INTRODUCTION
INFILL STUDY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMY.ALLISON@HUTCHGOV.COM AARON.BARLOW@HUTCHGOV.COM JANAM@HUTCHGOV.COM
OBJECTIVE Develop an Implementation Strategy to facilitate infill development.
RECOMMENDATION Amend the Zoning Regulations to add a R-6, Infill Residential Neighborhood Zoning District, to allow for a wider range of design layouts and housing types, with reduced setbacks and other modified design standards.
COMMISSION REVIEW Land Bank: January 9, 2018 Housing Commission: ______ Planning Commission: ______
STEERING COMMITTEE Planning Commission Todd Carr Tommy Hornbeck Land Bank Board of Trustees Mark Eaton Dan Garber Housing Commission Ryan Patton Lucas Soltow
The City of Hutchinson’s 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan discusses obstacles to residential development and redevelopment in established infill neighborhoods and calls for creation of a new, residential infill zoning district. “This zone is proposed for the core residential areas of the City which developed with a more compact development pattern. An infill district (R-6) would allow for more flexibility of development in these areas.” This infill zoning district also represents the next step for the Infill Development Study, which was completed in December 2016. The Infill Development Study was prepared by University of Kansas architecture students who examined many of the City’s neighborhoods south of 11th Avenue in the City’s Neighborhood Revitalization Plan area. The Study objectives were to: 1) identify obstacles to development/redevelopment; 2) prepare neighborhoodcompatible prototypes for potential infill builds; and 3) make recommendations for changes to the City’s development code that would facilitate development and redevelopment in older neighborhoods. While objectives 1 and 2 were met, there was insufficient time for the students to complete objective 3. This Infill Study Implementation Plan identifies the key obstacles to development and redevelopment in the City’s older, established neighborhoods and provides recommended development code changes to remove those obstacles. The Implementation Plan recommends establishing a new zoning district with smaller setbacks and more flexible development styles, as provided in Comprehensive Plan Strategy FS.1.7.a.2. “Consider establishing a zoning district that meets the needs of development and redevelopment of smaller residential lots (R-6) located in the City core.” Led by a Steering Committee comprised of representatives from the Land Bank Board of Trustees, the Housing Commission and the Planning Commission, the plan details eight major issue areas and makes recommendations for removing barriers through changes in the City’s Zoning Regulations, as well as in other programs and policies of the City. 1
ISSUE #1: SETBACKS ON INFILL LOTS MAKE REDEVELOPMENT DIFFICULT 5’
165’
DISCUSSION The setback standards for all residential zoning districts in Hutchinson are based on relatively recent suburban standards, which reflect large sweeping front, side and rear yards, with car access to garages located to the side of the house. This design standard varies greatly from early American neighborhood design, where the focus was not based on vehicular access and lot dimensions tended to be narrower. Because development preferences have changed over time, established neighborhoods built more than 70 years ago find challenges rebuilding and even making small additions. See Figure 1.1. Simply put, homeowners in infill neighborhoods frequently cannot make desired improvements to their property without requesting variances from the City’s regulations.
Number Avenue 5’
23’
Existing Building Proposed Addition 5’ Setback Driveway Property Lines
33’
Alley
FIGURE 1.1 A proposed addition to a home that would not be permitted under the current zoning regulations
Maintaining standards, like setbacks, is important, however. Setbacks ensure visibility, afford light and air access and provide fire protection between structures should a neighboring property catch fire. Smaller setbacks in the infill district would still accomplish these goals. The table below provides a comparison of setbacks across various cities in Kansas. COMPARISON City Hutchinson, KS Lawrence, KS Manhattan, KS Overland Park, KS Wichita, KS Salina, KS Kansas City, KS
Front Yard
Side – Street Front Yard
Side Yard
Rear Yard
25 feet 15 feet 14 feet 15 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet
12.5 feet* 15 feet 14 feet 15 feet 15 feet 25 feet -
5 feet 5 feet 8 feet 6 feet 6 feet 7.5 feet 3 feet
15 feet 20 feet 25 feet 20 feet 20 feet 25 feet 25 feet
* As allowed under Sec. 27-309.C. of the City Code.
As the table notes, Hutchinson’s setback standards are similar to other Kansas communities. Some 2
Homes in older neighborhoods were built without regulations, including setbacks. Houses are located on or next to their property lines, creating noncomplaint structures.
RECOMMENDATION Establish the following setbacks for the R-6 Infill Residential Zoning District which is depicted in Figure 1.2.
R-6 Zoning District
Front Yard
Side – Street Front Yard
Side Yard
Rear Yard
15 feet*
7.5 feet**
3 feet***
10 feet
*Or the average Front Yard Setback of block. See Sec. 27-309.E. of City Code. **As allowed under Sec. 27-309.C. of the City Code. ***Should the proposed structure be closer than six feet to a neighboring structure, fire protection as required by the Building Code shall be provided.
Number Avenue 3’
165’
communities have smaller front-yard setbacks (Lawrence, Manhattan, Overland Park). The City’s current ordinance has a provision that allows for a reduction of front-yard setbacks, whereby the average setback for the block can be applied. Hutchinson has smaller setbacks on side street front yards, side-yards, and rear-yards, with the exception of Kansas City, KS. Kansas City, KS shares similar design challenges to Hutchinson because many of their residential structures were built prior to modern planning standards.
3’
27’
Existing Building Proposed Addition 3’ Setback Driveway Property Lines
33’
Alley
FIGURE 1.2 The proposed addition would be permitted with 3-foot side-yard setbacks
ISSUE #2: LOT COVERAGE LIMITATIONS MAKE BUILDING DIFFICULT DISCUSSION Like setbacks, lot coverage requirements for residential zoning districts in Hutchinson reflect a suburban standard. Homeowners living in older neighborhoods that were developed with smaller lots have a more challenging time meeting the lot coverage standard, with new construction since today’s housing size demands have increased. The average new construction house size in the United States has increased from 1,660 square feet in 1973 to 2,640 square feet in 2016 (US Census ). The lot coverage allowed for a 30’ x 165’ lot (the standard for the first two additions of the Hutchinson Investment Company plats) is 45 percent or 2,227 square feet. To accommodate today’s typical sized house on an infill lot, developers and homeowners must build up.
3
1,485 ft2 55%
1,690 ft2 62%
Alley
82.5’
Most homes in the City’s older neighborhoods are smaller than 2,227 square feet. Retrofitting these homes to reflect today’s standards and needs can be accomplished but not with the existing lot coverage requirement. In addition to building more square footage onto a small house, homeowners also must comply with the lot coverage requirement for all accessory structures. Many homes were built prior to the mass production of vehicles, so either they do not have a garage or the structure that was built does not accommodate today’s vehicles.
Number Avenue
Tree Street
Building up or adding a second (or even third) story can get costly. Second story additions may require retrofitting a foundation and always require removal of existing roofs, which increases the project costs. Facing the added costs can deter property owners from these projects and continue the cycle of undesirable and obsolete structures in the redevelopment area. The costs simply cannot be balanced out given the values of housing in the surrounding neighborhoods.
33’
Figure 2.1 The above lots do not conform with current lot coverage regulations in the R-4 District
COMPARISON The table below provides a comparison of lot coverage requirements for select cities in Kansas. City Hutchinson, KS Kansas City, KS Lawrence, KS Manhattan, KS Overland Park, KS Wichita, KS
Maximum Lot Coverage 45% n/a 50% 30% n/a n/a
Hutchinson’s lot coverage requirements are consistent with other Kansas communities. As a community with a considerably older housing stock, having similar standards to more suburban cities may not be the best choice for redevelopment in Hutchinson. Older communities like Lawrence have amended their zoning standard to allow for denser development per lot. This may be attributed to the same issues Hutchinson faces or a reflection of larger city growth. Increasing 4
Due to narrow dimensions, older lots have less buidable area because of lot coverage requirements. Homeowners looking to add on additions to meet current house size trends may already be over the limit.
the lot coverage standard will allow homeowners and developers more flexibility when expanding and redeveloping their infill properties.
Number Avenue 60’ 54.4’
RECOMMENDATION Staff proposes establishing the following lot coverage for the R-6 Infill Residential Zoning District:
R-6 Zoning District
33’
Single-family Home
Maximum Lot Coverage 60% 9,000 ft2
DISCUSSION When Hutchinson was originally subdivided, the first two subdivision’s lot dimensions were 30 feet wide by 165 feet deep, creating lots of approximately 4,950 square feet. At the time, those purchasing these narrow lots were given the opportunity to buy multiple lots, which many did. However, some buyers purchased only one lot. Others eventually sold pieces of their original lot to neighboring properties, creating in even smaller lots than those originally platted. Hutchinson had zoning beginning in the 1920’s – all lots developed prior to that time or in the county were not subject to zoning. Today, these lots have become problematic—often preventing increases in density and new construction on vacant lots.
The City’s minimum lot size requirements vary across residential zoning districts, with the minimum being 9,000 square feet, shown in Figure 3.1. Two family structures have difficulty meeting the standards as well (Figure 3.2). The R-5 High Density Residential District allows for smaller lots with shorter lot widths but is not commonly found across the City due to control over multi-family
Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Frontage
Alley Figure 3.1 The above image shows how lot frontage and lot area requirements in the R-4 District are too strict for many existing resdiential lots.
Number Avenue 80’ 60.6’
33’
Two-family Home
10,000 ft2 165 ’
While it has been the City’s policy to allow construction on non-conforming infill lots, the city has been unable to approve requests to build anything other than single-family structures primarily due to current lot width and lot area standards.
165 ’
ISSUE #3: LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS THAT REFLECT EXISTING LOT SIZES
Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Frontage
Alley Figure 3.2 A 33’ x 165’ lot is too small for a two-family home in the R-4 District under the curent zoning regulations 5
residential development. In addition, multi-family developments face the same issue as singel family developments on infill properties, Figure 3.3. By creating a separate zoning district specifically designed for Infill Development, the City will be able to control multi-family development while providing homeowners more freedom in developing their infill lots.
Number Avenue 100’ 60.6’
33’
Multi-family Home
COMPARISON
City Hutchinson Lawrence, KS Manhattan, KS Overland Park, KS Wichita, KS Kansas City, KS Salina, KS
Minimum Lot Width (feet) 60 25 50 50 50 50 50
Minimum Lot Area (square feet) 9,000 3,000 6,000 4,250 5,000 5,000 6,000
10,000 ft2 165 ’
The table below provides minimum lot criteria for single family lots for select cities in Kansas:
Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Frontage
Alley Figure 3.3 A 33’ x 165’ lot is too small for multi-family homes in the R-4 District under the curent zoning regulations.
As can be seen, Hutchinson has the largest lot width and lot area requirement of the comparison cities. These requirements are suburban in nature and do not match the development pattern of many of the city’s older neighborhoods. If the City wants to accommodate redevelopment, expansion of existing development and infill development, modifying the lot width and lot area requirements will likely bring nonconforming lots into conformance. This will prevent the need for costly and time-consuming variance requests. RECOMMENDATION Establish the following lot width and lot area for the R-6 Infill Residential Zoning District: R-6 Zoning District Single-Family Two-Family Townhomes Multiple Family 6
Minimum Lot Width (feet) 30 40 50 60
Minimum Lot Area (square feet) 3,500 4,000 5,000 8,000
Traditional development is compact and fits well on narrow lots
ISSUE #4: DENSITY THAT PROVIDES MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR REDEVELOPMENT Should the previous recommendations be approved, property owners wishing to increase density on their lots will face fewer challenges. The reasons to consider these changes should be considered are addressed in this section.
Another issue that property owners in infill areas face is the difficulty associated with converting existing structures to a higher density. Most conversions that have been performed to date are nonconforming, shown in Figure 4.1. Proposals to convert existing housing would not be approvable because the City’s residential zoning districts do not allow for duplexes or multiple family development, in existing residential districts. Duplexes, triplexes and townhomes are either not permitted or require a conditional use permit in all residential zones other than R-4 and R-5. Multiple family developments (those with more than two units) are permitted by right only in
Acessory dwelling units (or Mother-in-law flats) are density hiding in plain sight.
Number Avenue 2 units on a 50’ wide lot
Primary unit 2,450 ft2
165 ’
Density is typically expressed as the number of dwelling units in a given area, normally per acre. Reasons for increasing housing density include: 1) reducing the amount of needed infrastructure, 2) providing alternative living options, and 3) making housing more affordable to construct and inhabit. Hutchinson’s primary motivation for considering increasing housing density relates to affordability. Based upon feedback from local developers, much of Hutchinson’s neighborhoods suffer from a building cost gap. The building cost gap is the difference between how much it costs to build a new house versus how much it will appraise/sell for. Developers have found that building a single family home in the redevelopment area costs approximately $20,000+ than what they can sell it for. Developers cannot make a profit in these conditions, therefore housing is not being built or rehabbed in the most impacted neighborhoods. If densities are allowed to increase, there is more revenue potential in the same buildable area, therefore increasing the potential for development/redevelopment.
2 units on a 8,250 ft2 lot
Accesory unit 900 ft2
Alley Figure 4.1 165’ x 50‘ (8,250 sf.) lot with an accessory dwelling unit in the rear yard 7
the R-5 zoning district. A conditional use permit is required to build/convert multiple family dwellings in the R-4 zone. While the proposed new zoning district will not allow for a large density increase (for example converting a single-family lot into a high-rise apartment building), it will allow for some conversions, where the community character is not compromised. A third discussion point for this section is the introduction of accessory dwelling units (ADU). An ADU is a secondary housing unit built on the same lot, commonly used for extended family or as an extra source of income. These units are subordinate in size to the primary dwelling, and are placed in an inconspicuous location on the property, typically to the rear. This option provides homeowners with flexibility in relocating an elderly loved one close by and can also provide an additional source of affordable housing. While ADUs increase density, they also maintain the original single-family character of the neighborhood. The Hutchinson Comprehensive Plan Survey asked residents whether they were interested in allowing ADUs . Respondents had an unfavorable opinion of ADUs with the overall rating being 2.91 out of 5. While ADUs may not reflect the character of development in some of our more suburban neighborhoods, they could be allowed in more established neighborhoods without major impacts and should be discussed and considered. COMPARISON Figure 4.2 and 4.3 show the difference between redevelopment of a 50 foot by 165 foot lot under the current regulations opposed to the redevelopment of the same lot if modified regulations were adopted. As you can see, developers are given more opportunity to develop a project with a higher potential to recoup the value of the project cost, either through resale or anticipated rent. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a residential zoning district that allows higher density development by right, including ADUs, which would increase densities from an 8
Number Avenue Only 1 unit on a 50’ wide lot 25’ front-yard 15’ setback
1 unit - 3,650 ft2 44% lot coverage
Alley Figure 4.2 Only one dwelling unit is currently permitted on a 165’ x 50‘ (8,250 s.f.) lot in the R-4 District
Number Avenue 15’ front-yard setback
2 units - 3,800 ft2 45% lot coverage
10’ rear-yard setback
Alley Figure 4.3 A potential two-family design for narrow lots that could be permitted in a new zoning district.
average of seven to eight housing units per acre to twelve per acre.
ISSUE #5: “Adequate space provided for access and utilties to each property.” DISCUSSION While it’s likely the proposed new district would support rehabilitation projects, the zoning district will also open the door to innovative design options for narrow lots and new construction. A goal of the new zoning district would be that it could allow for more unique site development, like the one shown in Figure 5.1. However, unique design options like the one shown can create issues with access and utilities. Currently, the subdivision regulations require all residential lots to have a public street and utility access. The R-6 Infill Zoning District might allow for lots to be created without direct public street frontage, as long as adequate utility and access easements are provided. These options would only be possible on a wider infill lot with an established alley. COMPARISON This development is a non-traditional form not found in Hutchinson nor in much of Kansas. Larger cities, like Portland and Nashville, have allowed similar layouts for infill development. The Portland Infill Design Toolkit, as well as the Hutchinson Infill Housing Study conducted by graduate students from the University of Kansas, provide multiple design options that would stretch the flexibility of our current zoning and subdivision regulations. With these designs in mind, it is important to assure access and utilities are properly provided for. RECOMMENDATION The district will need to include access and utility provisions. The subdivision regulations will also require revisions to accommodate the
Easements protect utilities and stormwater drainage from being harmed or tampered with.
10’
10’
Required access easement Required utility easement
Figure 5.1 Required easements for a two-family design layout. All housing units will be required to have access to utilties and public right-of-ways. 9
recommendations. The required easements are recommended to occur on an as-needed basis and will not require replatting the subdivision.
ISSUE #6: “Parking standards that fit the needs and space provided in established neighborhoods.” DISCUSSION Current parking standards developments are as follows: Single-family detached Single-family attached Two-family- townhomes Multi-family
for
residential
2 spaces per dwelling unit 2 spaces per dwelling unit 2 spaces per dwelling unit 1 space per dwelling unit
Strategy S.1.7.a.5. of the 2017-2037 Hutchinson Comprehensive Plan supports revising existing parking standards that meet the needs of both vehicles and pedestrians. Reducing the parking standard for residential uses may not directly benefit pedestrians but may promote residential development on properties that are smaller in size and lacking in space. In addition to making more “room” on tight lots, reducing the standard can make these projects more cost-effective.
Utilities to houses are placed within easements. Knowing where to locate utilities is important for infill development. As the image shows, each house has and needs its own access.
The City’s maximum front yard paving requirement also creates many nonconforming lots. The current standard, 40%, is fine for most suburban, residential lots. However, when the total front yard area is only 300 square feet, the 40% rule would allow 120 square feet of the front yard to be paved. Since the minimum parking stall requirement (9 ft. by 18 ft.) requires 162 square feet of paving, this leaves homeowners having to utilize their side yard or rear yard for parking. However, as previously discussed many infill lots are too narrow to allow for access by vehicles along the sides. If the standard was increased to 60% for this zoning district, the allowed paving for the front yard in the example would be 180 square feet, which is ample room for one parking space. While reducing parking standards will help alleviate building costs, parking on residential 10
Front yard parking for a townhouse development.
properties can be dangerous when accessed from the alley. Except for the five-foot rear-yard setback required for all accessory structures, there are no setback requirements for residential driveways accessing the City’s alleys. This creates a safety issue when vehicles are backing out of a garage with only a five-foot clearance before entering the alley right-of-way. To avoid potential accidents due to poor visibility, the City should explore alternative driveway access styles. A possible solution would be to require all new driveways leading from alleyways to garages or carports to have a minimum driveway length of 10 feet (Figure 6.1). A second option for properties with limited rear yards would be to rotate the garage door or carport 90 degrees so they face the side of the property, as shown to the right. This allows cars a turning radius that is located on their property and out of the right-of-way. COMPARISON The standard for most communities is 2 spaces per dwelling unit for single-family development. In cities with older housing stock, such as Lawrence, Kansas City and Wichita, the standard is less. Most cities have more flexibility for developments with more than one unit.
Number Avenue
10’
x
3’
Alley
3’
Figure 6.1 Potential garage layouts that meet the proposed driveway access requirements off of alleyways.
The table lists the parking standards for comparative communities in Kansas: City Hutchinson, KS Lawrence, KS Manhattan, KS Overland Park, KS Wichita, KS Salina, KS Kansas City, KS
Single-Family, Detached 2 1.5 2 2 1 2 1
Minimum Parking Standard Per Dwelling Unit Single-Family, Two-Family / Multi-Family Attached Townhomes 2 2 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 2 2 1 per bedroom 2 2 Formula based on # of bedrooms 1 1 Formula based on # of bedrooms 2 2 2 1 1 1
11
RECOMMENDATION Revise the minimum parking standards for the R-6 Infill Residential Zoning District as follows: Single-family detached Single-family attached Two-family/townhomes Multi-family ADUs
1 space per dwelling unit 1 space per dwelling unit 1 space per dwelling unit 1 space per dwelling unit 1 additional space per unit
The maximum front yard paving standard should be increased from 40% to 60% in the R-6 Infill Residential Zoning District. For head-in driveways accessing a garage or carport from an alley, a minimum of 10 feet will be required unless a turnaround is installed. No changes are recommended to the current paving requirements for residential properties.
Number Avenue 3’ side-yard setback
5 spaces at 1 per unit
18’ 24’
24’
15’ front-yard setback
9’
Alley
Figure 6.2 Potential parking layout for a townhouse development in the R-6 Infill District.
ISSUE #7: “Accessory structure regulations that meet the proposed changes in the R-6 District.” DISCUSSION All residential properties within Hutchinson are permitted to have accessory structures. However, most homeowners on smaller lots face challenges building new accessory structures. If homeowners have an existing accessory structure, it is likely that the structure is nonconforming. To allow property owners to continue using their nonconforming accessory structure, the City revised the accessory structure regulations in 2016. The revised regulations allow a homeowner to update or replace their existing accessory structure without having to seek a zoning variance as long as the structure remains in the original footprint. While this has addressed the issue of maintaining existing accessory structures, it does not address building new ones or expanding an existing structure. If side-yard setbacks for accessory structures were reduced to 3 feet, like the principal structure, then many of the nonconforming garages and sheds 12
Building new or adding on to accessory structures can be difficult in the revitalization area.
RECOMMENDATION Revise side and rear yard accessory structure accessory structure setbacks for the proposed R-6 Zoning District:
R-6 Zoning District
Side Street Front 7.5 feet
Number Avenue No accessory buidlings in front
3’
Proposed Addition
Rear
3’ Setback
3 feet
3 feet
Property Lines
ISSUE #8: “Promote inclusion and affordability as well as designing cohesive neighborhood design.”
50’
Existing Building
Side
While the proposed rear-yard setback is 3 feet, the driveway requirements referenced in Issue 6 still apply.
3’
165 ’
could be brought into conformance or create more room for building a new structure. See Figure 7.1. Accessory structures would still have to meet the five-foot separation requirement from any other structure, a regulation already in place. Should the proposed structure be closer than six feet to a neighboring structure, fire protection as required by the Building Code shall be provided.
Driveway
Alley
3’
Figure 7.1 The detached garage is a nonconforming single car garage that does not provide adequate room for today’s cars/needs. The exemption allows for the homeonwer to rebuild but not expand. By amending the regulations the homeowner can rebuild and expand their garage to provide adequate space.
INCLUSION
Zoning regulations are designed to keep incompatible uses separate from one another. For example, zoning districts designed for single-family housing will typically not allow heavier uses like strip malls, apartment complexes or oil refineries because most homeowners buy a house with the expectation of lower traffic and less noise. Pairing a low-impact land use with another that has a relatively higher impact could be detrimental to the property values and quality of life. In most cases, single-family and multi-family uses are separated either by keeping them in separate zoning districts or by requiring a higher level of review before approving multi-family developments. Some of Hutchinson’s older neighborhoods were developed prior to the establishment of usebased zoning, and they often contain a wider
Prototype for a small infill multi-family development designed by Architecture students at the University of Kansas. 13
mix of uses. Zoning regulations have created many nonconforming properties and limits the potential to expand. Because of relatively lower property values in these neighborhoods, singlefamily infill development is often not a financially viable option for developers. Supporting smaller multi-family projects in these neighborhoods with design requirements will simplify the development review process and allow infill projects to pencil out. RECOMMENDATION # 1 & 2 Make smaller multi-family developments permitted by right in the Infill Zoning District.
Promoting smaller, multi-family developments that are designed to blend into surrounding neighborhoods can be a viable option for infill development.
Place design requirements on multi-family projects (parking, screening, etc.) that would mitigate impacts on surrounding properties.
DEFINITIONS
Another issue with the City’s current zoning regulations relates to the definition of household. Households have changed in modern times and no longer look like a “traditional” mother, father and child family unit. In fact, Hutchinson’s definition of families and households is “an individual or two or more persons related by blood, adoption or marriage, or a group of not more than four persons (including servants) not related by blood or marriage, living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit.” This definition would not meet the reality of families or households today. Most zoning ordinances distinguish between single-family and multifamily based on the more traditional definition of “household.” Instead of trying to regulate household size in the zoning regulations, the City can prevent overcrowding of housing units by applying the building and fire code occupancy requirements. Under federal law, cities cannot discriminate against protected classes because they don’t meet the traditional definition of household. By simply changing the definition of household and families to match the HUD recommended definition, the City will ensure the inclusion of 14
Household definitions should not exclude people, rather including as many different families.
all household types and conform with federal regulations. Additionally, certain residential uses are the primary housing for individuals who are protected by Fair Housing Law. The City cannot treat these uses differently than single-family residences. RECOMMENDATION # 3 & 4 Amend the household definition to “one or more individuals who live together in a single housekeeping unit” and have the family definition reference household. Allow zoning by right of uses that house persons classified as a “protected class” according to federal regulations.
NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN: MATERIALS
When the City Council adopted the current Zoning Regulations in 2011, more emphasis was placed on aesthetics. They included regulations that required residential developments to meet certain “neighborhood character” standards. While this move was well-intended, the new “neighborhood character” requirements have placed barriers on property owners in older neighborhoods looking to invest in their property. The neighborhood character requirement makes homeowners match building materials for accessory structures with the materials that are on the house. However, since the requirement is relatively new, metal structures are already prevalent in existing neighborhoods, often confusing property owners hoping to build a new accessory structure. Another issue that Planning Staff commonly hears when they are working with the public is that prefabricated metal accessory structures are more affordable to build than wood-framed buildings. The average cost per square foot to construct a metal shed is approximately $14. A wood structure can range from $18 to $23 per square foot. While those numbers may vary by season or region, metal structures are consistently more affordable. Overland Park and Olathe have a neighborhood character requirement similar to Hutchinson’s. Most comparison communities are silent on what materials are required for accessory structures.
Requiring new structures and additions to match existing, elaborate designs can be difficult and costly.
New metal sheds provide an affordable option to homeowners with limited resources. Regulating the condition of the material can mitigate the fear of insuperior materials being placed in neighborhoods. 15
RECOMMENDATION # 5 Remove Neighborhood Character requirement for the R-6 Infill Zoning District for accessory structures, allowing new metal as a suitable building material for accessory structures.
NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN: REQUIREMENTS
For new residential structures in the R-6 Infill District, the neighborhood character requirement can be expanded to make sure new development matches the existing aesthetics of the neighborhood. Components, such as street trees and sidewalks, are very common in neighborhoods affected by the proposed change. Currently, the Zoning Regulations do not require street trees or sidewalks with infill development where those components already exist. While these two components can add cost to the development, the City has historically made an effort to help fund both. The Hutchinson Tree Board has an annual allocation to fund street tree installation in the City. In addition, the City has consistently found ways to assist in funding sidewalk repair and installation projects for lower income neighborhoods. To facilitate a wider array of housing types, the City is working on a concurrent project to amend the City’s use table. Tiny houses, ADUs and manufactured homes are all affordable alternatives to typical housing options, and are proposed for inclusion. However, without some design criteria placed on these alternative housing styles, they will likely be incompatible with the housing styles in older neighborhoods. The Use Table Revisions include design criteria for all new proposed housing types to ensure they match the surrounding housing architectural styles and maintain the integrity of the neighborhood.
Sidewalks and street trees are common in older neighborhoods. Promoting the inclusion of these features can help blend new construction into older surroundings.
Affordable housing types, like manufactured units or tiny houses, don’t have to stand out. Design elements can be added to blend into surroundings.
RECOMMENDATION # 6, 7 & 8 Promote the replacement or installation of sidewalks and street trees with infill development where appropriate. Amend programs for street trees and sidewalks to place priority on infill projects.
16
Unique development layouts can provide an interesting living experience, but regulations should be included to ensure the inhabitants of these unique units still have access to roads and utilties.
Create design criteria for new housing types proposed in the Use Table Revision.
AFFORDABILITY
The City has studied the actual cost of housing development, specifically infill construction, for some time. Based on comments from housing developers and the Infill Study conducted by students at the University of Kansas, the approximate minimum price per square foot is $120 for new construction. To build a modest 1,000 square foot home, the cost would be $120,000 regardless of location. The issue for infill housing is the appraisal capacity. The building cost gap is discussed in Issue #4. However, density alone may not always resolve the financial barriers to infill development, especially in neighborhoods with very low property values. To assist with the cost of development in these neighborhoods, the City offers a few incentives. The Neighborhood Revitalization Plan offers a rebate in taxes for the increase in property value that may be incurred from a project, located south of 11th Avenue. The Residential Infill Incentive Program reduces the building permit fee and eliminates sewer and water tap fees for these projects. However, the Residential Infill Incentive Program is not well utilized. A few modifications may make this program more enticing to developers. RECOMMENDATION # 9 Amend the Residential Infill Incentive to include the following changes: 1. Open the incentive to all residential developments (not just single-family). 2. Allow for administrative approval of the applications as opposed to City Council approval. 3. Place a cap of $5,000 on Building Permit fees.
17
CONCLUSION & FINAL RECOMMENDATION
Most of the City’s older neighborhoods were developed with narrow, rectangular lots that were 50 feet or less in width. This platting style reflects traditional development patterns where houses were narrower, set relatively close to the property line and oftentimes twostory. Garages were typically an afterthought or converted carriage houses. In either case, garage access was normally from the rear of the property via an alley, if a garage was part of the equation at all. This development pattern went on for decades until the 1960s and 1970s, when most cities in the United States did complete overhauls of their zoning regulations and adopted more suburban development standards. These suburban standards included lots that were wider and had larger setbacks. Room was included for attached garages, which had become a norm of residential development by that time. Unfortunately, adoption of these suburban codes threw many existing neighborhoods, which largely predated the regulations by close to 100 years, into nonconformance. Since nonconforming uses cannot be expanded, there was little opportunity for residents of older neighborhoods to make improvements (adding on a room or garage, for instance), as the code precluded such improvements. Hutchinson’s zoning regulations are no exception to what has occured throughout the United States, with largely suburban residential stardards. This is evidenced by Map 1 which illustrates the areas of the City that were platted with 50 foot or narrower lots. Most of this development is located south of 11th Avenue, although there are a few residential areas on the north side of 11th that have narrower lots. RECOMMENDATION The R-6 Infill Residential area be established for all residentially zoned property located south of 11th Avenue , east of the Cow Creek Canal and west of Superior Street. The proposed zoning district boundaries are included in Map 2.
18