Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01. 14-57 FEBRUARY 11, 2014 14-57 ORDINANCE FIRST READING (CARRIED LOST LAID OVER WITHDRAWN ) PURPOSE: APPROVE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 30 ZONING ORDINANCE TO CREATE SECTION 30-35(M) DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY STRUCTURES OR HOMES INITIATED BY: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approved A GENERAL ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OSHKOSH AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO CREATE UNIVERSAL CITY-WIDE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY STRUCTURES OR HOMES The Common Council of the City of Oshkosh do ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That Section 30-35(M) Design Standards for Single and Two Family Structures or Homes (Universal/City-Wide) is hereby created to read as follows: (See the attached "Exhibit A") SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication. SECTION 3. Publication Notice. Please take notice that the City of Oshkosh enacted Ordinance #14-XXX APPROVE AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE TO CREATE SECTION 30-35(M) DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY STRUCTURES OR HOMES on February 28, 2014. The full text of the Ordinance may be obtained at the Office of the City Clerk, 215 Church Ave. and on the City's website at www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us. Clerk's phone: (920) 236-5011. EXHIBIT A Section 30-35(M) Design Standards for Single and Two-Family Structures or Homes (Universal/City- Wide) (1) Purpose The purpose of these standards is to maintain the basic architectural quality of residences within the community to minimize adverse impacts on adjacent properties and neighborhoods resulting from architectural and building construction practices that may detract from the character and appearance of the neighborhood as a whole and to ensure compatible design between existing and new homes. These minimal standards apply to all single and two-family structures within the City of Oshkosh. (2) Exceptions and Appeals (a) Exceptions. Exceptions to the standards set forth in this Section may be granted by the Director of Community Development, or designee, to permit substitute building materials or construction methods of comparative quality or design when it can be demonstrated that the provisions of this Section are infeasible and that the granting of such exception is in keeping with the purpose of this Section. Decisions rendered by the Director of Community Development or designee may be appealed to the Plan Commission. (b) Appeals. The Plan Commission is authorized to grant variances from the strict application of the standards within this Section and an application for an appeal may be made to the Plan Commission when it is claimed that the intent of the standards in this Section have been incorrectly interpreted; do not apply; or their enforcement cause unnecessary hardship. (3) Existing Buildings:Windows and Doors (a) All existing window openings on front or side building facades shall be maintained and not closed or filled (totally or partially). (i) A 5 to 10 percent variation in the height-to-width proportion is allowed if standard sized replacement windows cannot fit into an existing window opening. (b) All existing window openings on any façade or gable end shall not be boarded up. (i) Temporary closure shall be permitted for a period not exceeding 30 days to protect a broken window, secure the property from storm damage or to prevent unauthorized access. (c) All existing door openings on front or side building facades shall be maintained and not closed. (i) Temporary closure shall be permitted for a period not exceeding 30 days. (ii) Door opening may be relocated but shall remain on the exterior façade fronting the street. (4) Existing Buildings: Decks and Patios (a) Decks, upper story balconies/jump platforms and patios shall be constructed on a building's rear or interior side facade/elevation. (i) Limitation to the interior side or rear façade location (non-street facing facades) includes an exemption for lots with public alley frontage and for double-fronted through lots. Design Standards for Single and Two-Family Structures or Homes 2-7-201 1 (ii) Patios are allowed on a corner-side/secondary street frontage of a corner lot, if facing a lake, park or other amenable feature of the neighborhood/area. r{Sdf:11 �n uittl g LA Deck/patio on side or rear elevation (b) Decks that can be viewed from a primary or secondary street shall include elements such as posts, railings and spindles/balusters and be constructed in cedar, cypress, ' ; j " 1 . Handrail redwood, or appropriate composite materials such as wood I sawdust or mineral composite/high density pol urethane plastic ! j f Spindle/ l (HDPE), plastic and pressure treated. i j i ! Baluster (i) Decks constructed in pressure-treated lumber, shall be 1 ' I Bottom painted or stained, after a curing/drying period of no greater __ Rail than 18 months. ♦ Rim Joist (ii) Spindles/balusters shall not be secured to the outside face of the deck including but not limited to the rails, rim joist, beam and/or columns. (c) Patios shall be constructed using paver stone, brick, brick pavers,or concrete. (i) Water permeable pavers are permissible. (ii) Landscape treatments and berms can be employed to elevate a patio or terrace to meet rear or side entrance grades. (5) Existing Buildings: Changes/Additions to Existing Buildings (a) Additions and changes are defined as: (i) Addition. An addition is an increase in the footprint size of an existing principal structure through the construction of an additional room or rooms to a front, side or rear elevation. An addition can also be a new floor(or portion thereof)to an existing house including a dormer addition. (ii) Change. A change to an existing principal structure is considered any alteration or demolition to the materials,wall plane and/or architectural features of any front or side façade. (iii) Dormer: A dormer is a structural element of a house that protrudes from the plane of a sloping roof surface. Dormers are used to create usable space in the roof of a building by adding headroom and usually also by enabling addition of windows. Design Standards for Single and Two-Family Structures or Homes 2-7-201 2 (b) Materials. The exterior materials of new additions and changes shall be the same materials, or combination of materials, as the original building. (i) New additions and changes may be constructed using alternative materials if they are complementary and tie the addition/change and the original house together. Some material contrast is allowed but shall be subtle in change with the principal structure's original building materials. For example, if the original house was sided with wood clapboard, then fiber cement, or vinyl siding would be suitable for the addition. (ii) Material color shall also match or be complimentary to the principal structure. (iii) Exterior patchwork, repair or reconstruction that results in multi-textured or multi-colored effect or appearance not consistent with the overall design character of the original structure are not permitted. (c) Orientation. Additions to a principal structure and changes that extend the buildings footprint shall be placed on a rear facade, or interior lot line side elevation if rear is not practical, in order to have a minimal impact on the overall scale and character of the original house. (i) New additions can be built with or without a setback from the front wall plane of the original house. (ii) An addition that extends beyond the front wall plane of the original house, either at a front or corner- side/secondary front elevation, may take place if there is a lack of sufficient space in the house's rear or interior lot line side yard and the addition's overall design attempts to match or compliment the original homes design. (d) Height and Footprint. Additions and changes that extend the buildings height shall not be higher than the principal structure's dominant or highest roof ridgeline and not overpower the principal structure's overall scale and massing. (i) An addition's footprint shall not be more than 50 percent of the principal structure's existing footprint. (ii) An exception to the height standard can be made if the addition conforms and is compatible with the principal structure's overall architectural style and roof shapes and becomes an integral part of the structure's overall building form and design. Acceptable.Roof Addificn--+ ilnncc phCla lacf AU^'rflan—+• i,` H _ - __ L11I#1 I'h r 111111111111111111 1-- Acceptable roof addition(left);Unacceptable—roof addition extending above the ridgeline(right) Design Standards for Single and Two-Family Structures or Homes 2-7-201 3 (e) Facades. Building additions and change "_ � designs that create blank walls on any front or side façade, are not permitted. A front or side façade must have a - II I en•s• � ■kl a It minimum of 25 percent of its wall space god _,--, a a,op ® devoted to window or door openings. = 25%of wall space devoted to windows and doors (6) New Construction: In-Fill Principal Structure: Site Design and Building Orientation (a) Setbacks for In-Fill Principal Structures. Front yard setbacks for new principal structures shall be consistent and align with the prevailing building setbacks found along the block and surrounding neighborhood. (i) The structures front yard setback shall be a distance equal to the average of the existing front yard setbacks of the two lots principal buildings abutting it. (ii) If either or both lots are vacant, the minimum front yard setback of the zoning district shall be used for the purpose of calculating the average. Design Standards for Single and Two-Family Structures or Homes 2-7-201 4 O.JHKOJH ON TIE WATER TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council FROM: Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services DATE: February 6, 2014 RE: Approve Amendment to Chapter 30 Zoning Ordinance to Create Section 30- 23.1 Traditional Neighborhood Design Overlay District (Plan Commission recommends approval) Approve Amendment to Chapter 30 Zoning Ordinance to Create Section 30- 35(M) Design Standards for Single and Two Family Structures (Plan Commission recommends approval) BACKGROUND In 2012, Common Council directed staff to develop a proposal to implement residential design standards for Oshkosh's traditional neighborhoods for the purpose of helping to stabilize the quality of housing stock and neighborhoods throughout the community. The City contracted a planning/design firm (Lakota Group) to develop the design standards proposal after they visited the community and met with a wide range of stakeholders to solicit input from which the standards were developed. A joint workshop was held with the Common Council, Plan Commission, Landmarks Commission and Sustainability Advisory Board in December 2012 to review the design standard concepts and provide direction for future action regarding the proposal. In 2013 planning staff formed a stakeholder advisory group representing various community interests to help staff further develop and refine the Lakota concepts that staff would use in developing the actual zoning ordinance proposals. With input from that advisory group, staff developed two ordinance proposals; one for standards that would be applied to one and two family houses citywide (universal standards) and another set of standards that could be applied as an overlay on a case by case basis in the proposed Traditional Neighborhood Design Overlay District. Another joint workshop was held in December 2013 to present the two ordinances to officials and receive feedback. An open house was held in January 2014 to introduce the two sets of standards to the public and receive additional feedback. On January 21St, 2014 the Plan Commission held a public hearing on the ordinance proposal to receive public feedback on the proposals. On February 4th the Plan Commission was asked to act on the ordinance recommendations which Council is now being asked to approve in the current form as recommended by the Plan Commission. ANALYSIS The design standard regulations are proposed to consist of two independent sections in the Zoning Ordinance that will apply to single and two family homes on a universal/citywide basis and in separately adopted traditional neighborhood overlay districts. The universal standards are a relatively simple set of defined basic standards designed to eliminate some of the more egregious architectural alterations that detract from the character of a house (and resulting impact the appearance and quality of life in a neighborhood) such as boarding up windows on front and side facades; additions of decks and patios to front facades, major changes and additions, and in-fill construction. The traditional neighborhood overlay design code contains specific/detailed model design standards based on traditional type/style of structures and neighborhood physical and visual character in regard to compatible design that will be established through the creation of Traditional Neighborhood Overlay Districts that will be mapped in the future on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis, similar to the process followed for all other area wide zone changes (i.e. neighborhood meetings, public open houses, etc.). The design overlay district includes regulating common elements that can be viewed from the public right-of-way with the focus on maintaining original materials but allowing modern replacement materials that match in size, profile, and detailing to the home's design style. This overlay would address existing windows, doors, porches, stoops, decks, patios, terraces, additions and major changes, new construction, in-fill development, new accessory construction and driveways. Both sections include an exception process administered by the Director of Community Development and an appeals process through application to the Plan Commission (versus the Board of Appeals) to help to expedite the building process for conflicts that may potentially occur. Since the Plan Commission's meeting on February 4th, staff has made some minor adjustments to this language to permit more flexibility at the staff level and Plan Commission for dealing with unique circumstances that will occur given the age of the housing stock. In this case "infeasible" was replaced with "unreasonable" and "unnecessary hardship" with "unreasonable hardship" with the previous language thought to be too limiting to allow for appeals. Plan Commission Recommendations At its February 4th meeting that the Plan Commission was asked to make a recommendation on the ordinance proposals there was a discussion regarding "outstanding items for Plan Commission Discussion and Direction" (see attached discussion document) where staff asked the Plan Commission to make specific recommendations for changes to the proposed ordinance based on discussions/feedback provided at previous meetings. Staff identified 6 items that either needed direction/clarification or needed to be noted. These items were: 1. Should porch enclosure language be included in the universal/city-wide design standards? (Plan Commission recommended against) 2. Should metal doors be an acceptable replacement on a building's front façade? (Plan Commission recommended to permit metal doors) 3. Should there be a requirement placed in the overlay to require that a specific number of owners (suggested at 75% by Realtors Association of Northwest Wisconsin and the Winnebago Home Builders Association) be in support of the overlay before an application can be considered or to the process to repeal? (Plan Commission recommended against) 4. Multiple sections of both the universal and overlay standards discuss "sides visible from the street" and applicability of the ordinance to the respective façade. (Plan Commission recommended applying the standards to front and side facades whether visible or not from the street) 5. Multiple sections of both the universal and overlay standards trigger the design regulations at 50% change to the façade. (Plan Commission recommended removing the 50% trigger and apply standards to all new alteration activity) 6. Multiple sections of both standards include the word "should" instead of"shall". (Plan Commission was in agreement with changing the applicable wording to "shall" where necessary in the proposals). The Plan Commission's recommendations have been formatted into the ordinance language submitted for Council approval. It should be noted that Plan Commission recommended ordinance language is stricter than the advisory stakeholder group's consensus with respect to items #4 and # 5 above. With respect to #5, it was felt by the Plan Commission that permitting 50% of a façade to be altered prior to triggering the design regulations would do little to preserve the architectural integrity of a facade and that it could destroy the façade incrementally without reaching the 50% limit. With respect to #4, it was felt that the determination of what side of a façade was visible from the public street would be too difficult to administer because almost all side facades are visible from some point along the street (see staff commentary in document "Amendments made by the Plan Commission Discussion" for more information). FISCAL IMPACT The full extent of fiscal impact is undetermined given the wide variety of building applications and methods covered by the proposed regulations. In working with the stakeholder groups staff has tried to build into the regulations enough flexibility to use alternate building materials and methods and to allow for exceptions where possible but there will be additional costs for things such as painting or staining decks and porches constructed in "green treated" lumber or requiring a minimum level of windows and doors (25%) for facades fronting a public street. RECOMMENDATION The Plan Commission recommended the ordinance proposals at its February 4th, 2014 meeting. If Council would like to make changes to the proposed ordinances for consideration at the February 25th Council meeting, staff is requesting that the Common Council provide direction at its February 11th meeting so those changes may be incorporated into the final document for consideration without having to officially amend each individual section of the proposed ordinance on February 25th. Staff has attached a document titled "Amendments made by the Plan Commission Discussion" for possible discussion and direction. Approved, City Manager Outstanding Items for Plan Commission Discussion and Direction 1. Potential New Section in UniversaUCity-Wide Standards: Should porch enclosure language be included in the universal/city-wide design standards? Staff evaluated this suggestion and is hesitant to recommend the porch enclosure language be added to the universal/city-wide design standards for single and two-family structures as many post-1950/nontraditional style homes do not contain this structural element and staff feels it is a standard more appropriate to include in the overlay only. 2. Overlay Section D (5)(b): Should metal doors be an acceptable replacement on a buildings front facade? This suggested amendment is felt to be reasonable by staff, however, allowing metal door's is not in character with traditional homes and does have the ability to affect the overall image of the homes front elevation or facade. 3. Potential New Section in Overlay: Should there be a requirement that a specific number of property owners(suggested at 75%) be in support of the Overlay before application can be considered or to start the process to repeal? Staff is not in support of this amendment and feels that it could potentially hinder or derail the ability to place the overlay district on areas that may be appropriate and desirable but have a significant number of income producing properties. Additionally, this practice is a great departure from normal zoning practice that allows application of zoning districts designation or removal through regular legislative processes. 4. Multiple Sections of both Universal/City-Wide -y. , Standards and the Overlay: The definition and a is feet (, # limits on "sides visible from the street" needs ee adjustment because in most cases all side facades will 6 b fee -� �'�'ig fee i m� be visible. z - �+ �v Staff agrees that the definition and limits on "sides visible '.� ,tee ,� �� from the street"does need adjustment as it will overreach ." the intent of regulating side elevations and facades visibility f om the ROW/street. Staff suggests refining the z5 reef language to better define what is meant by side elevation '` )n rte.' visible from the street, such as: a) Side facades or elevations visible from the street shall include 15-20-25... linear feet of the side facade or „� elevation extending from the front facade; or Side facades or elevations visible from the street shall 25 reef include 25%-50%... of the side facade or elevation length ettending.from the f ront facade. , ik 1 . Staff's preference is to use the straight linear foot method m �. with a 15 foot distance qualifier because the percentage based method could unfairly regulate longer/deeper homes and may not result in a consistent view from the ROW/street. Additionally, the straight linear foot method is much simpler to convey to homeowners and contractors as well as administratively regulate. The 15 foot distance is recommended as the view of a buildings side facade from the street in traditional neighborhoods is often obscured(if viewed at even a slight angle) by the proximity of adjacent structures which are not typically setback a great distance from their neighbors. 5. Multiple Sections of both Universal/City-Wide Standards and the Overlay: Discuss refining/changing the definition of major change- "50%change to façade". Concern has been expressed whether the limit is too high in that it would destroy the facade incrementally without reaching the 50% limit. Staff agrees that the 50%change to façade benchmark for design standard applicability is far too great and recommends that the terns "Major Change"be amended to simply be "Change", with no benchmark or mhlimwn percent of area of a elevation or façade visible from the street being affected. The calculation example below illustrates how much area and significant.features can be affected at even a 30% elevation or facade area level. ,/,/:).,- r , t Example Facade Area Change Calculation 1 ';f � �rr r {�� gu — i – ' E °" Front Facade Area is 25' X 20' =500 sf t i aS r. i. Window/Trim"A"Area is 5' X 6'=30 sf r 1 .— .... ` i Window/Trim"B"Area is 5' X 6"=30 sf ', , Window/Trim"C"Area is 5'X 6"=30 sf V/ ' 14 Window/Trim "D"Area is 5' X 6"=30 sf t 4 3 % , D Door/Trim"E"Area is 4' X 8'=32 sf Illlillaiiiii Iililllli iimiilillll, eII a 1111 , [I IIIII �3 —- Total Façade Change is 152 sf/30.d% ifr ,j Example Facade Area Change Calculation r �`- Front Facade Area is 25' X 20'=500 sf , 1 r�, _ —h `•/', First Floor Area is 25 'X 10' =250 sf i 1,41; Total Façade Change is 250 sf/50% • Y r3/4 .... ___.___ _ .., 41 ....,..- 7.-z..,..,„:_;-, It.,,,v44,-=... NEW-NOT IN STAFF REPORT 6. Multiple Sections of both UniversaVCity-Wide Standards and the Overlay: Replace wording within codes that currently is "should"to "shall''. A change in verbiage throughout both the Universal/City-Wide and the Overlay must take place as the use of the term should is not appropriate ordinance language and is generally not enforceable/defendable from a legal standpoint. Amendments made by the Plan Commission Discussion (February 4, 2014 Plan Commission Meeting) 1. Potential New Section in Universal/City-Wide Standards: Should porch enclosure language be included in the universal/city-wide design standards? Staff Recommendation Staff evaluated this suggestion and is hesitant to recommend the porch enclosure language be added to the universal/city-wide design standards for single and two-family structures as many post-1950/nontraditional style homes do not contain this structural element and staff feels it is a standard more appropriate to include in the overlay only. Plan Commission Amendment Plan Commission did not support this amendment. 2. Overlay Section D (5)(b): Should metal doors be an acceptable replacement on a buildings front facade? Staff Recommendation Staff believes this suggested amendment is reasonable; however, allowing metal doors is not in character with traditional homes and does have the ability to affect the overall image of the homes front elevation or façade. Plan Commission Amendment Plan Commission recommended amending the code to allow metal doors as an acceptable replacement on a buildings front façade. 3. Potential New Section in Overlay: Should there be a requirement that a specific number of property owners (suggested at 75%) be in support of the Overlay before application can be considered or to start the process to repeal? Staff Recommendation Staff is not in support of this amendment and feels that it could potentially hinder or derail the ability to place the overlay district on areas that may be appropriate and desirable but have a significant number of income producing properties. Additionally, this practice is a departure from normal zoning practice that allows application of zoning district designation or removal through regular legislative processes. Plan Commission Amendment Plan Commission did not support this amendment. Amendments by Plan Commission Page 1 of 4 4. Multiple Sections of both Universal/City-Wide Standards and the Overlay: The definition and limits on"sides visible from the street" needs adjustment because in most cases all side facades will be visible. Staff Recommendation Staff agrees that the definition and limits on "sides visible from the street" does need adjustment as it will overreach the intent of regulating side elevations and facades visibility from the ROW/street. Staff suggests refining the language to better define what is meant by side elevation visible from the street, such as: IT a) Side facades or elevations visible from the t s street shall include 15-20-25... linear feet 25 feet of the side façade or elevation extending ' e from the front façade; or s�fee b) Side facades or elevations visible from the street shall include 25%-50%... of the side �, , fat, is façade or elevation length extending from �' � „ the front façade. Staffs preference is to use the straight linear ' p g � � � ... : 25 feet.z foot method with a 15 foot distance qualifier �� because the percentage based method could vt 1 5 fe unfairly regulate longer/deeper homes and �`may not result in a consistent view from the , - , .. ...ate� : ROW/street. Additionally,the straight linear foot method is much simpler to convey to �� homeowners and contractors as well as 25 f :. administratively regulate. The 15 foot distance is recommended as the view of a buildings side façade from the street in - , �>` traditional neighborhoods is often obscured (if k � a viewed at even a slight angle) by the proximity Et„, I of adjacent structures which are not typically setback a great distance from their neighbors. - -m - .v Plan Commission Amendment Plan Commission recommended amending the code to require that all standards applicable to "sides visible from the street"be extended to include the full extent of the side facade/elevations. Amendments by Plan Commission Page 2 of 4 5. Multiple Sections of both Universal/City-Wide Standards and the Overlay: Discuss refining/changing the definition of major change - "50% change to facade". Concern has been expressed whether the limit is too high in that it would destroy the façade incrementally without reaching the 50% limit. Staff Recommendation Staff agrees that the 50% change to façade benchmark for design standard applicability is far too great and recommends that the term"Major Change"be amended to simply be "Change", with no benchmark or minimum percent of area of a elevation or façade visible from the street being affected. The calculation example below illustrates how much area and significant features can be affected at a 30% or 50% elevation or façade area level. h Example Facade Area Change Calculation Front Façade Area is 25'X 20' =500 sf ,�; s , B Window/Trim"A"Area is 5' X 6'=30 sf '' -i Window/Trim`B"Area is 5' X 6"=30 sf - Window/Trim"C"Area is 5' X 6"=30 sf Window/Trim"D"Area is 5' X 6"=30 sf D Door/Trim"E"Area is 4' X 8'=32 sf _ ' , "'Pell' Total Façade Change is 152 sf/30.4%wr ;' Example Façade Area Change Calculation Front Façade Area is 25'X 20' =500 sf • "?:: � First Floor Area is 25 'X 10' =250 sf Total Façade Change is 250 sf/50% Plan Commission Amendment Plan Commission recommended amending the code to change the term"Major Change"to "Change" and remove the 50% change to façade thereby requiring any changes to trigger the applicability of the various standards. Amendments by Plan Commission Page 3 of 4 6. Multiple Sections of both Universal/City-Wide Standards and the Overlay: Replace wording within codes that currently is "should"to "shall". Staff Recommendation A change in verbiage throughout both the Universal/City-Wide and the Overlay must take place as the use of the term "should" is not appropriate ordinance language and is generally not enforceable /defendable from a legal standpoint. Plan Commission Amendment Plan Commission recommended amending the codes to replace wording that currently is "should" to "shall". Amendments by Plan Commission Page 4 of 4 ITEM: TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SINGLE AND TWO-FAMILY STRUCTURES OR HOMES AND ESTABLISHING A TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT Plan Commission meeting of February 4, 2014 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Department of Community Development Owner: N/A Actions Requested: The City Department of Community Development requests review and approval of two additions to the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance, as follows: A) Creating Section 30-35 (M): Design Standards for Single and Two-Family Structures or Homes; and B) Creating Section 30-23.1(A-J): Traditional Neighborhood Design Overlay. Applicable Ordinance Provisions: The Zoning Ordinance, Section 30-8, establishes the ability of the Common Council, on its own motion,or on petition after first submitting the proposal to the City Plan Commission,to amend, supplement or change Zoning District boundaries or regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. BACKGROUND INFORMATION In spring of 2012,the Common Council directed staff to develop a proposal for residential design standards for Oshkosh's traditional neighborhoods. The City contracted the Lakota Group, a planning/urban design firm out of Chicago,to perform consulting work involving development of residential design and in-fill standards for the City of Oshkosh. During late summer of 2012,the Lakota Group visited the community and met with various stakeholders. A set of design standard concepts was developed based on their observations and input received from stakeholders. A joint workshop with the Common Council,Plan Commission, Landmarks Commission and Sustainability Advisory Board was held in December of 2012 to review the design standard concepts and gauge support for the direction proposed. Following the workshop,the Department of Community Development, with assistance from the Winnebago County UW Extension,formed a Design Standard Review Group who met throughout 2013 and reviewed, discussed and evaluated the design standard concepts. Feedback from these meetings was used to draft a very general set of design standards for all single and two-family homes as well as to draft a detailed Overlay District designed to protect the character and equity of the city's traditional neighborhoods. Another joint workshop was held in December of 2013 to introduce the two products to officials and receive feedback. Based on a positive reception at the workshop, a public open house was held on January 15, 2014 to introduce the two sets of standards to the public and receive feedback. Comments received have been evaluated and incorporated into the two Zoning Ordinance Sections with several items requiring further discussion. ANALYSIS The design standard products are proposed to consist of two independent ordinance sections. The first is a set of design standards for single and two-family structures or homes that are relatively simple but well defined basic standards with city-wide application. The second is a traditional neighborhood overlay design code that contains specific/detailed model design standards based on traditional type/style of structures and neighborhood physical and visual character in regard to compatible design that will be established through the creation of Traditional Neighborhood or Planned Development Overlay Districts. Both sections include an exception process administered by the Director of Community Development and an appeals process through application to the Plan Commission. 30-35 (M): Design Standards for Single and Two-Family Structures or Homes The purpose of the design standards for single and two-family structures is to maintain the basic architectural quality of residences within the community and to minimize adverse impacts on adjacent properties and neighborhoods resulting from inappropriate architectural and building construction practices. It is also the intent of the standards to ensure compatible design between existing and new homes. These minimal standards are proposed to apply to all single and two-family structures within the City and are summarized below: Windows and Doors • Windows and doors fronting or visible from the street may not be removed by closure or total filling. • Windows and doors may not be boarded up for greater than 30 days Decks and Patios • Decks and Patios must be located on rear or side facades,with some exception • Decks visible from the street must include posts, rails and balusters and include requirements for finish and spindles not to be secured to the outside of the decking components Major Changes/Additions • Materials and color must be complementary and tie into the original building,though modern building materials are permitted • Additions be placed on the rear or side of the original building unless architecturally compatible and they may not exceed 50%of existing buildings footprint or be higher/taller than existing dominant roofline • Façades facing a public street must not create a blank wall and must have at least 25% of the wall area devoted to window and/or door openings In-Fill Construction • Houses street presence must align with the prevailing front yard setbacks of the adjacent properties 30-23.1(A-J): Traditional Neighborhood Design Overlay District The traditional neighborhood design overlay district is intended to foster strong,vibrant traditional neighborhoods that consist of well-maintained historic homes and well-designed, architecturally compatible new residential construction. The purpose of the traditional neighborhood design overlay district is to implement suitable design standards to maintain the unique architectural qualities and features of Oshkosh's traditional homes; ensure coordinated, compatible design between existing and new homes; minimize adverse impacts on adjacent properties from buildings that may detract from the character and appearance of the district as a whole; and create strong neighborhood identities and cohesive design through historic home feature preservation and well-designed, high quality new construction and site design. The proposed overlay also seeks to stabilize and increase neighborhood property values and instill a sense of"pride of place" among residents and property owners in traditional neighborhoods. The overlay standards are proposed to apply through the ' Y P p pp Y g = -1 • 1' .. 1.. L adoption of individual overlay districts to yet undetermined °•A F areas that include a grouping of single and/or two-family 'fit 1� rT ' ' homes generally constructed prior to 1950 that retain i' ' r. traditional character of their building styles. The districts ' �' must consist of a minimum area of not less than a block face ' _ j ! (both sides of the street)from intersecting street to 1 LL -' 1,u H intersecting street. It is not intended to be applied to areas `� ! j jr mj = where there is no established architectural character or where the areas building character has been so substantially altered 1 WPA0.RWAY AlE by modern development(post 1950s) or redevelopment. i Item-text amendment Res Design Standards 2 The traditional neighborhood design overlay district includes common elements such as regulating facades or elevations that can be viewed from the public ROW/street; applying to new additions or major changes as well as new in-fill construction of single and two-family homes located within an overlay district; focuses on maintaining existing/original materials,when possible but allowing modern replacement materials that match the originals in size, profile,and detailing and are appropriate to the home's design style; and requiring pressure treated woods to be stained or painted. Specific components of the traditional neighborhood design overlay are summarized below: Existing Windows and Doors • Maintain existing windows unless significantly deteriorated with replacements being required to be compatible with existing house style and not have more than a 5 to 10%variation in height to width pattern. • Maintain existing casings,trim work and sills unless significantly deteriorated with replacement/new trim work and sills to be compatible to the existing principal structure and match original in width/profile • Original door openings on primary(front) elevation not being closed or relocated with the allowance of a secondary door entrance on side elevation viewed from ROW/street • Original door and surrounding trim work to be maintained as feasible with replacements matching design and profile including storm doors matching the front door's size, style,panel and lighting pattern Existing Porches, Stoops,Decks,Patios and Terraces • Original porches, stoops, and patios to be maintained as feasible with replacement parts required to be similar in profile and detailing • New or replacement porches must be compatible to house's original porch or established architecture style • Regulation specific to foundation piers, steps, skirting, flooring and ceilings, columns, railings and roofing • Porch enclosures limited so at least 60 percent of an existing porch is transparent • Decks and patios limited to a side or rear elevation,with exceptions • Accessibility ramps encouraged to be placed on side elevation and designed to be integrated into the house's overall design Existing,Buildings Additions and Major Changes • Applies to any additions that increase the building's footprint size/height or major changes that affect 50%or more of the front or side elevation that can be viewed from the ROW/street • Requires additions and major changes to be appropriate to the existing house's design character, style and form including placement;height and scale; style and form; materials; and window and door openings • Limits additions to the side or rear elevations or facades, with exceptions for front elevation or facade additions of appropriate design character • Requires a minimum of 25%percent of a new addition's wall space facing a ROW/street to be devoted to window/door openings with windows following a proportionate height-width ratio • Limiting new dormers to be no higher than the existing roof ridgeline and to be placed on side or rear facade unless a typical feature of an architectural style New Principal Structure Construction and Infill Development • Requires compatible design of new construction in regard to size, form,placement, scale, material use and setbacks of adjacent homes • Addresses setback by requiring alignment of in-fill to substantially match adjacent structures and provides some relief to side and rear setbacks • Limits heights of in-fill to no greater than one story taller than surrounding structures • Orients the in-fill structure's front facade to the ROW/street with required entrances and 25% window/door openings Item-text amendment Res Design Standards 3 • States that the style and form of the in-fill must reflect or be consistent with the architectural styles found along the block and adjacent neighborhood • Requires materials of the in-fill structure's facades or elevations that can be viewed from the ROW/street to be visually compatible,by not contrasting greatly, with surrounding buildings in the block and surrounding neighborhood • Prescribe that the relationship of the height and width of windows and doors, and the rhythm of solids(walls)to voids (door and window openings)be compatible,by not contrasting greatly,with surrounding buildings in the block or surrounding neighborhood New Accessory Structure Construction and Driveways • Require that detached garages should be placed in rear portion of lot or side yard if there is a lack of sufficient space in the rear • Requires attached garages to be set back a minimum of 5 feet from principal structure's front elevation and be compatible with the design of the principal structure or house, including its materials, color and style Infill Construction: Driveways • Allows single, shared, and two-track driveways to be constructed in concrete, asphalt,blacktop, stone, brick and permeable pavers As mentioned,the multiple comments staff received from the workshops, open house and general inquiry have been evaluated with many items directly incorporated into the two Zoning Ordinance Sections. However several very significant items have surfaced that require further discussion and recommendation from the Plan Commission and Council. Listed below are changes that have been incorporated into the ordinance sections as well as items that are outstanding that staff asks for Plan Commission direction. Changes incorporated in the draft ordinances 1. Universal Section 2(a-b): Added an administrative section to the Universal/City-Wide Standards. 2. Universal Section 2(a-b) and Overlay Section(C)(2)(a-b): Adjusted appeal process for both the Universal/City-Wide Standards and the Overlay to direct appeal requests to the Plan Commission rather than the Board of Appeals. 3. Universal Section 3(a)(ii): Augmented the Universal/City-Wide Standards to allow a 5-10%variation in height to width proportion for windows, if standard sized replacement cannot fit into existing openings. 4. Universal Section 4(b)(ii): Higher quality woods such as cedar, cypress,redwood, etc. are no longer required to be painted or stained and only pressure treated wood is required to be painted or stained, after a curing/drying period of no greater than 18 months. 5. Universal Section 4(b)(iii): Redrafted the language that states"Screws and fasteners of railings to posts shall not be visible from the street"to"Spindles/balusters shall not be secured to the outside face of the deck including but not limited to the rails,rim joist, beam and/columns". 6. Universal Section 5(b)(iii): Added a section in the Universal/City-Wide Standards to prohibit multi- textured or multi-colored patchwork repair or construction if not consistent with the overall design character of the structure. 7. Universal Section 6(a)(ii): Added condition to setbacks for in-fill construction to determine average setback if adjoining lots are vacant. Item-text amendment Res Design Standards 4 Outstanding Items for Plan Commission Discussion and Direction 1. Potential New Section in Universal/City-Wide Standards: Should porch enclosure language be included in the universal/city-wide design standards? Staff evaluated this suggestion and is hesitant to recommend the porch enclosure language be added to the universal/city-wide design standards for single and two-family structures as many post-1950/nontraditional style homes do not contain this structural element and staff feels it is a standard more appropriate to include in the overlay only. 2. Overlay Section D (5)(b): Should metal doors be an acceptable replacement on a buildings front facade? This suggested amendment is felt to be reasonable by staff;however, allowing metal doors is not in character with traditional homes and does have the ability to affect the overall image of the homes front elevation or façade. 3. Potential New Section in Overlay: Should there be a requirement that a specific number of property owners (suggested at 75%)be in support of the Overlay before application can be considered or to start the process to repeal? Staff is not in support of this amendment and feels that it could potentially hinder or derail the ability to place the overlay district on areas that may be appropriate and desirable but have a significant number of income producing properties. Additionally, this practice is a great departure from normal zoning practice that allows application of zoning districts designation or removal through regular legislative processes. 4. Multiple Sections of both Universal/City-Wide Standards and the Overlay: The definition and -47 _2.5 feet limits on"sides visible from the street"needs adjustment because in most cases all side facades will „, visible. ';/ Staff agrees that the definition and limits on"sides visible v �! � from the street”does need adjustment as it will overreach the intent of regulating side elevations and facades visibility from the ROW/street. Staff suggests refining the i � language to better define what is meant by side elevation . ; ? 25 feet fr visible from the street, such as: a) Side facades or elevations visible from the street shall r :. �s f • include 15-20-25... linear feet of the side façade or elevation extending from the front façade; or b) Side facades or elevations visible from the street shall include 25%-50%... of the side façade or elevation 25 feet length extending from the front façade. if? if- Staffs preference is to use the straight linear foot method with a 15 foot distance qualifier because the percentage F� .1.. based method could unfairly regulate longer/deeper homes - and may not result in a consistent view from the ROW/street. Additionally,the straight linear foot method is much simpler to convey to homeowners and contractors Item-text amendment_Res Design Standards 5 as well as administratively regulate. The 15 foot distance is recommended as the view of a buildings side facade from the street in traditional neighborhoods is often obscured(if viewed at even a slight angle)by the proximity of adjacent structures which are not typically setback a great distance from their neighbors. 5. Multiple Sections of both Universal/City-Wide Standards and the Overlay: Discuss refining/changing the definition of major change-"50% change to facade". Concern has been expressed whether the limit is too high in that it would destroy the facade incrementally without reaching the 50% limit. Staff agrees that the 50%change to facade benchmark for design standard applicability is far too great and recommends that the term"Major Change"be amended to simply be"Change", with no benchmark or minimum percent of area of a elevation or facade visible from the street being affected. The calculation example below illustrates how much area and significant features can be affected at even a 30% elevation or facade area level. zi Example Facade Area Change Calculation 1:--> :,. - .''`, `�°", 25' ' =,� k `° � Front Façade Area is 25 X 20 500 sf �o t ,l t.; Window/Trim A Area is 5'X 6' =30 sf V0 B Window/Trim B Area is 5'X 6"=30 sf =---=- = _ E ' ' Window/Trim C Area is 5'X 6"=30 sf Window/Trim D Area is 5'X 6"=30 sf �_ ry^^ , 1 _ Door/Trim E Area is 4'X 8' =32 sf D UlJh[1�o � �iiL _ Total Façade Change is 152 sf/30.4% RECOMMENDATION/CONDITIONS Staff recommends that the Plan Commission recommend that Section 30-35 (M): Design Standards for Single and Two-Family Structures or Homes and Section 30-23.1: Traditional Neighborhood Design Overlay be established within the Zoning Code-Chapter 30,with amendments as determined by the Plan Commission. The Plan Commission approved of the Design Standards for Single and Two-Family Structures or Homes and the Traditional Neighborhood Design Overlay to be established within the Zoning Code-Chapter 30 as requested with amendments noted. The following is the Plan Commission's discussion on this item. Mr. Buck presented the item and discussed the procedures involved to develop the proposed design standards which began in 2012 and continued throughout 2013. The draft ordinance was developed after workshops, an open house for public comment, and a public hearing at the last Plan Commission meeting. Mr. Burich stated that this ordinance was not developed by just City staff only but through a cooperative effort involving an advisory stakeholder group with a goal to reach consensus on as many items as possible. He further stated that the proposed ordinance is a starting point at this time and provides basic framework to begin with which can, and likely will, be adjusted as the process is implemented. Mr. Buck reviewed the two sets of design standards for the single and two-family structures or homes which will be city-wide and the traditional neighborhood design overlay district which will apply through the adoption of individual overlay districts to yet undetermined areas. He also discussed the focus of the design standards ordinance and what it was meant to address. He discussed the traditional neighborhood Item-text amendment Res Design Standards 6 design overlay district which contains specific standards based on style of structures and neighborhood character in older areas and would apply to a block face of properties. He reviewed what is addressed with this overlay district and discussed some items that need to be changed or addressed by the Plan Commission prior to the final draft ordinance being completed. He also reviewed changes made by staff since the public hearing such as clarification of language in some sections of the code. The following six items require direction from the Plan Commission to determine how the ordinance should be adjusted: 1) Should porch enclosure language be included in the universal/city-wide design standards? Mr. Buck stated that staff was not recommending to include this language in this ordinance section and to include it in the overlay district section only. Ms. Propp and Mr.Nollenberger agreed with this recommendation. 2) Should metal doors be an acceptable replacement on a building's front facade? Mr. Buck stated that staff felt this was a reasonable amendment as metal doors can be made to look like real wood. Mr. Thoms stated that metal doors are used for both safety and insulation issues and he felt language could be added to allow metal doors as long as they stay within the character of the home. Mr. Buck responded that the current draft includes that metal doors are acceptable on only the rear or side facades. Mr. Thorns felt that the language could be adjusted to allow metal doors on the front facade if they consisted of an acceptable appearance. Ms. Propp commented that the front door of a home is the most important feature of the structure and was concerned if it would be the right thing to do to allow metal doors. Mr. Borsuk stated that slab doors are all the same and we are looking to improve appearance in which case as long as the door is still appropriate,the material it is comprised of should not matter. Mr. Cummings commented that as long as it fits the style of the home,the material is not as relevant. Mr. Thorns questioned if non-wood doors would be required to be painted. Mr. Buck responded that colors were not addressed in the proposed ordinance just what will be seen from the public right-of-way. Mr. Fojtik questioned if the draft ordinance could be altered to state that the doors would be required to match the appearance of the house. Mr. Buck suggested adding language that the door would be required to have a finished coating. Mr. Borsuk felt that this was getting too technical and from an administrative standpoint, difficult to enforce. Mr. Bowen commented that in the traditional overlay district,he felt that the homeowners will make sure that any renovations would be finished correctly and it would be too difficult to regulate too many small items. Item-text amendment Res Design Standards 7 Mr. Hinz stated that we have already heard comments from landlords regarding this ordinance and he felt they would look for loopholes in it but the ordinance language could be adjusted to address issues at a later date if the city finds it is being abused. Mr. Burich agreed and stated that a good foundation is most important and minor details can be addressed in the future if necessary. 3) Should there be a requirement that a specific number of property owners(suggested 75%) be in support of the overlay before application can be considered or to start the process to repeal? Mr. Buck stated that staff does not support this amendment as it could potentially hinder the ability to place the overlay district on some areas that may be appropriate and it would be a great departure from normal zoning practices through regular legislative process. Mr. Burich added that ultimately what an area is zoned is a political decision and he had discussed that matter with the City Attorney and the percentage method may conflict with state statutes and the proposed overlay districts could still be initiated by Common Council or staff and what would really be accomplished through this provision. Mr. Borsuk questioned how the city would distinguish between owners and residents in an area. Mr. Buck responded that the property owner on record would possess the only vote that would count. Mr. Bowen stated that he would not support the percentage method. Mr.Nollenberger, Ms. Propp, and Mr. Borsuk agreed as they felt it would take all the ability of the intention of the overlay district out of the code. 4) The definition and limits on"sides visible from the street"needs adjustment because in most cases all side facades will be visible. Mr. Buck commented that staff was considering either a method using linear feet of the side facade extending from the front façade or a percentage of depth of the house. Staff's preference would be the linear feet method as it would be easier to calculate and does not make it more difficult for homes with more depth. He reviewed examples of both methods and how it would affect the home. Mr. Nollenberger stated that he would prefer the linear feet method over the percentage method but 15% seemed a little short. He felt 20-25%would be more adequate if this was the method decided upon. Mr. Thorns questioned the definition of"visible from the street"and how this would be used. Mr. Buck explained the effects of any alterations equating to 50 percent cumulative change and what constitutes a major change and to what degree of either side elevations should count as being considered "visible from the street"or would only the front façade be considered. Mr. Thorns commented that if an owner would have the ability to change whatever they desired after the first 15 feet, more than that could be visible from the street. Mr. Hinz stated that corner lots would be more difficult as more is visible from the street that interior lots. Item-text amendment Res Design Standards 8 Ms. Propp felt that 15 feet from the front facade is not enough as why would the city want homeowners to have the ability to do inappropriate renovations to the back third of the home. Mr.Buck indicated that the goal of the ordinance was to maintain the street presence of the property. Mr. Thoms commented that he felt all of the sides of the home should be included as visible from the street and that the ordinance should not be limited to a portion of the side elevation. Mr. Bunch stated that this alteration would involve the entire facade and the intention of the proposed ordinance was to preserve the general curb appeal of properties. Mr. Hinz felt that the city needed a starting point for the ordinance and it was a matter of if we should start out small or heavier handed. Either way,the ordinance could be adjusted to address concerns at a later date. Mr. Cummings commented that the width of the lot could be a concern with either the linear or percentage method as it would effect what was visible from the street and he felt that both sides and the front should be treated the same. Mr. Bunch indicated that the city was attempting to find ways to protect the facades of homes and do so in a manner that would be administratively enforceable. Mr.Borsuk stated that some of these details we may not have another chance to alter and he was comfortable with applying the 25 linear feet method. Mr. Bowen felt that the easiest thing to regulate in the proposed code was exceptions and appeals to the code and if both front and side facades were protected within the ordinance,property owners could bring forward an appeal if they had issues with complying with it. He stated that the entire side elevations should be addressed by the ordinance. Mr. Thorns commented that the intent of the proposed ordinance was to preserve the heritage of older homes and the appeals could be addressed. He felt we could stay within what the ordinance was supposed to address which is to protect the appearance of the home's facade. Mr. Hinz stated that a corner home would have no sides that are not protected under this adjustment to the ordinance. Mr.Bunch commented that those homeowners would still have the appeals process and some things such as a wrap around deck in the rear yard may be affected by this alteration. 5) Discuss refining/changing the definition of major change—"50% change to facade. Concern has been expressed whether the limit is too high in that it would destroy the façade incrementally without reaching the 50% limit. Mr. Buck stated that staff was attempting to more clearly designate what would be considered the definition of major change and displayed examples of what would be considered 50% change to the facade. Staff felt that the benchmark of 50%was too great and was recommending amending the ordinance to simply be "change"only and remove the percentage issue from it. Ms. Propp commented that she felt the diagram says it all and suggested the Commission recommend proceeding with the"change"only reference and not applying a percentage in the ordinance. Item-text amendment Res Design Standards 9 Mr. Thorns questioned if this would constitute any change that would impact the home such as changing a light fixture. Mr. Burich responded that the proposed ordinance would apply to building elements only and things such as a light fixture would not be considered a building element. Mr. Buck reviewed the architectural features description of the proposed ordinance and reviewed the items that would qualify as building elements and items such as door knobs, etc.that would not. Mr. Cummings commented on the Jackson Street neighborhood where homes mostly all have porches which are part of the neighborhood style and removal of the porch can change the continuity of the neighborhood. 6) Multiple sections of the ordinance use the word"should" instead of"shall". Mr. Burich informed the Plan Commission that staff was going to change applicable wording in the proposed ordinances from"should"to "shall"in order to be able to actually enforce the ordinance provisions. Should is generally found in guidelines or advisory language. Mr. Buck summarized the Commission's findings on the six items that required additional direction as follows: 1) Porch enclosure language should not be included in the Universal/City-Wide Standards. 2) Metal doors would be an acceptable replacement on a buildings front facade. 3) A percentage of property owners would not need to support the overlay before application is considered or repealed. 4) The definition and limits on"sides visible from the street"will include the entire side elevation. 5) The definition of major change was determined to be any change and not have a percentage applied to it. 6) The word"should" in the ordinance will be changed to"shall"in all areas. Motion by Nollenberger to approve the text amendment to the zoning ordinance establishing design standards for single and two-family structures or homes and establishing a traditional neighborhood design overlay district. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 8-0. Ms. Propp commented that she was proud of the proposed ordinance and felt it was reasonable. Item-text amendment Res Design Standards 10 Plan Commission Feb 4, 2014 Draft Section 30-35 (M) Draft Design Standards for Single and Two-Family Structures or Homes (Universal/City-Wide) (1) Purpose The purpose of these standards is to maintain the basic architectural quality of residences within the community to minimize adverse impacts on adjacent properties and neighborhoods resulting from architectural and building construction practices that may detract from the character and appearance of the neighborhood as a whole and to ensure compatible design between existing and new homes. These minimal standards apply to all single and two-family structures within the City of Oshkosh. (2) Exceptions and Appeals (a) Exceptions. Exceptions to the standards set forth in this Section may be granted by the Director of Community Development, or designee, to permit substitute building materials or construction methods of comparative quality or design when it can be demonstrated that the provisions of this Section are infeasible and that the granting of such exception is in keeping with the purpose of this Section. Decisions rendered by the Director of Community Development or designee may be appealed to the Plan Commission. (b) Appeals. The Plan Commission is authorized to grant variances from the strict application of the standards within this Section and an application for an appeal may be made to the Plan Commission when it is claimed that the intent of the standards in this Section have been incorrectly interpreted; do not apply; or their enforcement cause unnecessary hardship. (3) Existing Buildings: Windows and Doors (a) All existing window openings on building facades or sides fronting or visible from the street shall be maintained and not closed or filled (totally or partially). (i) Side elevations or facades visible from the street shall include XXX of the side façade or elevation extending from the front façade. (ii) A 5 to 10 percent variation in the height-to-width proportion is allowed if standard sized replacement windows cannot fit into an existing window opening. (b) All existing window openings on any façade or gable end shall not be boarded up. (i) Temporary closure shall be permitted for a period not exceeding 30 days to protect a broken window, secure the property from storm damage or to prevent unauthorized access. (c) All existing door openings on building facades or sides fronting or visible from the street shall be maintained and not closed. (i) Side elevations or facades visible from the street shall include XXX of the side façade or elevation extending from the front façade. (ii) Temporary closure shall be permitted for a period not exceeding 30 days. Plan Commission Feb 4, 2014 Draft (iii) Door opening may be relocated but shall remain on the exterior façade fronting the street. (4) Existing Buildings: Decks and Patios (a) Decks, upper story balconies/jump platforms and patios shall be constructed on a building's rear or interior side facade/elevation. (i) Limitation to the side or rear façade location (non-street facing facades) includes an exemption for lots with public alley frontage and for double-fronted through lots. (ii) Patios are allowed on a corner-side/secondary street frontage of a corner lot, if facing a lake, park or other amenable feature of the neighborhood/area. ii% 1 \\ J 119 wWy Deck/patio on side or rear elevation (b) Decks that can be viewed from a primary or secondary street shall include elements such as posts, railings and .�— I ; i spindles/balusters and be constructed in cedar, cypress, II i I 1 ! ` � Handrail redwood, or appropriate composite materials such as I � I wood sawdust or mineral composite/high density H spindle/ polyurethane plastic (HDPE), plastic and pressure I I Baluster treated. � iji � ji ! BotRail (i) Side elevations or facades visible from the street shall include XXX of the side façade or elevation Rim Joist extending from the front façade. (ii) Decks constructed in pressure-treated lumber, shall be painted or stained, after a curing/drying period of no greater than 18 months. (iii) Spindles/balusters shall not be secured to the outside face of the deck including but not limited to the rails, rim joist, beam and/or columns. (c) Patios shall be constructed using paver stone, brick, brick pavers, or concrete. (i) Water permeable pavers are permissible. (ii) Landscape treatments and berms can be employed to elevate a patio or terrace to meet rear or side entrance grades. (5) Existing Buildings: Major Changes/Additions to Existing Buildings (a) Additions and major changes are defined as: (i) Addition. An addition is an increase in the footprint size of an existing principal structure through the construction of an additional room or rooms to a front, side or Plan Commission Feb 4, 2014 Draft rear elevation. A new addition can also be a new floor(or portion thereof) to an existing house including a dormer addition. (ii) Major Change. A major change to an existing principal structure is considered any alteration or demolition equating to 50 percent cumulative change to the materials, wall plane and/or architectural features of any façade or elevation visible from the street. (aa) Side elevations or facades visible from the street shall include XXX of the side façade or elevation extending from the front facade. (iii) Dormer: A dormer is a structural element of a house that protrudes from the plane of a sloping roof surface. Dormers are used to create usable space in the roof of a building by adding headroom and usually also by enabling addition of windows. (b) Materials . The exterior materials of new additions and major changes should be the same materials, or combination of materials, as the original building. (i) New additions and major changes may be constructed using alternative materials if they are complementary and tie the addition/major change and the original house together. Some material contrast is allowed but should be subtle in change with the principal structure's original building materials. For example, if the original house was sided with wood clapboard, then fiber cement, or vinyl siding would be suitable for the addition. (ii) Material color shall also match or be complimentary to the principal structure. (iii) Exterior patchwork, repair or reconstruction that results in multi-textured or multi- colored effect or appearance not consistent with the overall design character of the original structure are not permitted. (c) Orientation. Additions to a principal structure and major changes that extend the buildings footprint should be placed on a rear facade, or interior lot line side elevation if rear is not practical, in order to have a minimal impact on the overall scale and character of the original house. (i) New additions can be built with or without a setback from the front wall plane of the original house. (ii) An addition that extends beyond the front wall plane of the original house, either at a front or corner-side/secondary front elevation, may take place if there is a lack of sufficient space in the house's rear or interior lot line side yard and the addition's overall design attempts to match or compliment the original homes design. (d) Height and Footprint. Additions and major changes that extend the buildings height should not be higher than the principal structure's dominant or highest roof ridgeline and not overpower the principal structure's overall scale and massing. (i) An addition's footprint shall not be more than 50 percent of the principal structure's existing footprint. Plan Commission Feb 4, 2014 Draft (ii) An exception to the height standard can be made if the addition conforms and is compatible with the principal structure's overall architectural style and roof shapes and becomes an integral part of the structure's overall building form and design. HccaplaMa Ro01 Adill.,1--b ^\ I,'racc pia^L n.iof a LIE::.. J-,� / \ \1_ 7 ti H A H", , , ___ ,„ „ _ '� \�,, .._, -- Il�llll�ml� low! l :III „___, , , , : IMIIIII�IUI ; 1 !' Acceptable roof addition(left);Unacceptable—roof addition extending above the ridgeline(right) (e) Facades. Building additions and ---- - major change designs that create r - — ,_ blank walls that face the public right- f f of-way, including a primary or _ — -' nu"�c`u as .aaa r■ -7lall I secondary/side street, are not uxniu� ha' MAIN lit I permitted. _- 01` ,r,--1 r-R`' 0 I 1 �{ I i__ (i) An elevation facing a public right- I of-way must have a minimum of ' `' 25 percent of its wall space -- devoted to window or door 25%of wall space devoted to windows and doors openings. - (6) New Construction: In-Fill Principal Structure: Site Design and Building Orientation (a) Setbacks for In-Fill Principal Structures. Front yard setbacks for new principal structures must be consistent and align with the prevailing building setbacks found along the block and surrounding neighborhood. (i) The structures front yard setback must be a distance equal to the average of the existing front yard setbacks of the two lots principal buildings abutting it. (ii) If either or both lots are vacant, the minimum front yard setback of the zoning district will be used for the purpose of calculating the average.