FairFAR.org

Post edited 12:19 pm – July 7, 2009 by Pinetree
Post edited 12:20 pm – July 7, 2009 by Pinetree

Pinetree said:

July 7, 2009

Re: Compatible Development

 

Dear Members of the Planning Board and City Council,

 

I’m writing to object to the proposed Compatible Development ordinance.

 

The proposed ordinance will create restrictive standards that I have only encountered in the City’s historic districts, creating a virtual historic district in the entire project area.

 

Is this initiative really a back door approach by overzealous preservation interests to capture and control all of those neighborhoods that have resisted historic designation (Chautauqua & Whittier) ?

 

Because there is only a marginal dilemma with oversized homes, I feel the proposed ordinance far exceeds the minimum remedy necessary to cure the problem and penalizes all of the property owners of detached single-family homes, particularly and disproportionally those homeowners in historic districts.

 

The analysis that I’ve read are flawed in that there are no evaluations of how many of the homes in the project area are already located in historic districts and are already protected by historic guidelines, nor is there an evaluation of what effect the ordinance will have on modifications to historic properties.

 

An evaluation of historic homes in the project area should be an important factor in assessing:

            1. The number of properties that will be affected by the ordinance.

            2. What protections already exist for properties within the project area.

3. What neighborhoods are historically worthy of the level of eternal protection that the   ordinance creates.

4. How Owners within these historic districts will be inequitably penalized by the proposed ordinance.

 

It appears the project area encompasses most or all of the City’s historic districts. The historic homes are already protected from expanding to their full building envelope by the always conservative and unpredictable interpretation of the historic guidelines by the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board (LPAB).

 

The LPAB has recently (last 2-3 years) considered backyard open space as an historic feature worthy of preservation – because this is where the 19^th century family garden might have been located. The LPAB has the authority to limit the size of additions to protect this feature.

 

New additions in historic districts are further restricted to be smaller and less tall than the historic structure. The LPAB can also limit the overall size of an historic home and its addition by evaluating its compatibility with the size of nearby homes to preserve the neighborhood context.

 

More regulations governing the homes in the historic districts are unnecessary and will complicate the ability of historic homeowners, already burdened with multiple complexities of planning analysis, to predictably create even small additions. The ordinance will increase the costs to the homeowner for review application fees and for the professional services required to prepare surveys and review documents.

 

Many of the properties in the historic districts are non-standard structures, often related to side-yard setbacks. The proposed ordinance will create more non-standard conditions, especially in regard to the building height at the side setback, requiring expensive and unpredictable variance review in addition to the unpredictable Landmark Alteration Certificate review.

 

An example would be a request for a new dormer to collect southern light on a historic roof above a two-story wall that has a two foot side-yard setback. The wall already exceeds the ordinances’ required height (if the bulk plane is adopted) and the requested dormer, even if it is setback four feet from the face of the wall (6 ft. setback from the property line), will exceed the bulk plane height. Under current standards only an LPAB review would be required (if the dormers met the solar ordinance). Currently an affordable improvement location certificate and the City’s free GIS contours are accepted by the Planning Departments as adequate factual evidence to assess setback and height.

 

Under the proposed ordinance the dormer would exceed the bulk plane and a variance review would be required in addition to the LPAB review. Further, a full boundary and contour survey might be required to confirm setback and height. The cost to the historic homeowner for fees and services could be as high as $7,000 for a $5,000 dormer.

 

Finally, consider the advantage that a homeowner in a non-historic district would have over a homeowner in an historic district. The non-historic homeowner, with buildings at the threshold of FAR and building coverage, could elect to demolish their two-car Garage or a part of their non-functioning home in order to create surplus FAR for a new addition. The historic homeowner, however, would not be allowed to remove any part of their historic home or accessory structure (not even a rotting chicken coop) to create surplus FAR for an addition.

 

If this ordinance does move forward I strongly recommend that either:

 

1.) The ordinance should not be applied to homes in the historic districts. Modifications to these homes is already restricted, and the need for unpredictable variance requests would be reduced; or

 

2.) If the ordinance is applied to historic districts, that the standards for FAR, building coverage, and wall articulation (or bulk-plane) become a by-right threshold for the size and bulk of all homes in the historic districts, so the unpredictability of historic review is reduced.