Zoning for Group Housing Developments

Download original report (pdf)

Garden apartments, group housing and community unit developments are becoming increasingly common throughout the country, in large and small cities alike. This new approach to community building which treats as a total unit a development much larger than the individual structure on the individual lot requires a new and different treatment in zoning ordinances so that the goals of residential amenity attainable through zoning — such as daylight and sunlight, air circulation, a sense of space and openness, privacy and quiet for the individual family, easy access to community and shopping facilities, adequate provision for automobile parking — may still be assured without sacrificing creative and imaginative planning.

Zoning regulations for residential buildings, as they have evolved through the years, have traditionally established an envelope within which a structure of a specified type for a specified use could be constructed and maintained. This envelope was defined by the minimum lot size and frontage, the setback requirements, the side and rear-yard specifications, the height limitation, etc. Given the street pattern and the subdivision of an area into regularly shaped plats, the pattern of community development was determined. Buildings were spaced with a rigid uniformity as builders attempted to minimize expenses by conforming to the minimum provisions of the ordinance, rather than achieving individuality and variation through the allowance of more liberal space. Any deviation from the rigid pattern meant additional money.

The envelope concept of zoning is perhaps unavoidable where an area is developed by many individual owners and builders, and where there is no over-all plan governing development in addition to the zoning ordinance. Density can be indirectly controlled through the proper application of the zoning ordinance.

Recognition that desirable goals of residential amenity could be achieved by a large-scale developer through occasional deviations from the rigid pattern established by the zoning ordinance led to the granting of discretionary powers to the planning commission in the acceptance of subdivision plats. Although the zoning ordinance is binding on the developer, deviation may be permitted where he can prove that there would be no loss, and possibly a gain to the community from such deviation. This reasoning is now being extended to group-housing developments in many zoning ordinances.

The zoning ordinance is not a static thing. A city changes, people's wants and standards change, technology changes, building methods and practices change. Revisions in the zoning ordinance are necessary to take advantage of the desirable aspects of these changes and to guard against malpractices. A community development project of rental housing planned at one time by one firm and held in single ownership is different from older patterns of town development and requires a commensurate change in the zoning ordinance. The formulators of the proposed Zoning Ordinance for New York City have recognized that:

"The character and essential values of a low-density neighborhood depend on control of building bulk and general openness, not on specification of building types; that it is increasingly difficult, if not already impossible, to write the residential provisions of a zoning ordinance in terms of building types, or to predict the exact combinations of building types best suited to given areas; that modern controls will protect the occupants of every type of dwelling, at the same time being adaptable to new building forms as they may develop."

The major problems with which the zoning ordinance will be concerned are:

In what zone or zones should a community development project properly be placed?

What standard of density should be required, and how can this density standard be written into the ordinance — through lot area per family; families per acre; floor area ratios; etc.?

How can we encourage flexibility and imagination in site development plans while still controlling the standards of liveability?

How much discretion should be granted to the planning commission, or board of appeals in judging the plans of developers? How much detail as to design should be written into the ordinance itself?

What other parts of community development should be controlled through the group-housing provisions, and what standards should be used? For example, what provisions should be made for accessory uses, for off-street parking, for neighborhood shopping?

Types of Multiple Unit Developments

The major characteristics of multiple-unit developments as we shall discuss them here are that they provide rental housing for many families, consist of more than one structure (which distinguishes them from apartment houses), and that they occupy a tract of considerable size which is held in single ownership. They may be of either high or low density. They may be elevator apartments or two-story row houses, etc.

The type which will concern us most throughout is the garden-apartment development, 200,000 dwelling units of which have been constructed within the past fifteen years. The garden-apartment has been defined by the Federal Housing Administration in 1939 as "two- and three-story apartments having a land coverage of not more than 25 per cent, and a family density of not more than 20 per acre." In twelve years the concept has not changed basically. Garden apartments are generally not over two stories in height, have low land coverage and low density, carefully grouped service facilities, off-street parking facilities, etc. In a well-planned garden-apartment project, the site layout is designed to take advantage of the open space by grouping it into unbroken areas and by arranging the apartments and rooms within the apartments so as to give easy access to this open space.

Departures from the garden-apartment concept, or variations of it, include developments consisting of apartment buildings of heights in excess of three stories, rowhouses, duplexes and single-family dwellings, all combined to yield an average land coverage and density pattern in conformity with that of the garden apartment. Where there is a combination of many of these building types and where the development is large enough to include neighborhood shopping facilities, the development is often called a "community unit plan."

The garden apartment may be erected in small, self-contained units of only a few acres, or may be the characteristic building type in large-scale projects consisting of hundreds of dwelling units. A number of different names are applied to such areas and districts (see Table I). The character of the development is not always implied accurately in the title. The minimum size of area which may be included in one of these developments varies from three to five hundred families, and from one or two acres to fifty acres. A concept implicit in all of them is singleness of ownership or singleness of filing application to obtain the required permission from the zoning body.

TABLE I — DEFINITIONS AND MINIMUM AREAS TO WHICH PROVISIONS APPLY

In What Zone or Zones do Group Housing Developments Belong?

Most zoning ordinances with provisions for group housing consider it to be in the same class with conventional multiple-family dwellings. Therefore, garden apartments and the like are generally excluded from the "A" or "R-1" District (single-family dwelling district) and permitted only in the apartment dwelling zones. In many cases, their inclusion in even these zones is conditional and subject to special permission from the planning or zoning commission. When group dwellings are permitted in several classes of residential zones, it is sometimes the practice to specify a different density standard for each zone. For example, in the Cincinnati ordinance, which permits group or multiple dwellings in the B, C and D residence districts, the density permitted for group housing corresponds to the density allowed for the other residential uses in each separate zone. A proposed ordinance for Chicago Heights, Illinois, would permit such developments in 1-R, 1-RA, 2-R (residential districts), C-R (conversion multiple dwelling district), L-1 (limited industrial district in which are permitted only small and nuisance-free industries), and the M-R (multiple residence) districts. A sliding scale of permissive densities is established for each of these zones.

The exclusion of garden-apartments from single-family districts is not always warranted. A good group-housing development in a one-family residence district is certainly preferable to one-family houses on thirty or thirty-five foot lots with three-foot side yards. A great many single-family residence districts with so-called economy houses are far less attractive than a garden-apartment development of exactly the same density. From a planning point of view, the control of density and open space is, of course, paramount. But, as long as streets, community facilities, utilities and services will not be overloaded, there is no reason, planning-wise, for objecting to garden type developments. There are many advantages to such development. Families can be housed often less expensively and more comfortably in such developments than they could otherwise through the rental market. If density and land coverage are adequately controlled, there is no reason why garden apartments could not be permitted in all residence zones.

Some of the advantages of garden-type developments over conventional economy housing have been described by the developers of a project near Boston:

"The arrangement gives the maximum of privacy and quiet for the separate families that is possible in a multi-family development. Actually, it achieves more of these qualities than is possible in many single-family house developments. The deep entrance courts permit the great majority of the dwellings to be free from traffic noise. Each dwelling unit has its own main door from the entrance court."

There are a number of examples of well-planned, well-designed rental multiple-residence projects. The growing number of garden apartments reflects in part the trend toward an increasing acceptance of low-density rental property as a sound investment. Offsetting the increased unit cost of land involved in reduced densities of ten to twenty families per acre are the "reduced construction, maintenance and service costs in the lower density vertical unit." Reduced maintenance costs are made possible through the elimination of common halls and stairs and trash collection.

The suggestion has often been made that multiple-dwelling unit developments be placed in the city plan in such a position so as to form a buffer between the more restricted one-family district and the "lower" uses of land. Occasionally, it is used to separate a one-family district from a busy thoroughfare or from a shopping center. The Home Builders Manual suggests such a procedure. Although this should not be the governing principle in locating group-housing developments, they do represent a transitional form of housing between one-family residential use and multi-family residential use in terms of amenity.

Approval of Site Plan and Location by the Local Planning Body

Most zoning ordinances call for approval by the local planning or zoning body of the location and the site plan. However, the discretionary powers granted to the planning body vary in different communities from complete authority to accept or reject a proposed development to authority only to judge whether the proposed development does in fact conform to the standards already specified in the ordinance. Special characteristics of a community may lead to preference for a particular solution to the problem of discretion, but, as a general rule, we would say that the developer has a right to know what type of plan will meet with acceptance by the planning body, and a right to know within what areas of the city he may select his site. Granting complete authority to the zoning board to approve or disapprove aspects of physical design may be dangerous. Without rules to guide both the developer and the planning body, discretion for the purposes of flexibility may degenerate into capriciousness and whimsy.

Zoning may state the goals which the type of development is intended to achieve and then give the builder latitude within limits for accomplishing it. It is desirable that the zoning ordinance explicitly convey an idea of the purposes of such development in order that the goals may be achieved by any of the several methods which are available. A proposed ordinance for Chicago Heights, Illinois, does this:

"The dwelling group project is to be planned and developed as an integral unit, and plans for the project must be submitted for review and approval by the planning commission before the granting of a building permit."

"The intent of this section is to permit the construction of a garden-type group dwelling, whether of one-family, two-family, or multiple-family type construction in all residential districts, provided that the above requirements are met.

"To permit a more flexible placing of the buildings on the land, and to permit the grouping of open space and such accessory facilities as garages or parking spaces."

The idea of establishing a certain area in which a builder within limitations is allowed to proceed unhampered in the construction of a garden-type development is indicated briefly in the proposed San Francisco, California, Zoning Ordinance (1949):

"That the proposed development will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability; that it will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood; that it will not produce a volume of traffic in excess of the capacity for which the access streets are designed, and that standards of open space will be at least as high as permitted...."

Another typical zoning ordinance which with qualifications suspends the ordinary restrictions to allow for garden-type developments is that of Los Angeles, which states:

"Where the arrangement of buildings in a large-scale housing project does not conform in all respects to the height and area regulations of the zone in which the project is located, the commission, upon application, shall have authority to approve such arrangement of buildings on the site, if it finds that the plan of development is in substantial conformance with the requirements of the zone in which the project is located."

In addition, this ordinance provides for an optional public hearing by the commission in connection with a request for the approval of the site plan for such a large-scale housing project.

One method of dealing with group houses and garden apartments has been to give the planning commission, board of appeals, or the municipal legislative body the authority to approve or reject plans for such a development without specifically explaining in the ordinance the concept involved, or the specifications which should apply to the project. This has the advantage of giving greater flexibility, but at the same time, members of the approving body may not understand the purposes of such a provision, or the specifications needed to carry it out, and the developer has little guidance as to the type of development which will be "acceptable." Such a provision is that of the Rye, New York, Zoning Ordinance (June, 1949), which provides that "no building housing more than 10 families, and no group of buildings shall be erected on any lot unless a development plan for the entire lot has been approved by the planning commission in the same manner as prescribed for the approval of subdivisions..."

After providing a rather generous framework of specifications for garden-type apartments, the Hartford, Connecticut, ordinance gives additional latitude to the Board of Appeals for allowing variances for arrangement of buildings "if it finds that the variance will give equal or better light, air and privacy to buildings used for residence."

In ordinances where wide discretionary power is given to the planning agency or legislative body, it is not unusual to include such limitations as the following in the St. Louis, Missouri, Ordinance (1948):

"1. That the values of buildings and the character of the property adjacent to the area included in said plan will not be adversely affected.

"2. That said plan is consistent with the intent and purpose of this ordinance to promote public health, safety, morals, and general welfare.

"3. That the average lot area per family contained in the site exclusive of the area occupied by streets, shall not be less than the lot area per family required for the district in which the development is located."

In contrast to these provisions which grant almost unlimited discretionary powers to the planning body or board of appeals are those which specify standards for development in much greater detail. Here, the power of the board or commission is limited to the determination of whether or not the proposed plan meets the standards to the satisfaction of the approving body.

Among the more complete specifications for projects included in a zoning ordinance are those of Prince George's County, Maryland (November, 1949) for planned community residential zones. Although it is intended to provide for large-scale projects, it embodies features which could well be incorporated into ordinances providing for smaller garden-apartment developments. The Prince George's County Ordinance states the maximum density, minimum size, and includes the following detailed specifications:

"The area shall be large enough to permit the development of a complete community or neighborhood having a range of dwelling types; necessary local shopping facilities and off-street parking compounds; parks, playgrounds; and reservation of area therefor; and reservation for educational facilities, wherever these are deemed necessary, and for business and industry to provide local employment opportunities, if appropriately located and in harmony with the general plan."

"The area shall be adaptable to complete community development, being bounded by major thoroughfares, streets, railroads, or other external barriers, and, as far as possible, shall have within or through it no major thoroughfare or other physical feature which will tend to destroy the neighborhood or community cohesiveness...

"Areas used or reserved for large regional parks or parkways, land subject to recurring flood, swamp or marshland, and non-residential use, shall be excluded in computing the gross area."

Instructions to the applicant include the following:

"Together with the application for zoning reclassification of the area, there shall be submitted a tentative, over-all development plan which shall show:

1. Topography
2. Proposed street system
3. Proposed lot layout
4. Proposed reservations for parks, parkways, playgrounds, school sites, and other open spaces
5. Proposed location of neighborhood business area and off-street parking space
6. Types of dwellings and portions of the area proposed therefor
7. Proposed location of dwellings, garages and/or parking spaces
8. A tabulation of the total number of acres in the proposed project and the percentage thereof designated for each of the proposed dwelling types, neighborhood retail business, other non-residential uses, off-street parking, streets, parks, schools, and other reservations
9. A tabulation of over-all density per gross acre
10. Preliminary plans and elevations of the several dwelling types."

Instructions to the commission include the following;

"Upon receipt of application for zoning map amendment and accompanying plan, meeting the foregoing requirements, the same shall be taken under consideration by the Commission. The Commission shall consider the general plan for the community, the location, arrangement, and size of lots, parks, school sites and other reservations of open space; the location, width, and grade of streets, the location and arrangement of parking spaces; the location, arrangement, and height of building; the location, arrangement, and design of neighborhood business areas and accessory parking spaces; the gross densities proposed for the entire area; and such other features as shall contribute to the orderly and harmonious development of the area, with due regard to the character of the neighborhood and its peculiar suitability for any one or more of the proposed uses."

Standards for Development — Density

One of the basic standards which must be established by the zoning ordinance, even when the broadest discretionary powers are granted to the planning board, is the density of development. When the conventional or "envelope" type of zoning regulation are applied to a residential district, the density is determined and controlled indirectly. Where latitude in development is granted to the builder, there is a much greater need for direct and specific density control.

Other devices for controlling density besides the envelope type of regulation have been evolved for specifying standards in multiple-residence districts. These can be applied to group-housing developments as well. The simplest of these devices is a statement of the number of dwelling units per acre permitted in each zone. Another device is to require a minimum lot area for each family or each dwelling unit in the development. A further. refinement of this method is to require a minimum lot area for each dwelling unit, but to vary this requirement on the basis of dwelling unit size. This assumes that there will be a direct relation between the size of family (i.e., number of persons) and the size of dwelling unit.

Examples of zoning ordinances which employ these various devices are as follows:

Cincinnati, Ohio (amendment to the zoning ordinance passed January, 1950) utilizes the direct measure of density — families per acre. Group dwellings in "B" residence district may be developed at a density of 18 families per acre, those in the "C" residence district may have a density of 28 families per acre, whereas those in the "O" residence district have a permitted density of 50 families per acre.

Fulton County, Georgia, has a maximum of 16 dwelling units per net acre. Gross density is used by Prince George's County, Virginia, in stipulating that the overall density shall not exceed 8 dwelling units per gross acre. Nutley, New Jersey (preliminary draft of amendment) would limit density to "not more than-30 family units for each area."

Zoning ordinances which specify the minimum lot area per family are most common. The typical provision for multi-family districts is 2,500 square feet per family, although this standard varies for different cities and for different areas within cities. The Hartford, Connecticut, ordinance (1945) requires 4,000 square feet per family. In the group-housing section of the proposed zoning ordinance (1950) for Greensboro, North Carolina, minimum lot areas for two-family building types must be calculated on the basis of 4,000 square feet per family. For row houses of three or more units, an allowance of 3,600 square feet per dwelling unit is required. For two or more story multi-family apartments. 2,500 square feet per dwelling unit is required.

Some zoning ordinances which distinguish between dwelling units of different sizes are those of Los Angeles, California; Fairfax County and Norfolk, Virginia. The Los Angeles zoning ordinance (1945) establishes three residence districts in which apartments accommodating more than two families are permitted. The required lot area per dwelling unit is computed according to the following formula:

Fairfax County, Virginia, which permits group housing in all districts as a conditional use, establishes the following minimum lot area requirements in its zoning ordinance of March, 1949:

The Norfolk, Virginia, ordinance (January, 1950) establishes a somewhat higher density for its R-4 zone by the same device:

In zoning ordinances where density provisions are made in the body of the ordinance, the most common method of establishing densities for group housing is to require that the density of the project shall not be greater than the density of the district in which it is located, or phrased conversely that the minimum lot area per family shall not be less than that ordinarily required in the district in which the project is located. There are variations on this theme:

Detroit, Michigan:

"The yard spaces to be provided ... shall be subject to the approval of the commission as providing an amount of open space equivalent to that required in the district in which the plot is located, and providing for the proper relationship to the area surrounding such group-housing development."

Mattoon, Illinois:

"...The area of the tract, excluding street area, but including the area to be devoted to parks, parkways, and other urban spaces, will provide the minimum lot area per family, counting all families to be housed under the Unit Development Plan which is required for the district in which such development is to be located."

San Francisco, California:

"...That the total ground area provided for all dwelling units be located on the site, exclusive of the area occupied by streets, will not be less than 90 per cent of the aggregate lot area required for the same number of dwelling units of equivalent sizes in the district in which such development is to be located ..."

Provisions such as these may render uneconomical the building of garden apartments in certain family districts where, for example, the density for the garden apartments would have to be as low as one dwelling unit per acre. By this device it is not even necessary to forbid the erection of garden apartments in estate and extremely low density single-family districts: the developer of rental property could simply not afford to locate his buildings in such districts.

Cleveland has a provision which is not a direct measure of density, but attempts to insure adequate space:

"The private yards adjacent to the individual buildings for the use and care of each family in a dwelling house or row-house development shall not be less than 1,000 sq. ft. exclusive of the space occupied by the house itself ... No yard or other open space provided about any building for the purpose of complying with the provisions of these regulations shall again be considered as the yard or other open space of any other building."

Thus, no area may be shared as a yard by two buildings.

Density provisions for group housing vary widely between cities. Some idea of the magnitude of these variations can be gotten from Table II, which presents a summary of density and other characteristics of a selected group of housing developments. Table III presents density specifications for garden apartments in certain suburban communities in the New York region. Table IV demonstrates the range of densities permitted in a typical zoning ordinance, that of Hartford, Connecticut. Density goals for Philadelphia in 1980 are presented in Table V.

TABLE II — NET DENSITY AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS — EXISTING PROJECTS

TABLE III — DENSITIES IN ZONING ORDINANCES

TABLE IV — RANGE OF ALLOWABLE DENSITIES IN HARTFORD, CONN.

TABLE V — DENSITY GOALS FOR PHILADELPHIA, 1980

Not many group housing projects attain the low density (5 dwellings per acre) and the low land coverage (1.36 per cent) of a public housing project in Plymouth, Massachusetts. Another public housing project with similar characteristics of .195 families per net acre and coverage of 6.13 per cent is equally rare. At the opposite extreme is the controversial Parkchester project in New York City. This project, which is one of the largest in the United States, has a density of approximately 90 families per acre. The well-known "608" type of project has generally had a density of between 20 and 25 dwelling units per acre. Gross densities of between 10 and 15 families per acre are characteristic of certain recent large rental projects.

Standards for Development — Land Coverage

Density provisions combined with land coverage partially determine the physical plan of the development. For garden apartments, the permissible land coverage in zoning ordinances ranges between 25 and 35 per cent of the total development area, sometimes with the additional requirement that only usable land (that not in marshland, swamp, or unusable for any other reason), be included in calculating coverage. In group-housing developments where the building type is not confined to the two-story, low density type, it will be desirable to require even less land coverage. Standards for land coverage based on the number of stories are given in Planning the Neighborhood. (See bibliography.)

Standards for Development — The Design of the Project

Even if the developer meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance with respect to density and land coverage, there is no assurance that his site plan will achieve the goals set forth for group-housing developments. The limitations of density figures and their role in the site plan are well presented in Planning the Neighborhood.

"It must be recognized that density figures, no matter how accurately computed, are a crude index of the design quality of a site plan. Being rigid mathematical ratios for relatively large areas, they cannot properly reflect all factors of design. For example, suitable average densities for large tracts of land will not necessarily insure that buildings are not crowded together in some parts of the development area. The amount of open space established by density standards has limited meaning unless that space is properly distributed and designed for usability.

"Good design practice can provide adequate open space for all outdoor functions of family life at relatively high densities, On the other hand, poor site planning may create land crowding and lack of usable open space, even at low densities. In addition to meeting density standards, therefore, residential areas must also comply with all standards for spacing of structures, orientation and other features of site layout..."

Since this is true, it will be wise to include more detailed specifications in the ordinance than simply density and coverage requirements. Some provisions should be made to guide the spacing of buildings, the dimensions of courts, the grouping of structures and open space, etc. In addition, the zoning ordinance may include specific suggestions as to the inclusion of community recreation and shopping facilities, and may even attempt to stimulate "interesting" as opposed to monotonous site planning. Just as the envelope type of zoning very definitely influences the physical layout of the community as well as the individual buildings, so also will these provisions and physical standards affect the type of site plan which can be developed. The goal which should be kept in mind when establishing these standards and their degree of detail will be that of combining public control over the health, safety and welfare aspects of the community with maximum freedom for the developer to design new, different, and even experimental projects.

Yards and Setbacks

Yard provisions specifying the dimensions of front, side and rear yards are quite difficult to apply to group housing without loss in flexibility. The ordinance of King, California (1947) requires that dwelling groups (structures on one lot) conform to the following yard requirements: in front-to-back buildings, a distance of fifteen feet between buildings and a side yard of at least eight feet; in single row side-to-side buildings, at least eight feet between buildings, five feet for the side yard to the rear and sixteen feet for the side yard to the front; in multiple-row side-to-side buildings, at least eight feet between buildings, five feet for the side yard to the rear and 20 feet for the court between the rows.

An attempt is made in the zoning ordinance of Antioch, California (1950) to adapt side, front and rear-yard requirements to the needs of group housing in the following manner:

"The following requirements and exceptions shall apply to dwelling groups:

1. The front of one dwelling shall not face upon the rear of another.
2. A required side yard may serve as a rear yard for individual dwellings in a group, provided its width is increased one foot for each dwelling unit rearing thereon.
3. A required side yard may serve as a front yard for individual dwellings in a group, provided its width is at least twice the required width of the side yard to the rear, with a minimum of 16 feet for such front yard.
4. Dwellings comprising a group may face one another across a court, provided the width of such court is at least 2 1/2 times the average required widths of the two side yards, with a minimum of 25 feet for such court.
5. One dwelling in a group may rear upon the side of another, provided the distance between them is at least 25 feet.
6. The minimum distance between the side of dwellings in a group shall be 8 feet.
7. All other front, side, and rear-yard requirements, building site requirements, and height regulations, for the district in which such group is located, shall apply to the lot as a whole."

It is not uncommon to find provisions for a setback from the street line of up to 60 feet in some ordinances. In addition, some cities have found it desirable to specify the maximum distance from the street permitted for any dwelling unit. In the proposed Greensboro ordinance, for example, the provision is made that "Every entrance to any building shall be located within 250 feet of some street or access drive." A provision taking into consideration the need for fire protection is included in the Cincinnati ordinance:

"No part of any such building erected or structurally altered shall be more than 400 feet distant from a fire hydrant capable of furnishing an adequate water supply for fire-fighting purposes as defined by the National Board of Fire Underwriters. All such fire hydrants shall be located not more than 8 feet from a roadway capable of supporting any fire apparatus of the fire department of the City of Cincinnati."

Separation Between Buildings — Courts

Separation between buildings is controlled by the following clause in the Greensboro ordinance: "In no case shall any part of a building be located closer than 20 feet to any part of another building." Usually, there is a distinction made between spacing from the buildings adjacent and spacing from the buildings opposite across the court. Montclair, New Jersey, requires a width of the court equivalent to 2 1/2 times the average height of the opposite walls. The corresponding figure in the Nutley, New Jersey ordinance is 1 1/2 times, or 150 per cent of the average height of the buildings. The group dwellings provision of Hartford's ordinance requires in the A-3 Residence District that each building "face for the full length of its front facade either upon an existing street, or upon an open space, which in its least dimension, shall not be less than 75 feet." The Home Builders' Manual points out a comparison between the width of a court, and the distance between units facing each other on opposite sides of a street. "Court widths of less than 80 to 100 feet are seldom satisfactory, especially where living quarters are opposite. The depths of courts should normally not be substantially greater than 1 1/2 times their width."

Length of Facade

Monotony of wall length and excessively long facades are prevented in some ordinances. The proposed New York City zoning ordinance would restrict buildings in row-house or garden-apartment developments to 100 feet in length when they are within 70 feet of the street. The maximum facade in Montclair, New Jersey, is 160 feet, or if the building fronts on a street, 100 feet. Evanston does not permit row houses containing more than eight dwelling units in one structure. Even more stringent regulations are imposed by a few communities which restrict the number of dwelling units in any row-house structure to no more than three. Occasionally, where such provisions are made, exceptions are permitted allowing up to six dwelling units per structure when the development is a large one, provided that only one structure out of every four or five is of this variety.

Location of Open Space and the Orientation of Buildings

Whereas most zoning ordinances include density and land coverage requirements in their provisions, there are relatively few which include detailed specifications as to orientation and placement of buildings. Two examples of ordinances which have such detailed provisions are those for Cincinnati, Ohio; and Greensboro, North Carolina. Each utilizes a different method tor enforcing a pattern of physical distribution, but both have the effect of predetermining large elements of the physical design.

In its zoning ordinance amendment of January 22, 1950, Cincinnati establishes a guide to orientation and spacing on the basis of what is termed the "exterior angle." This angle is defined as follows:

"At any outside corner of a building, draw lines in a horizontal plane at right angles to each of the building walls forming the corner. Then the space included between these two lines opposite the building is an 'exterior angle.'"

The ordinance requires a separation of buildings according to the following minimum distances:

"b. Except as permitted in (d) below, every point on the longer walls of any row house shall have a minimum distance of not less than 50 feet from the exterior wall of any other principal building in the group, and this minimum distance shall be increased four feet for every unit more than three units in a row."

"c. ...Except as permitted in (d) below, every principal building shall have at every point a minimum distance of not less than 30 feet from any other principal building in the group, and above the fourth story this minimum distance shall be increased 6 feet for each story."

An exception is made to these requirements in section (d) when two buildings are so located that each building falls entirely within an exterior angle of the other building. In such case,

"each building shall at every point be not less than 9 feet distant from the other building, Portions of one building may extend outside the exterior angle of the other building provided such portions satisfy all the requirements of (b) and (c) above."

The effect of this type of provision on the site plan of the developer should be obvious. It encourages a staggering of buildings, a court arrangement and a somewhat irregular placement of buildings, while discouraging the alignment of adjacent buildings and the parallel arrangement of row houses, back to back, or front to back. This may be seen more clearly from the following diagram.

The proposed revision of the zoning ordinance for Greensboro, North Carolina, (1950) would impose even more complex conditions on the developer with an even greater effect on the potential site plan of a development. The pertinent section of this ordinance reads as follows:

"Each wall of every building shall have a yard space in the shape of an isosceles triangle whose base shall be a line connecting the extreme ends of the wall and whose altitude shall be the length of the base line multiplied by a factor related to the height of building as given in the table below, provided that no triangular yard space shall have an altitude of less than 15 feet. The yard space thus established for one wall may not overlap the yard space for any other wall of the same or other building, not extend beyond any street, side or rear property line. Where parallel walls on the same side of a building are connected by walls less than 20 feet in length, a straight line connecting the extreme ends of the outer parallel walls shall be used as the base of the required triangular yard space. Any wall more than 20 feet in length shall be treated as a separate wall."

In tracing the effects of this type of requirement on the resulting site plans, the first thing we realize is that this ordinance would eliminate from the development certain types of building structure. For example, it would be impossible to construct a U-shaped apartment building several stories high, although this building form might, in certain cases, be permitted if restricted to one or two stories. Y-shaped buildings might conceivably be designed to meet these specifications, again, if limited severely in height to perhaps one story, but this building form would not be possible in high rises. A T-shaped building in which the shaft was extremely long and the cross-bar short might meet the triangular yard requirements, again if limited in height. The yard requirements are so calculated so that as the building height rises, the angle formed by any two exterior walls of less than 180 degrees must be more obtuse. More acute angles are permitted where the height of the building is lower.

Not only does this affect the type of building shapes which can be included in the development in relation to their height, but these provisions also help to encourage certain forms of site designs and building orientations and discourage others. Like the Cincinnati ordinance, these requirements would tend to permit row houses in closer proximity if they are staggered than if they are rigidly aligned.

Several other zoning ordinances attempt to specify features of the physical design. The preliminary draft of a zoning amendment covering regulation of garden apartments for Orange, New Jersey, would tend to encourage a development of a quite different nature than those stimulated by either the Greensboro or Cincinnati ordinances. The section on orientation states:

"All buildings, or groups of buildings, shall be oriented in an orderly pattern in relation to the side lines, street lines, and general characteristics of the neighborhood. Arbitrary diagonal patterns shall not be allowed."

Another type of ordinance provision which, without specifying yard requirements or spacing, would nevertheless greatly influence the type of site plan which the developer could submit is that contained in a preliminary draft of an amendment to the zoning ordinance of Nutley, New Jersey. Concerned with the broad grouping of open space and the over-all building distribution. it requires that:

"Buildings shall be so arranged or grouped as to have a reasonably widely spaced distribution over the entire parcel. This distribution shall be such that not more than 50 per cent of the area covered by buildings shall be within any area equal to one-third (1/3) of the area of the parcel."

An ordinance specifically designed to encourage, and even enforce a particular kind of site plan is that proposed for Ogden City, Utah, in 1950. Permitting group housing in the R-5 district, they require that these must meet the following requirements:

"1. The court shall be unoccupied by any buildings or other structures, except fire hydrants, utility poles, or other street improvements.

"2. The court shall have an unobstructed opening, not less than thirty (30) feet wide, onto the front yard of a lot which has width not less than that required for a lot in the District in which it is located.

"3. The minimum dimension of the court shall be thirty (30) feet and the minimum area shall be nine hundred (900) square feet.

"4. All dwelling structures of the dwelling group, except those facing a public street, shall face upon the court.

"5. The minimum distance between any two of the dwelling structures on a court shall be ten (10) feet."

The Sioux Falls, South Dakota, ordinance (proposed 1950) would exert control over the distribution of buildings and open spaces through the provision that

"open space between buildings that are parallel or within forty-five (45) degrees of being parallel shall have a minimum dimension of twenty (20) feet for one (1) story buildings, thirty (30) feet for two (2) story buildings, and forty (40) feet for three (3) story buildings. "

Additional Provisions for Group Housing

Accessory Uses. Accessory-use clauses are not conspicuous features in garden-apartment or group-housing provisions. However, there is an occasional reference to this problem. Fairfax County, Virginia, for example, requires that "no accessory structure shall be located less than 25 feet from any multiple dwelling, nor less than 25 feet from any side or rear property line." Cincinnati requires a distance of 30 feet between any accessory building and any other building, principal or accessory, and, in addition, specifies that no building, whether accessory or principal, may be located closer than 15 feet from any boundary line of the parcel.

Parking. The majority of ordinances providing for group housing do not establish special standards for off-street parking for these districts. The parking requirements are generally the same as those for other and more conventional forms of multiple housing. However, especially in group-housing developments, there is an urgent need for properly planned and adequate off-street parking facilities. If insufficient space is provided, the result may be that areas originally intended for other uses — such as recreation or vehicular traffic — may be usurped for parking.

Perhaps the most generally accepted standard for off-street parking is one parking space (200 square feet, as a rule) for each dwelling unit. Occasionally, where garages are specifically required, the regulations may state that one garage and one off-street parking space shall be required for every two dwelling units. However, despite the wide application of this standard, there are zoning ordinances which specify parking areas of more than one parking space per family (Rye, New York, requires 1 1/4) or less; (Evanston, Illinois, in the "D" and "E" multiple-family dwelling district requires 1/2).

The placement of the parking areas and their improvement is sometimes regulated in ordinances. Provisions, such as those of Flossmoor, Illinois; or South Plainfield, New Jersey, among others, that "such parking area shall be so placed on the lot as not to interfere with the required recreation area, and such parking area shall not be leased but shall be for the sole use of the occupants of such buildings and the visitors thereto" are valuable when applied to group housing developments. Regulations governing surfacing, fences, drainage, illumination of parking areas, such as those contained in the Los Angeles Zoning Ordinance (1945), also have their place in group-housing standards.

The proportion of off-street parking space which is to be in garages and that which is to be in uncovered parking lots varies in different ordinances. Madison, New Jersey, requires garage space for at least one automobile for every two families in addition to open lot space for one car for every family. Hartford, Connecticut, requires that:

"Garages shall be provided for at least 50 per cent of the number of dwelling units and parking space shall be provided for the remainder of the dwelling units, but there shall be no parking space within 10 feet of principal buildings and no garages or parking space within 50 feet of any street."

Recreation Space. The failure of many ordinances to provide specifically for recreation space is not restricted to the garden-apartment sections, but they are notably lacking in many of the latter. This may be due to an assumption that if adequate space is provided in the development, there is no necessity for specifically earmarking portions of it for recreational use. Other zoning ordinances reflect a different point of view.

San Francisco, California, provides generally for adequate recreation areas: "That there are to be provided, as part of the proposed development, recreation areas adequate to serve the needs of the anticipated population to be housed in such development."

Recreation space is specifically designated and related to population density in the Greensboro ordinance:

"Adequate and suitable recreation areas and facilities to serve the needs of the anticipated population shall be provided and shall consist of at least the following:

1. For pre-school children: one play area containing a minimum of 200 square feet for each 100 families or fraction thereof, located within 400 feet of every dwelling unit to be served by such area.
2. For school-age children and adults, a space shall be provided in the ratio of one acre per 100 dwelling units.

Madison, New Jersey, in its multiple-family residence zone establishes the following standard:

"For multiple-family dwellings enclosed play space for children equivalent to at least 50 square feet for each family housed shall be provided on the lot."

Other methods of providing recreation space are discussed in Harold Buttenheim's article in The American City (December, 1950).

Architectural Control. Architectural control enters into the problem of group-housing regulations in two ways. It may be used, as in the case of Maplewood, New Jersey, to control the appearance of permitted projects, or it may be used, as in the case of Barrington, Rhode Island, to effectively exclude group-housing developments from the community.

The Maplewood ordinance provides that

"all apartment structures in this (group housing) district shall be of the garden-apartment type, not more than 2 1/2 stories in height, with gable or hipped roof, and the exterior wall faced with brick."

The architecture of such structures must be in authentic, traditional, colonial design, with either the Georgian or Mt. Vernon influence and other details, such as entrances, columns, windows, shutters, cornices, chimneys and porches shall be designed and executed in strict conformity with the general type. In addition, all garages and out buildings, fences and enclosures of any sort must conform in general type to the architecture of the main structure.

The Barrington ordinance makes extremely difficult the construction of group housing by its provision that:

"Whenever from one or more applications for building permits or from any other credible evidence, it shall appear to the Buildings Inspector that any land owner, land developer or contractor is undertaking or planning or is about to undertake or plan, to construct two or more buildings for residential or other purposes by mass construction, in one general locality at approximately the same time of the same or nearly similar or identical design, appearance or type, or plans to construct multiple buildings of the same or nearly similar or identical design, appearance or type or to construct one or more buildings in close proximity to another or others of the same or nearly similar or identical design, appearance or type already constructed in such general locality, he shall promptly deny said application or applications without prejudice and shall, within one week thereafter, file such application or applications, accompanied by written notation of his denial without prejudice and the reasons therefor, with the zoning board of review, which Board shall, within one week after receipt of such reference from the Building Inspector, give notice of the time and place when a public hearing will be held thereon by publishing such notice at least twice in some newspaper of general circulation in the town of Barrington, the time of such hearing to be not more than 30 days after receipt of such reference from the Building Inspector and such Board shall, upon the date selected conduct a public hearing and shall, within one week after concluding such hearing prepare and file with the Town Council its report thereon. If of opinion that the granting of same may cause undue hardship or expense to the Town and its inhabitants for proper police or fire protection or the furnishing of educational facilities, sanitation or highway construction or may cause overcrowding in any particular district or may adversely affect present property values or property uses or may be detrimental to the general welfare of the town or the orderly conduct of the affairs and economy of the town and its inhabitants, said Board shall refer said application or applications to the Town Council with recommendation that the same be not approved, or contrariwise if of the opposite opinion, and thereupon the Town Council at its next regular session, or at its option at any intervening special session, shall consider all relevant facts developed at said public hearing and embodied in the report of the Zoning Board of Review, the recommendations of said Board and any testimony or circumstances known to the Council bearing upon the necessity of limiting or denying the application or applications in the interest of the general welfare of the town and its inhabitants and shall proceed either to refuse to grant, or to grant such application or applications as to the Council shall seem best and from such action of the Council appeal shall lie for any person aggrieved thereby in the manner provided by statute in the case of appeals from action or decisions of Town Councils."

Legal Basis for Group Housing

The courts have upheld the concept of garden-type apartments in several different types of situations. In Cincinnati, a 40-acre housing development was proposed in an area which a zoning amendment changed from Residence "B" to Residence "C" (Clifton Hills Realty Co. v. City of Cincinnati, Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, March, 1939). The court decision rested on the fact that the more intensive type of development allowed was consistent with the previous zoning ordinance; that, although the single-family builders under the earlier ordinance could have built to greater density, even though they had chosen not to, and that the deed restrictions were not as important as the zoning ordinance.

Twenty-one acres were involved.in a Bloomfield, New Jersey, amendment, (Plass et al. v. the Town of Bloomfield; Supreme Court of New Jersey, November 12, 1946, 49 Atlantic (2d) 476,) creating a garden-apartment zone. Its validity, reasonableness, and necessity were not questioned by the court in upholding the amendment.

The case of Gedney Estates, Inc., et al. v. City of White Plains, et al., Supreme Court, Special Term, Westchester County, (May 31, 1950), 99 N. Y. (2d), reported in ZONlNG DIGEST,·November, 1950, supported a rezoning of a city which incorporated a previous amendment for a garden-apartment zone.

In another case similarly involving rezoning from residential to garden apartments, (Ridgefield Terrace Realty Company et al., v. Borough of Ridgefield, Supreme Court of New Jersey (November 18, 1947) 55 Atlantic (2d) 812), the court rejected the objections of neighbors that municipal facilities would be overtaxed, and pointed out the increase in taxable evaluation.

ZONING DIGEST, September, 1950, reported a Baltimore case (Windsor Hills Improvement Association, Inc., v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore et al., Court of Appeals of Maryland, May 12, 1950, 73 Atlantic (2d) 531) in which a garden-apartment was declared not to be a row house.

The court decided against a garden apartment in the case of Norwood Heights Improvement Association v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 60 Atlantic (2d) 192 Maryland Court of Appeals, June 17, 1948. The developer had designed a project with 163 garden-apartment dwelling units on fifteen acres after an initial plan had been disapproved. The case hinged on whether a project with no individual lot lines could be permitted. One objection of the majority opinion was the fear that swamp or other unusable or undesirable uninhabited area might be included in such a project, thus allowing row houses where they would not have otherwise been permitted. (A provision such as the one pointed out previously in this bulletin in the Prince George's County ordinance would prevent such a difficulty.) Another objection dealt with the possibility of sale of individual units where there were no individual lot lines, and the subsequent pattern which might create zoning problems. (Such an eventuality would be prevented by the Bolivar, Tennessee, ordinance quoted previously in Table I of this report to the effect that the area of the project is "not subdivided into the customary streets and lots, and ...will not be so subdivided...") The dissent recognized that the drafters of the ordinance probably did not contemplate garden apartments, but maintained the position that "to hold that the development of every tract must conform to the stereotyped conceptions of the era of the brownstone front, puts an undue premium upon conventional design, and unduly limits architectural conceptions that attempt to meet the modern requirements of off-street parking, playgrounds and service facilities in common. The 'garden-type' apartment design, like the university campus, should not be outlawed because it deals with the problem in an unconventional way."

One of the most interesting cases in the field of group housing has been the "Tarrytown Case" (Rodgers v. Village of Tarrytown et al., Supreme Court, Appellate Division, March 13, 1950, 96 N.Y.S.(2d) 58: decision appealed in Rogers, Appellant v. Village of Tarrytown et al., Court of Appeals, New York, January 18, 1951, Volume 12 Law Report News No. 14, January 19, 1951). In the zoning ordinance of Tarrytown, provision is made for a B-B residence zone in which group dwellings are permitted subject to the meeting of development standards such as a minimum of ten acres for a site, a maximum of three stories for building height, a 15 per cent coverage, and certain setbacks and spacing of buildings. However, the ordinance did not specify a location for this zone on the zoning map, but required the passing of a special amendment for every individual group development to be built. An amendment was later passed changing the classification of a single-family area to B-B residential. This was protested by a property owner in the area. The amendment was upheld by the lower court which was of the opinion that the zone was related to the comprehensive plan and was based on considerations of health, safety and general welfare. This decision was confirmed by the higher court. However, the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals claimed that the zoning ordinance provision did not create a district since no physical boundaries were established in advance. A more complete discussion of the "spot zoning" phase of the case can be found in the March, 1951 issue of ZONING DIGEST.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ON GROUP HOUSING

COMMUNITIES FOR BETTER LIVING. James Dahir. New York: Harper and Brothers. 1950. 321pp, $4.00.

THE COMMUNITY BUILDERS HANDBOOK. Urban Land Institute, 1737 K Street, N.W., Washington 6, D.C. 1947. 198pp. $12.00.

HOME BUILDERS MANUAL FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT. National Association of Home Builders of the United States, 1028 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington 6, D. C. $ 2.50. Chapter 12.

JOURNAL OF HOUSING. New Construction Issues, November, 1949 and October, 1950. Entire issues. National Association of Housing Officials, 1313 East 60th Street, Chicago 37, Illinois.

MODERN TRENDS IN GARDEN APARTMENTS. Gustave Ring. Urban Land, May, 1948. Urban Land Institute, 1737 K Street, N.W., Washington 6, D.C.

MODEL ZONING ORDINANCE. Building, September, 1950, "New York decides that the big city is here to stay and plans to change its zoning accordingly. The setback system itself suffers a setback which promises to alter the design of new buildings in every big U. S. City." pp. 122, 127, 156.

PLAN FOR REZONING THE CITY OF NEW YORK. A report submitted to the City Planning Commission by Harrison, Ballard & Allen, October, 1950. 289pp.

PLANNING THE NEIGHBORHOOD. American Public Health Association. Committee on the Hygiene of Housing. Chicago: Public Administration Service, 1948. 1313 East 60th Street, Chicago 37, Illinois. 86pp. $2.50.

A REVIEW OF THE PROPOSALS FOR REZONING NEW YORK CITY. New York: American Institute of Architects. 1951. 57pp.

STANDARDS FOR GARDEN APARTMENTS. Harold S. Buttenheim, The American City, December, 1950. "Survey shows encouraging trend toward more intelligent zoning controls in suburban areas."

STRIKING INNOVATIONS IN NEW YORK CITY'S PROPOSED ZONING, The American City, June, 1951.

TOWARD NEW TOWNS FOR AMERICA. Clarence S. Stein. Liverpool: The University Press of Liverpool, 1951. (Agents for the Western Hemisphere, Public Administration Service, 1313 East 60th Street, Chicago 37, Illinois.) 235pp. $ 5.00.

ZONING GROUP HOUSING PROJECTS. Paul Oppermann. The American City, August, 1939.

Copyright, American Society of Planning Officials, June, 1951.