"Micro" zoning?

[jkupp]

I live in an older residential area of Ann Arbor, Michigan, which contains a mix of single-family homes, duplexes, and multi-unit buildings. The entire area is currently zoned for duplex or multi-unit, but in order to preserve the current, diverse character of the neighborhood, we would like to protect against pressures to replace single-family homes with multi-unit dwellings or to subdivide single-family homes into multiple units.

Our neighborhood association has proposed allowing small clusters of properties -- as small as a few lots -- to be changed to single-family zoning, at the property owners' request. Needless to say, this wouldn't change anything immediately or stop all redevelopment, but it might provide some stability in the long term, as properties get bought and sold.

The city has said that they are not aware of this being done in other places. Has anyone heard of this sort of zoning?

We are calling this "micro-zoning," though clearly that isn't a generally used term for this.

 

[mgk920]

Appleton, WI 'downzoned' a bunch of central-city properties from duplex to single in the 1980s and 1990s, mainly because street assessment rates were higher for duplexes than for singles and the owners wanted the assessments to match the use. These areas were nearly all built as single-family houses and saw many of them converted to duplex to address the severe housing shortage of the mid-late 1940s when oodles of serviceguys returned home from WWII and needed places to live. This was pretty much SOP for most cities in the USA at the time.

Much of that area has since been rezoned to 'R-1C (central-city residential)' to make all of those properties conforming with setback limits, etc, as most of them were built in the days before zoning and nearly all of them needed variances of some sort to be able to do pretty much anything to them under the R-1A and R-1B zones that were designed to enforce the more recent 'suburban' style of development. (R-1A and R-1B differ only in setback limits.)

Prior to the R-1C zone, the zoning map of Appleton's central-city area was an amazing checkerboard of R-1B and R-2.

I would contact the City of Appleton for more info.

Mike

 

[jkupp]

Thanks, Mike, that's a helpful lead.

I guess the larger question is how can one zone in a way that promotes and protects a "mixed-density" neighborhood, without just giving it all the higher density zoning designation, or downzoning it all and creating a lot of nonconforming properties. The "patchwork" approach does seem somewhat unwieldy, but I haven't been able to find any other approach that would meet this goal.

 

[donk]

Thanks, Mike, that's a helpful lead.

I guess the larger question is how can one zone in a way that promotes and protects a "mixed-density" neighborhood, without just giving it all the higher density zoning designation, or downzoning it all and creating a lot of nonconforming properties. The "patchwork" approach does seem somewhat unwieldy, but I haven't been able to find any other approach that would meet this goal.

Performance zoning may work, as may overlay zoning. As your planners about these items and see what they think.

 

[mgk920]

Another aspect that I would be concerned about is that with your mixed-density area, it could well be in the midst of a market-based transition, especially if it is near the UM campus. The old-line single families may transitioning out and campus-related residents transitioning in. To try to legally slam the door on this may result in unoccupied single-family houses with no market. With no market, the properties will fall into disrepair and neglect, ultimately becoming a blight on the neighborhood, after which they will have to be removed and redeveloped anyway. Market forces will always ultimately trump zoning controls.

Perhaps it would be for the best to allow the transitions to continue, but to take steps to ensure that it happens in the best manner possible, comrade (hehe)!

Mikhail






;-)

 

[Masswich]

I have encountered an identical request in a streetcar suburb outside Boston - probably similar situation. I have tried hard to find clusters of at least 10+ parcels to recommend for downzoning. In smaller clusters I am trying to promote an approach that seeks to require any projects meet some form-based criteria that preserve the streetscape. This has been a tough sell - people want downzoning to feel safe. It just doesn't make sense to me, or seem fair, to have a patchwork zoning map.

In other cities I have seen a more sweeping approach where everything- including larger building- gets downzoned and you therefore have lots of legally nonconforming buildings and a few that meet the new zoning. I didn't like that approach since it seems to increase the nonconformities over time while not allowing the properly zoned parcels to develop.

 

[jkupp]

Interesting.

I'm with Mikhail in we don't want to stop all change, but rather make sure that happens in a way that allows input from the community. I like the idea of "performance zoning," which I hadn't heard of before, though it seems difficult to implement since there is so much subjective judgment involved. Still, I suppose if the process were open enough.....

What's so tricky is that ultimately we want to protect the neighborhood's social character (which is economically and racially diverse, with a mix of students, families, and people of all ages and walks of life), even more than the streetscape. It would be a shame if it became so dense or so upscale that young families stopped moving in, but it isn't -- and shouldn't be -- an area just for single family homes. That was the original idea behind the "patchwork" zoning, but I'm becoming less convinced of it as I read your comments.

 

[mendelman]

I spent alot of time in Ann Arbor during school (got my BA and Planning Master's at UM) and lived all that time in the student "ghetto" directly around central campus.

If your neighborhood is one of the neighborhoods near Central Campus and you are concerned about the changing of the neighborhood, you should really first determine what could actually be allowed under the current zoning.

In my review of the Ann Arbor zoning code in the past, I have determined that the increment for actually doing a multi-family building in the medium density zoning district started at like 7-10,000 square feet of land, so you would need that much land to even start with before you try to build new of even convert an existing building.

A good start would be to actually sit down with one of the planners and have them explain in detail what potential there is in your neighborhood. Remember that developers try not to have to buy mulitple properties to do developments. They generally (especially that a smaller scale) prefer to develop on a single property basis.

You could also contact the Planning department in the School of Architecture and Urban Planning and get a student to do a build-out analysis for your neighborhood to see what potential is there.

Back to your original question, I think performance standards in an overlay are better for your desires than downzoning single or very small groups of properties. That way the properties have more market value, but could still allow for the increase of dwelling unit density, but can mitigate the potential negative impacts associated with the new development.

Otherwise, what you describe sounds more like spot zoning and misses the point of zoning anyway. Also, houses could also be purchased by landlords and just rented out as one unit. This a common around Central Campus and the houses really get beat up.