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.