10/15/23 - How to Pay Lip Service to Density Pt. 3

So we talked about how the proposed code hamstrings density. And we saw first hand an example of how that looks. Where do we go from here? What could we be doing better? There are really two overarching categories that the zoning controls, and one big change that it does not. Out of our control is the exemption of 3+ story townhouses from the sprinkler requirement of the IRC. The state absolutely has to look at fixing this. Unfortunately, that's outside the scope of the ZAP or what Rochester can do for itself. 

As for the two major things the zoning does control, they are geometry and programming.

Geometry

The category of geometry covers setbacks, lot sizes, and other building envelope categories. There are a number of critical things that the code could be doing here to encourage housing options, affordability, and density:

1. Reduce side setbacks to 5'/5' to normalize with building code requirements.

2. Allow for significantly great variance in frontage requirements. In the current code, attached single family homes are allowed on 30' wide lots. That allows for 4 units to be built in place of 3 existing 40' city lots. The new code would usually only allow for a reduction to 32' wide lots, and would not allow for additional units in the same space.

3. Greatly increase the allowed lot coverage. Currently, in R-3, once a building is multifamily, it has no lot coverage requirements at all. That's not the case in the equivalent High Density Residential (HDR) zone in the new code. Splitting coverage between buildings and impervious surfaces is a bad idea that had been removed from the current code and is now back. It should remain gone.

4. Clarify the rules around townhouses. Currently it is open to interpretation if townhouses would ever be allowed anywhere in the city, let alone narrow ones.

Programming

Programming entails the actual bits of what is allowed on a lot. I'm lumping how they're allowed into this category as well.

1. Reduce or eliminate residential parking requirements. Currently they are basically 1+ per unit, depending on unit size and configuration. Apartments still require more parking than equivalent single family homes, even though apartment occupancy is known to be lower than houses. 

2. Increase the thresholds for both internal bike parking and required electric car charging stations beyond the level of small, infill apartment buildings. In the new code, all buildings over 2500sf are required to provide permanent interior bike parking, and all parking lots no matter the size are required to provide some amount of electric vehicle charging.

3. Eliminate site plan reviews for multifamily buildings under the same threshold of 20,000sf that all other building types have. Increase this threshold.

4. Revisit the rules for pocket neighborhoods to adopt a more sane set of regulations around them. Some basic forensics suggest that the current rules were lifted directly from TABLE 0.00.000(A) of the Housing Partnership's 2001 guide to drafting a cottage housing ordinance. Except the requirements grafted into the ZAP were in relation to existing 10,000sf minimum lot sizes, when Rochester's built form is over twice that dense already. At a minimum, if we're to use this model code, we should be taking the dimensional requirements for existing 5,000sf minimum lot sizes.

5. Allow ADUs in all zones in the city. Currently they are not allowed in Low Density Residential, even though these are the exact areas of the city that would most benefit from the gentle addition of unit variation and affordability that ADUs bring.