HomeMy WebLinkAbout3917_001College Station was the name given to the H&TC train stop opposite the campus
of Texas A&M College. Until the 1920s, faculty lived on the campus in an array of
houses between the college station and the main building. The campus was in the
open countryside and there was little surrounding settlement. In the early 1920s a
group of faculty members developed a residential subdivision, College Park, south
of the campus. It was joined by a second Southside subdivision in the early 1930s,
a subdivision at East Gate and the new Highway 6 in the late 1930s, and institu-
tional and commercial development at North Gate along N. College Main St. In
1938, College Station was incorporated as a city, inhabited almost entirely by
A&M faculty members and staff. From 1942 until 1966, Ernest Langford, professor
of architecture at A&M, head of the architecture department from 1929 until 1956,
and general eminence grise, was mayor of College Station.
North Gate is the commercial and institutional area on
University Drive opposite the A&M campus. In the 1920s, it
was where different religious organizations began to build
chapels ministering to students, some quite substantial in size.
The earliest of these chapels no longer exists: the Spanish
style St. Mary's Catholic Chapel (1926), designed by the EI
Paso architects Trost & Trost at 607 University and N. Nagle.
Immediately behind the site of the Trost chapel lies St.
Mary's Student Center (1954) at 103 N. Nagle St. and N.
Church Ave. Designed by William E. Nash with Harry S.
Ransom, this unassuming modern building is house -like in
scale. Closed on its street aides, it opens to a rear garden orig-
inally planned by Robert E. White. Its days may be numbered.
16 C 0 L L E G e S! A r 1 0 N
C O 1.,
L
E
G
E
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
College Station was the name given to the H&TC train stop opposite the campus
of Texas A&M College. Until the 1920s, faculty lived on the campus in an array of
houses between the college station and the main building. The campus was in the
open countryside and there was little surrounding settlement. In the early 1920s a
group of faculty members developed a residential subdivision, College Park, south
of the campus. It was joined by a second Southside subdivision in the early 1930s,
a subdivision at East Gate and the new Highway 6 in the late 1930s, and institu-
tional and commercial development at North Gate along N. College Main St. In
1938, College Station was incorporated as a city, inhabited almost entirely by
A&M faculty members and staff. From 1942 until 1966, Ernest Langford, professor
of architecture at A&M, head of the architecture department from 1929 until 1956,
and general eminence grise, was mayor of College Station.
North Gate is the commercial and institutional area on
University Drive opposite the A&M campus. In the 1920s, it
was where different religious organizations began to build
chapels ministering to students, some quite substantial in size.
The earliest of these chapels no longer exists: the Spanish
style St. Mary's Catholic Chapel (1926), designed by the EI
Paso architects Trost & Trost at 607 University and N. Nagle.
Immediately behind the site of the Trost chapel lies St.
Mary's Student Center (1954) at 103 N. Nagle St. and N.
Church Ave. Designed by William E. Nash with Harry S.
Ransom, this unassuming modern building is house -like in
scale. Closed on its street aides, it opens to a rear garden orig-
inally planned by Robert E. White. Its days may be numbered.
16 C 0 L L E G e S! A r 1 0 N
The most architecturally
sensational house of wor-
ship in North Gate is Our
Savior's Lutheran
Out Saviors Lutheran Church Church (1956) at 309
Tauber St. and Cross by
A&M architecture instructor and CRS partner -to -be Frank D.
Lawyer, with Ernest Langford. Bravura structural and glazing
details complement the sweep of its ascending roof. Note the
CRS -like use of hard red paving brick. Much more subdued in
treatment is the University Lutheran Chapel (1965) at 315
N. College Main St. and Cross by A&M instructor Rocky
Thorpe. Tucked inconspicuously into the mixed landscape of
North Gate is the post oak woodland garden at 314 Spruce
and N. College Main, cultivated by Robert F. White (1964).
Ernest Langford designed the sedate, classically detailed
A&M Church of Christ 11 933) at 301 N. College Main St.
with Milton Foy Martin of Houston. At 203 N. College Main
and N. Church is the Baptist Student Center (1950) by
Norton & Mayfield, one
of several Baptist student
' centers designed across
Texas at that time by
Henry D. Mayfield.
Unfortunately, the most
A&M Church of Christ architecturally distinctive
commercial building on
University, the stream-
lined ex -Campus
Theater (c. 1941) at 217
University and N. Boyett,
has been defaced.
William M. Sparks's
AggielandPharmacy Building Aggieland Pharmacy
Building (c. 1936) at
401-405 University and N. College Main has been a focus of
the City of College Station's program in the late 1990s to reha-
bilitate North Gate. The block of College Main just off
University was the first part of North Gate to be intensively
commercialized. San Antonio architect Henry Steinbomer was
responsible for the dignified neo -Gothic A&M Methodist
Church (1946,1951) at 417 University Or. and Tauber.
The northernmost point in North Gate is Hensel Park off &
College. This 30 acre park, which belongs to Texas A&M, com-
memorates pioneer landscape architecture professor Fritz
Hensel with a dense preserve of post oak wooclanri narking
the boundary between College Station and Bryan.
East Gate lies on the side of the A&M campus bordering
Texas Ave. This had been the back door to the college until the
Texas Ave. highway opened in 1936. Walton Drive, a continua-
tion of the imposing New Main Drive into the campus, leads to
the subdivision of College Hills Estates, developed by John
C. Culpepper beginning in 1938. Although its houses are not
remarkable, College Hills features the generous Thomas Park
esplanade between Puryear Drive and James Parkway.
Reflecting his market base, Culpepper named many of the
streets of College Hills for senior members of the A&M facul-
ty, among them the dean of engineering and future college
president Frank C. Bolton, fattier of Houston architect Preston
M. Bolton. Backing up to College Hills Estates is the College
Station City Hall, Police, and Fire Building (1970, C. R.
Watson Associates; 1984, Russell Stogsdiiq at 1101 Texas
Ave. and Francis St.
Just south of the Texas -George Bush Drive intersection, Park
Place South intersects Texas. Hidden on Park Place, behind the
commercial strip along Texas, is one of College Station's small
African American enclaves, which originated as a rural subdi-
vision of the Kapchinski family farm. Off Anderson St. at Wolf
Run Lane is the Wolfpon Village subdivision begun by Robert
D. Martell in 1971. It is the townhouse enclave of College
Station. Row houses, many designed by College Station archi-
tects J. W. Wood Associates, are faced with Mexican brick,
the material of choice in College Station since the 1970s.
At George Bush Dr. and Holick, the one building that survives
from A&M Consolidated Senior High School by Caudill,
Rowlett, Scott & Associates is visible: the 000 -seat
Auditorium (1954), its fly-
ing saucer -like roof sup-
ported on exposed lami-
nated timber arches. Also
gone are all components
of the original
Consolidated School IN
It 940) by Clarence J.
Finney and Ernest Langford
at George Bush and Timber. Like the High School, the
Consolidated School was published in the national architectur-
at press it was one of the earliest schools in Texas planned
according to modernist principles.
C O L f. E G E S T A T 1 0 X1 17
Timber lane leads through
another Bill Fitch -built sub-
division. The east side of
the 300 arid 400 blocks are
tided with Fitch's variations
on the favored Bryan-
Giesecke House
College Station '50s mod-
ern house type. Park Place
S, leads to the Southside subdivision of Oakwood Addition
(1932), developed by H. E Burgess. Clearly predating the
1930s is the Giesecke House f 1891) at 1102. Park Place S.
and Lee, the second oldest building in College Station and
once home to architect F. E. Giesecke. After the A&M adminis-
tration decided to remove all houses from the campus in 1939,
many of the wooden cottages that had lined the perimeter of
Simpson Drill Field and the zone where the Memorial Student
Center was built were moved into Oakwood Addition and the
neighboring College Park. (Professor and Mrs. Paul Van Riper
have been able to identify 41 of these houses in College
Station, Bryan, and Brazos County.) This house, which original-
ly stood on the site of the Memorial Student Center, has been
rehabilitated by architect Gerald Maffei. Its grounds have been
brilliantly landscaped by artist Joan Maffei.
At 300 Lee Ave. formerly
t stood the first work of
modem architecture in
College Station, the small
Clarence J. Finney
House (1936), which
Warner House A&M architecture profes-
sor Jack Finney designed
and built for himself.
Influenced by the Usonian
houses of Frank Lloyd
Wright, Finney planned
his flat•roofed wood
coach House house for maximum pene-
tration by the prevailing
southeast breeze. Similar considerations are visible in the C.
E. Warner House at 211 Lee (c. 19361, with its south -side
screened porch. Developer Hershel E. Burgess lived at 112
Lee in a restrained neo -Georgian house designed by Ernest
Langford (1935). At 202 Pershing and Suffolk is the most strik-
ing house in Oakwood, the Monterey style J. R. Couch House
(1940). Professor Langford was also architect for the suburban -
rustic St. Thomas Chapel (1938), the Episcopal student
chapel, at 906 George Bush Dr. between Pershing and
Newton, which is now attached to the larger St. Thomas
Episcopal Church 11995) by Austin architect Chartier C.
18 'C 0 t L F G 1i S i n T 1 0 A'
Newton. Adjoining is Canterbury House (1975) by David G.
Woodcock with M. 0. Lawrence, St. Thomas Chapel was sub-
sequently joined or) the Southside by the B'nai Brith Hiilei
Foundation (1956) at 800 George Bush Dr. and E. Dexter
Drive, designed by Houston aur bitects Lenard Gabert & W.
Jackson Wisdom.
The oldest neighborhood in College Station is College Park,
developed in 1923 by Floyd B. Clark, professor of economics at
A&M, and his associates in Ute Southside Development
Company-, Charles W. Burchard, professor of chemistry, Daniel
Scoates, professor of agricultural engineering, and M. M.
Daugherty. The centerpiece of College Park is the picturesque
Brison Park, bounded by East and West Dexter Drives and
named for E R. Brison, professor of horticulture. This was
planned by landscape architect Fritz Hensel, who also designed
the subdivision. Among
1 rr the house sites that slope
t, T
toward the park are those
of Professor Clark at
305 E. Dexter (1924),
Professor Brison at 600
Brison Park W. Dexter, and the first
- Ernest Langford House
(1929) at 602 W. Dexter.
.;.
At 606 Jersey Drive, on
the north side of the park,
is Ote compact modern
Richard E. Vrooman
Scnember House House (1955) by architec-
ture professor Dik
Vrooman. There are two other small modem houses of note in
College Park: the Vick E. Schember House (c. 1953) at 511
Ayrshire St. and Bell by William E. Nash with Harry S. Ransom
and the L. Brooks Martin House (1950) at 504 Park Place S.
and Walsh by L. Brooks Martin. Note that on the west side of
Brison Park, the streets are named for different breeds of cat-
tle. College Park launched
,I r Professor Clark on a
". Tong career as one of
College Station's fore-
most residential real
estate developers.
Unitarian -universalist Fellowship `' At 305 Wellborn Rd. is
the ex -A&M Christian
Church (now the Unitarian -Universalist Fellowship, c. 1949) by
A&M architecture professor Ben H. Evans, which is sited in a
shady grove. Its angled louvered wings (1981) are by College
Station architect Rodney C. Hill. Around the corner, above
Rather's Bookstore in the Southside Community Center at
340 George Bush Dr. and Montclair (c. 1038), is the second -
floor office space where Bill Caudill and John M. Rowlett set
up what would become Caudill Rowlett Scott in 1947.
Following E. Dexter south
to Holleman Drive, then
east to Winding Road,
brings one to The Knoll.
This was developed by F.
Caudill House B. Clark in 1947. The
Knoll was conceived as
the modern architecture
enclave of College Station. Although it never quite attained
the design stature envisioned for it, The Knoll is a showcase of
College Station modernism of the 1950s. Its single, loop street
descends at 1206 Orr Dr. where the architectural highlight of
the neighborhood, the second William W; Caudill House
(1953, Caudill, Rowlett, Scott & Associates), is located. Turned
on its site to open to the downward slope, the brick and glass
Caudill House and its companion rear studio building commu-
nicate the enthusiasm for going modern that was so appealing
Around the corner at 1104
Langford St., as the loop
hh: road begins to rise, is a
corrugated cement pan-
eled house designed by
Ben H. Evans for his
Evans House family (c. 1957). The
Evans House has suffered
from extensive additions, but the spatial counterpoint between
the house and its open carport is still apparent. Theo R.
Holleman designed his family's house (1961) at 1110
Langford, At 1115 Langford and Winding Road is the Fred
Weick House (1949) by Caudill, Rowlett, Scott & Associates.
Faced with limestone, it is an expansive version of the College
Station modem house type. The second Ernest Langford
House (1957) is at 1200
Langford; it has been
altered. The David D.
Yarbrough House (c.
1960) at 1213 Winding
Road was designed by weick House
A&M architecture
instructor and former CRS
employee Yarbrough with r "1
paneled walls of black
glazed brick. At 1211
Winding Road is the
Dean W. W. Armistead
House (c. 1955). L. Brooks Yarbrough House
Martin designed the
altered, split-level
Professor Arthur G.
Edmonds House (1949)°
at 1205 Winding Road.
Professor Clark named
several of the streets ort
The Knoll and its exten-
sion, The South Knoll, for Armistead House
architects who built their houses on The Knoll: Langford,
Caudill, and Franklin Lawyer. Langford St. leads past the
Longley House at 1215 (c. 1970), an unexpected bit of old
Santa Fe. At 1220 Boswell St. is E. Earl Merrill's South Knoll
Elementary School (1967), a testament to his apprenticeship
with CRS.
Southside developed in spatial layers: the interwar layer
between George Bush and Holleman Dr. was followed by the
postwar layer between Holleman and Southwest Parkway. The
1960s and 70s layer is between Southwest Parkway and West
Loop 2818, Along 2818, churches stand out as the most visible
works of architecture in the exploded landscape of sprawl,
especially Peace Lutheran Church (1981) by Rodney C. Hill
at 2201 Rio Grande Blvd.
and West Loop 2818 and
the Flamboyantly post-
modern Friends United
Church of Christ (1984) Y
by Clovis Heimsath
Associates of Austin at
1300 West Loop 2018. St. Francis Episcopal Church
New College Station lies south of Deacon Drive. Along Rock
Prairie Road, SL Francis Episcopal Church at 1101 (1987,
Holster & Associates) and the College Station Medical
C 0 L L e 6 1 S r A T i r> n° i 19
in the 1950s. The Frank
D, lawyer House (1954)
at 1214 Orr by architect
Lawyer is closed on its
long street side by a wall
of cement panels and
Lawyer House
high -set clerestory win-
dows. Note how stands
of post oak woodland landscaping
separate the house sites on
The Knoll.
Around the corner at 1104
Langford St., as the loop
hh: road begins to rise, is a
corrugated cement pan-
eled house designed by
Ben H. Evans for his
Evans House family (c. 1957). The
Evans House has suffered
from extensive additions, but the spatial counterpoint between
the house and its open carport is still apparent. Theo R.
Holleman designed his family's house (1961) at 1110
Langford, At 1115 Langford and Winding Road is the Fred
Weick House (1949) by Caudill, Rowlett, Scott & Associates.
Faced with limestone, it is an expansive version of the College
Station modem house type. The second Ernest Langford
House (1957) is at 1200
Langford; it has been
altered. The David D.
Yarbrough House (c.
1960) at 1213 Winding
Road was designed by weick House
A&M architecture
instructor and former CRS
employee Yarbrough with r "1
paneled walls of black
glazed brick. At 1211
Winding Road is the
Dean W. W. Armistead
House (c. 1955). L. Brooks Yarbrough House
Martin designed the
altered, split-level
Professor Arthur G.
Edmonds House (1949)°
at 1205 Winding Road.
Professor Clark named
several of the streets ort
The Knoll and its exten-
sion, The South Knoll, for Armistead House
architects who built their houses on The Knoll: Langford,
Caudill, and Franklin Lawyer. Langford St. leads past the
Longley House at 1215 (c. 1970), an unexpected bit of old
Santa Fe. At 1220 Boswell St. is E. Earl Merrill's South Knoll
Elementary School (1967), a testament to his apprenticeship
with CRS.
Southside developed in spatial layers: the interwar layer
between George Bush and Holleman Dr. was followed by the
postwar layer between Holleman and Southwest Parkway. The
1960s and 70s layer is between Southwest Parkway and West
Loop 2818, Along 2818, churches stand out as the most visible
works of architecture in the exploded landscape of sprawl,
especially Peace Lutheran Church (1981) by Rodney C. Hill
at 2201 Rio Grande Blvd.
and West Loop 2818 and
the Flamboyantly post-
modern Friends United
Church of Christ (1984) Y
by Clovis Heimsath
Associates of Austin at
1300 West Loop 2018. St. Francis Episcopal Church
New College Station lies south of Deacon Drive. Along Rock
Prairie Road, SL Francis Episcopal Church at 1101 (1987,
Holster & Associates) and the College Station Medical
C 0 L L e 6 1 S r A T i r> n° i 19
Center Hospital (1987, Page
Southerland Page) at 1604 Rock
Prairie are the architectural stand
outs. On the east side of the East
Bypass. Rock Prairie leads to
Stonebrook Dr. and to Wilshire
Court, At 1307 Wilshire Court is the
Julius K Gribou House (1997) by
A&M architecture department head
Zweig House Julius Gribou. The northbound
frontage road leads to Sebesta,
Foxfire, Frost, and eventually to 2509
Fitzgerald Circle, where the dramatic, triangular Peter J.
Zweig House (1977), designed as an environmentally respon-
sive house by Houston architect Zweig while teaching at
A&M, is located. At 2541 East Bypass is St. Thomas Aquinas
Catholic Church (1989),
with its spatially remark-
able interior, by College
Station architects Holster
& Associates with A&M
architecture professor
Tin House David C. Ekmth. An
homage to Gerry Maffei's
Tin House is the
Galvalume-surfaced,
shed -like Tin House at
2504 Raintree Or. (1997),
designed and built by
Foley s A&M architecture stu-
dents Charley Hatfield
INand Matthew De Wolf.
Since opening in the late
1970s, the Highway 6
Bypass has stimulated
sprawling suburban
scows white clinic development. College
Station's shopping mall,
Post Oak Mall, was built at the Harvey Road intersection
(1982); its primary architectural component is Foley's by
Houston architects Lloyd Jones Brewer & Associates. At 1602
University Dr. E. and the Bypass is the College Station branch
of the Scott & White Clinic of Temple (1996) Page
Southerland Page.
20 r_ O t I. E f E $ 'I' A T i O N
Neighborhood Character Paper
Acknowledgment of Participants
II. Table of Contents
III. Vicinity Map
IV. Development Timeline (Neighborhood Character Paper)
V. Neighborhood Character Paper Description
A neighborhood character paper is a report that describes the character, i.e., age
and architectural traits, of homes in a particular neighborhood. The character
paper of a particular neighborhood will be utilized to craft the ordinance
language for that neighborhood historic district. It is prepared by a work group
from the neighborhood by means of a neighborhood survey with guidance from
City staff and Texas Historical Commission.
VI. Neighborhood Character Paper Purpose
A neighborhood character paper seeks to determine the architectural features
that a particular neighborhood intends to protect. The neighborhood character
paper is created to address some or all of the following design issues to ensure
that additions, modifications, and/or infill, as applicable are compatible to the
character of the district.
VII. Neighborhood Character Vision Statement
VIII. Neighborhood Map
IX. Neighborhood Conditions
A. Paragraph Description
ex. Willow Oaks is an indigenous community that was developed over a
period of time from 1935 to 1955. The variety of architectural styles lends
a very special charm to the neighborhood. While the neighborhood grew
slowly compared to today's subdivision, it was pieced together in a
coherent way. Westside has a unity of character while offering variety and
visual interest due to the fact that residences were built by quite a number
of individual contractors.
B. Outline of Typical Components
Landscaping:
a. Number of trees per linear foot
ex. Majority of the lots in Willow Oaks neighborhood
community contain two trees per 100 linear feet.
b. Number of plant units per unit acre
ex. Majority of the lots in Willow Oaks neighborhood
community are landscaped such that they contain 7 plant
units per acre. Plant units system include canopy trees,
evergreens, ornamentals, and shrubs, creating a mass from
ground level to canopy top.
C. Groundcover
ex. Majority of the lots in Willow Oaks neighborhood
community display green ground cover (trimmed) in the
front and backyard
2. Site Design:
a. Lot Coverage
ex. Majority of the lots in Willow Oaks neighborhood
community have a maximum lot coverage of 30 percent.
b. Accessory Buildings
ex. Lots in Willow Oaks neighborhood community have
accessory buildings that have a maximum lot coverage of
10 percent. Such accessory buildings also maintain a
maximum height of 8 feet from unexcavated ground to eave.
The maximum roof pitch (rise vs. run ratio) maintained by
accessory buildings is 5:12.
C. Driveways
ex. Majority of the lots in Willow Oaks neighborhood
community have concrete driveways.
d. Fences
ex. Majority of the lots in Willow Oaks neighborhood
community have eclectic wooden fences. Although they
vary in style, most of them are painted white.
e. Mailboxes
ex. Majority of the lots in Willow Oaks neighborhood
community have mailboxes that are designed to match the
architecture of the building.
3. Building Design:
a. Roof Overhang
ex. Majority of the buildings in Willow Oaks neighborhood
community display eaves that measure between 18 inches
to 30 inches in length.
b. Degree of Material Use
ex. Majority of the buildings in Willow Oaks neighborhood
community display materials and features such as door and
window trim and shutters that are uniform 360 degrees.
C. Roof Height
ex. Majority of the buildings in Willow Oaks neighborhood
community display roof heights that appropriately address
building bulk and maintain visual continuity with buildings
within 200 feet on either side.
d. Roof Pitch
ex. Majority of the buildings in Willow Oaks neighborhood
community display roof pitches that appropriately address
building bulk and maintain visual continuity with buildings
within 200 feet on either side.
e. Roof Orientation
ex. Majority of the buildings in Willow Oaks neighborhood
community display roof orientations that conform with the
roof orientation of buildings within 200 feet on either side.
f. Roof Shape
ex. Majority of the buildings in Willow Oaks neighborhood
community display roof shapes that are common to its
block.
g. Windows
ex. Majority of the buildings in Willow Oaks neighborhood
communityfollow the approximate width -to -height ratio of
2:3.
h. Doors
ex. Majority of the buildings in Willow Oaks neighborhood
community display doors and windows that are
proportional and placed such that they create a rhythm of
solids and voids in the,fagade and also conform to facades
of the surrounding buildings.
Porches
ex. Buildings in Willow Oaks neighborhood community have
porches that create visual interest and are of a functional
size.
j. Architectural Features
ex. Majority of the buildings in Willow Oaks neighborhood
community display architectural features such as bay
windows and a projected wing.
k. Architectural Details
ex. Majority of the buildings in Willow Oaks neighborhood
community display architectural features that help break
up the fagade through the use of foundations that are
emphasized, and roofs and corners that are accentuated.
Materials
ex. Majority of the buildings in Willow Oaks neighborhood
community display materials that conform with building
materials within 200 feet on either side.
M. Entrance Location
ex. Majority of the buildings in Willow Oaks neighborhood
community have their entrances on the front fagade.
n. Accessory Buildings
ex. Majority of the buildings in Willow Oaks neighborhood
community have accessory buildings that are
architecturally related to the main building.
o. Garage Placement and Load
ex. Majority of the buildings in Willow Oaks neighborhood
community have garages that are setback approximately 12
,feet from the front entrance. In the case of corner lots
garages are side loaded.
4. Infrastructure:
a.
Parks
b.
Drainage
C.
Sidewalks
d.
Signs
e.
Gateways
f.
Lighting
g.
Powerlines
5. Zoning:
6. No. of Lots:
7. Building Use (commercial, residential, institutional, religious, etc.)
8. Maintenance:
9. Pedestrian:
10. Code Compliance
11. Property Values
12. Land Use:
X. Housing Stock Examples
XI. Proposed Historic District Map
XII. Goals for Historic District Regulation
XIII. Appendix
1. Meeting Agendas
2. Sign -in Sheets
3. Meeting Notices
4. Meeting Summaries
First Historic District Creation Process
Neighborhood expresses interest in creating historic district to City staff / City council
Neighborhood educational meetings are held
Neighborhood communicates intent to pursue historic district status to City Council and requests enabling ordinance
Upon City Councils' request, staff prepares an enabling ordinance that allows for the creation of individual historic districts
and landmarks
Education on historic
districts and incentives
Series of neighborhood meetings: Defining districts
Upon passage of the
enabling ordinance,
neighborhood with staffi
assistance prepares,
during a series of
meetings, a neighbor-
hood character paper
and survey
Upon passage of
enabling ordinance,
the City can apply
through the Texas
Historical Commission
to become a Certified
Local Government,
eligible for grant monies'
Neighborhood decides'.
on historic district
boundaries
Neighborhood character
paper presented in
public meeting
Series of meetings: Creating ordinance based on neighborhood attributes as determined in neighborhood character paper
and survey. Neighborhood with staff assistance determines what the historic district ordinance should regulate
Staff prepares ordinance language
Ordinance draft is presented in public meetings to neighborhood
Ordinance is presented to City Council for approval
Historic Preservation Review Board as created by enabling ordinance starts reviewing projects
Design guidelines are prepared for adoption by City Council for use by Historic Preservation Review Board,
district property owner, and City staff
Historic district education continues
i-escv vc�� o n P (ars C V
• 1 d cv-k �,i py�nmoo, is ` V? OL
vev I'c., P we -'s
--> SO�Ddcv. Clot -,Sized �5
-PC" �- o-� Gomes ' lc r) b r n
C- Pv-es - Cv m m I ee_
"C-�x,��s � e51 c���---�--+'v � �� (� t'S �-�v i c,� 5 � I ��d v►��,�� (�S
-ev I ee w o VNIC-) 6 �, 61) s `d evno Vle w ccV)s i yu c.Hd v7
V'�CAC"-4--ion +D _ C --v ic�-L i visGcjv-_ pv-eSv, or dIS Icy -
15 NIU 'R-e5cK va;h,o h G kfi. vy,�
Foy a d o's1-yi'M cuS k 5h o,Hc
L) iO4C4'
`��bacv—; - ..iia , c6r `v�e a :q�, , S%Yccv pcxv v-)� ; yo-VIls , c O- ,
vi (At s, vac t ks", civ c���, � e�� c ��� Y,P � k - CAW , pf>L) no -vi .s j
%%i j(T 4
-, tY,-,ylo-, j e c V- , d;(" & YS�.i, V1yx"C)Vj cC)vV)1
�
V-oc
Exterior Alterations, & Additions
Revitalizing Existing Conditions
Two examples of successful rehabilitation - view looking through restored corner of the Plank and Hoge building to the old Preston Hotel
at the corner of College Avenue and Main Street.
Use this pamphlet when:
adding to an existing building
making exterior changes or repairs
adding an outbuilding or accessory structure
PRINCIPLES for ADVISORY GUIDELINES
Through an understanding of established building patterns, changes in the district
can enhance its integrity and contribute to a positive identity of the town. Exterior
alterations and additions, that respect historic features, reinforce and conserve
irreplaceable fabric of the district and the tangible connection between past and present.
Innovative projects linking new ideas with tradition can promote investment into the
historic fabric and encourage sustainable growth in the area.
Changes to historic materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships need to retain
a sense of wholeness of the district. In the presence of ongoing change, the distinction
of the historic setting, including topography, vegetation, the original town grid, and
buildings, sustains the memory of an area through time.
Blacksburg Historic District
Design Guidelines
RETAINING ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY
In exterior- alterations and additions, compatibility with existing
dements can make a building fit into the surrounding district. Style
and standard of design varies with the eclectic nature of the area.
Care should be taken to re-establish scale and content of the historical
elements with new design. The illustrations below depict an original
commercial storefrong (left) and a recent alteration (right).
Building Elements
° Remove siding or other inappropriate
materials covering historical features with care.
° Repair original elements wherever possible or
replace if unrepairable.
° Avoid alterations that create a false sense of
historic appearance.
° Maintain dimensions of historical elements in
rehabilitated facades.
° Preserve the composition of doors, windows,
and columns in historic storefronts and
building frontages.
Porches usually have
a stature that fits the
j building's use, and
contributes to street
�r�! _� ��; frontage continuity.
- —'� Enclosure of porches
should acknowledge
the historic character.
° In historic structures, when windows, doors
or other building elements are missing or
beyond repair match replacements of original
in material, design, composition, color and
texture.
° In historic structures, rather than replacing
drafty but otherwise sound windows and
doors, improve energy efficiency by installing
storm windows and doors in keeping with
historic and architectural detail.
° Signs, awnings and light fixtures should be
compatible with, and should not damage or
obstruct historic features.
° Screen new decks from principle views.
Air conditioning units, television antennas,
satellite dishes, and ramps are best screened
with low walls, fences and plantings.
Blacksburg Historic District
Design Guidelines
Upper floor windows, typically openings in walls 2:1 ratit
Location of beam, sometimes contains lower cornice
Transom windows
, Large display windows
U 4 0
s" J] A
' integral, modest signs
Alcove entry
front division
\ Bulkhead
Stairway to second floor marked by balcony
Lyric storefronts circa 1940
vrigmat cmmney mamtameo
209 Wharton Street
Additions that are in scale with adjacent structures maintain the
identity and integrity of the neighborhood. Building elements such
as doors, columns, windows, and cornices define the building face
and street frontage. Historically, the quality of craft is often a
Open corner re-established with free standing column significant feature of the construction. The photograph at the bottom
Glass divisions match Lyric storefront \ of the page shows typical residential elements.
Transom windows re-established \
Large transparent openings
Additions
° Additions should be added to the rear of existing
buildings, to the side at least 2'-0 behind the front
plane of the existing structure, or as detached
111
outbuildings at the rear of the lot.
° Relate additions to the proportional massing of
the existing structure.
° The roof lines and facades of additions should
WWI
accentuate the neighborhood fabric by relating
to the overall volume and pattern of neighboring
buildings.
Avoid additions that create a false historical
appearance.
° Consider removing additions and elements that
Alcove entry
detract from the historic character of a building.
xe division 25' apart or less
Bulkhead re-established vvid, corbling
° Additions that recreate missing historic features
Facade division matches 25' storefront limits
such as porches and dormers should be based
on architectural or historic evidence.
Alteration at corner of Main Street and College Avenue
17-71
1897
' !
I 1934
Mawie frees uIaunzunnu
1942
1972 RE
1989 LJ
it
Original Christ Church building with
four successive additions. Individual
volumes are defined reducing the scale
of the total mass.
402 Roanoke Street Exterior Alterations & Additions
Pages 2 & 3
REINFORCING the HISTORIC SETTING
Exterior alterations and additions should retain and enhance street frontage. Low walls
and fences, Street trees and other vegetation are viewed as important parts of the overall
setting. In primarily residential areas, buildings have varying setbacks with a variety of
large trees in front yards while hedges provide street continuity. In commercial areas
there is typically no setback. Buildings meet the sidewalk and trees line the street.
Street Edge
° Maintain and reinforce the street plan with street
edge elements or plantings, such as low fences and
hedges, planting beds, street trees, and decorative
paving materials.
House along Progress Street
showing typical landscape
elements defining the street edge
° Retain or re-establish the historic residential front
yard or setback specific to the surrounding area.
Provide walkways that link the front entry to
sidewalk or street.
° Screen remote satellite dishes, trash containers and
other accessory equipment with low walls, fences
or plantings.
° Repair and maintain the character -defining
features of a historic setting including outbuildings,
fences, retaining walls, gateposts, gates, arbors,
steps, walks, streetlamps, signs and paving.
Site Elements
° Maintain or replace trees, plantings, hedges and
other site elements in a manner consistent with
original or historic pattern.
° Large existing trees need to be protected if a grade
change is necessary.
° Changes in topography should be made with
retaining walls, preferably stone and mortar.
° Maintain the natural setting of streams as urban
amenities.
Be alert to archaeological significance of building
remains, related features, and landscape. Consider
appropriate action that conserves the historic
fabric.
Blacksburg Historic District
Design Guidelines
:'•vv j .
Original building of Christ Church
showing additions of simlar massings
separated by courtyards. Streetscape is
maintained by repetitive volumes in
scale with existing buildings and
landscaped edge.
Articulated two story facades comprise fronts facing the street
Roanoke Street elevation from C
V
BALANCING PEDESTRIAN SCALE and PARKING
Neighborhoods should be pleasant for walking with a balance maintained between parked
U"
�,
l.Q1J Gllll.l peUCJl11Q11J. 1110 Jlllllb' vi Yuincu �.uiJ �,aii ciiiiuiii.c u>.� 4�iiLy UI uic uiJuii.L.
Site Elements
° To encourage pedestrian activity, changes to the
existing setting should include parking for cars
behind the front of buildings, garaged or situated
in a landscaped court and screened from view.
° Retain and repair historic driveways, such as the
two -strip concrete type.
° Retain narrow curb cuts and single lane driveways
8 - 12 feet in width is encouraged.
° Avoid removing mature landscape plantings and
Park cars behind buildings in elements when providing new driveways.
a landscaped parking court
/ X
207 Church Street
cars are parked behind building
while street edged is maintained with
shallow setback and landscaping
Building mass along the street comprises vertical, close packed volumes
e E°
Street to Wharton showing range of building mass along the street
Exterior Alterations &Additions
Pages 4 & 5
A44.Q e
If
1 ia;
i t
M1 F t
�
b I
207 Church Street
cars are parked behind building
while street edged is maintained with
shallow setback and landscaping
Building mass along the street comprises vertical, close packed volumes
e E°
Street to Wharton showing range of building mass along the street
Exterior Alterations &Additions
Pages 4 & 5
MATERIAL, CRAFTSMANSHIP and RECOMMENDED PRACTICES
The set of materials in the historic district provides a basis for understanding
r;ht, d l-cren, construction t;c.,, d frs,. anshi Most 1-'sf ,-"
l.olllpa lltllG a11U VV 11V11�.11L LV11J 11 Ul. L1Vt1 pr al. tit.LJ a13U LL a 11.J111Ut1J t t 11.1. 1V1VJI 111J-.1
buildings use materials in a way appropriate to recommended building methods
and finishes.
Care should be given to adjust prefabricated building products to the local setting.
Material selection should be considered in conjunction with use in construction.
Materials
° Construct alterations and additions at a quality
level consistent with existing structures.
° Select materials to reflect the context and the
specific construction type.
° Replacement of historic materials should match
the original material in dimension, shape and
texture. Installation should not darnage intact
historic materials and elements.
° Alternative materials may be acceptable when
repair or replacement of original materials is not
technically or economically feasible. For example,
alternates for some materials might include:
cast concrete steps for stone steps
a similar prefabricated metal system for standing -
seam metal roofs
synthetic siding for wood siding - original dimension
and detail should be retained without obscuring
decorative features.
fiberbased shingles for slate shingles
A detailed list is available from town staff.
° Where materials are historically unpainted, they
should remain so. Protect traditionally unpainted
elements with appropriate chemical preservatives
or clear finishes.
° Avoid the use of pressure treated wood in the front
of structures. When used, paint or stain.
° Paving for new driveways and parking areas
should have surface texture. Masonry pavers are
preferred over asphalt.
° For additions, materials are not limited, but should
relate to the existing context.
° Material selection for additions includes
innovative use of standard or new materials but
requires appropriate detailing and craftsmanship.
Blacksburg Historic District
Design Guidelines
A house on Main Street is an example of a conversion to a
business where the detail has been maintained
Christian Science Center is an example of innovative use of
plywood siding in a manner that is consistent in scale and
quality of the neighborhood
The durability of a material and subsequent maintenance are important factors for
hictnrir hrnilrlinrrc Farly hiiilrlorc nfton rhnco mntorinlc that ronidrori roniilar
maintenance.
Construction practices that use the craft of building assist in the longevity of historic
fabric. Careful repair and replacement of historic materials is necessary to maintain
the integrity of the district.
111
The original National Bank of Blacksburg offers an example
of detail at the parapet on a commercial building
An example of innovative use of prefabricated material -- corrugated
metal. These original metal infill panels are consistent in scale and
quality with downtown commercial buildings
Recommended Practices
When cleaning surfaces, select and use the most
gentle available methods to prevent damage or
deterioration, and to retain appearance of historic
materials. Avoid abrasive or reactive cleaning
techniques such as sand blasting, high pressure
water cleaning, acid washes, and chemical
treatments.
° When repairing fragile materials, first try to
stabilize and conserve original materials with
consolidants like epoxies. If too deteriorated,
repair by patching or otherwise reinforcing the
material.
° Where there is evidence of deterioration in mortar
joints, selectively and carefully repoint. To avoid
damaging masonry, remove deteriorated mortar
by hand -raking the joints.
° When weatherizing requires blown -in insulation,
use techniques that do not scar historic siding, such
as plugged holes or untrimmed foam.
° Where repairs have failed to arrest water
penetration in historic masonry, water -repellant
coatings can be applied. Be aware that such
coatings may change the appearance of historic
masonry and can accelerate deterioration.
An example of brick corbelling on a downtown building
Exterior Alterations &Additions
Pages 6 & 7
PROPOSAL REVIEW and COMMENT (per ordinance 1222
Projects requiring a review will need a review letter as part of the building permit
approval process. The applicant is encouraged to consider the contribution that
components of a proposal make to the block and street, as well as the individual parcel.
To assist discussion, the following items are suggested:
• Map showing marked location of property under consideration;
• Site plan indicating location of existing and proposed structures
and accessory structures including walls, fences, walks, trees and
other landscape, and exterior lighting;
° Recent photographs of all sides of the structure or site under
consideration, and of adjoining area; and
• Sketches, drawings, or architectural elevations depicting the areas
to be affected by alteration and describing how materials are to be
employed.
Review Process
Once application and accompanying materials have been submitted to the Town,
town staff will review projects requiring an administrative review. If the proposal
requires a review by the review board, the project will be placed on the agenda for
discussion at the next Review Committee meeting. At the applicant's request,
members of the review board or town staff may consult informally with applicant
before or after submittal of application. This informal consultation is intended to
help applicants understand and interpret the design guidelines prior to the public
meeting. Neither the Review Committee nor staff may formally act on the proposal
outside of the pubic meeting.
Processing of applications includes the following actions on the part of
the Town staff or review board members:
• Town staff will review project proposals to determine whether they
will require an administrative review or review by the review committee
• For projects going to the review board, town staff will notify applicant
of adjoining properties that the proposal will be discussed at a public
meeting;
° the applicant, other property owners in the district, and other
potentially affected parties will have an opportunity to comment on
the proposal at a public meeting;
• Project proposals will be reviewed according to Design Guidelines and
town staff or the board will render an assessment;
° Town staff will notify applicant in writing of the assessment regarding
the proposal. Town staff will maintain minutes of the review board
meeting that outline the facts of the proposal assessment.
• The review letter issued to the property owner must be submitted with
a building permit application.
Blacksburg Historic District Exterior Alteratons & Additions
Design Guidelines Page 8
New Construction
Strengthening Patterns
Townhouses along Harding Avenue utilize materials detailed in a contemporary manner and
individual entrances from grade that provide identity and reflect the scale and character found in the district.
use this pamphlet when:
• constructing a new independent building
• making significant site changes
PRINCIPLES for ADVISORY GUIDELINES
New construction can bring capital investment, increase commerce and foster social activity
that enhances and protects the historic and special features of the district
Infill building, when appropriate in type, scale, massing and material, will benefit the
downtown and adjacent neighborhoods.
These guidelines provide a framework for design that reinforces the character of the district.
These guidelines do not intend to prescribe specific solutions.
Development that builds upon patterns of the ecletic area can offer a balance of diverse
residents and businesses in the district.
Innovative design that links new ideas with tradition can promote civic and economic
investment while protecting the historic character and encouraging sustainable growth.
Blacksburg Historic District
Design Guidelines
BUILDING TYPE AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
New construction should be compatible with existing buildings by respecting established
patterns of building orientation, type, volume, height, and scale. Care should be taken to
use building elements and features that fit the new design into the neighboring context.
Facades of downtown buildings have multiple recessed ground level entries and large glass
fronts with one to three stories above. Simple rectilinear forms are manipulated to express the
individual identity of buildings while providing continuity along the street.
In mostly residential areas, one and two story houses with shallow yards line the street.
Churches and other buildings have similar proportions and volumes to those of adjacent houses.
General Considerations
° In placing new buildings on a site, consider the
location of adjacent buildings, and trees.
Building heights range from one to four stories
in the district. New construction can differ yet
new buildings should acknowledge adjacent
building heights.
Massing and volume of new construction
should reflect neighboring buildings. Block like
building forms are most common in the
commercial downtown. Building forms in the
residential areas are often more varied.
Provide roof designs related to pitch, shape Storefront section
and area of roofs found in neighboring
structures. In residential areas, gable and hip
roofs are predominant. Flat or shed roofs
behind a parapet are typical in downtown.
11,11.10.1. W111111111 BID
Recessed entries
Elevation along Roanoke Street showing a variety of building types
° Consider proportions and patterns of windows,
doors and other elements found in the district.
Orient building fronts and entrances to the
street so they contribute to the street frontage
continuity.
° Be alert to building remains, related features
and landscapes of archaeological significance.
Consider appropriate action that conserves the
historic fabric.
Blacksburg Historic District
Design Guidelines
Commercial duplex with upper level dwellings
Progress Stmet
Courtyard townhouse form
maintains setback and scale
Commercial Buildings
° Street frontage of downtown buildings is
generally less than 25' in width.
° Building heights are generally 2 - 3 - 4 stories
in the downtown area. Taller buildings need
to be sensitive to this pattern and scale.
° Recessed storefront entries offer intimate scale
for the pedestrian, identity for the individual
business and an amenity for the street.
° Access to upper levels is best through a
vestibule at street level.
° Storefronts with a high degree of transparency
and height of 10-12 feet are appropriate for the
ground level of buildings.
° The building mass at the ground level should
be continuous.
• Upper story windows generally should be
vertical in proportion regularly spaced in a
solid facade.
Residential Buildings
Place main entry at ground level, directly
related to the street and provide a secondary
rear entry.
Townhouse grouping
LJI E I it i
•Articulate the individual identity of each
dwelling by giving emphasis to the vertical
dimension. Multiple unit dwellings such as
row houses, should have massing and
orientation that give identity to individual
units.
° Two story dwellings comprising an attic or loft
space are typical in the district.
New Construction
Pages 2 + 3
STRENGTHENING STREETS and LANDSCAPE
In many areas of the district, layers of landscape, such as trees and hedges, in combination
with low walls and fences typically define the street edge. New building massing and
related site elements similar to the existing type and scale can contribute to development
of street frontage continuity.
° In general, the site design of new buildings
should respect consistent street frontage
dimension and pattern.
° New construction should reflect the average
front setbacks of the block.
° Maintain and reinforce the street plan with street
edge elements or plantings, such as low fences
and hedges, plantings beds, street trees, and
decorative paving materials.
° Consider known archaeological sites by
employing careful excavation and grading, or
invite archaeologists to investigate the site.
Consult with town for assistance if needed.
° Maintain the natural setting of streams as urban
amenities.
v
A stream as an urban amenity by
an office on Church Street
Blacksburg Historic District
Design Guidelines
Buildings at edge of sidewalk reinforce
street definition t
f-;
Fr
j
College Avenue
l�
?l I � � � Jerknon Street
Cl' c
Roanoke Street
Lack of building at sidewalk F ' i-
erodes street identity
Lee su«t
L2 is D
0
wnehington Street
G
— - clay street
n o
aJ—
olj
Diagram showing continuity and discontinuity
of street edge on Main Street
l
iT
Elevation along Roanoke Street showing lawns with large street trees and a variety of shrubs
Retaining walls as a repeating pattern in
the landscape
I
Drawing of terraced lawns along one block of
Progress Street
i
• Where there is a prevailing pattern of
landscape, such as lawns, consider extending
the pattern.
° Retain specimen trees, hedges and plantings.
° Significant alteration of existing topography is
discouraged. Terraced changes in elevation with
low retaining walls is preferable.
• Maintain natural grades or use retaining walls
when reconfiguring grades at sidewalk or street.
Section showing terracing and retaining walls to
adjust existing grades
° Air conditioning units, satellite dishes, trash
containers, utility boxes, and ramps are best
screened from street view with low walls, fences
and plantings.
° Non-residential buildings should locate service
areas at rear of lot and screened from street view.
Exterior lighting should match building type
and scale. High intensity commercial lighting
is generally unacceptable in areas of residential
development. In such areas, pole -mounted
lighting no more than 10' in height is preferred.
New Construction
Pages 4 + 5
BALANCING PEDESTRIAN AREAS and PARKING
Neighborhoods should be pleasant for walking with a balance maintained between parked
cars and pedestrians. The site of parking can be accommodated as a positive addition to
the historic area. A thoughtfully constructed streetscape invites pedestrians while providing
for cars.
° To encourage pedestrian activity, locate parking
for cars behind the front face of buildings,
garaged or situated in a landscaped court and
screened from street view.
° Walkways linking building entrances to the
street and through the block are encouraged.
° Narrow curb cuts and single lane driveways --
often 8-12 feet in width - are encouraged.
S
Narrow driveway leading to harking in the rear
° Avoid removing mature landscape plantings
when providing new driveways. If removal is
needed, trees and other plantings should be
replaced in a way that reinforces the prevailing
pattern.
° Locate new parking areas and garages in a way
that reinforces the quality of the pedestrian
experience. Layers of landscape along the street
and islands planted with trees and hedges are
preferred.
° A series of connected small groupings of parked
cars with substantial landscaping is more
compatiable with the scale of the district than
one single parking lot.
° Consider grading parking lots as level as
possible while maintianing existing grade along
street edge.
Blacksburg Historic District
Design Guidelines
Patterns of driveways and garages along Harding Avenue and
Wilson Street
Stairway from parking court to sidewalk
Courtyard parking with brick retaining walls and stairway
to adjoining street
--
t -
�Fc• "
Retaining wall}
.......
Parking
Courtyard parking with brick retaining walls and stairway
to adjoining street
MATERIALS and CRAFTSMANSHIP
The set of materials in the historic district offers an understanding of compatible and
cl-oherent clnnctr� c -tion nra!•ti!•oc anrJ i•r iftcmAnchin NA/ :itPrial cPlPrtinn fnr nPAA/ rnnQtri irtinn
♦.vi i�,i �,a a� �,va iii u�,uv.. N. u�.u�w �.......,....i...�,,,.., ,....i... ...... �... ............................... ............,.,.......
should be considered in conjunction with its use in construction. Care should be given to
adjust prefabricated building products to the local setting.
Construction practices that use craftsmanship and the craft of building assist in the longevity
of materials and buildings. The durability of a material and subsequent maintenance are
important factors for new development.
Lighting detail in a brick facade where graduated brick
pockets frame the wall sconces
Corner porch detail with an open frame
column enlarges the street view
Material selection for new construction includes
the innovative use of materials but requires
appropriate detailing and craftsmanship.
° New construction can employ new materials
and should respect the detail of materials found
in historic buildings. Some examples of early
used materials in the district include:
Windows, historically, had clear glass rather than
tinted or reflective glass.
Storefronts are typically metal or wood window
frames with clear glass display windows.
Common roof materials are standing seam metal;
pressed metal, slate or asphalt shingles.
Wall materials include painted wood, brick, stone,
stucco and wood shingles.
Avoid changing materials at the corners of
buildings. When necessary, a dimension of at
least 2'-0" from the corner is recommended.
Avoid use of pressure treated wood in the front
of structures. When used, paint or stain.
Paving for new driveways, parking areas and
walkways should have surface texture.
Consider alternatives to asphalt.
Example of concrete paving
with textured surface
Materials for retaining walls should be similar
to existing ones found in the district such as
brick or stone. Take care to provide adequate
and proper drainage.
Painted wood and metal fences that leave the
street and yard open to view are preferred.
New Construction
Pages 6 + 7
PROPOSAL REVIEW and COMMENT (per ordinance 1222)
Projects requiring a review will need a review letter as part of the building permit
approval process. The applicant is encouraged to consider the contribution that
components of a proposal make to the block and street, as well as the individual parcel.
To assist discussion, the following items are suggested:
Map showing marked location of property under consideration;
Site plan indicating location of existing and proposed structures
and accessory structures including walls, fences, walks, trees and
other landscape, and exterior lighting;
° Recent photographs of all sides of the structure or site under
consideration, and of adjoining area; and
° Sketches, drawings, or architectural elevations depicting the areas
to be affected by alteration and describing how materials are to be
employed.
Review Process
Once application and accompanying materials have been submitted to the Town,
town staff will review projects requiring an administrative review. If the proposal
requires a review by the review board, the project will be placed on the agenda for
discussion at the next Review Committee meeting. At the applicant's request,
members of the review board or town staff may consult informally with applicant
before or after submittal of application. This informal consultation is intended to
help applicants understand and interpret the design guidelines prior to the public
meeting. Neither the Review Committee nor staff may formally act on the proposal
outside of the pubic meeting.
Processing of applications includes the following actions on the part of
the Town staff or review board members:
° Town staff will review project proposals to determine whether they
will require an administrative review or review by the review committee
For projects going to the review board, town staff will notify applicant
of adjoining properties that the proposal will be discussed at a public
meeting;
the applicant, other property owners in the district, and other
potentially affected parties will have an opportunity to comment on
the proposal at a public meeting;
° Project proposals will be reviewed according to Design Guidelines
and town staff or the board will render an assessment;
° Town staff will notify applicant in writing of the assessment regarding
the proposal. Town staff will maintain minutes of the review board
meeting that outline the facts of the proposal assessment.
° The review letter issued to the property owner must be submitted
with a building permit application.
Blacksburg Historic District New Construction
Design Guidelines Page 8
Model Ordinance
Historic Landmark and District Zoning Ordinance
WHEREAS, CH.221 TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, the Municipal Zoning
Authority, specifically authorizes zoning functions and procedures for municipalities; and
WHEREAS, CH.221 TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, Section 211.005 authorizes the
governing body of a municipality to divide the municipality into districts, within which the
governing body may regulate the erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, or use
of buildings, other structures, or land and within which zoning regulation must be uniform for
each class or kind of building in a district; however, zoning regulations may vary from district to
district.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
That the following Historic Landmark and District Zoning Ordinance is hereby (adopted,
Amended, enacted)as part of the comprehensive zoning plan, pursuant to CH.211 TEXAS
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
Section 1. Purpose
The City Council of hereby declares that as a matter of public policy the
protection, enhancement, and perpetuation of landmarks or district of historical and cultural
importance and significance is necessary to promote the economic, cultural, educational, and
general welfare of the public. It is recognized that the represents the unique
confluence of time and place that shaped the identity of generations of citizens, collectively and
individually, and produced significant historic, architectural, and cultural resources that constitute
their heritage. This act is intended to:
(a) protect and enhance the landmarks and districts which represent distinctive elements
of
s historic, architectural, and cultural heritage;
(b) foster civic pride in the accomplishments of the past;
(c) protect and enhance
s attractiveness to visitors and the
support and stimulus to the economy thereby provided;
(d) insure the harmonious, orderly, and efficient growth and development of the
village/town/city;
(e) promote economic prosperity and welfare of the community by encouraging the most
appropriate use of such property within the village/town/city;
(f) encourage stabilization, restoration, and improvements of such properties and their
values.
[Note: Other purposes may be included, but a general statement on aesthetics should be
avoided in most cases. Significant or unusual geographic and historic features may be
mentioned here, e.g., riverfront, oceanfront, town form, etc., and how it is integral to the
village/town/city.]
[Note: A list of definitions conforming to the ordinance should be included at this point.
You may refer to the attached appendix for definitions.]
Section 2. Historic Preservation Commission
There is hereby created a commission to be known as the Historic
Preservation Commission.
[Note: Other possible names include Landmark Commission,
Historic District and Landmark Commission, or Board of Architectural
Review.]
(a) The Commission shall consist of members to be appointed, to the extent
available among the residents of the community, by the (mayor, council, commission)
as follows.
These are possible representatives.
at least one shall be an architect, planner, or representative of a design profession;
at least one shall be a historian;
at least one shall be a licensed real estate broker;
at least one shall be an attorney;
at least one shall be an owner of a landmark or of a property in a historic district;
at least one shall be a member of
[Note: This blank should include the name of whatever preservation nonprofit exists.]
at least one shall be an archeologist or from a related discipline;
(b) All Commission members, regardless of background, shall have a known and
demonstrated interest, competence, or knowledge in historic preservation within the
village/town/city of
(c) The Commission as a whole shall represent the ethnic makeup of the
village/town/city.
(d) Commission members shall serve for a term of (at least two) years, with the
exception that the initial tern of members shall be years, and
members shall be years.
[Note: The term may be set for one, two, or whatever necessary period to achieve a
staggered term.]
(e) The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Commission shall be elected by and from the
members of the Commission.
[Note: They also may be appointed by the mayor, council, or commission.]
(f) The Commission shall be empowered to:
(i) Make recommendations for employment of staff and professional consultants
as necessary to carry out the duties of the Commission.
(ii) Prepare rules and procedures as necessary to carry out the business of the
Commission, which shall be ratified by the City Council.
(iii) Adopt criteria for the designation of historic, architectural, and cultural
landmarks and the delineation of historic districts, which shall be ratified by
the City Council.
(iv) Conduct surveys and maintain an inventory of significant historic,
architectural, and cultural landmarks and all properties located in historic
district within the village/town/city.
(v) Recommend the designation of resources as landmarks and historic districts.
(vi) Create committees from among its membership and delegate to these
committees responsibilities to carry out the purposes of this ordinance.
(vii) Maintain written minutes which record all actions taken by the Commission
and the reasons for taking such actions.
(viii) Recommend conferral of recognition upon the owners of landhnarks or
properties within districts by means of certificates, plaques, or markers.
(ix) Increase public awareness of the value of historic, cultural, and architectural
preservation by developing and participating in public education programs.
(x) Make recommendations to the village/town/city government concerning the
utilization of state, federal, or private funds to promote the preservation of
landmarks and historic districts within the village/town/city.
(xi) Approve or disapprove of applications for certificates of appropriateness
pursuant to this act.
(xii) Prepare and submit annually to the (mayor/council/commission) a report
summarizing the work completed during the previous year.
(xiii) Prepare specific design guidelines for the review of landmarks and districts.
(xiv) Recommend the acquisition of a landinark structure by the village/town/city
government where its preservation is essential to the purpose of this act and
where private preservation is not feasible. [optional]
(xv) Propose tax abatement programs(s) for landmarks or districts. [optional]
(xvi) Accept on behalf of the village/town/city government the donation of
preservation easements and development rights as well as any other gift of
value for the purpose of historic preservation, subject to the approval of the
City Council. [optional]
(g) The Commission shall meet at least monthly, if business is at hand. Special
meetings may be called at any time by the Chairman (or mayor) or on the
written request of any two Commission members. All meetings shall be held in
conformance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, Texas Civil Statutes, Article
6252-17.
(h) A quorum for the transaction of business shall consist of not less than a
majority of the full authorized membership.
Section 3. Appointment of Historic Preservation Officer
The (mayor, council, commission) or a designee shall appoint a qualified village/town/city official,
staff person, or appropriate resident of the municipal entity to serve as historic preservation
officer. This officer shall administer this ordinance and advise the Commission on matters
submitted to it.
In addition to serving as representative of the Commission, the officer is responsible for -
coordinating the village/town/city s preservation activities with those of state and federal agencies
and with local, state, and national nonprofit preservation organizations.
[Note: In the absence of a qualified official or staff person of the municipality, a
volunteer resident serving as preservation officer should be aware of the liability issues
involved in serving in this capacity.]
Section 4. Designation of Historic Landmarks
(a) These provisions pertaining to the designation of historic landmarks constitutes a part
of the comprehensive zoning plan of the City of
M
(b) Property owners of proposed historic landmarks shall be notified prior to the
Commission hearing on the recommended designation. At the Commission s public
hearing, owners, interested parties, and technical experts may present testimony or
documentary evidence which will become part of a record regarding the historic,
architectural, or cultural importance of the proposed historic landmark.
(c) Upon recommendation of the Commission, the proposed historic landmark shall be
submitted to the Zoning Commission within thirty (30) days from the date of
submittal of designation request. The Zoning Commission shall give notice and
conduct its hearing on the proposed designation within forty-five (45) days of receipt
of such recommendation from the Commission. such hearing shall be in the same
manner and according to the same procedures as specifically provided in the general
zoning ordinance of the City of . The Zoning Commission
shall make its recommendation to the City Council within forth -five (45) days
subsequent to the hearing on the proposed designation.
(d) The City Council shall schedule a hearing o the Commission s recommendation to be
held within forty-five (45) days of receipt of the recommendation of the Zoning
Commission. The City Council shall give notice, follow the publication procedure,
hold hearing, and make its determination in the same manner as provided in the general
zoning ordinance of the City of
[Note: The general zoning ordinance should provide a time limit within which the City
Council must make its determination. Time limits may be set in accordance with the
city s own zoning ordinance.]
(e) Upon designation of a (building, object, site, structure) as a historic landmark or
district, the City Council shall cause the designation to be recorded in the Official
Public Records of Real Property of County, the tax records of
the City of , and the Appraisal District as well
as the official zoning maps of the City of . All zoning maps
should indicate the designated landmarks with an appropriate marls.
Section 5. Designation of Historic Districts
(a) These provisions pertaining to the designation of historic district constitute a part of
the comprehensive zoning plan of the City of
(b) Property owners within a proposed historic district shall be notified prior to the
Commission hearing on the recornmended designation. At the Commissioner s public
hearing, owners, interested parties, and technical experts may present testimony or
documentary evidence which will become part of a record regarding the historic,
architectural, or cultural importance of the proposed historic district.
(c) The Commission may recommend the designation of a district if it:
(i) Contains properties and an environmental setting which meet one or more of
the criteria for designation of a landmark; and,
(ii) Constitutes a distinct section of the village/town/city.
(d) Upon recommendation of the Commission, the proposed historic district shall be
submitted to the Zoning Commission within thirty (30) days from the date of
submittal of designation request. The Zoning Commission shall give notice and
conduct its hearing on the proposed designation within forty-five (45) days of receipt
of such recommendation from the Commission. Such hearing shall be in the same
manner and according to the same procedures as specifically provided in the general
zoning ordinance of the City of . The Zoning Commission shall
make its recommendation to the City Council within forty-five (45) days subsequent
to the hearing on the proposed designation.
(e) The City Council shall schedule a hearing on the Commission s recommendation to be
held within forty-five (45) days of receipt of the recommendation of the Zoning
Commission. The City Council shall give notice, follow the publication procedure,
hold hearings, and make its determination in the same manner as provided in the
general zoning ordinance of the City of
[Note: The general zoning ordinance should provide a time limit upon which the city
council must make its determination. Time limits may be set in accordance with the
city s own zoning ordinance.]
(f) Upon designation of a historic district the City Council shall cause the designated
boundaries to be recorded in the Official Public Records of real property of
and the
County, the tax records of the City of
Appraisal District as well as the official zoning maps of
the City of . All zoning maps should indicate the designated
historic district by an appropriate mark.
Section 6. Criteria for Designation of Historic Landmarks and Districts
A historic landmark or district may be designated if it:
[Note: National Register criteria are most easily and often used here. Additional criteria
may be added as appropriated. In order to have a valid zoning ordinance, criteria must be
clearly established so that is can withstand a challenge for being unconstitutionally
vague.]
(a) Possesses significance in history, architecture, archeology, and culture
(b) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the board
patterns of local, regional, state, or national history.
(c) Is associated with events that have made a significant in our past.
(d) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction.
(e) Represents the work of a master designer, builder, or craftsman.
(0 Represents an established and familiar visual feature of the
neighborhood/village/town/city.
Section 7. Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration or New Construction Affecting
Landmarks or Historic Districts
No person shall carry out any construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, rehabilitation,
or relocation of any historic landmark or any property within a historic district, nor shall any
person make any material change in the light fixtures, signs, sidewalks, fences, steps, paving, or
other exterior elements visible from a public right-of-way which affect the appearance and
cohesiveness of any historic landmark or any property within a historic district.
[Note: In historic districts, it is a good idea to require a certificate of appropriateness for
proposed new construction to ensure compatibility with the existing historic resources of
the district.]
Section 8. Criteria for Approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness
In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness, the Commission shall be guided
by any adopted design guideline, and where applicable, the following from The Secretary of the
Interior s Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings. Any adopted design guideline and
Secretary of the Interior s Standards shall be made available to the property owners of historic
landmarks or within historic districts.
(a) Every reasonable effort shall be made to adapt the property in a manner which
requires minimal alteration of the building, structure, object, or site and its
environment.
(b) The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure, object, or site
and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic
material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible.
(c) All buildings, structures, objects, and sites shall be recognized as products of their
own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create and earlier
appearance shall be discouraged.
(d) Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history
and development of a building, structure, object, or site and its environment. These
changes may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shall be
recognized and respected.
(e) Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a
building, structure, object, or site shall be kept where possible.
(fj Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, wherever
possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should reflect the
material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual
qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on
accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historical, physical, or pictorial
evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural
elements form other buildings or structures.
(g) The surface cleaning of structures shall be undertaken with the gentlest means
possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that will damage the historic
building materials shall not be undertaken.
(h) Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archeological resources
affected by, or adjacent to, any project.
(i) Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be
discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical,
architectural, or cultural material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale,
color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood, or environment.
(j) Whenever possible, new additions or alterations to buildings, structures, objects, or
sites shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be
removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the building, structure,
object, or site would be unimpaired.
Section 9. Certification of Appropriateness Application Procedure
(a) Prior to the commencement of any work requiring a certificate of appropriateness the owner
shall file and application for such a certificate with the Commission. The application shall
contain:
(i) Name, address, telephone number of applicant, detailed description of proposed
work.
(ii) Location and photograph of the property and adjacent properties.
[Note: Historical photographs may be requested as well.]
(iii) Elevation drawings of the proposed changes, if available.
(iv) Samples of materials to be used.
(v) If the proposal includes signs or lettering, a scale drawing showing the type of
lettering to be used, all dimensions and colors, a description of materials to be used,
method of illumination (if any), and a plan showing the sign s location on the
property.
(vi) Any other information which the Commission may deem necessary I order to
visualize the proposed work.
[Note: These requirement may be too extensive for small cities. If so, adjust them as
necessary.]
(b) No building permit shall be issued for such proposed work until a certificate of
appropriateness has first been issued by the Commission. The certificate of appropriateness
required by this act shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any building permit that may be
required by any other ordinance of the village/town/city of
(c) The Commission shall review the application at a regularly scheduled meeting within sixty
(60) days form the date the application is received, at which time an opportunity will be
provided for the applicant to be heard. The Commission shall approve with modifications the
permit within forty-five (45) days after the review meeting. In the event the Commission
does not act within ninety (90) days of the receipt of the application, a permit may be
granted.
[Note: The Commissions decision is limited to those decisions stated in the ordinance,
i.e., approve, deny, or approve with modifications. Suspension of action for a specified
time also can be provided for in lieu of or in addition to these provided.]
(d) All decisions of the Commission shall be in writing. The Commission s decision shall state its
findings pertaining to the approval, denial, or modification of the application. A copy shall be
sent to the applicant. Additional copies shall be filed as part of the public record on that
property and dispersed to appropriated departments, e.g., building inspection.
(e) An applicant for a certificate of appropriateness dissatisfied with the action of the
Commission relating to the issuance or denial of a certificate of appropriateness shall have the
right to appeal to the City Council within (30) days after receipt of notification of such
action. The City Council shall give notice, follow publication procedure, hold hearings, and
make its decision in the same manner as provided in the general zoning ordinance of the city.
[Section 10. Certificate of Appropriateness Required for Demolition
A permit for the demolition of a historic landmark or property within a historic district, including
secondary buildings and landscape features, shall not be granted by the (building inspector or
other city official) without the review of a completed application for a certificate of
appropriateness by the Commission, as provided for in Section 7,8 and 9 of the ordinance.
Section 11. Economic Hardship Application Procedure
(a) After receiving written notification from the Commission of the denial of certificate of
appropriateness, an applicant may commence the hardship process. No building permit or
demolition pen -nit shall be issued unless the Commission makes a finding that hardship exists.
(b) When a claim of economic hardship is made due to the effect of this ordinance, the owner
must prove that:
(i) the property is incapable of earning a reasonable return, regardless of whether that
return represents the most profitable return possible;
9
(ii) the property cannot be adapted for any other use, whether by the current owner or
by a purchaser, which would result in a reasonable return; an(i
(iii) efforts to find a purchaser interested in acquiring the property and preserving it have
failed.
c) The applicant shall consult in good faith with the Commission, local preservation groups and
interested parties in a diligent effort to seek an alternative that will result in preservation of
the property. Such efforts must be shown to the Commission.
d) The Commission shall hold a public hearing on the application within sixty (60) days from
the date the application is received by the (building inspector, preservation officer).
Following the hearing, the Commission has thirty (30) days in which to prepare a written
recommendation to the (building inspector or other official). In the event that the Commission
does not act within ninety (90) days of the receipt of the application, a permit may be
granted.
e) All decision of the Commission shall be in writing. A copy shall be sent to the applicant by
registered snail and a copy filed with the village/town/city clerk s office for public inspection.
The Commission s decision shall state the reasons for granting or denying the hardship
application.
f) An applicant for a certificate of appropriateness dissatisfied with the action of the
Commission relating to the issuance or denial of a certificate of appropriateness shall have the
right to appeal to the City Council within thirty (30) days after receipt of notification of such
action. The City Council shall give notice, follow publication procedure, hold hearings, and
make its decision in the same manner as provided in the general zoning ordinance of the city.
Section 12. Enforcement
All work performed pursuant to a certificate of appropriateness issued under this ordinance shall
conform to any requirements included therein. It shall be the duty of the (building inspector or
other official) to inspect periodically any such work to assure compliance. In the event work is
not being performed in accordance with the certificate of appropriateness, or upon notification of
such fact by the Commission and verification by the (designated employee), the (designated
employee) shall issue a stop work order and all work shall immediately cease. No further work
shall be undertaker on the project as long as a stop work is in effect.
Section 13. Ordinary Maintenance
Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance and repair of
any exterior architectural feature of a landmark or property within a historic district which does
not involve a change in design, material, or outward appearance. In-kind replacement or repair is
included in this definition of ordinary maintenance.
10
[Note: Color may be included as ordinary maintenance if not part of that regulated in
Section 7.1
Section 14. Demolition by Neglect
No owner or person with an interest in real property designated as a landmark or included within
a historic district shall permit the property to fall into a serious state of disrepair so as to result
in the deterioration of any exterior architectural feature which would, in the judgment of the
Commission, produce a detrimental effect upon the character of the historic district as a whole or
the life and character of the property itself.
Examples of such deterioration include:
(a) Deterioration of exterior walls or other vertical supports.
(b) Deterioration of roof or other horizontal members.
(c) Deterioration of exterior chimneys.
(d) Deterioration or crumbling of exterior stucco or mortar.
(e) Ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roof, or foundations, including broken
windows or doors.
(f) Deterioration of any feature so as to create a hazardous condition which could lead to
the claim that demolition is necessary for the public safety.
Section 15. Penalties
Failure to comply with any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed a violation and
the violator shall be liable for a misdemeanor charge, and be subject to a fine of not less than
nor more than for each day the violation
continues.
[Note: Penalties should conform to the penalties provided for in the existing zoning
ordinance. The Municipal Zoning Authority authorizes imprisonment as well as a civil
penalty. It also should be noted that if a violation occurs or is about to occur, the
municipality is authorized to bring action to enforce the ordinance. See Sec. 211.012 of
the Municipal Zoning Authority.]
SPG.
Y
vv- - /` AA u��)Cl) ls-�
�nSU�Fcu'1-I-
Neighborhood
Protection
City Council Workshop
June 22, 2006
Good Afternoon, Lindsay Boyer, Staff Planner Planning and Development
Services
This item has been brought forward at the Council's request following the
March 23rd Workshop. At that workshop, Bratten Thomason with the Texas
Historic Commission made a presentation about Historic Preservation. Prior to
that, there had been a few neighborhood meetings in the Eastgate and
Southside areas regarding Historic districts. Council's direction at that meeting
was to bring back more information.
Since that time, Staff has been researching historic districts and during that
research have found that there are cities that have also started to look at
neighborhood protection as well as historic preservation because of the gaps
in historic preservation ordinances. Most recently, Austin has put a moratorium
on housing construction to work on neighborhood protection standards.
Because the two overlap in terms of trying to address neighborhood character,
will be presenting both historic preservation and neighborhood protection
options.
Historic Preservation
• Why Historic Preservation
• Model Ordinance Components
• Process
• Opportunities Et Challenges
So first... Historic Preservation. Just to give the Council a quick idea of what
I'm going to cover these are the points I'll be going over.
First, Why Historic Preservation, this is just a brief recap of Ms. Thomason's
presentation and why it is important to consider historic preservation.
Second, The THC Model Ordinance. The Texas Historic Commission does
have a model enabling ordinance that has been used by most cities that have
historic preservation. This ordinance is set up to have standard sections, but to
be tailored for individual city goals
Third, Process. Or more to the point, how would we get there. I'll be going
through the necessary steps to create a historic district.
Finally, Opportunities & Challenges, this is to give the Council an idea of some
of the issues that surround historic preservation.
K
Why Historic Preservation
As you can see from the small selection of photographs, College Station has
some very eclectic architecture, and a number of homes as well as businesses
that are historic, primarily in the northgate, eastgate, and southside
neighborhoods.
Aims of historic preservation
At encouraging the preservation of these resources
This is best accomplished through local landmark or district status where the
city can set the standards by which changes in historic neighborhoods would
be reviewed.
The National Parks Service website, Working on the Past also identifies a
range of benefits including education, stablization of property values,
encouraging historically sensitive rehabs and infill to preserve the historic
character of a neighborhood.
3
Historic Preservation
• Why Historic Preservation
4>
�'W1^
Y
T
�
Why Historic Preservation
As you can see from the small selection of photographs, College Station has
some very eclectic architecture, and a number of homes as well as businesses
that are historic, primarily in the northgate, eastgate, and southside
neighborhoods.
Aims of historic preservation
At encouraging the preservation of these resources
This is best accomplished through local landmark or district status where the
city can set the standards by which changes in historic neighborhoods would
be reviewed.
The National Parks Service website, Working on the Past also identifies a
range of benefits including education, stablization of property values,
encouraging historically sensitive rehabs and infill to preserve the historic
character of a neighborhood.
3
• Preservation Plan
• Landmark Commission
• Historic Preservation Officer
• Districts vs. Landmarks
• Certificate of Appropriateness
- Design Guidelines
• Demolition Delay
• Appeals/ Economic Hardship
So how do we get to historic districts. This is a list of the general components of a historic preservation enabling
ordinance.
Although not included in the model ordinance, the preservation plan is typically the first step of implementing historic
preservation, and is done to identify the historic resources of a community, and prioritize preservation goals of the
city, it is primarily done before enacting an enabling ordinance to serve as the planning principal behind the
ordinance. Typically this is done by a consultant.
After the plan is in place, the first step is the creation of a Landmark Commission. The Landmark Commission would
work like a design review board whose main focus would be the review of any changes to a historic landmark, or to
any structure in a historic district. This includes rehabs, infill, as well as additions. Typically a Landmark Commission
is made up of design and real estate professionals, lawyers, historic preservationists, homeowners in a historic area,
and the Historic Preservation Officer.
Which leads me to my next bullet. The Historic Preservation Officer would be a new staff person who would be the
liaison to the Landmark Commission, as well as to neighborhoods that are within historic districts, primarily working
with homeowners to guide them through the Certificate of Appropriateness process, as well as have specific
knowledge and training in the historic preservation field.
Ordinance also identifies the process to create a historic district or become a designated landmark. Currently the City
has a landmark program for recognition only, which does not require a property to comply with any historic property
regulations. Because this ordinance would place significant restrictions on alterations to a structure, Staff would
recommend that these properties go through this ordinance's landmark designation process which requires that
owners support the designation. As far as districts are concerned, most municipalities have set a percentage of
homeowners in a neighborhood that support having a district.
Next, is a Certificate of Appropriateness. This is a certificate granted to a project by the Landmark Commission
signifying that the changes are appropriate as set out by the guidelines of the ordinance and any adopted design
guidelines for that district. The set guidelines for historic preservation are from the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings. These include preserving all historic material or architectural
features, that the alteration have minimal impact on the building as well as the site, and that all changes must be in
line with the era in which the structure was built.
A Demolition Delay is another significant part of the ordinance that addresses tearing down historic property or
property in a historic district. This delay is written in to try to deter demolition of significant resources by providing a
delay in issuing a demolition permit. Generally around 180 days, the purpose is to provide a timeframe for local
historic preservationists to find a way to purchase the property or work with the owner to preserve the property
through incentives or grants.
Finally, the appeals and economic hardship. Typically with historic preservation, the City Council would be the
deciding body for appeals to the decisions of the Landmark Commission. Additionally, there is generally provisions
made for economic hardship because of the financial impact of having to make historically sensitive improvements to
a structure.
So how do we get to historic districts. This is a list of the general
components of a historic preservation enabling ordinance.
Although not included in the model ordinance, the preservation plan is
typically the first step of implementing historic preservation, and is done to
identify the historic resources of a community, and prioritize preservation
goals of the city, it is primarily done before enacting an enabling ordinance
to serve as the planning principal behind the ordinance. Typically this is
done by a consultant.
After the plan is in place, the first step is the creation of a Landmark
Commission. The Landmark Commission would work like a design review
board whose main focus would be the review of any changes to a historic
landmark, or to any structure in a historic district. This includes rehabs,
infill, as well as additions. Typically a Landmark Commission is made up of
design and real estate professionals, lawyers, historic preservationists,
homeowners in a historic area, and the Historic Preservation Officer.
Which leads me to my next bullet. The Historic Preservation Officer would
be a new staff person who would be the liaison to the Landmark
Commission, as well as to neighborhoods that are within historic districts,
primarily working with homeowners to guide them through the Certificate of
Appropriateness process, as well as have specific knowledge and training in
the historic preservation field.
Ordinance also identifies the process to create a historic district or become a
designated landmark. Currently the City has a landmark program for
recognition only, which does not require a property to comply with any
historic property regulations. Because this ordinance would place significant
restrictions on alterations to a structure, Staff would recommend that these
properties go through this ordinance's landmark designation process which
requires that owners support the designation. As far as districts are
concerned, most municipalities have set a percentage of homeowners in a
neighborhood that support having a district.
Next, is a Certificate of Appropriateness. This is a certificate granted to a
project by the Landmark Commission signifying that the changes are
appropriate as set out by the guidelines of the ordinance and any adopted
design guidelines for that district. The set guidelines for historic preservation
are from the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of
Historic Buildings. These include preserving all historic material or
architectural features, that the alteration have minimal impact on the
building as well as the site, and that all changes must be in line with the era
in which the structure was built.
A Demolition Delay is another significant part of the ordinance that
addresses tearing down historic property or property in a historic district.
This delay is written in to try to deter demolition of significant resources by
providing a delay in issuing a demolition permit. Generally around 180 days,
the purpose is to provide a timeframe for local historic preservationists to
find a way to purchase the property or work with the owner to preserve the
property through incentives or grants.
Finally, the appeals and economic hardship. Typically with historic
preservation, the City Council would be the deciding body for appeals to the
decisions of the Landmark Commission. Additionally, there is generally
provisions made for economic hardship because of the financial impact of
having to make historically sensitive improvements to a structure.
Desien Guidelines
• Roof type/material
• Building material/color palette
• Architectural features
- Porches, eaves, window treatment
• Building mass and height
• Landscaping/ tree preservation
• Proportion/scale
1 wanted to take a few minutes to go over some of the things that the
Landmark Commission could be reviewing for beyond the Secretary of
Interior's standards. Most historic districts will create design guidelines that are
specific to their area which speak to the era and the type of design that is
appropriate for the area. They can address issued from roof type and material
to the type of railing on a porch and the color it should be painted. This is just a
brief list of some of the more common elements of a design guideline.
Roof type and material
Building material and color palette
Architectural features
Building mass and height
Landscaping
Scale
These guidelines are typically created based on the results of the survey from
the preservation plan which would include information about the types of roofs,
location and types of porches, eaves, height, colors
5
Process for Historic District
• Character survey/ Preservation Plan
• Creation of enabling ordinance
• Petition/application by neighborhood
- Council sets level of neighborhood
support
• Creation of design guidelines
• Adoption of historic overlay
Now to process... or how do we get there.
As I've stated before, typically the first step is a preservation plan. Although this could be done
at various steps along the way, there are advantages and disadvantages to each. A character
survey done first could result in spending a lot of money to find out there is not enough or
unique properties are too spread out to justify historic districts. But on the other hand, it would
provide a comprehensive look at the city's historic resources as a whole. It could be done after
a petition by a neighborhood for district status, but might be too narrowly focused to give an
overall view, but on the other hand provides much more neighborhood specific information to
help create design guidelines.
All that being said, the enabling ordinance would be the next step which would provide for a
property or neighborhood to petition for historic status. As I've stated previously, most cities'
ordinances have stated a level of support required from the neighborhood to enact the district,
which serves as an overlay over the existing zoning. This way, Council knows that it is
something the community that would be living under the guidelines would support. It is the
intent, that the Historic Preservation Officer would be working with neighborhood organizations
to help educate about the process and the ordinance. During that process, the HPO would also
be working with a task force of sorts from the neighborhood to create design guidelines for the
district. Once those were agreed upon, the application would be brought forward to the
Planning and Zoning Commission and then Council for a final decision on the appropriateness
of a historic district for that area.
0
Now to process... or how do we get there.
As I've stated before, typically the first step is a preservation plan. Although
this could be done at various steps along the way, there are advantages and
disadvantages to each. A character survey done first could result in spending
a lot of money to find out there is not enough or unique properties are too
spread out to justify historic districts. But on the other hand, it would
provide a comprehensive look at the city's historic resources as a whole. It
could be done after a petition by a neighborhood for district status, but might
be too narrowly focused to give an overall view, but on the other hand
provides much more neighborhood specific information to help create design
guidelines.
All that being said, the enabling ordinance would be the next step which
would provide for a property or neighborhood to petition for historic status.
As I've stated previously, most cities' ordinances have stated a level of
support required from the neighborhood to enact the district, which serves as
an overlay over the existing zoning. This way, Council knows that it is
something the community that would be living under the guidelines would
support. It is the intent, that the Historic Preservation Officer would be
working with neighborhood organizations to help educate about the process
and the ordinance. During that process, the HPO would also be working with
a task force of sorts from the neighborhood to create design guidelines for
the district. Once those were agreed upon, the application would be brought
forward to the Planning and Zoning Commission and then Council for a
final decision on the appropriateness of a historic district for that area.
Opportunities 8t Challenges
• Creation of additional level of review
• Application to non -historic property
• Demolition delay
• Designation of neighborhoods
• Difficulty applying standards in eclectic
neighborhoods
• Encourages preservation of historic properties
• Sensitive rehabs and additions
There are a variety of Opportunities and Challenges that are associated with Historic
Preservation Ordinances. I've outlined just a few of each, but wanted to Council to begin
thinking about what will be really good about historic preservation, and what are the issues that
we will hear if we begin working to create historic districts.
First, this would create an additional level of review for historic properties. With staff review
time, and mandated deadlines for posting agendas, typical applications for a certificate of
appropriateness to the Landmark Commission would take anywhere from 3 to 4 weeks to
process, where as a typical residential building permit can be issued in 24 hours.
Second, a historic district would apply to non -historic properties in the district and would
require that any changes made to a contemporary structure be historic in nature.
A demolition delay while providing an opportunity for preservationists to obtain the property,
would be an unnecessary delay for deteriorating structures that have no historic context or do
not add character to the neighborhood.
There is also the issue of designating neighborhoods, and how would we draw those lines.
Should one street be able to create a neighborhood association and petition for a district
because they know the next street over would not want it. There are a variety of issues
surrounding this, which apply to both historic preservation as well as any infill or neighborhood
protection ordinance.
But as far as opportunities go, the creation of historic landmarks and districts is the best tool in
encouraging the preservation of historic properties, and mandating sensitive rehabilitations and
additions.
0
There are a variety of Opportunities and Challenges that are associated with
Historic Preservation Ordinances. I've outlined just a few of each, but
wanted to Council to begin thinking about what will be really good about
historic preservation, and what are the issues that we will hear if we begin
working to create historic districts.
First, this would create an additional level of review for historic properties.
With staff review time, and mandated deadlines for posting agendas, typical
applications for a certificate of appropriateness to the Landmark
Commission would take anywhere from 3 to 4 weeks to process, where as a
typical residential building permit can be issued in 24 hours.
Second, a historic district would apply to non -historic properties in the
district and would require that any changes made to a contemporary
structure be historic in nature.
A demolition delay while providing an opportunity for preservationists to
obtain the property, would be an unnecessary delay for deteriorating
structures that have no historic context or do not add character to the
neighborhood.
There is also the issue of designating neighborhoods, and how would we
draw those lines. Should one street be able to create a neighborhood
association and petition for a district because they know the next street over
would not want it. There are a variety of issues surrounding this, which
apply to both historic preservation as well as any infill or neighborhood
protection ordinance.
But as far as opportunities go, the creation of historic landmarks and districts
is the best tool in encouraging the preservation of historic properties, and
mandating sensitive rehabilitations and additions.
Council Direction
• Neighborhood Protection Overlay
• Historic Preservation Enabling
Ordinance
• Combination of Historic Preservation
Et Neighborhood Protection
IN
Neighborhood
Protection
Take a deep breath and ask if there are any questions before you move on...
Moving into Neighborhood Protection, which is just a catch phrase for dealing
with issues of neighborhood integrity, or how do we keep healthy
neighborhoods healthy, and interesting neighborhoods interesting.
Neighborhood Protection
• Why Neighborhood Protection
- Emphasis on infill
- Guard against
• Teardowns
• Too -big houses
• Too much/not enough parking
• Removal of specimen trees
• Out of character architecture
And it's a tough question, and one that is being looked at by a number of
communities. Recently, Dallas and Austin have looked at what we would call
neighborhood protection ordinances. Both of these communities are Certified
Local Governments and have historic preservation ordinances, but are taking
the next step forward as those ordinance have not been able to address
everything that is a concern to the neighborhood.
The emphasis on neighborhood protection is on infill, in the places where there
are gaps in the fabric of a neighborhood or a house that is being torn down to
prepare for a rebuilt. And requiring something in its place that fits with the
neighborhood. You're trying to guard against vacant lots, the mcmansion in a
neighborhood of cottages, a concrete front yard, or the bulldozing of a lot full of
specimen trees. All of which can create a place that is out of character with the
rest of the neighborhood.
9
Neighborhood Protection
• Multiple options
- Neighborhood initiated
- City initiated
• Overlay or incorporated into districts
- Set standards
- Adjustable standards
• Staff review instead of board
We've seen multiple approach options for neighborhood protection and what
would be entailed with the ordinance. The ordinances set up by Dallas are
enabling ordinances for neighborhoods to petition for the overlay, whereas
Austin is creating standards that the city will adopt that apply to all single
family and duplex zoning districts.
Which leads to my next bullet. These protection standards can be incorporated
into districts or as an overlay as I just stated, but dallas's overlay allows for a
menu of options for neighborhoods to choose from, while Austin is proposing a
hybrid which will have set standards across the districts, and then a select few
that can be varied based on petition by the neighborhood.
And finally, these would be reviewed primarily by staff, with only appeals
having to go to a board.
10
Neighborhood Protection
• Building envelope/mass Et height
• Architectural relief
• Landscaping
• Parking
• Impervious cover limitations
This is a brief list of the items you might see addressed in a neighborhood
protection ordinance.
We're talking about building envelopes, and floor area ratios, some kind of
measure would reduce the ability to overbuild a lot.
Architectural relief is something that is not as indepth as it would be in a
historic preservation ordinance, but ordinances I've seen would require some
sort of relief on blank walls.
Another interesting item I've seen is dealing with parking in Dallas which has
contextual parking regulations that require you to accommodate your parking
the same way as your neighbors. We've also seen anti -monotony ordinances
the require that for x number of houses in a row (usually 4) you cannot have
the garage in the same location.
And finally impervious cover, going back to Dallas again, there are restrictions
on the amount of driveway and impervious cover in a front yard that allows you
to vary within 10% of your neighbors.
11
Opportunities 8t Challenges
• Flexibility and simplicity N61 W336CTNI&
• No additional board to support
• More emphasis on encouraging appropriate
infill
• Staff level review
• Does not preserve historic properties
• Designation of districts
12
NEIGHBORHOOD INTEGRITY ISSUES
Timeline
November 9, 1999 — Joint Workshop meeting between City Council, Planning &
Zoning Commission and Zoning Board of Adjustment to discuss problems associated
with infill development of older residential areas.
December 9, 1999 — City council workshop:
• Staff presented a status report regarding amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to
address lot sizes and multiple principal structures in older residential areas.
• Council directed staff to prepare a moratorium ordinance to limit infill in these
areas to prevent further inappropriate infill while new regulations are established
and overlay zone created.
• January 27, 2000
• City Council approved moratorium ordinance re: rezoning and replatting
applications within older residential areas — expires August 15, 2000.
• City Council approved Neighborhood Preservation Overlay district:
• Maintain the current minimum lot or building plot size.
• Newly created lots or building plots must be a minimum of 8,500 square feet
in area.
• June, 2000 — Staff initiated a rezoning of East Gate & South Side neighborhoods to
apply the Overlay district — massive notification effort.
• July 6, 2000 — P&Z tabled the rezoning request to apply the Neighborhood
Preservation Overlay district to East Gate & South Side neighborhoods. (Rezoning
died since it could not move forward without P&Z recommendation.)
• September, 2000 - UDO Consultant's Diagnostic Memo. Consultant recommended
that student housing issues not be regulated through attempts to define "family", limit
number of unrelated occupants through definition. The consultant recommended
regulating residential parking, lot area coverage, property standards, etc. Such
housing issues are:
• Generally considered ineffective and difficult to enforce;
• Doesn't address all of the symptoms — property maintenance, lifestyle conflicts
• Doesn't address the problems of property maintenance, parking, etc. that can
occur in households that are occupied by related persons.
• Regulations should apply regardless of owner vs. renter, students vs. large family.
• Consultant also provided examples of various programs to regulate rental property
through licensing and inspection processes. Recommended that these are not part
of a development code, instead more of a business licensing approach. (This
issue is to be discussed through the Council Strategic Plan that addresses
problems created by rental property in residential areas (VS#8, S1). Property
standards (structural conditions, fences in good repair, paint, etc.) are not always
related to development standards. While development standards can provide for
better maintainability of properties, property conditions, structural standards and
maintenance in College Station are addressed through other portions of the City
Code. These items will be the focus of a Council Strategic Plan through VS#3,
S1.
February 22, 2001— City Council Workshop
• UDO Consultant made recommendations to incorporate into the UDO re:
• Residential Protection Standards
• Separation and buffer standards separation between single family areas &
commercial developments.
• Architectural Review Standards — Possible architectural review
requirements that could be implemented on either a special area or City-
wide basis.
• Contextual Development Standards — Options for regulations to require
infill development to be carried out in a character or context to existing
development.
March 8, 2001— City Council workshop
• Discussed Development Standards and Subdivision Regulations in UDO:
• Residential Protection Standards — Council directed staff to increase buffering
requirements between residential and commercial developments. New
standards need to incorporate a landscaping and/or wall components.
Requested that staff present an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance ahead of
the UDO.
• Architectural Standards — Infill Residential Development — Council
determined that bulk restrictions are more effective than architectural control.
It is difficult to have contextual standards in an area that is very diverse.
• Parking — Infill Residential Development — Council directed the consultant to
deal with parking in the front yards so there's not as much parking and more
green space.
• Approved an amendment to the Subdivision Regulations extending the
moratorium in East Gate & South Side until January 1, 2002.
April 19, 2001— P&Z Meeting
• Recommended approval of the interim buffer amendment in the Zoning
Ordinance to deal with adjacency issues.
• Staff presented HPC recommendations and the East Bypass Task Force issues to
P&Z. (See Lee's memo dated March 20, 200 1) HPC Recommendations
presented to P&Z included a Conservation District for the City's older
neighborhoods to include the following tools:
• Lot coverage requirements for buildings.
• Building height plane requirements — the overall height of the building
dictates the front and side setbacks.
• Contextual front setbacks based on existing block setbacks.
• Building separation requirements within a range similar to other measured
building separations on the same block.
• Contextual lot size and width requirements to be within a range correlated to
other lots on the same block.
• Garage placement. The placement of garages regulated so that they are
behind the front face of the house in any new construction.
• May 10, 2001— City Council approved the interim buffering ordinance.
• June 11, 2001— Joint P&Z and Council workshop — individual committees
comprised of P&Z, Council and staff identified a number of issues that needed to be
addressed including:
• Possible design guidelines for residential development in special neighborhood
conservation areas. Discussion to date regarding this issue has focused on the use
of contextual standards for setbacks, height, lot area coverage, etc. for these areas.
Look-alike provisions could be included, typically only applied to the front
facade, might include things like roof slope, building materials, etc.
• Residential protection/performance standards. Buffering, screening and
landscape provisions for residential/commercial adjacencies., building height
limitations, screening fence requirements and the interim buffer standards
adopted.
• Residential parking requirements. Two primary issues, (1) Require more off-
street parking so that on -street parking will be reduced. (2) Limit the percent of
the lot that can be placed under buildings and pavement. This could have the
effect of limiting residential parking spaces off the street.
• Student Housing/Rental Housing Issues.
July 11, 2001— Joint P&Z and Council workshop:
• Accessory apartment provisions in residential neighborhoods:
• Keep current regulations that allow them.
• Restrict them in size to 25% of the main structure.
• Restrict their use to family and servant use only.
• Tighten regulation to require single meter service for entire lot.
• In-home child care:
• Allow care of up to 4 unrelated children by right in residential districts.
• Prohibit more than 6 in residential districts.
• Architectural review of new residential structures
• Do not restrict the architecture of structures.
• Concentrate efforts on strict regulation of parcel divisions to meet
neighborhood preservation concerns.
• Add language to regulate building coverage.
• Single-family on-site parking:
• Regulate RV and trailer parking. Other aspects of parking will be addressed
through traffic codes.
• Add restrictions for % yard that may be paved.
• Remove allowance for gravel parking.
• October 5, 2001 (CANNOT FIND MINUTES FOR THIS MEETING) — Joint
Council/P&Z Workshop to discuss UDC Policy Issues.
• October 30, 2001— Released a draft UDO with the following provisions related to
Neighborhood Issues:
• All replats in subdivisions created prior to 1970 to conform to the average lot size
and width on the block face. (This was pulled out of the UDO and the
subdivision regs. were amended on January 24, 2002 to make this a requirement.)
• New homes in older neighborhoods to meet a front setback that is between the
two front building lines of the neighboring homes. (This contextual setback
requirement was incorporated into the UDO.)
• Established a maximum lot area that single family buildings and associated
structures may cover in any neighborhood. (P&Z and Council directed staff to
remove this requirement from the UDO in April, 2002)
• Restrictive RV parking guidelines.
• January 24, 2002 — City Council approved an amendment to the Subdivision
Regulations requiring all replats in subdivisions created prior to 1970 to conform to
the average lot size and width on the block face.
• February 14, 2002 — Behavioral strategies discussed at Council Workshop meeting
as part of the Strategic Plan. (Joint presentation with Code Enforcement, Building &
Police.) Staff recommendations:
• Do not attempt to address problems through definition of "family".
• Regulate the symptoms rather than the cause.
• Parking, noise, sanitation, etc. addressed through specific ordinances.
• Address maintenance of rental property:
• Prevent blight & decline through increased enforcement of property maintenance
codes.
• Do not regulate behavior through property maintenance, development codes
or rental registration/licensing programs.
• Regulate behavioral problems through the Police Department.
• Regulate vehicle noise, parking, traffic regulations, traffic volumes, etc. through
appropriate enforcement resources.
• Speed enforcement, traffic calming, no parking regulations, PITY, etc.
• Implement a rental licensing program IF you want to focus on property
conditions, particularly those life/safety items that are not visible from the
outside.
• If you want to pursue rental licensing or registration to address property
conditions, try to develop a common vision — involve property owners and
property managers.
• Do not differentiate between owner occupied and renter occupied property —
blight from one is as bad as blight from another, health & safety of owners
just as important as renters.
• Focus on physical issues and problems by addressing the symptoms that cause
blight and decline.
• Property maintenance, parking, sanitation, etc.
• If you want a rental licensing or registration program, make it time based.
• Continue current infrastructure and utilities rehab programs in older areas.
• City Council agreed with staff & directed the following:
• Adopt International Maintenance Code.
• Direct staff to prepare alternative plans for resource allocation, priorities, and
enforcement alternatives to increase property conditions enforcement.
• Do not develop any kind of rental registration or licensing program unless you
want to address property conditions, life safety issues.
• Use the nuisance abatement process prescribed by state statutes where
appropriate.
April 19, 2002 — Joint City Council and P&Z Workshop on the UDO.
• Conservation District Standards & Contextual setbacks in older neighborhoods.
• Decided not to include architectural review regulations in the UDO to limit
architectural style in older neighborhoods. If architectural review is chosen
for older neighborhoods, some research of standards will have to take place
and another review body will have to be established. Such regulations will
lengthen the review timeframe and must be carefiilly crafted to limit
subjectivity.
Decided to remove building coverage regulations from the draft and only limit
building/lot coverage through setback requirements. (Staff also recommended
that such lot coverage regulations should only be included if they can forward
an identified goal such as reduce flood hazards, non -point source pollution,
runoff, etc.).
• Decided to keep the maximum setback (contextual setback) requirements.
July 19, 2002 — Joint City Council and P&Z Workshop on the UDO (continuation
from 4/19/02).
CITY OF TYLER, TEXAS, CODE OF ORDINANCES
ARTICLE 11. HISTORICAL PRESERVATION
Sec. 10-20. Tyler Historical Preservation Board -Created; composition; appointment of
members; terms of office.
There is hereby created in and for the city a board to be known and designated as the
"Tyler Historical Preservation Board," which historical board shall be composed of nine (9)
members who shall serve without compensation and who shall be appointed by the governing
body. Members shall serve for terms as set forth in section 2-1.(Ord. No. 0-88-69, Pt. 2,
12-20-88; Ord. No. 0-93-60, Pt. 1, 8-17-93) (Ord. No. 0-96-61, 7-17-96)
Sec. 10-21. Same -Organization; meetings and selection of chairman.
The Tyler Historical Preservation Board shall adopt such rules and regulations as it may
deem best for its proceedings and work, subject to approval of the governing body, and shall
elect one of its members as chairman at the first meeting to be held by such board. The board
shall meet at least once each month. (Ord. No. 0-88-69, Pt. 2, 12-20-88) (Ord. No. 0-96-61,
7-17-96)
Sec. 10-22. Historic landmarks.
The city council of the city finds and declares that the recognition and preservation of
historic landmarks is in the public interest and serves to promote the general welfare of the
community. It is the purpose of sections 24-5 through 24-15 to preserve the historic structures of
the community through a voluntary program of owner participation. (Ord. No. 0-88-69, Pt. 2,
12-20-88) (Ord. No. 0-96-61, 7-17-96)
Sec. 10-23. Purposes of board.
The purposes of the historic preservation board are as follows:
1. To work with the city planning department, the historical society and other
appropriate boards or organizations to help coordinate any restoration or
preservation project.
2. To educate the community about its rich historical legacy and to encourage
historical preservation as enrichment and inspiration for future generations.
3. To study and research the necessity for historical districts for the city.
4. To conduct comprehensive studies into the field of historical preservation in this
community, including programs now being offered, what still needs to be done,
and cooperative efforts among the various interested groups which could be
effected toward a common goal.
5. To provide for the community an overall view of historical preservation and
provide a pool of data for all individuals or organizations in the community
interested in historical preservation.
6. To provide a constant source of ideas for funding historical preservation projects.
7. To recommend to the city council historic landmarks which should be included in
10-2-96 330
CITY OF TYLER, TEXAS, CODE OF ORDINANCES
the Tyler Landmark Register of Historic Places.
8. To thoroughly familiarize itself with buildings, structures, sites, districts, areas,
places and lands within the city which may be eligible for designation as historical
iandmarks.
9. To establish criteria and make recommendations to the city council to be used in
determining whether certain buildings, districts, areas, places and lands should be
designated as historical landmarks.
10. To establish guidelines and review all requests for certificates of appropriateness
and certificates of demolition for buildings, structures and sites designated as
historical landmarks.
11. To formulate plans and programs for public and private action for encouraging
and promoting the preservation of historical landmarks.
12. To suggest sources of funds for preservation and restoration activities and
acquisitions, including federal, state, local, private and foundation sources.
13. To provide information and counseling to owners of historical landmarks. (Ord.
No. 0-88-69, Pt. 2, 12-20-88) (Ord. No. 0-96-61, 7-17-96)
Sec. 10-24. Powers and duties of board.
a. The Tyler Historical Preservation Board shall act in an advisory capacity to the city
manager, the planning and zoning commission and the governing body and shall make
recommendations to the city manager, planning and zoning commission and the governing body
in regard to any matter concerning the establishment of any location, structure, building or area
as an official historical site and shall make future recommendations in regard to the preservation
and restoration of such areas or buildings, subsequent to their establishment as official historical
sites or districts.
b. The Tyler Historical Preservation Board shall have the authority to conduct hearings
and research for the purpose of determining the feasibility of recommending to the city manager,
the planning and zoning commission and governing body locations, sites and structures to
preserve and restore as official Tyler historic sites or districts.
c. The authority of the Tyler Historical Preservation Board shall be limited to making
recommendations, and it shall in no way have any authority to actually designate or establish
locations, areas, buildings or structures as historical sites or districts.
d. The director of planning shall designate in writing a local preservation officer who
shall serve as a liaison on behalf of the city and historical preservation board to the Texas
Historical Commission. The local preservation officer shall assist the Tyler Historical
Preservation Board in formulating plans and programs for historical preservation. (Ord. No.
0-88-69, Pt. 2, 12-20-88; Ord. No. 0-93-60, Pt. 1, 8-17-93) (Ord. No. 0-96-61, 7-17-96)
Sec. 10-25. Historic landmark defined.
A "historic landmark" is defined as any site or area of historic or cultural importance or
significance as designated by the city council. Historic landmarks shall include any of the
following:
a. Historic structures, sites, districts or areas within which the buildings, structures,
appurtenances and places exemplify the cultural, political, economic or social
history of the nation, state, region or community.
10-2-96 331
CITY OF TYLER, TEXAS, CODE OF ORDINANCES
b. Historic structures, sites, districts or areas that are identified with the lives of
historic personages or with important events in national, state, regional or local
history.
c• 6`Jtru^ "&u o or are that embody - distinguishing characIe::Jtics or at;
architectural type or specimen as to color, proportion, form, details, materials and
craftsmanship.
(Ord. No. 0-88-69, Pt. 2, 12-20-88; Ord. No. 0-93-60, Pt. 1, 8-17-93) (Ord. No. 0-96-61,
7-17-96)
Sec. 10-26. Designation of historic landmarks.
a. There shall be maintained a document known and designated as the "Tyler Landmark
Register of Historic Places."
b. A structure, site or area may be nominated by the owner of such structure, site or area
or by any interested third party. Provided, however, no structure, site or area may be placed upon
the historic landmark register without the express consent of the owner of such property.
c. An application form shall be required as prescribed by the board. The board shall
conduct public hearings to consider applications for inclusion of sites, structures or areas on the
historic landmark register and shall make a recommendation to the city council. The city council
shall designate historic structures, sites or areas for inclusion on the historic landmark register,
after considering the recommendation and report of the board.
(Ord. No. 0-88-69, Pt. 2,12-20-88) (Ord. No. 0-96-61, 7-17-96)
Sec. 10-27. Criteria to be used in designations.
In considering a structure or place for designation in the historic landmark register, the
historic preservation board and the city council shall consider one (1) or more of the following
criteria:
a. Character, interest or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural
characteristics of the City of Tyler, the State of Texas or the United States.
b. Recognition as a recorded Texas historic landmark, a national historic landmark,
or entered into the National Register of Historic Places.
C. Embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type or specimen.
d. Embodiment of elements of architectural design, detail, materials or
craftsmanship, which represent a significant architectural innovation.
e. Relationship to other distinctive buildings, sites, districts or areas which are
eligible for preservation according to a plan based on architectural, historic or
cultural motif.
f. Portrayal of the environment of a group of people in an area of history
characterized by a distinctive architectural style.
g. Exemplification of the cultural, economic, social, ethnic or historical heritage of
the city, the state or the United States.
h. Location as the site of a significant historic event.
i. Identification with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the culture
and development of the city, the state or the United States.
Value as an aspect of community sentiment or public pride.
10-2-96 332
CITY OF TYLER, TEXAS, CODE OF ORDINANCES
k. Identification as the work of a designer, architect or building whose work has
influenced the growth or development of the city.
(Ord. No. 0-88-69, Pt. 2, 12-20-88; Ord. No. 0-93-60, Pt. 1, 8-17-93) (Ord. No. 0-96-61,
7-17-96)
Sec. 10-28. Alteration or demolition of historic landmarks.
No person or entity shall construct, reconstruct, alter, change, restore, remove or
demolish any exterior architectural feature of a building or structure or relocate any building or
structure designated on the historic landmark register unless application has been made to the
board for a certificate of appropriateness. The term "exterior architectural feature" shall include,
but not be limited to, the kind, color and basic texture of all exterior building materials and such
features as windows, doors, lights, signs and other exterior fixtures.
a. Application procedure: Applications for certificates of appropriateness shall be
made to and on a form specified by the board and shall include two (2) copies of
all detailed plans, elevations, perspectives, specifications or other suitable plans
for the proposed work.
b. Hearing: Within forty-five (45) days of the receipt of a completed application for
a certificate of appropriateness, the board shall hold a hearing.
Review: Upon review of the application in an open meeting, the board shall
determine whether the proposed work is of a nature which will adversely affect
any exterior architectural feature or adversely affect the historical character of the
building, structure or site, whether any proposed rehabilitation of an historic
building, structure or site is consistent with the guidelines set forth in the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for
Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, and whether such work is appropriate and
consistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter. The board shall forward to the
property owner either a certificate of appropriateness, which shall include a copy
of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for
Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, or its written determination that the proposed
work would adversely affect the historic character of the site or structure and a
recommendation to the property owner of an alternative course of action which
would preserve the historic character of the structure. If no action has been taken
by the board within sixty (60) days of original receipt of the application, a
certificate of appropriateness shall be deemed issued by the board.
d. Building permit to be used: Upon completion of the hearing and recommendation
to the property owner or within sixty (60) days, whichever date occurs first, a building permit
shall be issued in accordance with the application of the property owner, provided that such
application complies with the requirements of the building code and other codes and ordinances
of the city. (Ord. No. 0-88-69, Pt. 2, 12-20-88; Ord. No. 0-93-60, Pt. 1, 8-17-93) (Ord. No.
0-96-61, 7-17-96)
Sec. 10-29. Property owners' rights.
Any person, firm or corporation that owns a majority interest in a structure or site
designated on the historic landmark register as a historic building, structure or site may have such
property stricken from the register by notifying the board in writing.
(Ord. No. 0-88-69, Pt. 2, 12-20-88) (Ord. No. 0-96-61, 7-17-96)
Sec. 10-30. Tax abatement.
In accordance with Section 11.24 of the Property Tax Code of the State of Texas, the city
council finds and determines that all structures listed are historically significant and entitled to
tax relief in order to encourage historic preservation. Any building, structure or site listed on the
historic landmark register of historic places is hereby granted an exemption from ad valorem
taxation equal to ten (10) percent of the assessed value of the structure and the land necessary for
10-2-96 333
CITY OF TYLER, TEXAS, CODE OF ORDINANCES
access to and from the structure, provided that such structure is listed on the register of historic
places on the first day of January of the applicable tax year. (Ord. No. 0-88-69, Pt. 2, 12-20-88)
(Ord. No. 0-96-61, 7-17-96)
Sec. 10-31. Penalty for violation.
Any person convicted of violating any provision of this chapter shall be subject to a fine
as provided in section 1-5.
(Ord. No. 0-93-60, Pt. 1, 8-17-93) (Ord. No. 0-96-61, 7-17-96)
Secs. 10-32-10-39. Reserved.
10-2-96 334
Historic Neighborhood Tour - Campus Homes and Historic Marker List
(C=Campus Home; M=Historic Marker)
Southside:
C 107 Luther
C
710 Montclair
C/M
611 Montclair
C
603 Montclair
C/M
601 Montclair
C
400 Montclair
C
304 Montclair
C
201 Montclair
C/M
208 Fairview
C
304 Fairview
C
305 Fairview
C
400 Fairview
C
500 Fairview
M 614 Welsh/503 Park Place
M 900 Hereford
M
314 Lee
M
1111 Park Place
M
210 Lee
M
215 Lee
M
206 Lee
M
211 Lee
M
207 Lee
M
120 Lee
M
119 Lee
M
112 Lee
M
115 Lee
C
201 Timber
C
208 Timber
C/M
1102 Park Place
M
1008 Park Place
C/M
1006 Park Place
M
308 Pershing
M
300 Pershing
M
204 Pershing
M
200 Pershing
M
117 Pershing
C
101 Pershing
Eastgate:
C
703 Francis
C/M
1004 Ashburn
M
903 Francis
M
904 Francis
M 1201 Munson
M 1208 Munson
M 1210 Munson
M 1212 Munson
M 1309 Walton
M 1015 Walton
M 1024 Walton
M 400 Walton
Other Areas of Interest
• The Knoll
• New Construction in Oakwood
Addition
• New Construction on Francis
Historic Preservation in College Station
Growth of A&M, three main sections of town: Northgate, Southside,
and Eastgate, each with residential and commercial component that
supported the residents who lived in the area.
Focusing on residential component of southside and eastgate
Number of older subdivisions: 39li
Number of Historic Markers: 75 homes (some other non-residential
buildings)
History of Southside
-First Subdivision in College Station, College Park
-Land purchased in 2 segments in 1921 and 1923
-Developed by Southside Development Co., under Dr. Floyd Clark
-Served by A&M Utilities
-Original Boundaries were: Jersey (GB), Luther, Montclair, and
Dexter
-Park and Bryson Park were planned by Dr. Hensel
-Oakwood Addition came later in 1932
-Lee, Pershing, Timber
-Developed by Hershell Burgess
-with FHA loans
Breezy Heights, West Park, Southeast College Park
Campus homes on Montclair/Fairview area, travel down to the Knoll,
and back up through Oakwood Addition where there are a number of
historic markers.
Montclair/Fairview
-1948, A&M auctioned off the faculty homes. Many were moved into
the southside area, with a few located on Montclair and Fairview.
(consult list)
611 Montclair, Francis home
-Queen Anne designed by Fredrick Gieseke, and constructed in
1890.
-Home originally located at A&M
-oldest home in College Station
-Also home to Mark Francis, Dean of Veterinary Medicine
601 Montclair, Shepherdson House
-built in 1910 by the Corp of Cadets
-moved off campus after auction in 1948
-most notable occupant of the many faculty that resided here was
Charles Shepherdson who was appointed to the Federal Reserve
under the Eisenhower administration
614 Welsh/503 Park Place, Luther house (SOCIAL HISTORY)
-built in 1947 by Hershall Burgess with the Oakwood Group
-Dr. Luther and his wife resided here
-heavily involved with the community
-Dr. Luther: professor at the university (Math), also arborist, fought for
neighborhood integrity principles
-Mrs. Luther: helped found the Brazos Symphony Orchestra
-Both founders of the Congregation of Beth Shalom
900 Hereford, Jones Family
-constructed in 1941 for the Jones family
-Dr. Jones is credited with teaching the first class on soil conservation
in the US, as well as starting the first wrestling team, as well as first
boy scout troup
Welsh --- Lincoln school area, McCulloch Addition area (early African
American neighborhoods), also Holicks grocery store, sold in 2002
(where gas station is at Welsh and Holleman), local gathering point
for many of the residents in the southern end of southside, and the
residents in the McCulloch Addition.
THE KNOLL -
Subdivided in 1947
Architecture by William Caudill and John Rowlett of CSR (Caudill
Rowlett Scott), one of the largest architectural firms in the world
-Great number of projects in College Station, including the A&M
Consolidated High School Auditorium
-known for modernism, and designing for the site
-Most of the homes were constructed in the late 40s and 50s
-Lawyer house at 1214 Orr
-Yarborough House at 1213 Winding Road — designed for air
conditioning
-shallow pitch roofs, one story, known for modern finishing on the
inside (movable storage/bookcases/windows/air conditioning)
-Most houses have been modified from their original design.
Lee/Pershing/Timber, known as the Oakwood Addition, see a number
of new construction, additions, and a number of variances that have
been granted for construction.
Subdivision Regs: Require the same number of building plots, or
variance, also has a 8500 minimum lot area, and cannot be less than
the average width of all the lots on the block.
UDO: contextual setbacks, which require that areas subdivided prior
to 1970 new construction must be no further forward, or no further
behind the two closest neighbors.
314 Lee
-completed in 1938, made partially of petrified wood
-also, hosted Dr. Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize winner in
economics.
215 Lee — Zeller home
Built in 1935, but have had expansions since then
Zeller constructed a 3 car garage that was used as a shooting range
Neighbor (name?) — raised homing pigeons and went before the City
Council to ask for an ordinance banning guns from being discharged
in the City Limits.
206 Lee (1937) — home to Mr. Loveless, the first city secretary
207 Lee (1936) — home to Mr. Gabbard, one of the first councilmen
112 Lee (1935) — home of Hershell Burgess (French provincial style)
— contribution to College Station community, home builder and
developer, and founded College Station State Bank. Played football
for A&M, and inducted into the A&M hall of fame.
115 Lee (1936) — Home to A&M President Earl Rudder
EASTGATE
Subdivided in 1938, mainly larger lot development, which encouraged
the ranch style houses.
John Culpepper — developer
Many of the first lots were 2-4 acres, that were later subdivided by
subsequent owners (Munson/Ashburn), smaller lots closer to campus
Named for deans and presidents of A&M
Alley system, never really been utilized
The deed restrictions drawn up for Woodland Acres in 1940 stated
that, (1) the lots were to be residential lots with a single detached
family dwelling and necessary outhouses, (2) the building plans and
specifications would be approved by a committee comprised of N.E.
Boughton, Paul Durland, and O.C. Hawley, (3) the dwellings could
not be less than 1200 square feet or cost less than $2500, (4) the
houses should face the street, (5) outbuildings could not be occupied
during construction of the main dwelling, (6) a sewer disposal system
should be installed, (7) "no noxious or offensive trade shall be carried
on upon any lot or estate, or shall anything be done thereon which
may become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood," and
(8) these restrictions were binding until May 1, 1965.
Francis homes (2003) by the Brazos Historical Homes
1004 Ashburn — campus home, 1923, originally 1200 sf, now over
4,000, home to Homer Norton, head football coach at A&M
904 Francis — Texas Dog Trot style, built in 1941, home of the
Culpepper family — servant in the house recalled (in application),
hearing discussions and negotiations with Culpepper, President
Rudder, Bill Moore and Jack Upman to open A&M admissions to
women and minorities
1201 Munson built in 1942 was home to Dr. Andres, believed to be
the first doctor in College Station with an office over Madeley
Pharmacy in Southside. The bricks of the house are said to be from
the Ursuline Academy in Bryan, later on, this home would also house
the family of Senator Phil Gramm while he was a professor of
economics at A&M
THOMAS PARK
JAMES PARK
COLLEGE HILLS ELEMENTARY
NEXT STEPS
-staff will begin identifying funding, writing a scope of work
Contract for services for a consultant who would be responsible for a
complete historic resource survey of the city, tailoring the model
legislation to the survey findings, and
Homeowners' association representatives from neighborhoods pursuing
historic district designation.
Eastgate
College Hills Estates HOA
President
Jennifer Fredricks
1006 Puryear
College Station, TX 77840
h- 696-1909
c- 777-4299
w-2607653
jenn(a)-txcyber.com
Southside
Oakwood HOA
President
Gaines West
200 Suffolk Ave.
College Station, TX 77840
694-7000
jai nes.west(aD-westwebblaw.com
July 2006
Historic Preservation Resources - Literature
1. A Field Guide to American Houses
Virginia & Lee McAlester
Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
1984
2. Basic Preservation Procedures
National Trust for Historic Preservation
2000
12. Design and Development
Ellen Beasley
National Trust for Historic Preservation
1998
13. Design Review in Historic Districts
Rachel S. Cox
National Trust for Historic Preservation
1994
15. Getting to Know Your 20th -Century Neighborhood
Greta Terrell
National Trust for Historic Preservation
1996
16. Guidelines for Local Surveys
Patricia L. Parker
1985
17. Historic Homes Tours: Showcasing Your Community's Heritage
Ann Anderson & Kerri Rubman
National Trust for Historic Preservation
1999
25. Older & Historic House Answer Book
Shanon Wasielewvski
City of Fort Worth
32. Preservation Yellow Pages
Julie Zagars
Preservation Press
1997
34. Preparing a Historic Preservation Ordinance
Richard J. Roddewig
American Planning Association
1983
35. Preparing a Historic Preservation Plan
Bradford J. White & Richard J. Roddewig
American Planning Association
1994
36. Preservation Books
Catalog
National Trust for Historic Preservation
2004
40. Preserving Our Heritage
F. Lawerence Oaks
Texas Historical Commission
2002
41. Preserving Your Community's Heritage
Richard L. Kronick
National Park Service/NCSHPO
2000
43. Reviewing New Construction Projects in Historic Areas
National Trust for Historic Preservation
1992
60. Using Professional Consultants in Preservation
Ellen Beasley
National Trust for Historic Preservation
2000
61. What Style Is It?
Poppeliers, Chambers, and Schwartz
Preservation Press
1983
66. Working on the Past In Local Historic Districts
National Park Service
2004
86. Heritage: Preservation and Technology
Gene Krane
Texas Historical Foundation
1996
102. Historic Preservation at Work for the Texas Economy
The Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers University, Texas Perspectives and The
LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin
The Texas Historical Commission, Preservation Dallas, the City of Abilene, the City of Fort
Worth, the City of rapevine, the City of Laredo, the City of Lubbock, the City of
Nacogdoches, the City of San Antonioand the Grapevine Heritage Foundation
1999
115. Innovative Tools for Historic Preservation
Marya Morris
American Planning Association
1992
116. Planning Commissioners Journal: Planning for Historic Preservation; #52
Wayne M. Senville
Champlain Planning Press, Inc.
2003
118. The Historic John S. Park Neighborhood Plan
Neighborhood Services Department, City of Las Vegas
2001
Ars,rW,
Fkwk Ck� V,L
(0-1 P\Cve-6 cy-�� lboQ-- �VCNV\, CA W44-- '\AV -CA It c �C_
-k-C-WYLCVDY-tc�5 vy;�Cx�Cvy� ciay VVic'A �up AL�
ri " 62 - C,c%; L C, ccl 1 un N-- P p huv-0- Le 6- l'o
tv"V-oo-ov/
-Ack alu-v ca �C-� V�-c v iN-�-A 10 r) ck,01,ks
Vy, pcyc,�,Cj�Kd ckv
A�
41-
s
&
(h Ax
c -u
ce, V) (IVV 031n V Ovi e 0 ce b -ye/ 31
kd i ck
VvJvyal,�
m \Ic
.0
t
FHN
t
uriv''YsI
a
ntw cc; � v-yu(, ��-�- fes
co,v"Vo",
L
cz,
4 -cc
f',,CIf'-,
Chn;
IV
Cc k4qr
vv <,�,k5o P -C ev\-,
2301 ICOR"rH MILLBEND DRIVF, `rHF WOODLANDS, TEXAS 77380 281.367.1100
www. wood] andsresort.com
The Woodlan&
RESORT& CONFERENCE CENTER
l x
7
P 161f
Vit- .—. � /,%,..0 ... .N.s ��d s� f�Z.-r•�'
------i- �'�,/.
w.„,„,�,s.M.U., r��. � � � .r�� �✓�r �'..., � `may e .� t } z� �qf � �" ...- � <= t „.'
t. G
k
J ,t..tw.,
d
t r p j
r mrw r
j
'Y"-c"�Ca
"
f.r' t.... �, ,ji r- Y' `Nf
ILI
E
r .✓ f i�-f� L' � r/..'w..} f #ice.,-'i E/'J�'Y/ � ,'`�� �lt».,.�.+'"
f fr
ov
2301 ICOR"rH MILLBEND DRIVF, `rHF WOODLANDS, TEXAS 77380 281.367.1100
www. wood] andsresort.com
2301 NORTH MILLBENn DRIVE, THE WOODLANDS, TEXAS 77380 281.367.1100
www.woodiandsresort.com
RESORT& CONFERENCE CENTER
c,
F �5
k
on
t
>
JFK
2301 NORTH MILLBENn DRIVE, THE WOODLANDS, TEXAS 77380 281.367.1100
www.woodiandsresort.com
Historic Neighborhood Tour - Campus Homes and Historic Marker List
(C=Campus Home; M=Historic Marker)
Southside:
C 107 Luther
C
710 Montclair
C/M
611 Montclair
C
603 Montclair
C/M
601 Montclair
C
400 Montclair
C
304 Montclair
C
201 Montclair
C/M
208 Fairview
C
304 Fairview
C
305 Fairview
C
400 Fairview
C
500 Fairview
M 614 Welsh/503 Park Place
M 900 Hereford
M
314 Lee
M
1111 Park Place
M
210 Lee
M
215 Lee
M
206 Lee
M
211 Lee
M
207 Lee
M
120 Lee
M
119 Lee
M
112 Lee
M
115 Lee
C
201 Timber
C
208 Timber
C/M
1102 Park Place
M
1008 Park Place
C/M
1006 Park Place
M
308 Pershing
M
300 Pershing
M
204 Pershing
M
200 Pershing
M
117 Pershing
C
101 Pershing
Eastgate:
C
703 Francis
C/M
1004 Ashburn
M
903 Francis
M
904 Francis
M 1201 Munson
M 1208 Munson
M 1210 Munson
M 1212 Munson
M
1309 Walton
M
1015 Walton
M
1024 Walton
M
400 Walton
Other Areas of Interest
• The Knoll
• New Construction in Oakwood
Addition
• New Construction on Francis
%-a,iicge OLOLivn 'Existing nistoric Markers
Eastgate
1004 Ashburn Avenue
314 Lee Avenue
903 Francis Drive
1204 Marsteller
904 Francis Drive
601 Montclair Avenue
1013 Lyceum Court
611 Montclair Avenue
1000 Munson Avenue
908 Montclair Avenue
1201 Munson Avenue
912 Montclair Avenue
1208 Munson Avenue
806 Newton
1210 Munson Avenue
600 Old Jersey Street
1212 Munson Avenue
607 Old Jersey Street
908 Munson Avenue
1006 Park Place
1003 Puryear Drive
1008 Park Place
1005 Puryear Drive
1102 Park Place
1015 Walton Drive
1111 Park Place
1028 Walton Drive
710 Park Place
1309 Walton Drive
716 Park Place
400 Walton Drive
900 Park Place
117 Pershing Avenue
Southside
200 Pershing Avenue S
800 Aberdeen Place
204 Pershing Avenue
36 Angus Street
300 Pershing Avenue
500 Ayrshire Street
308 Pershing Avenue
511 Ayrshire Street
201 Suffolk Avenue
301 Dexter Drive
207 Suffolk Avenue
303 Dexter Drive
211 Suffolk Avenue
305 Dexter Drive
216 Suffolk Avenue
504 Dexter Drive
300 Suffolk Avenue
208 Fairview Avenue South
306 Suffolk Avenue
1712 Glade Street
315 Suffolk Avenue
200 Grove Drive
614 Welsh Avenue
504 Guernsey Street
304 West Dexter Drive
802 Hereford Street
502 West Dexter Drive
900 Hereford Street
600 West Dexter Drive
300 Highlands Street
903 Woodland Parkway
501 Kerry Street
502 Kerry Street
112 Lee Avenue
Non -Residential
115 Lee Avenue
101 Church Street — Cafe Eccell
119 Lee Avenue
1000 Eleanor Street — Lincoln High School
120 Lee Avenue
903 Texas Avenue — Walton Medical Building
206 Lee Avenue
400 Holleman Drive
207 Lee Avenue
335 University Drive — Lipscomb
210 Lee Avenue
Pharmacy/Loupot's Bookstore
211 Lee Avenue
712 Churchill — College Hills Missionary
215 Lee Avenue
Baptist Church
Source: College Station Neighborhood Services, Project HOLD, 2006
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
MEMORANDUM
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
TO: Mayor Silvia and Members of the City Council
FROM: Harvey Cargill, Jr., City Attorney
DATE: March 9, 2006
RE: In -fill - Austin
Additional articles.
HC:jls
Attachments
cc: Glenn Brown
Carla Robinson
Joey Dunn
Mark Smith
Legal Department
P.O. BOX 9960 • i 101 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION • TEXAS ' 77842
TEL. 979.764.3507 ' FAX. 979.764-3481
www.cstx.gov
City seeking a way to avoid fights over bigger houses
ano n. me can itcom
st WAIN -M,
MSO Y61
City seeking a way to avoid fights
over bigger houses
101131 • ; : • : ; �.
Monday, March 06, 2006
Page 1 of 2
GQ PR[NTTHIS
After a disastrous start in addressing the problem of large homes in
Austin's older neighborhoods, city officials seem to be on track to possibly turn a
contentious fight into a successful compromise.
Last month, the City Council imposed a moratorium on construction of intrusive homes.
The council limited new homes to either 40 percent of the lot size, 2,500 square feet or an
increase of 20 percent over the size of the existing house. In passing this emergency
measure, the council squelched debate, angered hundreds who had signed up to speak and
courted a lawsuit.
The raucous fallout pushed the council, the city manager's office and other interested
parties to form a task force to look at the problem and recommend solutions. Another task
force? We know, but this 16 -member group is determined, hard-working and offers a
chance for the competing interests to reach an acceptable compromise on regulating the
size of single-family residences in Austin.
Stakeholders — including representatives from developers, homebuilders, real-estate
agents, architects and the neighborhoods — are meeting regularly to hammer out interim
rules during the moratorium. If the process works as planned, permanent rules will be
ready by the time the moratorium expires in June.
It won't be easy writing regulations defining acceptable density in city neighborhoods
that please neighborhood residents and homebuilders. But so far, all parties involved are
http://statesman.printthis.clickability. comlpticpt?action=cpt&title=City+seeking+a+way+to... 3/7/2006
City seeking a way to avoid fights over bigger houses
Page 2 of 2
optimistic, even those who were ready to sue because they were so chapped at the way
the City Council initially handled the issue.
David Arscott, representing the Homebuilders Association of Greater Austin, is a
believer. He said a great commonality of interests among task force members gives him
hope. Since there will be regulations, it is in everyone's best interest to find common
ground. Laura Huffman, the assistant city manager working with the task force,
acknowledges that the regulations will have to be artful, and even then agreement will be
elusive. Surprisingly, however, the moratorium has produced little upheaval so far.
In the 16th largest city in the country, where a new home was started every 90 minutes
over the past year, only a handful of applications have run afoul of the moratorium. That
could mean the architects and homebuilders adjusted quickly to the moratorium, that the
interim rules are lax enough to ensnare few applicants — or that there wasn't an
emergency in the first place.
At any rate, it's good that the builders and neighborhood representatives are talking with,
not at, each other.
Find this article at:
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/03/6moratorium edit.html
19 Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.
http://statesman.printthis.clickability.comlpticpt?action=cpt&title=City+seeking+a+way+to... 3/7/2006
Austinites up in arms over moratorium on some home construction Page 1 of 5
P*Uk-IdAEM
Austinites up in arms over
moratorium on some home
construction
Supporters want to preserve neighborhoods,
opponents want right to build and get full
value for property
By Kate Miller Morton
AMERICAN -STATESMAN STAFF
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Ga PRINTTHIS
Jimmy Holland's 2,200 -square -foot Pemberton Heights home is smaller than most of his
neighbors' houses on Preston Avenue.
He has no plans to expand the house he and his wife have owned for more than 20 years
but had counted on eventually selling it to a buyer who would probably build a house
more in line with the neighborhood, where 4,000 -square -foot homes are common.
Holland now fears that the house will bring significantly less than its $600,000 appraised
value because of restrictions the city recently placed on the replacement and expansion of
homes in older Austin neighborhoods, limiting the amount of space a potential buyer
could add to the property.
"Whoever would buy my house for $600,000 would be buying the potential for that
home," he said. The value has now dropped "because you can't build as much as you
would before."
City officials say the moratorium is necessary to give them time to develop permanent
design standards that may help protect owners of smaller homes from the negative
http://statesman printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Austinites+up+in+arms+... 3/7/2006
Austinites up in arms over moratorium on some home construction Page 2 of 5
effectsof what critics have labeled McMansions.
Such homes, officials say, disrupt the aesthetic character of core city neighborhoods,
block light to and impede views from smaller houses and tax already overburdened storm
drainage systems. They also add to price pressures that are making certain parts of town
increasingly unaffordable, some residents say.
Supporters say the moratorium is a necessary pause in Austin's increasingly frenzied
development that has led to the building of houses out of scale for their neighborhoods.
Opponents say it's an unfair restriction of property rights that jeopardizes long-term
property values, with many small homeowners getting squeezed in the process.
Holland says the new rules unfairly prevent him from maximizing the value of his
property, as many of his neighbors have done.
"Maybe the little guy between the two McMansions really deserves to have his
McMansion too," Holland said.
The guidelines have homeowners, neighborhood associations and the home building
industry in an uproar. Among nearly 400 people who showed up to voice their opinions at
a recent City Council meeting, sentiment was 3-1 against the proposed restrictions.
To be sure, there are those who welcomed the council's unanimous approval of the rules
on Feb. 16.
"They are putting houses up that are too big, and they fill the lot," said Madeleine
Villatoro, who lives in a 81 -year-old, 930 -square -foot house on Garden Street in East
Austin. "You have less privacy than you ever had, plus it looks so bizarre — a huge
house interspersed with smaller houses. The scale is just so out of proportion that it just
kind of ruins the neighborhood."
But developers warn that the restrictions, expected to be in place until June, may
significantly cool demand for small homes, reducing the amount redevelopers and
investors are willing to pay homeowners looking to cash out and stopping some
homeowners from being able to trade up from homes they've outgrown.
"I'm out of the market to buy anything until it's decided," said Jon Armstrong, a
management consultant who buys, renovates and sells two to three Central Austin houses
each year. "Under the moratorium guidelines, people are going to have to bring down
their prices."
Matt Risinger, who recently moved from Portland, Ore., to launch Risinger Homes,
already has changed the way he approaches land purchases.
In December, Risinger bought a 1,200 -square -foot ranch -style house on Elton Lane in
http: //statesman. printthis. clickability. com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Austinites+up+in+arms+... 3/7/2006
Austinites up in arms over moratorium on some home construction Page 3 of 5
Tarrytown, planning to tear it down and replace it with a 4,100 -square -foot home to sell.
Under the current rules, however, he is restricted to 3,366 square feet.
He's applied for a waiver, but he said he would not have done the deal in December had
he known the city was going to pass size limits in February. The council passed the
moratorium two weeks after first proposing it.
"We definitely would have negotiated a lower price," he said.
In an arrangement that probably will become common, Risinger recently put a second
Tarrytown house under contract two weeks ago with a contingency that allows him to
back out if he can't get a waiver to build at least 800 square feet more on the lot than the
moratorium rules allow.
"If (the waiver) goes through, then great, I'll buy it," he said. "If it doesn't, we'll definitely
renegotiate on the price."
Jeremy Mazur says the moratorium worries him, even though he doesn't plan to expand
his house before June. He owns a 55 -year-old house with less than 1,000 square feet in
Cherrywood, near the closed Mueller Airport. He worries that the moratorium will lead to
permanent restrictions that could squelch his plans to add two or three bedrooms and a
bathroom.
"I understand the council's concern that they don't want to have hideous blocks being
erected in historic neighborhoods," he says.
Mazur has no such intentions, he says. Nevertheless, "I'd like to have the latitude to
maximize the highest and best use of my property. I believe the council's temporary
moratorium really removes a lot of latitude that I as a property owner should have."
Those who support the new rules have their own monetary arguments.
Kathie Tovo, president of the Bouldin Creek Neighborhood Association, said property
values and taxes have increased dramatically in many central city neighborhoods, making
it hard for longtime residents to keep up. Supporters of the regulations point out that
appraisals are generally based on sale prices of nearby properties. Because larger houses
bring higher prices, this means higher taxes for the area in general.
The mere prospect of larger homes can raise existing values, because developers are
willing to pay more for a property if they can then build a 4,000 -square -foot residence on
the lot versus building a 3,000 -square -foot house, which would yield less profit.
Tovo said the interim regulations will "offer some protection in terms of the affordability
of our neighborhood, which is a really important issue for people in Bouldin Creek,
because property values have escalated at such a quick pace."
http://statesman.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Austinites+up+in+arms+... 3/7/2006
Austinites up in arms over moratorium on some home construction Page 4 of 5
But Sheila Fleming, who opposes the restrictions, says that she is already paying the price
from higher property values in her Clarksville neighborhood and that the restrictions may
force her out of the neighborhood where she's lived for 25 years.
The preschool teacher, who pays $8,000 a year in property taxes on a 1,600 -square -foot
home, is counting on expanding her property to shore up her finances.
After her daughter graduates from high school next year, she hopes to replace the
deteriorating 80 -year-old home, which needs a new foundation, with a 4,000 -square -foot
duplex. She would sell one half and live in the other. But the new rules don't allow a
building of that size. "The price of living in that house really goes up every six months or
so," Fleming said. "I guess I'll have to try to sell it and move somewhere else. It's a lovely
neighborhood."
The moratorium also is preventing Travis Heights resident David Coufal from tearing
down his 47 -year-old, 900 -square -foot home after completion of an 850 -square -foot
garage apartment at the back of his lot.
The new rules don't allow property owners to apply for a demolition permit unless they
also submit complete, detailed plans for a new structure or remodeling at the same time.
But Coufal has no plans to replace the house, or to live in it, and it's in no condition to
rent out. He plans to plant peach trees where the house now stands.
"I want this house out of here before the end of the year," Coufal said. "Because if it is
sitting here at the end of December, they are going to appraise it and tax me on it." The
bill has been $4,300 a year.
Council Member Jennifer Kim said reaction to the moratorium has forced the city to look
at ways it can balance growth with property rights and neighborhood preservation.
"In retrospect, we should have given people more time to absorb this before rushing the
change," Kiln said. "But the council was also aware that would have given people more
time to file applications for demolition and remodeling permits under the less stringent
rules."
Balancing the wants and needs of supporters and opponents will fall largcly to a 16 -
person task force appointed by the council. The group is hashing out the details of its
recommendations for permanent changes to the city's ordinance on redevelopment and
expansion. It's scheduled to report back to the council by May.
Neighborhood character and a certain amount of consistency in home size are important,
said Assistant City Manager Laura Huffman, a task force member.
"But also the task force realizes you need to balance that with people's desires to either
http://statesman.printthis.clickability.com/pticpt?action=ept&title=Austinites+up+in+arms+... 3/7/2006
Austinites up in arms over moratorium on some home construction Page 5 of 5
rebuild or remodel their home, and the economic impact of those regulations," she said.
The task force is studying whether the moratorium regulations should be adjusted to
require that setbacks be consistent with adjacent homes and to exempt basements from
the total square footage requirements, Hoffman said.
kmorton@statesman.com; 445-3641
Additional material by staff writer Shonda Novak.
Find this article at:
http://www.statesman.com/news/contenVnews/stories/local/03/5moratorium. html
LW Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.
http://statesman.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Austinites+up+in+arms+... 3/7/2006
�1
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
TO: Mayor Silvia and Members of the City Council
FROM: Harvey Cargill, Jr., City Attorney "
21
DATE: February 13, 2006
RE: In -fill with Larger Homes
The City of Austin is proposing ordinances that limit in -fill coverage of lots in some
neighborhoods. The enclosed articles detail some of the provisions the Council is
considering.
HC:jls
Attachments
cc: Glenn Brown
Carla Robinson
Joey Dunn
Legal Department
P.O. BOX 9960 • I IOI TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION • TEXAS • 77842
TEL. 979.764.3507 . FAX. 979.764-3481
www.cstx.gov
Austin American -Statesman I statesman.com
Attain Amrrican-$tatepnam
art"'Mm - , ft --
Pagel of 3
Shopping I Cars I Homes I Jobs I Subscribe
Dining out tonight? Looking for a car?
Archives
BYLINE: Sarah Coppola, AMERICAN -STATESMAN STAFF
Start a new search
DATE: February 10, 2006
About the archive
The Austin American_ tatesman Online Archives
Search tips
Options: t
Customer service
Results list I Start a New Search ( Printer Friendly Version
Frequently asked
CORRECT/ON: * A Page One story in some editions Friday
questions
incorrectly described a temporary redevelopment rule approved
Fees
Council halts building of bigger
Terms of service
houses
The search tracker:
ratio of 0.4 to 9: the gross floor area of the home divided by the
Track and save
size of the lot. Another way to calculate that would be that the
searches
Move, which takes effect today, comes after
statesman.com.
complaints about large homes in older areas
Home
A few council members seemed a bit shellshocked, as several
News
speakers panned the proposal and the rush to pass it.
Weather/Traffic
BYLINE: Sarah Coppola, AMERICAN -STATESMAN STAFF
Sports
DATE: February 10, 2006
Longhorns
PUBLICATION: Austin American -Statesman (TX)
Business
SECTION: News
Life
second and third readings. However, the rules take effect today.
Health & Beauty
CORRECT/ON: * A Page One story in some editions Friday
Opinion
incorrectly described a temporary redevelopment rule approved
XLent
by the Austin City Council. People who tear down older homes
Travel
and rebuild will have the option of following a "floor -to -area"
Shopping
ratio of 0.4 to 9: the gross floor area of the home divided by the
Columnists
size of the lot. Another way to calculate that would be that the
Obituaries
home could be 40 percent of the lot size.
Austin360
Calendar
The Austin City Council passed a moratorium late Thursday night on big new homes
Music
that neighbors say dwarf smaller, older homes nearby.
Movies
The council passed the rules unanimously on first reading, which means they will
Recreation
have a chance to tweak the rules before voting on them again next Thursday on
Restaurants
second and third readings. However, the rules take effect today.
Connections
The council passed interim rules that would still allow the
Lifestyles
L t
Li
construction of smaller homes, but the vote will halt, through
e
June, the construction of larger homes.
Buy &sell
Shopping
More than 300 people packed City Hall to speak their minds on
Classifieds
the issue. Most hated the idea, but some equally passionate
Jobs
residents said it's long overdue.
Cars
Homes
A few council members seemed a bit shellshocked, as several
Statesman Store
speakers panned the proposal and the rush to pass it.
http://nl.newsbank.cominl-searchlwelArchives?p_action=doc&p_docid=10FB402C3 AA77... 2/13/2006
Austin American -Statesman I statesman.com
Place an Ad
Resources
"I think this is robbery," resident Robert Maier said. "It robs
Archives
people who have planned to redevelop their homes for years.
Corrections
But most of all, I think this robs the council of its credibility."
Member Center
E-mail Newsletters
Darien Stefani said she's seen how the big homes can block
Subscriber Services
sunlight, ruin old trees and stress drainage systems, because a
Contact Us
developer is building a too -large home next to hers.
Internships
Newspapers in
"I have lost all privacy in my front and backyard," said Stefani,
Education
of the Tarrytown neighborhood. "These oversized McMansions
Partners
have a direct effect on surrounding homes. If this effect
continues, Austin will lose its soul."
Developers have said they must build bigger homes to make a
profit on small, costly lots that are in demand near downtown.
Several speakers warned the council that it would be throwing
away chances to increase the city's tax base and add density
instead of sprawl.
Developer Michael Casias said he builds well -scaled, tasteful
homes in East Austin that he couldn't build under the
moratorium.
"We would not be able to build these affordable homes and
sell them," he said. "Some of these homes might be a shock to
the person living next door, but this is exactly what the city has
been talking about doing: density."
Council members said the moratorium is needed to prevent a
flurry of building permit submissions and to stop drainage
problems caused by too -big homes.
The moratorium could last through June 6, though the council
is expected to vote on permanent rules by May 7.
In the meantime, homeowners can still rebuild or remodel older
homes under temporary rules. The rules will apply to
subdivisions platted before 1974, areas with older drainage
systems, and will not apply to duplexes or new homes built on
vacant lots.
Builders who want to tear down and rebuild homes can
choose the greater of: rebuilding 2,500 square feet; adding 20
percent more space; or abiding by a 0.4 percent home -to -lot -
size ratio. The rules will be similar for remodeling.
Homeowners can apply for variances, so the council could
waive the rules in individual cases.
Page 2 of 3
http://nI.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_ docid=10FB402C3AA77... 2/13/2006
Austin American -Statesman I statesman.com
Michael Cannatti of the West Austin Neighborhood Group said
he remodeled his home recently and could have remodeled it
the same size and style under the moratorium.
Other speakers said the rules would have the opposite effect:
tromping on their property rights.
"I'm the very person you're trying to protect, and I'm terrified,"
Central Austin homeowner Virgil Alexander told the council. "I
am fearful of loss of value and equity in my home that could be
caused by this."
scoppola@statesman.com; 912-2939
Copyright (c) 2006 Austin American -Statesman
Page 3 of 3
Advertise Online or in Print I Subscribe to the Newspaper I Make us your Homepage
Presented by The Austin American -Statesman. Contact us. Corrections.
Please read our Privacy Policy. By using this site, you accept the terms of our Visitor Agreement.
Copyright 2001-2004 Cox Texas Newspapers, L.P. All Rights Reserved.
NemU
http://nI.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid= l OFB402C3AA77... 2/13/2006
Austin American -Statesman I statesman.com
Augin metcart tatesman
swtl b
Page 1 of 4
Shopping I Cars I Homes I Jobs I Subscribe
Find Your Dream Home! Dining out tonight?
Archives
Start a new search
About the archive
ttI1.A111WOR-StateSMa
Search tips
The .1 14nline Archives
Customer service
Options:
Frequently asked
Results list I Start a New Search I Printer Friendly Version
questions
Fees
Home builders consider lawsuit
Terms of service
The search tracker:
Track and save
Some challenge city's justification for limits on size
searches
of houses in older areas, calling drainage issue
stat smacher com.
bogus
Home
News
Weather/Traffic
BYLINE: Sarah Coppola, AMERICAN -STATESMAN STAFF
Sports
DATE: February 11, 2006
Longhorns
PUBLICATION: Austin American -Statesman (TX)
Business
SECTION: Metro/State
Life
Health & Beauty
Austin's main home builders' association is considering whether to sue after the
Opinion
City Council passed a moratorium Thursday on the size of new homes in older
neighborhoods.
XLent
Travel
Harry Savio of the Home Builders Association of Greater Austin said members' due
process was violated because many people who signed up to speak against the idea
Columnists
at Thursday's public hearing didn't get the chance.
Obituaries
Austin360
"We had three times the number of speakers and organized
Calendar
presentations, and it was all blown to hell," Savio said.
Music
Movies
Everyone at the meeting seemed bewildered: Council
Recreation
members were confused by basic aspects of the moratorium,
Restaurants
such as whether it would apply to duplexes, and speakers
Connections
complained they had no time to digest the final draft of the
Lifestyles
proposal, which the city didn't make public until Wednesday.
XLenl
Savio and many other speakers also questioned what the
Buy & Sell
council claimed was its main justification for the moratorium:
Shopping
storm drainage problems caused by the rain runoff from big
Classifieds
homes.
Jobs
Cars
Council members did not previously bring up drainage in the
Homes
debate over large homes, but the issue did provide a legal
Statesman Store
strut to support the changes.
http://nI.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p action=doc&p docid=10FBE673CBF9E... 2/13/2006
Austin American -Statesman I statesman.com
Place an Ad
Resources
A moratorium is typically an emergency measure.
Archives
Corrections
But Assistant City Attorney Marty Terry said state law does not
Member Center
require proving an emergency, only showing that there is a
E-mail Newsletters
"shortage of essential public facilities," such as water, sewer or
Subscriber Services
drainage service.
Contact us
But developers and homeowners called that a bogus claim
Internships
because interim rules the city passed do not address drainage
Newspapers in
Education
nor the covered surfaces that cause runoff.
Partners
Instead, the rules limit a home's total square footage.
Sabrina Brown served on the city's bond election subcommittee
on drainage and transportation, which spent a year sifting
through proposals to decide which projects deserved money.
"Not once, in all these months, did anyone from the
neighborhoods or city staff say, 'We have an emergency
drainage problem related to McMansions that needs to be
addressed,'" Brown said.
The moratorium "isn't a drainage issue. They need to call it
what it is. It's a compatibility issue --'I don't like what you build'
-- and they need to approach it in a different way," she said.
Council Member Brewster McCracken said city staff members
did recommend $800 million for drainage improvements. The
council also passed the moratorium to avoid an influx of
building permits for big homes, he said.
Of those who signed up to speak, 268 were against the
moratorium, 103 in favor, and 8 neutral. Fearing a never-
ending hearing, the council limited comment from each side to
one hour, then abandoned its usual 3 -minute -per -speaker limit
and confused the audience further by extending the time each
side could speak.
By the end of the night, 48 people had spoken.
Those who didn't will get another chance at this Thursday's
meeting, Mayor Will Wynn said.
Speakers were also confused by the council's vote.
The council passed the rules on first reading, and the rules
took effect Friday morning. But the council can change the
rules again next week, when they vote on the moratorium
again, on second and third readings.
Page 2 of 4
http://nI.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid= l 0FBE673 CBF9E... 2/13/2006
Austin American -Statesman I statesman.com
The Planning Commission will also hold its own public hearing
Tuesday and make recommendations to the council.
By law, the council could not have voted on a moratorium in
one fell swoop, on all three readings, Terry said. The
moratorium is supposed to last through June but can be
extended, she said.
Council Member Lee Leffingwell said the council might change
the rules Thursday to include duplexes and possibly increase
the floor -to -area ratio by which property owners can rebuild.
Meanwhile, Travis County's chief appraiser, Art Cory, said
residents should ready themselves for a drop in property
values.
"The more you can do on a piece of dirt, the more valuable it is.
Because they restricted that, I expect the value of the land will
go down," Cory said.
scoppola@statesman.com; 912-2939
(box)
Size matters
The temporary rules approved by the City Council on Thursday
limit the size of new or remodeled single-family homes in older
parts of Austin.
For new homes, the changes do not apply to those built on
vacant lots but to those that replace existing homes that were
torn down.
New homes that replace tear -downs can be the largest of
three options:
* 2,500 square feet
* 20 percent larger (in square feet) than the home that was
demolished
* No larger than 40 percent of the lot size; that is, a large lot of
100 feet by 100 feet could contain a 4,000 -square -foot home,
though the same rules governing impervious cover and set-
backs would apply.
A 2,500 -square -foot home would be the maximum for a lot of
6,125 square feet, or about 78 feet by 78 feet.
Page 3 of 4
http://nI.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid= l 0FBE673 CBF9E... 2/13/2006
tyu,>uii 1 6tacCStttan.corn
For remodeled homes:
* The rules would be similar, with a maximum of 2,500 feet or
40 percent of the lot size.
* A home being remodeled by the owner as his or her
homestead could increase the size by 1,000 square feet over
the existing size.
Copyright (c) 2006 Austin American -Statesman
rage + or 4
Advertise Online or in Print I Subscribe to the Newspaper I Make us your Homepage
Presented by The Austin American -Statesman. Contact us. Corrections.
Please read our Privacy Policy. By using this site, you accept the terms of our Visitor Agreement.
Copyright 2001-2004 Cox Texas Newspapers, L.P. All Rights Reserved.
H�rirrrirrrrirrrrr�'- i�
http://nI.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid= l OFBE673 CBF9E... 2/13/2006
Printed from dallasnews.com
DallasNewsxom
911 a.1a,4 ptortunXthys
Zoning panel approves tool to limit teardowns
Dallas: City Plan Commission to consider much -debated overlays
01:19 PM CDT on Monday, July 25, 2005
By EMILY RAMSHAW / The Dallas Morning News
Page 1 of 2
A Dallas zoning committee put its stamp of approval Thursday on a planning tool designed to help
residents manage teardowns and "McMansions" in their neighborhoods.
After three months of discussion and delay, the Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay — a proposal backed
by many homeowners and resisted by luxury home developers — is headed from the Zoning Ordinance
Advisory Committee to the City Plan Commission.
"This progress is fantastic," said Richard Wright, a Dallas architect and supporter of the overlay. "I can't
tell you how many houses have been bulldozed since the last meeting. This is something that allows us
to put the brakes on things so we can stop and think about it."
But developers still aren't on board with the overlay, said Paul Cauduro, director of government relations
for the Homebuilders Association of Greater Dallas. Members of his organization are concerned that the
planning will create "a hodge-podge of buildable and non -buildable areas," he said.
"With this tool in the planning toolbox, there's too much potential for problems down the road —
fracturing neighborhoods, pitting neighbor against neighbor, and fights over property rights," he said.
More than 1,500 Dallas residences have been torn down and replaced with new homes since the late
1990s. The overlay, as it was crafted by city staff, would allow clusters of homeowners to set standards
for redevelopment in their neighborhoods.
Residents who wanted to preserve certain qualities in their community could, with support from a
majority of homeowners, regulate height, garage location, front and side yard setbacks and paved
surfaces for future construction. And they could prevent dissimilar construction for up to a year and a
half while they agree on their overlay.
The zoning committee's recommendation for the overlay is slightly different. It would shorten the
maximum time residents have to decide on their neighborhood's characteristics to one year. And it
would define a neighborhood as no smaller than three acres, which in most of East Dallas would be
about 17 houses. It also would allow residents to limit square footage for new homes in their
community.
The Plan Commission and City Council could use these recommendations when considering the
overlay, but they are not binding.
"This pretty much takes care of our position; we've presented a slate of motions," said Bill "Bulldog"
Cunningham, one of the Plan Commission's liaisons on the zoning committee. "Many hands go into
http://www.dallasnews.com/cgi-bin/bi/gold_print.cgi 7/25/2005
Printed from dallasnews.com
making one of these things."
Page 2 of 2
Mr. Wright said the amendments don't bother him. The overlay might not be perfect, he said, but it's a
step in the right direction.
"I'm so very displeased with what's happening to our neighborhood, that even as imperfect as this thing
is, I'd rather see this in place rather than allow our neighborhood to be bulldozed unabated," he said.
Amendments or no amendments, Mr. Cauduro said, the premise of the overlay is wrong. A lot of
communities would love to have the "problem" some North Dallas and East Dallas neighborhoods have,
he said.
"These aren't teardowns; they're market -response homes," Mr. Cauduro said. "If a neighborhood is not
improving, it's declining. There is a natural evolution going on here, and consumer preferences are at
play."
The months of debate leading up to Thursday's decision weren't pretty.
Staunch supporters of the overlay accused Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee chair and Plan
Commissioner Carol Scott, a real estate agent with Virginia Cook who does some of her business in
teardowns, of siding with builders and trying to squash the tool.
Ms. Scott adamantly denied she had a conflict of interest. Still, late last month she announced she was
removing herself from all discussions on the issue to preserve "the fairness of the decision."
And if the overlay's trial at the zoning committee is any indication, the battles at the Plan Commission
and City Council will be equally hard-fought.
"This is only the first of three phases of the process," said committee member Michael Jung. "It's
important to stay involved."
E-mail eramshawna dallasnews.com
Online at:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontenUdws/news/localnews/stories/072205dnmetteardowns.74be71 c.html
http://www.dallasnews.com/cgi-bin/bi/gold_print.cgi 7/25/2005
DISCUSSIONS:
La
CITY OF DALLAS
ZONING ORDINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Code Amendment Docket Agenda
Council Chambers
Theresa O'Donnell, Director
David Cossum, Assistant Director of Current Planning
Janet Tharp, Interim Assistant Director of Long Range Planning
David Whitley, Principal Planner
DISCUSSION:
Development Code Amendment
DCA 045- 009 Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay
Janet Tharp
David Whitley
Other Matters
Minutes from July 14, 2005
Adjournment
9:00 a.m.
6-24-05
ORDINANCE NO.
An ordinance amending CHAPTER 51, "DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE:
ORDINANCE NO. 10962, AS AMENDED," and CHAPTER 51A, "DALLAS
DEVELOPMENT CODE: ORDINANCE NO. 19455, AS AMENDED," of the Dallas City
Code, by amending Section 51A-1.105 and adding new Sections 51-4.507 and 51A-4.507,-
creating
1A-4.507;creating the Neighborhood Prevailing Standards Overlay and the Neighborhood
Stabilization Overlay; providing a penalty not to exceed $2,000; providing a saving
clause; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date.
WHEREAS, the city plan commission and the city council, in accordance with the
provisions of the Charter of the City of Dallas, the state law, and the applicable
ordinances of the city, have given the required notices and have held the required
public hearings regarding this amendment to the Dallas City Code; Now Therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DALLAS:
SECTION 1. That Division 51-4.500, "Overlay and Conservation District
Regulations," of Article IV, "Zoning Regulations," of CHAPTER 51, "DALLAS
DEVELOPMENT CODE: ORDINANCE NO. 10962, AS AMENDED," of the Dallas City
Code is amended by adding a new Section 51-4.507 to read as follows:
"SEC. 51-4.507. NEIGHBORHOOD PREVAILING STANDARDS
OVERLAY AND NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION
OVERLAY.
This section incorporates by reference the language of Section 51A-4.507 of
Chapter 51A of the Dallas City Code, as amended."
Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay - page 1 DRAFT
SECTION 2. That Paragraph (4), "Fee Schedule," of Subsection (a), "Fees for
Zoning and SUP Amendments and Renewals," of Section 51A-1.105, "Fees," of Article I,
"General Provisions," of CHAPTER 51A, "DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE:
ORDINANCE NO. 19455, AS AMENDED," of the Dallas City Code, is amended to read
as follows:
"(4) Fee schedule.
Area of
Application Notification
Type of Application Fee for Hearin
Amendment to planned
development district
or institutional overlay
district site plan and/
or conditions only
All other applications
relating to planned
development districts
or institutional
overlay districts:
0-5 acres
over 5 acres
Maximum fee
$1,935.00
$5,820.00
$5,820.00+
$113 per
each acre
over 5
$30,000.00
Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay - page 2 DRAFT
500 feet
500 feet
500 feet
All applications
relating to neighborhood prevailing
standards overlay and neighborhood
stabilization overlay districts:
0-1 acre $500.00 200 feet
over 1 acre to $1,200.00 300 feet
5 acres
over 5 acres to $2,400.00 400 feet
25 acres
over 25 acres $2,400.00 500 feet
All applications
relating to conservation
districts:
0-1 acre
$500.00
200 feet
over 1 acre to
$1,200.00
300 feet
5 acres
over 5 acres to
$2,400.00
400 feet
25 acres
over 25 acres
$2,400.00
500 feet
Application for original SUP
0 to 1 acre
$1,170.00
200 feet
over 1 acre to 5 acres
$1,170.00
300 feet
over 5 acres to 25 acres
$1,170.00
400 feet
over 25 acres
$1,170.00
500 feet
pedestrian skybridge
$10,000.00See
51A -
4.217(b)(12)
Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay - page 3 DRAFT
Application for SUP
amendment or renewal:
0 to 1 acre
over 1 acre to 5 acres
over 5 acres to 25 acres
over 25 acres
$825.00*
$825.00*
$825.00*
$825.00*
200 feet
300 feet
400 feet
500 feet
*If an SUP is automatically renewed in accordance with the procedures outlined in
Section 51A-4.219 and no public hearings are held in conjunction with its renewal, the
applicant shall be entitled to a refund of $350.00 as of the date of the renewal.
Area of
Application Notification
Type of Application Fee for Hearing
All other zoning
applications:
0 to 1 acre
$1,050.00
200 feet
over 1 acre to 5 acres
$2,610.00
300 feet
over 5 acres to 15 acres
$5,820.00
400 feet
over 15 acres to 25 acres
$9,315.00
400 feet
over 25 acres
$9,315.00+
500 feet
$113 per each
acre over 25
Maximum fee
$37,500.00"
SECTION 3. That Division 51A-4.500, "Overlay and Conservation District
Regulations," of Article IV, "Zoning Regulations," of CHAPTER 51A, "DALLAS
DEVELOPMENT CODE: ORDINANCE NO. 19455, AS AMENDED," of the Dallas City
Code is amended by adding a new Section 51A-4.507 to read as follows:
Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay - page 4 DRAFT
"SEC. 51A-4.507. NEIGHBORHOOD PREVAILING STANDARDS
OVERLAY AND NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION
OVERLAY.
(a) Findings and purpose.
(1) The city council finds that the construction of new single family
structures that are incompatible with existing single family structures within certain
established neighborhoods is detrimental to the stability, livability, and economic value
of that neighborhood and the city as a whole.
(2) The neighborhood prevailing standards overlay and the
neighborhood stabilization overlay are intended to preserve single family
neighborhoods by imposing neighborhood -specific yard, lot, and space regulations that
reflect the existing character of the neighborhood. The neighborhood prevailing
standards overlay and the neighborhood stabilization overlay do not prevent
construction of new single family structures, but, rather, ensure that new single family
structures are compatible with existing single family structures.
(3) The neighborhood prevailing standards overlay maintains the
existing neighborhood for a short period until the neighborhood stabilization overlay
can be adopted. The yard, lot, and space regulations of the neighborhood prevailing
standards overlay are based on the average or predominant characteristics of the
neighborhood in order to allow the overlay to be imposed quickly.
(4) The neighborhood stabilization overlay is intended to permanently
maintain the existing neighborhood. The yard, lot, and space regulations of the
neighborhood stabilization overlay district are selected from a menu u1 order to
facilitate creation and enforcement of the overlay district regulations.
(5) Neighborhood prevailing standards overlay districts and the
neighborhood stabilization overlay districts are distinguished from historic overlay
districts, which preserve historic residential or commercial places; and from
conservation districts, which conserve a residential or commercial area's distinctive
atmosphere or character by protecting or enhancing its significant architectural or
cultural attributes.
Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay - page 5 DRAFT
(b) Definitions. In this section:
(1) BLOCKFACE means the linear distance of lots along one side of a
street between the two nearest intersecting streets. If a street dead -ends, the terminus of
the dead-end will be treated as an intersecting street.
(2) CORNER SIDE YARD is a side yard abutting a street.
(3) IMPERVIOUS OR PAVED SURFACE means any paved surface,
such as asphalt, bricks, concrete, gravel, stone, or tile; or any structure, such as
accessory buildings, driveways, or walkways.
(4) INTERIOR SIDE YARD is a side yard not abutting a street.
(5) ONE-HALF STORY means a story above a lower story that
contains 50 percent or less of the floor area of the lower story or a story that is contained
within the roofline of the structure.
(6) OPPOSING BLOCKFACE means the linear distance of lots along
the side of the street opposite the blockface between the two nearest intersecting streets
If a street dead -ends, the terminus of the dead-end will be treated as an intersecting
street.
(7) PREDOMINANT means the condition that is numerically most
common. For example, if a blockface has five two-story single family structures, three
one -and -one -half -story single family structures, and six one-story single family
structures, then one-story single family structures are predominant. Where two or
more conditions have the same numerical occurrence, then either condition is
predominant. For example, if a blockface has five two-story single family structures and
five one -and -one -half -story single family structures, then both two story single family
structures and one -and -one -half -story single family structures are predominant.
(8) SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE means a main structure designed
for a single family use, without regard to whether the structure is actually used for a
single family use. For example, a house containing a child care facility is a single family
structure, but an institutional building, such as a church or school, converted to a single
family use is not.
Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay - page 6 DRAFT
(c) Initiation and process.
(1) A neighborhood prevailing standards overlay and subsequent
neighborhood stabilization overlay may be initiated by a petition signed by the owners
of more than 50 percent of the number of lots within the proposed overlay district. The
petition must be on a form furnished by the department. The petition must be
submitted with the following:
(A) the application fee;
(B) a map showing the boundaries of the proposed overlay
districts;
(C) a list of any neighborhood associations that represent the
interests of property owners within the proposed overlay districts; and
(D) a list of the names and addresses of the committee members
that circulated the petition; and
(E) any other information the director determines is necessary.
(2) For purposes of Section 51A-4.701, "Zoning Amendments," once a
petition has been submitted to the director, the neighborhood prevailing standards
overlay and the neighborhood stabilization overlay shall be treated as a city plan
commission authorized public hearing.
(3) A neighborhood prevailing standards overlay and a neighborhood
stabilization overlay may only be placed on an area that is zoned as single family
residential and developed primarily with single family structures. A neighborhood
prevailing standards overlay and a neighborhood stabilization overlay may not be
placed on a conservation district or an area with a historic overlay. A neighborhood
prevailing standards overlay and a neighborhood stabilization overlay may be placed
on an area that contains vacant lots, but may not be placed on new subdivision covering
a large tract of land.
(4) A neighborhood prevailing standards overlay district and a
neighborhood stabilization overlay district must be a compact, contiguous area. The
minimum area of a neighborhood prevailing standards overlay district and a
neighborhood stabilization overlay district is one blockface. The minimum area of a
subdistrict within a neighborhood prevailing standards overlay district or a
neighborhood stabilization overlay district is one blockface.
Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay - page 7 DRAFT
(d) Neighborhood prevailing standards overlay.
(1) Yard, lot, and space regulations.
(A) In general.
(i) The yard, lot, and space regulations in this subsection
apply only to single family structures within a neighborhood prevailing standards
overlay district.
(ii) Except as provided in iiis subparagraph, the yard,
lot, and space regulations of the underlying single family residential zoning remain in
effect.
(iii) The yard, lot, and space regulations in this subsection
must be read together with the yard, lot, and space regulations in Division 51A-4.400.
In the event of a conflict between this subsection and Division 51A-4.400, this
subsection controls.
(iv) Only single family structures are considered to
determine an average or a predominant condition; other structures, such as duplex,
multifamily, and nonresidential structures, are not. If there are no single family
structures available to establish an average or a predominant condition, then the yard,
lot, and space regulations of the underlying single family residential zoning control. If
the opposing blockface is not included in the neighborhood prevailing standards
overlay district, the opposing blockface is not considered to determine an average or a
predominant condition. Vacant lots are not considered to determine an average or a
predominant condition.
(v) If the prevailing standard specified in this subsection
is based on the blockface, only lots within 500 feet in each direction from the side lot
lines of the subject lot shall be considered. If the prevailing standard specified in this
subsection is based on the opposing blockface, only lots within 500 feet in each direction
from lines extending to the opposing blockface from the side lot lines of the subject lot
shall be considered.
(vi) Additions to existing single family structures may
maintain the existing front yard setback, interior side yard setback, corner side yard
setback, and stories of that structure. This provision does not allow the enlargement of
a use that is nonconforming to the yard, lot, and space regulations of the underlying
single family residential zoning.
Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay - page 8 DRAFT
(B) Front yard setback. The front yard setback must be within
10 percent of the average setback of other single family structures on the blockface.
(C) Corner side yard setback. The corner side yard setback must
be within 10 percent of the average corner side yard setback of other single family
structures on the blockface and opposing blockface.
(D) Interior side yard setback and structure width.
(i) The minimum interior side yard setback must be one-
half of the average spacing between other single family structures on the blockface and
opposing blockface.
(ii) If the interior side yard setback on the subject lot is
greater than the average spacing between other single family structures on the blockface
and opposing blockface, the width of the subject single family structure must be within
10 percent of the width of other single family structures on the blockface and opposing
blockface.
(E) Stories. The number of stories (including one-half stories)
must be the same as the predominant number of stories (including one-half stories) on
other single family structures on the blockface and opposing blockface.
(F) Garage access, connection, and location The garage access
(front entry, side entry, or rear entry); connection (attached or detached); and location
(in front of, behind, or to the side of the single family structure) must be the same as the
predominant garage access, connection, and location on other lots with single family
structures on the blockface and opposing blockface.
(G) Impervious or paved surface.
(i) The maximum percentage of impervious or paved
surface in the front yard must be equal to or less than the average percentage of
impervious or paved surface in the front yard of other lots with single family structures
on the blockface and opposing blockface.
(ii) The maximum percentage of impervious or paved
surface in the corner side yard must be equal to or less than the average percentage of
impervious or paved surface in the corner side yard of other lots with single family
structures on the blockface and opposing blockface.
Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay - page 9 DRAFT
(2) Authorization of public hearing for a neighborhood stabilization
overlay. The ordinance establishing a neighborhood prevailing standards overlay must
authorize a public hearing to consider adoption of a neighborhood stabilization overlay.
City council shall hold the public hearing to consider a neighborhood stabilization
overlay within one year after passage of the neighborhood prevailing standards
ordinance. On request of the director, the city plan commission may extend the date of
the public hearing for six months upon a finding that substantial work has been done
toward completion of the neighborhood stabilization overlay.
(3) Repeal of the neighborhood prevailing standards overlay. The
ordinance establishing a neighborhood stabilization overlay must repeal the
neighborhood prevailing standards overlay. If city council does not adopt a
neighborhood stabilization overlay, it shall adopt an ordinance repealing the
neighborhood prevailing standards overlay.
(e) Neighborhood stabilization overlay.
(1) In general.
(A) The ordinance establishing a neighborhood stabilization
overlay district is not required to specify standards for each category of yard, lot, and
space regulations in this subsection, but if it does, the regulations must be selected from
the options listed in this subsection.
(B) The standards must reflect the existing conditions within the
neighborhood stabilization overlay district.
(C) Except as provided in the ordinance establishing a
neighborhood stabilization overlay district, the yard, lot, and space regulations of the
underlying single family residential zoning remain in effect.
(D) The yard, lot, and space regulations in the ordinance
establishing a neighborhood stabilization overlay district must be read together with
the yard, lot, and space regulations in Division 51A-4.400. In the event of a conflict
between this subsection and Division 51A-4.400, this subsection controls.
(2) Front yard setback. The minimum front yard setback must be
selected from the following options:
(A) 10 feet;
(B) 15 feet;
Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay - page 10 DRAFT
(C) 20 feet;
(D) 25 feet;
(E) 30 feet;
(F) 35 feet;
(G) 40 feet;
(H) 45 feet;
(1) 50 feet;
a) 55 feet;
(K) 60 feet;
(L) 65 feet; or
(M) 70 feet.
(3) Corner side yard setback. The minimum corner side yard setback
must be selected from the following options:
(A) five feet;
(B) 10 feet;
(C) 15 feet;
(D) 20 feet;
(E) 25 feet;
(F) 30 feet;
(G) 35 feet; or
(H) 40 feet.
Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay - page 11 DRAFT
(4) Interior side yard setback. The minimum interior side yard setback
must be selected from the following options:
(A)
five feet;
(B)
10 feet;
(C)
15 feet;
(D)
20 feet;
(E)
25 feet;
(F)
30 feet;
(G)
35 feet; or
(H)
40 feet.
(5) Height. The structure height must be selected from the following
options. The structure height
may be a maximum, a minimum, or both.
(A)
20 feet;
(B)
24 feet;
(C)
30 feet; or
(D)
36 feet.
(6) Stories. The number of stories must be one or more the following
options. The number of stories may be a maximum, a minimum, or both.
(A)
one story;
(B)
one -and -one-half stories;
(C)
two stories;
(D)
two -and -one half stories; or
(E)
three stories.
Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay - page 12 DRAFT
(7) Garage
access, connection, location The garage access (front entry,
side entry, or rear entry); connection (attached or detached); or location (in front of,
behind, or to the side of the single family structure) must be selected from one or more
of the following options:
(A)
Garage access.
(i) front entry;
(ii) side entry; or
(iii) rear entry.
(B)
Garage connection
(i) attached to the single family structure; or
(ii) detached from the single family structure.
(C)
Garage location
(i) in front of the single family structure;
(ii) to the side of the single family structure; or
(iii) to the rear of the single family structure.
(8) Impervious or paved surface. The maximum impervious or paved
surface in the front yard must be selected from the following options:
(A)
five percent;
(B)
10 percent;
(C)
15 percent;
(D)
20 percent;
(E)
30 percent;
(F)
40 percent;
(G)
50 percent;
Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay - page 13 DRAFT
(H) 60 percent; or
(I) 70 percent.
(f) Fee waiver. The board of adjustment may waive any filing fee related to a
neighborhood prevailing standards overlay or a neighborhood stabilization overlay
when the board finds that payment of the fee would result in substantial financial
hardship to the applicant. The applicant may either pay the fee and request
reimbursement as part of his appeal or request that the matter be placed on the board's
miscellaneous docket for predetermination. If the matter is placed on the miscellaneous
docket, the applicant may not file his appeal until the merits of the request for waiver
have been determined by the board of adjustment.
(g) Special exception The board of adjustment shall grant a special exception
to the yard, lot, and space regulations of a neighborhood prevailing standards overlay
or a neighborhood stabilization overlay when, in the opinion of the board of
adjustment, the special exception will not be detrimental to the stability, livability, and
economic value of the overlay district. This paragraph does not authorize the board of
adjustment to grant a special exception from the yard, lot, and space regulations of the
underlying single family residential zoning.
SECTION 4. That a person violating a provision of this ordinance, upon
conviction, is punishable by a fine not to exceed $2,000.
SECTION 5. That CHAPTERS 51 and 51A of the Dallas City Code shall remain
in full force and effect, save and except as amended by this ordinance.
SECTION 6. That the terms and provisions of this ordinance are severable and
are governed by Section 1-4 of CHAPTER 1 of the Dallas City Code, as amended.
SECTION 7. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its
passage and publication in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of
Dallas, and it is accordingly so ordained.
Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay - page 14 DRAFT
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
THOMAS P. PERKINS, JR., Interim City Attorney
im
Assistant City Attorney
Passed
Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay - page 15 DRAFT
a) a)
c �
o c�
L
c a)
1-
U
c
L
cn
��a�i'D>
F—
> (n cn O
a) O M c
o>,E'o
—O+-o CU
i'
Q Q.N
JQ
'p �
.N C:
NU) O- O
O
U O
O O a1 =
Z
_r p O
O
_C
�--
U U) - N
N
a)
C
J
>U"T) E cZ
N
v
o Z 2�
C
X
m
Q o O L
-o -0
Q
F-
(B O- O to
Q- 'cn Q U
O
«�
C0L
c _� o o o c
°U O E
o
C: O > O O
CL
C
ON
E O N O
a) Rf N
O
3 O Y U)
U
_
o > 0)a-
ZQ >,Z-0U) �ZZ
0
`� • • • "-
•
m
• •
S
_O
W
Z
Q
OO
L
U
0)
Z
4-
N
C
CO
=
N
O
U
O V N O �d
�-
p
co
N -0Z
0
_1
�'
z
Zo- o.m0o
z
m
Q
(n
a) cn U U
cn '0
O O >, c
0�
4- U
C cn Q O
Q
CO
0
�
> � c' a �
a
o a, 0) CL 0 3 �
0
�
LL1
O
"=
.� >.
- U
>. � c
p
.0
U c .� 'L o 0 0 Q
.�
w
o`=�'0)0Cn-
0.. U
U to N U
z
UJ-oa)CcZUo
U U N= • • U
N
O
O
O
L
E
O
N
w
z
J
W
Q
-'
O
w
ww
a
cn
CL
o
>,
O c
p
o
O
:-
p
o
W
a
m Q
>
=
o L a, -`13 v
=
O
z
��
O
-a�Q
O
,�
ix
o
�a)��°'�°'--
a,—L0
O
m
O
o>,
0c
O
m
00)m0
CU a)ES
0
a
"tfccI
0-
wO)�
0
-L-
.n i o ca
w
z
c U
o o= m a)
Z
a.
o =o
C
�a)
�
Ucu
U 0) N U CLpUn
�p 3Q)
Mw
CT
Z L-0)
QZ A Om-0
W
Z O_ U
Z
N �W
W
N•
•
•
C/)
• •
NEIGHBORHOOD PREVAILING S IANDARDS OVERLAY ac
NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION OVERLAY
TASK FORCE PROPOSAL SUMMARY
GENERAL OVERVIEW
• This overlay would be a regulatory tool, like a Conservation District or an Historic District,
that is available to neighborhoods that want it.
• It is a zoning change, and would include public hearings at City Plan Commission and City
Council, with newspaper notices, sign posting and property owner notices mailed prior to
each.
• Allows development to continue with a set of development standards.
• It is not intended to regulate architectural style or building materials. Rather, it will only
regulate the "bones" of a neighborhood through the scale and placement of homes on a
lot.
NEIGHBORHOOD PREVAILING STANDARDS
• Zoning Overlay District put in place through a petition (50% + 1 of owner's signatures
required) and public hearing process. The overlay will be in effect for up to one-year with
possibility of one six-month extension approved by the City Plan Commission.
• Development standards in the overlay maintain the average developed conditions in a
neighborhood. Development must demonstrate compatibility with existing single-family
dwellings located within 500 feet. The burden of proving compatibility is upon the
applicant for a building permit.
• Compatibility shall be determined using the following indicators:
DISSENTING OPINIONS:
SHOULD REQUIRE MORE THAN 50% OF PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURES.
FRONT SETBACK SHOULD NOT ENCROACH BEYOND ESTABLISHED AVERAGE TO
MAINTAIN STREET WALL
1
Prevailing Standard
Stories
Predominant number must be provided
Garage access, location
and connection
Predominant access, location and
connection must be provided
Paving surface in front and
corner side yards
Average within 10 percent
Front yard setback
Average within 10 percent
Corner side yard setback
Average within 10 percent
Interior side yard setback
Average within 10 percent
DISSENTING OPINIONS:
SHOULD REQUIRE MORE THAN 50% OF PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURES.
FRONT SETBACK SHOULD NOT ENCROACH BEYOND ESTABLISHED AVERAGE TO
MAINTAIN STREET WALL
1
NEIGHOVRXHI00D S T A 8 1 L I Z A iON W0 ERLA►
• Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay replaces the Neighborhood Prevailing Standards
Overlay. It would also be considered a zoning change and follow the public hearing and
notice process.
• Overlays may only include the following provisions; provisions may be excluded if not
applicable. It is not intended to regulate architectural style.
• There may be sub -areas within the overlay area.
• Neighborhood may set minimums or maximums if they choose from the following menu:
[M-M-EMME
Stories 1 1 1 1 Y 2 12Y2
3
Garage access, location
Entry:
Connection:
Location:
and connection
. Rear
. Attached
• Front of Structure
70%
. Front
• Detached
• Rear of Structure
• Side
. Side of Structure
Paving coverage in front and
5%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
corner side yards
Front setback 10' 1 15' 20' 1 25' 1 30' 1 35' 40' 45' 1 50' 1 55' 1 60'
Corner side setback 5' 1 10' 15' 20' 1 25' 1 30' 1 35' 40'
Interior side setback 5' 1 10' 1 15' 1 20' 1 25' 1 30' 1 35' 40'
DISSENTING OPINIONS:
ROOF SLOPE SHOULD BE ONE OF THE MENU ITEMS
FAR OR LOT COVERAGE SHOULD BE ONE OF THE MENU ITEMS
2
ZONING ORDINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY, JULY 14, 2005
FILE NUMBER: DCA 045-009 DATE INITIATED: November 16, 2005
TOPIC: Neighborhood Prevailing Standards Overlay & Neighborhood Stabilization
Overlay
COUNCIL DISTRICT: All CENSUS TRACT: All
PROPOSAL: To amend Chapters 51 and 51A of the Dallas Development Code to
establish a Neighborhood Prevailing Standards Overlay and a
Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay.
SUMMARY: The purpose of this proposal is to establish residential overlays to
preserve he existing character of single family neighborhoods by
imposing alternative yard, lot and space regulations to ensure that
new construction is compatible with existing structures.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
• The issue of homes being torn down and incompatible new single family houses built
in existing established neighborhoods was first addressed during a Comprehensive
Plan workshop on November 16, 2004. This workshop was attended by over 200
people who expressed significant frustration with the tools currently available to
address neighborhood compatibility and stabilization.
• A follow-up meeting to discuss issues and solutions in other cities, and to obtain
feedback was held on January 10.
• The Single Family Housing Standards Task Force, made up of industry and
homeowner representatives, crafted this overlay proposal during four work sessions.
• A third community meeting was held on April 4, 2005 to present the proposed
overlay and to obtain feedback.
• The City Council Housing and Neighborhood Committee was briefed on this
approach.
• Staff briefed ZOAC on this proposal on April 7, 2005. At that meeting, ZOAC
received comments from seven citizens and requested additional input, including
presentations on the dissenting opinions as well as input from housing industry
representatives. In addition, ZOAC requested information on methods other cities
are using to address the teardown issue.
• On April 28, 2005 ZOAC heard input on the dissenting opinions from three members
of the Single Family Housing Task Force. They also heard comments from 18 other
citizens.
• On May 5, 2005 ZOAC and the Plan Commission toured neighborhoods that have
experienced redevelopment.
• On May 19, 2005 staff presented information on pending state legislation and
research on methods other cities are using to address the teardown issue. ZOAC
also heard input from nine citizens. At this meeting, ZOAC approved a motion to
hold this issue under advisement until June 2, 2005 to continue deliberation on the
proposed overlay. ZOAC members discussed the need to take action on the
proposal to move it on through the review process.
• On June 2, 2005 ZOAC requested public input that addressed only the economic
impact of this proposal. After that input, ZOAC moved to close the public testimony
and take action on the proposal on June 23, 2005.
• On June 23, ZOAC voted to hold the issue under advisement.
• City Plan Commission Rules of Procedure place a 90 -day limitation for ZOAC action,
unless an extension is granted by a majority of the City Plan Commission. The 90 -
day period for this item would have expired on July 7, 2005; however, at their
June 30 meeting, CPC voted to extend the review period for this item at ZOAC until
July 21, 2005.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The original direction by the council committee was to develop a tool that
neighborhoods could use in addition to the existing tools of historic districts and
conservation districts. Specific direction included:
2
• Provide a tool that could be used to stabilize existing single family
neighborhoods.
• Provide easy-to-use procedures that are more limited in scope than Conservation
Districts and Historic Districts.
• Provide immediate relief to neighborhoods who want it.
A number of questions and issues were brought up during ZOAC's discussions on the
proposed overlay. Following are answers to questions and issues raised:
Q: How will people know there is an overlay in place?
A: During the time period that a neighborhood is developing an overlay, property
owners within the overlay area and 200 feet beyond will be notified in writing prior
to each of the four public hearings during the process to rezone property (two
public hearings for each step). In addition, notice of the application is sent to the
early notification list maintained by the Development Services Department. Notice
is also published in the Dallas Morning News before Plan Commission and Council
hearings. Signs providing notice of a zoning change request would also be posted
in the neighborhood. If City Council approves a prevailing standards overlay or a
neighborhood stabilization overlay, it is a zoning change and will be reflected on
zoning maps and in the official record of the city.
Q: Why is only 50 percent plus 1 required for petition signatures?
A: This provision was debated thoroughly by the task force. Some members desired a
larger percentage while others thought a smaller percentage of signatures was
appropriate for initiating the request. The requirement for over 50 percent of the
owner's signatures is consistent with code requirements for Conservation Districts
and Historic Districts.
Q: Why is only one block face required as a minimum area?
A: The task force also debated this minimum area requirement. Conservation Districts
require a minimum area of one block face, and Historic Districts can apply to only
one structure.
Q: Are the prevailing overlay standards required minimums, maximums or
absolutes?
A: The concern was expressed that larger, two-story houses in some neighborhoods
were being torn down and replaced by smaller cottages, and that the prevailing
standards in those neighborhoods should be two-story houses. The proposed
ordinance as currently written requires that the predominant number of stories and
garage requirements be provided, and also requires that setbacks and paving
surfaces meet the average developed condition within 10 percent.
Q: Wording in Findings and Purpose: The city council finds that the
construction of new single family structures that are incompatible with
existing single family structures within certain established neighborhoods is
3
detrimental to the stability, livability and economic value of that
neighborhood and the city as a whole.
A: The ordinance before you is proposed draft language. If ZOAC is uncomfortable
with this language, other language may be proposed.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Following are decision points that the committee has expressed interest continued
discussion and debate:
1. Percentage of owner's signatures required on a petition to initiate the zoning
change process for prevailing standards and neighborhood stabilization
overlays.
2. Minimum size for an overlay district.
3. Require minimums, maximums or absolutes in prevailing standards.
4. Timing of Prevailing Standards — one year with possibility of one six-month
extension approved by the Plan Commission.
The following items are dissenting opinions to the task force's recommendation for
ZOAC's consideration:
1. Allow 10 percent variance in paving and setbacks in prevailing standards.
2. Include roof slope in the Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay.
3. Include floor area ratio or lot coverage requirements in the Neighborhood
Stabilization Overlay.
A summary of the task force's recommendation and dissenting opinions has also been
attached for your reference in order to facilitate deliberation of the proposed ordinance
requirements.
El
NEIGHBORHOOD PREVAILING STANDARDS OVERLAY &
NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION OVERLAY
TASK FORCE PROPOSAL SUMMARY
GENERAL OVERVIEW
• This overlay would be a regulatory tool, like a Conservation District or an Historic District,
that is available to neighborhoods that want it.
• It is a zoning change, and would include public hearings at City Plan Commission and City
Council, with newspaper notices, sign posting and property owner notices mailed prior to
each.
• Allows development to continue with a set of development standards.
• It is not intended to regulate architectural style or building materials. Rather, it will only
regulate the "bones" of a neighborhood through the scale and placement of homes on a
lot.
NEIGHBORHOOD PREVAILING STANDARDS
• Zoning Overlay District put in place through a petition (50% + 1 of owner's signatures
required) and public hearing process. The overlay will be in effect for up to one-year with
possibility of one six-month extension appro\ed by the City Plan Commission.
• Development standards in the overlay maintain the average developed conditions in a
neighborhood. Development must demonstrate compatibility with existing single-family
dwellings located within 500 feet. The burden of proving compatibility is upon the
applicant for a building permit.
• Compatibility shall be determined using the following indicators:
DISSENTING OPINIONS:
SHOULD REQUIRE MORE THAN 50% OF PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURES.
FRONT SETBACK SHOULD NOT ENCROACH BEYOND ESTABLISHED AVERAGE TO
MAINTAIN STREET WALL
5
Prevailing Standard
Stories
Predominant number must be provided
Garage access, location
and connection
Predominant access, location and
connection must be provided
Paving surface in front and
corner side yards
Average within 10 percent
Front yard setback
Average within 10 percent
Corner side yard setback
Average within 10 percent
Interior side yard setback
Average within 10 percent
DISSENTING OPINIONS:
SHOULD REQUIRE MORE THAN 50% OF PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURES.
FRONT SETBACK SHOULD NOT ENCROACH BEYOND ESTABLISHED AVERAGE TO
MAINTAIN STREET WALL
5
NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION OVERLAY
• Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay replaces the Neighborhood Prevailing Standards
Overlay. It would also be considered a zoning change and follow the public hearing and
notice process.
• Overlays may only include the following provisions; provisions may be excluded if not
applicable. It is not intended to regulate architectural style.
• There may be sub -areas within the overlay area.
• Neighborhood may set minimums or maximums if they choose from the following menu:
Height 20' 1 24' 1 30' 136'
Stories 1 1 1 1 Y2 1 2 12Y2
3
Garage access, location
Entry:
Connection:
Location:
and connection
• Rear
. Attached
. Front of Structure
70%
• Front
• Detached
. Rear of Structure
• Side
• Side of Structure
Paving coverage in front and
5%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
corner side yards
Front setback 10' 1 15' 1 20' 1 25' 1 30' 1 35' 1 40' 1 45' 1 50' 1 55' 1 60'
Corner side setback -d 20' 1 25' 1 30' 1 35' 40'
Interior side setback 5' 10' 15' 1 20' 1 25' 1 30' 1 35' 40'
DISSENTING OPINIONS:
ROOF SLOPE SHOULD BE ONE OF THE MENU ITEMS
® FAR OR LOT COVERAGE SHOULD BE ONE OF THE MENU ITEMS
INTERNATIONAL MUNICIPAL
LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
n D >r
G — cAv
t t7l 1�2- f t7�
Work Session; VL:_ Code Enforcement & Civil Liabilities
Title: Preserving Community Character in the Face of "Teardowns"
end "McMansions" - Zoning A Proaches
by
Presenter: Lane H. Kendig
Presenter's Title: President
Presenter's Office: Lane Kendig, inc
® 2004 International Municipal Lawyers Association. This is an informational and educational report distributed by the
International Municipal Lawyers Association during its 2004 Annual Conference, held October 3-6,2004 in San Antonio, Texas.
IMLA assumes no responsibility for the policies or positions presented in the report or for the presentation of its contents.
ELEVATION A ff.EVAnON II fA3iVA'nON C ra rVATION D FLEVAflON E
ELEVATION A R.L-VATION a ELEVATION C E IAAMON D ELEVATION E
M.EVATIaN A ELEVATION B ELEVATION C ELEVATON D ELEVATION E
CONCORD DEVELOPMENT A u,:.1-
BRIDGEWATER at INDIAN CREEK CPU Bloodgmxl Sl mp Buster
Lane H. Kendig, President ]Lme Kendig, inc.
443 d lake Street Performance Concepts in Planning
Mundelein, IL 60060-1824 � S
Tel: 847/949-8288
Fax 847/949-0065
E-mail: lane@lanekendig.com Manning • Zoning • Growth Management • Housing • Design
www.lanekendig.com
Bret C. Keast. AICP, Vice President
19901 Southwest Freeway
Sugar land, TX 77479
Tei: 281/343-5034
Fax: 281/343-5074
E-mail: bret@lanekendig.com
PRESERVING COMMUNITY CHARACTER IN THE FACE OF "TEARDOWNS"
AND "McMANSIONS" — ZONING APPROACHES
Monopoly Set Houses
Hence, there are multiple design issues confronting communities. Fortunately, there are a number of techniques that are in use
to address these issues. In our example, we have used what is called a monotony code — actually, an anti -monotony code — to
address many of these problems.
MONOTONY AND DESIGN SOURCES OF THE PROBLEM
Mass Production
One key source of the problem is large-scale production housing. The song, "Little Boxes," while reflecting on mid -twentieth
century suburban housing developments, can also apply to large-scale urban developments and to production housing at the turn
of the 20' century.
In contrast, indigenous communities, which have grown slowly over 100 or more years, seem to have a very different charm.
Whether it be overseas or in the United States, these places grew slowly and were pieced together in a coherent way. They appear
to have a unity of overall character and an abundance of variety and interest, which help create a community where nobody would
think about "looking for your house by the color of the door." In these places, only a few homes were built each year. Similarly,
the majority of the homes were built by individual contractors, rather than a "master developer." As a result, homes are different
and individualized, while maintaining a harmonious community character.
Cutting Corners - Lack of Eaves
Another problem in modem residential design is the cutting back on design elements. Generally, the original stick -built house
had eaves that provided a shadow line. For example, in the bungalow, which was popular in the first half of the 200' century, the
eaves were 18 to 36 inches wide. This feature provided visual interest and added to the character of the house. Today, except in
climates where overhangs are needed to shed water, the trend in entry-level and much mid-level housing is to eliminate the eaves.
Eliminating this feature reduces the cost of material (such as roof trusses, which are almost universally used today), but detracts
from the overall character. This is unfortunate because eliminating this feature causes these residences to look like the houses in
a Monopoly game.
The reliance on roof trusses also encourages the use of similar roof pitches throughout an entire project, as can be seen in the
iilustration of monopoly houses above. Further, there is often only a minor variation in roof height since the house widths are
quite similar. Thus, houses are often simple, two-story rectangles with no changes in facades to provide interest.
Windows
No,Eaves
24 inch eaves
In the past, with wood frame or masonry houses, it was typical to have trim around windows. In masonry construction, some
detailing was also common. Likewise, in many styles, shutters were a common design element. These details were carried around
all four sides of the house.
Today, the typical window has only a small outer frame that can be installed with no framing. As a;result, windows often look
like simple cut outs -not much more attractive than holes cut in a cardboard box. The reliance on metal, plastic lap, or clapboard
siding makes it worse because the texture is all wrong for windows without frames. With wood siding, there was always a
wooden frame for the window that made the transition from window to horizontal siding.
Punch out windows - no rational placement Windows with trim Windows integrated in design
False Fronts
Frequently, the problem with residential design is the false front. To create "curb appeal," the house is made to look attractive
and imposing from the street by trimming front doors and windows and, in many instances, applying masonry. Often, the mass
of box is broken up on the building's front, as well. Unfortunately, the sides and rear remain in flat plains with siding; punch out
windows, and sometimes blank walls. The falseness is painfully obvious, as can be seen in House 1 below. As soon as the sides
of the house become visible, this false front makes the rest of the house look cheap and unattractive The neighbors to the sides
and rear have to live with this design failure.
House 1 front -
brick, window trim,
and mass broken up
House 1- side & rear
all siding, no window
trim, and mass
unbroken
The detail at the right shows the failure of design. The front got a lot of reasonably
careful detailing, but turning the corner reveals a complete lack of sensitivity in the
siding and windows. Note that the designer did not even attempt to keep the
windows in alignment.
Failure of Design
Garages
In recent years, this issue has received widespread attention. There are two elements to this problem. First, garage doors are not
designed to be very attractive, second, the driveway eliminates areas thatcould otherwise be used for landscaping. The percentage
of the front of the house occupied by the garage represents a severe design constraint. Large garages on small lots eliminate the
ability to make the house attractive or unique as the garage occupies the majority of the facade. The narrower the lot, the greater
the potential impact of the garage on the architectural character of the house.
Landscaping
Garage to Rear -
Single Lane Drive
3 -Car Front
Garage -
3 -Lane Drive
Another change that has overtaken housing in the last 100 years is a change in landscaping, particularly in suburban settings.
It was common in the early suburbs, and even in some urban settings, for the lot to be surrounded by hedges. These hedges were
often six or more feet in height and, in some cases, were hedge rows containing shrubs and canopy or understory trees. The
modern production house comes with minimal landscaping that concentrates on the foundation line to accent to the house, rather
than to enclose the yard.
Another important feature of indigenous communities is the predominance of mature trees and landscaping. Because much of
the landscape dates back many decades, there was time for plant material to grow to mature proportions. As any observer of
community preference surveys can attest, the presence of mature vegetation leads to a higher rating of the example with mature
vegetation, all other things being generally equal. The higher rating occurs because vegetative screening breaks the building mass.
McMANSIONS AND TEARDOWNS - SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM
The base source of the problem is changing lifestyles and a "bigger is
better" taste. The homes of the 1930s, 40s, and 50s were very modest, 800
to 1,200 square feet. In 1950, the average house size was 983 square feet.
It had increased to 2265 in 2000, a 130 percent increase in 50 years. On a
small urban lot, that alone is enough to change the character of the
neighborhood. How did this occur? The census gives us some insight into
where the changes occurred (see Table 1).
After World War II, families got by with several children in a bedroom.
Today, families sometimes use bedrooms as his and her offices. We have
a lot more goods today than families of the past. In the 1950 a carport was
sufficient; now, many average size homes have a three -car garage. All the
rooms have also gotten bigger. The result is that homes have ballooned in
total square footage. Other countries get by with substantially less square
footage. There is no question that some of the excess is an accommodation
of more material goods in the family, more appliances in the kitchen. The
McMansions are the excess end of this, the median house is only 90 percent
of the average; it is the 3,000 to 6,000 square foot houses that really fall into
the McMansion cat Ab
egory. OVe that size, houses are truly mansions.
The general issue is: when do homes become too big for the lot? The average house lots in suburbs range from 5,000 to 10,000
square feet. At the same time the house was increasing in size, there was a change in building elements that created a bulked
up house on steroids. Taller ceilings, vaulted or cathedral ceilings, two-story entrance halls, and sharper roof pitches are the
offending elements. Average floor area increased by 130 percent, a measurement in two dimensions. If one adds a doubling
of garage areas, the homes have gone up by 138 to 185 percent. If we take a basic 1,000 square foot box, 1950s home with no
garage and compare it to the average 2,200 square foot, two-story with two -car garage home, the volume difference is 187
percent. Simply raising the average ceiling height from eight to ten feet and increasing the roof pitch without adding any two-
story spaces raises the volume from 30,557 to 38,915 or 266 percent over the 1950 home. Now we have a building that is too
large for the lot. The too big house, one that is out of scale with its neighbor, is a result of residents seeing bigger homes in new
subdivisions and a loss of green space in the subdivisions.
The tear down is a phenomena of the "too big house" in established neighborhoods. Quality neighborhoods built from the
1900s to the 1970s are appreciating in value due to location, schools, and proximity to good jobs or transportation. As these
communities built out and ran out of land for new development, the market turned to older housing that was out of sine with
current market desires —too small, outdated plumbing and kitchens, and need for maintenance. Early on in a neighborhood's
appreciation, the market results in improvements and additions. As the cycle continues, the smallest homes are torn down
because the owners can afford and want their own house design. This is clearly a market-driven problem. It occurs when the
land values in the community escalate beyond what the market for rehabilitating older units will sustain. Once this problem
arises, it is very difficult to resolve. While there will be people in the neighborhood that react to the tear downs as destroying
the neighborhood character, others see "gold" in the lot and developers team with these people to oppose the regulations meant
to safeguard neighborhood character.
DESIGN SOLUTIONS
In the following sections, a number of solutions will be discussed. These will begin with relatively simple approaches that offer
a big bang for the buck. Citizens and builders may well take exception to any attempt to deal with aesthetic regulations that
force style or architectural control to the degree that a monotony code does; thus, these regulations are raised later in our
review. The last solutions discussed will be the most complex and comprehensive.
Landscaping
A simple amendment to the zoning code that increases landscaping requirements can have a large impact with relatively minor
costs to the developers. Simple street tree ordinances, for example, have a dramatic long-term impact. Many communities
Table 1
House Size 1950-200o
omponent
Ie
1950
2000
Chang...
130%
Average House Size
983
2,283
" an House Size
na
2,055
na
DESIGN SOLUTIONS
In the following sections, a number of solutions will be discussed. These will begin with relatively simple approaches that offer
a big bang for the buck. Citizens and builders may well take exception to any attempt to deal with aesthetic regulations that
force style or architectural control to the degree that a monotony code does; thus, these regulations are raised later in our
review. The last solutions discussed will be the most complex and comprehensive.
Landscaping
A simple amendment to the zoning code that increases landscaping requirements can have a large impact with relatively minor
costs to the developers. Simple street tree ordinances, for example, have a dramatic long-term impact. Many communities
do not require the planting of street trees, while others prohibit trees in the right-of-way or have inadequate standards.
Typically, one tree per lot is inadequate. Two or three trees per 100 linear feet is the more acceptable level of planting. Some
communities with estate -size lots (one to five acres) have used the street tree approach to form hedgerows that create an almost
rural feel as the trees mature.
lt.cl f.
V-4.
1920s Landscape Approach
t,w11lMG
>. c..-. s..n lnnuu.nnec. Aeov+�•
1..)It.•:NAiION UI IfUUfF
Foundation Planting
Very few ordinances require residential developers to landscape individual lots. Instead, it is left to the future landowner to
provide landscaping. Over time, this may be an acceptable strategy, but it is undependable. The modem addiction to big
houses is resulting in landscaping that frames the house instead of screening it. Hence, a requirement that provides for
extensive landscaping of the yard is important. In our example, we use a planting unit (plant unit) that includes canopy trees,
evergreens, understory (ornamental), and shrubs to create a mass from ground level to canopy top. About 25 plant units per
acre creates a forest. Yard landscaping of about five to eight plant units per acre is desirable.
General Building Design
These standards address quality, but not monotony. They seek to address the blandness of some production housing by
ensuring the roof has an impact on visual quality and by eliminating the fancy false front and drab sides and rear style.
Roof Overhangs. The lack of overhangs gives homes a monopoly appearance. The larger the overhang, the more pronounced
the shadow line. A 16- to 18 -inch overhang is a good standard. Some people will settle for a 12 -inch requirement. The old
bungalow -style buildings had 24- to 36 -inch overhangs.
Note that there are some styles of architecture where no overhangs are found. Cape Cod housing typically had no overhang;
adobe homes with flat roofs also lacked overhangs. One should look to local architectural heritage and ensure that a feature
inconsistent with the area's architectural heritage is not forced into the code. Where developers are using multiple housing
styles to achieve diversity, overhangs should be averaged so they are appropriate to the house.
360 Degree Material Use. The minimum standard is that window and door details, trim, and shutters, if used, be used on all
elevations of the house. This does not impact monotony in any way, but it does ensure that the building presents a quality face
to streets and neighbors alike. This addresses one of the most obvious elements of the false front.
Carried to another level, if a material is used on the front elevation, itmustbe carried around to all sides. In many areas where
masonry is very expensive, this will be met with strong opposition from builders. In the Chicago area, for example, this could
add $50,000 to a 2,200 -square foot house. In the south, masonry is standard. There are a variety of approaches that can be used
to address this concern. One approach is to require some percentage of the building to be in masonry materials. Another
approach is to apply the masonry to a building wing. Homes with a projecting wing for the front entry, for example, can be
faced in masonry without having to cover all elevations. Since it covers all three walls of the wing or projection, it appears to
be part of the design because it looks structural. This approach can dress up a front at the same cost or less than a false
masonry front.
Another strategy is to layer the masonry application. Many traditional homes had a masonry foundation which was only
extended two to three feet above grade, but which provided a material change on all four sides of the building. The bottom
of window sills, top of first floor windows, or first floor ceiling height are all logical break points for a change of materials.
These different choices provide developers with a range of price options.
Staggered Setbacks. On larger lots, staggered setbacks can be effective in eliminating or reducing monotony by eliminating
the street facade that has homes lined up in a row along the front setback line. This is very effective at creating a street face
that is less prone to monotony. Perspective and landscaping are also more effective, and changes in home orientation also
change the facade appearance. This should only be applied in areas of suburban or estate character, typically half -acre or larger
lots.
Monotony
;❑i❑ii■i ■ ;ai❑ ;
Anti -monotony codes attempt to control the production builder to
ensure that the subdivision has suitable interest and variety. The
common element of all anti -monotony codes is to limit the repetition
of a house elevation that is similar or identical to that of a nearby
property. The simplest code would prohibit the same floor plan on
STREET
_
adjoining or nearby lots. There is some risk with this on smaller lots. T—' ----r ------ r....» � � 1 "f""" -'-'- �""--- � ------1~_._.;
The smaller and narrower the lot, the less likely it is that a minor I ❑ I ■ ■'; ■ ■ �; ❑ ❑
change in the floor plan will result in a different building. The
smaller the lot, the more dominant the garage, leaving little room for
architecture to differentiate between units even if the floor plans are -'- --- -�-'- ----"�------J---"-"j'-""''""-""'-""
different. The unit for monotony review is shown at right. The more MOW x hbue. not Psmfsw www w sea 6s E
dwellings included in the unit, the greater the diversity. El MOW X houm pe T *W
Garages
Because the garage can dominate the facade, this is a monotony concern. The problem with the front facing garage door on
small lots (called "snout houses") has received massive attention in recent years. In terms of avoiding monotony, limiting the
percentage of a facade consisting of garage doors is a critical element. In many situations, there is not enough house to balance
the garage, a problem on many modern homes.
The pat solution is the alley access garage. It is a solution that is very desirable, but strongly opposed in many communities.
Chicago, like many larger cities, is a community with alleys. The alleys have not been well-maintained, and the images from
the nightly news often show dumpy alley crime scenes. The historic mess of many alley areas, added cost of road maintenance,
and potential for crime have all made alleys a very uphill sell in the suburbs.
A second option for small lots is the side load front garage. This requires lots of 55 to 60 feet in width in order to back out of
the garage and make the turn to the street. With lots of this size, the house is between 42 and 58 feet in width, so a front load
garage can occupy between 57 and 41 percent of the house front. With a side load front garage, the front elevation has
windows, so all the front facade is capable of architectural treatment. The direction in which the garage doors face must be
alternated every few lots so only a portion of the garage doors are seen in any direction of travel. In addition, because the
garage is often closer to the street than normal setbacks, landscaping is required on the front face of the garage. This can also
reduce the visibility of the garage doors as one drives the street.
The garage in the rear yard is a third solution, although it has become unpopular for a very good reason. Architects will point
out the increased number of steps a person must take to bring groceries from the garage to the kitchen. In rain, snow, or other
unpleasant weather, this could be a serious marketing problem, although floor plans can be designed to address the issue.
A more radical approach is the mews— a street system in which most blocks consist of alleys and pedestrian areas, called mews,
where the street would normally be found. The use of alleys as access streets causes people to take better care of them, which
addresses the appearance concern of many communities. Because the mews replaces the normal street, the cost of maintenance
is similar to normal blocks without alleys. Similarly, the cost of construction is less than a normal block. The alley in the mews
concept is more heavily used and, thus, is less hidden than the traditional alley.
Styles or Facades. Builders do not have an unlimited number of models, so limiting the model is not an o «; for most
p..on .^..a
developments, except for custom home developments where the floor plans are all expected to be different. As a result,
developers want to use the same floor plan with different facades. There are two different approaches to preventing monotony
— using different architectural styles on the same floor plan or, if a common theme is intended to unify the development,
altering the facade enough on a floor plan to create different looks.
The architectural style approach is the more obvious solution. An English Tudor style will look very different than a Prairie
style home, even if the floor plans are identical. Or, perhaps it is best to say that they should look different! For the style
approach to work, the house elevations must be fairly true to the historical styles. For example the Tudor and Prairie style
homes would have different roof pitches, different roof overhangs, and different emphasis of horizontal or vertical. The Tudor
house would have a more vertical orientation and would use half timber construction. The Prairie house would have a strong
horizontal orientation without half-timber details. While both use casement windows, the dimensions would be different, as
well as the mullion patterns. The reviewers will have to be vigilant to ensure that the style elevations are really different and
reasonably true to their historic models. Roof pitch is one of the most critical elements because it alters the height of the
building significantly and, thus, its bulk.
The unified design is much more challenging for the designer and reviewer. Here, the developer wants the subdivision to have
a unifying architectural theme. This increases the challenge to the designer to make statements with architectural details, rather
than with gross changes in style. It will probably take more models to do the job than is the case with the architectural style
approach.
Roof Heights or Pitches. This is an important criteria since it alters apparent building bulk. It is more costly because
developers must use different trusses for the roof.
Roof Orientation. The house often has its roof peak parallel to the street, with the gable ends facing the side yard. Changing
the roof orientation so that the gable end faces the street also provides a very different roof design.
Rotation orFlipping. If the floor plan has some feature that makes it strongly asymmetrical, then flipping the unit 180 degrees
can provide some'differentiation. This is not a strong approach and needs more supporting strategies.
Window and Doors. This approach requires more than different trim styles, such as using different widths and heights or, if
grouped, different modules (i.e. two units, rather than three). Mullion styles can be varied; as well. For doors, switching from
a single door with side lights to a double door would be a difference. This technique has linuts and must be done very carefully
to be effective.
Porches. The use of porches has become popular. If the porch configurations (in terms of the percent of the front facade
covered) are changed, this can be effective. The changes must be quite significant to make it work. In some cases, very
different styles for the porch columns and railings will be needed to help make a difference. The porch or its absence can, at
best, result in four possible designs, no porch, half porch, full porch, and two-story porch. All four porch conditions are
significantly different to modify a facade's appearance.
Architectural Features. These involve the use of towers or other statements. A building with a two-story wing that comes
forward ten feet from the facade can be designed as a wing or a tower with very different effects. Bay windows and oriel
windows are architectural elements which, if large enough, may slightly alter the floor plan. Architectural features are among
the most powerful elements in changing the character of a`facade:
Architectural Details. The standard home in many areas, be it brick or frame, has little or no detailing; the facade is unbroken
from the top of the foundation to the eaves. In other eras, the foundation was made to read as a separate design element, giving
the building a base. Corners were often detailed with quoins or trim to give_ them emphasis. The juncture of the wall and roof
was also a source of detailing to cap the wall with moldings or to exaggerate the roof by emphasis on structure.
Materials. A change in materials can also create variety. A similar plan in masonry or horizontal siding will be different,
particularly if window and other trim detailing reflects the difference in the materials. Siding today is nearly always
horizontal, but wood siding can be vertical or diagonal. These differences can alter the appearance of a facade. Stucco and
half timber construction are two other material choices that can be used to alter the appearance.
"TOO BIG r HOUSE" cwn,vTuaavrd,r,
HOUSE" �iv..�
The solutions rely on controlling size. Bulk is a three dimensional problem. The following is the list of design controls in
conventional ordinances and things that people can do or have discussed doing.
Setbacks. The combination of yard setbacks creates a building pad in which the house must be built. Increasing setbacks is
a strategy that shrinks the maximum building pad. It encourages taller houses to avoid the limitation.
Building Coverage. This avoids addressing the setbacks, but does the same thing; it still encourages taller buildings.
Floor Area Ratio. This measure addresses all the floors in the house. It is stilltwodimensional, although communities often
add measurement formulas that require rooms with a two-story raised ceiling to be counted twice as if there were another floor.
Even with these fixes, there are often undesirable loop holes; in the end, it does not measure volume.
Height. Height in combination with the various two dimensional elements can be effective. The problem is how to measure
height — from what ground level to what top elevation. There are dozens of different ways to deal with differences in roof
pitches and styles. If there are slopes in the community, what do you use and what are the outcomes on sloped sites versus
flat sites.
Building Volume. This is an actual measurement of the portion of the building above grade. While this used to be quite
difficult to measure, the fact that most architects use computers eliminates the difficulties in doing calculations. It is far better
than the combination of height and floor area. It eliminates any loopholes. It also forces the homebuyer and architect to make
hard choices — for example, using traditional flatter roof pitches (5 in 12 rather than 10 in 12)or eliminating a two-story foyer
to gain more floor area and still meet the standard.
Landscaping. Beefing up landscaping on streets and lots is camouflage. It is an effective strategy in the long-term; however,
it is less effective in the short-term, starting in a site that has no mature trees..
Tear Downs. The above tools are relatively easy to apply to green field development. The greater challenge is the tear down.
The tear down problem has the same general regulatory approach as the too big house. Communities, however, struggle over
the conflicts between landowners in the neighborhood. This problem does not usually occur to the same degree on the too big
house because existing residents see the problem and demand change, with only developers objecting. The best solution is
to identify the problem in advance. If you have older neighborhoods that are very desirable places to live, but have older,
smaller homes, the problem can be anticipated. Two strategies are recommended. The first is to put in place volume standards,
make cutting trees very difficult and require inch -for -inch tree replacement. The earlier this is done, the better. The second
strategy is to do a study of the neighborhood and develop a series of alternative remodeling strategies that allow for large
homes that still fit into the neighborhood. This gives residents confidence that the standards are reasonable, letting homes
appreciate and permitting remodeling and expansion that is in keeping with the neighborhood's architectural character. In
some cases, this might even mean revising setbacks downward, while lowering maximum height.
The Not Too Big House
The real answer to both design and to overly large homes actually lies with the concept of the not too big house. Most people
live in kitchens and family rooms. Dining rooms and living rooms are show pieces used occasionally. Many people are using
bedrooms as dens. Good residential design uses smaller flexible spaces that flow together and small private nitches or rooms
as get away space. This does not mean giving up interesting spaces. Quite the contrary. Varying ceiling heights are often the
case in these homes, but wasted space like two-story stairways is minimized. It is hard to legislate the not too big house, but
it should be encouraged. The developers should be arm -twisted into doing the Parade of Homes entirely with not too big
houses. This may do nothing for housing price, but a great deal for community character.
/n//zjo�e
INTERNATIONAL MUNICIPAL
LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
a - t75
�3 - CA4b
Work Session XI
Work Session: Tuesday, October 5 2004, 2:00 p.m. to 3:45 p.m.
Preserving Community Character in the Face of "Teardowns"
Title: and "McMansions" -- Zoning, Approaches
by
Presenter: Timothy D. Bates and Lane Kendig
Presenter's Title: Land Use Counsel Planner
Presenter's Office: Attorney, Noank Fire District
® 2004 International Municipal Lawyers Association. This is an informational and educational report distributed by the
International Municipal Lawyers Association during its 2004 Annual Conference, held October 3-6, 2004 in San Antonio,
Texas. IMLA assumes no responsibility for the policies or positions presented in the report or for the, presentation of its
contents.
PRESERVING COMMUNITY CHARACTER IN THE
FACE OF "TEARDOWNS" AND "MeMANSIONS"
ZONING APPROACHES*
By Timothy D. Bates**
I. The Teardown Phenomena: What is it? "The purchase of land with an older
house, the immediate tearing down of the house, and its replacement with a
modern house out of scale and character with the surrounding residences in the
neighborhood"
A. Contributing causes
1. Higher land values than home values
(a) Began in seashore communities
(b) Now appearing in developed suburbs
2. Commuter distances: house lots in inner suburbs can be redeveloped to
provide larger houses and amenities, only available in the outer suburbs
without commuting time.
3. Infrastructure and public improvements (utilities, roads, etc.) already in place.
4. Allows adjustment for modern home designs: great rooms, walk-in closets,
larger bathrooms, etc.
5. Attractiveness of neighborhoods with distinct character and history.
B. Community benefits
1. Can revitalize older neighborhoods.
2. Can improve tax bases.
3. Encourages infill development.
C. Detriments: the "Monster House" phenomena or "McMansions."
1. Effect on scale of surrounding houses: The "munchkin" effect.
NEWLI-605413-1
* A version of this paper was originally prepared by the author for and presented to the Connecticut Bar Association, Planning
and Zoning Section, "Hot Topics;- Land Use Law in Connecticut," 5/13/04.
**The author acknowledges the contribution of Dwight Merriam, Esq., and particularly his presentations of "Anti-
Mansionization and Anti -Look Alike Regulations" at the APA Annual Conference, Denver, Colorado, 4/1/03 and "Regulating
—_..-._.-_ ---------- McM,%tWons,.Starter.Palaces.andRomes_on_Steroids,"_20`� udLA LAABALand_Use.Institute,.8a7/.04..........___._.._................ _ ..
C.)
,1 1
low
a (r S' fid r, }
( } r3 i x \
.1
1 tt r1�
k tc ((
.. r? c�y F. � � 1•a( l
tt F' Ntr. irk:
J7
Oy
r
�
.j 1 j
a e {
St",
a (
al
h1 ( � "��_.zrz u-y`�wfj:i ". ir�'C�r (.�•�
is
3^'��•^--•—k,����� 1��� ! I
� tr
� s r ,j•�r t
1
1 � ,
f:
((
'
-
1
H.
2. Effect on prevailing design of existing communities: Erosion of "community
character."
3. Effect on setbacks: side, front, and backyard: Rather than the Zoning
Regulations acting to preserve community appearance, building right to the
setback line becomes common, and traditional zoning requirements actually
contribute to the disruption of a °community.
4. "Squarification": height regulations. "Super -size me."
narienn nf'Aninrna..l.or f.�'ri......a........... •r+i. cL:. _r r_ ---_
A. Groton Long Point: no response.
I. Consistent destruction of seaside cottages, largely constructed after 1938
hurricane, and replacement with significantly larger structures, often on combined lots.
2. Squarification use of maximum space vertically and horizontally.
B. Stonington Borough: the design review approach.
I. The Trombert experience
a. Use of nonconforming provision in Zoning Regulations to permit
"teardown" and nonconforming McMansion.
b. Case demonstrates difficulty of assessing anticipated percentage of
rehabilitation (50% ofthe structure, for example)
c. House emphasized for Borough the need to measure floors to outer walls,
disregarding large stairways and two-story rooms.
2. The Black House Story: Proposal to replace fisherman's cottage with large,
glass -front building, adjacent to historic lighthouse property.
3. Response: Design Review Regulations (see Exhibit A attached).
a. Overlay zone.
b H'
istonc preservation objectives.
c. Controls limited to exterior appearance.
d. Policy to discourage excessive uniformity.
e. Criteria for renovations and new homes.
f. Scales, proportions, exterior materials, spacing, roof shapes, landscaping,
directional expression, all subject to regulation.
4. Issues: Is this type of review permitted under the traditional zoning enabling
act? Does it'meet the uniformity requirement? Does it leave zoning
commissions open to claims of discrimination, arbitrariness, and violation of
substantive due process?
a. See Berman v Parker, 348 U S. 26 (1954);
C. The Noank Fire District: dimensional response (still being considered).
1. The Okay house: The original teardown.
2. The Viertel House: Outbuildings.
3. New house on Riverview: What's coming next?
4. The response: Dimensional regulations proposed
a. Reduce lot coverage from 40% to 34%.
b. Limit the size of the building footprint to 24% of lot, or 1,800 square feet,
whichever is less'.
c. Limit accessory buildings to 10% of lot, or 750 square feet, whichever is less.
d Carefully define height from existing grade.
e. Limit.gross floor area to two times footprint and define gross floor area to
include open ceiling areas, attached garages, interior stairways, and enclosed
porches.
5. Issues: Given that these';rcgulations are clearly authorized under the zoning
enabling act, will they actually discourage teardowns and McMansions? Probably
no effect on teardowns, but they would seem to limit the size of replacement
houses. However, they do not regulate the appearance of those houses, and,
therefore, community character might still be threatened. (See attached proposal,
Exhibit B.) Maximizing lot coverage, squarification, building to setback line and
not observing common street lines remain problems.
III. National Trends.
A. The design review approach
I. Lincoln, Massachusetts, requires site plan review for all homes with gross
floor areas in excess of 4,000 square feet, or 5% of lot area, subject to the
following criteria:
a. Preservation of landscape.
b. Relations of building to environment.
c. Building design and landscaping.
d. Open space.
e. Circulation.
f. Screening.
2. City of Park Ridge, Illinois, established an "appearance commission" to review
exterior design features, signs, lighting, landscaping, and site plans, including
all new residential construction, other than detached accessory structures,
subject to urban design guidelines, which include:
a. Architectural styles.
b. Site planning.
c. Proportion massing scale.
d. Relationship of masses for additions.
e. Roofs.
f. Windows and doorways.
g. Exterior architectural elements.
h. Surface materials and colors.
B. Dimensional Approaches.
1. FAR Plus.
a. Establish FAR for residences and front elevation ratio (Area of front elevation
divided by building height times lot width) — Naperville, Illinois.
b. Maximum building size of 3,500 square feet, or floor area ratio of .40,
whichever is less — Deerfield, Illinois.
i. Include attached garages, usable attic space, cathedral ceiling areas, etc.
in calculation of floor area.
c. FAR strictly defined, increasing from .3 to .045 as density of zone
increases — Newton, Massachusetts.
d. Allow bonuses in FAR of up to 240 square feet of houses 28 feet or less and
roof has 33% slope and impose FAR of .26 for maximum floor area of 5,000
square feet, to 18,000 -square -foot lot, or .40 FAR for maximum floor area of
3,600 feet for 9,000 -square -foot Iot — North Hempstead, New York.
2. Control side yard setbacks.
a. Links side yard setbacks to lot width: use percentages and specific
minimums to avoid filling the entire lot — Naperville, Illinois.
b. Create side yard setback plane: "An imaginary plane that commences from a
line at a vertical distance above grade as prescribed by this ordinance, above
and parallel to each side yard lot line on a lot, or at the established side wall of
an existing house, and which then extends at a 450 angle towards the center of
the lot until it reaches the maximum building height permitted on the lot,
within which place no building, accessory structure, or other addition may be
built or project into, except for such encroachments as are permitted by the
applicable bulk regulations of this ordinance." Huh? (See schematic on
Exhibit C to answer "Huh?") — Deerfield, Illinois.
3. Front yard setbacks must conform to surrounding residences — Naperville, Illinois.
4. Control cubic size: Have you considered Aspen's "cubic content ratio": "A
measure of land use intensity, expressing the mathematical relationship between
the cubic content of a building and the unit of land. It is arrived at by dividing
gross cubic content, as calculated by multiplying building height times exterior
building width times exterior building depth of all structures by the gross area of
the lot." Huh?
5. Height control:
a. See Raleigh, North Carolina. Definition of calculating building or
structure height: "Where a structure or the walls of a building do not abut a
street right of way, then the height shall be measured from the average natural
ground elevation adjoining the building at the time of the request for city plot
plan, site plan, building permit or zoning permit approval, whichever is earlier,
and not the ground elevation after construction."
b. See Fairfax County's minimal angle of bulk plane: "Minimum angle of bulk
plane, expressed in degrees, shall be established by a vertical plane at the lot
line and a plane drawn at the specified angle from the vertical, the bottom edge
of which is tangential to the lot line. The angle shall be measured from that
point on the lot line that is established by a line drawn perpendicular to the lot
line from the closest point of the proposed principal structure; however, where
a wall of the proposed principal structure is parallel to a lot line, the angle shall
be measured in like manner from the midpoint of the proposed structure.
In the case of single family detached dwellings without individual lots, groups
of single family attached dwellings or multiple family structures, the minimum
distance between structures shall be no less than the sum of the minimum
required yards for the individual structures, determined as if a lot line were
located between the structures drawn perpendicular to the shortest line between
them.
Together with other bulk regulations, the minimum angle of bulk plane shall
limit the maximum effective building height of any improvement which may be
constructed on a lot, and it shall establish the minimum yard requirements that
shall be provided relative to the effective height of the building. In contrast to
building height, the effective building height shall have application only in
those instances where the angle of bulk plane is employed; however, no
building shall ever exceed the maximum building height presented for the
zoning district in which located." Huh?
6. Garages: Encourage garages in rear or detached garages. (Avoid "snout houses" and
establish driveway placement guidelines) — Naperville, Illinois.
7. Getting tough:
(a) Great Neck, Long Island Moratoria: "A six-month moratorium on
any building permits for "construction of a new building" or to "construct an
addition to an existing dwelling which would increase by more than thirty (30%)
percent of the floor area of such dwelling as it exists on the effective date of this
law."
(b) Lake Forest, Illinois. Demolition delay: "Requires demolition delay of two years
following application for demolition, unless demolition is in response to fire or
other casualty damage or structural deterioration, or if the new structure is
approved by the building review board, is consonant with historic residential and
open space preservation requirements.
(c) Pitkin County, Colorado: Prohibition of residential structures in excess of 15,000
feet: "Floor Area Ratio — `From and after December 19, 1990 no building permits
shall be issued for construction of residential structures in excess of 15,000 square
feet, nor shall a building permit be issued after said date for the remodel,
6
reconstruction, or addition to an already existing residential structure, where the
total floor area of that structure would be increased above 15,000 square feet as a
result of the remodel, reconstruction or addition, or where the remodel,
reconstruction or addition would add any additional floor area to an existing
residential structure which already exceeds 15,000 square feet."'
V. Conclusion: Legal issues out there:
A. Procedural due process.
B. Substantive due process.
C. Equal protection.
D. Creation of nonconformities.
E. Variances.
7
................................. ...
EXHIBIT A
shall fully conform to setback requirements in both ground floor and elevated additions,
except as provided in Section 2.4.2.1.
2.4.2.9. The Commission may, by Special Permit, allow an addition to a structure with a
non -conforming setback to be erected in a required yard area, if the Commission finds
that such a projection is necessary for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The addition must be designed to meet Building Code requirements which have been
enacted since the structure was originally constructed;
b. The addition is necessary in order to protect public health or safety;
c. Conformance with the required setback would result in incompatible and
inappropriate architectural design or construction.
2.5. Determination of Required Lot Area
In all zones, land which has been mapped by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service, as "inland wetlands", or by the State of Connecticut Department of
Environmental Projection as °tidal wetlands„ shall not be used to satisfy more than twenty-five
percent (25%) of the requirements of minimum lot area. No submerged land or property which
is seaward of the mean high fide line at the time of adoption of these Regulations shall be used
in satisfying the requirements of minimum lot area.
2.6. Design Overlay Zone
2.6.9. Purpose
The purpose of this Design Overlay Zone is to allow development which will protect,
preserve, and enhance the unique historical and architectural qualities of the Borough, and
impose limited design controls in order to retain the Borough's distinctive architectural
character and scale.
2.6.2. Conformance
Within this zone, uses and development shall be in conformance with the Borough's Plan of
Conservation and Development and Section 2.6, as applicable.
2.6.3. Applicability
Applies to: Section 5.1— Residential District One (R-1), Section 5.2 -- Residential District Two
(R-2), Section 5.3 — Residence Preservation District (RP).
2.6.4. Preservation and Protection of Distinctive Characteristics
Renovations, substantial improvements, and new construction shall promote the cultural,
economic, educational, and general welfare of the citizens of Stonington Borough through
the preservation and protection of the distinctive characteristics of buildings or structures
and places significant in the history of Stonington Borough.
2.6.4.1. Renovations, substantial improvements, and new construction shall preserve
and protect the Borough's historic character.
2.6.4.2. Use and reuse of properties shall be developed to allow safe access and
movement of pedestrians and vehicles; stabilize, improve, and protect property_values;
strengthen the local economy; and promote and protect the public health, safety, and
welfare.
2.6.4.3. Construction and development of new buildings or structures within the zones
shall be permitted in a manner which will not be detrimental to existing structures within
the zone and which will ensure the preservation of the general characteristics of the
historic character of Stonington Borough by adhering to consistent design standards.
2.6.5. Renovations and Substantial Improvements of Existing Buildings
The exterior renovations and substantial improvements of a building or structure visible from
the frontage road shall be subject to review and approval by the Commission. Design
drawings for exterior building or structure renovations shair specify appropriate materials
intended to maintain or restore the integrity of the architectural character of a given: building
or structure. Excessive uniformity, .dissimilarity, inappropriateness, or poor quality .of design
in the exterior appearance of buildings or structures shall be avoided. Buildings or
structures to be renovated shall satisfy the following criteria:
2.6.5.9. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a
structure which requires minimal alteration of its site, environment, or originally intended
purpose.
2.6.6.2.. The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building or structure, its
site, and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any
historic material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible.
2.6.5.3. All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their own
time. Renovations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier
appearance shall be discouraged.
2.6.5.4. Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the
history and development of a building, struoture, its site, and its environment. These
changes may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shall be
recognized and respected.
2.6.5.5. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which
characterize a building, structure, or site shall be treated with sensitivity.
2.6.5.6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired or replaced to the extent
practicable. in the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the
material being replaced in composition, design, texture, and other visual qualities when
feasible. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on
accurate duplication of features, substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial evidence
rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements
from other buildings or structures.
2.6.5:7. Renovations and additions which destroy significant historical, architectural, or
cultural 'characteristics shall be discouraged.
2.6.5.8. Design shall be generally compatible with the size, scale, material, and
character of the original structure, and with structures within two hundred feet of the tot.
2.6.5.9. Whenever possible, new additions or renovations to buildings and structures
shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or renovations' were to be removed
in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired.
2.6.6. Construction of New Buildings or Structures
The construction of new buildings or structures shall be subject to the review and approval
of the Commission. Design drawings for exterior building or structure renovations shall
specify appropriate materials intended to maintain or restore the integrity of the architectural
character of a given building or structure. Excessive uniformity, dissimilarity,
inappropriateness, or poor quality of design in the exterior appearance of buildings'or
structures shall be avoided. Designs for buildings or structures shall include *appropriate
materials and style intended to maintain the historical integrity of the architectural character
of the Borough and for buildings and structures within two hundred feet of the lot.
2.6.6.1. Exterior building materials used in new construction shall be similar to materials
used on existing buildings or structures within two hundred feet of the lot or shall be
materials which are normally associated with materials found in buildings or structures of
the architectural period of such neighboring buildings or structures. Other materials may
be used which -provide for compliance with other regulatory requirements or which
promote consideration, such as energy efficiency.
2.6.6.2. The architectural design, including scale, proportions, and architectural rhythm
of new construction, shall be compatible with the architectural design, exhibited by
adjacent buildings or structures within two hundred feet of the lot.
2.6.6.3. The placement and size of windows and doors in new multi -family dwellings
shalt retain the character of a single-family dwelling.
2.6.7. Standards for Design Review of Buildings and Structures
in addition to all other requirements of the Zoning Regulations, the applicant for all buildings
or structures and sites subject to a review by the Commission, or its staff, shall submit
scaled elevation drawings of the proposed structures for a design review. The scale of such
drawings shall not be smaller than one-eighth inch equals one foot (1/8" =V0"). The
drawings shall locate and identify exterior materials,' fixtures, roof pitch, and building or
structure height and include dimensions and architectural characteristics.
2.6.8. Determination of Appropriateness
The Commission shall review all plans for renovations, substantial improvements, and
construction of new buildings or structures for a determination of appropriateness of the
design. All determinations will be based on a review of structures within two hundred feet of
the lot.
2.6.9. Criteria as Guidelines
The following criteria shall be guidelines to be used by the Commission in the determination
of appropriateness, in keeping with the architectural fabric of the8orough of Stonington:
2.6.9.1. Scale: Scale of construction, which must relate to human scale, and the scale
Of structures within two hundred feet of the lot.
2.6.9.2. Proportion of Buildings, Front Fagades: Proportion of buildings' front facade
is defined as the relationship between width and height of the front elevation of the
building.
WIDTH 4
- .- -----------
WIDTH
_ _-.._-
fr
2.6.9.3. Proportion of Openings Within the Fagade: Proportion of openings within
the fagade is defined as the relationship of width to heightof windows and doors.
HEIGHT
MDTH
2.6.9.4. The Rhythm of Solids to Voids in the Fagade: Rhythm of solids to voids in
the fagade, this rhythm is defined as an ordered, recurrent alternation of openings to
solid walls.
2.6.9.6. Rhythm of Spacing of Buildings on the Street: Rhythm of spacing of
buildings on the street, or the occurrence of building masses to spaces between them.
2.6.9'. Buildings and Structures and Relationship of Materials To Be Used:
Relationship of materials #o be used in buildings and structures, or the mixture of exterior
materials, such as wood, brick, glass, or state, to those materials used within two
hundred feet of the lot.
2.6.9.7. Relationship of Textures: Relationship of textures of the predominant
material used, which shall reflect the types used within two hundred feet of the lot, such
as rough (brick and tooted joints) or smooth (horizontal wood siding).
RE -WIN
Y.11. wi. �.wsw..lw
wrrww..w�ry
ISCOPME o.!®
wrw. w/w...�srrsaw
2.6.9.8. Relationship of Roof Shapes: Relationship of roof shapes, which should be
compared to the majority of roofs within two hundred feet of the lot. For example: gable,
gambrel, .or hip.
2:6.9.9. `Halls of"%C*Qntinuity: wails of continuity, described as the physical. ingredients
that farm screens or enclosures around the project (such as brick walls, irontwood
fences, evergreen.screens, berms, and hedges):
2.6.9.10. Relationship of Landscaping: Relationship of landscaping to the blending of
the project with the environment within two hundred feet of the lot, or to the needs to
buffer, screen, or soften a project from adjoiners or for site users.
7
2.6.9.11. Directional Expression: Directional expressions of the elevation's structural
shape, or placement of details and openings of the front fagade, which may have a
vertical, horizontal, or a non -directional character.
WON
0--k ..i Qt ...:..s.. , 7....1.,.. Cn...4-61......
2.6.16. compliance
The Commission shall develop a set of findings and required changes that will be forwarded
to the applicant. Failure to receive a determination of appropriateness shall be a basis'for
denial of the application.
2.6.11. Modification
Substantial changes to the proposal after formal approval must be reviewed by the
Commission for approval. Minor changes that would not materially affect the applicant's
compliance with any of the criteria may be approved by the Zoning Officer.
2.7. increases in Height
2.7.1. Increase in Height of Buildings or Structures Above Maximum height Limit
No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged, reconstructed, or structurally altered to
exceed the maximum height limit as established in these Regulations for the district in which
the building or structure is located; except that the Commission may, by Special Permit,
allow the following to project above the maximum height limit for that district: roof structures
for the housing of elevators or stairs; skylights, towers, domes, church steeples, spires,
belfries, cupolas, and similar ornamental architectural features; flagpoles, chimneys,
smokestacks, and silos; television, radio or microwave towers. Notwithstanding the
provisions of this Section, a chimney on a residential building may project no more than
three feet into the permitted height limit without the requirement for a Special Permit.
2.7.2. Increase in Height of Existing Building or Structure
No existing building. or structure -shall be increased in height except after review by the
Commission. The Commission may deny a height increase if it determines that such
increase is not consistent with the purposes set forth in these Regulations and in the Plan of
Conservation and Development.
2.8. Off -Street Parking
2.8.1. Statement of Purpose
As found in the Plan of Conservation and Development, streets in Stonington Borough are
generally narrow, residential densities are high, and off-street parking is very limited. The
resulting traffic congestion Is severe, and is most serious in the commercial districts during
the summer months and weekends when on -street parking is most prevalent. Although little
vacant land remains in the Borough, it is necessary that new commercial and residential
development at lost provide off-street parking and loading areas required for that use, and
preferably some 'surplus to relieve existing off-street parking shortages. In addition, such
parking areas should be designed so as to be safe for both vehicles and pedestrians,
attractive, and usable by the widest possible number of uses.
-- -- -- ._.__.- ........ ...._,
EXHIBIT B
Proposed changes to Noank Fire District Ordinance for the RV, Village
Residential District:
Ordinance Section affected: 3.5 Lot coverage
Proposed: 3.5 Lot Coverage and Building Size
The aggregate lot coverage of all buildings and other structures on arty lot shall
not exceed 34% (percent) of the area of the lot. The dwelling footprint shall not
exceed 24% (percent) of the lot, or 9800 square feet, which ever is less; the
square footage of the dwelling's gross floor area shall not exceed twice that of
the dwelling footprint. The total of all accessory buildings shall not exceed 10%
(percent) of the lot, or 750 square feel, whichever is less.
Ordinance Section affected: Section 18. Definitions
18.2.22(a)
Gross floor area: The sum of the gross floor area of all floors, but excluding any
space where the floor to ceiling height is less than six feet. The gross area is
measured from the exterior faces of the exterior walls 'or from the ceriteriine of a
party or common wall. All portions of the"strucfutes space with a heightof 14
feet or greater from floor to ceiling shall be calculated as two floors and each
additional seven feet as an additional floor. Included as a measurement of the
floor area are all interior stairways, elevator shafts, utility rooms, roofed porches,
roofed carports, attached. garages, roofed decks, unenclosed breezeways, roof
decks and balconies. Excluded from the measurement: a basement, to the
extent it is located four feet or more below the surface, and any portion of interior
space with structural headroom of less than six feet_
To maintain this proportion Is consistent with the Plan for the Town of Groton,
recently published, and is consistent with the General Provisions of the
Ordinance for the Noank Fire District, Section 2.26 and with Section 3.9 of the
Village Residential District.
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
Proposed change to Noank Fire District Ordinance for the RV, Village Residential
District:
Ordinance Section effected: 18.2.22, Grade
Proposed: 18.2.22(a) for existing dwellings and accessory buildings within the
RV, Village Residential district, the grade shall be determined by the lowest point
adjacent to the lowest wall of an existing or demolished building.
For any site where a dwelling. or accessory building does.not exist, the lowest
grade shall be determined by the lowest point of the. existing contours (as
referred to in National Vertical Datum --see Noank Ordinance 1.5.4) of the site on
which the building footprint shall be placed. Fill or alteration of existing contours `
shall not be used for the purpose of determining the lowest grade or for
calculation of the grade.
Proposed: Section 3, Village Residential District shall include the statement, "the
determination of grade shall comply with -Section 18.2.22(a)".
The proposed changes are consistent with the Plan for the Town of Groton,
recently published, and consistent wifh'the General Provisions of the'Ordinance
for the Noank. Fire District, Section 2.26 and with Section 3.1 of the Village
Residential District.
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
EXHIBIT C
al
a
NMI
M
[TV V) CK 0101) in,
ilepX
avJvkc-v t;,eJv,(.k- C,,,cseLc
Ovily
VeJ Mec�
wcrved cc, ej-�6
y
n.
Oved L -d
S k -w, ro, �-v-e
i n t 1'i
t4 i V1 vl i ('amp
CATC �i J (WID
(11 tilt
'e -
&VA Vol
"Ayyi f) fel
vj
�4t S h W/A17
....... .. 70
C-4�
j
rlAhOti tA
L 2, Ell f Y)
—-7 A L
-,"All-ki �IIQI
ck"
A -P I/k '19 A Glit r)
o
oq�
0
m
CA
ID
C-1
Ej
Q
AM
tt 1 0 tit, q
19
rc,
Ul
K, -j
D.
Q
D
m
N
N23
0, yl
G( -v(sj
A
J6
n
jav k�
"So
k-14 K u/
httl
q'o
J-) Cl Q \12 VVI
J 12
(-\CIAA
A/tAftAj WO)O
I D)
'4r-\ H
V'�p
nq 1 STv Cb -o -v
A9AA- 0
L/4,1 f)
t7 AO rVUD� Wl �\l Z)
S'p, 12-1
14
�2
m
�C3
cl
Pc
Ali.: M
C71
ill (CIQ fty
-Y�
V) tfyvu,
urs
899
9 L
M
t,
LE
9
E
9
Z L
LL
9L
L
9Z
Z
Z L
Zt,
Z
8t,
L L
L
9
E
8
t,
L
VZ
9Z
L
L9
9Z L
LL
9Z
OE
9L
E
lejol puea0
(�UeIQ
OZZ
E
6
Z
t,L
E
E
Z
Z
L
L
t,
L
OZ
Z
L
L
L
L
Z
L
Z
£
E
EZ
99
£
OZ
LL
8
NOLLVAON321'8 13QOW3�J 'ldllN301S321
9
L
Z
L
L
N011lGGV lbOd2JVO/30V2I O 'ldllN301S3H
LO L
Z
L
L
L
E
L
L
L
£
t, L
L
L
t,
t,
L
8
£E
L
t,
9
NOIlI00b' IVUN301S321
L
L
MdN SllNnl +9 'ldllNd01Sd2!
L
L
M3N SllNnl t,-E 'ldllNd01S3�1
E
L
Z
MdN SllNnl Z']VliN301SzN
LU
Z
L
E
t,
L
91
Z
L
Z
ZE
t,
L
L
L
EL
9
Z
EL
LL
Z
9
MdN O3HOt/1A0llNnl L IVUND01S321
L
L
9
SllNnl Z -IVIlN301S3U 'NOIlIlOW30
Lt,
Z
L
Z
E
Z
Z
E
L
L
Z
£
L
OL
L
L
9
L
llNnl L lb'I1N301S3U 'NOIlIlOW3(l
Et,
E
L
L
Z
L
t,
L
L
£
E
Z
L
9
t,
9
t,
Z
-IVIOUDWW00 'NOIlIlOWdO
9L
£
E
E
L
Z
9
L
L L
E
L
9£
NOUVAONdW1DOOVUH 'lVIOU3WW00
Z
Z
AE)VHVJ ONIAHVd 'lt/IO�IdWW00
Z
L
L
NOISS:4d02id/S>INVO/SdOIJJO '1d102JdWW00
9
L
t,
S(10►Jmu U3HIO V S3H:DHn1HO ']VI3UdWW00
8
L
Z
Z
L
L
L
NOliVd I :D3U/1dI00S/1NdWdSn Nv 'Td102 gNNoo
9
L
L
L
Z
NOIlI00b' IVIGUINNOO
leIol PME)
a
<
—i
—I
cn
Cn
;u
-0
T
m
O
OE:
r
r
r==
0
0
0
0
c)
0
c7
C7
0
Co
CO
D
011d011ddd
0
0
c
O
m
C
m
m
y
D
D
W
z
z
o
O
0
C
O
r
D
0
0
0
0
O=
m
0�
Cn
z
m=
O
x
0
m
C
z
m
_�
C7
N
z�
z
m
m
m
m
N
N
z
z
D
m
x
m
0
O
M
x
O
CO
7
_
'�
m
m
m
m
0
O
=
O
0
0
.ZD7
T
�7
r
z
G)
<
M
z
O
D
0�
K
m
C-)
cn
--
<
-o
=
=
r-
m
z
cmn
n
0
-mp
M
0
m
G7
=
z
K
�
X
r-
GG)
z=
G7
m
cn
D
x
=
m
z
rn
O
m
p
D
T
cn
=
-�
0
C/)
(n
-Dj
m
cn
O
n
xcn
O
c
m
U)
O
X
O
m
D
n
to
m
z
0
D
O
O
O
OISIAI(ionS
3NVNllni jo;uno0
U)
U) U)
>>
, ,
a) c/) U)
o c o 3
O O O O 7 O N O Y
d ? � Oi> >Q > O n
U U U
0OOL (D0 C C c c d Q0) U) U) U) U)
U •�a cO./J 6 (0 C C
_G 'O co _� Y >Y>Y O O O Q•CL
�¢>
0
O L > QQQQQQQQQQ �L.c Li oO O O O O O O0 (6 U cCn .--O
N O
Ox ``NNNNd0) Q >, >, M O 7 0000 0
N O N O 0 >O
QQc"j.0000001LLLILC"40 2ZZYYJJJJJJJJJJMtt 2 :2:20000N�ZOO(D0004 MCo(n(n(nfn(nCn(nLo000)>����>
O O O t- - CO LO zT M CO d c O rt N O O N N tf) O) O M r` O to d' - O - 00 N O C C - - M CO O Imo- 0 C 0 O CO O I- O 't O 00 O O r 1- O O M In - N O O It d' N O M
O M O O - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O - - - - O N O O O N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 C O O O O O O COO- - 0 0 � O O M O - O O O O
M M - to ) M M M Lo N O M - N to M O M to M - N N N N N M -- CO CO O M= s c- Q O M (9 (. O N N M M N N N N M M M qt CO M Lo CO O
a)
EL
Q) C a) -0 -0-0 Q) •L L L L 0) 0) 0) 0) 0)
Z O L L cn (� N s- `- c E (SS (ff (Cf (6 c c c C C c c c c c C c
L N 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 N tB Y Y Y Y Y Y Y c c c c
c c O U U O> U) �-- � (n cn to u) to U> O C C c�� O N O O O O O O O O O O O� a
N 0) L L X X X X 0 0 0 N N O N O N N Q) O O O U (Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 � L Y... L L L i i L N fCf N (II O O O N O
O O N O N N O O O O 0>>
U) Q Q Q Q Q 0 0 0 0 LL LL U -U C� C� _ 2 2 Y Y J J J J J J J J J J J cG Z O O Li d d d d M d d d O.. d d d d 0 0 0 w w w (n
i- O Qo ,t O M M d co M'I N O'I N O O r- N N Lo O O CO tl- O M d' M 't M N O r- M O N M 0 O t- M M N O M O 1l- O d' O M M to - I�- .- M O (D u U') M m O d' "t N O ('M
C 0 C - O O O r � 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 r - � O r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - r 0 C � � N O O � 0 0 C C
M O CO to M M M M N O M rl- N 0 M M M CO Lo s- e- N N N N N M O N M M O O O N N N N O M O (o 0 0 r- 1l- ti M � N N M M O O N N N N M M M O O M d' (o M M (o O
E
D
Z
L
_L
p
U^)
U)
^0
W
Q
O O O
O N Q)
C
a) a) a) a) a) a) a) m a)
C
C N N
>
C
N N
c
c
c
C
c
c
c
c c
0
N
U U U U U U U
c
O
N
>
N .>
> L L
O
r >
4)
>
N
>
N
>
O
>
N
>
N
>
N
>
O O
> > O
L L rt O
(� (0 (0 C6 N (Cf (�
Q)
N
>> > Q) X A XE A X♦ Y
'L
cAdcAQ
Q00
4
65w—w000QQQQQQQU
O 4) +L
-)-�CL0-CLadn.dcnQ
>
>
Q
L L > 0 0 O III
00 OQDDDd
a)
EL
Q) C a) -0 -0-0 Q) •L L L L 0) 0) 0) 0) 0)
Z O L L cn (� N s- `- c E (SS (ff (Cf (6 c c c C C c c c c c C c
L N 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 N tB Y Y Y Y Y Y Y c c c c
c c O U U O> U) �-- � (n cn to u) to U> O C C c�� O N O O O O O O O O O O O� a
N 0) L L X X X X 0 0 0 N N O N O N N Q) O O O U (Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 � L Y... L L L i i L N fCf N (II O O O N O
O O N O N N O O O O 0>>
U) Q Q Q Q Q 0 0 0 0 LL LL U -U C� C� _ 2 2 Y Y J J J J J J J J J J J cG Z O O Li d d d d M d d d O.. d d d d 0 0 0 w w w (n
i- O Qo ,t O M M d co M'I N O'I N O O r- N N Lo O O CO tl- O M d' M 't M N O r- M O N M 0 O t- M M N O M O 1l- O d' O M M to - I�- .- M O (D u U') M m O d' "t N O ('M
C 0 C - O O O r � 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 r - � O r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - r 0 C � � N O O � 0 0 C C
M O CO to M M M M N O M rl- N 0 M M M CO Lo s- e- N N N N N M O N M M O O O N N N N O M O (o 0 0 r- 1l- ti M � N N M M O O N N N N M M M O O M d' (o M M (o O
E
D
Z
HONEY OUR
IS HISTORIC*
Buildings from the mid -20th century are becoming eligible
for landmark status. Local governments are trying to decide
which are worth preserving. By Christopher Swope
rlington, Texas, with all its suburban
sprawl, seems an odd place for two young architectural historians to be spending their time. But when Jennifer
Ross and Sophie Roark go out scouting the city's subdivisions of ranch houses, they actually are in the vanguard
of their profession. As Ross turns her Honda S UV down a curvy street lined with small tract homes shaped like
shoe boxes, Roark explains how she can identify, intuitively, the age of a particular neighborhood.
"You know how when you see a John Hughes movie you can tell by the fashions that it was the 198os? That's
how we get about houses. You just sense it. Like if you see a Members Only jacket, you know it's 1984:'
Roark's radar tells her that these modest brick ranches were almost certainly built in the 1950s. Most of them
have low-pitched roofs, picture -frame windows, and filigreed, wrought -iron columns flanking the front door. It's
safe to say that every suburb that participated in America's post -World War I I development boom has a few neigh-
borhoods that look more or less like this one. Arlington alone has got dozens of them. Frankly, most people driv-
ing down this street would not notice anything remarkable at all.
But Ross and Roark do: They see a potential candidate for an Arlington historic district. It seems that this plain
mid-century neighborhood, merely by turning 50 years old, has reached a magic number in the world of historic
44 OCTOBER 2006 GOVERNING
preservation. Generally speaking, the
homes here are now eligible for landmark
status, and for the legal protections and tax
breaks that go along with such designa-
tions. So Arlington decided to take stock of
its enormous supply of 195os neighbor-
hoods, and look for significant examples
that might be worthy of preservation. The
city hired Hardy, Heck & Moore, the
Austin -based firm that Ross and Roark
work for, to do the survey work.
It's an enormous task, perhaps the
largest effort of its kind anywhere in the
country. Although overshadowed by nearby
Dallas and Fort Worth, Arlington is a me-
tropolis in its own right, with a population
Of 36o,000. Developers built some 1o,000
houses in Arlington in the 1950s, most of
them ranches and almost all in platted sub-
divisions. Finding them all, let alone docu-
menting their past and current condition,
will take the two women and their col-
leagues much of this winter. "Preserva-
tionists haven't had to deal with this era of
architecture before," Ross says.
But doubt lingers in the back of many
minds in Arlington: Is there really any-
thing "historic" about cookie -cutter subdi-
visions? And if the ubiquitous tract house
is worth saving—well, what then? Is the rest
of postwar suburbia—McDonald's, strip
malls and motels—also headed for the Na-
tional Register of Historic Places? These is-
sues are only beginning to surface in Amer-
ican communities, especially in the South
and West, where the bulk of everything
that's ever been built came after World War
II. As local officials are increasingly asked
to pass judgment on a period that preser-
vationists call "the recent past," they'll have
to sort out for themselves the parts of sub-
urban sprawl that are worth saving from re-
development.
These soul-searching questions aren't
for the suburbs alone. In large cities, a
whole generation of glass -box office towers
and minimalist civic buildings is turning
50, too. Dallas, for example, nearly lost its
most glamorous mid-century hotel, the
1956 Statler Hilton. The grid -faced struc-
ture, which won awards in its time, has
been vacant for several years. But when
Mayor Laura Miller proposed tearing down
the Statler for a downtown park, preserva-
tion advocates screamed. Miller backed off.
Revised plans show the park occupying a
parking lot across the street—turning the
46 OCTOBER 2006 GOVERNING
Statler, ironically, into prime park -front
property. "The mayor was like, `I hate that
building; it's the ugliest building in town,"'
says Dwayne Jones, head of Preservation
Dallas. "She's actually really good on preser-
vation issues—she gets it. But she just
didn't get the modern stuff."
Even those who love modernism admit
that spare 1950s styles don't capture the
public's imagination the way Victorian- and
Art Deco -era architecture do—at least not
yet. "It's one thing to love an old train station
with ornate ornament," says Greg Ibanez,
a Fort Worth architect who is active with Do-
comomo, an international association pro-
moting the preservation of modernism.
"But it's sometimes harder for the general
public to get that warm fuzzy feeling about
a glass curtain -wall building!
Preservation consultant Donovan Ryp-
kema is more blunt in his assessment.
Writing in a recent issue of Forum Journal,
a publication of the National Trust for
Historic Preservation, Rypkema argued
that postwar design was most often anti-
urban and anti -pedestrian, "an aberration
tive with Do-
ociation pro'
>r the gf
feeling
Donovan n
s assessmE
Forum Jour
onal Trust
pkema arg
host often s
"an aberr<
The '50s ranch
house is cool again.
The problem for,isn't
preservationists
so much a lack of
appreciation but
ant
rather an ab
supply in mass
produced subdivisions.
Now many of
Arlington's 10,000
are worth saving?
from 3,000 years of urban history from
which we are finally beginning to return."
Therefore, he continued, "we ought not
now designate as 'historic' buildings and
neighborhoods whose defining charac-
teristics are the polar opposite of what
good cities, good neighborhoods and good
buildings are all about:'
As Rypkema sees it, the steady decline of
craftsmanship in the postwar period re-
quires preservationists and local officials to
set a high standard when deciding what's
worth saving. "Let me write what most of us
intuitively know," Rypkema says. "The vast
majority of what has been built in America
in the last 5o years is crap!
COMING OF AGE
Postwar preservation can be a difficult thing
to bend one's mind around. One reason
why is because relatively little construction
went on during the Great Depression and
World War II. In other words, the 1950s is
the first distinct architectural era to turn 5o
in quite sometime. And for suburbs of that
vintage that popped up in cornfields, or-
chards and desert plains, now is the first
time they've ever so much as thought about
historic preservation. Ken Bernstein, the
new preservation director in Los Angeles
who is conducting that city's first ever city-
wide survey of historic resources, notes
that much of the San Fernando Valley
boomed from 194.5 to the mid -'50s. "These
are communities that are only beginning to
think of themselves in historic terms or to
consider using preservation tools."
This coming of age raises some impor-
tant public policy questions., Tax credits for
preserving historic buildings are already
scarce; now, Queen Anne grand dames will
have to compete with Joseph Eichler tract
houses and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe sky-
scrapers for public funds. And while today's
building codes are catching up with the
restoration of Industrial Era buildings—al-
lowing narrow stairwells to remain intact, for
example—mid-century structures create
code -compliance issuesof their own. "Those
single -paned glass walls, you can't build
those anymore under code," says Dwayne
Jones. "Sometimes low -pitch roofs we can't
build anymore. A lot of really wonderful in-
terior stairs in modern houses have these
floating steps. You�60 do these anymore."
The mid-century period also presents
some odd contradictions. The preservation
movement as we know it basically emerged
in response to modernism during the period
of urban renewal in the 195os and '6os.
Now, preservationists find themselves trying
to educate the public about why the style is
important even when it isn't beautiful, and
why examples must be saved for future gen.
erations. Then there is the politics of subur-
ban sprawl. The National Trust and its state
and local partners are big advocates of
sprawl -busting "smart growth" policies—
even as they now find themselves defending
developments that are essentially the tem-
plate upon which suburban sprawl was built.
Michelle Gringeri-Brown thinks there's a
built-in prejudice against i 95os architecture.
She and her husband recently launched a
home magazine, Atomic Ranch, promoting
an aesthetic of mid-century cool. "Most city
governments are having a hard time under-
standing this," Gringeri-Brown admits. "A
lot of people who work in government are
our age—early 5os—and we remember the
195 os! It doesn't seem possible that this time
we lived through can be historic!"
Yet that's exactly why preservationists
use the half -century mark as a sliding scale.
It takes time for people to separate them-
selves from their own past. Meanwhile, tastes
change. Victorian architecture was out of
vogue 30 years ago. And until recently,
homebuyers viewed bungalows as cramped
and cheap. Now, Victorian homes fetch pre-
mium prices and one can hardly imagine
Chicago without its thriving bungalow belt.
"We see the younger generation coming up
now, and they love this '5os architecture,"
says Karen McWilliams, a preservation plan-
ner for the city of Fort Collins, Colorado.
The real dilemma with the 1950s is not
a matter of appreciation. It's quantity. An
unprecedented amount of stuff was built
then, as the nation's war machine retooled
into a machine of modem auto -oriented liv-
GOVERNING OCTOBER 2006 47
ing. That story—the fairy tale of the '50s
suburb—is so familiar it sounds cliche: war
vets coming home, the G.I. Bill, the Baby
Bloom, bacya A and ar.;C. the Am...; an
Dream. No doubt some scenes from this
black -and -white movie must be preserved.
The question is: how many?
"We don't know yet," says Stan Graves,
director of architecture for the Texas His-
torical Commission. "We won't want to
preserve every mass-produced subdivi-
sion—at some point they become redun-
dant. Maybe the first ones were significant
in that they changed the way we lived and
operated as a society. But those are judg-
Texas Rangers' retro -style ballpark, which
opened in 1994. Smothered in red brick,
arches and parapets, it vainly hearkens to a
baseball past that in theca pa -to ne v e r was.
Arlington's true zero hour was 1952.
That's when General Motors Corp. put a
manufacturing plant on a patch of prairie
in the northeast corner of town. At the
time, developers raced to build subdivi-
sions near the factory. Many of the homes
they built were small ranch houses, in-
tended to be affordable to the autoworkers.
It's in these neighborhoods, the birthplace
of an Arlington boom that never stopped,
where Ross and Roark will spend much of
done. Typically, historians assess each
building, one by one, for its significance. In
postwar Arlington, there are simply too
mnnv hnmac fnr that Tnataarl tlhav will
look at broader patterns of development,
hoping to tease out features that made up
the quintessential 195os neighborhood.
Riding through one subdivision south of
the GM plant, Ross explains that the ranches
themselves are only one piece of that. "It's
the landscape features, the uniform set-
backs, the curvilinear 'streets," Ross says.
"Sometimes developers included a shop-
ping center, a neighborhood park or a
school. What we're asking is: What consti-
ment calls we have to make. They're not all
expendable, but they don't all rise to the
level of preservation, either."
'50s BOOMTOWN
Cruising around Arlington, Jennifer Ross
and Sophie Roark are looking for answers.
For architectural historians, however, Ar-
lington can be a disorienting place. Al-
though the city goes back 130 years, one
would hardly know it today. Arlington tore
down all that remained of its original down-
town in the 1970s, to make way for a con-
crete city hall and public library. Collins
Street, one of the many four -lane thor-
oughfares in town, is lined with all the
usual chain stores and parking lots. The
most noteworthy building in town is the
48 OCTOBER 2006 GOVERNING
their time surveying in the coming months.
On this day in August, however, they are
still strategizing, pondering how to think
about a trove of 1o,000 houses.
There's one thing Ross and Roark know
for sure: They won't find Fallingwater in Ar-
lington. No big -name architects worked
here in the 1950s. Nor were there famous
people living in factory housing. "After
World War II, ranch houses were built all
over the United States," Ross notes. "Unless
they were designed by Frank Lloyd Wright,
the majority of these houses aren't signifi-
cant on their own due to architectural merit."
So Hardy, Heck & Moore, working with
Fort Worth consultant Karl Komatsu, de-
vised a survey methodology that departs
from the usual way such inventories are
Dallas nearly
lost the 1956
Statler Hilton
when Mayor
Laura Miller
proposed
tearing it down
to build a park.
"She's really
good on
preservation
issues," says
an advocate.
"But sheust
didn't ge the
modern stuff.'
tutes a good example of a post -World War II
neighborhood from a planning standpoint?"
Ross notices a church and a school mixed
into the neighborhood. "I'd ask myself: Are
they part of the same development?"
There's also an historical narrative to con-
sider. Since government financing drove so
much development in the '5os, they are look-
ing for subdivisions where builders followed
certain rules in order to get loans. They also
want to get a handle on the builders' targeted
market and find examples of the modest
homes of plant workers as well as the more,
substantial homes of managers.
Ross and Roark won't judge these few
blocks of Arlington until the survey begins in
earnest. But they seem lukewarm. Many
homeowners have modified their ranches
♦ fi"; qk'
?
- la
441
Sig -
fax
e'N Ili
sm
I eO
P, �k
iS 1V
lAk
llftj-
Iry
"QUALITY ROW" HOUSE
1006 Park Place, College Station
1915
This house was originally located on the Texas A&M campus.
It was located next to the Marburger House, across the street
from the Drill Field.
During the 1930s, the house was used as co-op housing for
students. Around 1950, it was purchased and moved to its
present location by the MCQuillen family. Ownership has
passed through several people since then, and the house is
presently owned by Mr. and Mrs. Dwight Miller.
Built in a variation of the American Four Square Style, this
home exhibits many of the characteristics of that style. A
covered porch sr.rpported by simple square columns shelters
the main entrance. The home has a square box -like shape.
Rafter ends are exposed along the eaves.
Although the original fireplace was lost when it was moved,
few other alterations have been made on the house.
n " N
D O S p
rourtesyCRSCenter
2
gg
rt
to z
V't
w
G G tlQ
"p
rD
�
o
_
a
o
N.
p "+
° a b N
lax
w
r
it I
Irr
F
f
('
J
o
t9 rt
cn rt N (� 0.. „�' O --•
`rt
Ami
G`�•,
� rt �
'b
¢
w 9 O
G
d
w
v G1Uq rb
CD
a
w O OG
`G
I'D
w
rn
11
D cf0 rn
G Ami
a
O n C0.
n
0. O 0.
w O N - n N-
'b
n rD
O
n G
rt N n(D a rnf h r
Ll
p
Q ti
G
ro p
n " N
D O S p
4.
n O G
n
t�D „n
w G z
rt
to z
V't
w
G G tlQ
"p
rD
�
o
_
a
o
N.
p "+
° a b N
lax
w
(7)
rm
courtesy CRS Center
w GD r H (i b G b < O p x rt O G
C. O 2 N _ n Uq p
U4 C� O n rt0. G U~G O s p O
_ rt
VBG n :z°Ty' ±' O^ o O rn a � -•' �` k
j 9 0. v CD w N k rn
w _ tno O G✓ ry'f 'O N. p A��i .n X. yrD
y G tc ° p G n• �p �% G n. ,� a tc ,n a a
rp dq rp' w
N Q y• bry wrt M w b rn (D ID
R, y h 0. O `C n G G w n R. ID
n"
n �• w �" '.' (�.. N O 0.
O O. O Q' 0.�.G•, w --< e-:
' Nrt n G•" �h . `�
. C G
i7
0�. _ .•. w
Uq in'CD° 0. p„ < w , ' to O O " n 'Yw r 0. G
° � O A.
n- n- p n w B a
O G O UGQ G w 6 �• Nn p. °J 1V O p I 'n,
UG
G to CD.O O O pi G �:j N rt •t' `C R" p O pki w
0.
O w �• eo�_ ,rt., G ^. rn N 0. 9 G �.
k C p p <n k N• tr'o h .•. h G A� {',L 'O '0 w �' R- `." r'o G .'+ w n r�
UQ ° �. h p O G n '' ~ ID
CD
CL
w w GRD
rn
�° rJ O `n �-'I n "vi :y' O rn a- " O ro p ,-'• p ^ '�' N g
rt b rD
rt C UQ P7.rD
0. rD fwi G O N W p n° 1� w ^ co '" G 0. G '�
ti nIn
w r+ C P..�p W
to "� tno 0. x' b Up w h '� w p� • N O N" G n �. W Cly C R..
Ow`,C
U°Q O O rr 0. w b "v^, ou n N Y N (jp G n 9
w O Uq G 0. O Ua to rt n 0. G" 'o
CD
0. " w p� w° ' + G h
rn k S, tlQ G
b�
z
d
roudesy CRS Center
f -- 74
N
.A
rn
'rl O P' < (y .-r v' rr Q. �.. k 'y p ,-' n 0 W — P
p rD
�. UQ P � .'7 (3. '
�. °cs i n a o a w �. b a° ;. 9 b N
(D 0( O `d p vi (D Fy d G N W p n rt O �. O
to O n C. * O O v h < 7 y rt n b O ¢ a p p p r y W p
lD ry '.�' ,~7• O �. O n '' ry t1. O N " '' 6.. .7" N. n C ¢, n S
'moi N n ry O
N CCD 0
v m v� v Ua O O T n
(D alp
5 7
O Go UG R. .7 N " � 'b rt C ^
CD
o
CD
n O ¢. O R' rn O P+ 0. R° N CDO Q. `p• y rn Oy v, O
p O < 7J + v v rn
\p 9- w� 0- K pp w w p �^ �C N w p CD f�.. M
A n n ro by " W ro �:s p C �n ¢• Y .0 n H 0 .
�:T' co 'n O.. 'moi Ci p., 9 rc rn �.," O x' W
r O P~i UQ n O O• ". C C rt �. O n �' p O= rD
O f D
O a' O 0. O" p O O .T Cs' �� _� n b n 'Or, n N _ �O ,� •� O O N
�' N Ej
C) . x p n til rD o
Ei-
¢, '�, O G rn O • `G O. �' CD [�. O LCD
Vn O ^ Uq N P? n C O
�n CD N N ^ ¢ R. n O
mudery[RS (enter
n
a
4
� It'
si t AT
.� mttp�llu�
---------- .
0. � � p R. G 0. � O 'O HO O O � � HO � O �G„ � • p � O n O .0 � rn � W • w G-,
0.. O 0 d ID An.. rn'
x.n ID
O C 0. �=* !o �' N n R. x n p ^ n n W ,., cc
^ '*• Ort O p O„ R'' p C E3 _ rt G" n '4. ' N' W C11 ' p pCD ID
.. tHo
nrDEj
nn G G ' CDQ. O M N co_ �. Fn O G 0. to '.'� li 3 per" p„ G co
0. .3 • > W O � • " 0. Y (D
ID /�••`'�
T. 'O ID 'O O G
s� cn a p
r o
K, co n
co O >v _ � O C O 7 C 'Tz w p-•
cc O G- x CD
0. H n �+ G N h prti rn O
o'
�+rl
W�- nti <n O
o
41
aq 0 0. O C� �' ¢ 9 o
p.. ' p o� Gam" C 'c1 CD
G -r a- — W`. W G N r' a' - alp ID
rJq p.• `OC O
N
CD
p ti N W O p N C7 O" cno C 0. r, O �• Ort a
x rn CZ�. rn G 3 a w m H -] C. n r) n a 9 rn Q x C x on
N � G n O b .�'�, r+ "'� N O rt H �. G Fp p (i7 p� Sv a' n p �o
�--. rt O W O rt trV ,., rt tU G n .rt- O ''�' ¢, Or, r n
�. n. rt .' Q -Q H v, n
aq 0. G� rt rt G NV
J7 vyy G Q'" �' O H7 J OM �, O cc b (DQ O O rn
G G G O
cJtn
77
Ot)
0. O O
O Q.n NG
O tan
ntv U ''
OG Op HCO _ '.wtn7c
PIZ-
raudery CRS Centel
n
0
c
a
s� Fr
CD
0
N
n
r -n
I
O o w - w try U- O w r N
0.
G "" •�
w .A O K ^• < w h b C"' 0.. v ro UC rt "' N w Ort ' to p
o
(D a '„•i G N M
1J Q 0. G � C N S� UO a �, a• 'wpa ' t CD G
O rt rt ry Uq
n `�' (D ' �1 G✓ G 'M7. O p ..., \p r•! OQ 'L
nCD
ciCD
:u.- G' N ti N ¢ W rn
CD0. Ort° 't7 ti �' �• n ".� G
G n 'b p^_, n O G' 'G „f D, G-' C �, • a�i� ,Gy ° `e p x'
cn
. UGC „��,�• C' O 00 w N O
n _
w m
gE
0
e
a
0
a
m
m
m
c
m
0
c
9
e
O_
n
70
N
courtesy CRS Center
a C7 w p w B rn �. n w ---— a- c w a� a. c
vn :; Qrn" prt" n w N clq p O O
CD
C b `� •� O 'J" N ° p_ .� Q. CY O Uq 'J y UQ y
aq
pO On 0 tco w ¢ c" '.^ p p OT. C
O
rD CD r w
(p' '9 !•y, (1q <7 "b w .-r O -� N !'i !n. N N to v' (D (D