10/9/23 - How to Pay Lip Service to Density Pt. 1

I'm going to get right into it: one of the most galling things of the new zoning is how it purports to allow additional density in residential zones, as strongly supported in Rochester 2034, but then uses the zoning equivalent of fine print to allow no such thing. A great deal of words have been spilled over the increased area of Medium Density Residential (MDR) and High Density Residential (HDR) zones vis-a-vis a comparable reduction in Low Density Residential (LDR) zones. This purportedly allows more density.

The briefest read of the code would tell you that 1-4 family homes are now allowed of-right in MDR and HDR districts with no minimum lot sizes. This is, on its face, a big change from the current zoning code, where 2-family homes are allowed of-right in R-2 (MDR), but only on a minimum lot size of 6,000sf (where most lots in the city are 4,000sf). R-3 (HDR) is too complicated with regard to lot sizes to describe here, but please trust me when I say that it has them, and they're not exactly small.

At this point, one might think, problem solved and we can all move on with our lives - density:allowed. Except it's not that easy. For reasons that are not enumerated, the ZAP does a number of things that create serious drag on actually adding any density. 

Now to bury the lead - the remainder of this article is going to list all of the little bits and bobs that will make density difficult to achieve. Part 2 is going to look at a couple lots in the city and show real world examples of what is (and is not) achievable. Part 3 is going to cover how we think the code could better encourage residential density; the stated preference of the comp plan.

Because of the split nature of this article, the list of of issues here will not cover any proposed fixes to the code. And I'm sorry in advance that for some of them, the fix will be immediately obvious. To help working through the code on your own, this list is in chronological order of the first appearance of the issue.

• Pocket neighborhoods are a specially permitted use in all districts they are allowed (Table 3-1).

• ADUs are not allowed in LDR (Table 3-1).

• Pocket Neighborhood regulations require lower density than the existing density in the city (3.3.M).

• Nearly all of table 4.1, including:

  • Maintaining frontage requirements pegged to existing block frontages. This also has the unfortunate consequence of attached single family homes being generally less dense in the new zoning code than in the current one.

  • Requiring townhouses be 20' wide.

  • Maximum building coverage allowed in all districts. Including building and impervious coverage being bifurcated again, when the current code (correctly) did away with the differentiation years ago.

  • Continuing to require 15' combined side setbacks.

• Overly large minimum units sizes for residential conversions in LDR and MDR, as well as the requirement for a use variance if those unit sizes aren't met (13.2.C).

• Minimum lot size requirements for residential conversions, when minimum lot sizes have otherwise been eliminated (13.2.C).

• Maintaining minimum parking requirements for residential uses (15.3.B).

• Requiring a site plan review for all multi-family development and the same for residential conversions (20.5.D.1.a.ix and xi).

• Requiring a site plan review for 3 and 4 family developments depending on the street typology (20.5.D.1.a.xvi)

• The rules for measuring lot frontages of townhouses would seem to preclude building townhouses of right on a normal block that does not already have townhouses on it (24.4.J). By our quick count, that's nearly everywhere.