Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-12-2003 Study SessionDublin City Council Study Session Monday, May 12, 2003 Mayor McCash called the Monday, May 12, 2003 work session of Dublin City Council to order at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers at the Dublin Municipal Building. Roll Call Council members present were: Mayor McCash, Vice Mayor Boring, Ms. Salay, Mr. Lecklider, Mr. Reiner, Mr. Kranstuber, and Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher. Appearance Code Committee members present were: Mr. Peplow, Mr. Driscoll, and Mr. Messineo. Staff members present were: Ms. Brautigam, Ms. Readler, Ms. Clarke, Mr. Harvey and Mr. Gunderman. Mr. Kranstuber noted that a community appearance code is a very complex topic. Although the committee spent numerous hours discussing the many elements in great detail, the Committee has developed a list of streamlined solutions. Mr. Peplow noted that consensus was obtained on many items. He thanked Council for the appointment to the Committee. He enjoyed working with such a knowledgeable and courteous group, and thanked staff for their support, especially Brandol Harvey. Mr. Harvey anticipated the needs of the committee and provided invaluable direction in the study. Mr. Harvey stated that although the recommendations presented tonight are fairly concise, they evolved after a study that encompassed extensive information. Additional information is provided to Council tonight to provide explanation on how the Committee arrived at their recommendations. He then acknowledged each of the Committee members and noted how they had contributed to the dialogue. He also acknowledged the efforts of staff, including Planning, Building and Engineering divisions; Paula Chape, City Forester, for her expertise regarding street tree issues; and Jennifer Readler, who provided legal guidance. He reviewed the relationship between this effort and Council goals and priorities. The Community Plan and economic development strategies impact the scope of the Appearance Code, as well as the budget constraints of the City. Mr. Harvey stated that Council adopted as goals for 2003 the revision of the Development Code and increased code enforcement. Whenever recommendations are made for new requirements from development, more demand is put on code enforcement. He noted that the committee's recommendations propose new Study Session Monday, May 12, 2003 Page 2 requirements for private landscaping, and items that will affect building permits for one, two and three-family homes. However, the higher quality standards recommended would eventually alleviate some of the need for code enforcement in the future. Mr. Harvey noted that the Committee's recommendations include an update of the "community character" section of the Community Plan. He is pleased that continued updates of the Community Plan and the Zoning Code are ongoing goals of Council, as regular updates are essential for both to remain relevant and beneficial to the City. The Community Plan is supported by the Development Code and rezonings. When a planned district is adopted, it creates a new zoning district and essentially changes the Development Code. Therefore, the Development Code and rezonings must be in concert with the Community Plan in order to implement the Community Plan. The capital improvements program is also important to achieve the overall Community Plan. The package presented tonight includes: {1 }the Chairman's transmittal letter; (2} Part A, additions to the Community Plan, establishing the findings of the committee; (3} The policies recommended to City Council and suggested implementation strategies; {4) Part B, relatively minor changes to the current Code, particularly in public and private landscaping; and (5} Part C, creation of the Dublin residential appearance code. Mr. Harvey noted that the Committee members spent 8 months, attended 12 meetings involving 30 plus hours, and reviewed 2,000 slides and pages of data and multiple drafts of the Code. The Committee felt it important that Council understand the overall process and thinking involved in developing the list of recommendations. First, they looked at Dublin overall to see what opportunity there is for making a difference in the future. They identified both successful and unsuccessful neighborhoods and evaluated the reason they were considered as such in terms of appearance. They attempted to keep in mind what is actually being built in Dublin, to review current planning practices, existing Code requirements, and what other cities are doing. Finally, they identified what should be changed and the cumulative impact of the recommendations. He noted that Dublin has an appearance element, an historic element, and architectural significance. It is somewhat limited geographically. There are also non- visible things, which make up the perception of Dublin -cultural aspects. Some of those cultural aspects are made visible. A significant characteristic of Dublin is the employment base. Another element, which is addressed tonight, is its single-family development. Of all those, the element that will have the greatest future growth is Study Session Monday, May 12, 2003 Page 3 new residential development. Since 1985, the trend has been downward. The average had been 390 new homes/year overall, but during the last five years, the average has dropped to 350 homes/year. Overall, the estimated total number of homes in Dublin is 12,000. It is estimated that 8,000 additional homes could be added, based on the densities being approved. Two-thirds of the future housing inventory is already in place. Ninety-five percent of the acreage zoned for residential development is zoned as planned districts. Not all is developed yet. In those planned districts, only 17 percent of the approved homes remain to be built - 2,000 housing units. Looking at planned districts as well as straight zoning is very important as the recommendations are evaluated. The committee reviewed Dublin's residential areas. They looked at newly developing, maturing, and mature developments. An example of new development would be Amberleigh North, which is a combination of straight and curvilinear streets, lots with 100 plus feet of frontage, and relatively low density. Along Somerset Way, the trees are new -- 1-3/4 inch in diameter, and due to the newness of the neighborhood, the dominant visual element in the neighborhood is the architecture. An example of a maturing neighborhood is Amberleigh South. The trees are more mature and there is an increase in private landscaping. Although the roadway is the primary visual element, from the sidewalk, the impact of private landscaping is apparent. Driving down Glencullen Court, the view of homes is somewhat obscured by the presence of maturing trees. There are also a number of trees in each private yard, which helps to mask the architecture. Kendall Ridge is composed of homes on smaller lots, averaging 60-65 feet; thus, there are more homes per mile. The trees are relatively immature, and the homes are the dominant element, particularly because of the garage fronts. There is, typically, one private tree on each lot. The overall impression is one of roadway pavement and garage fronts. In the Dublinshire area, the landscaping is more mature, and it is begining to fill the view. Most of the vista is green in this area. In Indian Run Meadows, there are a variety of lot sizes with 65-85-ft. frontages. The trees are maturing, both public and private, but the dominant visual element is, again, the pavement. In comparing Indian Run Meadows and Dublinshire, the neighborhoods are of similar density with trees of similar maturity, but more landscape is viewed in Dublinshire than pavement. Mr. Harvey showed an example of the effective use of complementing public street trees with private trees. The garage front juts toward the street, but the landscaping softens the view of the garage. Study Session Monday, May 12, 2003 Page 4 In the Woods of Dublin, most of the streets are curvilinear. The street trees are not closely spaced together or overwhelmingly large, but the curved street makes them very effective. In Donegal Cliffs, there are curvilinear streets and fairly drastic topographical changes. There is a strong feeling of changing landscaping and greenery in the area - a feeling of movement and transition. Waterford Village, south of Old Dublin, is one of the most mature planned districts. Its development began in the early 1970's. It has curvilinear streets, with short vistas. On Stonewall Ct, there is a strong combination of public street trees and private landscaping. The eyes are drawn to the landscaping, rather than homes. The Committee also looked outside of Dublin. They looked at traditional neighborhood development in New Albany, OH; Seaside, FL; Cheshire, SC; and Lakelands, SC. There is a high emphasis on quality, and to a lesser degree, an diversity and commonality. New Albany visually projects an image of country - an estate in the suburbs. The feeling of street tree landscaping is a strong element. The initial installation size of the street trees is 3" - 6". Cheshire, SC, was intended to look like a 1950's-1960's community. Lakelands, SC, is very urban in scale; the lots are small and the total spacing between homes is 20 feet. There is a heavy emphasis on multi-family development. The fundamental finding of the committee was that a good neighborhood appearance is less influenced by the appearance of individual homes and lots in the neighborhood than by the neighborhood's overall view and the collective experience of traveling through those neighborhoods. Several key appearance elements were identified. They were all interrelated with varying degrees of importance. Under neighborhood elements were street layouts, curvilinear or grid, a diversity of lot width and front setbacks already adopted in 2002). Street trees and private landscaping were ranked first in importance. Garages were ranked next in importance, in both garage placement and amount of door exposure to the street. Elimination of blank walls was considered very important, as well as the quality and durability of building materials and architectural detailing. Other elements listed were: lot size diversity, consistency of house sizes, front setback diversity, side yard diversity, and architectural diversity. Mr. Kranstuber noted that the survey reflects the committee's opinion after several meetings had occurred, at which the committee had viewed and evaluated several hundred slides taken of various neighborhoods. The survey does not reflect pre- existing prejudices of individuals. Initially, he believed the most important element was aesthetics of houses. However, the slides were very revealing, which changed many of the early opinions of the committee members. Study Session Monday, May 12, 2003 Page 5 Mr. Harvey, continuing, stated that in looking at the category of large, neighborhood elements, street trees were considered the most important element. There are a number of ways municipalities address street trees. Dublin looks at the tree as an individual specimen that should be highlighted. The tree is placed to allow for maximum growth of that tree. Space is allowed between all trees to allow for the optimum growth of all trees and to facilitate maintenance of the street trees. The space varies slightly according to the tree size. Typically, the space is 45-50 feet spacing {approximately three and one-third vehicle lengths from tree trunk to tree trunk). Occasionally, another method is used in placing trees, and that is to treat them as an individual group, with the objective of achieving a sense of enclosure. New Albany has done this to create a colonnade or edge effect. Another method is to deliberately have them grow together and over-reach the street to create a sense of enclosure on the sides and overhead. Finally, there is the combination approach, which is used to create a transition effect throughout a neighborhood. New Albany has used this approach in The Reserve. He showed examples of street tree landscaping in various communities. He displayed an example of New Albany landscaping with 20-ft. spacing, 3"-6" initial installation size, and a more suburban street with 24-ft tree spacing. He noted that in New Albany, all the cul de sacs are either treated with landscaping or as a park with some type of park improvements in them. Mr. Harvey showed an example nearer to Dublin. There is a large cul de sac in Tartan Fields that has an opportunity for landscaping in the center, but Wane has been provided. The primary impression is of hardscape. In Muirfield, there are several large cul de sacs, which are landscaped. The committee's opinion was that there is an advantage in having a variety of cul de sac types in a subdivision. Dublin's existing Code requirements far street trees control installation spacing and size. There is a minimum and maximum requirement for spacing between trees. With large trees, the minimum desirable spacing is 45 feet, the maximum is 50 feet and the required tree caliper is 1-3/4". Moving down in size to the medium tier, the requirement is 10 feet less in spacing, with a tree caliper of 1-3/4". In the small tree category, spacing is 45-30 feet, with a tree caliper of 1-3/4". He noted that although those are the standards, what may occur in the field may vary from the standard for a number of reasons. For instance, in looking at Kendall Ridge statistics, although the requirement is 50 feet, trees occur on the average of 61 ~/2 feet. This is due to the fact that Kendall Ridge lots are small, and there are a number of driveways. Therefore, the opportunity to place trees is interrupted. On the south side, there aren't as many driveways, so the spacing between street trees averages 50 feet. In the median, Study Session Monday, May 12, 2003 Page 6 the trees average 34 feet. In Amberleigh, which has 100-foot lots, there are fewer driveways, and the average spacing is 45-46 feet on each side. The committee looked at the practices of other cities. Of the 44 cities surveyed: four have the same requirements; 23 required larger tree size, and one had smaller initial tree size. For spacing, seven had the same spacing between trees, 21 required closer spacing, and three required more spacing. Ms. Salay inquired how the City arrived at its spacing requirements. Mr. Reiner stated that the City's ordinance is modeled after one in Lexington, Ky. Mr. Kranstuber stated that the slides that were studied proved to the Committee that the street trees and landscaping were of great importance in terms of appearance. Of the cities compared, only four had less stringent standards than Dublin; 24 were more stringent than Dublin. Dublin's standards were in the bottom 10-15th percentile. Ms. Chope, City Forester, was invited to a meeting. She was resistant to significant increases in the street tree program. All the recommendations from this Committee are for moderate changes, including to street trees. The recommendation is to diminish the spacing slightly and increase the tree caliper slightly. The intent is to be more in line with other cities, if possible. This initiative has failed before due to resistance from the development community, but these recommendations should not have a significant effect on the development community. Mr. Reiner stated that the final test is if the legislation will hold up in the State Supreme Court. When the present street tree standards were originally adopted in the 1980's, Ohio judges were extremely conservative, ruling from apro-business perspective. That caused the City to be overly cautious in establishing street tree regulations. Mr. Harvey stated that there have been major changes in this area since that time. Many more cities have instituted appearance codes. The courts have recognized that there is a positive property value -- a welfare issue, associated with street trees for the community. An appearance code is not considered "arbitrary and capricious." Mr. Harvey stated that the Committee also considered private landscaping. Single- family residential is the only use in Dublin today that is not required to have landscaping. They looked at what other cities in Ohio are requiring with private landscaping. Typically, two or three trees were required per lot, or the number of trees was based on the lot size. A number of cities also took a design approach and required that a minimum percentage of the yard must fall under a tree canopy once the tree is mature. The design aspect is effective, but it is very difficult to Study Session Monday, May 12, 2003 Page 7 monitor. From the sampling, the average minimum tree caliper size required was 2- 1 /4". Seven Dublin builders were surveyed, and they indicated that a minimum of one or two trees is included in their base landscape package. They will provide more at additional cost. The separate cost of that package would average $500 - $750. Mr. Harvey displayed a slide of a home site with the minimum current requirements. He then added an overlay containing the additional proposed elements, which produced a much more attractive view. The Committee's recommendations in Part A of their report is: to update the Community Plan to incorporate the findings and recommend some policies and strategies. Some older traditional suburban developments have characteristics that ought to be repeated, which includes curvilinear streets and specific typographical characteristics. The alder suburban developments have sizable and closely spaced street trees and a variety of landscaped cul de sacs. There are mature and consistent front yard trees throughout the subdivision. Well-landscaped trees in front yards reduce the importance of architecture of individual homes. As a result of those findings, the following issues, policies and strategies are recommended: encourage curvilinear streets, increase the number and size of street trees trying to achieve a street canopy rather than an individual specimen appearance, require landscaping in cul de sacs and allow far alternative cul de sac sizes and patterns, and require front yard trees for single-family, detached homes. Those policies and strategies in Part A would then be implemented by Part B of the report, which might appear deceptively simple. The net result, however, should be dramatic. The recommendation is to reduce by five feet the minimum and maximum spacing between street trees and to encourage the tree installation size from 1-3/4" to 2". These recommendations are supported by the City Forester. Additionally, the recommendation is made that the City requires trees to be placed in the front yards ofsingle-family homes. The trees are to be from the approved tree list used by the street tree program. Additionally, if the lot frontage is 90 feet or more, a minimum of three trees would be required. If less than 90 feet, it would be two front yard trees. Mayor McCash inquired if all three trees were to be the same. Mr. Harvey stated that it would be an option, but not required. Mrs. Boring stated that these are the Committee's recommendations. At what point is Council's input regarding these recommendations desired? Study Session Monday, May 12, 2003 Page 8 Mr. Harvey suggested that Council defer discussion until the end of the presentation. Mrs. Boring stated that Mr. Kranstuber has shared the Committee's concern about making recommendations for only moderate changes. However, she is of the strong opinion that the recommendation for increasing the tree width by'/4" is too minimal to make any difference. She is hopeful that Council will consider increasing that size. to be more in line with other cities. Mayor McCash agreed. He believes that 2-112" is the minimum caliper tree for commercial developments. Ms. Clarke stated that measurements of nursery stock are typically given in a range; in this case, it would be 2" to 2-1/2". Mr. Kranstuber said that he believes New Albany's street tree requirement is 2-112" or 3". Mr. Harvey stated that it actually varies from 3" to 6". Mr. Kranstuber stated Ms. Chape was very resistant to much change being made in the tree caliper or the spacing between trees. He could not recall the basis for her argument. Mr. Reiner stated that her argument is based upon the fact that 1-3/4" - 2-1 /2" caliper trees are good, transportable trees. In the industry, when a tree of greater caliper is transported, 4"-6", the tree's growth is stunted. The ball is supposed to be made bigger with a larger caliper tree. In reality, a 2"-2-1 /2" tree sometimes outgrows a 3"- 4" tree. This would be due to the amount of top growth in the larger tree, the upper quadrant of which should be pruned back to accommodate the roots, which have been cut off. So, the tree sits idle, attempting to recover its vitality. Mr. Kranstuber inquired Mr. Refiner's recommendation on street tree width. Mr. Reiner recommended 2" - 2-1 /2" caliper trees. New Albany suffered approximately 98% loss on some of their 6" street tree plantings. This was also due to the fact that they didn't buy northern grown stock. For each caliper of tree, the cost is approximately $110, so a 2" caliper tree would cost $220; a 3" caliper tree would cost $330, etc. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher suggested specifying 2-112" caliper, thereby ensuring that the City acquires a 2" tree. Study Session Monday, May 12, 2003 Page 9 Mr. Peplow stated that the Committee's original intent was to install larger trees, until the Forester explained that this would not achieve the desired results. Mr. Lecklider inquired if the trees required for private landscaping would be of the same caliper as those required for street trees. Mr. Harvey stated the requirement would be the same for both. Mr. Lecklider inquired if there were any discussions about the possibility of requiring a different caliper for each. Council consensus was that they be the same caliper in order to be of the same scale. Ms. Salay inquired if the homeowners would be required to replace their trees that fail. Mr. Harvey said that the homeowner would be required to maintain the trees in order to meet the City's requirement. Ms. Salay stated that could be a hardship for some homeowners. Mayor McCash stated that this could present a problem. If eighty percent of the landscaping that is required survives, that would be the best to be hoped for. Most of the residents will take care of the trees. Compliance for the other 20 percent shouldn't be a major objective of the City. Mr. Harvey stated most of the builders are installing two or three trees. He noted that enforcement on the basis of complaints made is not very productive. However, if the City makes periodic inspection of the neighborhoods, a higher level of compliance could be achieved. Mayor McCash stated that he would prefer to see the City focus on the trees being installed at the time of construction, but not pursue enforcement of this issue. Mr. Harvey stated that this may add to the property maintenance program of the City, but it does not introduce a new avenue of Code enforcement. Ms. Salay stated that when their neighborhood was new, the City made periodic checks to ensure the street landscaping was becoming established. Perhaps the City could include inspection of the required front yard trees along with the street tree inspection during the critical two years following installation. Study Session Monday, May 12, 2003 Page 10 Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that homeowner associations also have landscape inspectors. They typically send letters to a homeowner if they detect a problem with the landscaping for a particular home. If the City requires homeowner associations for all neighborhoods, perhaps the City could require that a landscape committee be part of the structure of those associations. Garages -Percentage of Coverage Garages have been identified as a dominant element in residential development. Therefore, the Committee's suggestion is to restrict garages in their placement on the property and in the amount of garage door exposure. These limitations will apply on those garages and garage doors facing the primary street. If the lot is a corner or through lot with more than one street, it will be the primary frontage that the garage door faces, which will be controlled. Side-entry, side or court garages would not be controlled, as they do not face the primary street. In determining percentages of garage door exposure in relation to overall elevation, percentage is determined by taking the width of the door, divided by the width of the elevation facing the street. The trim for the door opening does not count. Mr. Kranstuber stated that in the discussion regarding garage doors, the Committee refers to the architecture of the home. This restriction of 35 percent would have the greatest effect on the smaller homes within the City. Looking at recently constructed, two-car garage-door homes within the City, 86 percent of the houses surveyed would meet the test. The most common two-car garage door is 16 feet. Using that as a benchmark, what elevation would the house have to be to avoid exceeding 35 percent? Mr. Harvey responded that the minimum house elevation would have to be 46 feet, which would not be that demanding. Mayor McCash inquired what the minimum lot width required would be. How would this requirement fit in with the conservation subdivision design? If the lots were too narrow, they would not fit the proposed regulation. However, a wider lot does not meet the 60 percent development and achieve the density guidelines. Mr. Harvey stated that in the typical conservation development, the area in which the houses are placed is very dense. The side yard requirements are lower than in a traditional suburban development. Many of the planned districts have 15' of total side yard, including both sideyards. Twenty-five feet combined both side yards is typical in a straight district, but most of the planned districts are greater than that. In a conservation design district,15 feet of side yard is typical. Adding 15 feet to that that would result in a 61-foot wide yard. If the City were to adopt conservation design subdivisions, it would be under a planned development approach. The applicant could propose whatever standards they wish for their design or concept. Study Session Monday, May 12, 2003 Page 11 Mr. Harvey showed slides of various samples of garage percentage of elevation. Discussion continued. The Committee looked at three-car garages, which are becoming more popular. Surveys indicated that, in Dublin, the average percent of elevation for three-car garages is 45 percent. Studies indicate that 88 percent of the homes in Dublin would pass the test, if that percentage were required. Mrs. Boring inquired if the regulation pertained to the door width only; the garage structure could be larger. Mr. Harvey indicated that was so. Mr. Harvey stated the Committee's recommendation for garage doors is that one and two-car garage doors not exceed 35 percent of the overall house elevation, and garage doors ofthree-car garages not exceed 45 percent. Discussion continued. Mr. Reiner expressed support for tightening the standard slightly. There are many options available to builders within a tighter standard. Mr. Kranstuber stated that the Committee determined three things: {1 }identified that the size of the garage versus the mass of the house is a problem with Dublin architecture, {2} presented a framework far solution, {3} chase a number, which would not be too rigid. The first two items, the Committee felt strongly about; there were mixed opinions regarding the percentage. Therefore, if Council wants to change that to a more aggressive number, the Committee does not object. He cautioned, however, against increasing the number to an amount to which the building community would object, and then not passing the legislation. He added that the Committee attempted to be very reasonable, believing that the cumulative effective would make a difference. Also, it is subject to revision; a year from now, the numbers could be increased. Garage Projection Mr. Lecklider inquired about the formula for 15-foot projection. Mayor McCash inquired if that standard applied only to front-loaded garages. Mr. Kranstuber said that it did; side-loaded garages would be exempt from the proposed regulations. Study Session Monday, May 12, 2003 Page 12 Mr. Harvey showed an example of a "snout garage." He noted that homes that were built in the 1980's frequently had a roof extended from the sidewall of the garage over the front-entry porch. He showed examples of that style and also of flush garages. Garage Color Mr. Reiner stated that the slides reveal another problem. In painting the garages with a contrasting trim, the garages are accentuated. He proposed requiring that garages be trimmed in one of the primary colors used on the rest of the house, and, thereby, not emphasized. Mr. Harvey stated that the Committee discussed the advisability of including color palette requirements. The consensus was that it is difficult to administer. Mr. Reiner stated that in this one area a color requirement should be made, which would be to use one of the primary colors of the remainder of the house and thereby blend into the whole. In Muirfield, all basketball posts and mailboxes must be painted in an innocuous color to de-emphasize them. Mr. Harvey agreed that from an appearance standpoint, the high contrast emphasizes the garage door. He has administered codes that addressed color and material combinations. However, because homeowners tend to paint more often than they do other home improvements, this complicates the code enforcement task. Requirements at the time of the initial building permit pose no difficulty, however, the later painting by the homeowner would be difficult to control. Mr. Reiner stated that he proposes that the requirement apply only with the initial construction. Mrs. Boring stated that she does not support the idea of the City becoming involved in a complicated enforcement issue, Mr. Reiner noted that there are architectural review boards that include this requirement in their criteria. The City should not completely overlook an important guideline. If the homebuilder paints the garage trim one of the primary colors of the house, the homeowner is mare likely to retain that color than change it. Mr. Kranstuber cautioned against "over-reaching." The homeowner should be able to paint his garage whatever color he wishes. Mr. Reiner reiterated that the requirement would apply only to the builder with initial construction. Study Session Monday, May 12, 2003 Page 13 Mr. Peplow indicated that he would not object to including the requirement during the construction stage. Mr. Harvey stated that he could refine the language so that it would meet the intent as proposed. The question is whether it is required only at the time of the initial building permit and not to be maintained throughout the life of the house. Council direction was to include the color requirement as construction criteria only, not as a maintenance requirement. Garage Praiection resumed Mr. Harvey stated that after extensive discussion, the Committee recommendation is that a garage should not extend further than 15 feet from the main part of the house. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired about the garage extensions in Kendall Ridge. Mr. Harvey estimated 10-12 feet. Mr. Reiner inquired as to the aesthetic reason for wanting to place the garage in front of the house. Mr. McCash stated that, typically, a family room is behind the garage. Mr. Harvey stated that the statistics for projections vary between the three-car and two-car garages in Dublin. From a small sampling of 120 homes, the average projection for athree-car garage is 6-1/3 feet and the average projection for atwo- car garage is 8-3/4 feet. Mayor McCash inquired if there is an adjacent porch, would the projection be measured from the front of the porch at the front of the house, excluding the porch? Mr. Harvey stated that if the porch had a roof, it would be considered a vertical plane; the projection would be measured from the parch. Mr. Lecklider, referring to the previous discussion regarding percentage of elevation, suggested that the maximum percent of elevation for athree-car garage not exceed 40 percent {rather than 45 percent as proposed). A smaller number than 15 feet for the project should also be used. Mr. Reiner agreed with Mr. Lecklider's proposal of 40 percent maximum coverage for three-car garages. He also noted that if the projection were recessed somewhat, a more interesting rear fagade would be created. Is the issue to Study Session Monday, May 12, 2003 Page 14 accommodate the developers or create more interesting houses? It is a difficult call. Council wants to be user-friendly, yet instill motivation to build more interesting structures. The biggest violator of this intent would be the production builder. Mr. Driscoll stated that the Committee conducted a survey on this topic and determined that in Ballantrae, surprisingly, the biggest violator was not M/l Homes, but rather, CV Perry, Bob Webb and Truberry Homes. Mr. Reiner inquired whether modification of this section would improve the quality of architecture for houses. Mr. Lecklider noted that the Committee probably considered the increased cost associated with that type of change. Mayor McCash stated that the cost would depend upon the layout. If there were no structure over the garage and family room, the cost would be less than if a master bedroom were constructed over that projection. Mr. Reiner stated that his company builds patios daily for homes that have blank facades. He would welcome a more complex facade, which would create opportunities for creative landscaping. Mr. Harvey stated that requiring that the garage be further recessed is not directly proportional to the rear elevation of the house. Also, the more forward the garage is, the more lot remains for the floor plan of the house. Mr. Peplow stated that moving the family room into an L-shape off the back of the house breaks up a blank fagade, which achieves another objective of the committee. Mr. Lecklider moved that for two-car garages, the projection be limited to twelve feet, and for three-car garages, the projection be limited to ten feet. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Mr. Lecklider stated that his motion is in the nature of a compromise. As Mr. Kranstuber noted earlier, if the legislation does not appear to achieve Council's objective, it could be revised next year. Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, abstain; Mayor McCash, yes. Mr. Kranstuber explained that he hesitates to vote on a motion without first checking with the builders regarding potential impact and without having Mr. Harvey "run the numbers." Study Session Monday, May 12, 2003 Page 15 Mayor McCash agreed, but noted that he is comfortable that the Planning Commission will conduct that study. Mr. Lecklider moved to revise the recommendation for the maximum coverage of the front elevation by the garage door for athree-car garage from 45 percent to 40 percent; 35 percent remaining the standard for the two-car garage maximum coverage. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Mrs. Boring stated that due to the statistics Mr. Harvey shared, she prefers to try a more moderate approach initially. Mr. Kranstuber stated that Mr. Harvey performed calculations on this issue. The percentage the Committee recommended eliminates the truly offensive floorplans, but allows the builders to retain most of their floorplans. Mayor McCash stated that if other factors were addressed such as the color palette, reducing the visibility of the garage, perhaps the recommended percentage would be effective. Mr. Lecklider stated that in defense of his motion, 45 percent translates to virtually half of the front elevation consisting of garage doors. That is excessive. He would disagree that the color would appear to reduce that fact. The design of the house being consumed primarily by the garage door is inappropriate. He believes that 40 percent is a very reasonable compromise. Ms. Salay agreed. She prefers to set the standard at 40 percent. If that should be an impossible standard, Council will be apprised of that fact. Mr. Reiner agreed. A garage door that consumes 45 percent of the front elevation is over-powering. If it is also projecting, it becomes the dominant feature of the house. If the directive is to upscale the quality and appearance of the City's residential development, it would be consistent with that directive to tighten the standard to 40 percent. Vote on the motion: Mayor McCash, no; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, no; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, no; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. (Motion failed} Mr. Harvey stated that the next topic is vinyl siding. Due to the late hour, he asked whether Council would prefer to proceed or defer further discussion until the next meeting. Council consensus was to end discussion at this time. Study Session Monday, May 12, 2003 Page 16 Mr. Lecklider inquired if foundations would also be discussed at the next meeting. Mr. Harvey indicated they would be discussed. Mayor McCash thanked Mr. Harvey for an excellent presentation. Mayor McCash moved to adjourn into executive session at 9:27 p.m. for the purpose of discussion of legal matters and land acquisition. He noted that the meeting will be reconvened only for the purpose of adjourning the Council meeting. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously. The meeting was reconvened and formally adjourned at 10:10 p.m.. Clerk of Council