall plane, etc as major controls.
LH .5 also
RE .5 also
LB and KS .45.
KS a related question is the coverage – the maximum on large lots
KS raises the cap to 12,000 for proportionality
LB wants to regulate the Li property
MW will differ under the new ordinance
LB won’t affect the Li property. There still could be big houses because those are big lots. A 8000 SF house is possible.
RE 7500 SF if there is a l5,000 SF lot.
MW could be l0,000 SF
KS increase the cap to 12,000 SF then max will be a 6000 SF house
MW there’s a problem. We shouldn’t pass a law based on the Li property experience some folks have 20,000, 30,000 SF lo9ts. Think about the maximum SF of a house in Town, we’re pretty generous.
KS over 12,000 SF lot, different % applies to lot size over 12,000 SF up to a 6,000 SF house. This is consistent with J Miche’s suggestions.
On a 13,000 SF lot, a 6200 SF house; on 14,000 SF lot, 6,400 SF house
RE where does 12000 come from?
KS from Dedrun (the LU committee member, a resident). 40% of lots over l0,000 are between l0 to 12,000 SF in size.
LB l00 lots or l0% of lots are over 12,000 SF
42 lots are over l5,000 SF. L7 lots are over 20,000 SF. It’s common, most places make FARS contingent on lot sizes.
MW the argument is big lots should have big houses, but that doesn’t work in our community.
RE why not l5,000 SF as a cut off?
LB: we’ve gone through the ordinance now. Next work session we should do the ordinance itself. Then the hearing.
We can hash this # out later. Come to decisions later.
LH: what do you mean work on the ordinance itself.
KS read the draft l day in advance and go over it next week
LH .25 over 12,000 and RE supports that too
KS, LB want .2 over 12,000 SF. 6000 SF lots count as 6000 SF.
KS lots under 5,000 SF?
Attorney: they get the minimum.
MW Joe’s point on infill development. The vvocabulary in the draft uses lot coverage. It starts at 30% and scales down. H ow does that fit? The Council will vote in May.
LH S4 or S11 on my excel chart. Note Sll applies to new 15 houses. 93% don’t make it under our FAR. In S-4 with the data base of 123 Beal home surveys, 8% are non-conforming if we have a .5 FAR, and the Berliner draft on top.
LH: Jakovic said the confluence of our FAR and the County footprint became problematic at a 30% County footprint.
LB on new houses, at least l0 were within a point or 2 of new County figure. 3 were OK. 3 were hopeless.
KS’s proposal – Scenario 13 of LH's chart - was drawn, she said, from the Land Use Com and Visioning Com. It preserves the character of the town and decreases incentive to tear down. She proposes a slightly higher FAR for additions, suggesting .44 or .45 generally but for additions, .50.
RE: I’m torn, conflicted. You have an elegant argument, but I can take it both ways and reach 2 conclusions. A .5 addition can have a greater appearing mass than a .44 new home.
KS: but there’s less building disruption. It’s a small incentive; additions are hidden behind the house; it preserves “character”
RE: that may not happen practically. There may be little houses with big additions with a house more out of scale. .5 isjust a bigger mass.
LH: we have 2 goals (l) increase incentives for additions, and (2) put a lid on height/mass/look and feel. The Q is, are these 2 goals related? Sometimes yes, a lot of the time, no.
Can we say additions are good and incentivize them? Wht do we want to do? Keep your eye on the ball. What’s our goal?
LH: too big, too long, unarticulated is a problem, so I like FAR. The Land Use Com had a very good idea.
RE: you can’t incentivize additions. If someone wants a house, they will tear down. We have independent minded people here.
LH & RE: people are driven by finances, taste; others think it may make no sense to do an addition on their lot.
MW: conceptually incentives are a good idea. But on the numbers, it’s not much of an incentive. On a l0,000 SF lot, it would only add 500 SF more, not much. I don’t advocate greater incentives. We need a # the community understands.
LB: I agree w/KS. .05 as an incentive for additions works. Additions work better in neighborhoods than new building. An original house, enlarged, looks better in “a group”
RE: I propose an extra .1 to give an incentive.
KS: I want it modest, not too big.
RE: the amount isn’t enough?
LB: I can support a higher FAR if we define an addition strictly, one that affects the main roof ridge line.
LB: .6 is way out of line for the character of the town. With your logic, Rob, new building would be a FAR of .4 to enable +.1 more for additions.
LB: KS’s proposal is modest and reasonable. Look at Rockville (Ed’s note: WHY Rockville, on the “character” grounds?) someone there proposes .5 if there is a design review, otherwise .35.
LH: I'm concerned about the Rockville #s
Attorney: you can’t rely on anything from Rockville because they aren’t sure what they’re counting. That affects the # significantly. There could be a 40th%, or another standard; it’s very up in the air.
LH: We’re close if we limit FAR to height/mass/bulk but not close if we are incentivizing additions. You only have a hypo re incentivizing that some think may work.
KS: it’s 3 to 2 on incentivizing the FAR; so I propose to increase the community’s character we do something more complicated (appealing to LH’s stated preference for “simplicity” thus his wish for uniform #s for new and existing housing) In the definitions we grandfather in existing attics. The new part of an attic addition would be counted in FAR. The top l/2 story in a tear down is included. Make it the same if adding on, for new part of attics only in an addition.
LH: now we are getting somewhere.
MW: I agree. Grandfather in existing attics.
LH: one community concern is pull down attics – this would resolve that issue. I liked the definition in the draft ordinance, a 6-l/2’ footprint counts if you can walk around in the attic, then it should count for all, old and new.
If someone has a house, count all attics if you can walk in them.
LB: even if you are not adding space to the attic?
LH Yes
KS grandfather in existing attic, only if you create new space should it count.
MW: FAR implementation will take a lot of measuring. We need clear rules. Grandfather in existing attics as an incentive.
RE: I’m lost here. If you have a house with an attic, it’s not in the FAR, but you don’t grandfather if you are adding onto the attic?
KS: new counts. Existing does not.
Attorney: existing as of x date ’08 for which boundaries aren’t changes. If you change the roof line, then it’s new construction. If you add onto an attic, you only count the add-on space. But if raising the room, all becomes new and all counts.
RE to KS: a builder might add on rather than tear down?
KS my concern is there be an incentive to keep houses
MW FAR concept is one people like but they worry over measurements. If we gradfather people then don’t have to worry about their attics. People don’t understand basements so no basements should be included.
LB take out basements with different rear wall plane and make it lower so full walk out basements on sloping lots aren’t too big. Grandfather existing attics.
KS: what about the wall plane height?
LB in the rear, have a 34’ wall plane.
RE to ABeale: did you measure wall planes of new homes.
AB: only 2 of the 12 new homes have basements, and only Elm St has been constructed. The one behind Lance H’s is not a basement, it’s a cellar.
RE: what was the height of that one?
LB: I meant all rears, I thought, but I hadn’t thought of this issue. There should be basement exceptions to sloping lots.
ABeale: in a survey of town homes, 203 basements or there is a question as to whether there is a basement. 100 of these have sloping lots.
MW reserve the question
LB don’t reserve
KS go forward. Leave wall plane height uniform
LB: basements are not included
Mier Wolf: I want a good plan residents understand
KS: the new FAR and definitions should be ready early next week.
KS to ABeale: please recalculate FARs if residents request that and send a new letter under a revised version of the ordinance.
ABeale: so long as we don’t have to send too many correction letters.
ABeale: can we go back to non-vegetative cover? Handout: lot coverage is the house and accessory buildings, not a driveway. Total coverage would be non-vegetative as well – a patio, walkway, and driveway.
On the handout, the Thornapple property that shows as 13% had no driveway, neither does the property labeled 12%.
The rest are in a 30-40+ range of coverage.
KS: the house on Leland, #4, it has a double driveway and a big walkway so there is 55% non-veg. coverage in front. All but 2 are over 25% and those two have no driveways.
Attorney: with corner lots, the Code says both sides abutting the street are “front” yards.
LB: so it could be 25% for each front yard, or 35% for both?
MW: Corner lots have an extra burden in the setbacks we passed in ’06. So make it for the front entrance of the house side only.
Attorney: architectural front entrance.
LB: primary entrance. Parking pods on the side make this an issue.
LH: keep it simple. The architectural front.
RE: another issue on 35%/front is whether we grandfather in old current front yards who apply for new construction.
LB: goal is to decrease anyone putting paving in the front yard.
RE: how do you know your % if you don’t ask for a permit?
LH laying bricks is like hedges and fences
KS rely on residents. Hedges have to be below 3’.
MW keep it in older resident’s comfort zone; I can see the point to grandfather in existing front yards, I support that
LH grandfathering is a cheap way to get around it. It doesn’t address the problem.
KS what do you mean by grandfather?
RE: doesn’t apply to existing houses, only an increase during doing an addition
LB to RE: I’m frustrated (with you). you didn’t want to do it earlier, and you do want to grandfather now.
RE: I’m flexible. These work sessions are to talk to each other, change our minds.
MW this is America
RE practicality: people want to lay a few stones, make a little terrace, they don’t know if they are out of compliance with the rules.
MW and RE: grandfather
Rest say no
LH: I want it simple, no grandfathering.
A Beale handed out his printing of the 15 new since setbacks and proposed homes (a list that has grown from 12 to 15). There is cacophany as the group scrutinizes. # lot coverage of front yard ranged from .12 to .55. Beale pointed out one .55 front yard % coverage has a larger lot at 20,000 SF.
MW: KS and I are thinking #s. KS proposes .30. It works reasonable here. At .4, the “look of the house” (from the separate pictures list) is less tasteful.
RE: .35
LB .32 going once
RE only one house with a driveway is .30; the others have no driveway.
MW .35 is OK.
MW let’s deal with it now.
LH: what about what ABeale said about measuring?
KS that won’t apply to existing homes unless they alter the front.
MW if we instruct you, you will find a way?
ABeale: we’d do it from the plans. Getting it from the field is challenging.
LH I’m worried too much is in this.
LB the ordinance is really simplified. I’m getting emails that say don’t throw out the baby with the bath.
Council OKs 35%.
MW LH has a good point. This will play out with new information or an uproar.
RE clarifies: l house at .55 is on a border street. Do we deal with this by an exception? I favor a blanket exception for border streets (LB does too). Some lots are double car front garages and will shift anyway.
MW on record that border streets are not included, and they’ve been articulate with us.
KS concurs. Are West and 46th border streets? No, Brandley, Connecticut, East-West only.
RE: eliminate the whole lot. Focus on the front appearance. A 40% total is not needed.
MW agrees
KS says OK, we’ll pass for now, but I have this and many environmental concerns for future ordinances to return to.
Council returns to a FAR #
KS: .44 or .45 “based on data” is in the 90th%.
LB: agrees
LH I’m against .44 or .45 I want at least 90% in compliance. .44 is at 13% and over the threshold. Beale’s data base of 120 homes surveyed to date are S-8, counting attics and basements for now. (.5 excludes basements but counts attics in S-3). Using that (S-2), only 3 of 120 houses are over the new far…old and new homes.
KS the data could have a heavier weighting towards new construction because Beale put in the new construction automatically. If it’s unweighted, then probably .45 would get to your l0% figure.
RE the l5 new homes, the far is 80% are nonconforming at .45. 33% are nonconforming if it is .5.
KS My perspective is the reverse. If 2/3rds of the new homes since the setbacks could be built at a .5, then the FAR should be .45.
LB I agree with that. Refers to Jacoviak’s small sample, but Jancoviak looked at large new homes. There was one at .46. Your house, Lance, was the only suitable building.
RE: in 7 of the 12 new homes pictured on the handout, the FAR is over .55. that includes attics. New attics count. None have basements.
RE waves the pictures of these 12 new homes: “Everyone in Town wants new zoning and land use due to these 12 houses”
LB I like the home at 44th which is at .46 near Lance
RE: It looks better because of its height. It is lower than neighborhood, not the FAR. It is shorter than neighbors, and the garage is much smaller in the back due to the new setbacks.
LB disagrees. It’s also attic size
MW I have a Q regarding statistics. KS says .45 because of Beale’s 120 houses – 90% would be in compliance at .45 if we excluded the 12 new houses. Lees Hartman has looked at Allen’s data. Dedrun’s data from last week from the tax records and Beale’s data showed 90% comply with a .45. Her data was original houses and additions, not tear downs.
Dedrun – Beale’s 123 homes last night I worked out .46 FAR fits 90%, including or excluding new, but not including basements or attics. If you include new construction, it would “pump it up”
LH no basements only (count attics) – 13% is above at .45 of Beale’s 123 which is weighted towards larger homes.
KS we’re grandfathering existing attics
LB: what does weighting affect?
LH 16 don’t conform if .45. ll are not new, only 5 are new. we are defining new as more recent than l996.
Dedrun – 16, very large additions or tear downs of the 123 don’t conform or are new.
MW in a 7000 SF lot, a .45 FAR = a 3150 SF house. A .5 FAR is a 3500 SF house.
If it’s only 350 SF we’r talking about, it seems like a close calculation to me. .5 is only a few hundred extra SF with breathing room and is more acceptable to the community. We’re not squeezing them to .45. At .5, we are close to l0% nonconformance.
RE: it’s also in context of l0’ driveway restriction, l car garage restriction in front, decreasing the height to 28’, a wall plane restriction, an articulation restriction. That’s a lot of regulation, also 35% non-vegetative cover in front max. This ordinance’s impact will be significant.
MW supports .5 FAR and controlling the height, wall plane, etc as major controls.
LH .5 also
RE .5 also
LB and KS .45.
KS a related question is the coverage – the maximum on large lots
KS raises the cap to 12,000 for proportionality
LB wants to regulate the Li property
MW will differ under the new ordinance
LB won’t affect the Li property. There still could be big houses because those are big lots. A 8000 SF house is possible.
RE 7500 SF if there is a l5,000 SF lot.
MW could be l0,000 SF
KS increase the cap to 12,000 SF then max will be a 6000 SF house
MW there’s a problem. We shouldn’t pass a law based on the Li property experience some folks have 20,000, 30,000 SF lo9ts. Think about the maximum SF of a house in Town, we’re pretty generous.
KS over 12,000 SF lot, different % applies to lot size over 12,000 SF up to a 6,000 SF house. This is consistent with J Miche’s suggestions.
On a 13,000 SF lot, a 6200 SF house; on 14,000 SF lot, 6,400 SF house
RE where does 12000 come from?
KS from Dedrun (the LU committee member, a resident). 40% of lots over l0,000 are between l0 to 12,000 SF in size.
LB l00 lots or l0% of lots are over 12,000 SF
42 lots are over l5,000 SF. L7 lots are over 20,000 SF. It’s common, most places make FARS contingent on lot sizes.
MW the argument is big lots should have big houses, but that doesn’t work in our community.
RE why not l5,000 SF as a cut off?
LB: we’ve gone through the ordinance now. Next work session we should do the ordinance itself. Then the hearing.
We can hash this # out later. Come to decisions later.
LH: what do you mean work on the ordinance itself.
KS read the draft l day in advance and go over it next week
LH .25 over 12,000 and RE supports that too
KS, LB want .2 over 12,000 SF. 6000 SF lots count as 6000 SF.
KS lots under 5,000 SF?
Attorney: they get the minimum.
MW Joe’s point on infill development. The vvocabulary in the draft uses lot coverage. It starts at 30% and scales down. H ow does that fit? The Council will vote in May.
LH S4 or S11 on my excel chart. Note Sll applies to new 15 houses. 93% don’t make it under our FAR. In S-4 with the data base of 123 Beal home surveys, 8% are non-conforming if we have a .5 FAR, and the Berliner draft on top.
LH: Jakovic said the confluence of our FAR and the County footprint became problematic at a 30% County footprint.
LB on new houses, at least l0 were within a point or 2 of new County figure. 3 were OK. 3 were hopeless.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Notes from Council work session 2/28/08, part I
2/28/08 Council Work Session
Late entrance, therefore these Notes begin after agenda’s
I. Mandatory v Incentives
II. Mandatory
A. Height B. Front loading garages C. Driveways
The work session was notable for Council members relying on their own admittedly fly-by-night research to provide data: a compilation of numbers said to be data by Dedrun, a resident and member of the Land Use Committee, who herself relied on the Town’s new contractor Allan Beale’s measurement of 120 self-selected (by owners) houses and lots; an excel spreadsheet hastily drafted from the same underlying numbers by Lance Hoffman (aka LH); and Linna Barnes’ (LB) “googling”. LB presented a self-described “cursory” study of hers on line, which she further characterized as “googling the web” to seek out any communities with % of non-vegetative surface regulations as a method of regulatory control. LH’s “excel” spread sheet presented scenarios 1-12, later 13, which attempted to discover with FARs of .44 or .45 or .50, with exclusions – or not, and with caps and minimums, or not, and with a “County Berliner” overlay or not, how many “recent” (defined as 1997ff, and data coming from the resident Dedrun’s assemblage of #s, which in turn relied in part on Beale’s 120 surveyed homes) homes would be “non-conforming” with that variation of the ordinance, with his seeking a number NTE l0% nonconforming. Such spreadsheets as LH’s are only as reliable or useful as the underlying data, which came from a resident strongly biased in favor of a restrictive FAR ordinance and also came from “happenstance” as to houses selected for the pot merely by homeowner’s requests.
The work session was also notable for two events. At one point, responding to LB, RE vigorously waved in the air the 2-age Beale list of new homes since the setbacks, notable mostly for their pictures as FARs are mostly in the .4 and .5 range, and vigorously said “Everyone in Town wants new zoning and Land Use regulations due to these twelve houses!” Nothing could be farther from the truth. Most of residents don’t know that these houses have been built since the setbacks, where they are, or much else about them. It is true two of them do have paved driveways in front sufficient to park two cars off street. I like that; RE doesn’t. RE pointed out 7 of 12 have FARs of over .55, including attics—none have basements so all space counts (actually one is exactly .55).
This startling expression closely followed LB’s own perturbed ejaculation directed at RE, “I’m frustrated” (with you). “You didn’t want to grandfather earlier but you do now,” with reference to RE’s proposal that existing homes be “grandfathered” as to non-vegetative front yard cover NTE 25%. His concern was that residents of existing homes could not “lay bricks” or “edge gardens w/paving stones” if they were close to the 25% coverage mark without applying for a building permit which would trigger the front lot surface being measured, as reasonable concern as the Contractor, AB, said actual measurement in the field is difficult as differentiated from pulling from new housing plans. KS wanted homeowners to just be subject to “voluntary compliance”, “like the hedge height limit”. (note from homeowner, WHAT hedge height limit? Did I hear 3’ from someone on Council?) I just planted hollies now 6’ apart. When they grow together I have to get out my tape measure?
My Notes:
LB: Hyattsville has a 25% front impervious limit passing in 2004. (My Q: just WHAT is the character of the Town Hyattsville that CC4 is trying to replicate?) She asked Ted to find out “How’s it working?” (but not in time for a report tonight. No matter, they passed the 25% front limit anyway without any anecdotal report from Hyattsville as to “how’s it working?”)
LB further said she had “googled the web” and gotten “hits in California” (town character, guys, this is not close to HOME). She also said Rockville is considering a limit focusing on keeping trees and green space. (Hello, we’re getting even further from Town Character here.)
LB further said “they want a 40% front yard”. (LB, who is “they” here?)
LB then referred to “my cursory study”
RE “could staff look at new houses in the last 2 years and identify the % of nonvegetation surface3 in the front yards? Didn’t I ask that last session? (LB didn’t remember such a request.)
LB: “What do we do regarding border streets? “If we have just one curb cut, some border streets need two curb cuts.”
MW: “generally, I favor limitations, not sure of way to create them.” “We were working toward a goal of reducing bulk/mass/density, and this is an add-on.” Should it be in other legislation with all the other environmental items? That’s versus the question of “why wait?”
MW: “question 2”, “how do we measure coverage simply?”
KS: using the 40% rule, it’s more difficult to measure. 25% in the front should be easier.” (didn’t even attempt to answer Mier’s question)
“put the 25% restriction with this ordinance to address double parking pads in front – this restriction ties in with the ordinance” (notice, very savvy of KS to appeal to RE’s significant desire to Get Rid of double Parking in Front)
“This is complementary to the l0’ driveway part of the ordinance”
MW: Get Allen now! (meaning Beal, who’d gone to Xerox something else the Council had requested)
RE: the “conception” is “nice secondary to tieing in with a l0’ driveway” (Notice, he “bit” on the carrot)
But 25%, isn’t it arbitrary, should it be 24% or 29%?
MW: speaking to Allen Beale - The question relates to impervious surfaces in the front yard discussed at the last meeting. It’s not based on numbers, this is just conceptually: “What is the ease of measuring 25% non-vegetative front yards versus 40% overall?”
AB: there are a “couple of challenges”( l) what’s on the plan may not be what’s really built out there. I’ve used the plans, and it’s easier. Where a plan says impervious, I’ve cited it, but (2) how do you determine what’s impervious is the question?” (notice: in response to Beal’s question #2, neither the Council nor a “surface consultant” nor an “attorney” offered Beal guidance on “what counts”)
MW: “You’re doing the Town?” (You mean the Council does not know what their contractor AB is measuring? Where are the specs to which he is working?)
AB: “Now, only the 15 new houses in front”
LH: Can you add?
AB: Nonreg is less linear, arcs, radius. “In the field it’d be much more difficult”
LB: “is it a problem (to measure) if only new construction has limits on non-vegetative fronts?” (notice, in the new ordinance version, they limited both new and old) “Can it be retroactive?” (notice, LB ejaculated “I’m frustrated” when later RE proposed it not be made retroactive)
Lawyer: “only prospective”
MW : “with additions?
Attorney: only if additions affect the front yard. No adding parking pods in front in a front yard addition if you are at 25% lot coverage. This does not apply to resurfacing, only if a homeowner widens or lengthens a driveway.
RE: connecting stones?
Ted: No
RE: undr this order?
Ted: No
LB: a rock?
RE: How does Hyattsville do it? (remember, no one has asked that Q of Hyattsville, and their Town character is not our Town character)
Do they have to get a permit in Hyatttsville?
LB: Ted will find out
RE: implementation could be trickier than we think
MW: we need more information
AB: do you want to see the numbers?
LB: limiting non-vegetation to 40%. Skip that for now. We can come back to 40%. Let’s start with passing 25% and move on to 40% later.
LB: the Q is what FAR levels should be?
LH: I have suggestions, referring to his many emails. He put together an excel sheet, taking the 120 houses AB has given FAR #s for in response to homeowners’ individual requests to date.
rest to come, part II
resident, Rose Miller
Late entrance, therefore these Notes begin after agenda’s
I. Mandatory v Incentives
II. Mandatory
A. Height B. Front loading garages C. Driveways
The work session was notable for Council members relying on their own admittedly fly-by-night research to provide data: a compilation of numbers said to be data by Dedrun, a resident and member of the Land Use Committee, who herself relied on the Town’s new contractor Allan Beale’s measurement of 120 self-selected (by owners) houses and lots; an excel spreadsheet hastily drafted from the same underlying numbers by Lance Hoffman (aka LH); and Linna Barnes’ (LB) “googling”. LB presented a self-described “cursory” study of hers on line, which she further characterized as “googling the web” to seek out any communities with % of non-vegetative surface regulations as a method of regulatory control. LH’s “excel” spread sheet presented scenarios 1-12, later 13, which attempted to discover with FARs of .44 or .45 or .50, with exclusions – or not, and with caps and minimums, or not, and with a “County Berliner” overlay or not, how many “recent” (defined as 1997ff, and data coming from the resident Dedrun’s assemblage of #s, which in turn relied in part on Beale’s 120 surveyed homes) homes would be “non-conforming” with that variation of the ordinance, with his seeking a number NTE l0% nonconforming. Such spreadsheets as LH’s are only as reliable or useful as the underlying data, which came from a resident strongly biased in favor of a restrictive FAR ordinance and also came from “happenstance” as to houses selected for the pot merely by homeowner’s requests.
The work session was also notable for two events. At one point, responding to LB, RE vigorously waved in the air the 2-age Beale list of new homes since the setbacks, notable mostly for their pictures as FARs are mostly in the .4 and .5 range, and vigorously said “Everyone in Town wants new zoning and Land Use regulations due to these twelve houses!” Nothing could be farther from the truth. Most of residents don’t know that these houses have been built since the setbacks, where they are, or much else about them. It is true two of them do have paved driveways in front sufficient to park two cars off street. I like that; RE doesn’t. RE pointed out 7 of 12 have FARs of over .55, including attics—none have basements so all space counts (actually one is exactly .55).
This startling expression closely followed LB’s own perturbed ejaculation directed at RE, “I’m frustrated” (with you). “You didn’t want to grandfather earlier but you do now,” with reference to RE’s proposal that existing homes be “grandfathered” as to non-vegetative front yard cover NTE 25%. His concern was that residents of existing homes could not “lay bricks” or “edge gardens w/paving stones” if they were close to the 25% coverage mark without applying for a building permit which would trigger the front lot surface being measured, as reasonable concern as the Contractor, AB, said actual measurement in the field is difficult as differentiated from pulling from new housing plans. KS wanted homeowners to just be subject to “voluntary compliance”, “like the hedge height limit”. (note from homeowner, WHAT hedge height limit? Did I hear 3’ from someone on Council?) I just planted hollies now 6’ apart. When they grow together I have to get out my tape measure?
My Notes:
LB: Hyattsville has a 25% front impervious limit passing in 2004. (My Q: just WHAT is the character of the Town Hyattsville that CC4 is trying to replicate?) She asked Ted to find out “How’s it working?” (but not in time for a report tonight. No matter, they passed the 25% front limit anyway without any anecdotal report from Hyattsville as to “how’s it working?”)
LB further said she had “googled the web” and gotten “hits in California” (town character, guys, this is not close to HOME). She also said Rockville is considering a limit focusing on keeping trees and green space. (Hello, we’re getting even further from Town Character here.)
LB further said “they want a 40% front yard”. (LB, who is “they” here?)
LB then referred to “my cursory study”
RE “could staff look at new houses in the last 2 years and identify the % of nonvegetation surface3 in the front yards? Didn’t I ask that last session? (LB didn’t remember such a request.)
LB: “What do we do regarding border streets? “If we have just one curb cut, some border streets need two curb cuts.”
MW: “generally, I favor limitations, not sure of way to create them.” “We were working toward a goal of reducing bulk/mass/density, and this is an add-on.” Should it be in other legislation with all the other environmental items? That’s versus the question of “why wait?”
MW: “question 2”, “how do we measure coverage simply?”
KS: using the 40% rule, it’s more difficult to measure. 25% in the front should be easier.” (didn’t even attempt to answer Mier’s question)
“put the 25% restriction with this ordinance to address double parking pads in front – this restriction ties in with the ordinance” (notice, very savvy of KS to appeal to RE’s significant desire to Get Rid of double Parking in Front)
“This is complementary to the l0’ driveway part of the ordinance”
MW: Get Allen now! (meaning Beal, who’d gone to Xerox something else the Council had requested)
RE: the “conception” is “nice secondary to tieing in with a l0’ driveway” (Notice, he “bit” on the carrot)
But 25%, isn’t it arbitrary, should it be 24% or 29%?
MW: speaking to Allen Beale - The question relates to impervious surfaces in the front yard discussed at the last meeting. It’s not based on numbers, this is just conceptually: “What is the ease of measuring 25% non-vegetative front yards versus 40% overall?”
AB: there are a “couple of challenges”( l) what’s on the plan may not be what’s really built out there. I’ve used the plans, and it’s easier. Where a plan says impervious, I’ve cited it, but (2) how do you determine what’s impervious is the question?” (notice: in response to Beal’s question #2, neither the Council nor a “surface consultant” nor an “attorney” offered Beal guidance on “what counts”)
MW: “You’re doing the Town?” (You mean the Council does not know what their contractor AB is measuring? Where are the specs to which he is working?)
AB: “Now, only the 15 new houses in front”
LH: Can you add?
AB: Nonreg is less linear, arcs, radius. “In the field it’d be much more difficult”
LB: “is it a problem (to measure) if only new construction has limits on non-vegetative fronts?” (notice, in the new ordinance version, they limited both new and old) “Can it be retroactive?” (notice, LB ejaculated “I’m frustrated” when later RE proposed it not be made retroactive)
Lawyer: “only prospective”
MW : “with additions?
Attorney: only if additions affect the front yard. No adding parking pods in front in a front yard addition if you are at 25% lot coverage. This does not apply to resurfacing, only if a homeowner widens or lengthens a driveway.
RE: connecting stones?
Ted: No
RE: undr this order?
Ted: No
LB: a rock?
RE: How does Hyattsville do it? (remember, no one has asked that Q of Hyattsville, and their Town character is not our Town character)
Do they have to get a permit in Hyatttsville?
LB: Ted will find out
RE: implementation could be trickier than we think
MW: we need more information
AB: do you want to see the numbers?
LB: limiting non-vegetation to 40%. Skip that for now. We can come back to 40%. Let’s start with passing 25% and move on to 40% later.
LB: the Q is what FAR levels should be?
LH: I have suggestions, referring to his many emails. He put together an excel sheet, taking the 120 houses AB has given FAR #s for in response to homeowners’ individual requests to date.
rest to come, part II
resident, Rose Miller
Notes from Council work session 2/28/08, part I
2/28/08 Council Work Session
Late entrance, therefore these Notes begin after agenda’s
I. Mandatory v Incentives
II. Mandatory
A. Height B. Front loading garages C. Driveways
The work session was notable for Council members relying on their own admittedly fly-by-night research to provide data: a compilation of numbers by Dedrun, a resident and member of the Land Use Committee, who herself relied on the Town’s new contractor Allan Beale’s measurement of 120 self-selected (by owners) houses and lots; an excel spreadsheet hastily drafted from the same underlying numbers by Lance Hoffman (aka LH); and Linna Barnes’ (LB) “googling”. LB presented a self-described “cursory” study of hers on line, which she further characterized as “googling the web” to seek out any communities with % of non-vegetative surface regulations as a method of regulatory control. LH’s “excel” spread sheet presented scenarios 1-12, later 13, which attempted to discover with FARs of .44 or .45 or .50, with exclusions or not, and with caps and minimums or not, and with a “County Berliner” overlay or not, how many “recent” (defined as 1997ff, and data coming from the resident Dedrun’s assemblage of #s, which in turn relied in part on Beale’s 120 surveyed homes) homes would be “non-conforming” with that variation of the ordinance, with LH seeking a number NTE l0% nonconforming. Such spreadsheets as LH’s are only as reliable or useful as the underlying data, which came from a resident and also came from “happenstance” as to houses selected for the pot merely by homeowner’s requests.
The work session was notable for two events. Responding to LB, RE vigorously waved in the air the 2-page Beale list of new homes since the setbacks, valued by the Council for their pictures (into which at one point they fell into a cacaphony of "viewing", as FARs are chiefly in the .4 and .5 range. Waving the pictures, Rob vigorously said “Everyone in Town wants new zoning and Land Use regulations due to these twelve houses!” Most residents don't know that these houses have been built since the setbacks, where they are, or much else about them. 2 of them do have paved driveways in front sufficient to park two cars off street. I like that; RE doesn’t. RE pointed out 7 of 12 have FARs of over .55, including attics—none have basements so all space counts (actually one is exactly .55).
This startling expression closely followed LB’s own perturbed ejaculation directed at RE, “I’m frustrated” (with you). “You didn’t want to grandfather earlier but you do now,” with reference to RE’s proposal that existing homes be “grandfathered” as to non-vegetative front yard cover NTE 25%. His concern was that residents of existing homes could not “lay bricks” or “edge gardens w/paving stones” if they were close to the 25% coverage mark without applying for a building permit which would trigger the front lot surface being measured, a reasonable concern as the Contractor, ABeale, said actual measurement in the field is difficult as differentiated from pulling from new housing plans. KS wanted homeowners to just be subject to “voluntary compliance”, “like the hedge height limit”. (note from homeowner, WHAT hedge height limit? Did I hear 3’ from someone on Council?) I just planted hollies now 6’ apart. When they grow together I have to get out my tape measure?
My Notes:
LB: Hyattsville has a 25% front impervious limit passing in 2004. (My Q: just WHAT is the character of the Town Hyattsville that CC4 is trying to replicate?) She asked Ted to find out “How’s it working?” (but not in time for a report tonight. No matter, they passed the 25% front limit anyway without any anecdotal report from Hyattsville as to “how’s it working?”)
LB further said she had “googled the web” and gotten “hits in California” (town character, guys, this is not close to HOME). She also said Rockville is considering a limit focusing on keeping trees and green space. (Hello, we’re getting even further from Town Character here.)
LB further said “they want a 40% front yard”. (LB, who is “they” here?)
LB then referred to “my cursory study”
RE “could staff look at new houses in the last 2 years and identify the % of nonvegetation surface3 in the front yards? Didn’t I ask that last session? (LB didn’t remember such a request.)
LB: “What do we do regarding border streets? “If we have just one curb cut, some border streets need two curb cuts.”
MW: “generally, I favor limitations, not sure of way to create them.” “We were working toward a goal of reducing bulk/mass/density, and this is an add-on.” Should it be in other legislation with all the other environmental items? That’s versus the question of “why wait?”
MW: “question 2”, “how do we measure coverage simply?”
KS: using the 40% rule, it’s more difficult to measure. 25% in the front should be easier.” (didn’t even attempt to answer Mier’s question)
“put the 25% restriction with this ordinance to address double parking pads in front – this restriction ties in with the ordinance” (notice, very savvy of KS to appeal to RE’s significant desire to Get Rid of double Parking in Front)
“This is complementary to the l0’ driveway part of the ordinance”
MW: Get Allen now! (meaning Beal, who’d gone to Xerox something else the Council had requested)
RE: the “conception” is “nice secondary to tieing in with a l0’ driveway” (Notice, he “bit” on the carrot)
But 25%, isn’t it arbitrary, should it be 24% or 29%?
MW: speaking to Allen Beale - The question relates to impervious surfaces in the front yard discussed at the last meeting. It’s not based on numbers, this is just conceptually: “What is the ease of measuring 25% non-vegetative front yards versus 40% overall?”
AB: there are a “couple of challenges”( l) what’s on the plan may not be what’s really built out there. I’ve used the plans, and it’s easier. Where a plan says impervious, I’ve cited it, but (2) how do you determine what’s impervious is the question?” (notice: in response to Beal’s question #2, neither the Council nor a “surface consultant” nor an “attorney” offered Beal guidance on “what counts”)
MW: “You’re doing the Town?” (You mean the Council does not know what their contractor AB is measuring? Where are the specs to which he is working?)
AB: “Now, only the 15 new houses in front”
LH: Can you add?
AB: Nonreg is less linear, arcs, radius. “In the field it’d be much more difficult”
LB: “is it a problem (to measure) if only new construction has limits on non-vegetative fronts?” (notice, in the new ordinance version, they limited both new and old) “Can it be retroactive?” (notice, LB ejaculated “I’m frustrated” when later RE proposed it not be made retroactive)
Lawyer: “only prospective”
MW : “with additions?
Attorney: only if additions affect the front yard. No adding parking pods in front in a front yard addition if you are at 25% lot coverage. This does not apply to resurfacing, only if a homeowner widens or lengthens a driveway.
RE: connecting stones?
Ted: No
RE: undr this order?
Ted: No
LB: a rock?
RE: How does Hyattsville do it? (remember, no one has asked that Q of Hyattsville, and their Town character is not our Town character)
Do they have to get a permit in Hyatttsville?
LB: Ted will find out
RE: implementation could be trickier than we think
MW: we need more information
AB: do you want to see the numbers?
LB: limiting non-vegetation to 40%. Skip that for now. We can come back to 40%. Let’s start with passing 25% and move on to 40% later.
LB: the Q is what FAR levels should be?
LH: I have suggestions, referring to his many emails. He put together an excel sheet, taking the 120 houses AB has given FAR #s for in response to homeowners’ individual requests to date.
rest to come, part II
resident, Rose Miller
Late entrance, therefore these Notes begin after agenda’s
I. Mandatory v Incentives
II. Mandatory
A. Height B. Front loading garages C. Driveways
The work session was notable for Council members relying on their own admittedly fly-by-night research to provide data: a compilation of numbers by Dedrun, a resident and member of the Land Use Committee, who herself relied on the Town’s new contractor Allan Beale’s measurement of 120 self-selected (by owners) houses and lots; an excel spreadsheet hastily drafted from the same underlying numbers by Lance Hoffman (aka LH); and Linna Barnes’ (LB) “googling”. LB presented a self-described “cursory” study of hers on line, which she further characterized as “googling the web” to seek out any communities with % of non-vegetative surface regulations as a method of regulatory control. LH’s “excel” spread sheet presented scenarios 1-12, later 13, which attempted to discover with FARs of .44 or .45 or .50, with exclusions or not, and with caps and minimums or not, and with a “County Berliner” overlay or not, how many “recent” (defined as 1997ff, and data coming from the resident Dedrun’s assemblage of #s, which in turn relied in part on Beale’s 120 surveyed homes) homes would be “non-conforming” with that variation of the ordinance, with LH seeking a number NTE l0% nonconforming. Such spreadsheets as LH’s are only as reliable or useful as the underlying data, which came from a resident and also came from “happenstance” as to houses selected for the pot merely by homeowner’s requests.
The work session was notable for two events. Responding to LB, RE vigorously waved in the air the 2-page Beale list of new homes since the setbacks, valued by the Council for their pictures (into which at one point they fell into a cacaphony of "viewing", as FARs are chiefly in the .4 and .5 range. Waving the pictures, Rob vigorously said “Everyone in Town wants new zoning and Land Use regulations due to these twelve houses!” Most residents don't know that these houses have been built since the setbacks, where they are, or much else about them. 2 of them do have paved driveways in front sufficient to park two cars off street. I like that; RE doesn’t. RE pointed out 7 of 12 have FARs of over .55, including attics—none have basements so all space counts (actually one is exactly .55).
This startling expression closely followed LB’s own perturbed ejaculation directed at RE, “I’m frustrated” (with you). “You didn’t want to grandfather earlier but you do now,” with reference to RE’s proposal that existing homes be “grandfathered” as to non-vegetative front yard cover NTE 25%. His concern was that residents of existing homes could not “lay bricks” or “edge gardens w/paving stones” if they were close to the 25% coverage mark without applying for a building permit which would trigger the front lot surface being measured, a reasonable concern as the Contractor, ABeale, said actual measurement in the field is difficult as differentiated from pulling from new housing plans. KS wanted homeowners to just be subject to “voluntary compliance”, “like the hedge height limit”. (note from homeowner, WHAT hedge height limit? Did I hear 3’ from someone on Council?) I just planted hollies now 6’ apart. When they grow together I have to get out my tape measure?
My Notes:
LB: Hyattsville has a 25% front impervious limit passing in 2004. (My Q: just WHAT is the character of the Town Hyattsville that CC4 is trying to replicate?) She asked Ted to find out “How’s it working?” (but not in time for a report tonight. No matter, they passed the 25% front limit anyway without any anecdotal report from Hyattsville as to “how’s it working?”)
LB further said she had “googled the web” and gotten “hits in California” (town character, guys, this is not close to HOME). She also said Rockville is considering a limit focusing on keeping trees and green space. (Hello, we’re getting even further from Town Character here.)
LB further said “they want a 40% front yard”. (LB, who is “they” here?)
LB then referred to “my cursory study”
RE “could staff look at new houses in the last 2 years and identify the % of nonvegetation surface3 in the front yards? Didn’t I ask that last session? (LB didn’t remember such a request.)
LB: “What do we do regarding border streets? “If we have just one curb cut, some border streets need two curb cuts.”
MW: “generally, I favor limitations, not sure of way to create them.” “We were working toward a goal of reducing bulk/mass/density, and this is an add-on.” Should it be in other legislation with all the other environmental items? That’s versus the question of “why wait?”
MW: “question 2”, “how do we measure coverage simply?”
KS: using the 40% rule, it’s more difficult to measure. 25% in the front should be easier.” (didn’t even attempt to answer Mier’s question)
“put the 25% restriction with this ordinance to address double parking pads in front – this restriction ties in with the ordinance” (notice, very savvy of KS to appeal to RE’s significant desire to Get Rid of double Parking in Front)
“This is complementary to the l0’ driveway part of the ordinance”
MW: Get Allen now! (meaning Beal, who’d gone to Xerox something else the Council had requested)
RE: the “conception” is “nice secondary to tieing in with a l0’ driveway” (Notice, he “bit” on the carrot)
But 25%, isn’t it arbitrary, should it be 24% or 29%?
MW: speaking to Allen Beale - The question relates to impervious surfaces in the front yard discussed at the last meeting. It’s not based on numbers, this is just conceptually: “What is the ease of measuring 25% non-vegetative front yards versus 40% overall?”
AB: there are a “couple of challenges”( l) what’s on the plan may not be what’s really built out there. I’ve used the plans, and it’s easier. Where a plan says impervious, I’ve cited it, but (2) how do you determine what’s impervious is the question?” (notice: in response to Beal’s question #2, neither the Council nor a “surface consultant” nor an “attorney” offered Beal guidance on “what counts”)
MW: “You’re doing the Town?” (You mean the Council does not know what their contractor AB is measuring? Where are the specs to which he is working?)
AB: “Now, only the 15 new houses in front”
LH: Can you add?
AB: Nonreg is less linear, arcs, radius. “In the field it’d be much more difficult”
LB: “is it a problem (to measure) if only new construction has limits on non-vegetative fronts?” (notice, in the new ordinance version, they limited both new and old) “Can it be retroactive?” (notice, LB ejaculated “I’m frustrated” when later RE proposed it not be made retroactive)
Lawyer: “only prospective”
MW : “with additions?
Attorney: only if additions affect the front yard. No adding parking pods in front in a front yard addition if you are at 25% lot coverage. This does not apply to resurfacing, only if a homeowner widens or lengthens a driveway.
RE: connecting stones?
Ted: No
RE: undr this order?
Ted: No
LB: a rock?
RE: How does Hyattsville do it? (remember, no one has asked that Q of Hyattsville, and their Town character is not our Town character)
Do they have to get a permit in Hyatttsville?
LB: Ted will find out
RE: implementation could be trickier than we think
MW: we need more information
AB: do you want to see the numbers?
LB: limiting non-vegetation to 40%. Skip that for now. We can come back to 40%. Let’s start with passing 25% and move on to 40% later.
LB: the Q is what FAR levels should be?
LH: I have suggestions, referring to his many emails. He put together an excel sheet, taking the 120 houses AB has given FAR #s for in response to homeowners’ individual requests to date.
rest to come, part II
resident, Rose Miller
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)