Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-27 Historic/Planning Joint SS PacketCITY OF SHLAND SONJA AKERMAN JOINT STUDY SESSION ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 7:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1175 EAST MAIN STREET AGENDA 7:00 PM MAXIMUM HOUSE SIZE 8:00 PM QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION 9:00 PM ADJOURN SHLAND In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone number is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). CITY OF -AS Fi LAN D Memo DATE: TO: FROM: RE: May 21st, 2003 Planning Commission and Historic Commission Mark Knox, Associate Planner Maximum House Size Ordinance- Staff Proposal BACKGROUND Over the last couple of years, members of the community have raised concem regarding the construction of large homes in the City's three Nationally Registered "residential" historic districts that do not necessarily reflect the scale and identity of the surrounding neighborhoods. In April of 2002 the Planning and Historic Commission held a study session on this topic with members of the City Council present. At the study session citizens as well as the Commissioners and Council voiced their concerns over the recent trends of larger homes in the City. However, the majority agreed the limitation of a maximum house size ordinance should only be applied to the City's three Nationally Registered Historic Districts. Following that direction, staff began to research the methods other communities have used to address this issue. Depending on the nature of the communities researched, staff found the ordinances goveming house sizes ranged from relatively simple to very complex. In October of 2002, a second study session was held with the Planning and Historic Commission where staff presented a "draft" ordinance that limited the size of new homes and additions to existing homes based upon the lot's size. After much discussion, the majority of the Commissioners present were supportive of the draft:, but agreed that additional refinement and clarification was still :necessary. This included clarification of counted space vs. uncounted space (basements, detached accessory structures, etc.), limitation of structures in the multi-family zones (R-2 & R-3), performance exceptions (Conditional Use Permits), and process. Based upon these comments as well as data collected from three residential historic district neighborhoods, staff further refined the following "draft" ordinance. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us IDEFINITIONS ADJUSTED LOT AREA AND MAXIMUM PERMITTED FLOOR AREA The maximum permitted floor area is proportional to the size of the lot, with an adjustment factor based on lot size to address large lots (see Table 1). x = x .38 FAR* Gross Lot Area Adj. Factor Adjusted (Table 1) Lot Area Maximum Permitted Floor Area * The FAR (Floor Area Ratio) for multiple units on multi-family zoned property will vary as the number of units increase. The FAR for single units on multi-family zoned property remains .38. "COUNTED" V,~,: "UNCOUNTED" FLOOR AREA Counted Floor Area: The total floor space of all floors of a building measured to the outside surfaces of the building, including but not limited to exterior walls, potential living spaces within the structure with at least 7.5' of head room and attached garages. Uncounted Floor Area: Basements, detached garages, detached accessory structures and detached accessory units. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT As per the current definition, except that the maximum height for single family residential structures in the historic districts shall be 30'. (Reduced from the current 35'). LOT CO VERA GE BY FIRST FLOOR OF PRIMARY STRUCTURE Lot coverage by tlhe first floor of the primary structure shall be limited to 75% of t. he Maximum Floor Area Permitted. With the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, an exception to the Maximum First Floor requirement may be granted to structures constructed prior June 1 st, 2003. In no case shall the Maximum Permitted Floor Area be exceeded. 0 VERALL LOT CO VERA GE Lot coverage remains the same as under the current code- 65% in R-2, 50% in R-l-5, 45% in R-1-7.5, and 40% in R- 1-10. GRAD UA TED FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) IN MUL TI-FAMIL Y ZONES The graduated FAR in the R-2 & R-3 Zones recognizes that multiple units will have a greater increase in floor area. The maximum FAR in the R-2 & R-3 zone is .60. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division Tel: 541488-5305 20 East Main Street Fax: 541488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us TABLE 1 Lot Size Adj. Factor 2500 1.20 3000 1.16 3500 1.12 4000 1.08 4500 1.04 5000 1.00 5500 0.97 6000 0.94 6500 0.91 7000 0.88 7500 0.85 8000 0.82 8500 0.79 9000 0.77 9500 0.75 10000 0.73 10500 0.71 11000 0.68 11500 0.66 12000 0.64 12500 0.62 13000 0.61 13500 0.60 14000 0.59 14500 0.58 15000 0.57 15500 0.56 16000 0.55 16500 0.54 17000 0.53 17500 0.52 18000 0.51 18500 0.50 19000 0.49 19500 0.48 20000 0.47 >20,000 0.47 EXAMPLE: SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE 5~000 sq. ft. lot 5,000 x 1.00 = 5,000 x 0.38 FAR = 1,900 Maximum Floor Area Permitted 1,900 x 0.75 = 1,425 lot coverage by first floor of the primary structure. 7~500 sq. ft. lot 7,500 x 0.85 = 6,375 x 0.38 FAR - 2,422 Maximum Floor ,Area Permitted 2,422 x 0.75 = 1,817 lot coverage by first floor of the primary structure. 10,000 sq. ft. lot 10,000 x 0.73 = 7,300 x 0.38 FAR = 2,774 Maximum Floor Area Permitted 2,774 x 0.75 = 2,080 lot coverage by first floor of the primary structure. NOTE: As shown, while a 5,000 sq. ft. lot allows for 1,900 sq. ft. home, a 10,000 sq. ft. lot would only allow for a 2,080 sq. ft. home, not double that allowed on a 5,000 sq. ft. lot. 43,560 sq. ft. lot (1 acre) 43,560 x 0.47 = 20,473 x 0.38 FAR = 7,780 Maximum Floor Area Permitted 7,780 x 0.75 = 5,835 lot coverage by first floor of the primary structure. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us EXAMPLE: MULTI-FAMILY ZONES EXAMPLE: 20~000 sq. ft. lot (R-2 Zone - 13.5 units permitted per acre) Single Unit Proposal Example: 20,000 x .47 = 9,400 x .38 FAR = 3,572 Maximum Floor Area Permitted 3,572 x 0.75 =.2,679 lot coverage by first floor of the primary structure. Two Unit Proposal Example: 20,000 x .47 = 9,400 x .40 FAR = 3,760 Maximum Floor Area Permitted 3,760 x 0.75 = 2,820 lot coverage by first floor of the primary structure. Six Unit Proposal Example (maximum density in this scenario): 20,000 x .47 = 9,400 x .48 FAR = 4,512 Maximum Floor Area Permitted 4,512 x 0.75 = 3,384 lot coverage by first floor of the primary structure. Average unit size = 752 square feet EXAMPLE: 20,000 sq. ft. lot (R-3 Zone - 20 units permitted per acre) Single Unit Proposal Example: 20,000 x .47 = 9,400 x .38 FAR = 3,572 Maximum Floor Area Permitted 3,572 x 0.75 = 2,679 lot coverage by first floor of the primary structure. Nine Unit Proposal Example (maximum density in this scenario): 20,000 x .47= 9,400 x 0.54 FAR = 5,076 Maximum Floor Area Permitted 5,076 x 0.75 = 3,8.07 lot coverage by first floor of the primary structure. Average unit size = 564 square feet TABLE 2 Graduat, ed FAR in R-2 & R-3 Zones # of Units FAR # of Units FAR # of Units FAR 1 .38 5 .46 9 .54 2 .40 6 .48 lO .56 3 .42 7 .50 ll .58 4 .44 8 .52 > 12 .60 NOTE: A one-acre parcel with a proposed density of 20 units in a R-3 Zone allows for a 12,284 square foot Maximum Floor Area with an average of 614 square feet per unit. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or, us Selected Railroad Historic District Block 100 0 100 Fee~ ~/~E. C/7'YC~D Scale: 1" =100' Selected Siskiyou-Hargadine Historic District Block M STA ST PE,N:~_ ST 100 0 100 Scale: 1" =100' Selected Skidmore Academy Historic District Block 100 0 100 Fee~ Scale: 1" =100' SOURCE: CITY OF A~D 0 0 0 ITl X o U' a~ o · mm > ~..m o> .-n · 0 0 0 :> II :. .?/ 0 · II 9 C 0 I-- · ~ C~ o 'n -ri .-,- N ~ ~ ~ -- ~ 0 ~-o° ~_. =>~. .. '' 0 ~ imm · mm · :'!'1 ' ' O~ 0 >. N II 0 · N (1)- ,< (1) · '.. -I'1 ' .Il · X X "Il --I "~g~ Illll I 0 CITY OF SHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES APRIL 23, 2002 CALL TO ORDER Chair Mike Gardiner call the meeting to order at7:10 p.m. Other Planning Commissioners present were Alex Amarotico, Mike Morris, Russ Chapman, John Fields, and Ray Kistler. Absent members were Kerry KenCairn, Marilyn Briggs and Colin Swales. Planning Staffpresent were John MeLaughlin, Bill Molnar, Mark Knox, Maria Harris and Sue Yates. Historic Commission members present were Dale Shostrom, Joan Steele, Keith Chambers, Jay Leighton, Joanne Krippaehne, Gary Foil, Tom Giordano, and Terry Skibby. Absent member was Robert Saladoff. Mayor Alan DeBoer was present. Councilors present were Don Laws and Chris Heam. Cate Hartzell mrrived later. Absent members were Susan Reid, Kate Jackson and John Morrison. TOPIC: THE QUESTION OF SETTING MAXIMUM HOUSE SIZE LIMITS Introduotion John McLaughlin said the discussion tonight will focus on setting limits on maximum house size. The Planning Commission and Historic Commission had a study session a couple of months ago to discuss this topic. The issue was brought before the City Council and the Council asked for a further look into whether or not some action should be taken. The Council asked to meet with the Historic Commission and they also invited the Planning Commission because whatever standards might evolve would involve land use that would be implemented by the Planning Commission~ McLaughlin said the trend is that we are'seeing larger houses built nationwide. The lot sizes, in general,, are decreasing or staying near the same size. In Ashland, we are, seeing people redeveloping existing homes in existing neighborhoods, doing additions, making larger homes to match up with their perceived needs. We start to see existing neighborhoods of what was a pattern of smaller homes changing through demolition and replaced by a larger home. We are seeing some concerns of this in the Historic District. There is an example cfa small house (1000 sq. ft.) on Granite Street that was going to be demolished and replaced with a large home (5,000 sq. ft.). That raised concerns. There have been large additions. There have been lots consolidated to allow for a larger lot for a larger home. In doing a quick web search, there are many communities, that have different ways of setting a limit on house size for all different reasons. McLaughlin believes we need to define what it is we are trying to fix and what we want to address. Let's define the problem. All the problems have different facets to them. Is it streetscape compatibility and looking at the facades along a streetscape? Is it size? Is the design incompatible with the neighborhood? Are the concerns with demolition and lot consolidation? Is the issue limited to the Historic DiStrict or the city at large? Discussion Giordano wondered if we were speaking of mostly single family. McLaughlin affirmed. We currently have design standards 'for multi-family. McLaughlin believes there has been some agreement that this should be related primarily to the Historic District because that is the resource we are trying to protect. However, there has been some discussion that the city as a whole is at some risk Heam said there is a family he is aware of that has a number of foster children. We have already identified a problem that our population is lacking in the age group 3545 years old. He is concerned if we start limiting house size too much, is that sending a message that we don't want people with large families in town? We don't want to have a chilling effect on large families living in our city. II, Giordano believes there is a trend of working out of the home. There is a benefit to that. It limits vehicle trips. Office space in a house can take up, some room. He did not think we would want to discourage that. Chambers does not think the ultimate size of the house is the issue. He can envision where people have really large houses in the hills. He believes the real issue is the upsetting of the balance and rhythms of the neighborhoods. He would like to propose this is a citywide issue. Laws said that he c~m agree that while we are concerned about changing the nature of neighborhood, he would definitely want to limit it to the Historic District. We would be more likely to reach consensus if we limit it to the Historic District. Foil believes we need to start with the Historic District. The homes are confined to a specific era in time. There can be parameters to enforce an era. Skibby sees a problem with the loss of historic structure. A lot of times what we are seeing are additions and new homes that are not in compliance with the standards of scale and mass. The original home can lose its integrity. A historic house lost is part of loss of the historic inventory. McLaughlin said in addition to asking if there is a problem, is there a problem in our community at this point and is this a problem that needs a new ordinance. Are there recent examples or long-term examples of properties at risk? Kisfler asked McLaughlin what he sees as the perceived scale of the problem. He heard about the Granite Street home and he hears about issues relating to demolition and the replacement of a house that is not compatible. Steele said the Historic Commission sees a lot of examples. They are otten able to discuss with potential remodelers size and scale. Often people, who buy homes in historic districts cherish the fact that they have a resource. She noted that back in the "old days" they used to have six or seven children in the house without having seven bedrooms and six bathrooms. It has been her experience that :most of the larger construction has been for older couples. The charm of Ashland is largely located in the historic core of the city. If we don't protect our core, Ashland will look like any other town in the western con'idor. McLaughlin applauded the Historic Commission for their extreme success in working with applicants on getting projects brought into scale or modified in a way that greatly improves compatibility from what was initially requested. Gardiner asked if there is a trend or a dangerous trend with this happening more frequently that would require an ordinance?. McLaughlin said in the example of the house on Granite Street, the owners knew they could build a large home even though they were advised it: would not be compatible. Even though the Historic Commission has had a long history of success, there is still the chance someone will come in and blow by the process. Giordano feels the Site Design Standards are helpful. McLaughlin noted the Site Design Guidelines don't apply to single family homes that aren't individually listed on the National Register. The standards are applied in an advisory way, however, there is potential fox' people to not follow the design standards. Skibby said it's always possible we could get overwhelmed. It is important there is something in place to fall back on. It's hard to rely on an advisory capacity. Leighton said she can remember two cases where people said the scale and volume were similar to homes in the area, but not necessarily in the flmnediate neighborhood. As more and more houses are being remodeled, the square footage they are comparing is slowly' growing. Ten years ago what would have been a 1200 square foot house is now a 2500 square foot house. Laws is concerned with the demolition. Our current demolition ordinance could be found illegal if it went to court. He is concerned if we don't have something else in place, demolition would be a way for people to build larger house. At this point, there was general agreement the issue would be limited to the Historic District. ASHLAND PLANNING COI~IMIISSION ASHLAND HISTORIC* COUMISSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL JOINT STUDY SESSION UINUTES APRIL 23, 2002 Public Input PHILIP LANG feels it would be desirable to have more public input. He is not clear what the Commission wants to accomplish here. He noted most ordinances are ignored, not enforced or repealed. He would recommend the city do a lot better job of enforcing and obeying the ordinances akeady in place. MARIE DONOVAN came to hear what everyone had to say. Is this a problem? Is there an overwhelming number of homes getting demolished? How many large homes are there vs. small homes? It is important to keep in mind that housing inventory serves a variety of people. She sees, many times, people buying and building here that have large families and if they do not, they still support the school system. Chambers said he does not think we have quantified a problem, but those serving on theSe bodies are feeling increased pressure to tear down homes and build large homes. The standards we have now are advisory and we are just trying to find ways to prevent bad mistakes before they happen. He doesn't think anyone wants to impose unnecessary new laws. Donovan said she doesn't like to have everyone's right to creativity removed. Laws said the Council took the position there is a problem. They wanted something recommended to them as to how to cure the problem and referred back to the Historic and Planning Commissions to do something. What we are seeing as noted in the Needs Assessment, certain trends are talcing place in the city that are going to push us in this direction in the long-term. Because of the recent trends, he would like to see some minimum standards set a little fighter. He conmaended the Historic Commission on their work. Foil asked Donovan, as a realtor, what appeals to potential clients and what does she tell them when showing homes in the Historic District? Donovan tells people there are standards and there is a Historic Commission that has criteria to be followed. Most people looking at these homes want that historic look. She has sold plenty of historic homes and people have done nothing but enhance them. Steele said she agrees that most people looking want that look. The problem faced by the Historic Commission is that they can advise, counsel and plea, but the Historic Commission has no teeth. They can't make people do anything. If their plans for a single family residence meet building code, there is nothing the Historic Commission can do. This has happened several times in the last year where people go through with large additions, doing whatever they wanted. It is very frustrating. The Commissioners volunteer and they love historic neighborhoods. Hartzell arrived. Heam wondered ifDonovan is concerned about Ashland losing its ambience and character. Donovan is not fearful of losing that. Skibby said we are getting National Register Historic Districts. That opens up the doors for property tax freezes for many properties that qualify. When a house is moved or demolished, or remodeled beyond reason, it is lost. The Historic Commission has a review board that meets weekly. They look at every planning action and building permit in the Historic District. He has been looking at them since 1989. He is seeing a trend of larger houses and threat of losing some of our historic buildings. He remembers an 1870's home moved for a craftsman style house on the site. The slxucture was lost. A house is built that looks historic but there is an age requirement. As long as you have the original houses, it gives value to the district. Donovan has seen houses that are very old and falling down and someone turns around and tries to give the house some life. Sometimes trying to save something to the original becomes too costly. She believes, however, it is important to save our historic homes. DeBoer said this issue came to the Council because of George Kramer. He disagrees with Laws. He felt when the Council sent it back is that they were asking this group of people if there is a problem or not. Some ordinances do more damage than good. We all have different opinions. We are also building now what will be our history later. Would the Swedenbug House, for example, have been too large? That is part of our history. We have to be careful. Some of the large homes built years ago ASHLAND PLANNING COMMIISSION 3 ASHLAND HISTORIC COUUISSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES APRIL 23, 2002 are now multi-family and affordable houses. Part of what makes Ashland livable are the big lots with smaller houses. It is a combination of everything that makes Ashland. He does not think the tax freeze is a benefit to someone because Measure 50 limited property taxes to only three percent a year. He commended the Historic Commission and believes the changes they have made have been huge. Out of 100 people building a house, there is probably one person who will not follow the Historic Commission's reconamendations. That will happen no matter what the ordinances are. If we start to make an ordinate to change a perceived problem to deal with just the one person, is there a problem? He has talked with a lot of people that are completely opposed to any kind of ordinance that limits their property rights. With regard to meeting notification, DeBoer said we are here tonight to see if there is a problem. If we go forward, there will be a public meeting process. He would just as soon see this dropped. He does not see a problem. GEORGE KRAMER said he is surprised how this has become a complicated issue. He believes an ordinance is important. We have now established how small you can go, but not how large you can go. All he is asking for is a finite limit--an upper end. He envisions all of design review as establishing a level playing field. Tell people the boundaries and they can do anything they want within those boundaries. Does anyone think houses are going to be getting smaller? There are three major reasons to consider adopting a fixed maximum size limit in the designated Historic District. The first is quality of life and historic character. By not establishing a maximum, we are creating increased pressure on the modest dwellings that are already in the Historic District. That can't help but lead to more demolitions, more significant additions that are out of scale, that ultimately comprise the character of those traditional neighborhoods. That does not mean saving every historic building. As the districts change and as we lose historic buildings, whatever we get in exchange reflects the traditional scale we arc trying to retain. ~ Kramer said with regard to scale that it is true the intrusion or the anomaly can often become historic. Even the most cutting edge of architects respected the context they were building in. They respected the traditional Street and the way houses served together to form a private wall of public space that creates the neighborhoods we experience. Cities regulate scale all the time. Ashland regulates height, setbacks, etc. We have award-winning design standards. He wants the Council/Commissions to draw a line. Not having an upPer limit has an impact on the affordability of our housing. Small buildings in the Historic District already include many of AshJand's rentals and their most affordable housing because they are small. These structures will continue to become less affordable as new buyers seek the land they are sitting on knowing they can build a larger house. Our historic building stock is prey to simple land value through speculation. You can buy a house knowing you can tear it down and build a 5,000 square foot house. A lot of historic preservationists fight infill because there is trade-offbetween preserving a historic building and increasing density. Ashland has a long tradition of promoting infill. When we are not willing to annex land and expand our Urban Growth Boundary, both of which Kramer supports, people have to go somewhere. They go to big lots and try to put more people in the same space. We have this weird sort of infill that is actually hollowing out. We are putting fewer people in the same space because we are tearing down little houses or two houses and creating an opportunity to build one large one. With the ;affordable housing information coming out recently, it shows it is hard to be a starting young family with kids and buy a house., in Ashland. The land is more valuable than the house that sits on it. Kramer believes we should apply the maximum size ordinance just to the primary dwelling, not to a detached garage and not to any accessory dwellings. We should consider creating bonuses for a compatible addition. · Kramer does not believe the current regulations establish a finite size limitation thus promoting speculation and encouraging pushing the envelope,'. The envelope is bound to get larger. The average house built in 2001 was 2255 square feet. We see' massive additions to existing dwellings and he doesn't see any reason this situation is going to abate. He does not think the Floor Area Ratio without a maximum limit will do what we want it to do unless we set a maximum size. This shouldn't be complicated. He has been throwing around 2500 square feet based on 10 percent larger than the average house size. We need to set a limit. You can tear a house down, but you can't build bigger than X. They will buy in the Historic District or they will buy someplace else in Ashland. He knows there are concerns that this is not a worthwhile use of staff time. He doesn't believe planning should be about waiting for a problem to arise and reacting to it. Planning is about envisioning where you want your community.to go and developing a framework to help you get there efficiently. This is an opportunity to do that. He believes it is highly unlikely staffwill spend more,, time drafting the ordinance we are discUSsing than they now spend trying to make silk purses out of the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMIISSION 4 ASHLAND HISTORIC COMffiSSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL JOINT STUDY SESSION UINUTES APRIL 23, 2002 increasingly large sow's ears that are being presented. Once established, a finite limit will by definition cut out the most egregious applications at the counter. Even the worst sort of infill will at least match the scale. This is a step in the right direction. It establishes an easy to enforce, easy to understand, upper end limit to what Ashland will accept within the portions of the neighborhood we have already agreed we want to protect. Hartzell wondered if there was a threshold for change within the Historic District that would trigger the loss of that status. Kramer said if more than 50 percent of the contributing resources within a district are lost or destroyed or determined to have been so altered that they no longer reflect the original character, the Park Service would de-list the district. Heam wondered if the 2500 square foot maximum would be regardless of lot size? Kramer afl.med. In his experience ia working in other cities, people have told him to keep it simple. The square footage should resemble what is there. Leighton sees that each area in the city would have a different norm. Kramer suggested 2500 square feet or 110 percent of the average of the adjoining houses, whichever is less. Fields said the most compelling' argument Kramer makes is that this is a way to keep down the price of lots by controlling the scale of house that can be built. That in itself is a major character change. He finds it ironic the situation that Ashland is in. What saved Ashland's Historic District is probably poverty. They didn't get tom down because no one ,could afford to tear them down to build apartments so they were safe. Then through careful planning, promoting, and times changing, and a demographic shif~ where people have amassed wealth, picking anywhere they want to live, this looks pretty darned good. Ashland's success is affecting the livable demographic such as young people being able to live here and have families. The whole thing is feeding and driving the value of properties so high. It is being seen as an investment vehicle because the historic district and the preserved character during this upwardly spiraling unlivability. It is happening in small towns all around the country. Kramer mentioned an article coming out in the next issue of Preservation Magazine with Ashland as the cover story. The tone of the article is "Is the price of popularity too high?" Hartzell is hoping this body would think through whether this is a problem and what to do about it. She talked about common · property. One of the things these old historic neighborhoods represent to us is our common heritage. How do we protect it? She hopes the Planning Commission will get a copy of the Needs Assessment and will look at the trends. The cost per square foot is going up exponentially. Th~ size of lots is going up. Heam said he wants to take off looking at cityWide maximum lot size, and move ahead with the Historic: District regulating more carefully. That leaves people with options. For families with large families, they could move to aaother area of town. Laws agreed with Hearn. He would like to see this brought to the Council with some specific altematiw:s on how to do something along the line of what Kramer has suggested. The Council can then decide whether or not it is politically viable or not. Kramer said there are 1400 dwellings in the three residential historic districts. Mac said there are 9,000 dwellings in Ashland. Kistler said he can certainly see the issue in the Historic DistriCt. He said the majority of the Historic Di[strict has the R-2 overlay zone which allows townhomes. When he sees a townhome project, the impact that would have 'would be a lot greater than a house that is 3000 square feet. How does the massing of those buildings play into it? What do you do with multi-family complexes in these districts? Steele suggested a small but skilled subgroup be appointed to bring one or two alternate proposals to the.. Historic Commission and the Planning Commission. McLaughlin agreed. What he is looking for at this point is agreement from the larger body that they want to move ahead on setting maximum house size limits. We can talk about the technical parts of making that happen after. He disagrees with Kramer's 2500 square foot limit. But that is a different discussion. McLaughlia said the approach taken by most communities is limiting the floor area of a structure. Chapman is struggling with whether or not there is really a problem. He doesn't want to discount the work the Historic Commission seems to do on a daily basis. It seems the Historic Commission takes care of this. Chambers feels increasing ASHLAND PLANNING COMMIISSION ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIl. JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES APRIL 25, 2002 pressure. They will not stop working either. They would like one additional tool to help guide. There is a resource Ashland values. Skibby feels it would be a vote of "no confidence" if they drop it. McLaughlin proposed the bodies vote on whether to move forward to study adopting maximum size limits in the three residential Historic Districts. Steele understands the vote would be on whether or not some proposal needs to be brought forth by an expert group to at least attempt to solve the problem. Not what the solution is, but is there a need for a solution. McLaughlin said the vote is whether to pursue adoption of house size limits in the Historic District. Everyone voted in favor except DeBoer, Gm'diner and Chapman. McLaughlin showed some tools to use and approaches (Power Point presentation). ADJOURNMENT - T]he meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COUMIISSION ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES APRIL 23, 2002 .6 [an error occurred while processing this directive] Where your home can't be a castle anymore · San Francisco joins the ranks of cities trying to rein in 'monster' homes, saying they destroy local charm. By Paul Van Slambrouck~ Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor When Alderman Sue Bell walks her district in Park Ridge, II1., these days, she hears a common complaint: Gigantic new homes and expansions are destroying the old neighborhood's charm and character. It's a lament that is being heard across the United States. So-called "monster" homes are generating local tension in dozens of communities, ranging from seaside towns like Santa Monica, Calif., and Palm Beach, Fla., to large cities like Dallas and Seattle. And in San Francisco a bill to stop developers from shoehorning large homes into modest city lots is to be introduced today, highlighting one of the hottest issues in this fall's local elections. Nationwide, the trend has stirred strong grass-roots opposition over an issue that is tied to America's' longstanding love affair with ever-larger homes and is, in the view of many analysts, emblematic of the times. Prosperity has scrambled the political agenda, making housing, traffic, and other local quality-of-life issues top items, says Anthony Downs of the Brookings Institution. "People worry about things like home size when they don't have to worry about things like having a job," says Mr. Downs. While issues of prosperity may seem less threatening than those of more troubled times, concerns about monster homes are generating plenty of controversy. "People feel strongly about this issue and are afraid that thc ambience of their community is being destroyed," says Ms. Bell. In her Chicago suburb, new homes and significant expansions must already go before an "appearance commission" to gain city approval. Now, there is pressure for more restrictions both here and elsewhere. National profile The National Trust for Historic Preservation, for instance, has long concerned itself primarily with preserving areas designated as historic. But monster homes are multiplying so rapidly that the organization is beginning to see them as a significant threat. "We recognize this issue to be of critical importance all across the country," says Anthony Veerkamp of the trust. These monster homes, he says, "can threaten the character of neighborhoods and their right to http ://csmweb2. emcweb, eom/durable/2000/08/21/text/p3 s 1 .html 5/19/03 determine their °wn futures." Developers and. some homeowners, of course, see it differently. Opponents of greater restrictions on home sizes worry about controls' that begin to elevate subjective judgments on taste and style over basic property rights. And some analysts say underused property in urban areas only pushes people into the suburbs, compounding metropolitan traffic congestion and consuming open space. But in scores of communities, the push for greater restrictions is gaining momentum. Santa Monica, for instance, passed more-stringent height limits for one neighborhood last year, says associate city planner Laura Beck. Other neighborhoods are clamoring for similar protections. Monster homes,, generally defined as homes significantly out of scale with existing structures in a neighborhood, are proliferating because rising incomes for the middle and upper classes have allowed for greater investment in homes. "A lot of this is 'because we're richer and for Americans, more money means more housing," says Joe Gyourko, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania. Indeed, Americans' deep-seated attachment to larger homes has surprised some experts. In many ways, it contradicts the countervailing sociological trends of recent decades. In a paper 15 years ago, Richard Green at the University of Wisconsin at Madison predicted that the average American home Would get smaller as its amenities grew. He tumed out to be only half right. "Economics have outpaced demographics," says Mr. Green. Over the past 45 years, the average size of the new American home has nearly doubled, from 1,140 square feet to 2,225 square feet, according to data from the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass. The growth is more striking in light of the fact that the average size of the US family has shrunk by one-third during the same period. Add the fact that more women work - and are therefore out of the home for more of the day - and it's clear that Americans want larger homes, regardless of how often or intensely they are occupied, say experts. Of course, there .are some social changes that make larger homes more practical. Telecommuting has grown, so has the automobile population relative to the number of drivers, necessitating larger garages. But mostly, says Mr. Gyourko, "we're making a statement" with larger homes. In San Francisco:, Steve Nichelson saw a statement he found http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/2000/08/21/text/p3sl.html 5/19/03 inappropriate when a developer announced plans to raze a 700-square- foot cottage on his street and replace it with a 6,000-square-foot home. Grass-roots cause He founded a neighborhood organization to oppose monster homes and found himself suddenly at the head of an expanding grass-roots campaign to stop similar developments around the city. "There are literally dozens of these kinds of out-of-scale developments going on around the city," says supervisor Mark Leno, who plans to introduce the ordinance today that will set a 30-foot height limit for most new single-family homes. Monster-home restrictions have been particularly popular in resort communities like Aspen, Colo., and Jackson, Wyo. The aim in San Francisco, says Mr. Nichelson, is not to thwart housing development, which he says the city badly needs. Indeed, it's the torrid economic growth of nearby Silicon Valley that has created an area-wide housing shortage, which in part is driving up real-estate prices in this city and acting as a lure to developers. "We're just tired of outsiders trying to maximize square footage in order to maximize profits without regard for the neighborhood where we all live," Nichelson adds. http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/2000/08/21/text/p3s 1 .html 5/19/03 Publisher's Forum I Conventions I What's New I Media Releases I Jobs at SIRS ] Intellectual Freedom Awar~ls I Contact SIRS Food For Thought Index Redefining "Home" in the 21st Century Written by Sarah Sutton For many Americans, home life has become little more than an extension of work life. Laptops and paperwork cover dining room tables, fax machines inhabit bedrooms, and second phone lines aro added to allow for uninterrupted Internet use. Architects, attempting to meet the needs of today's consumers, have started rethinking the concept of "home." Hence the emergence of the "smart home,' in which electronics, appliances and other home technologies work together and are centrally controlled. But is this what Americans really want? In addition to becoming hard-wired, American homes have grown. Since 1985, the size of American houses has increased 2,4 %, averaging 2,080 square feet. The average size of newer homes is 2,200 feet. Conversely, American families have gotten smaller. Half the families in the U.S. today are married couples without children, and a quarter of the total population lives alone. So why, then, are our homes getting larger? Partly because the notion that "bigger is better' has been ingrained in the American psyche. While monster homes or "McMansions" are constructed in lieu of the smaller, more intimate bungalows of yesteryear, large chain stores like Borders and Walmart continue to dominate their smaller mom-and-pop competitors. In a consumer culture that values quantity over quality, the pressure to "live large' is, well, enormous. Architect and author Sarah Susanka describes a vicious cycle in which many Americans are caught: People buy a bigger house because they own a lot of stuff. This requires them to work harder to make more money, which, in turn, enables them to buy even more things. You get the picture. The result is that many people are feeling detached from their homes and are yearning for cozier, more intimate spaces. Architects and builders have reported an increased demand for more human-scale rooms. 'Away rooms," also called "thinking rooms"--small, cozy rooms with Iow ceilings--have become popular. These smaller spaces offer the allure of privacy and quiet, both of which are hard to come by in many modern homes with their open, multi-use spaces and'associated acoustical problems. Others are opting to buy smaller homes, which have many advantages. Besides their inherent coziness, they consume less energy and are better for the environment than larger homes. And small homes enable (if not require) the homeowner to simplify. Rather than worrying about furnishing a formal living or dining room that seldom gets usecl, homeowners with small homes can save a great deal of money while focusing their energies on more enriching activities, such as gardening or spending time with their family. Many Americans seem to be looking to recapture the spirit of an earlier time, a time when homeowners did their own planting and family members sat on porch swings and visited. Today, many of us don't know what we'd do without the cleaning lady, the landscaper or Boston Market. For starters, we'd probably own smaller homes. For more information on domestic architecture and the concept of home in the 21 st century, visit such Renaissance articles as"Smaller Houses for Bigger Living," "What's Happening to the American Home? ," "Living Large in Tight Quarters," "The Dream House "Retro-Fitting Homes for 21st Century Electronic Activities Is Possible "Japanese Smart Home Does All the Housework and "'Un-Private House': Is Anybody Home?". http ://www.sirs.com/corporate/food/2OO2/f0211 g.htm 5/19/03 .NewStandard: 3/28/98 Page 1 of 3 FI L.E N Cookie-cutter luxury is growing housing trend By Debra West, N.Y. Times News Service IRVINGTON, N.Y. - When Evan and Susan Ratner were shopping for a new home, they looked for a community like the one where they grew up in Smithtown, N.Y.: a development with young families, where children skated on cul-de-sacs and called to neighbors over backyard fences. They also wanted, and could afford, more luxury than their parents would have dreamed possible. It didn't take them long to find both. Much as the generation that grew up with a family station wagon has shown an appetite for even bigger sport utility vehicles, the children of suburbia who were raised in three-bedroom ranches, where elegance meant a basement rec room, are now buying luxury estate houses in subdivisions. These are not sprawling estates, but instant neighborhoods of supersized tract houses, built on relatively small lots. They are luxurious Levittowns, and they represent a new kind of suburban dream. "My Dad just dragged my Mom out of Brooklyn," said Ratner, 35, a vice president of Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, the investment bank. "It was 1968 and he wanted grass and trees in the backyard. When he got it, he felt like he had achieved-the American dream. "For us it's a little different," said Ratner, a father of three. "We grew up there. We're kind of going on to the next step, in size and process. My parents had no choice in the house they bought. It was there, take it or leave it. We could say, 'Here is what we want and this is how we want to do it.'" In June, the Ratners will be moving from West Orange, N.J., into their new home, a 7,000-square-foot white clapboard colonial on 1.7 acres, among 55 luxury homes here overlooking the Hudson River. The house has six bedrooms, seven baths, a mudroom as big as a kitchen, a library and a blue stone patio. It sits on a cul-de-sac with five other mansions. Prices in the development start at $799,000 and exceed $1 million. In 1996, the most recent year for which figures are available, nearly 14 percent of new houses built nationally were 3,000 square feet or larger, said Gopal Ahluwalia, director of research at the National Association of Home Builders, The trend is seen mostly in the suburbs of big cities. Nearly 18 percent of new houses built in the Northeast, 15 percent in Texas and Florida and 12 percent in the. West are larger than 3,000 square feet. The measurement itself is a reflection of how houses have changed in the past decade. "Ten years ago they didn't even have that category," ^h!uwalia said. In 1986, the largest category measured was 2,400 square feet or larger and it included 18 percent of new house construction nationally. At last count, 30 percent of new houses were at least 2,400 square feet, It is not only size but luxury that makes the subdivisions of estates stand out, said Alexander Garvin, a professor of architecture and planning at Yale University. ''They call them McMansions," Garvin said. "Mass-produced large homes that sell for three-quarters of a million dollars. You haven't seen anything until you see what they are doing in Texas, where they build these homes on one-fifth of an acre. The house takes up the whole property." TODAY'S NEWS Headlines Top Stories Local State/Regional World/National Opinion Sports Arts Business Obituaries TODAY'S FEATURES Almanac People & Places in the News Lottery Numbers Sports Capsule Horoscope EVENT CALENDAR CLASSIFIED Today's Classified Sunday's Classified FindltOnline. com Classified Network Place your ad on- line ~ http://www, s-t. com/daily/03-98/03-28-98/tO4ho 13 8.htm 10/17/2002 NewStandard: 3/28/98 I1, Page 2 of 3 The sheer rnass of these houses has already caused a backlash. The Town of Eastchester, in Westchester County, N.Y., passed a law in September restriCting home size based on the size of the lot. The largest house that can now be built on a 100-by-100-foot lot is 4,725 square feet, said Joseph C. Vohnought, the town engineer. Similar measures have been passed in Newton, Mass., and Hinsdale, II1., a suburb of Chicago. Estate developments are being squeezed onto available land in eXpensive suburbs like Rye and Roslyn, N.Y., and Wayne, N.J., and spreading out in more modest towns like Yorktown, N.Y., Southbury, Conn., and Jackson Township, N.J. The new luxury houses have features that were once found only on true estates, like columned entrances and two-story foyers with marble floors and dramatic curving staircases. They often include a "great room," an oversized eat-in kitchen that opens into a family room; and bathrooms with "his and her" dressing rooms, double-sized whirlpool tubs and steam showers. Three-car garages are standard. What they don't have is a lot of land. The buyers want a lot of house instead. Often, they don"t want the chores and the sense of isolation that go with a big piece of property. Mammoth houses lined up on neat half-acre lots seem like a.lost opportunity to Garvin, who criticizes the real estate industry for selling false French facades and heavy-handed Mediterranean styles in place of better design. "All that money could have been spent for a much better environment and much more beautiful buildings and still sell at tlhe same price," he said. Two factors have made the houses appealing and affordable, said Kira McCarron, vice president of marketing for Toll Brothers of Huntingdon, Pa., the country's largest developer of luxury homes. One is the increasing wealth of the middle class. In 1996, 8.2 percent of households nationally had annual incomes of $100,000. In 1970, only 3.2 percent~ had equivalent incomes, based on 1996 dollars, Ms. McCarron said. The other factor is that the cost of luxury has. dropped with the mass manufacturing of items like Palladian windows, porticos and curved staircases. "We have perfected a method of customization that allows for incredible houses and economies of scale," Ms. McCarron said. Toll Brothers built.2,488 luxury houses in 16 states last year. Its average home is 3,500 square feet and costs $400,000. Like most luxury developers, Toll Brothers offers hundreds of custom options. Of the 40 million people born in the baby boom years from 1954 to 1964, many have outgrown their starter homes and have enough equity and income to afford trophy houses, lin addition, a significant number of empty nesters are defying conventional real estate wisdom and trading up. K. Hovnanian Enterprises, the largest residential developer in New Jersey, made its reputation building affordable housing. A decade ago, people camped out overnight and entered lotteries by the thousands for the chance to buy one of the company's modest homes in Jersey City, N.J., starting at $97,500. But since 1990, Hovnanian has responded to the desire for more opulence, said Ara Hovnanian, president and chief executive. Now, 20 percent, of Hovnanian's new homes are larger than 2,800 square feet and cost $280,000 to $600,000, he said. "In the '80s there was a surge of first-time home buyers that led to tremendous growth," Hovnanian said. "What we're seeing today is the second- and third-time move-up buyers. We've made a shift in our focus and emphasis, and a lot of it has to do with demographics. It's definitely consumer driven." Who are the consumers leading the charge? "1 think it is' a super-middle class," said Emanuel Tobier, a professor of economics and planning at New York University. "In income terms, they are upper income. But in class terms, they are middle class. There may be too many of them to live in that characteristic estate manner of 20 years ago. They live differently. They don't want to be that isolated and they don't need to be. They are not celebrities." Many new mansions have a home office and a nanny's suite, reflecting busy working couples;, but rarely do they have a traditional maid's quarters off the kitchen, Garvin said. BACK Eb'rT1:ON$ [ J htto://www.s-t.com/daily/O3-98/O3-28-98/ttMho 138.htm 10/17/2002 Newgtandard: 3/28/98 Page 3 of 3 "The rich don't have kitchens that open into family rooms," he said. "They have help prepare the meals." Yet the new mansions do have celebrity-sized kitchens. "The kitchens and bathrooms have become the most important rooms," said Adene C. Travis, an interior designer in Glen Cove, N.Y. Her company, Mansions and Millionaires, started out restoring old mansions on Long Island back in 1973, in the age of diminished expectations, when people looked at huge homes as energy-wasting anachronisms. "The kitchens, not because you cook, but because it shows you appreciate good food," she said. "The bathrooms, they don't even call them bathrooms anymore. They have become more ora spa." Nikki van der Vord, 29, has a whirlpool tub. She and her husband, Andrew, and two preschool daughters live in the Park Lane Reserve, a development of 306 luxury homes on 396 acres in Harrison in Westchester County. At 3,700 square feet and $659,000, the van der Vords' cream-colored colonial is among the development's more modest homes. The couple, who are British, were transferred to the United States four years ago by van der Vord's employer, Schroder & Co., a British investment bank. They plan to stay, partly because of the housing opportunities. "You couldn't get this in the U.K.," Ms. van der Vord said, gesturing to an expanse of window that brightened the great room, and beyond to the neighbors' mansions, visible from each room in the house. ''They don't build estates like this so close to the city." Developing luxury homes makes economic sense, Ahluwalia said. Profit on a subdivision house is typically 5 to 10 percent, regardless of style, he said. Therefore, costlier homes mean higher profits. "They charge for every upgrade you get," Ratner said. ''They'll say: 'A two-car garage is standard. Oh, you want a three-car garage? That's another $10,000.' But what are you going to do? Who wants a two-car garage?" ]]-Top-[{-Home-[[-TopStories-][-Headlines-[[-Staff-][ II · Please mail any comments to Ncwsroom~S-T.com II Copyright © 1998 The Standard-Times. Ail rights reserved. http ://www. s-t. corn/daily/03-98/03-2 8-9 8/t04ho 13 8.htm 10/17/2002 Chicago Tribune I Preservation haul I1, Page 1 of 5 October 17, 2002 43 F SpeCkil-~:)n eppemlng every 8ah~aymmugh Octol~ 12th CHICAGOTRIBU#iE.COM/HOMES #oM~s .FOR SALE COMMUNITI~ES liE-CENT SALES NEWS;.& ADVICE FINAIICiN6 Weather, Traffic Preservation haul Classified Homes Homes for sale Homes for rent Apartments Open houses Commercial property Mortgages Your Place New Homes Real Estate It's not always music to homeowners' ears when a historic district designation is part of local government's program By Jane Adler Special to the Tribune Published June 10, 2000 For much of the spdng in an Evanston neighborhood dripping with charm, yard signs that said "No thanks" became as common as plastic pink flamingos in a Florida trailer park. Special sections The polite little protest signs, which dotted the lawns of hundreds of homes, expressed the feelings of a vocal group of residents of the north suburb who didn't want their houses included in a newly designated historic area. News ! Home Business Technology Sports "It makes sense for people to speak in their yards," said Patdck Shiplett, who came up with the idea to erect outdoor signs. Shiplett, along with a loosely organized group of several hundred other homeowners, believes preservation districts should be voluntary. Leisure Travel Registration "This shouldn't be something imposed on homeowners against their will," he said. "Besides," he added, "we don't have people making stupid changes to their homes. A preservation district is unnecessary." How tc Today's newspaper Customer service But not all homeowners opposed the histodc district, and the issue divided the neighborhood. Special reports "There are people here who are in favor of the distdct but it's hard to tell that with all the signs," said Mary McWilliams, an advocate of the district. "I'm surprised by the intensity of the opposition." Disaster at No. 5 Mine Still standinq: A portrait of America one year later A final accounting: The fall of Andersen Rediscovered scorE; pianist's last legacy Afl special reports McWilliams lives in one of Evanston's other two histodc districts, where she says practically no one was opposed to the idea. "It's pretty innocuous." · . In response to the protest, the Evanston City~Cc~:~sil-e]ventually approved a scaled-back historic distdct of some 90 ~ including about 200 pdmary buildings. The district includes single-~mily houses, apartments and office buildings. The city's Preservation C~mmission originally recommended a district more than twice that size. Homeowners on both sides n/ow The homeowner rebellion that led to the downsizing of the plan illustrates the' tensions that can erupt between property owners and preservationists in an era when local governments are enacting more preservation laws in an effort to control growth and capitalize on local allure. Top news stories The preservation debate usually cuts two ways. On one side are homeowners who don't want the histodc designation saying preservation rules impinge on their http:/./www.chicagotribune.eom/classified/realestate/homeimprovement/chi-000610vintage.. 10/17/2002 Chicago Tribune[ Preservation haul · Page 2 of 5 Update: More anger, team in clemency heatings New: CIA says aI-Qaida set to stdke again Update: U.S. floats deal on Iraq Update: Sniper witness doubted New: 'Safe Road' figure gets probation rights as property owners.'They fear a heavy-handed preservation commission that might, for. instance, select paint colors for their hoUses. Homeowners also argue, with some justification, that preservation laws impose added regulations that lengthen the approval process when they want to remodel or repair their houses. Disgruntled homeowners often are joined in th(; battle against preservation efforts by developers, or big property owners, who don't want to be told what to do with their land or old buildings. On the other side are preservationists, including homeowners who favor histodc designation, and local governments struggling with ways to combat the demolition of old houses to make way for big, new ones. They see the preservation ordinance as a tool, similar to zoning, to help regulate the types and rate of changes made in a neighborhood. And they argue preservation effortS can be an engine to jump-start economic development, which helps elevate everyone's property values. "VVe walk a fine line," said James Kinney, president of Rubloff Residential Properties, which sells a lot of homes in Chicago's histodc Gold Coast neighborhood. "We should preserve the best old buildings. But you don't want to inhibit development or change. Today's new buildings could be tomon'ow's landmarks." Chicago set local pattern More than 100 local preservation commissions operate in Illinois, according to the Springfield-based Illinois Histodc Preservation Agency. The first preservation commissions were started in the 1960s, but most commissions have been formed since the late 1970s. Generally, a preservation commission is authorized by a local preservation ordinance. The commission, usually composed of volunteers, .then nominates specific buildings or districts for historic designation subject to approval by the city or village council. In addition to local designations, a property or neighborhood can be selected as a national landmark or landmark district. The national designation may carry more prestige, but it offers little real protection, experts say. The federal government has no say in how a property looks or what its owner does with it, unless federal monies are involved. Only local preservation ordinances establish rules that homeowners must follow. "A local historic district provides the mechanism to oversee the character and quality of a neighborhood," said Jim Mann, Midwest director of the pdvate non- profit National Trust for Historic Preservation. In 1968, the City of Chicago enacted one of the state's earliest, and most stringent, local preservation laws. The South Side' Pullman neighborhood and the North Side block near Wdgley Field called Alta Vista Terrace were among the city's first histodc districts. "The trend is toward more preservation," said Jim Peters, Chicago's deputy commissioner of planning and development. "Half of the city's landmark designations have taken place in the last 10 years." The city has 30 historic districts, covering about 4,500 properties. Another 153 http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/realestate/homeimprovernent/chi-O00610vintag~... 10/17/2002 Chicago Tribune I Preservation haul · Page 3 of 5 individual buildings are city landmarks. Peters considers the city's preservation program a success, in part because new districts are usually pursued only when the community supports the idea. Also, unlike many cities, Chicago's preservation ordinance links the building permit and preservation approval process. For the property owner, this eliminates the extra step of obtaining consent from the preservation commission, which issues what's called a certificate of appropriateness. Still, city' proposals sometimes generate opposition. The recent battle between preservationists and developer John Buck over the art deco McGraw-Hill building at 520 N. Michigan Ave. was finally resolved when the developer agreed to save the facade of the old building by gluing it to the face of a new one that will house a Nordstrom department store. In another flap, property owners have opposed a new historic district proposed by the city along Michigan Avenue between Randolph and COngress streets. "VVe support landmark preservation only when the property owner is in favor of the designation," said Camille Julmy, a member of Central Michigan Avenue Association, which represents area retailers and building owners. (Julmy is also vice chairman of U.S. Equities, a real estate firm that owns property on Michigan Avenue.) Hodgepodge of rules Julmy echoes the feelings of many property rights advocates in the suburbs where landmarking activity has accelerated. Preservation ordinances have been enacted or considered in Lake Forest, Barrington, Winnetka, Aurora, Elgin, Richmond and Oswego, among others. But a local preservation law is often long in the making and hard fought. Part of the problem, experts say, is the confusion that surrounds landmarking. Not only are there different types of designations, but local preservation laws vary widely. Some ordinances require property owner approval before a preservation district can be designated. Many ordinances are voluntary. The commission can make suggestions, but homeowners have the final say. In contrast, strict ordinances require all property owners in a histodc district to follow the rules. Any changes an owner wants to make to a house must be approved, though interior modifications are rarely challenged. Last April, west suburban Hinsdale enacted a preservation ordinance after two years of debate. "It took a good deal of study on the preservation matter to get us this far," said Bohdan Proczko, assistant village manager. Like many towns, Hinsdale's first stab at a preservation ordinance isn't too stdct. It says preservation districts cannot be created unless 50 percent of the homeowners in the district approve the plan. Also, buildings that have not been designated as landmarks are not required to follow recommendations made by the preservation commission. '~,Ve took some of the teeth out of this ordinance," said Proczko. "But if we shove this down everyone's throat that would be counterproductive." http://www.chicagotfibUne.com/classified/reflestate&ome~provmenffch-O00610vintag~... 10/17/2002 Chicago Tribune I Preservation haul · Page 4 of 5 Evanston homeowner Paula Twilling is philosophically opposed to thE: new preservation distdct there because no one asked the neighborhood if it wanted designation. In Evanston, the preservation commission can nominate districts without homeowner approval. "The idea is excessive," Twilling said. Siding with balanced view But preservationists argue that a law withOut teeth can lead to changes in a neighborhood that don't benefit anyone. "A good ordinance prevents someone from putting pink aluminum siding on a house. It lets residents know what the neighborhood will continue to look like," said Mann of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Many preservationists preach balance, arguing they don't aim to transform every town into Colonial Williamsburg. But sometimes preservation zeal spins out of control. Last year, a Geneva couple got embroiled in a dispute with city officials over the building materials they used for a new home they built in a histodc district. The couple slightly altered the plans for the home's exterior, which outraged the preservation commission. The commission didn't oppose the changes as much as the fact that the couple didn't follow procedures. Other horror stodes exist of preservation commissions going So far as to dictate what kind of gutters can be used on a house. Another homeowner gdpe is the permit process. Evanston homeowner Shiplett, who had the idea for the protest signs, wanted to enclose a small alcove on his .house. He waited more than 60 days to receive approval from the preservation commission which meets only Once a month. Because the permits weren't ready in time, Shiplett says his contractor started another job, further delaying the project. In the best of all possible situations, histodc preservation can boost a neighborhood's status. Historic designations are often used in blighted areas to elevate community awareness. And property values are usually enhanced by historic designations. Donovan Rypkema has conducted several studies on the economic effect of histodc preservation districts. In five Indiana towns, for instance, he found the rate of property value appreciation was greater in preservation districts than in non- designated areas. The historic districts that showed the most appreciation in property values were ones where homeowners understood the rules and guidelines were applied consistently. Also, Rypkema discovered that 90 percent of changes sought by homeowners were approved by local commissions. "Good histodc districts protect the context of a neighborhood," said Rypkema of Washington, D.C.-based Real .Estate Services Group. "Homeowners I'lave a level of assurance that their neighbors will comply with the rules." A preservation law can be a powerful economic development tool, according to Lisa Bennett, program manager of Batavia MainStreet, a non-profit group working to revitalize downtown Batavia. Her organization helped develop a preservation http://~.chicagotribune.com/classified/realestate/homeimprovement/chi-O00610v~atag~... 10/17/2002 Chicago Tribm~e [ Preservation haul · Page 5 of 5 ordinance for the town that requires mandatory compliance by property owners. "We will propose downtown as the first preservation distdct if the ordinance passes," said Bennett, who thinks the city council may take a vote in the next few months. She says the downtown area has a number of native limestone buildings that could never be replaced. The buildings add the kind of charm to the downtown that can help attract visitors and shoppers who have grown tired of big, sterile malls. Bennett also notes that property owners, like those in other preservation districts, who comply with certain regulations, are eligible for tax credits. She said: "A good preservation commission will work hard to help property owners. But the law is necessary." Copyright © 2002, Chicago Tribune Home I Copyright and terms of service I Privacy policy I Subscribe I Customer service I Advertise http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/realestate/homeimprovement/chi-000610vintage... 10/17/2002 ,Regulating Monster Homes - 2000 APA Proceedings Page 1 of 8 Regulating Monster Homes Susan M. Glazer Session: Tuesday, April 18, 2000, 8:45 AM Author Info 1.0 INTRODUCTION Newton is a community of approximately 83,000 people on eighteen square miles of land immediately west of Boston. It was settled in 1630, but a significant part of the city's development took place in the late 1800's as a result of the introduction of a mil line fi.om Boston to the west. There was another burst of development after World War II, particularly in the southern part of the city. Newton is a very attractive community today because of its well maintained residential neighborhoods, its good schools, its proximity to downtown Boston (eight miles) and its location at the intersection of two major regional roads - 1-90 (Massachusetts Turnpike) and 1-95, a circumferential highway around the city. Socio-economically, although there are areas of low and moderate income households, NeWton is considered an affluent community where the average single family homes sales are above $425,000. Seventy-three percent of the homes are single family. 2.0 CONTEXT FOR CHANGE The predominant feature of the community is the fact that there is no one center, but thirteen villages, each with its own character. People tend to relate more to their villages with tree-lined residential neighborhoods, rather than the city as a whole. Thus, when the housing market heated up several years ago, and developers started to take advantage of Newton's real estate market by tearing down smaller homes to build larger ones, citizens reacted strongly to their changing neighborhoods. Residents besieged their aldermen (there are twenty-four of them, three fi.om each of eight wards) and the Planning Department with pleas for how to stop the "monster homes". 3.0 PLANNING DEPARTMENT EFFORTS First the Planning Department had to defme the issue. What were residents reacting to and what did they want? In addition to the market pressures to build in Newton, developers were building very large structures out of scale witP the neighborhoods in which they were located. For example, 21 Puddingstone Road has a 6,600 sf. house on a '27,000 sf. lot. In other neighborhoods, developers were tearing down single family homes and, where allowed, building by right two-family homes. For example, 16-18 Tanglewood Road has a 5,136 sf. two-family house on a 11,500 sr. lot. In this case, a developer bought several single family homes that were about 1,200 sf. each and replaced them with two-family homes. Since this was a Multi- Residence I District, the construction was allowed by right. The houses being tom down were modest single family homes, the homes people buy to get in to the community. The "affordable housing" stock was being threatened. In other cases, owners were adding a second nnit to their existing single family homes. For example, 63-65 Highland Avenue is a 7,622 sf. two-family home on a 16,128 sf. lot. The existing home was 3,094 sf. The overriding issue, however, was the size and scale of these new homes that changed the character of the neighborhood. The Planning Department consulted with a number of neighboring communities that were experiencing the same issue. There were a number of common aspects to our problem: · The developers believed that it is cheaper to tear down a small home rather than remodel it. · The new larger housing reflected a desire for larger rooms and features that older homes did not Mve. · Initially, very large expensive homes were custom built, rather than built on speculation. Howew:r, more of the.large homes selling at over $1 milliOn are now built on speculation. · Large homes were being built without variances indicating that in the past developers were not building to the full buildout potential. In Newton, many of the homes were built before zoning (1922). · Some people were reluctant to change the zoning for fear of creating non-conformities. http://www.asu.edu/caed/proceedings00/GLAZER/glazer.htm 10/17/2002 ~Regulating Monster Homes - 2000 APA Proceedings II. Page 2 of 8. Since the aldermen were sure of the best solution to the problem at that point, the Planning Department put forward an an'ay of ideas to focus tbe discussion: · Change the allowed height in feet and in number of stories and redefine "height". · Limit the amount of construction allowed by right. · Require a special permit to demolish a home that is 50 years old or older. · Create a lflnit on the mass of the structure. 3.1 Revise The De. fruition Of"Height" Height was one of the obvious things to look at. The Zoning Ordinance definition of building height at that time was the measurement from the mean grade around the structure to the top of the ceiling rafters of the uppermost floor (cave line). The height restriction at that time was three stories and thirty-six feet. The proposed change in the definition of height changed the measuring points. Instead of measuring to the top of the uppermost habitable floor (the cave line), the proposal changed the measurement to the mid-point of the highest roof surface. This change encouraged the use of sloped roofs. 3.2 Reduce The H~fight In Feet That Could Be Built Not only was the definition of height changed, but the maximum height in feet was reduced from 36 feet to 30 feet. Here is an example ora larger home that is three stories and thirty-six feet high. 220 Winchester Street is a 5,526 sr. home on a 18,780 sf. lot in a SR 2 district that requires a minimum lot size of 15,000 sr. for new lots. Under the old ordinance, this home met all of the requirements. Under the new 30 foot height requirement, a 36 foot home would not be allowed. In other cases, many of the "monster homes" receiving attention had garages on the first floor with two full sto.ries of living space above (3 Troy Lane). This not only pushed the structure to the maximum height allowed, it left an unattractive garage door at the street level. With a reduction in the allowed height fi.om thirty-six feet to thirey feet, it is less likely that a developer would commit an entire story to garage space. Exceptions to the height limits are chimneys, spires, architectural ornaments, etc. 3.3 Reduce The Number Of Stories That Could Be Built Accompan54ng the reduction in measured height was the reduction in the number of stories. If a new home is limited to thirty feet in height with three stories of living space, a flat roof might be required to fit the three story home under the thirty foot height restriction. This is exactly what one developer did (example-8 Wyckham Road, a three story fiat roofed residence). With the proposal to reduce the number of stories from three to two and one-half, a builder might still build a two story home with a flat roof, but to achieve the maximum footage, he would have to add a sloped roof to gain the extra half-story. The final version of this amendment resulted in allowing a third story by special permit, ff the construction was consistent with the design, size and scale of other structures in the neighborhood. In this way, a three story home could be built in a neighborhood of other large homes. 3.4 Add A Definition Of One-Half Story Related to the reduction in the number of stories was the need to define "half-story". The proposed limited on the amount of livable square footage in the half-story so that a half-story was considered as being less than two-thirds of the square fi)otage of the floor below. This prevented attic space from being excessive and encouragbd the construction of sloped roofs. 3.6 Limit The Amount Of Reconstruction That Could Occur By Right A proposal arose in an effort to make new building size consistent with its sun'ounding neighborhood. A new structure would have a height limitation of either the average height of the abutting residences or the height of the structure being replaced, whichever was greater. The idea was to prevent homes from being too large for the neighborhood, while allowing large homes to occur where appropriate. The proposal had several technical problems · including the fact that records of building heights did not exist in city records and when they did, they were unreliable. Determining heights of abutting structures would put an undue burden on staff and to ask the property owner to do the measuring could lead to biased numbers. Finally, ifa home was placed next to a large home, the new home would be allowed much greater height than the home directly across the street where no "monster home" abutted. Staff felt that the issue of neighborhood context was better addressed by allowing larger homes than Zoning http://www, asu.¢~u/caed/proceedings00/GLAZER/glazer.htm 10/17/2002 Regulating MOnster Homes - 2000 APA Proceedings Page 3 of 8 permits by special permit with criteria for such a determination. 3.7 Require A Special Permit To Demolish A Home Fifty Years Old Or Older This proposal intended to Curb demolition of residential structures. The City already had a demolition delay ordinance whereby the Historical Commission could delay demolition for up to one year on structures or portions of them that were fffiy years old or older if the commission found that the structure is "preferably preserved". The applicant could come back to the Commission within the one year period with revisions to the design incorporating the size, massing or architecture features of the structure to be demolished. The idea behind requiring the review .and potential data to develop is to get developers to think about restoring a structure before tearing it down. This proposal to allow demolitions bY special permit was not adopted because it did not directly address the issue of building size and scale and it would have substantially reduced the Historical Commission's power and purpose. Although this zoning technique was not adopted in Newton, it might be helpful in addressing the issue of teardowns in communities where there is no demolition delay ordinance or by-law or where the Historical Commission does not have any power. 3.8 Create A Floor Area Ratio Requirement This was the most complex and controversial of all of the proposals. Although the City had floor area ratios for buildings in business and manufacturing districts, it had none in the residential districts, in part because of the sentiment that people had a right to build whatever size home they wanted, so long as the setback requirements were met. A floor area ratio requirement would limit building mass by restricting the maximum size of a building as it related to the size of the lot on which it sat. The fkrst consideration was how to determine the gross floor area. Staff recommended using all floors above grade (excluding basements and free-standing garages) whether there was livable space in them or not. This proposal addressed the issue of visible building mass. The next challenge was to determine the best ratio for Newton. The Planning Department developed a sliding scale of ratios based on the minimum lots size w[fich, in Newton, went from 25,000 sr. in Single Residence 1 to 10,000 sr. in Single Residence 3 and Multi-Residence ]Districts. The FARs proPosed initially ranged fi.om .3 to .45. When the Inspectional Services Department started applying the FAR requirements, some aldermen realized that they had gone too far by including attics in the FAR calculation. Thus, although the ordinance was still freshly minted, it was changed again, this time excluding attics from the calculation and instituting a new set of requirements ranging from .2 to .4. Because there was a concern about older homes on smaller lots another provision was added to allow an additional .05 for pre-1953 lots when the more restrictive post-1953 setbacks and lot coverage requirements were met. The final version of the ordinance made clear what types of structures FAR applied to. Requiring application for all structures would have penalized the property owner who wanted an addition of his/her home. Thus, the ordinance specified that FAR requirements would apply to: · New construction of single and two family houses. · Reconstruction of such structures where more than 50% of an existing structure is demolished. · Construction of a two family home that replaces a demolished single family house. · Construction of a second unit in a multi-residence zoning district.. 4.0 CONCLUSION What can be learned from all of this? First, it is important to define the issue carefully. Is reaction to the construction of "monster homes" economic, the loss of affordable housing, the pace of demolition, the perceived loss of open space or change to neighborhood character. Second, there is no one "fix" for curbing "monster homes". A multi-step approach may be needed. The Newton aldermen, despite all of the amendments that they adopted, still feel as though the "monster homes" are still somewhat out of control "There is something missing", one alderman said recently, "but I don't know what it is," referring to why one large home looks okay, but another does not. The answer may be in design regulations, but the aldermen are reluctant to impose design limitations. A home may appear large to one person and modest to another. Keeping new homes in scale with their surroundings is still going to be difficul£ Even when Newton reduced height, :number of stories, and instituted an FAR, big homes are still being built and the aldermen are reluctant to change the zoning ordinance again for fear http://www, asu. edu/caed/proceedings00/GLAZER/glazer.htm 10/1.7/2002 Regulating Monster Homes - 2000 APA Proceedings II. Page 4 of 8 of unintended coe~sequences. While the real estate market is hot, developers will build to the maximum allowed. When the market cools off, 'they may not. The real estate market has been driving up the size of homes, but it may not go on forever. As one recent (March 17th) article in the Wall Street Journal put it, "The bloating of the nation's homes may finally be peaking .... as the (baby) boomers .... become empty nesters, and families with children become a less significant segment of the population." In the meantime, planners will have their hands full keeping the "monster homes" under control. g456-96 CITY OF NEWTON BOARD OF ALDERMEN April 23, 1997 ORDINANCE NC). V-1 11 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF NEWTON AS FOLLOWS: That the Zoning regulations, Chapter 30 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Newton, Mass. 1995, as amended, be and are hereby further amended as follows: 1. Substitute for the existing height def'mition in Section 30-1 the following: Height. The vertical distance from grade plane to the average height of the highest roof surface. Not included in such measurements are 1) cornices which do not extend more than five feet above the roof line; 2) chimneys, vents, ventilators and enclosures for machinery of elevators which do not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height above the roof line; 3) enclosures for tanks which do not exceed twenty (20) feet in height above the roof line and do not exceed in aggregate area ten (10) per cent of the area of the roof; and 4) towers, spires, domes and ornamental features. Further, no space above the maximum height established in Section 30-15, Table 1, shall be habitable. 2. Amend the building height limitation in Section 30-5, Table I to 30 feet. 3. Add a definition of Grade plane to Section 30-1: Grade plane: A reference plane representing the average of finished ground level adjoining the building at all exterior walls. Approved as to legal form and character Daniel M. Funk City Solicitor g457-96 CITY OF NEWTON BOARD OF ALDERMEN April23,1997 ORDINANCE NO. V- 112 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF NEWTON AS FOLLOWS: That the Zoning regulations, Chapter 30 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Newton, Mass. 1995, as amended, be and are hereby further Amended as follows: 1. Amend the existhag definition of floor area ratio in Section 30-1 to read as follows: Floor area ratio: http://www, asu.edu/caed/proceedingsOO/OLAZER/glazex.htm 10/17/2002 .Regulating Monster Homes - 2000 APA Proceedings Page 5 of 8 A. For residential structures in residential districts, gross floor area of a building on the lot divided by total lot area. B. For all others: gross floor area of all buildings on the lot divided by total lot area. Any portion ofa basemem not used for storage, parking or building mechanicals shall be included in determining the floor area ratio. 2. Amend the existing definition of floor area, gross in Section 30-1 to read as follows: Floor area, gross: A. For residential structures in residential districts, the sum of the floor area within the perimetex of the outside walls of the building without deduction for garage space, attics, hallways, stairs, closets, thickness of walls, columns, atria, open wells and other vertical open spaces, or other features exclusive of any portion of a basement as defined in this section. For atria, open wells and other vertical open spaces, floor area shall be calculated by multiplying the floor level area of such space by a factor equal to the average height in feet divided by ten. Excluded from the calculation are bays or bay windows which are cantilevered and do not have foundations and which occupy no more than ten (10) percent of the wall area on which they are mounted. B. For all others: the floor area within the perimeter of the outside walls of the building without deduction for hallways, stairs, closets, thickness of walls, columns or other features. g457-96 V-112 Page 2 3. Add to Section 30-15, Table 1 the following floor area ratio requirements by district in the column headed TOTAL FLOOR AREA RATIO: Single Residence 1: Single Dwelling Units Lots created before 12/7/53 Single Residence 2: Single Dwelling Units Lots created before 12/7/53 .35 .35 Single Residence 3: Single Dwelling Units Lots created before 12/7/53 Multi-Residence 1: Single & Two Family Dwellings Lots created before 12/7/53 .45 .45 Multi-Residence 2: Single & Two Family DWellings Lots created before 12/7/53 .45 .45 Multi-Residence 3: http://wWW, asu. edu/caed/proceedings00/GLAZER/glazer.htm 10/17/2002 Regulating Monster Homes - 2000 APA Proceedings II. Page 6 of 8 Single & Two Family Dwellings Lots created betbre 12/7/53 .45 .45 Multi-Residence Single & Two Family Dwellings 4. Add a subscript 5 to the column headed TOTAL FLOOR AREA RATIO and add a Footnote #5 to Section 30-15, Table 1, as follows: Allow an increased FAR by special permit if the proposed structure is consistent with and not in derogation of the size, scale and design of other structures in the neighborhood.. g457-96 V-112 Page 3 5. Add a subscript 6 to the column headed TOTAL FLOOR AREA RATIO and add a Footnote #6 to Section 30-15, Table 1, as follows: An additional FAR of .05 shall be allowed for construction on pre-1953 lots when post-1953 lot setback and lot coverage requirements are met. 6. FAR requirements shall apply only to: (1) all above-grade new construction; (2) total demolition of a single family residential structure or dwelling when the owner seeks to replace it with a two family structure or dwelling; (3) reconstruction where more than fiifiy (50) percent of an existing structure is demolished; and (4) in a multi-residence zoning district, construction of a second residential dwelling unit which lies in whole or in part outside the walls, i.e., the existing footprint, of any existing residential dwelling unit. Approved as to leg:al form and character Daniel M. Funk City Solicitor Under Suspension of Rules Readings Waived and Adopted 18 yeas 2 nays (Aid. Bullwinkle, Salvucci) 3 absent (Ald. Antonellis, Ciccone, Lipsitt) 1 vacancy #2%97 CITY OF NEWTON BOARD OF ALDERMEN April 23, 1997 ORDINANCE NO.~ V-I 13 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF NEWTON AS FOLLOWS: That the Zoning regulations, Chapter 30 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Newton, Mass. 1995, as amended, be and are hereby further amended as follows: Amend the maximum number of stories allowed in the column headed MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES in Section 30- 15, Table 1, fi.om 3 to 2 1/2 in all residential districts except for Garden Apartments, More than Two Dwelling Units on a Lot, and Residential Care Facility. 2. Add to Section 30-1 a definition for Half-Story: http ://www. asu. {xtu/caed/proceedings00/GLAZER/glazer.htm 10/17/2002 COMMUNITY HOSPITAL '~~OUNDATION BOARD OF DIRECI'ORS Brian L. Almquld .,~w'ateelc Planning · ~ A. Berno~ ~mn ~sen E. E~let Wa~r H, H~uhr ~ D. ~ ~bin ~a~ ~ Taylor Je'~ E EMERI~S BOARD I~ C, David Formiller Kud Knudsen Arlhur Kreiaman MOej~x'~m O'Harra Stephen J. Reno Edwin H. 'Ed' Singmadr r May 14, 2002 Dale Shostrom Chairman Ashland Historic Commission 20 E. Main St. Ashland, Oregon 97520 Dear Mr. Shostrom: I noticed the article that appeared in the Apdl 24, 2002 Tidings regarding a proposed ordinance to limit the size of new houses in the Historic District. This proposal is of interest to both Ashland Community Hospital and Ashland Community Hospital Foundation. A review o[ the historic district overlay shows that a portion of the healthcare zone is in the historic district overlay. I would like to request on behalf of Ashland Community Hospital and Ashland Community Hospital Foundation that at a minimum, the healthcare zone be removed from any size limitation that the Historic Commission or Planning Commission might consider. '['he intent of forming a healthcare zone was to allow the development of medical oriented facilities in a designated area of the city. Size restrictions (especially 2,400 sqff) would eliminate any possibility of medical facility expansion. Please consider this request and share with me what further steps need to be taken on the part of the Hospital and Foundation to make the Historic and Planning Commission aware of the impact such s restriction would have on development within the healthcare zone. Sincerely, Dick Bernard President Post Office Box 98 Ashland, Oregon 97520 S41-460.7414 Fax: $41-486-7516 E-Mail: aehf@mind.net · Regulating Monster HOmes - 2000 APA Proceedings Page 7 of 8 A story directly under a sloping roof where the area with a ceiling height of 7'3" or greater is less than 2/3 the area of the story next below. 3. Add to Section 30-15, density and dimensional requirements, a new subsection (q) as follows: (q) Any residential structure that is replacing a previously existing three-story residential structure shall be allowed three stories, but only insofar as the absolute height does not exceed that of the previously existing structure. 4. Add a Subscript 4 to the column headed MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES and add a Footnote #4 to Section 30-15, Table 1, as follows: Allow three stories by special permit if the proposed structure is consistent with and not in derogation of the size, scale and design of other structures in the neighborhood. Approved as to legal form and character Daniel M. Funk City Solicitor Under Suspension of Rules Readings Waived and Adopted 19 yeas 1 nay (Aid. Salvucci) 3 absent (Ald. Antonellis, Ciccone, Lipsitt) 1 vacancy #457-96(2) CITY OF NEWTON BOARD OF ALDERMEN July 14, 1997 . ORDINANCE NO. V- 122 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF NEWTON AS FOLLOWS: That the Zoning regulations, Chapter 30 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Newton, Mass. 1995, as amended, be and are hereby further amended as follows: 1. In Section'30-1. Definitions. amend the definition of floor area, gross, as most recently amended by Ordinance V-112, dated April 23, 1997 by deleting the existing subsection (a) and substituting in place thereof the following: (a) For residential structures in residential districts, the sum of the floor area within the perimete,x of the outside walls of the building without deduction for garage space, hallways, stairs, closets, thickness of walls, columns, atria, open wells and other vertical open spaces, or other features exclusive of any portion of a basement as defined in this section. For atria, open wells and other vertical open spaces, floor area shall be calculated by multiplying the floor level area of such space by a factor equal to the average height in feet divided by ten. Excluded fi-om the calculation axe bays or bay windows which are cantilevered and do not have foundations and which occupy no more than ten (10) per cent of the wall area on which they are mounted and any space in an attic or 1/2 story as deft[ned in this ordinance. (2) In Section 30-15 TABLE 1, delete the existing floor area ratio requirements by district in the columaa headed TOTAL FLOOR AREA RATIO, as most recently established by Ordinance V-112, dated April 23, 1997, and substitute in place thereof the following: Single Residence 1: Single Dwelling Units Lots created before 12/7/53 .2 .25 http://www, asu.edu/caed/proceedings00/GLAZER/glazer.htm 'Il 10/17/2002 Regulating Monster Homes - 2000 APA Proceedings II, Page 8 of 8 Single Residence :2: Single Dwelling Units Lots created before 12/7/53 Single Residence 3: Single Dwelling 'Units Lots created before 12/7/53 .35 .35 Multi-Residence 1: Single & Two Family Dwellings Lots created before 12/7/53 Multi-Residence 2: Single & Two Family Dwellings Lots created before 12/7/53 .4 .4 Multi-Residence 3:: Single & Two F~mily Dwellings Lots created before 12/7/53 .4 .4 Multi-Residence 4: Single & Two Family Dwellings .4 (3) Add to Section 30-1. Definitions: the following new definition: Attic: the space in a building between the ceiling beams of the top story and the roof rafters. Approved as to legal form and character:. DANIEL M. FUNK City Solicitor Under Suspension of Rules Readings Waived and Adopted 23 yeas 0 nays 1 absent (Ald. Antonellis) Approved July 16, 1997 Author and[ Copyright Information Copyright 2000 By Author Susan M. Glazer Beals and Thomas, Inc. htt~://www, asu.~u/caed/proceedings00/GLAZER/glazer.htm 10/17/2002