• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

FAR vs setbacks and height limits

boiker

boiker

Desert Cyburbian
Messages
3,888
Points
30
Exceptionally novice question that I can't seem to figure out on my own.

Why FAR? Can't setbacks and height limits achieve the same goals?
 
What......zoning codes have multiple redundancies?? ;-)

I would think that FAR is kinda out-moded for typical suburban form - where setback requirements are ubiquitous.

FAR is probably a better tool for allowing the deisgner some flexibility where zero-lot-line construction is permitted.
 
Setbacks and height tend not to deal with bulk very effectively, just "proximity" of the bulk and height to the street and the neighbors.

We initiated FAR limits in single family areas in 1989 when builders started coming closer and closer to building out to the setback limits on all sides, and as high as permitted.

On examination of any community's housing stock, you'll probably see that common sense or good taste dictated what houses looked like, how big they are, and the like (not zoning). So when land values and development pressure escalates, builders end up taking more advantage of what zoning allows.

A good way to get a handle on "why FAR" would be to look at what's being built, versus what's permitted under zoning. Two and one-half stories built within the entire buildable envelope is massive, and exactly what was permitted pre-FAR days.

It's been far from perfect as far as regulations go, and we've gone through several modifications to try and get it right, and to close loop holes, stop abuses, etc.
 
dogandpony I understand what you are saying. I guess in my frame of reference we have narrow lots with substantial rear setbacks which really limits the envelope anyway. Most houses are built to the setback lines anyway...

I can agree with mendelman that it could be used as a tool in zero-lot line or form based zoning situations.
 
NYC uses both FAR and setbacks. The result is wacky. It seems to me, that if you're going to have a height limit, then you should zone with setbacks, whereas, if you're expecting people to build towers, then you should use FAR.

For 1 and 2 family homes, in NYC, the setbacks create an envelope to build in, but the FAR allowed is typically less than what you can "fit" in that envelope. This really frustrates people because they want to build as large a house as possible. A typical R2 single family lot is 40' x 100', which is allowed 2,000 SF from the FAR. But the typical owner wants 3,000 SF.

In the R8, R9, and R10 zones, where people want to build towers, the FAR works fairly well (and there is not setbacks nor height requirements).

I think that the zoning should use setbacks (front yard, side yard(s), rear yard, and height) OR use FAR (with lot coverage and open space percentages).
 
Soph said:
I think that the zoning should use setbacks (front yard, side yard(s), rear yard, and height) OR use FAR (with lot coverage and open space percentages).
Click to expand...
You bring up two methods that are similar but can have very different outcomes.

If one uses the very prescriptive method of specific setbacks and heights, the resulting built environment will be very predictable, but rather uniform and (in my opinion) bland.

If one uses FAR with lot coverages and opoen space %s, the resulting built environment will be less predictable, but will give the homeowner, builder, designer, etc. more flexibility for creative design, which could allow for a more interesting and diverse landscape.

But for most of the USA, not having setbacks and height limits would be political suicide and sacrilege, so.....you know.....oh well....... :(
 
I had our Planning Board and Town Meeting add an FAR restriction into the section of our by-law that allows the Board of Appeals to permit expansions of pre-existing non-conforming structures. Basically, we have a 15% lot coverage for residential uses and a 2 story height limit. The Board of Appeals would get a lot of applications for structures that exceeded the 15% lot coverage. The Board had taken the position that if it were lawfully pre-existing, they had carte-blanche to allow it to be modified. We were winding up with cottages on substandard lots that were 20% lot coverage getting larger footprints and full second stories. I had one house that was approved to nearly a 70% FAR. The upper level was all one large room, thereby getting around septic limits on the number of bedrooms. The room would have probably allowed a kid to skateboard up there with no difficulty. We therefore adopted an FAR for these pre-existing sites that exceeded the lot coverage restriction to ensure that they did not ultimately exceed the living space allowed on a neighboring conforming site - 30%.
 
boiker said:
Exceptionally novice question that I can't seem to figure out on my own.

Why FAR? Can't setbacks and height limits achieve the same goals?
Click to expand...

I agree with the things everyone else has said about FAR calculations. FAR is best used in areas where you want a more intense development. Areas where you want the large scale commercial and residential development. We will give a larger FAR development between residential and commercial, dependent upon where the development is occuring. This flexibility makes for a simpler zoning code with less regulations for developers. Additionally, we have allowed the far to be exceeded if developers want to add amenities, such as artwork within public plaza areas.
The FAR seems redundant and overly complicated if it starts being combined with minimum setback requirements or maximum lot coverage requirements. I think areas where strict regulations such as minimum setback and height are in use are best suited for single family and neighborhood commercial districts. Again, redundancy in the zoning code here should be avoided, if you have a lot area and setback requirements with a maximum lot coverage, too much regulation which leads to an overly complicated code.
 
So what about the numbers?

Ok. So we've got the concept down - how about some examples for various housing / commercial types? I'm working on an ordinance for townhouses and was debating setbacks vs minimum lot coverage vs maximum dwelling size vs FAR.

Where to put that number...
 
hey

dankrzyz said:
Ok. So we've got the concept down - how about some examples for various housing / commercial types? I'm working on an ordinance for townhouses and was debating setbacks vs minimum lot coverage vs maximum dwelling size vs FAR.

Where to put that number...
Click to expand...

i'm working on the same thing up here - when i get my number, i'll share - i'm trying to get a village-like number as many of our condo projects meet area per family and dimensional controls but are just too damn bulky - and, facade review doesn't cut it because as my dad says; you can't shine $#@!...
 
Back
Top