7 March. 2007 | Press & Guide – Heritage Newspapers

BIGFOOT HOME SOLUTIONS

Officials looking at solutions for both sides

By Sean Delaney, Press & Guide Newspapers

DEARBORN HEIGHTS

Love them or hate them, there's no denying that bigfoot homes — large homes built on a lot where a much smaller home once stood — have become a permanent part of the city's skyline in recent years.

The trend reflects the "go big or go home" philosophy adopted by communities throughout the country, as consumers demand more bang for their buck. But bigger isn't always better, according to city officials.

Bigfoot homes, for example, have recently come under fire by residents who say the massive homes create public eyesores and diminish the value of smaller homes in the surrounding area.

While certainly not the greatest social ill — and not the most recent as mansions and other large homes have been around for several hundred years — the intrusion of bigfoot homes into small town communities has become a point of contention for some.

Proponents of the massive structures claim that as consumers wants and needs grow; bigfoot homes are becoming a necessity. Also, by replacing vacant and unkempt homes with larger, vibrant structures, bigfoot homes can help to improve the overall economy of a community.

However, opponents say the homes actually diminish the property value of surrounding homes, which are often towered over by the new structures.

In Dearborn Heights, city officials have begun the process of creating a proposal that would keep both sides happy by allowing larger homes to be built to meet the needs of today's resident, while maintaining the small town/community feel homeowners desire.

"We're still very early in the preliminary stages at this point," said Building Director Mohamed Sobh. "We are just studying the idea of blending new homes in more with existing homes in the area."

Basically, this means residents aren't likely to see a 1,000 square-foot, three-story home next to a two-bedroom ranch home.

While still in the early stages of progress — with no definitive solution proposed yet — the Dearborn Heights City Council, Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Commission recently met with representatives of McKenna Associates and Hamilton-Anderson Associates to discuss alternate methods of guiding construction of larger single-family homes.

The consulting firms have identified seven target areas for redevelopment with larger homes possible, including the following areas (bounded by):

• Joy, Telegraph, Ann Arbor Trail and Dixie

• West Warren, Beech Daly, Hass and Kinloch

• Hass Telegraph, Richardson, Highland, Ford, Berwyn, Midway and Beech Daly

• Doxtator between Inkster and Kinloch

• Wilson, Gulley, Cherry Hill and Beech Daly

• Princeton, Gulley, Dartmouth, Syracuse, Van Born, Inkster, Annapolis and Beech Daly

• Dartmouth, Outer Drive, Southfield Freeway, Van Born and Pelham.

These served as discussion points between the various parties during a meeting held Feb. 20 at City Hall.

During the meeting, McKenna Associates presented city officials with several potential options that would allow larger homes to be constructed within the city without significantly altering the existing housing scale.

The proposals and policies outlined by McKenna Associates include the designation of specific geographic boundaries where zoning ordinance regulations will permit the construction of larger single-family homes that alter established housing scale. Another proposed policy also provides that the city adopt design standards that balance the construction of larger single-family homes with architectural features that are conducive to walkable pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods.

"We are looking into other means of building homes that better reflects the existing neighborhood," Sobh said. "But we have not made any determinations about how we're going to do that at this point."

According to McKenna Associates, the city's current residential development policies would have to be updated to reflect any changes. The existing policy focuses on establishing larger minimum lot sizes for new development, encouraging smaller lots to combine and allowing lots of record to be built on without much consideration for existing conditions.

Those conditions are changing, however, as homeowners now seek to maximize their zoning potential, which means homeowners are no longer content to build 800 square-foot homes on 1,000 square foot lots.

"They want to be bigger now," Sobh said. Also, as long as the home meets the city and state ordinances that govern the manufacture of any bigfoot home, the city cannot prevent the homes from being built.

And it may not want to, Sobh said, as property taxes in the city are based on the square footage of a home, which means a larger home would have a higher taxable value — and that means more revenue for the city.

Sobh said city officials will meet with the Planning Commission by next week and develop a clearer picture of what needs to be done to keep both sides — those for and against bigfoot homes — on level ground.