City Zoning ordinance sent back for more work

V for Victory! At least for now. They city council voted to send the proposed zoning ordinance - the I have repeatedly pointed out here as a bad idea - back to the planning commission. From comments around the city council, there were a number of issues, many on different sides, that council had with the overall proposal. One comment I heard several times was why weren't overlay districts pursued further?

So for the time being, I'm taking this off the hot topic list and moving it down in the blog. I'll keep an eye on the results and keep you updated as I hear more. Hopefully we'll move on to parking and other important planning issues.

Hot Topic: City Zoning
Part 3 - Home size/lot coverage zoning - 3/15
Part 2 - City Zoning Update - 2/19 working meeting
Part 1 - Does Out-Of-Scale equal "out of character"

zoning ordinance public hearing

In case anyone is interested in the text of my comments tonight against the proposed ordinance, here is the speach. I'm sure I mangled a few bits and pieces. I really hate reading a speach, but it was important that I got out everything I wanted in 5 minutes.

Mayor Tomzak, city council, members of the public, I am here tonight to speak about the city zoning ordinance revision for residential homes.

Let me start off with the city’s own analysis. I take offense to the very first paragraph, which I believe sent staff down an unwise path. It states: In 1950 home sizes averaged 983 sq ft, compared to roughly 2200sq ft in yr 2000. Back in 1950, that was probably the largest size home most families could afford. This was a time when one parent was the wage earner, when salaries were a fraction of today, and when many single people couldn’t afford their own home. Today, homeowners have a much more diverse background, with more revenue sources, and with expectations of modern conveniences unavailable in 1950. Today modern homes are built to a safety code and efficiency standards that were unheard of back then. So to compare today’s market to the one in 1950 is simply a cleaver bit of spin.

Onto the specifics, I believe that in all successful negotiations, a little give and take is necessary. Unfortunately, here, the city has given nothing, and instead is proposing to take & take.

This ordinance takes away the ability to expand out. At the same time it’s taking away the alternative to build up.

Secondly, the city staff is proposing taking more in taxes this year, while also proposing taking away these zoning rights. What happens next year when the appraisers calculate the land only portion of our appraisals? I will argue that they need to lower the land value, simply because next year I cannot built the same home I can build today, and with less than a years sales data, they will have a hard time arguing against that justification.

Skipped this paragraph for time: Finally, the KISS principal, you know, Keep-It-Simple, has not been applied here. The old ordinance had alternative setbacks based on neighbors to the left and right. The new one has a vague reference to facing blockface. What happens when across the street is a different zoning – it doesn’t say? How about where it specifically states that coverage restrictions don’t apply to the front porch, yet how does that apply to homes like those on Lafayette or maybe Winchester? Homes where the 1st floor porch is open, but the second floor overhangs the porch. If this counts against lot coverage, then forget seeing any new homes with this beautiful architectural style because once you penalize someone for it, they will surely finish the porch area entirely.

I guess I just don’t see how this aids in maintaining “Character”. I also don’t see how the city can waste so much time and money on attempting to fix something people find visually offensive. Has the city proven any harm has come to this group? If so, why didn’t they use the existing laws for overlay districts to resolve their issues? Instead, I have written to council and posted on my website the social and economic consequences of this ordinance. Here are dozen groups that could show economic or other harm from the new ordinance:
- expanding families
- lower income owners with limited legal resources
- owners of small lots
- owners of 40.5’ lots
- contractors who will loose work
- their employees who will loose hours of labor
- investors
- new owners wanting their dream home
- Unfair to those responsible for processing special use permits
- Unfair to resident who believes this is would have prevented any large home examples
- Unfair to people who enjoy looking at revitalized neighborhoods
- Most importantly it’s unfair to taxpayers

Skipped this paragraph: Council has promoted commercial diversity, how about applying those same diversity standards to residential outside the historic district?

Looking at the city's own examples, 2 houses just need to lower the average roof height 2 feet, one house needs to remove 170sq ft. Lets look specifically at the house on Payne St that many people bring up in this discussion. This change will mean they take out the 1st level garage, probably replacing it with a detached 2 car garage, which doesn't count against lot coverage, resulting in more runoff, which causes harm to the surrounding area. Is that what we want?

I also did my own research, using nearby small cities that people can relate to. Of Lynchburg, Roanoke and the very historic Charlottesville, only one dictates lot coverage, and it is much more than 30 or 40%. All three of these cities continue to use the industry standard of 35’ height.

So I’m asking for my incentive package, and it doesn’t cost the city a thing, simply leave my zoning alone, and allow me to continue to hold the same rights tomorrow that I did today.

Does Out-Of-Scale equal "out of character"

Tonight I attended the Fredericksburg City Planning Commission meeting which voted to send an ordinance change to City Council related to residential zoning. I am going to try to get the latest edits to this ordinance, as several edits were made tonight which I do not have in this copy from last week. The biggest edition is measuring from the base flood elevation if the lot is in the 100yr zone.

Basically, the Planning Commission was addressing item #8 on their agenda "prohibiting new development (single family houses) that are out of character with existing neighborhood structures." I agree that what they ACTUALLY fixed was what was defined in a memorandum as "Out of Scale" houses.

Let me try to state what I believe the zoning does NOT do.
a) It does nothing to limit style of housing. I would argue style has as much if not more to do with character than size
b) It does not restrict any non-single family home built in that zoned area. This greatly affects the changes they have implemented for the C-T commercial transitional zone, where it is by-right to allow single family homes next to commercial (one example is a telecommunication building).
c) According to a survey done by the city, generally all homes fit within the boundaries set by the new ordinance. In the FLS article on 12/11, the home on the corner or William and College Ave. was identified as a structure that is out of character, it would probably still fit within the 27' tall and coverage limits.
d) It sets two limits on coverage, with a 40' wide lot being the dividing line. Would this mean a 39' wide lot is suddently more valuable (due to more future potential) than the 40.1' lot next door?
e) It puts subjective measure into code (78 sec II.1.3 "...have an adverse effect on the neighborhood")
f) Does not consider porches or decks, both of which effect water runoff and the ability for land mass to soak up excess rainwater during a storm. This is one of the only arguments I can come up with for limiting coverage.
g) Does not grandfather in any resident that has not already submitted a building plan

Here is what this ordinance does
1) Futher limits free market economics on many residentially zoned lots in the city
2) Creates extra burden on the taxpayer and property owner to obtain special use permits where they may not have been necessary before
3) Only marginally considers property value. There is the potential here for devaluing properties that are only slightly larger than 40'.
4) It limits a single family home to 27' in C-T whereas any other by-right structure can be 40'.
I have several questions.

Can I still built a porch under a cantilevered 2nd floor? If so, can I cantilever the entire upper floor so that the base of my house is only part of the overall area?

Can I build any style of structure as long as it fits into the mold of coverage and height?

Can I increase or decrease the pitch of my roof so that the average height between the eve and the peak is less than 27'? This is the code measures 27'. I have always like the idea of a monolythic dome (note the sarcasm here before anyone states I'm building a new home).

Is it fair to allow a 40' telecom building to dwarf a single family residence at 27' next door?

Tonight there was discussion of measuring homes in the 100 yr flood plane starting at the base flood elevation. Does that mean that if I want to add a few feet of margin to my design, that I have to take those feet out of the max 27' height.

As written, I cannot support this ordinance change. If you agree with me, please sign this petition (http://www.gopetition.com/online/16909.html). I also ask that you email other city residents the link to get them to sign. The City Council has a working session next week with the Planning Commission to iron out some details. I ask them be very cautious on this one. The definition of downzoning is here, and I believe this would apply.

I took the time to lookup Charlottesville's, Lynchburg's and Roanoke's zoning laws, and they are nowhere near as restrictive as this proposal. I would consider these other localities to be in similar historic nature a Fredericksburg.

Charlottesville City Code (see chapter 34) check out Sec. 34-353. Dimensional requirements--By district. Wouldn't it be nice if all city code was documented this clearly.
Roanoke City Code (see chapter 36.2) their coverages go up to 50, 60 or 70%
Lynchburg City Code (see chapter 35.1)

If I am wrong on this, please by all means let me know how this specific change would impact any "large out of character" house that someone has disagreed with. I'll even look up the lot data if you have a specific question on an address.

I have seen a number of these large homes in the city, and I think many are quite beautiful. Some I would not have built for myself, but then part of being a city is recognizing the diversity that is around us. Please help me to show that we want to protect that diversity and sign up here.