Loading...
59-03 Ordinance (Amd) RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043 Ordinance No. 59-03 (Amended) Passed , 20 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE BY AMENDING THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 153.133 AND 153.134 AND ADOPTING SECTION 153.190 RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS. (CASE NO. 03-014ADM - LANDSCAPE CODE AMENDMENT AND ADOPTING RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS). WHEREAS, the City Council appointed the Dublin Appearance Code Committee June 17, 2003 in Resolution 24-02 to research the issues and current code requirements relating to the appearance of residential neighborhoods and houses and to make recommendations regarding same; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to from time to time to amend the code in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the City. WHEREAS, the Appearance Code Committee conducted twelve meetings of research into neighborhood appearance and established community character; and WHEREAS, the Appearance Code Committee arrived at findings to protect and preserve the established community character and existing inventory of homes, and to promote positive neighborhood appearance in future neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Committee recommendations and first reading Code changes referred by the City Council, and recommends the adoption with amendments because they serve to implement City Council objectives and the Community Plan; and WHEREAS, planning and development operations and procedures should be updated as necessary to implement the Community Plan and to assist the authorities responsible for reviewing and approving development; and i WHEREAS, planning and development policies and evaluative criteria should be confirmed by the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission to ensure they ~I assist them in the review and approval process, and should be clearly documented to facilitate public understanding and consistency in application; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, ~_of the elected members concurring, as follows: i I I Section 1. That Section 153.133 MINIMUM LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS be amended as follows: ' (D) Additional Site Landscaping Requirements. All new developments, regardless of type, and all alterations or expansions to existing developments, shall provide site landscaping in addition to the previously required perimeter landscaping. Site landscaping shall consist primarily of new tree planting or the preservation of existing trees or hedges within the development site. (1) Preservation of wooded areas: It is encouraged that efforts be made to preserve natural vegetation areas. Consideration shall be given to laying out streets, lots, structures and parking areas to avoid the unnecessary destruction of heavily wooded areas or outstanding tree specimens. It is further encouraged that, whenever possible, heavily wooded areas be designated as park reserves. (Refer to § 153.140 - 153.148 Tree Preservation.) i RECORD OF ORDINANCES Page 2 of 9 Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043 59-03 (Amended) Ordinance No. Passed . 20 (2) Site planting requirements. (a) Purpose. It is the purpose of this section to provide additional landscaping to enhance the appearance and customer attraction of commercial and industrial areas, to enhance the architectural character and aesthetics of the site and residential neighborhoods, and to enhance the beautification of the city. This section pertains to additional landscaping located around the building and other portions of the site. It does not include landscape material that has been provided to fulfill the planting requirements for interior landscaping, vehicular use area perimeters, property perimeters, and street trees. (b) For all new development the following landscape requirements shall apply: Use Requirements Single Family Dwellings, per dwelling unit On every lot with 90 (ninety) feet or greater frontage, there shall be maintained a minimum of 3 (three) front yard trees. On every lot with less than 90 (ninety) feet frontage, there shall be maintained a minimum of 2 (two) yard trees. Trees shall meet the same standards as for the street trees of the subdivision and shall be located within the minimum front setback, no closer than seven feet to a side property line. Corner and through lots shall meet these requirements on all street frontages. Section 2. That Section 153.134 STREET TREE AND PUBLIC TREE REQUIREMENTS be amended as follows: The planting of street trees shall be required at the time a parcel is developed or redeveloped, in all zoning districts, and in accordance with the following regulations. (Ord. 66-93, passed 9-20-93) i (A) Requirements for trees located on city-owned public property. The following are requirements for the planting, pruning and removal of trees within city- owned property. For the purposes of this section, city-owned property shall include all public ways, streets, alleys, parks or other property owned by the Municipality. (1) Requirements. It shall be required that all subdividers or developers plant trees along public streets of their developments in such a manner, type, quantity and location as approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and as defined by the following conditions, and that any undeveloped street or existing street i with undeveloped frontage shall conform to these requirements at the time of the development. Final tree locations maybe adjusted by the City as unusual conditions may warrant. (a) The tree to be planted shall be an approved street tree as listed in Appendix E (Approved Street Trees for Dublin, Ohio). (b) The minimum spacing between this and other trees shall be 40 feet for large trees, 30 feet for medium trees and 20 feet for small trees. See definition below. ~I (c) The maximum spacing between trees shall be 45 feet for large trees, 35 feet for medium trees, and 25 feet for small trees. I I RECORD OF ORDINANCES Page 3 of 9 Dayton Legal Blank, inc. Form No. 30043 59-03 (Amended) Ordinance No. Passed 20 (d) The minimum distance between the tree and the edge of the street shall be two and one-half feet for a large tree, two feet for a medium tree and one and one-half feet for a small tree. In areas where a sidewalk exists or is proposed, the minimum distance between the tree trunk and both the edge of the street and the sidewalks shall be two feet for a large tree, two feet for a medium tree and one and one- . half feet for a small tree. (e) The tree location shall be at least 20 feet from street intersections and ten feet from fire hydrants or utility poles. (f) A small tree shall be used when planting under or within ten lateral feet of overhead utility wires. A small or medium tree shall be used when planting within ten to 201ateral feet of overhead utility wires. (g) The developers shall be required to maintain the trees for one year after the trees are planted and to replace any tree which fails to survive or does not exhibit normal growth characteristics of health and vigor within such one-year period. Aone-year guarantee period shall begin at each planting and shall recommence as trees are replaced. Upon completion of a street tree planting, the landscape contractor shall contact the Division of Planning and City Forester for a preliminary inspection. The guarantee period shall begin after the approval of the Division of Planning and City Forester. A final inspection shall be made at the end of the guarantee period. All trees not exhibiting a healthy, vigorous growing condition, as determined by the city's inspection, shall be promptly replaced at the expense of the developer. (h) The trees should be of one and the same genus and species planted continuously down each street as per street tree ordinance. The minimum trunk caliper measured at six inches above the ground for all street trees shall be no less than two and one-half inches. Section 3. That Section 153.140 TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS, (B) APPLICABILITY be amended in part to read as follows: (1) This subchapter applies to trees which have a minimum six-inch diameter breast height (DBH), hereinafter known as protected trees, on all public and private properties, in all zoning districts. On lots containing no more than one detached single-family dwelling, § 153.146, "Tree Replacements," shall apply only to those areas of the single-family lot designated as a "No Build Zone/No Disturb Zone" and/or "Tree Preservation Zone" and to trees required as front yard trees in § 153.133 Minimum Landscape Requirements. All other sections of this subchapter shall be applicable to single-family residential lots. Section 4. That Section 153.190 RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS to regulate the appearance and construction of houses be adopted as follows: § 153.190 RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS (A) Residential Appearance. The following findings warrant the need for exterior appearance standards for residential development. (1) The Community Plan recommends promoting a high quality built ~I environment. (2) Providing for compliance with appearance regulations will assist in creating quality development within residential neighborhoods. (3) Limiting the garage appearance within the front elevation limits the negative visual impact. (4) A balance of natural and synthetic building materials allows for design creativity and promotes quality development. (5) Trim around windows completes the appearance on every elevation. i I i I RECORD OF ORDINANCES Page 4 of 9 Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043 59-03 (Amended) Ordinance No. Passed 20 (6) Placing windows, doors, porches, and other features on each elevation enhances the visual environment and contributes to the overall architectural diversity of a neighborhood. (7) The lack of detailing, architectural features, and trim on elevations detracts from a house and reduces the visual quality of a neighborhood. (B) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide design standards that are applicable to one, two, and three-family dwelling units. For purposes of this section, a one, two, and three-family dwelling unit will be considered a "house." These standards are designed to increase the quality of neighborhoods, to promote creativity and positive architectural appearance within residential areas, to encourage design flexibility and creativity, and to establish an interesting, aesthetically pleasing residential environment. It is also the intent of this section to promote durable, quality materials that will allow residential neighborhoods to endure and mature for future generations in the City. (1) Minimum Standards. These standards are minimum appearance standards applicable to all houses in all districts, including Planned Development Districts, except as may be specifically approved in the Planned Development District ordinance. (2) Residential Appearance Objectives for Planned Development Districts. Residential Appearance Objectives for Planned Development Districts shall be adopted by City Council. These objectives explain more general intents regarding appearance in order to allow for creativity in meeting them through the Planned Development District process. Planned Development District proposals must demonstrate how the proposal addresses the Residential Appearance Objectives and should replace these minimum standards. (3) Scheduled Review for Update. Within twelve months of the effective date, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the Residential Appearance Standards and Residential Appearance Objectives for Planned Development Districts for updating as necessary to continue to meet the needs of the City of Dublin. (C) Applicability. (1) These standards shall apply to all new houses and existing houses requesting a 25 percent expansion of the livable area or a significant exterior alteration. (a) A significant exterior alteration is a change in roofline, adding or removing windows or doors, altering projections and recesses, or changing the exterior building materials. (b) These standards will apply to only the expansion area of the house or the exterior alteration and will not require the entire house to come into compliance with these regulations. (2) Houses within special districts described below are exempt or must comply with these standards as follows: (a) Those houses located within a planned district that is approved after the effective date of this ordinance shall comply with these residential appearance standards, or with specific substitute residential appearance standards contained in the adopting planned district ordinance. These residential appearance standards shall apply unless specifically stated substitute standards are approved in the planned district ordinance. In the case of absent, or non-specific standards in the planned district ordinance, the more restrictive standard will apply. (b) Those houses located within a planned district that was approved prior to the effective date of these residential appearance standards shall be exempt from these residential appearance standards for a period of twelve months after the effective date of this ordinance. After this exemption period, those houses located within a previously approved planned district shall comply with these standards to the degree that the subjects of these standards were not specifically addressed in the i i ~I RECORD OF ORDINANCES Page 5 of 9 Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043 59-03 (Amended) Ordinance No. Passed 20 previously approved planned district ordinance. In the case of absent or non-specific standards, the more restrictive standard will apply. (c) Those houses located within the Architectural Review District or listed in Section 153.170(A) and (B) are exempt. These residential units shall be regulated by the Architectural Review Section of the Dublin Codified Ordinance. (3) Any building permit application for interior alterations to existing houses or any application requesting only plumbing or electrical permits is exempt from this ordinance. (4) All houses for which building permit applications have been submitted at the time of the effective date of this ordinance are exempt from the requirements of this Code. (D) Definitions. For the purposes of this Section, the following definitions apply: (1) Blank Elevation - An elevation that lacks openings and architectural features such as windows, doors, chimneys, water tables, or other similar architectural features. (2) Chimney -For the purposes of these standards, ;a, a structure projecting from the exterior wall of a ~¢~~AFu~,rti~ house and enclosing or appearing to enclose a flue that carries off smoke. It may or may not extend vertically to the eaves line or have a foundation connection to ground. (3) Chimnev, cantilevered - "Cantilevered" refers Cantilevered chimneys to the characteristic that the chimney projects from the exterior wall and does not have a foundation or s r~r>, extension to ground. (4) Chimney, shed-type - "Shed-type" refers to the , n characteristic that the chimney does not extend full height vertically to the eaves line. A shed chimney } typically includes a direct vent outlet in the chimney " " Wall. Shed-type chimney (5) Corbel - To build out one or more courses of brick or stone from the face of a wall, traditionally to form a support for timbers. (6) Cornice -Overhang of a pitched roof at the eaves line, usually consisting of a fascia board, a soffit for a closed cornice, and appropriate moldings. (7) Direct vent outlet -For the purposes of these standards, an outlet through an exterior wall associated with the air supply and/or exhaust of a fire burner. ~ It may or may not occur in a projecting ~ . box/chimney. °J• ~ Direct (8) Dormer- A window set vertically in a vent structure projecting through a sloping ^ ~ ~ roof; also: the roofed structure containing EA+~fS ~"f.~ 4 ff such a window. - " , (9) Eaves -The margin or lower part of a roof ~ _ . , - projecting over the wall. ~ f' (10) Elevation - A geometric projection of the front, side, or rear outer surface of a Dormer Eaves ~ building onto a lp ane perpendicular to the horizontal; a vertical projection. (11) Facade -The front of a building or any of its sides or rear faces. (12) Facing - An ornamental layer, such as the outer wythe of a masonry wall. (13) Fascia - A horizontal piece (such as a board) covering the joint between the top of a wall and the projecting eaves; also called fascia board. ~I li RECORD OF ORDINANCES Page 6 of 9 Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. _ Form No. 30043 59-03 (Amended) Ordinance No. Passed , 20 (14) Frieze Board - A decorated band along the upper part of an exterior wall. In house construction a horizontal member connecting the top of the siding with the soffit of the cornice. (15) Gable - 1 a: the vertical triangular end of a building from cornice or eaves to ridge b: the similar end of a ~ Gable gambrel roof c: the end wall of a building. 2: a triangular part or structure. (16) Masonry -Natural ornatural-appearing stone or brick. (17) Projection -Any component of a structure that juts out from the main building. (18) Soffit -The exposed undersurface of any overhead component of a building. (19) Street-facin Garage door(s) -Garage door which is visible from the street and is less than 60 degrees to the front lot line or street tangent line. A corner or through lot has one such street front, which the entry or primary elevation of the house faces. (20) Trim -The finished woodwork or similar architectural element used to enhance, border or protect the edges of openings or surfaces, such as windows or doors. (21) Vinyl Siding Accessories -Exterior design elements that serve to provide more visual interest and complement the primary home design. _ ~ - _ qua,: ~ = 1...- r; ~ V ~ - _i. i ` _ Door Surround Mantel Decorative Gable Vents Dentil Windows and Shutters Molding Corner Trims (22) Water Table -Courses of brick or stone projecting beyond the face of the exterior wall, typically from grade to first floor bearing or window sill, as a design element and/or to guide water away from the face of the wall. Such feature should be predominately at least twenty-four (24) inches high above ~ grade and located on at least the front elevation of the primary house forms, ~ including walls projecting street-ward. I (E) Residential Design Standards. (1) Design Standards. In addition to all applicable zoning and development standards, the following design standards shall apply to all new houses and existing houses requesting a 25 percent expansion of the livable area or a significant exterior alteration. (a) Chimneys. All chimneys must extend full height, from ground and vertically past the eaves line. Cantilevered chimneys are prohibited. Shed-type chimneys are prohibited. Chimneys must be finished in masonry or stucco. It need not match the background wall in material or color. (b) Finish Building Materials. Wood board, brick, stone, cultured stone, fibrous cement siding, stucco, glass block and vinyl siding are the permitted finish building materials. Asphalt dimensional shingles, slate, tile, standing seam metal, wood shingles or shakes are the permitted roof ~i materials. ~ 1. When a change in materials occurs at corners, the change should occur at the inside corner. If a material change does occur at the outside corner, then the material on the street-facing facade must extend at least two feet past the outer corner. If a house has a side gable and a material change occurs on the outside corner, rather RECORD OF ORDINANCES Page 7 of 9 Dayton Legal Blank, Inc _ Form No. 30043 59-03 (Amended) Ordinance No. Passed . 20 than extending the materials around the corner, a quoin or minimum 3 %i inch wide corner board must be used down the length of both faces of the corner. 2. The number of materials used as major facades, excluding fenestration, shall not exceed three materials. 3. Foundations. Exposed foundations shall be finished in masonry. The permitted construction shall have no more than two foundation- facing materials. (c) Four-Sided Architecture. All sides of a house shall display a level of quality and architectural interest. The majority of a building's architectural features and treatments shall not be restricted to a single facade. Fronts of houses should be articulated through the use of bays, insets, balconies, porches, or stoops related to entrances and windows. For the purpose of four-sided architecture, houses on corner and through lots have more than one street-facing elevation. Each elevation must contain at least two design elements, and each street-facing elevation must contain at least three design elements, in any combination. Provided further all of the following tests are met; 1. There exists at least one design element in each equal one-half vertical division of the subject elevation, and 2. At least one design element occurs between the first floor level and nine (9) feet above the first floor level, and 3. If any upper wall area greater than twenty-four (24) feet wide and nine (9) feet high (measured at nine [9] feet above the first floor level) occurs, at least one design element must be located predominately at least nine (9) feet above the first floor in that elevation. 4. Design elements include: a). A door of at least seventeen (17) square feet in area. b). A window at least six (6) square feet in area. A set of adjacent ~ windows, such as a double or bay window, count as one design element, however, horizontal bands of immediately adjacent window units count as one design element for every eight (8) feet of run. c). A chimney. ~ d). An articulated decorative gable vent of at least four (4) square feet in area. e). A water table. Such feature should be predominately at least twenty-four (24) inches high above grade and located on at least the front elevation of the primary house forms, including walls projecting street-ward. f). A similar significant permanent architectural feature consistent with the style of the house. Garage doors, street-facing. Garages are usually the dominant feature of most houses when seen from the street. Side-loaded and recessed garages are encouraged. For the purpose of determining street-facing garage doors, corner and through lots have one such street front, which the entry or primary elevation of the house faces. Detached street-facing garages located more than twenty-two (22) feet behind the front-most plane of the house structure are exempt from the maximum percentage of elevation standards. Detached street-facing garages twenty-two (22) feet or less from the front-most plane of the house structure shall be calculated within the elevation. Street-facing garage doors must meet the following standards: 1. No single garage door opening shall exceed two car widths or eighteen (18) feet. i RECORD OF ORDINANCES Page 8 of 9 Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. _ Form No. 30043 59-03 (Amended) Ordinance No. Passed 20 2. No combination of garage door openings may exceed three car widths or a total of twenty-six (26) feet. 3. Garage doors shall be recessed or set forward of adjacent garage doors at least 16 inches. 4. Garage door openings may not exceed nine (9) feet in height. 5. Garage door openings totaling two or less car widths shall not constitute more than 35 percent of the linear distance of the front elevation nor project more than twelve (12) feet from the adjacent vertical wall plane. Open uncovered porches shall not be considered a vertical wall plane. 6. Garage door openings totaling three car widths shall not constitute more than 45 percent of the linear distance of the front elevation nor project more than ten (10) feet from the adjacent vertical wall plane. Open uncovered porches shall not be considered a vertical wall plane. 7. Color. The initial installation or replacement of street-facing garage doors must be of aloes-contrast color that is the same, or similar in hue and tonal value, as the primary color of the house. Garage door trim is to match garage doors or the primary trim color of the house (e) Roof Pitch. The main architectural roof of a house must have a minimum 6:12 pitch. Flat roofs may be permitted, but not as the main architectural roof. Dormers, porches, and other similar secondary architectural features may have roofs with a minimum 4:12 pitch. Deep eaves and overhangs are encouraged. (f) Vinyl Homes Any predominately vinyl-sided home must include complementary accessories and detailing where vinyl sided elevations occur, as follows: 1. A detailed main entryway by use of a minimum eight (8) inch wide three-dimensional door-surround system, and ~ 2. Minimum six (6) inch wide frieze or fascia boards, and 3. At least two of the following accessory types must be utilized per home. The selected accessory type must occur on each vinyl-sided elevation as indicated with an "X". Accessories may be utilized in addition to the minimum. MINIMUM ACCESSORIES Selected Accessory Type Must I~~, FOR VINYL-SIDED HOMES Occur (At Least) When This Exterior Wall Elevation is Vin 1: Select 2 Accessory Types: Front Side Rear a). Shutter Pairs X X I b). Mantels X X c). Gin erbread X j d). Masonry Water Table X e). Gable Vent X X X ' I a). Shutter pairs: Must occur at least on all the single and double- wide windows of any front and side vinyl-sided elevations, where wall area permits them. Shutters shall be full height and at least one-half the width of the single or one-quarter the width of the double window. Shutters being used to meet the normal window trim requirements may count towards these requirements. b). Mantels: Must occur at least above all windows in front and side vinyl-sided elevations. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Page 9 of 9 Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043 59-03 (Amended) Ordinance No. Passed 20 c). Gingerbread: A set of gingerbread decorations such as cornices, corbels, columns, or similar three-dimensional elements must occur at least in the front vinyl-sided elevation, provided they occur in a consistent arrangement and according to style of the home. d). A masonry water table: Must occur at least in the dominate walls of the front vinyl-sided elevation and street-ward projections there-from. e). Gable Vents: Must be articulated decorative gable vent(s) of at least 4 square feet in area and occur in at least the front, rear or side vinyl-sided elevations. (g) Windows. Shutters or trim will be required around all windows within any elevation constructed of vinyl, stucco, wood, or fibrous cement siding. Shutters shall be full height and at least one-half the width of the single or one-quarter the width of the double window. Trim must be at least 3.5 inches in width. Special brick detailing, such as soldier course or rowlock, will used on the top and bottoms of windows within a brick elevation. Windows within an elevation constructed of stone or cultured stone will use lintels and sills to create a "trim" on the top and bottom of the windows. (2) Building Material Specifications. Unless otherwise specified, all permitted building materials must be manufactured and built to industry standards and must have a minimum 30-year life expectancy. (a) Vinyl. All vinyl materials must have a minimum thickness of 44 mils, and must be applied over minimum one-half inch thick oriented strand board or plywood. The siding must have aloes-gloss finish. All vinyl must be properly installed to prevent warping or separation. (b) Asphalt dimensional shingles. Asphalt dimensional shingles must be a 25-year "true" dimensional shingle. Painted shadows are not permitted. These shingles must have a minimum weight of 240 pounds per square and an exposure that is no more than 5-5/8 inches in length. (c) Garage doors, street-facing. Garage doors must be of a durable material that does not sag, warp, deteriorate, or delaminate under normal use and weather conditions. Materials such as particleboard or Masonite are prohibited. Section 5. Th/at this Ordinance shall take effect on the earliest date provided by law. Passed this / day of/t/tpi'-G~, , 2004. ~ ayor -Presiding Officer Attest: I Clerk of Council Sponsor: Division of Planning I i ~I ~I i Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 ~ p m o Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 l~ CITT OF DU TO: Members of Dublin City Council FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager~«~,,,~., S . C->1 DATE: March 8, 2004 ~ L~~~ INITIATED BY: Frank Ciarochi, Assistant City Manager & Director of Development Steve Smith, Law Director RE: Ordinance 59-03 (Amended) (Case No. 03-014ADM -Landscape Code Amendment and Adopting Residential Appearance Standards). SUMMARY: City Council adopted the Residential Appearance Standards November 3, 2003. Following public comments, City Council expressed a concern about residential designs currently being used that would not meet the dimensional limitations of the new standards. The concern primarily focused on the limitations placed on garage doors exceeding a certain percentage of the overall house elevation. Currently some house designs, particularly narrow houses on narrow lots, exceed these limitations. Builders were requesting some way to allow such house designs to continue to be allowed, citing planned districts already approved for such houses on small lots, but not yet built. "Hardship" or "physical impossibility" findings were discussed as possible grounds for a waiver. However, conclusions on clear criteria and appropriate legal vehicles to accomplish the waiver were not reached. Direction was given to staff to review the issues and concerns and come up with wording for later amendments to the ordinance. Development and Legal staff have reviewed the concerns expressed, the dimensional requirements of the Residential Appearance Standards, and the legal and practical implications for alternative resolutions. The following points are pertinent: 1. Hardship and physical impossibility findings may not consistently offer solutions. A house can always be built, even if it must be built with a smaller garage, a differently oriented garage (only street-facing garages are restricted), or even without a garage. 2. The desire of City Council in adopting the new standards was to establish minimum standards that would apply to all new houses as quickly as practical, but to provide an allowance for projects underway. To that end, an exemption period of six months was established for houses in existing planned districts; This allows builders a limited time period to modify designs as necessary for future construction. 3. In the planned district approval process, new projects (or proposals to revise current planned districts) can propose alternative appearance standards, including different garage limitations. Therefore, narrow lots and narrow houses with relatively large garages are not absolutely prohibited, and can be considered on their own merits. Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 ~ ~ m o Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 CITT OF DU TO: Members of Dublin City Council FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager~~~, ~ (~~~,,,~-,~.~.,.~J DATE: March 8, 2004 UU L~~ INITIATED BY: Frank Ciarochi, Assistant City Manager & Director of Development Steve Smith, Law Director RE: Ordinance 59-03 (Amended) (Case No. 03-014ADM -Landscape Code Amendment and Adopting Residential Appearance Standards). SUMMARY: City Council adopted the Residential Appearance Standards November 3, 2003. Following public comments, City Council expressed a concern about residential designs currently being used that would not meet the dimensional limitations of the new standards. The concern primarily focused on the limitations placed on garage doors exceeding a certain percentage of the overall house elevation. Currently some house designs, particularly narrow houses on narrow lots, exceed these limitations. Builders were requesting some way to allow such house designs to continue to be allowed, citing planned districts already approved for such houses on small lots, but not yet built. "Hardship" or "physical impossibility" findings were discussed as possible grounds for a waiver. However, conclusions on clear criteria and appropriate legal vehicles to accomplish the waiver were not reached. Direction was given to staff to review the issues and concerns and come up with wording for later amendments to the ordinance. Development and Legal staff have reviewed the concerns expressed, the dimensional requirements of the Residential Appearance Standards, and the legal and practical implications for alternative resolutions. The following points are pertinent: 1. Hardship and physical impossibility findings may not consistently offer solutions. A house can always be built, even if it must be built with a smaller garage, a differently oriented garage (only street-facing garages are restricted), or even without a garage. 2. The desire of City Council in adopting the new standards was to establish minimum standards that would apply to all new houses as quickly as practical, but to provide an allowance for projects underway. To that end, an exemption period of six months was established for houses in existing planned districts; This allows builders a limited time period to modify designs as necessary for future construction. 3. In the planned district approval process, new projects (or proposals to revise current planned districts) can propose alternative appearance standards, including different garage limitations. Therefore, narrow lots and narrow houses with relatively large garages are not absolutely prohibited, and can be considered on their own merits. RECOMMENDATION: Instead of a waiver process, the staff suggests that City Council extend the exemption period from six to twelve months. The following amendment to the ordinance would incorporate these changes. Section 153.190 RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS (C) Applicability..... (2) Houses within special districts described below are exempt or must comply with these standards as follows: (a) Those houses located within a planned district that is approved after the effective date of this ordinance shall comply with these residential appearance standards, or with specific substitute residential appearance standards contained in the adopting planned district ordinance. These residential appearance standards shall apply unless specifically stated substitute standards are approved in the planned district ordinance. In the case of absent, or non-specific standards in the planned district ordinance, the more restrictive standard will apply. (b) Those houses located within a planned district that was approved prior to the effective date of these residential appearance standards shall be exempt from these residential appearance standards for a period of s~ twelve months after the effective date of this ordinance. After this exemption period, those houses located within a previously approved planned district shall comply with these standards to the degree that the subjects of these standards were not specifically addressed in the previously approved planned district ordinance. In the case of absent or non-specific standards, the more restrictive standard will apply. (c) Those houses located within the Architectural Review District or listed in Section 153.170(A) and (B) are exempt. These residential units shall be regulated by the Architectural Review Section of the Dublin Codified Ordinance. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043 Ordinance No. 59-03 Passed 2~ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE BY AMENDING THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 153.133 AND 153.134 AND ADOPTING SECTION 153.190 RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS. (CASE NO. 03-014ADM - LANDSCAPE CODE AMENDMENT AND ADOPTING RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS). WHEREAS, City Council appointed the Dublin Appearance Code Committee June 17, 2003 in Resolution 24-02 to research the issues and current code requirements relating to the appearance of residential neighborhoods and houses and to make recommendations regarding the same; and WHEREAS, it is necessary from time to time to amend the Code in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the City; WHEREAS, the Appearance Code Committee conducted twelve meetings of research into neighborhood appearance and established community character; and WHEREAS, the Appearance Code Committee arrived at findings to protect and preserve the established community character and existing inventory of homes, and to promote positive neighborhood appearance in future neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Committee recommendations and first reading Code changes referred by the City Council, and recommends the adoption with amendments because they serve to implement City Council objectives and the Community Plan; and WHEREAS, planning and development operations and procedures should be updated as necessary to implement the Community Plan and to assist the authorities responsible for reviewing and approving development; and WHEREAS, planning and development policies and evaluative criteria should be confirmed by the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission to ensure they assist t hem i n t he r eview a nd a pproval p rocess, a nd s hould b e c learly documented t o facilitate public understanding and consistency in application; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, _~__of the elected members concurring, as follows: Section 1. That Section 153.133 MINIMUM LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS be amended as follows: (D) Additional Site Landscaping Requirements. All new developments, regardless of type, and all alterations or expansions to existing developments shall provide site landscaping in addition to the previously required perimeter landscaping. Site landscaping s hall consist p rimarily of n ew t ree planting o r t he p reservation o f existing trees or hedges within the development site. (1) Preservation of wooded areas. It is encouraged that efforts be made to preserve natural vegetation areas. Consideration shall be given to laying out streets, lots, structures and parking areas to avoid the unnecessary destruction of heavily wooded areas or outstanding tree specimens. It is further encouraged that, whenever possible, heavily wooded areas be designated as park reserves. (Refer to § 153.140 - 153.148, Tree Preservation.) (2) Site planting requirements. (a) Purpose. It is the purpose of this section to provide additional landscaping t o e nhance t he a ppearance a nd c ustomer a ttraction o f RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043 ora~,~an~e No. 59-03 As amended _ , 20 Page 2 commercial and industrial areas, to enhance the architectural character and a esthetics of t he s ite a nd residential n eighborhoods, and to enhance the beautification of the city. This section pertains to additional landscaping located around the building and other portions of the site. It does not include landscape material that has been provided to fulfill the planting requirements for interior landscaping, vehicular use area perimeters, property perimeters, and street trees. (b) For all new development the following landscape requirements shall apply: Use Requirements Single Family Dwellings On every lot with 90 (ninety) feet or greater frontage, there per dwelling unit shall be maintained a minimum of 3 (three) front yard trees. On every lot with less than 90 (ninety) feet frontage, there shall be maintained a minimum of 2 (two) yard trees. Trees shall meet the same standards as for the street trees of the subdivision and shall be located within the minimum front setback, no closer than seven feet to a side property line. Corner and through lots shall meet these requirements on all street frontages. Section 2. That Section 153.134 STREET TREE AND PUBLIC TREE REQUIREMENTS be amended as follows: The planting of street trees shall be required at the time a parcel is developed or redeveloped in all zoning districts and in accordance with the following regulations. (Ord. 66-93, passed 9-20-93) (A) Requirements for trees located on City-owned public property. The following are requirements for the planting, pruning and removal of trees within city- owned property. For the purposes of this section, City-owned property shall include all public ways, streets, alleys, parks or other property owned by the Municipality. (1) Requirements. It shall be required that all subdividers or developers plant trees along public streets of their developments in such a manner, type, quantity and location as approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and as defined by the following conditions, and that any undeveloped street or existing street with undeveloped frontage shall conform to these requirements at the time of the development. Final tree locations may be adjusted by the City as unusual conditions may warrant. (a) The tree to be planted shall be an approved street tree as listed in Appendix E (Approved Street Trees for Dublin, Ohio). (b) The m inimum spacing b etween this and other trees shall be 40 feet for large trees, 30 feet for medium trees and 20 feet for small trees. See definition below. (c) The maximum s pacing between t rees s hall b e 4 5 f eet f or 1 arge trees, 35 feet for medium trees, and 25 feet for small trees. (d) The minimum distance between the tree and the edge of the street shall be two and one-half feet for a large tree, two feet for a medium tree and one and one-half feet for a small tree. In areas where a sidewalk exists or is proposed, the minimum distance between the tree trunk and both the edge of the street and the sidewalks shall be two feet for a large tree, two feet for a medium tree and one and one- half feet for a small tree. (e) The tree location shall be at least 20 feet from street intersections and ten feet from fire hydrants or utility poles. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043 ordtnan~e No. 59-03 As amended , 20 Page 3 (f) A small tree shall be used when planting under or within ten lateral feet of overhead utility wires. A small or medium tree shall be used when planting within ten to 201ateral feet of overhead utility wires. (g) The developers shall be required to maintain the trees for one year after the trees are planted and to replace any tree which fails to survive or does not exhibit normal growth characteristics of health and vigor within such one-year period. Aone-year guarantee period shall begin at each planting and shall recommence as trees are replaced. Upon completion of a street tree planting, the landscape contractor shall c ontact t he D ivision o f P lanning a nd C ity Forester f or a p reliminary i nspection. The guarantee period shall begin after the approval of the Division of Planning and City Forester. A final inspection shall be made at the end of the guarantee period. All trees not exhibiting a healthy, vigorous growing condition, as determined by the city's inspection, shall be promptly replaced at the expense of the developer. (h) The trees should be of one and the same genus and species planted continuously down each street as per street tree ordinance. The minimum trunk caliper measured at six inches above the ground for all street trees shall be no less than two and one-half inches. Section 3. That S ection 153.140 TREE P RESERVATION R EQUIREMENTS, (B) APPLICABILITY be amended in part to read as follows: (1) This subchapter applies to trees which have a minimum six-inch diameter breast height (DBH), hereinafter known as protected trees, on all public and private properties, in all zoning districts. On lots containing no more than one detached single-family dwelling, § 153.146, "Tree Replacements," shall apply only to those areas of the single-family lot designated as a "No Build Zone/No Disturb Zone" and/or "Tree Preservation Zone" and to trees required as front yard trees in § 153.133 Minimum Landscape Requirements. All other sections of this subchapter shall be applicable to single-family residential lots. Section 4. That Section 153.190 RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS to regulate the appearance and construction of houses be adopted as follows: § 153.190 RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS (A) Residential Appearance. The following findings warrant the need for exterior appearance standards for residential development. (1) The Community Plan recommends promoting a high quality built environment. (2) Providing for compliance with appearance regulations will assist in creating quality development within residential neighborhoods. (3) Limiting the garage appearance within the front elevation limits the negative visual impact. (4) A balance of natural and synthetic building materials allows for design creativity and promotes quality development. (5) Trim around windows completes the appearance on every elevation. (6) Placing windows, doors, porches, and other features on each elevation enhances the visual environment and contributes to the overall architectural ~W diversity of a neighborhood. (7) The 1 ack o f d etailing, a rchitectural f eatures, a nd t rim o n e levations d etracts from a house and reduces the visual quality of a neighborhood. (B) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide design standards that are applicable to one, two, and three-family dwelling units. For purposes of this section, a one, two, and three-family dwelling unit will be considered a "house." These standards are designed to increase the quality of neighborhoods, to promote creativity and positive architectural appearance within residential areas, to encourage design flexibility and creativity, and to establish an interesting, RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043 ora~nan~eNo. 59-03 ~,As amended . .2o Pa~e4 aesthetically pleasing residential environment. It is also the intent of this section to promote durable, quality materials that will allow residential neighborhoods to endure and mature for future generations in the City. (1) Minimum Standards. These standards are minimum appearance standards applicable to all houses in all districts, including Planned Development Districts, except as maybe specifically approved in the Planned Development District ordinance. (2) Residential Appearance Objectives for Planned Development Districts. Residential Appearance Objectives for Planned Development Districts shall be adopted by City Council. These objectives explain more general intents regarding appearance in order to allow for creativity in meeting them through the Planned Development District process. Planned Development District proposals must demonstrate how the proposal addresses the Residential Appearance Objectives and should replace these minimum standards. (3) Scheduled Review for Update. Within twelve months of the effective date, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the Residential Appearance Standards and Residential Appearance Objectives for Planned Development Districts for updating as necessary to continue to meet the needs of the City of Dublin. (C) Applicability. (1) These standards shall apply to all new houses and existing houses requesting a 25 percent expansion of the livable area or a significant exterior alteration. (a) A significant exterior alteration is a change in roofline, adding or removing windows or doors, altering projections and recesses, or changing the exterior building materials. (b) These standards will apply to only the expansion area of the house or the exterior alteration and will not require the entire house to come into compliance with these regulations. (2) Houses within special districts described below are exempt or must comply with these standards as follows: (a) Those houses located within a planned district that is approved after the effective date of this ordinance shall comply with these residential appearance standards, or with specific substitute residential appearance standards contained in the adopting planned district ordinance. These residential appearance standards shall apply unless specifically stated substitute standards are approved in the planned district ordinance. In the case of absent, or non-specific standards in the planned district ordinance, the more restrictive standard will apply. (b) Those houses located within a planned district that was approved prior to the effective date of these residential appearance standards shall be exempt from these residential appearance standards for a period of six months a fter t he e ffective d ate o f t his o rdinance. A fter t his e xemption period, those houses located within a previously approved planned district shall comply with these standards to the degree that the subjects of these standards were not specifically addressed in the previously approved planned district ordinance. In the case of absent or non-specific standards, the more restrictive standard will apply. In applying these standards the Director of Planning may determine that a strict application is in effect impractical because of the physical constraints of the site as approved in the adopted planned district. In such cases, the Director of Planning may authorize waiving the standard. (c) Those houses located within the Architectural Review District or listed in Section 153.170(A) and (B) are exempt. These residential units shall be regulated by the Architectural Review Section of the Dublin Codified Ordinance. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043 59-03 As amended Page 5 Ordinance No. Passed . 20 (3) Any building permit application for interior alterations to existing houses or any application requesting only plumbing or electrical permits is exempt from this ordinance. (4) All houses for which building permit applications have been submitted at the time of the effective date of this ordinance are exempt from the requirements of this Code. (D) Definitions. For the purposes of this Section, the following definitions apply: (1) Blank Elevation - An elevation that lacks openings and architectural features such as windows, doors, chimneys, water tables, or other similar architectural features. (2) Chimney -For the purposes of these standards, a structure projecting from the exterior wall of a house and enclosing or appearing to enclose a flue that carries off smoke. It may or may not extend vertically to the eaves line or have a foundation/connection to ground. (3) Chimney, cantilevered - "Cantilevered" refers to the characteristic that the chimney projects from the exterior wall and ~h,. # does not have a foundation or extension to ground. (4) Chimney, shed-tyke - "Shed-type" refers to the characteristic that the chimney does not extend full height vertically to the eaves line. Cantilevered chimne s (5) A shed chimney typically includes a direct vent outlet in the chimney wall. (6) Corbel - To build out one or more courses of brick or stone from the face of a wall, traditionally to form a support for timbers. (7) Cornice -Overhang of a pitched roof at the eaves line, usually consisting of a fascia board, a soffit for a closed Shed-type cornice, and appropriate moldings. (8) Direct vent outlet -For the purposes of these standards, an outlet through an exterior wall associated with the air supply and/or exhaust of a fire burner. It may or may not occur in a projecting box/chimney. Direct (9) Dormer- A window set vertically in a ~ vent structure projecting through a sloping roof; also: the roofed structure containing such a window. (10) Eaves -The margin or lower part of a roof ~ _ projecting over the wall. i (11) Elevation - A geometric projection of the front, e~.:~~.=` ~ side, or rear outer surface of a building onto a - i:. lp ane perpendicular to the horizontal; a vertical Dormer Eaves projection. (I2) Facade -The front of a building or any of its sides or rear faces. (13) Facing - An ornamental layer, such as the outer wythe of a masonry wall. (14) Fascia - A horizontal piece (such as a board) covering the joint between the a top of a wall and the projecting eaves; also called fascia board. (15) Frieze Board - A decorated band along the upper part of an exterior wall. In house construction a horizontal member connecting the top of the siding with the soffit of the cornice. (16) Gable - 1 a: the vertical triangular end of a building from cornice or eaves to ridge b: the similar end of a gambrel roof c: the end wall of a building. 2: a triangular part or structure. (17) Masonry -Natural or natural-appearing stone or brick. Gable RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. _ _ Form No, 30043 59-03 As amended Page 6 Ordinance No. Passed . 20 - om onent of a structure that juts out from the main n An c do 18 Pro' ec p Y ( ) J building. (19) Soffit -The exposed undersurface of any overhead component of a building. reet from the st ible - e door which is vis 20 Street-facing Gara~,e door(s) Garag ( ) . corner nt line. A an e nt lot line or street t ees to the fro g and is less than 60 deg or through lot has one such street front, which the entry or primary elevation house faces. of the to (21) Tnm -The finished woodwork or similar architectural element used enhance, border or protect the edges of openings or surfaces, such as windows or doors. (22) Vinyl Siding Accessories -Exterior design elements that serve to provide more visual interest and complement the primary home design. «t , Windows and ntel Decorative Gable Vents Dentil nd Ma Door Surrou Shutters Molding Corner Trims (23) Water Table -Courses of brick or stone projecting beyond the face of the exterior wall, typically from grade to first floor bearing or window sill, as a design element and/or to guide water away from the face of the wall. Such feature should be predominately at least twenty-four (24) inches high above grade and located on at least the front elevation of the primary house forms, including walls projecting street-ward. (E) Residential Design Standards. (1) Design Standards. In addition to all applicable zoning and development standards, the following design standards shall apply to all new houses and existing houses requesting a 25 percent expansion of the livable area or a significant exterior alteration. (a) Chimneys. All chimneys must extend full height, from ground and vertically past the eaves line. Cantilevered chimneys are prohibited. Shed- type chimneys are prohibited. Chimneys must be finished in masonry or stucco. It need not match the background wall in material or color. (b) Finish Building Materials. Wood board, brick, stone, cultured stone, fibrous cement siding, stucco, glass block and vinyl siding are the permitted finish building materials. Asphalt dimensional shingles, slate, tile, standing seam metal, wood shingles or shakes are the permitted roof materials. 1. When a change in materials occurs at corners, the change should occur at the inside corner. If a material change does occur at the outside corner, then the material on the street-facing facade must extend at least two feet past the outer corner. If a house has a side gable and a material change occurs on the outside corner, rather than extending the materials around the corner, a quoin or minimum 3'/2 inch wide corner board must be used down the length of both faces of the corner. 2. The number of materials used as major facades, excluding fenestration, shall not exceed three materials. 3. Foundations. Exposed foundations shall be finished in masonry. The permitted construction shall have no more than two foundation- facing materials. (c) Four-Sided Architecture. All sides of a house shall display a level of quality and architectural interest. The majority of a building's architectural features and treatments shall not be restricted to a single RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043 ordinance No. 59-03 As amended _ . 20 Pale 7 facade. Fronts of houses should be articulated through the use of bays, insets, balconies, porches, or stoops related to entrances and windows. For the purpose of four-sided architecture, houses on corner and through lots have more than one street-facing elevation. Each elevation must contain at least two design elements, and each street-facing elevation must contain at least three design elements, in any combination. Provided further all of the following tests are met; 1. There exists at least one design element in each equal one-half vertical division of the subject elevation, and 2. At least one design element occurs between the first floor level and nine (9) feet above the first floor level, and 3. If any upper wall area greater than twenty-four (24) feet wide and nine (9) feet high (measured at nine [9] feet above the first floor level) occurs, at least one design element must be located predominately at least nine (9) feet above the first floor in that elevation. 4. Design elements include: a). A door of at least seventeen (17) square feet in area. b). A window at least six (6) square feet in area. A set of adjacent windows, such as a double or bay window, count as one design element, however, horizontal bands of immediately adjacent window units count as one design element for every eight (8) feet of run. c). A chimney. d). An articulated decorative gable vent of at least four (4) square feet in area. e). A water table. Such feature should be predominately at least twenty-four (24) inches high above grade and located on at least the front elevation of the primary house forms, including walls projecting street-ward. f). A similar significant permanent architectural feature consistent with the style of the house. (d) Garage Doors, Street-facing. Garages are usually the dominant feature of most houses when seen from the street. Side-loaded and recessed garages are encouraged. For the purpose of determining street-facing garage doors, corner and through lots have one such street front, which the entry or primary elevation of the house faces. Detached street-facing garages located more than twenty-two (22) feet behind the front-most plane of the house structure are exempt from the maximum percentage of elevation standards. Detached street-facing garages twenty-two (22) feet or less from the front-most plane of the house structure shall be calculated within the elevation. Street-facing garage doors must meet the following standards: 1. No single garage door opening shall exceed two car widths or eighteen (18) feet. 2. No combination of garage door openings may exceed three car widths or a total of twenty-six (26) feet. 3. Garage d oors s hall b e r ecessed o r se t forward of a djacent garage doors at least 16 inches. 4. Garage door openings may not exceed nine (9) feet in height. 5. Garage door openings totaling two or less car widths shall not constitute more than 35 percent of the linear distance of the front elevation nor project more than twelve (12) feet from the adjacent vertical wall plane. Open uncovered porches shall not be considered a vertical wall plane. 6. Garage door openings totaling three car widths shall not constitute more than 45 percent of the linear distance of the front e levation nor project more than ten (10) feet from the adjacent vertical wall RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043 - - - - - - ~,-dlnan~e No. 59-03 As amended _ , 20 Page 8 plane. O pen a recovered p orches s hall n of b e c onsidered a v ertical wall plane. 7. Color. The initial installation or replacement of street-facing garage doors must be of glow-contrast color that is the same, or similar in hue and tonal value, as the primary color of the house. Garage door trim color of the house trim is to match ara e doors or the rimar P Y g g (e) Roof Pitch. The main architectural roof of a house must have a • 2 itch. Flat roofs ma be ermitted but not as the main minimum 6.1 p , p Y architectural roof. Dormers, porches, and other similar secondary architectural features may have roofs with a minimum 4:12 pitch. Deep eaves and overhangs are encouraged. (f) Vinyl Homes Any predominately vinyl-sided home must include complementary accessories and detailing where vinyl sided elevations occur, as follows: 1. A detailed main entryway by use of a minimum eight (8) inch wide three-dimensional door-surround system, and 2. Minimum six (6) inch wide frieze or fascia boards, and 3. At least two of the following accessory types must be utilized per home. The selected accessory type must occur on each vinyl-sided elevation as indicated with an "X". Accessories may be utilized in addition to the minimum. MINIMUM ACCESSORIES Selected Accessory Type Must FOR VINYL-SIDED Occur (At Least) When The HOMES Exterior Wall Elevation is Vinyl Select 2 Accessory Types: Front Side Rear a). Shutter Pairs X X b). Mantels X X c). Gingerbread X d). Masonry Water Table X e). Gable Vent X X X a). Shutter Pairs: Must occur at least on all the single and double- wide windows of any front and side vinyl-sided elevations, where wall area permits them. Shutters shall be full height and at least one-half the width of the single or one-quarter the width of the double window. Shutters being used to meet the normal window trim requirements may count towards these requirements. b). Mantels: Must occur at least above all windows in front and side vinyl-sided elevations. c). Gingerbread: A set of gingerbread decorations such as cornices, corbels, columns, or similar three-dimensional elements must occur at least in the front vinyl-sided elevation, provided they occur in a consistent arrangement and according to style of the home. d). Masonry Water Table: Must occur at least in the dominate walls of the front vinyl-sided elevation and street-ward projections there-from. e). Gable Vents: Must be articulated decorative gable vent(s) of at least 4 square feet in area and occur in at least the front, rear or side vinyl-sided elevations. (g) Windows. Shutters or trim will be required around all windows within any elevation constructed of vinyl, stucco, wood, or fibrous cement siding. Shutters shall be full height and at least one-half the width of the single or one-quarter the width of the double window. Trim must be at least 3.5 inches in width. Special brick detailing, such as soldier course RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043 ord~nan~e No. 59-03 As amended . 20 page 9 or rowlock, will used on the top and bottoms of windows within a brick elevation. Windows within an elevation constructed of stone or cultured stone will use lintels and sills to create a "trim" on the top and bottom of the windows. (2) Building Material Specifications. Unless otherwise specified, all permitted building materials must be manufactured and built to industry standards and must have a minimum 30-year life expectancy. (a) Vinyl. All vinyl materials must have a minimum thickness of 44 mils, and m ust b e a pplied o ver m inimum o ne-half i nch t hick o riented s trand board o r p lywood. T he siding m ust h ave a 1 ow-gloss f finish. A 11 v inyl must be properly installed to prevent warping or separation. (b) Asphalt d imensional s hingles. A sphalt d imensional s hingles m ust b e a 25-year "true" dimensional shingle. Painted shadows are not permitted. These shingles must have a minimum weight of 240 pounds per square and an exposure that is no more than 5-5/8 inches in length. (c) Garage doors, street-facing. Garage doors must be of a durable material that does not sag, warp, deteriorate, or de-laminate under normal use and weather conditions. Materials such as particleboard or masonite are prohibited. Section 5. That this Ordinance shall take effect on the earliest date provided by law. Passed this ~r~ day of _ ~/~.m~~Y, , 2003. r. ayor - residing Officer Attest: Clerk of Council Sponsor: Division of Planning I hereby certify that copies of this Ordinance/Resolution were posted in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 731.25 of the Ohio Revised Code. De Clerk of Council, Dublin, Ohio ~ Division of Planning 5800 Shier-Rings Road • Dublin, Ohio 43016 CITY OE DUBLIN Phone: 614-410-4600 • Fax: 614-761-6566 M e m 0 TO: Members of Dublin City Council FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manage DATE: Nov 3, 2003 INITIATED BY: Gary P. Gunderman, Assistant Planni rector Brandol M. Harvey AIA AICP, Senior Planner RE: Second Reading Appearance Code Amend ents Ordinance 58-03 (Administrative Request 03-OSOADM) Ordinance 59-03 (Administrative Request 03-014ADM) SUMMARY: These are a pair of ordinances resulting from the Appearance Code Committee recommendations. • Ordinance 58-03 modifies the Community Plan. • Ordinance 59-03 amends the Development Code requirements for street and front yard trees and creates, for the first time, "Residential Appearance Standards". The Appearance Code Committee was appointed in July 2002 and made its recommendations to City Council in May 2003. The City Council conducted substantial review of the Committee's recommended ordinances and identified select areas for possible amendment. Discussions resulted in some changes as part of the First Reading. Topics without City Council consensus were forwarded to Commission for further consideration along with the First Reading ordinances. These topics involved only the Residential Appearance Standards section of Ordinance 59-03. Commission recommendations are as follows: • Adoption of Ordinance 58-03 updating the Community Plan as presented in the First Reading. • Adoption of Ordinance 59-03 Sections 1-3 (street tree and front yard tree requirements) without change. Several areas of Section 4 (Residential Appearance Standards) are recommended for amendment to address the topics referred by City Council and other refinements identified by the Commission. Commission recommendations include 2 additional Planning and Zoning Commission recommendations that relate to and support the overall goal to ensure a high level of residential appearance. • The attached "Summary of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendations" explains the Commission's recommendations in detail. RECOMMENDATIONS: Adoption of Ordinance 58-03, COMMUNITY PLAN MODIFICATIONS, on second reading. Adoption of Ordinance 59-03, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS, with amendments to Residential Appearance Standards, as recommended by the Commission. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION AUGUST 28, 2003 ._c:rri~ of uual.fn <p±~ision of Planning 10 Shier-Rings Road D ,Ohio 43016-1236 Phone/(00: 614-410600 fax: 614-761-6566 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Administrative Request 03-014ADM -Code Amendment -Residential Appearance Standards Request: Review and- approval of a revision to Section 153.190 residential appearance standards for one-, two-, and three-unit structures. Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Brandol M. Harvey, AIA, AICP, Senior Planner. MOTION: To approve this administrative request for a Code Amendment -Residential Appearance Standards. VOTE: 5-0. RESULT: This code amendment for Residential Appearance Standards will be forwarded to City Council with a positive recommendation. STAFF CERTIFICATION n~ Bazbaza M. Clarke Planning Director STAFF REPORT DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION August 28, 2003 ..CI'['1 OF UCBLII~ 3i~-ision of Planning ar~.~,10 Shier-Rings Road D ,Ohio 43016-1236 phonejfiDD:614-410-4600 Fax: 614-161-6566 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us 1. Administrative Request 03-014ADM -Code Amendment -Residential Appearance Standards Request: Review and approval of a revision to Section 153.190 residential appearance standazds for one-, two-, and three-unit structures. Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Pazkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Brandol M. Hazvey, AIA, AICP, Senior Planner. BACKGROUND: Since June 5, 2003 the Commission has reviewed the entire package of recommendations from the "Appearance Code Committee" as referred to the Commission from the City Council, and taken actions as follow: Modifications to Community Plan (Administrative Request 03-050 ADM): • Community Character Policies Issues and Strate>;ies o Reviewed, discussed, and recommended approval to City Council Amendments to Development Code (Administrative Request 03-014ADM): • Improving street tree requirements and requirin>? front vard trees o Reviewed, discussed, and recommended approval to City Council • Adoption of Residential Appearance Standards o Entire Section ].53.190 Reviewed and discussed. o Identified and discussed specific topics for detailed discussions. Reviewed, discussed and recommended changes to Ordinance 60-03 and created recommendations for additional related studies and publications. CONSIDERATIONS: Revisions to Ordinance 60-03, Section 4, Creation of Residential Appearance Standards in Development Code, Section 153-190: Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -August 28, 2003 Page 2 The following provides the entire Residential Appearance Standards incorporating Commission's recommendations. Changes are i~t large red italics, with deletions struck- through and additions underlined. Confirmation of these changes is requested for the August 28, 2003 Commission meeting. Ordinance 60-03 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE BY AMENDING THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 153.133 AND 153.134 AND ADOPTING SECTION 153.190 RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS. (CASE NO. 03-014ADM -LANDSCAPE CODE AMENDMENT AND ADOPTING RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS). Section 4. That Section 153.190 (Residential Appearance Standards) to regulate the appearance and construction of houses be adopted as follows: § 153.190 RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS (A) Residential Appearance. The following findings warrant the need for exterior appearance standards for residential development. (1) The Community Plan recommends promoting a high quality built environment. (2) Providing for compliance with appearance regulations will assist in creating quality development within residential neighborhoods. (3) Limiting the garage appearance within the front elevation limits the negative visual impact. (4) A balance of natural and synthetic building materials allows for design creativity and promotes quality development. (5) Trim around windows completes the appearance on every elevation. (6) Placing windows, doors, porches, and other features on each elevation enhances the visual environment and contributes to the overall architectural diversity of a neighborhood. (7) The lack of detailing, architectural features, and trim on elevations detracts from a house and reduces the visual quality of a neighborhood. (B) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide design standards that are applicable to one, two, and three-family dwelling units. For purposes of this section, a one, two, and three-family dwelling unit will be considered a "house." These standards are designed to increase the quality of neighborhoods, to promote creativity and positive architectural appearance within residential areas, to encourage design flexibility and creativity, and to establish an interesting, aesthetically pleasing residential environment. It is also the intent of this section to promote durable, quality materials that will allow residential neighborhoods to endure and mature for future generations in the City of Dublin. (I) Minifnunz Standards These standards are ~niniznum appearance standards applicable to all houses in all dzstricts, zttcludr.nQ Planned Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -August 28, 2003 Page 3 Development Districts, except as may be specifically approved in the Planned Development District ordinance. (2) Residential Appearance Objectives for Planned Development Districts. Residential Appearance Objectives for Planned Development Districts shall be adopted by City Council These objectives explain more general intents regarding appearance in order to allow for creativity in meeting them through the Planned Development District process. Planned Development District proposals must demonstrate how the proposal addresses the Residential Appearance Objectives and should replace these minimum standards. (3) Scheduled Review for Update Within twelve months of adoption, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the Residential Appearance Standards and Resideitial Appearance Objectives for Planned Development Districts for updating as necessary to coiztinue to meet the needs of the City of Dublin. ' (C) Applicability. (1) These standards shall apply to all new houses and existing houses requesting a 25 percent expansion of the livable area or a significant exterior alteration. (a) A significant exterior alteration is a change in roofline, adding or removing windows or doors, altering projections and recesses, or changing the exterior building materials. (b) These standards will apply to only the expansion area of the house or the exterior alteration and will not require the entire house to come into compliance with these regulations. (2) Houses within special districts described below are exempt or must comply with these standards as follows: (a) Those houses located within a planned district approved after the adoption of this ordinance shall comply with these residential appearance standards, or with specific substitute residential appearance standards contained in the adopting planned district ordinance. These residential appearance standards shall apply unless specifically stated substitute standards are approved in the planned district ordinance. In the case of absent, or non-specific standards in the planned district ordinance, the more restrictive standard will apply. (b) Those houses located within a planned district approved prior to the adoption of these residential appearance standards shall be exempt from these residential appearance standards for a period of six months after the adoption of this ordinance. After this exemption period, those houses located within a previously approved planned district shall comply with these standards to the degree that the subjects of these standards were not specifically addressed in the previously approved planned district ordinance. In the case of absent or non-specific standards, the more restrictive standard will apply. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -August 28, 2003 Page 4 (c) Those houses located within the Architectural Review District or listed in Section 153.170(A) and (B) are exempt. These residential units shall be regulated by the Architectural Review Section of the Dublin Codified Ordinance. (3) Any building permit application for interior alterations to existing houses or any application requesting only plumbing or electrical permits is exempt from this ordinance. (4) All houses for which building permit applications have been submitted at the time of adoption of this ordinance are exempt from the requirements of this Code. (D) Definitions. For the purposes of this Section, the following definitions apply: (1) Addition - An extension or increase in floor area, roof area, or height of a building or structure. (2) Alteration - A change or rearrangement in the structural parts, the means of egress or an enlargement (addition) of a building or structure, or the material change of appearance of a structure or the movement of a~ structure from one location or position to another. (3) Blank Elevation - An elevation that lacks openings and architectural features such as windows, doors, chimneys, water tables, or other similar architectural features. (4) Box Cul De Sac -Atypical setback treatment on a cul-de-sac where the building lines for the lots fronting on the bulb, or rounded pavement at the terminus, are placed in straight lines and create right angles to form a partial square or rectangle around the bulb. (4) Chimney -For the purposes of these standards, a structure prolectinQ from the exterior wall of a house and enclosing or appeann~ to enclose a ue that carries o smoke. It ma or ma not extend . , vertically to the eaves line or have _ a foundation/coiuzectio~z to ground. _ (5) Chimney, cantilevered "Cantilevered" refers to tlZe characteristic that the chimney projects from the exterior wall - antilevered chimneys, and does not have a foundatwn or extension to ground. (6) Chimney, shed-type - "Shed-type" refers to the characteristic that the chimney does not exte~zd full height vertically to the eaves line. A shed : ~ . CZZL/1llley typically LnChldeS a direct Vellt Outlet to hed-t a chimne the chimney wall. (7) Corbel - To build out one or more courses of brick or stone from the face of a wall, traditionally to form a support for timbers. (8) Cornice -Overhang of a pitched roof at the eave line, usually consisting of a fascia board, a soffit for a closed cornice, and appropriate moldings. (9) Cornice return -That portion of the cornice that returns on the gable end of a house. (10) Cul De Sac - A short, local street having only one end open for motor traffic, the other end terminated by vehicular turnaround. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -August 28, 2003 Page 5 (II) Direct vezzt outlet - For the purposes of these standards, aiz outlet tlzrouglz aiz ezterioz- wall associated with the air supply - and/or exhaust of a f ire burizer. Direct vent It may or may not occur izz a , ~ outlet projecting box/chimzzey. (12) Dormer- A window set vertically in a structure projecting through a sloping roof; also: the roofed structure containing such a window. (13) Eaves -The margin or lower part of a roof projecting over the wall. (14) Elevation - A geometric projection of the front, side, or rear outer surface of a building onto a Ip ane perpendicular to the horizontal; a vertical projection. , ,r~~ E"~ 15 E ebrow - A geometric roadway , - ( ) configuration, typically found at street angles ~ _ _ 45 degrees or greater, and typically used to • ~ ~ j ~ q` provide increased lot frontage. ~ 16 Fa ade The front of a building or any of its Dormer Eaves sides or rear faces. (17) Facin - An ornamental layer, such as the outer wythe of a masonry wall. (18) Fascia - A horizontal piece (such as a board) covering the joint between the top of a wall and the projecting eaves; also called fascia board. (19) Fenestration -The design, proportioning, sizing, arrangement, and positioning of windows, doors, and other exterior openings of a building. (20) Frieze Board - A decorated band along the upper part of an exterior wall. In house construction a horizontal member connecting the top of the siding with the soffit of the cornice. (21) Gable - 1 a: the vertical triangular end of a building from cornice or eaves to ridge b: the similar end of a gambrel roof c: the end wall of a building. 2: a triangular part or structure (22) Masonry -Natural or cultured stone, brick, or other - - approved similar building units or materials or a Gable combination of the same, bonded together with mortar to form a wall, pier, buttress, or similar mass. (23) Mini-Green - A landscaped island located in an eyebrow or cu]-de-sac. (24) Projection -Any component of a structure that juts out from the main building. (25) Soffit -The exposed undersurface of any overhead component of a building. (26) Street-facing Garage door(s) -Garage door which is visible from the street and is less , than 60 degrees to the front lot line or street tangent line. A corner or through lot has one such street front, which the entry or primary elevation of the house faces. (27) Trim -The finished woodwork or similar architectural element used to enhance, border or protect the edges of openings or surfaces, such as windows or doors. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -August 28, 2003 Page 6 (28) Vin ly Siding Accessories -Exterior design elements that serve to provide more visual interest and complement the primary home design. _ - !1 ~ _ ~ = ~7?~ ~a ~ E / ~ ' Door Surround Mantel Decorative Gable Vents Dentil Windows and Shutters Molding Corner Trims (29) Water Table -Courses of brick or stone projecting beyond the face of the exterior wall, typically from grade to first floor bearing or window sill, as a design element and/or to guide water away from the face of the wall. Such feature should be predominately at least twenty-four (24) inches high above grade and located on at least the front elevation of the primary house forms, including walls projecting street-ward. (E) Residential Design Standards. (1) Design Standards. In addition to all applicable zoning and development standards, the following design standards shall apply to all new houses and existing houses requesting a 25 percent expansion of the livable area or a significant exterior alteration. (a) Chimneys. . All chimneys must extend full height, from ground and vertically past the eaves line. Cantilevered chimneys are prohibited Slzed chimneys are prohibited. I. If the primary elevation in which it is located is stozze, cultured stone, brick or stucco, the clziznzzeys zzzust be f iiiished to stozZe, c_zcltured stone, brick or stucco It need not match the prz~nary elevatio?z in material or color. 2. I~ the pzimary elevatiozz in which it is located is zzot stone, cccltuz-ed stone, brick or stucco, and the clzinuzey zs not stozze, cultured stone, brick or stucco, the chinurey must match the primary elevatiozz iiz material a~zd color. (b) Finish Building~Materials. Wood board, brick, stone, cultured stone, fibrous cement siding, stucco, glass block and vinyl siding are the permitted finish building materials. Asphalt dimensional shingles, slate, tile, standing seam metal, wood shingles or shakes are the permitted roof materials. 1. When a change in materials occurs at corners, the change should occur at the inside corner. If a material change does occur at the outside corner, then the material on the street-facing facade must extend at least two feet past the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -August 28, 2003 Page 7 outer corner. If a house has a side gable and a material change occurs on the outside corner, rather than extending the materials around the corner, a quoin or minimum 3-'/z inch wide corner board must be used down the length of both faces of the corner. 2. The number of materials used as major facades, excluding fenestration, shall not exceed three materials. x (c) Foundations. Foundations ~ > > shall be finished with a faci~zg that provides natural or natural-appearing texture aztd color that does not resemble plain concrete or plain concrete block, or by extezzdiztg the permitted exterior finish sidiizg tnaterial on the wall above to within I2 inches of fitished grade. Wlzen exterior walls are stone, brick or stucco, foundations shall be stone, brick or stucco, in any combination, provided the entire house has no more thazz two foundatio~z face materials. (d) Four-Sided Architecture. All sides of a house shall display a level of quality and architectural interest. The majority of a building's architectural features and treatments shall not be restricted to a single facade. Fronts of houses should be articulated through the use of bays, insets, balconies, porches, or stoops related to entrances and windows. For the purpose of four-sided architecture, houses on corner and through lots have more than one street-facing elevation. Each elevation must contain at least two design elements, and each street-facing elevation must contain at least three design elements, in any combination, provided; M 1. There exists at least one design element in each equal one-half vertical division of the subject elevation, and 2. At least one design element occurs between the first floor level and nine (9) feet above the first floor level, and 3. If any upper wall area greater than 24 feet wide and 9 feet high (measured at 9 feet above the first floor level) occurs, at least one design element must be located predominately at least 9 feet above the first floor in that elevation. 4. Design elements include: a). A door of at least seventeen (17) square feet in area. b). A window at least six (6) square feet in area. A set of adjacent windows, such as a double or bay window, count as one design element, however, horizontal bands of immediately adjacent window units count as one design element for every eight (8) feet of run. c). A chimney ~?a~s~s-}• d). An articulated decorative gable vent of at least 4 square feet in area. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -August 28, 2003 Page 8 e). A water table. Such feature should be predominately at least twenty-four (24) inches high above grade and located on at least the front elevation of the primary house forms, including walls projecting street-ward. f). A similar significant permanent architectural feature consistent with the style of the house. (e) Garage doors street-facing. Garages are usually the dominant feature of most houses when seen from the street. Side-loaded and recessed garages are encouraged. For the purpose of determining street-facing garage doors, corner and through lots have one such street front, which the entry or primary elevation of the house faces. Detached street-facing garages located more than 22 feet behind the front plane of the house are exempt from the maximum percentage of elevation standards. Detached street-facing garages 22 feet or less from the front plane of the house shall be calculated within the elevation. Street-facing garage doors must meet the following standards: 1. No single garage door shall exceed two car widths or eighteen (18) feet. 2. Np combination of garage doors may exceed three car widths or a total of twenty-six (26) feet. 3. Garage doors shall be recessed or set forward of adjacent doors at least 16 inches. 4. Garage door openings nay not exceed nine (9) feet in height. 5. Garage doors totaling two or less car widths shall not constitute more than 35 percent of the linear distance of the front elevation nor project more than twelve (12) feet from the adjacent vertical wall plane. Open uncovered porches shall not be considered a vertical wall plane. •6. Garage doors totaling three car widths shall not constitute more than 45 percent of the linear distance of the front elevation nor project more than ten (10) feet from the adjacent vertical wall plane. Open uncovered porches shall not be considered a vertical wall plane. 7. Color. The initial installation or replacement of street-facing garage doors must be of aloes-contrast color that is the same, or similar in hue and tonal value, as the primary color of the house. Garage door trim is to match garage doors or the primary trim color of the house (f) Roof Pitch. The main architectural roof of a house must have a minimum 6:12 pitch. Flat roofs may be permitted, but not as the main architectural roof. Dormers, porches, and other similar secondary architectural features may have roofs with a minimum 4:12 pitch. Deep eaves and overhangs are encouraged. (g) Vinyl Homes Any predominately vinyl-sided home must include complementary accessories and detailing where vinyl sided elevations occur, as follows: 1. A detailed main entryway by use of a minimum 8 inch wide three- dimensional door-surround system, and 2. Minimum 6 inch wide frieze or fascia boards, and 3. Comply with at least two of the following: a). Shutter pairs on all the single and double -wide windows of the front, t~~[~ and side elevations, where wall area permits them. Shutters shall Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -August 28, 2003 Page 9 be full height and at least one-half the width of the single or one- quarter the width of the double window. b). Mantels above all windows if in front ai2d side elevations. c). Sets of cornices, corbels, columns, gingerbread decorations, or similar three-dimensional elements if in the front elevation, provided they occur in a consistent arrangement according to style of the home. , d). A brick, stone or masonry water table in the front elevation and street- ward projections there-from. e). Articulated decorative gable vent(s) of at least 4 square feet in area if in the front, rear or side elevations. (e) Windows. Shutters or trim will be required around all windows within any elevation constructed of vinyl, stucco, wood, or fibrous cement siding. Shutters shall be full height and at least one-half the width of the single or one-quarter the width of the double window. Trim must be at least 3.5 inches in width. Special brick detailing, such as soldier course or rowlock, will be encouraged on the top and bottoms of windows within a brick elevation. Windows within an elevation constructed of stone or cultured stone will be encouraged to use lintels and sills to create a "trim" on the top and bottom of the windows. (2) Building Material Specifications. Unless otherwise specified, all permitted building materials must be manufactured and built to industry standard and must have a~ minimum 30-year life expectancy. (d) Vinyl. All vinyl materials must have a minimum thickness of 44 mils, and must be applied over oriented strand board or plywood. The siding must have alow- gloss finish. All vinyl must be properly installed to prevent warping or separation. (e) Asphalt dimensional shingles. Asphalt dimensional shingles must be a 25-year "true" dimensional shingle. Painted shadows are not permitted. These shingles must have a minimum weight of 240 pounds per square and an exposure that is no more than 5-S/8 inches in length. (f) Garage doors, street-facing. Garage doors must be of a durable material that does not sag, warp, deteriorate, or delaminate under normal use and weather conditions. Materials such as particleboard or Masonite are prohibited. Section 5. That this Ordinance shall take effect on the earliest date provided by law. Passed this day of , 2003. Mayor -Presiding Officer Attest: Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -August 28, 2003 Page 10 Clerk of Council Sponsor: Division of Planning Recommendations for additional related studies and publications: The Commission also recommended two actions that supplement the above revisions to the Development Code. The first is to better address residential appearance objectives when evaluating Planned Development Districts proposals and the second responds to the topsoil management topic referred to the Commission by the City Council. • "Residential Appearance Objectives For Planned Development Districts" The Purpose section of the Residential Appearance Standards was recommended to be modified to call for the adoption of a supplemental document(s): "(B) (2) Residential Appearance Objectives for Planned Development Districts. Residential Appearance Objectives for Planned Development Districts shall be adopted by City Council. These objectives explain more general intents regarding appearance in order to allow for creativity in meeting them through the Planned Development District process. Planned Development District proposals must demonstrate how the proposal addresses the Residential Appearance Standards and should replace these minimum standards." This recommendation will result in a publication to communicate the more general objectives that will be used to evaluate and negotiate solutions for proposed Planned Development Districts when residential uses are proposed. Commission approved this approach and discussions included several of the urban or neighborhood design items that could be researched for inclusion in the publication. With City Council's approval, the very rough example language provided in the August 14 staff report will be refined and additional objectives researched. A final document is expected to be ready for Commission and City Council consideration quickly after direction to proceed further. The Commission also called for a review and update, as appropriate, within twelve months of adoption of such a document to ensure it remains as effective as possible. • "Topsoil Management" Commission concluded the question of topsoil management, referred by the City Council, is too complex for the purposes of residential appearance regulations and recommended to City Council that they consider a separate study, perhaps by the Natural Resources Advisory Commission. STAFF RCCOMMCNDATION: The Commission should formally confirm the recommended revisions to Ordinance 60-03 and supplemental recommendations as acted on August l4, and contained above, and forward to City Council. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -August 28, 2003 . Page 2 1. Administrative Code Amendment 03-014ADM -Residential Appearance Standards Mr. Gerber said the Commission had requested that this Code amendment come back as an ordinance for review and approval. There were no questions or comments. He made a motion for approval. Mr. Ritchie seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Messineo, yes; Mr. Ritchie, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 5- 0.) Mr. Gerber thanked Brandol Harvey for all his assistance. Mr. Harvey thanked the Commissioners for their dedication to the subject. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION AUGUST 14, 2003 ._crr~ c~N~ uf:af,rn 'sion of Planning 0 Shier-Rings Road Dr Ohio 43016-1236 Phone/f D D:614-410-4600 Fax: 614-761.6566 Web Site: www.dubl'm.oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Administrative Request 03-014ADM - Code Amendment -Landscape Code and Residential Appearance Standards Request: Review and approval of a revision to the landscape requirements in section 153.133 (requiring front yard trees for single family lots) and 153.134 (size and spacing of street trees); and adopting section 153.190 residential appearance standards. for one, two, and three unit structures. Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. ' Staff Contact: Brandol M. Harvey, AIA, AICP, Senior Planner. MOTION: To table this Code amendment pending submission of the final draft. VOTE: 6-0. RESULT: This Code amendment was tabled. STAFF CERTIFICATION ~i. ` ~ 1, Barbara M. Clarke Planning Director STAFF REPORT DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION August 28, 2003 ..CITY OF UCBLI~ sion of Planning 0 Shier-Rings Raad Dc Ohio 43016-1236 ?hone/FDD:614-410-4600 Fax: 614-161-6566 Web Site: www.dubGn.oh.us 1. Administrative Request 03-014ADM -Code Amendment -Residential Appearance Standards Request: Review and approval of a revision to Section 153.190 residential appearance standards for one-, two-, and three-unit structures. Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Brandol M. Harvey, AIA, AICP, Senior Planner. BACKGROUND: Since June 5, 2003 the Commission has reviewed the entire package of recommendations from the "Appearance Code Committee" as referred to the Commission from the City Council, and taken actions as follow: Modifications to Community Plan (Administrative Request 03-050 ADM): • Community Character Policies Issues and Strategies o Reviewed, discussed, and recommended approval to City Council Amendments to Development Code (Administrative Request 03-014ADM): • ImQrovin~ street tree requirements and requiring front yard trees o Reviewed, discussed, and recommended approval to City Council • Adoption of Residential Appearance Standards o Entire Section 153.190 Reviewed and discussed. o Identified anti discussed specific topics for detailed discussions. Reviewed, discussed and recommended changes to Ordinance 60-03 and created recommendations for additional related studies and publications. CONSIDERATIONS: Revisions to Ordinance 60-03, Section 4, Creation of Residential Appearance Standards in Development Code, Section 153-190: Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -August 28, 2003 Page 2 The following provides the entire Residential Appearance Standards incorporating Commission's recommendations. Changes are iit large red italics, with deletions struck- through and additions underlined. Confirmation of these changes is requested for the August 28, 2003 Commission meeting. Ordinance 60-03 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE BY AMENDING THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 153.133 AND 153.134 AND ADOPTING SECTION 153.190 RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS. (CASE NO. 03-014ADM -LANDSCAPE CODE AMENDMENT AND ADOPTING RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS). Section 4. That Section 153.190 (Residential Appearance Standards) to regulate the appearance and construction of houses be adopted as follows: § 153.190 RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS (A) Residential Appearance. The following findings warrant the need for exterior appearance standards for residential development. (1) The Community Plan recommends promoting a high quality built environment. (2) Providing for compliance with appearance regulations will assist in creating quality development within residential neighborhoods. (3) Limiting the garage appearance within the front elevation limits the negative visual impact. (4) A balance of natural and synthetic building materials allows for design creativity and promotes quality development. (5) Trim around windows completes the appearance on every elevation. ~r (6) Placing windows, doors, porches, and other features on each elevation enhances the visual environment and contributes to the overall architectural diversity of a neighborhood. (7) The lack of detailing, architectural features, and trim on elevations detracts from a house and reduces the visual quality of a neighborhood. (B) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide design standards that are applicable to one, two, and three-family dwelling units. For purposes of this section, a one, two, and three-family dwelling unit will be considered a "house." These standards are designed to increase the quality of neighborhoods, to promote creativity and positive architectural appearance within residential areas, to encourage design flexibility and creativity, and to establish an interesting, aesthetically pleasing residential environment. It is also the intent _ of this section to promote durable, quality materials that will allow residential neighborhoods to endure and mature for future generations in the City of Dublin. (I) Minifnum Standards These standards are minimum appearance standards applicable to all houses in all dcstricts, crtcludi~z~ Planned Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -August 28, 2003 Page 3 Development Districts, except as fnay be specifically approved in the Planned Development District ordinance. (2) Residential Appearance Objectives for Planned Development Districts. Residential Appearance Objectives for Planned Development Districts shall be adopted by City Council. These objectives explain more general intents regarding appearance iiz order to allow for creativity in meeting them through the Planned Development District process. Planned Development District proposals must demonstrate how the proposal addresses tlae Residential Appearance Objectives and should replace these minimum standards. (3) Scheduled Review for Update. Within twelve months of adoption, the Planning and Zonin¢ Commission shall review the Residential Appearance Standards and Residential Appearance Objectives for Planned Development Districts for updating as necessary to continue to meet the needs of the City of Dublin. (C) Applicability. (1) These standards shall apply to all new houses and existing houses requesting a 25 percent expansion of the livable area or a significant exterior alteration. (a) A significant exterior alteration is a change in roofline, adding or removing windows or doors, altering projections and recesses, or changing the exterior building materials. (b) These standards will apply to only the expansion area of the house or the exterior alteration and will not require the entire house to come into compliance with these regulations. ` (2) Houses within special districts described below are exempt or must comply with these standards as follows: {a) Those houses located within a planned district approved after the adoption of this ordinance shall comply with these residential appearance standards, or with specific substitute residential appearance standards contained in the adopting planned district ordinance. These residential appearance standards shall apply unless specifically stated substitute standards are approved in the planned district ordinance. In the case of absent, or non-specific standards in the planned district ordinance, the more restrictive standard will apply. (b) Those houses located within a planned district approved prior to the adoption of these residential appearance standards shall be exempt from these residential appearance standards for a period of six months after the adoption of this ordinance. After this exemption period, those houses located within a previously approved planned district shall comply with these standards to the degree that the subjects of these standards were not specifically addressed in the previously approved planned district ordinance. In the case of absent or non-specific standards, the more restrictive standard will apply. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -August 28, 2003 Page 4 (c) Those houses located within the Architectural Review District or listed in Section 153.170(A) and (B) are exempt. These residential units shall be regulated by the Architectural Review Section of the Dublin Codified Ordinance. (3) Any building permit application for interior alterations to existing houses or any application requesting only plumbing or electrical permits is exempt from this ordinance. (4) All. houses for which building permit applications have been submitted at the time of adoption of this ordinance are exempt from the requirements of this Code. (D) Definitions. For the purposes of this Section, the following definitions apply: (1) Addition - An extension or increase in floor area, roof area, or height of a building or structure. (2) Alteration - A change or rearrangement in the structural parts, the means of egress or an enlargement (addition) of a building or structure, or the material change of appearance of a structure or the movement of a structure from one location or position to another. (3) Blank Elevation - An elevation that lacks openings and architectural features such as windows, doors, chimneys, water tables, or other similar architectural features. (4) Box Cul De Sac -Atypical setback treatment on a cul-de-sac where the building lines for the lots fronting on the bulb, or rounded pavement at the terminus, are placed in straight lines and create right angles to form a partial square or rectangle around the bulb. (4) Chimney For the purposes of these standards, a structure proiectin~ from the exterior wall of a house and enclostn~ or appearcn~ to enclose a ue that carries o smoke. It ma or ma not extend - vertically to the eaves line or have a foundation/connection to ground. (5) Chimney, cantilevered "Cantilevered" refers to the characteristic that the chimney proiects from the exterior wall antilevered chimneys, and does ~iot have a foundation or extension to ground. (6) Chimney, shed-type - "Shed-type" refers to the characteristic that the chim~zey does not extend _ ,full height vertically to the eaves line. A shed ° ' . .F c_laimrzey typically includes a direct ve~it outlet ul hed-t ~ e chimne the chimney wall. (7) Corbel - To build out one or more courses of brick or stone from the face of a wall, traditionally to form a support for timbers. (8) Cornice -Overhang of a pitched roof at the eave line, usually consisting of a fascia board, a soffit for a closed cornice, and appropriate moldings. (9) Cornice return -That portion of the cornice that returns on the gable end of a house. (10) Cul De Sac - A short, local street having only one end open for motor traffic, the other end terminated by vehicular turnaround. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -August 28, 2003 Page 5 (II)Direct vent outlet - For the purposes of these standards, an outlet tlzrouglz an exterior wall associated with the air supply _ - and/or ezlzaust of a fire burner'. Direct vent It znay or may not occur in a _ _ outlet projecting box/chimney. (]2) Dormer- A window set vertically in a structure projecting through a sloping roof; also: the roofed structure containing such a window. (l3) Eaves -The margin or lower part of a roof projecting over the wall. (14) Elevation - A geometric projection of the front, side, or rear outer surface of a building onto a lp ane perpendicular to the horizontal; a vertical projection. - E~YCs (I S) E ey brow - A geometric roadway _ , f f.~ - ; configuration, typically found at street angles _ , 45 degrees or greater, and typically used to • ,t` provide increased lot frontage. - 4 16 Fa ade The front of a building or any of its Dormer Eaves ( ) - sides or rear faces. (17) Facing - An ornamental layer, such as the outer wythe of a masonry wall. (18) Fascia - A horizontal piece (such as a board) covering the joint between the top of a wall and the projecting eaves; also called fascia board. (19) Fenestration -The design, proportioning, sizing, arrangement, and positioning of windows, doors, and other exterior openings of a building. (20) Frieze Board - A decorated band along the upper part of an exterior wall. In house construction a horizontal member connecting the top of the siding with the soffit of the cornice. (21) Gable - 1 a: the vertical triangular end of a building from cornice or eaves to ridge b: the similar end of a - gambrel roof c: the end wall of a building. 2: a triangular part or structure (22) Masonry -Natural or cultured stone, brick, or other approved similar building units or materials or a Gable combination of the same, bonded together with mortar to form a wall, pier, buttress, or similar mass. (23) Mini-Green - A landscaped island located in an eyebrow or cul-de-sac. (24) Projection -Any component of a structure that juts out from the main building. (25) Soffit -The exposed undersurface of any overhead component of a building. (26) Street-facing Garage door(s) -Garage door which is visible from the street and is less than 60 degrees to the front lot line or street tangent line. A corner or through lot has one such street front, which the entry or primary elevation of the house faces. (27) Trim -The finished woodwork or similar architectural element used to enhance, border or protect the edges of openings or surfaces, such as windows or doors. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -August 28, 2003 Page 6 (28) Vin, ly Siding Accessories -Exterior design elements that serve to provide more visual interest and complement the primary home design. W r~ ~ ~ ~ ~3~; Door Surround Mantel Decorative Gable Vents Dentil Windows and Shutters Molding Corner Trims (29) Water Table -Courses of brick or stone projecting beyond the face of the exterior wall, typically from grade to first floor bearing or window sill, as a design element and/or to guide water away from the face of the wall. Such feature should be predominately at least twenty-four (24) inches high above grade and located on at least the front elevation of the primary house forms, including walls projecting street-ward. (E) Residential Design Standards. (1) Design Standards. In addition to all applicable zoning and development standards, the following design standards shall apply to all new houses and existing houses requesting a 25 percent expansion of the livable area or a significant exterior alteration. (a) Chimneys. . All chimneys must extend full height, frozn ground and vertically past the eaves line. Cantilevered chimneys are prohibited. Shed chimneys are prohibited. I. I f the primary elevatiozz in which it is located is stone, cultured stone, brick or stucco, the chimneys mrest be f izzished in stone, cultured stone, brick or stucco. It izeed not match the primary elevation in material or color. 2. If the primary elevation iiz which it is located is not stone, cultured stone, brick or stucco, and the clzinz~zey is not stone, cultured stone, brick or stucco, the chimney must match the primary elevation in material and color. (b) Finish Building Materials. Wood board, brick, stone, cultured stone, fibrous cement siding, stucco, glass block and vinyl siding are the permitted finish building materials. Asphalt dimensional shingles, slate, tile, standing seam metal, wood shingles or shakes are the permitted roof materials. 1. When a change in materials occurs at corners, the change should occur at the inside corner. If a material change does occur at the outside corner, then the material on the street-facing facade must extend at least two feet past the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -August 28, 2003 Page 7 outer corner. If a house has a side gable and a material change occurs on the outside corner, rather than extending the materials around the corner, a quoin or minimum 3-'/2 inch wide corner board must be used down the length of both faces of the corner. 2. The number of materials used as major facades, excluding fenestration, shall not exceed three materials. (c) Foundations. Foundations ~ shall be finished with a facing that provides natural or natural-appear~rz~ texture and color that does not resemble .plain concrete or plain concrete block, or by extertdirz~ the permitted exterior f finish siding material on the wall above to within I2 inches of finished grade. When exterior walls are stone, brick or stucco, foundations shall be stone, brick or stucco, in any combination, provided the entire house has no more than two foundation face materials. (d) Four-Sided Architecture. All sides of a house shall display a level of quality and architectural interest. The majority of a building's architectural features and treatments shall not be restricted to a single facade. Fronts of houses should be articulated through the use of bays, insets, balconies, porches, or stoops related to entrances and windows. For the purpose of four-sided architecture, houses on corner and through lots have more than one street-facing elevation. Each elevation must contain at least two design elements, and each street-facing elevation must contain at least three design elements, in any combination, provided; 1. There exists at least one design element in each equal one-half vertical division of the subject elevation, and £ 2. At least one design element occurs between the first floor level and nine (9) feet above the first floor level, and 3. If any upper wall area greater than 24 feet wide and 9 feet high (measured at 9 feet above the first floor level) occurs, at least one design element must be located predominately at least 9 feet above the first floor in that elevation. 4. Design elements include: a). A door of at least seventeen (17) square feet in area. b). A window at least six (6) square feet in area. A set of adjacent windows, such as a double or bay window, count as one design element, however, horizontal bands of immediately adjacent window units count as one design element for every eight (8) feet of run. c). A chimney d). An articulated decorative gable vent of at least 4 square feet in area. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -August 28, 2003 Page 8 e). A water table. Such feature should be predominately at least twenty-four (24) inches high above grade and located on at least the front elevation of the primary house forms, including walls projecting street-ward. f). A similar significant permanent architectural feature consistent with the style of the house. (e) Garage doors, street-facing. Garages are usually the dominant feature of most houses when seen from the street. Side-loaded and recessed garages are encouraged. For the purpose of determining street-facing garage doors, corner and through lots have one such street front, which the entry or primary elevation of the house faces. Detached street-facing garages located more than 22 feet behind the front plane of the house are exempt from the maximum percentage of elevation standards. Detached street-facing garages 22 feet or less from the front plane of the house shall be calculated within the elevation. Street-facing garage doors must meet the following standards: 1. No single garage door shall exceed two car widths or eighteen (18) feet. 2. No combination of garage doors may exceed three car widths or a total of twenty-six (26) feet. 3. Garage doors shall be recessed or set forward of adjacent doors at least 16 inches. 4. Garage door openings may not exceed ~zine (9) feet in height. 5. Garage doors totaling two or less car widths shall not constitute more than 35 percent of the linear distance of the front elevation nor project more than twelve (12) feet from the adjacent vertical wall plane. Open uncovered porches shall not be considered a vertical wall plane. 6. Garage doors totaling three car widths shall not constitute more than 45 percent of the linear distance of the front elevation nor project more than ten (l0) feet from the adjacent vertical wall plane. Open uncovered porches shall not be considered a vertical wall plane. 7. Color. The initial installation or replacement of street-facing garage doors must be of aloes-contrast color that is the same, or similar in hue and tonal value, as the primary color of the house. Garage door trim is to match garage doors or the primary trim color of the house (f) Roof Pitch. The main architectural roof of a house must have a minimum 6:12 pitch. Flat roofs may be permitted, but not as the main architectural roof. Dormers, porches, and other similar secondary architectural features may have roofs with a minimum 4: ] 2 pitch. Deep eaves and overhangs are encouraged. (g) Vinyl Homes Any predominately vinyl-sided home must include complementary accessories and detailing where vinyl sided elevations occur, as follows: 1. A detailed main entryway by use of a minimum 8 inch wide three- dimensional door-surround system, and 2. Minimum 6 inch wide frieze or fascia boards, and 3. Comply with at least two of the following: a). Shutter pairs on all the single and double -wide windows of the front, and side elevations, where wall area permits them. Shutters shall Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -August 28, 2003 Page 9 be full height and at least one-half the width of the single or one- quarter the width of the double window. b). Mantels above all windows if in front aitd side elevations. c). Sets of cornices, corbels, columns, gingerbread decorations, or similar three-dimensional elements if in the front elevation, provided they occur in a consistent arrangement according to style of the home. d). A brick, stone or masonry water table in the front elevation and street- ward projections there-from. e). Articulated decorative gable vent(s) of at least 4 square feet in area if in the front, rear or side elevations. (e) Windows. Shutters or trim will be required around all windows within any elevation constructed of vinyl, stucco, wood, or fibrous cement siding. Shutters shall be full height and at least one-half the width of the single or one-quarter the width of the double window. Trim must be at least 3.5 inches in width. Special brick detailing, such as soldier course or rowlock, will be encouraged on the top and bottoms of windows within a brick elevation. Windows within an elevation constructed of stone or cultured stone will be encouraged to use lintels and sills to create a "trim" on the top and bottom of the windows. (2) Building Material Specifications. Unless otherwise specified, all permitted building materials must be manufactured and built to industry standard and must have a minimum 30-year life expectancy. (d) Vinyl. All vinyl materials must have a minimum thickness of 4-4 mils, and must be applied over oriented strand board or plywood. The siding must have alow- gloss finish. All vinyl must be properly installed to prevent warping or separation. (e) Asphalt dimensional shingles. Asphalt dimensional shingles must be a 25-year "true" dimensional shingle. Painted shadows are not permitted. These shingles must have a minimum weight of 240 pounds per square and an exposure that is no more than 5-518 inches in length. (f) Garage doors, street-facing. Garage doors must be of a durable material that does not sag, warp, deteriorate, or delaminate under normal use and weather conditions. Materials such as particleboard or Masonite are prohibited. Section 5. That this Ordinance shall take effect on the earliest date provided by law. Passed this day of , 2003. Mayor -Presiding Officer Attest: Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -August 28, 2003 Page 10 Clerk of Council Sponsor: Division of Planning Recommendations for additional related studies and publications: The Commission also recommended two actions that supplement the above revisions to the Development Code. The first is to better address residential appearance objectives when evaluating Planned Development Districts proposals and the second responds to the topsoil management topic referred to the Commission by the City Council. • "Residential Appearance Objectives For Planned Development Districts" The Purpose section of the Residential Appearance Standards was recommended to be modified to call for the adoption of a supplemental document(s): "(B) (2) Residential Appearance Objectives for Planned Development Districts. Residential Appearance Objectives for Planned Development Districts shall be adopted by City Council. These objectives explain more general intents regarding appearance in order to allow for creativity in meeting them through the Planned Development District process. Planned Development District proposals must demonstrate how the proposal addresses the Residential Appearance Standards and should replace these minimum standards." This recommendation will result in a publication to communicate the more general objectives that will be used to evaluate and negotiate solutions for proposed Planned Development Districts when residential uses are proposed. Commission approved this approach and discussions included several of the urban or neighborhood design items that could be researched for inclusion in the publication. With City Council's approval, the very rough example language provided in the August 14 staff report will be refined and additional objectives researched. A final document is expected to be ready for Commission and City Council consideration quickly after direction to proceed further. The Commission also called for a review and update, as appropriate, within twelve months of adoption of such a document to ensure it remains as effective as possible. • "Topsoil Management" Commission concluded the question of topsoil management, referred by the City Council, is too complex for the purposes of residential appearance regulations and recommended to City Council that they consider a separate study, perhaps by the Natural Resources Advisory Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Commission should formally confirm the recommended revisions to Ordinance 60-03 and supplemental recommendations as acted on August 14, and contained above, and forward to City Council. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -August 14, 2003 Page 3 1. Administrative Case 03-014ADM - Code Amendment - Residential Appearance Standards Mr. Gerber said much discussion was previously heard about chimneys. This Appearance Code is the first step to establish new minimum standards in Dublin, serving as a baseline. The future planned districts will maintain the expected level of discretion. Brandol Harvey said, unless there is different direction, the staff hoped to start discussion and take some actions tonight. He said these standards are minimum, and they will apply unless a future planned district states otherwise. Planned development districts give an opportunity for a broader range of topics and for negotiation. New minimum standards are proposed for codification. Mr. Harvey said there are really two categories: those items that will be included in the ordinance as minimum standards and those that relate to planned development districts and residential appearance objectives. The latter will be a separate document allowing the Commission to elaborate on things that it cannot in the Development Code. Mr. Harvey noted the Commission was committed to periodic review of these new standards after adoption. He suggested review after 12 months. The Commissioners agreed. Mr. Harvey said there had been confusion on chimney terminology. A chimney projects from an exterior wall. It may be a traditional chimney, or some other form. One type of chimney is cantilevered without a foundation. It may not go to the roof. There is a "shed" that does not go to the roof, with or without a foundation. He said "direct vent" should apply only to the outlet itself, not athree-dimensional architectural feature. Ms. Boring asked for clarification on direct vent outlet versus the "shed" direct vent chimney. Mr. Harvey said if the concern is that there is no foundation, this is a cantilevering issue. If the concern is about not having full height, then the issue is a "shed" type chimney. If the concern is about the piece metal itself, the issue is the direct vent outlet. There are many combinations. Mr. Harvey provided data about recently built neighborhoods in Dublin. Regarding chimneys, the most common type was the traditional chimney, running from the ground up past the roof. He noted several subdivisions prohibit non-traditional chimneys forms. The cantilevered shed- type chimney on the side elevation occurred only eight percent. of the time, and 24 percent on the rear elevation. Where the shed type is permitted, about a third of the houses use that style. Sixteen percent had the cantilevered chimneys that extended past the roof. To address the several issues, he suggested using the words: "All chimneys must extend full height from ground and vertically past the eave line. Cantilevered chimneys are prohibited. Shed chimneys are prohibited." He said "...requiring extension to the eave line and prohibiting shed chimneys" would be changes to the previous draft. This would prohibit the shed-type chimney and require chimney foundations. The Commissioners concurred on prohibiting the shed-type and with the staff recommendations with respect to chimneys. Mr. Gerber said this was the best staff report he had ever read, just fantastic. He said that Mr. Harvey should be congratulated and rewarded some way for it. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -August 14, 2003 Page 4 Mr. Harvey remarked about the permitted material for chimneys. The chimney can always be stone, brick or stucco. If the wall is stone, brick, or stucco, the chimney must also be either stone, brick or stucco. If the wall is not stone, brick, or stucco and the chimney is not stone, brick, or stucco, the chimney must match the wall in material and color. The Commissioners agreed with the staff recommendation regarding chimney material. Mr. Harvey said page 6 of the staff report referenced more general draft objectives that could be placed in the planned district objectives for residential appearance. Ms. Boring asked if the statement "Cantilever shed-type type chimneys should be strongly discouraged" was added because a planned district can ignore the previous. Mr. Harvey said if the Commission and Council agreed, a planned district could supersede the minimum standards. Mr. Harvey said the draft last required cladding foundations with brick, natural stone, imitation stone, split block, etc. One Council member took exception to allowing split-face block. Mr. Harvey said rather than listing specific pre-approved materials, the Committee chose to eliminate the look of concrete block or a plain concrete foundation. Split-face block comes in a number of different styles that do not look like concrete, but some styles that do. The change would allow any facing that did not look like plain concrete. Also, if it was a sided house, the siding could extend down. He said another new item would require if the wall itself is stone, brick, or stucco, that the foundation must also be stone, brick, or stucco. Ms. Boring said this had really been fine-tuned and she agreed with Mr. Gerber. She asked if these are new requirements or just a refinement of the Committee's work. Mr. Harvey said this would be considered a refinement. The first change is a clarification. Mr. Gerber said he was in concurrence with the staff recommendation. Mr. Ritchie said, page 7, bullet 1, the language: "The foundation shall be finished with a facing that provides natural or natural appearing texture and color but does not resemble plain concrete or plain concrete block" should be tightened to be less subjective. Mr. Ritchie referred page 7, last bullet: "Stone, brick and stucco exterior walls must be stone, brick, or stucco foundations or any combinations." He said this would permit any combination, even 10 feet of stone, then 10 feet of brick, and then stucco. Mr. Harvey agreed. Mr. Sprague suggested a more restrictive clause, limiting it to one material. Mr. Ritchie suggested two. Mr. Sprague asked if the end wraps would they go down to the foundation, or the ground. Mr. Harvey said either would be acceptable. It would be a continuation of the material on the front. Mr. Harvey asked if the Commissioners believed the foundation should be limited to no more than two materials, among brick, stone, or stucco. The Commissioners concurred. Mr. Harvey said the Committee did not discuss topsoil management, but it was raised by a Council member. Staff recommends pursuing it as a separate subject. Mr. Gerber thought the issue of topsoil management should be referred to the Natural Resources Advisory Commission. Other Commissioners concurred. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -August 14, 2003 Page 5 Mr. Gunderman suggested that the Code Revision Taskforce might deal with this in the subdivision regulations. Mr. Gerber and Mr. Messineo said it will be City Council's decision. Mr. Harvey said four-sided architecture, the design elements, and balancing those design elements (doors, windows, etc.) are related issues. The Committee considered affordability and practicality, allowing for creativity and simplicity in administration. Mr. Harvey said "four- sided" architecture attempts to prevent blank walls. This requires design elements to be dispersed around every elevation according to three tests. "Balance" is more subjective. The proposed draft requires dispersing three design elements for elevations facing a street, and two for private-facing elevations. The Commissioners concurred with this more minimal approach. Mr. Harvey said garage door heights were not included in the previous recommendations. He said a typical garage door is 8 feet high, and possibly 9 feet. A 9-foot high garage door does not significantly impact the elevation, but taller doors become very dominant. Staff recommends that street-facing garage door opening heights be limited to 9 feet. A rear- or side-facing garage could have a higher opening. The Commissioners agreed with this recommendation. Mr. Sprague said on corner or other double frontage lots, the Committee chose only to regulate the primary "front" entrance, not the side street. The Commissioners agreed. Mr. Harvey said discussion on vinyl-sided homes and accessories focused on window mantels and shutters. This draft requires two decorative items for the front elevation if it is vinyl. The list includes mantels, shutters, gingerbread type decorations, water table, and gabled vents. However, shutters would be required on front, side, and rear, as would gable vents. He presented slides on these elements. Mr. Harvey said this recommendation uses this list, but mantels need to be repeated on the sides (but not rears). When shutters are a selected option, they are required only on the front and side, but not the rear. He said this draft would eliminate shutters on the rear, now require mantels on the side, and in all cases, every window must be trimmed some way - in either a 3'/cinch trim or shutters. Those two combinations could address the rear windows. The Commissioners agreed with this recommendation. Mr. Harvey illustrated three-tab and dimensional shingles as required under the current draft. He said the cost range was broad. The three-tab type is much lighter in weight. The comparative cost per 100 square feet is $35 for three-tab versus dimensional shingles at $71 on average. He noted several Dublin planned districts prohibit three-tab shingles and require dimensional ones. Where choice is up to the homeowner, there is a split. He said staff recommended retaining the three-dimensional shingle requirement. The Commissioners agreed with this. Mr. Harvey said the Committee concluded that the neighborhood appearance affected each individual home's appearance. The Community Plan has a number of appearance objectives, both in the Community Character and Land Use sections. Rural character, retention of high quality focal points, and gathering places, etc. are mentioned. Several area plans had more specific architectural suggestions -compatibility with existing architecture, natural features, etc. He said the development code had minimum design requirements, such as setbacks. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -August 14, 2003 Page 6 Mr. Harvey said the current Code requires a residential driveway to be between ten to 16 feet wide at the right-of--way line. The driveway also cannot be wider than the garage entrance. He said this includes a maximum width of 26 feet, and then only for athree-car garage. The Commission had already recommended approval of the Landscape Code changes, curvilinear streets, increased private tree landscaping, and landscaping of varying cul de sac shapes. He said this is goal-oriented rather than specifics-oriented. Mr. Harvey said staff is making a suggestion that it be a major part of the residential appearance objectives that would be packaged to come back to the Commission and City Council in the near future. Mr. Harvey said the Commission had agreed with the rest of the recommendations. Mr. Gerber reiterated his praise for Mr. Harvey's presentation. He said this completes the Commission review. He asked if this document should be forwarded to City Council with these recommendations, or revised before they vote on it. Mr. Harvey said staff had noted the Commission's suggested changes, and the Committee draft can be rewritten and returned. The Commissioners agreed that they would like to see the revised draft before it goes to Council. Mr. Banchefsky said an action needed to be taken. Mr. Harvey thanked the Commission for their energy and dedication to this complicated project. Mr. Gerber made a motion to table this administrative request pending submission of the final draft, and Mr. Zimmerman seconded. The recorded vote was: Mr. Ritchie, yes; Ms. Boring, yes; Mr. Sprague, yes; Mr. Messineo, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Tabled 6-0.) Mr. Messineo said page 16 of the report, the staff recommendation included having Council direct staff to pursue the residential appearance objectives for planned district. Mr. Gerber said that, and topsoil management would be part of what Mr. Harvey would be rewriting. Mr. Harvey said all the illustrations relevant to the final recommendations will be in the definition section sent to City Council. Mr. Gerber called a short recess. The meeting reconvened at 7:32 p.m. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION July 17, 2003 '"y'~rision of Pknning 00 Shier-Rings Raad [ i, Ohio 43016-1236 Phone/FD0:614-410-4600 Fax: 614-761-65b6 Web Site: www.dubGn.oh.as The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 3. Administrative Request 03-014ADM -Code Amendment _ Residential Appearance Standards Request: Review and approval of a revision to the landscape requirements in Sections 153.133 (requiring front yard trees for single family lots) and 153.134 (size and frequency of street trees); and adopting Section 153.190, residential appearance standards for one, two, and three unit structures. Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Brandol M. Harvey, AIA, AICP, Senior Planner. RESULT: After lengthy discussion the Commission identified nine topics in need of further detailed discussion. The topics included chimneys, split-face block, topsoil and landscaping foundations, balancing pattern and four sided architecture, mantel and shutter system windows, shingles, garage door height, periodic review of the Code, and parking lot issues, other visual elements of interest, street medians, islands, driveway width, additional urban design elements. The Commission began to discuss these topics in more detail and decided that each topic would be addressed in a logical, grouped discussion at a later date. STAFF CERTIFICATION r ~L .-~L..~ Barbara M. Clarke Planning Director Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July 17, 2003 Page 9 3. Administrative Request 03-014ADM -Code Amendment -Residential Appearance Standards Request: Review and approval of an addition to the Development Code to create residential appearance standards for one, two, and three-family dwelling structures, in section 153.90. Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Brandol M. Harvey, AIA, AICP, Senior Planner. NOTE: The Commissioners received a handout June 5 which included all three parts of the Appearance Code Committee recommendations and minutes from the Committee meetings. That very large package may be set aside, if desired. The Commission has discussed and taken action on the first two parts (Community Plan Modifications and Landscaping Code amendments). For convenience, the following report extracts the third and final part (Residential Appearance Standards), incorporates related topics referred to the Commission by the City Council, and includes background information and staff comments to help determine which of those topics need to receive more detailed discussions. The Commission is asked to identify, at the July 17 meeting, its own topics and which referred topics. need detailed discussions. Detailed discussions will begin Aug 14. BACKGROUND: The Appearance Code Committee was appointed by City Council in July 2002 to investigate and make recommendations on residential appearances of the City. Its recommendations were made in May 2003 and have been reviewed by City Council. City Council forwarded the recommendations to Commission after some specific changes were made and with a list of topics for further consideration by the Commission. In summary, the Appearance Code Committee recommended three sets of Development Code amendments. The first improves street tree standards. The second requires front yard trees for single-family lots. These were acted on July 10. The third, Residential Appearance Standards, is the subject of this report. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July 17, 2003 Page 10 CONSIDERATIONS: PLEASE NOTE: City Council referrals from their work session are shown in shaded text boxes similar to this one. Referrals were general topics where there were comments or questions but no consensus for changes. These were referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission to .give consideration for possible changes. For convenience in separating theproposed ordinance wording from "Considerations" wording, background information and staff comments on thereferred -items -are located in the shaded text boxes. These text boxes are` located at the appropriate subjects in the ordinance text. § 153.190 RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS (A) Residential Appearance. The following findings warrant the need for exterior appearance standards for residential development. (1) The Community Plan recommends promoting a high quality built environment. (2) Providing for compliance with appearance regulations will assist in creating quality development within residential neighborhoods. (3) Limiting the garage appearance within the front elevation limits the negative visual impact. (4) A balance of natural and synthetic building materials allows for design creativity and promotes quality development. (5) Trim around windows completes the appearance on every elevation. (6) Placing windows, doors, porches, and other features on each elevation enhances the visual environment and contributes to the overall architectural diversity of a neighborhood. (7) The lack of detailing, architectural features, and trim on elevations detracts from a house and reduces the visual quality of a neighborhood. (B) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide design standards that are applicable to one, two, and three-family dwelling units. For purposes of this section, a one, two, and three-family dwelling unit will be considered a "house." These standards are designed to increase the quality of neighborhoods, to promote creativity and positive architectural Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July 17, 2003 Pagel 1 appearance within residential areas, to encourage design flexibility and creativity, and to establish an interesting, aesthetically pleasing residential environment. It is also the intent of this section to promote durable, quality materials that will allow residential neighborhoods to endure and mature for future generations in the City of Dublin. (C) Applicability. (1) These standards shall apply to all new houses and existing houses requesting a 25 percent expansion of the livable area or a significant exterior alteration. (a) A significant exterior alteration is a change in roofline, adding or removing windows or doors, altering projections and recesses, or changing the exterior building materials. (b) These standards will apply to only the expansion area of the house or the exterior alteration and will not require the entire house to come into compliance with these regulations. (2) Houses within special districts described below are exempt or must comply with these standards as follows: (a) Those houses located within a planned district approved after the adoption of this ordinance shall comply with these residential appearance standards, or with specific substitute residential appearance standards contained in the adopting planned district ordinance. These residential appearance standards shall apply unless specifically stated substitute standards are approved in the planned district ordinance. In the case. of absent, or non-specific standards in the planned district ordinance, the more restrictive standard will apply. (b) Those houses located within a planned district approved prior to the adoption of these residential appearance standards shall be exempt from these residential appearance standards for a period of six months after the adoption of this ordinance. After this exemption period, those houses located within a previously approved planned district shall comply with these standards to the degree that the subjects of these standards were not specifically addressed in the previously approved planned district ordinance. In the case of absent or non-specific standards, the more restrictive standard will apply. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July 17, 2003 Pagel l appearance within residential areas, to encourage design flexibility and creativity, and to establish an interesting, aesthetically pleasing residential environment. It is also the intent of this section to promote durable, quality materials that will allow residential neighborhoods to endure and mature for future generations in the City of Dublin. (C) Applicability. (1) These standards shall apply to all new houses and existing houses requesting a 25 percent expansion of the livable area or a significant exterior alteration. (a) A significant exterior alteration is a change in roofline, adding or removing windows or doors, altering projections and recesses, or changing the exterior building materials. (b) These standards will apply to only the expansion area of the house or the exterior alteration and will not require the entire house to come into compliance with these regulations. (2) Houses within special districts described below are exempt or must comply with these standards as follows: (a) Those houses located within a planned district approved after the adoption of this ordinance shall comply with these residential appearance standards, or with specific substitute residential appearance standards contained in the adopting planned district ordinance. These residential appearance standards shall apply unless specifically stated substitute standards are approved in the planned district ordinance. In the case of absent, or non-specific standards in the planned district ordinance, the more restrictive standard will apply. (b) Those houses located within a planned district approved prior to the adoption of these residential appearance standards shall be exempt from these residential appearance standards for a period of six months after the adoption of this ordinance. After this exemption period, those houses located within a previously approved planned district shall comply with these standards to the degree that the subjects of these standards were not specifically addressed in the previously ' approved planned district ordinance. In the case of absent or non-specific standards, the more restrictive standard will apply. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July l 7, 2003 Page 12 City Council commented that consideration should be given to completely exempting existing Planned Districts that have an Architectural Review Committee. CONSIDERATIONS: • 68 PDs with residential uses have been approved for 11,838 residential units, • 9,797 have been constructed and • 2,041,have yet to be permitted. • The ..proposed Residential :Appearance Standards would apply to all new home construction and remodeling with a 25 percent .:expansion of the livable area or a significant exterior alteration.. • It is difficult to determine if the various types of `committees mentioned in restrictive covenents are truly "Architectural Review Committees." Regardless, since: they are put inplace by restrictive covenents, their~~actioas and criteria are not controlled or enforcable by the City. • Some ordinances for Planned Districts do include design standards for `various aspects of ardiitectural appearance. Where they do exist, there is little consistency in scope, terminology or purpose. Often the adopted standards only state "meetCity Development Code." • The intent of the proposed Residential Appearance Standards was to compare whatever appearance standards may be contained in an adopted ordinance to those in the Residential Appearance Standards. The more demanding would prevail. • For example, if the adopted Planned .District ordinance limits "exterior wall. materials to "brick or stone," only those two materials could be used even .though the Residential Appearance Standards would allow "wwood board, brck,.stone,,cultured stone, fibrous cemeat siding, stucco, glass block and vinyl :siding." :Conversely, if the Planned District ordinance did not say whether or not m. foundations must be :faced, the Residential Appearance Standards would be applied, requiring foundations to be faced. (c) Those houses located within the Architectural Review District or listed in Section 153.170(A) and (B) are exempt. These residential units shall be regulated by the Architectural Review Section of the Dublin Codified Ordinance. (3) Any building permit application for interior alterations to existing houses or any application requesting only plumbing or electrical permits is exempt from this ordinance. (4) All houses for which building permit applications have been submitted at the time of adoption of this ordinance are exempt from the requirements of this Code. (D) Definitions: For the purposes of this Section, the following definitions apply: (l) Addition - An extension or increase in floor area, roof area, or height of a building or structure. (2) Alteration - A change or rearrangement in the structural parts, the means of egrr;ss or an enlargement (addition) of a building or structure, or the material change ~+~f appearance of a structure or the movement of a structure from one location or positiar? to another. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July 17, 2003 Page l3 (3) Blank Elevation - An elevation that lacks openings and architectural features such as windows, doors, chimneys, water tables, or other similar architectural features. (4) Box Cul-De-Sac -Atypical setback treatment on a cul-de-sac where the building lines for the lots fronting on the bulb, or rounded pavement at the terminus, are placed in straight lines and create right angles to form a partial square or rectangle around the bulb.. (5) Corbel - To build out one or more courses of brick or stone from the face of a wall, traditionally to form a support for timbers. (6) Cornice -Overhang of a pitched roof at the eave line, usually consisting of a fascia board, a soffit for a closed cornice, and appropriate moldings. (7) Cornice return -That portion of the cornice that returns on the gable end of a house. (8) Cul De Sac - A short, local street having only one end open for motor Cornice traffic, the other end terminated by vehicular turnaround. (9) Dormer - A window set vertically in a Evers structure projecting through a sloping roof; - ~ =~=r . _ , also: the roofed structure containing such a _ ~ .w sit _ - - . - , window. N' ~ (10) Eaves -The margin or lower part of a roof F~ ~ projecting over the wall. Dormer Eaves (11) Elevation - A geometric projection of the front, side, or rear outer surface of a building onto a plane perpendicular to the horizontal; a vertical projection. (12) ~ebrow - A geometric roadway configuration, typically found at street angles 45 degrees or greater, and typically used to provide increased lot frontage. (13) Facade -The front of a building or any of its sides or rear faces. (14) Fa ins - An ornamental layer, such as the outer wythe of a~masonry wall. (15) Fascia - A horizontal piece (such as a board) covering the joint between the top of a wall and the projecting eaves; also called fascia board. (16) Fenestration -The design, proportioning, sizing, arrangement, and positioning of windows, doors, and other exterior openings of a building. (17) Frieze Board - A decorated band along the upper part of an exterior wall. In house construction a horizontal member connecting the top of the siding with the soffit of the cornice. (18) Gable - 1 a: the vertical triangular end of a building from cornice or eaves to ridge b: the similar end of a gambrel roof c: the end wall of a building. 2: a triangular part or structure 9) Masonry -Natural or cultured stone, brick, or other approved ; ' similar building units or materials or a combination of the - ~ same, bonded together with mortar to form a wall, pier, Gable buttress, or similar mass. (20) Mini-Green - A landscaped island located in an eyebrow or cul-de-sac. (21) Projection -Any component of a structure that juts out from the main building. (22) Soffit -The exposed undersurface of any overhead component of a building. (23) Street-facing Garage door(s) -Garage door which is visible from the street and is less than 60 degrees to the front lot line or street tangent line. A corner or through lot has one such street front, which the entry or primary elevation of the house faces. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July l7, 2003 Page l4 (24) Trim -The finished woodwork or similar architectural element used to enhance, border or protect the edges of openings or surfaces, such as windows or doors. (25) Vinyl Siding Accessories -Exterior design elements that serve to provide more visual interest and complement the primary home design. The following and similar design elements are appropriate: ~ ~ . ff v ~ ~.__.w _ ~ i t' #4; ~ ~ 4_;~ _ ~_G 1,1 ! - l i - Door Surround Mantel Decorative Gable Vents Dentil Windows and Shutters Molding Corner Trims (26) Water Table -Courses of brick or stone projecting beyond the face of the exterior wall, typically from grade to first floor bearing or window sill, as a design element and/or to guide water away from the face of the wall. Such feature should be predominately at least twenty-four (24) inches high above grade and located on at least the front elevation of the primary house forms, including walls projecting street-ward. (E) Residential Design Standards (1) Design Standards. In addition to all applicable zoning and development standards, the following design standards shall apply to all new houses and existing houses requesting a 25 percent expansion of the livable area or a significant exterior alteration. (a) Chimneys. All chimneys must have a foundation to ground. Direct vent chimneys are permitted only on a rear elevation not facing a street and the projected framework must be painted or clad to match the exterior elevation. City Council commented that consideration should be given to requiring chimneys (other than direct vent type) to be brick, stone or stucco. CONSIDERATIONS: • This is a fairly subjective issue. • From a visual appearance standpoint, the more dissimilar the chimney is from the background material, the more it will contrast and stand out as an individual design element. • An alternative is to reguire the chimney to be matching brick, stone, or stucco if that is the wall material. It is less certain that brick, stone, or stucco chimneys would typically result in an improved appearance for wood or vinyl-sided homes. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July l7, 2003 Page 15 (b) Finish Building Materials. Wood board, brick, stone, cultured stone, fibrous cement siding, stucco, glass block and vinyl siding are the permitted finish building materials. Asphalt dimensional shingles, slate, tile, standing seam metal, wood shingles or shakes are the permitted roof materials. 1. When a change in materials occurs at corners, the change should occur at the inside corner. If a material change does occur at the outside corner, then the material on the street-facing facade must extend at least two feet past the outer corner. If a house has a side gable and a material change occurs on the outside corner, rather than extending the materials around the corner, a quoin or minimum 3-1/z inch wide corner board must be used down the length of both faces of the corner. 2. The number of materials used as major facades, excluding fenestration, shall not exceed three materials. (c) Foundations. Foundations must be clad with facing material to include, but not be limited to brick, natural stone, imitation stone, or split block, or by extending the exterior covering to within twelve (12) inches of the finished grade at the base of the wall. City Council commented that consideration should be given to: • .Eliminating split block as an option for foundation faces. • Creating a topsoil management requirement which, among other objectives, would help to reduce vegetation loss due to insufficient topsoil at the foundation line and associated. changes in finished grade at he foundation line. CONSIDERATIONS: • Regarding split face block.. ¦ The .term refers to entire blocks that are structural and have a "decorative" face on the exterior. Although available in a variety of sizes (in some styles), they are typically the same size as concrete blocks (least expensive) and have a similar grid- like mortar pattern. This may result in an appearance similar to bare concrete block unless .the decorative face is substantially modeled, the mortar pattern is changed, or the mortar color matches. ¦ Split-face block has not been used often in Dublin as a residential foundation material and the impressions to date may be skewed due to limited experience. ¦ There is a variety of styles available. See following page of some illustrations. ¦ An alternative is to attach a simple performance statement prohibiting a face that is similar to concrete block. • i n" Ka as.~ s~ v ;r`y- .?a^r '~,,s 'P'" y,~i~i~`C..~ra R ~kry'Yr e "'?.1"j r i. r.~j r F - ~~~s ~'°4" S.~^ C ~ ~tr~t 3r s 'til+-ti R . ~ ~o,~.:< -x ~'41'~..~~.~ ~ :`~`.a,~.;.rar ...,iw~v~-'i3 .`4.'" a8 -.wa-*?-. ..~e ~ ~ ~m 1. s; y ~ P; c s°, y ~t r ~ ` ` ` ~ ~ y~ , _ r• ° °k~.~..:. _ ~ r. ' ~ ~ ~ r.. ~ ~ ` ~ ~ A _ ! ' ~ ~ ~ ' Y.e~ 0.i .-.f Y J . , ~r~,.... ~ it Let^ - J . r - 6 _ 4 i T 4 .c^;.~.~w r p .y ~ r -Y b '8. x a ' 3 _ ~ _ _ a D Y b Luuun r?anuu?g ai?u ~,uu?ng wuuu?s~?uu Staff Report -July l 7, 2003 Pa e l7 • Regarding Topsoil Management. ¦ This topic has been raised as a possible policy before in the context of environmental concerns to protect and preserve Dublin's topsoil, a limited resource. ¦ The current City Code requires grading to drain away from the building and requires lawn or vegetative cover but does not specify how much topsoil is required. ¦ This is a deceptively complex topic that should include consideration of several issues beyond that of architectural appearance. Such issues could include but are not limited to:: • water-proofing foundations • erosion controls • grading permits • removing, stockpiling, and restoring topsoil from subdivision developments • specifying different classes of topsoil • tree preservation and tree protection during construction • code enforcement • soil amendments for street tree plantings ¦ We may want to suggest that City Council pursue this separately and more comprehensively than the Residential Appearance Standards would warrant. (d) Four-Sided Architecture. All sides of a house shall display a level of quality and architectural interest. The majority of a building's architectural features and treatments shall not be restricted to a single facade. Fronts of houses should be articulated through the use of bays, insets, balconies, porches, or stoops related to entrances and windows. For the purpose of four-sided architecture, houses on corner and through lots have more than one street-facing elevation. Each elevation must contain at least two design elements, and each street-facing elevation must contain at least three design elements, in any combination, provided; 1. There exists at least one design element in each equal one-half vertical division of the subject elevation, and 2. At least one design element occurs between the first floor level and nine (9) feet above the first floor level, and 3. If any upper wall area greater than 24 feet wide and 9 feet high (measured at 9 feet above the first floor level) occurs, at least one design element must be located predominately at least 9 feet above the first floor in that elevation. 4. Design elements include: a). A door of at least seventeen (17) square feet in area. b). A window at least six (6) square feet in area. A set of adjacent windows, such as a double or bay window, count as one design element, however, horizontal bands of immediately adjacent window units count as one design element for every eight (8) feet of run. c). A chimney (a chimney may count towards each floor level it passes). d). An articulated decorative gable vent of at least 4 square feet in area. e). A water table. Such feature should be predominately at least twenty- four (24) inches high above grade and located on at least the front Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July l 7, 2003 Page 18 elevation of the primary house forms, including walls projecting street- ward. f). A similar significant permanent architectural feature consistent with the style of the house. City Council commented that consideration should be given to requiring design elements. in astreet-facing side elevation to be in a "balanced" pattern, or to require additional setbacks and/or landscaping. CONSIDERATIONS: The interpretation of "balanced" can _be very subjective. To appreciate the subjectivity, the following is the Oxford Dictionary definition of "symmetry": symmetry /"sImItrI/ noun (plural -ies) l correct proportion of parts. 2 beauty resulting from this. 3 structure allowing object to be divided into parts of equal shape and size. 4 possession of such structure. 5 repetition of exactly similar parts facing each other or a centre. symmetric adjective. symmetrical /-"met-/ adjective. symmetrically /-"met-/ adverb. symmetrical balanced, even, proportional, regular. • A simple interpretation would be to require design elements such as windows on the .second floor to be the same size and located directly above windows on the first floor. However, the ability to' place windows in particular.-;patterns is diminished as the size of the house is diminished. If the `number of windows are increased or the options for ;locations are more limited on the exterior, the options .for furniture placement in the interior are decreased. • Additional setbacks or landscaping would have to be fairly substantial to negate any negative visual impacts of the elevation, particularly for two or three storey houses. (e) Garage doors street-facing. Garages are usually the dominant feature of most houses when seen from the street. Side-loaded and recessed garages are encouraged. For the purpose of determining street-facing garage doors, corner and through lots have one such street front, which the entry or primary elevation of the house faces. Detached street-facing garages located more than 22 feet behind the front plane of the house are exempt from the maximum percentage of elevation standards. Detached street-facing garages 22 feet or less from the front plane of the house shall be calculated within the elevation. Street-facing garage doors must meet the following standards: l . No single garage door shall exceed two car widths or eighteen (18) feet. 2. No combination of garage doors may exceed three car widths or a total of twenty-six (26) feet. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July l 7, 2003 Page l9 3. Garage doors shall be recessed or set forward of adjacent doors at least 16 inches. 4. Garage doors totaling two or less car widths shall not constitute more than 35 percent of the linear distance of the front elevation nor project more than twelve (12) feet from the adjacent vertical wall plane. Open uncovered porches shall not be considered a vertical wall plane. 5. Garage doors totaling three car widths shall not constitute more than 45 percent of the linear distance of the front elevation nor project more than ten (10) feet from the adjacent vertical wall plane. Open uncovered porches shall not be considered a vertical wall plane. 6. Color. The initial installation or replacement of street-facing garage doors must be of aloes-contrast color that is the same, or similar in hue and tonal value, as the primary color of the house. Garage door trim is to match garage doors or the primary trim color of the house (f) Roof Pitch. The main architectural roof of a house must have a minimum 6:12 pitch. Flat roofs may be permitted, but not as the main architectural roof. Dormers, porches, and other similar secondary architectural features may have roofs with a minimum 4:12 pitch. Deep eaves and overhangs are encouraged. (g) Vinyl Homes Any predominately vinyl-sided home must include complementary accessories and detailing where vinyl sided elevations occur, as follows: 1. A detailed main entryway by use of a minimum 8 inch wide 3-dimensional door-surround system, and 2. Minimum 6 inch wide frieze or fascia boards, and 3. Comply with at least two of the following: a). Shutter pairs on all the single and double -wide windows of the front, rear, and side elevations, where wall area permits them. Shutters shall be full height and at least one-half the width of the single or one- quarter the width of the double window. b). Mantels above all windows if in front elevations. c). Sets of cornices, corbels, columns, gingerbread decorations, or similar three-dimensional elements if in the front elevation, provided they occur in a consistent arrangement according to style of the home. d). A brick, stone or masonry water table in the front elevation and street- ward projections there-from. e). Articulated decorative gable vent(s) of at least 4 square feet in area if in the front, rear or side elevations. City Council commented that consideration should he given to: • Requiring window mantels on sides and rear as ~~~ell as front elevations. CONSIDERATIONS: • It would be a fairly insignificant change to add the requirement for mantels in the side and rear elevations when mantels are being used to meet the minimal requirements. • The rear elevation would be less visible to the majority of neighbors and general public than the sides and could be exempt. However, although the rear elevations are seen by fewer people, they are seen very frequently by the neighboring property owners. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July l 7, 2003 Page 20 (h) Windows. Shutters or trim will be required around all windows within any elevation constructed of vinyl, stucco, wood, or fibrous cement siding. Shutters shall be full height and at least one-half the width of the single or one-quarter the width of the double window. Trim must be at least 3.5 inches in width. Special brick detailing, such as soldier course or rowlock, will be encouraged on the top and bottoms of windows within a brick elevation. Windows within an elevation ` constructed of stone or cultured stone will be encouraged to use lintels and sills to create a "trim" on the top and bottom of the windows. .City Council commented that consideration should be given to requiring mullions (real or fake) on front, side and ,rear elevation vvindows.....maybe in iieu of shutters in rear elevations. CONSIDERATIONS: • Mullions are ..the pieces of a window that separate panes of glass. They can be real or (more typically) fake. The fake mullions often break or are removed by the homeowner. Windows with real mullions cost-more than .windows with no mullions or fake mullions. Determining what windows require mullions and which don't would be subjective. For example, circular or semi-circular windows may or may not be more attractive with mullions. The requirement for shutters is intended to "dress-up" facades that may otherwise be monotonous and xo create an element of design that unifies neighborhoods while allowing diversity. The rear elevations are seen' by fewer. people, but are seen very frequently by the neighboring property owners. • Improving views all adjacent property owners was one of the .reasons to have an appearance code (2) Building Material Specifications. Unless otherwise specified, all permitted building materials must be manufactured and built to industry standard and must have a minimum 30-year life expectancy. (i) Vinyl. All vinyl materials must have a minimum thickness of 44 mils, and must be applied over oriented strand board or plywood. The siding must have alow- gloss finish. All vinyl must be properly installed to prevent warping or separation. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July 17, 2003 Page 21 City Council commented that consideration should be given to: • Requiring more than a 44 mil minimum thickness for vinyl siding. • Require minimum'h " OSB or plywood as underlayment. (There is no current Bldg Code requirement.) CONSIDERATIONS: • The primary reason to have a minimum vinyl thickness and strong underlayment is to reduce the possibility of warping and separation over time. The more rigid the underlayment, the more flat the wall and the less expansion and contraction occurs. • There is no Building`Code standard for vinyl hickness nor underlayment thickness. • In practice, the underlayment is typically lh inch. This is considered adequate. • Currently, sometimes only insulation board is used as underlayment. That would now be prohibited. • The Building ,.Official has 'suggested a i/z .inch minimum underlayment thickness be placed in the Appearance Standards until it can be incorporated into a new Residential Building Code expected to be adopted withidthe next year. • An exact cost-benefit ratio of increasing .vinyl thickness is impossible to .calculate. On the average, materials costs fora 2,500 square foot vinyl-sided home are as follows; • 40 mil $2,700 44 mil $3,600 • 50 mil $4,800 • Other thickness of vinyl include 42, 46 and 48 mil. Costs are relatively proportionate to thickness. (j) Asphalt dimensional shingles. Asphalt dimensional shingles must be a 25-year "true" dimensional shingle. Painted shadows are not permitted. These shingles must have a minimum weight of 240 pounds per square and an exposure that is no more than 5-5/8 inches in length. (k) Garage doors, street-facing. Garage doors must be of a durable material that does not sag, warp, deteriorate, or delaminate under normal use and weather conditions. Materials such as particle board or Masonite are prohibited. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July l 7, 2003 Page 22 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Commission identify a list of topics on which you desire more detailed discussion. These topics could include: • Selection of some or all of those topics referred by City Council. • Any topics within the proposed ordinance for discussions of intent or purpose. • Any selection of the proposed ordinance for line-by-line discussion for clarity. • Any topic Commission feels was overlooked but should be addressed. Staff also recommends one or two of the highest priority topics be selected for discussion at the first hour of the August 14 meeting. At that time staff can also present a proposed approach for the remaining topics. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -July 17, 20v3 Page 4 3. Administrative Request 03-014ADM -Code Amendment -Residential Appearance Standards Brandol Harvey said this begins the discussion of the residential appearance standards themselves, as forwarded by Appearance Code Committee. He noted there are several areas for additional Planning Commission consideration. Mr. Harvey noted there are also changes to the Landscape Code and the Community Plan pending. He said the standards apply to one-, two-, and three-dwelling unit structures. It will include new construction, existing houses that are expanded by 25 percent of the livable area, and existing houses that have a significant exterior alteration (change in roof line, new recess or projection, change in doors/windows). Only the changes would have to meet the new ordinance. Any areas of the existing structure that are not being changed would be grand-fathered. This applies to all residential districts, including planned districts. The Committee recommended asix-month grace period for houses in existing Planned Districts. That allows house designs now in process to proceed six months after the adoption of this ordinance, a building permit requested would be exempt from the new requirements. Mr. Harvey said after six months, houses in existing Planned Districts would have to comply with these standards, or the applicable planned district requirements, whichever is more demanding. Mr. Harvey said City Council asked Planning Commission to consider whether it would be appropriate to exempt all existing planned districts having architecture review committees. New planned districts would comply with these standards, or propose specific alternate standards. Mr. Sprague asked about an architecture review committee within a PUD. If a proposed home improvement is disapproved, is there an avenue of appeal or additional review. Mr. Harvey said it would depend on how the planned district ordinance is set up. If the ordinance approved by City Council specifically cites "review committee approval required" they would go by the architectural review board's findings. Otherwise it is a restrictive covenant and not enforced by the City. Mr. Banchefsky said they would not delegate to the private entity very often, but it was possible. If they are turned down by the private architectural review committee, there is not any recourse with the City. That type of appeal would go to court. Mr. Harvey said there would be a checklist incorporated with any new planned district rezoning application. It would show item-by-item whether the Code standards, or some alternate in the text, is proposed to apply in that new planned district. All of the properties controlled by the Dublin Architecture Review Board (ARB) would be exempt. Interior alterations, that have nothing to do with exterior, are exempt. Any building permit filed before the adoption of the ordinance would fall under the current standards. Included with the ordinance is a set of definitions and illustrations. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -July 17, 2Gu3 Page 5 Mr. Harvey said chimneys are the first residential design standard. All chimneys would have a foundation to ground. Direct vent chimneys would be allowed only on the rear elevation. He said City Council asked the Commission to consider whether all chimneys should be brick, stone, or stucco. The chimney as used here is a technical term for the firebox or flue that protrudes from the exterior wall, and that was not fully understood for most of this discussion. Mr. Harvey said the residential finished exterior building materials are wood, brick, stone, fibrous cement siding such as Hardi plank, stucco, glass block, and vinyl siding. When a material changes at the outside corner, the material should wrap around the corner at least two feet. Should the corner include a side gable, then they are allowed to have a trim instead of a two feet extension, that only goes up part of the way on the gable. He showed slides of several examples. The maximum number of facade materials, excluding the roof material, is three. He said foundations must have a finished surface. Acceptable materials include brick, stone, split block, and anything other than an un-faced material. Smooth concrete block would not be allowed. The finish must be extended to at least 12 inches of grade. He said City Council asked the Planning Commission to consider eliminating split block as an option. Mr. Harvey said topsoil management was referred for added Commission consideration. He said discussion started with topsoil against the foundation, then there were questions about whether a topsoil management program for subdivisions would be beneficial. It would include stripping the topsoil at the beginning, storing it, and putting the topsoil back at the final grading. Mr. Harvey said four-sided architecture is along-standing City concern. The intent was to eliminate blank facades. The Committee decided that each house elevation must contain at least two design elements, and facing the street, there must be at least three design elements in some pattern. At least one design element has to occur in each half, and at least one design element has to occur on the first floor. There should not be any large blank wall area above the nine-foot level. If a house is on a corner lot, any street-facing sides need to have three elements. The design elements would include a 17-square foot door, six-square foot window, water table, or four-square foot decorative gable vent. An eight-foot tall series of windows is also one design element. A chimney is a design element and any floor that a chimney passes counts as a design element. Some other prominent architectural features could also be counted. False shutters, instead of a window, would be a design element as long as they are six square feet in area. He said the issue of symmetry and balance was referred to the Commission. They questioned if street-facing facades should have a balanced treatment, more landscaping, etc. Garage doors and garage placement constitutes a dominant visual element. The Committee decided that only street facing front elevation garage doors need to be controlled. If a corner house has aside-loaded garage facing the second street it would not fall into these regulations. One- and two-car garage doors could not represent more than 35 percent of the linear elevation, and they cannot project more than 12 feet from the main body, or adjacent part, of the house. The Committee decided to allow three-car garages to be up to 45 percent of the elevation. They cannot project more than ten feet from the house. He said City Council added a requirement that Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - Juiy 17, 2003 Page 6 the garage door color needs to compliment the primary house color, at least initially. Subsequent color changes will not be controlled. City Council also wanted to look at the weather durability of garage doors and prohibiting particleboard because it is subject to water damage. Ms. Boring asked about four-caz garages. Mr. Harvey said they would not be permitted on a street facing elevation. He said the maximum door opening would 18 feet and a total of 26 feet for combined doors. The typical gazage door is 16 feet. Gazage door openings must be set back from one another at least 16 inches to break up the facade. He said roof materials would include slate, metal standing seam, tile, asphalt dimensional shingle, wood shingle, or shake. The roof pitch for the main house must be at least 6:12 and for secondary roofs, like dormer windows, they could be as low as 4:12. The proposed minimum thickness vinyl siding is 44 mils. It should be applied over oriented strand boazd or plywood, not installation board. Proper installation and a low gloss finish are required. The goal is to prevent separation and warping. City Council suggested that '/Z-inch under-layment be the minimum, and this has been referred to the Commission. For elevations that are predominately vinyl clad, the front elevation must have detailed main entry and a minimum six-inch wide frieze or fascia board. It must also include two options; such as shutter pairs on all the single and doublewide windows. Small recess areas too small for shutters and bay windows would be exempted. The shutters should be sized to appear to be operable, in scale with the window. City Council asked that the Commission consider not requiring shutters on the reaz elevation. He said other options aze mantels on all front windows or a stone or brick watertable. City Council asked that the Commission consider requiring mantels on all elevations. He said where vinyl clad elevations occur, they must have the entryway, fascia boazds and two of the five optional selections. He said windows, proportioned shutters or 3'/2-inch trim will be required on non-masonry walls. Brick detailing would be encouraged, such as soldier courses or rowlock. Council requested the Commission to consider requiring glazing strips in all windows. The Committee forwarded the package of recommendations: street layouts, street trees and private trees, vinyl standards, gazage placement, garage doors, four-sided azchitecture, minimum durability building materials, etc. Together, these provide for effective results. Mr. Harvey said 95 percent of the zoned residential acreage is in a planned district. In existing planned districts, 83 percent have been built, accounting for about 10,000 houses. He said roughly 2,000 aze approved, but not yet built in planned districts. He expects that planned districts will continue to be used for future development. There are no architectural review committees in the proposed ordinance. There aze 96 adopted planned residential districts. Only 12 of them responded to a survey indicating that they have some type of design review committee. These usually are part of the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -July 17, 203 Page 7 restrictive covenants, and the City has no enforcement capabilities. Ms. Boring wanted to discuss the City Council recommendations. Mr. Gerber agreed. Mr. Harvey said the Committee wanted these standards to apply within planned districts. They establish minimum standards for broad application, but they do not represent the most desirable. Ms. Boring asked if the committee recommended that they not exempt planned districts with architectural review committees. Mr. Harvey agreed. Ms. Boring said when City Council members did not agree on an issue, it was referred to the Commission for more study. Mr. Harvey said Council raised a number of issues, but there was no consensus on how to resolve them. Mr. Gerber said the intent was that the more demanding standards prevail in all cases. Ms. Boring said she is not in favor of exempting any planned districts that have an ARC. Mr. Sprague asked if there is a six-month window for existing homes to apply for a permit. Mr. Harvey said that would apply to existing homes if they were expanding or lots that are unbuilt. Building permits requested in the first six months would be exempt. Mr. Sprague said due to recent storm damage, some people are replacing and/or upgrading siding and roofs. The change from aluminum siding to vinyl could change the whole look of the house. It the livable area is expanded, they would have to upgrade according to the standards. Mr. Harvey said applications made within the first six months they would be totally exempt. After that, if flat asphalt shingles are changed to standing seam metal, or stucco is change to vinyl, the Code would be in effect. There was additional discussion on changing roof materials. Mr. Gerber said in the future, the residential appearance standards would be compared to the appearance standards in the adopted ordinance, and the more demanding would prevail. Mr. Messineo said the PUD's architectural review committees would not override the standards. x Ms. Boring agreed that was the correct approach. Mr. Gerber said the box on the prepared materials indicates that this was a concern of Council. Mr. Gerber asked the Commissioners to identify their issues for discussion. Mr. Ritchie was to make decisions on the list of Council concerns and to raise his own issues. Mr. Gerber said it was important to start with Council's recommendations or comments to complete all of the tasks on their to-do list. Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Ritchie and Ms. Boring agreed. Mr. Harvey said a number of items are related to each other. The may not want to defer decisions on some Council items, select issues for longer future discussions, and suggest their own topics for additional discussion. Mr. Gerber agreed. Mr. Harvey said Council referred the design issue of chimneys. The Commission should determine if chimneys will need to be constructed of brick, stone, or stucco, regardless of the surrounding wall materials. He showed examples. He said if the chimney extends all the way to Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -July 17, 2003 Page 8 ground, it would have a positive appearance. Ms. Boring said there have been times a PUD required all brick chimneys and asked if it will still be possible to include this as a requirement. Mr. Harvey said yes, and in the future the staff will use a checklist of what is proposed in a Planned District as compared to the Code appearance requirements. Whether something will be a requirement in a Planned District will be determined by the Commission and City Council. Mr. Harvey said another referral was the possible elimination of split-face block for facing foundations. He showed examples of split-face block and other foundation materials. He said artificial or natural stone on the foundation exterior would be typically desired. Brick is an attractive alternative. The ordinance as drafted would permit natural or artificial stone, brick, stucco, and split-face block. Prohibiting split block will require rewording the ordinance. Ms. Boring said requiring foundation planting might make this a mute point. Mr. Harvey said the Committee considered but did not recommend landscaping to screen foundations. Mr. Harvey said "symmetry" and "balance" as design issues may be very difficult to define and to regulate. He showed several slides to demonstrate this. Balance and symmetry are very similar to harmony, but without a rigid formula in the Code, these may be impossible to regulate. The architectural standards for the City of Hudson, Ohio require doors and windows on the public faces of a house to be arranged so that they are regulated by a system of "invisible parallel and perpendicular lines." He demonstrated that system and said a review board determines it. He said the intent from the Committee was to eliminate blank walls. Ms. Boring said with the changes to the Landscape Code, three front yard trees will be required, and it may not matter if the house itself is balanced. She thinks homebuyers should determine where their windows will be placed in a new home. Mr. Messineo responded that a false window could be used as an architectural element on the exterior. On a smaller house, however there might be one window in the middle of a wall. Ms. Boring said these examples are of typical suburban houses, but some houses are not based on symmetrical or balanced designs. This might eliminate some possibilities. Mr. Harvey said often in larger, more complex house designs, it becomes harder to say if they are balanced or not. He said this is a different issue from four-sided architecture. Mr. Gerber thought four-sided architecture was a more important issue than balance. Ms. Boring and Mr. Sprague were concerned about the potential costs associated with these changes, especially on small houses. Mr. Harvey said balance deals with vertical and horizontal alignment. There was agreement to defer discussion of this topic. Mr. Harvey said another referred issue from City Council was whether to require window mantels on side, rear, and front elevations of vinyl homes. A window mantel is one of the options available to meet the required elements, but only in the front elevation. He reviewed the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -July 17, 2003 Page 11 The Commission agreed that chimneys should extend visually all the way down to the ground. Mr. Harvey said the Committee recommended allowing a direct vent only on the rear elevation, and it would also have to be extended to ground. Mr. Harvey explained that a "chimney" does not exist unless there is a projection from the wall. If it is a firebox inside the room, and not protruding, with a vent like a clothes drier, there is no chimney. Mr. Messineo said a masonry chimney will raise the bar. Mr. Zimmerman agreed. Ms. Boring was concerned about the cumulative costs of raising the bar. This will set base standards. Mr. Harvey said the Committee generally agreed that it did not want to require all homes to have masonry. If it were a vinyl home, vinyl would be allowed. Mr. Gerber said brick, stone or stucco enhances the appearance. Mr. Zimmerman agreed. Mr. Messineo said the vinyl siding was compromise material. Charlie Driscoll said he thought a masonry chimney, instead of vinyl, would add $3,000 to $4,000 to the cost of the house. He said all buyers want more options than they can afford, and they have to become selective. A direct-vent fireplace, without a brick chimney, can cut costs. Ms. Clarke said they might be able to provide additional information on what the choice is now. There was a period of time that almost every vinyl house had a full height cantilevered vinyl chimney. She thought with the advances in the direct vent fireplaces, most full-height vinyl chimneys had been replaced by direct vent fireplaces. Ms. Boring tried to clarify the sentiments of other Commissionersas to their not wanting to allow for direct vent chimneys.* There was more discussion on this. Mr. Harvey concluded that if the chimney goes from the ground to the roof, it is permitted on any elevation, if it does not, it is permitted only on the rear elevation. It will also need a foundation. Mr. Gerber said the Commission agreed to extend chimneys from the ground to the roof and direct vents would be in the rear only. Mr. Messineo said he would prefer stucco, brick or masonry materials on chimneys. Mr. Sprague, Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Gerber agreed. Mr. Gerber asked if wood and vinyl might be acceptable although brick, stone, and stucco would be encouraged. Mr. Gunderman said most "encouragement" ordinances have a board or commission that arbitrates and decides such matters. Mr. Harvey agreed and said a term like "encourage" helps City Council and the Commission in its review of a planned district. Mr. Gerber, in trying to summarize the discussion to this point, said that they are recommending* that chimneys must have a foundation to the ground, direct vent chimneys are permitted only on a rear elevation not facing a street and the projected framework must be painted or clad to match the exterior elevation, and chimneys must be matching brick, stone or stucco if that is the wall material. Ms. Boring stated that was not the direction she was hearing from the rest of the Commission.* Mr. Harvey said that in no case would a vinyl chimney be allowed. The Commission agreed. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -July 17, 2003 Page 12 Ms. Clarke said there are only a few real brick houses built every year. Brick is predominately a trim material, most commonly on the front. Side and rear walls are almost always something other than brick or stone; such as stucco, wood, vinyl, Hardi-plank. * As amended by Commission vote on August 17, 2003. Mr. Gerber said all chimneys must have a foundation from the ground up to the crest, and they must be of brick, stone, or stucco. Mr. Harvey said he wanted to clarify the Commission's direction. He stated that a "direct vent chimney" that only goes up to the first level ceiling height, would no longer be allowed anywhere, not even on the rear elevation. The Commissioners agreed and said a chimney must go from foundation to crest. Mr. Gerber said this was confusing him. Mr. Harvey clarified that they are discussing the projection from the wall, which is a chimney. Mr. Messineo said they are eliminating a "shed" protrusion from the side of the house. The Commissioners agreed this would not be permitted on the rear of the house either. Mr. Gerber did not think the goal was to eliminate direct vents. He noted they were perhaps discussing more than one subject.* Dave Marshall suggested that diagrams for all of the terminology would be helpful for the next discussion. Mr. Gerber agreed.* He explained how direct vent and other fireplaces operate. Mr. Messineo said he thought the intent of the Commission was to eliminate the shed hanging off the back or side of the house. There was more discussion on this. Mr. Gerber adjourned the meeting at 9:13 p.m. Respectively submitted, Flora Rogers Clerical Specialist II Planning Division *As amended by Commission vote on August 14, 2003. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION JULY 10, 2003 Division of Planning 5800 Shier-Rings Road 'Dublin, Ohio 43016-1236 Phone/TDD:614-410-4600 Fax: 614-761-6566 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Administrative Request 03-014ADM -Code Amendment -Landscape Code Request: Review and approval of a revision to the landscape requirements in section 153.133 (requiring front yard trees for single family lots) and 153.134 (size and spacing of street trees). Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Brandol M. Harvey, AIA, AICP, Senior Planner. MOTION: To approve this addition to the Landscape Code because the Appearance Code Committee found streetscape trees to be very important in neighborhood appearance, and this will set a minimal landscape standard, decrease the impact of the house design, and bring Dublin's landscaping standards into closer comparison with other cities' standards. VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: This administrative request was approved. It will be forwarded to City Council with a positive recommendation. STAFF CERTIFICATION Win' ry~.n ~ h Barbara M. Clarke Planning Director Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -July 17, 2003 Page 9 draft requirements for detailing vinyl-clad houses. Mr. Sprague and Ms. Boring preferred no mantel. There was agreement to postpone the discussion of combined mantel/shutter systems. Mr. Harvey said another Council referral is the possibility of requiring mullions or glazing strips for the appearance of separated windowpanes. This might be instead of shutters. He showed some examples. None of the Commissioners wanted to require mullions. Mr. Harvey said another referral by City Council was vinyl siding thickness. The current N= recommendation is a 44-mil thickness with a '/2 inch under-layment. He noted several planned district subdivisions required 44 mils or even 50 mils by design standards in the ordinance or by ~ deed restriction. Regarding materials cost on a 2,500-square foot home, 40-mil vinyl siding would cost $2,700, 44-mil cost $3,600, and 50-mil would cost $4,800. He did not know what proportion of new houses locally are partially or totally vinyl sided. He said the most common complaint is warping of the siding, and is most commonly associated with 60's and 70's construction with thinner vinyl, perhaps only 30 or 32 mils. The vinyl industry has improved the products to be more stable, retain color, etc. Mr. Harvey said the Committee believed that 44-mil vinyl is stable enough, with proper installation. Several Commissioners agreed with the findings of the Committee on vinyl thickness. Mr. Gerber said there are six discussion items. One is to exempt planned districts that have an architectural review committee. There was consensus not to exempt planned districts. Mr. Gerber said next is to require chimneys, other than direct vent fireplaces, to be brick, stucco or stone. Mr. Ritchie thought this needed discussion. Mr. Gerber said the next item is .eliminating split block on foundations and then topsoil management. Ms. Boring said topsoil management is a complex topic and should be discussed later. Mr. Messineo said the topsoil is a common construction practice elsewhere, and he was surprised that it is not required for construction here. Mr. Gerber said the issues of balance, four-sided design, and window mantels need direction. Mr. Ritchie wanted to add requiring depth of roof overhangs/eaves to the discussion of four- sided architecture. He also wanted to discuss driveway widths. Ms. Boring thought this would be more complicated because it related to the parking requirements and was somewhat off-topic. Mr. Ritchie wanted to introduce urban design elements to improve visual interest in neighborhoods, such as jogs in streets, medians, islands and rotating homes on lots. Ms. Boring suggested this should be a parking lot issue for later discussion. Mr. Harvey said it could be incorporated as a recommendation in the overall development code. Ms. Boring is very concerned by four-sided architecture and wanted to understand the Committee's process on this. Ms. Boring asked how courtyard garages are handled. Mr. Harvey said if the entry does not face Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission ivleeting Minutes -July 17, 2003 Page 10 the street, they are not subject to any special requirements. He said under the definition, there is a maximum 60 degrees to the front lot line that determines if it is "street facing" or "court entry." Ms. Boring asked how many houses in Dublin currently have plain shingles vs. dimensional shingles and the cost involved. Mr. Gerber said this is a topic to be added to the list of discussion items. Mr. Harvey said he could provide cost information at a later meeting. Mr. Zimmerman asked if there was a limit on garage door height. Mr. Harvey said he would have to research it, it was intended to be addressed. Mr. Gerber said they would put it on the list. Mr. Zimmerman asked if foundations are required for bay windows, etc. Mr. Harvey said no, but for other types of projections from the main body of the house, it was fairly common. Only chimneys need a foundation under these regulations. Mr. Gerber said he wanted to add periodic review of the code, perhaps every two or four years. Standards and markets change, and he wanted to stay proactive. Also, another topic was the rear of houses and whether they need to add features there. This can be discussed with balancing patterns and four-sided designs. Mr. Gerber reiterated the nine discussion topics: chimneys, split-face block, managing top soil, balancing patterns/four-sided architecture, window mantels, parking lot considerations/ features, shingles, garage door heights, and periodic review of the Code. Mr. Harvey noted that roof overhangs would be included in four-sided architecture and balancing. Mr. Gerber agreed. Mr. Gerber said the Council comment was to consider requiring chimneys to be brick, stone, or stucco. Mr. Messineo said the Committee had recommended that chimneys be masonry, brick,. stucco, or stone. He thought they had eliminated the direct vent fireplaces. Mr. Harvey recalled that direct vent fireplaces could only be permitted on the rear elevation, provided the material matches the rest of the exterior wall. At first the Committee considered masonry being a requirement for direct vents as well. However, after discussion, the Committee decided that these should be matching vinyl, on a vinyl house. Ms. Boring said it looks more distracting when it does not match. Mr. Harvey said the Committee was concerned about the cost impacts of their recommendations on an individual home. A masonry chimney needs a structural foundation, but a frame chimney does not have that weight to require support. It becomes then a visual question. Mr. Messineo asked if a masonry, brick, stone or stucco chimney is considered an architectural feature. Mr. Harvey said it is considered a design element, and so is a vinyl chimney. If it extends to the second floor, it would count as two design elements. Mr. Zimmerman said on a true masonry fireplace the narrower part of the chimney is the flue liner. He believes it is more attractive to have a chimney of traditional materials, and to require a foundation that will match it. Ms. Boring asked for cost figures for this. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report - 3uly 10, 2003 Page 3 2. Administrative Request 03-014ADM -Code Amendment -Landscape Code Request: Review and approval of a revision to the landscape requirements in section 153.133 (requiring front yazd trees for single family lots) and 153.134 (size and frequency of street trees). Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Pazkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Brandol M. Harvey, AIA, AICP, Senior Planner. NOTE: The Commissioners received a handout June 5 on this subject which included minutes from the Appearance Code Committee meetings and the referral document from the City Council which included the Committee's recommendations, City Council's changes prior to the first reading, and topics for additional Commission discussion. The items in this case to be covered July 10 are in the referral document Part B, pages 5-7 regazding "Minimum Landscape Requirements" and "Street Tree and Public Tree Requirements". Time permitting on July 10, the Commission should discuss a possible schedule for future agenda and staff may begin a presentation on the remainder, Pazt C "Residential Appeazance Code" (pages 8-13). Otherwise, the Residential Appeazance Code will be taken up at the administrative meeting scheduled for July 17. BACKGROUND: This case includes the specific Code amendments recommended by the City Council's Appearance Code Committee to implement the Community Plan policies and strategies in the accompanying case. The Appearance Code Committee was appointed by City Council in July 2002 to investigate and make recommendations on residential appearances of the City. Its recommendations were made in May 2003 and have been reviewed by City Council and forwazded to Commission after some specific changes were made and with a list of topics for further consideration by the Commission. The Commission has very briefly reviewed the entire scope of recommendations and has scheduled one hour to discuss, and possibly act on, the recommendations to amend the Landscaping Code. In summary, the Appearance Code Committee is recommending three sets of Development Code amendments. The first improves street tree standazds. The second requires front yard trees for single-family lots. These will be discussed July 10. The third, Residential Appeazance Standards, is the most extensive and complex and will be discussed beginning July 31. CONSIDERATIONS: Proposed amendments to the current Landscaping Code aze to increase the minimum street tree size from 1'/4 inches to 2`/2 inches and decrease street tree spacing by five feet. These changes will create a denser and more effective street tree corridor. The Appearance Code Committee determined that street trees are the most important appearance element of neighborhoods. Committee recommendations were to increase Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July 10, 2003 Page 4 size from the current 13/4 inches to 2 inches. City Council voted to increase the new requirement to 2'/z inches prior to first reading. The City Forester participated in Committee discussions and supports the Committee's recommendations. A complementary amendment to the Landscaping Code requires the planting of front yard trees on single-family lots. Currently all other land uses aze already required to install landscaping on private property. Lots of 90 feet or greater width will be required to install three trees in the front yazd, and narrower lots will be required to install two trees. The front yard trees species must be on the City's approved list of street trees. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Landscaping Code amendments. Bases: 1) The Appearance Code Committee found that street trees and front yazd trees are the two most important visual elements for a positive appearance in neighborhoods. 2) Establishing a requirement for front yard trees will ensure that all homes have at least minimal landscaping. 3) Increasing the visual presence of street trees and front yazd trees decreases the visual impact of the design of individual homes, reducing the need for architectural diversity controls. 4) Improving Dublin's landscaping standards brings Dublin into closer comparison with other cities' standards. Dublin Planning and. Zoning Commission Minutes -July 10, 2003 Page 4 2. Administrative Request 03-014ADM -Code Amendment -Landscape Code Mr. Harvey said Sections 1-3 of the proposed ordinance concern landscaping. He stated that landscaping is critically important to appearance, and the Appearance Code Committee researched street trees thoroughly. He showed a video of the Kendall Ridge streetscape demonstrating a straight street with widely spaced, young street trees. He showed another video of the Reserve in New Albany showing street trees up to eight inches in caliper, and closely spaced. It creates a stronger rhythm and a more positive image. The Committee decided the most important neighborhood appearance factors were street trees and private landscaping. Mr. Harvey compared the street tree requirements from other cities with Dublin's standards. Four had the same; one had a smaller required size, and 23 required larger size trees than Dublin. Street tree spacing at seven cities was the same, three had wider spacing, and 21 required trees to . be planted closer together than Dublin. The Committee recommended upgrading Dublin's standards for tree size (from 13/4-inch to 2 inches) and spacing (decreasing the minimum and maximum distances) for all types of trees. He noted that City Council recommended increasing the minimum tree size at planting to 2`/2 inches, and the ordinance reflects this. Mr. Harvey said the proposal will now require front yard landscaping in single-family developments. He summarized standards used elsewhere. Some codes use tree canopy percentages that are hard to administer. A minimum caliper of 2'/4 inches is used elsewhere. In summary, City Council supported the Committee's recommendations. Asingle-family lot with 90 feet or more of street frontage will require three front yard trees. Lots less than 90 feet will require two trees. This must be met on all street frontages. Mr. Harvey said staff recommends approval of this part of this ordinance based on the visual improvement that can be achieved. Additionally, it will bring Dublin's Code closer into alignment with the practice elsewhere and decrease the need for architectural diversity controls. Mr. Harvey said the front yard trees will be at least 2% inches and selected from the approved street tree list. Mr. Saneholtz asked if there would be a variety of trees seen in the front yard and street trees. Mr. Harvey said street trees will be the same, but the others will be mixed. Mr. Sprague asked about the size of replacement street trees. Mr. Harvey said Dublin will replace street trees after the warranty period and try to oversize them when possible to better blend in with the older trees on adjacent lots. The minimum size is now 13/4 inches, and that is the size most often planted. Ms. Clarke said as a general rule, trees three inches and less in caliper transfer easily, and after that, the mortality rate climbs drastically. Ms. Boring asked about encouraging ornamental, flowering trees. Mr. Harvey said there are some flowering trees on the approved street tree list. The Committee decided not to require a specific species. The City Forester would encourage using the same species on lots. Mr. Gerber said that would be part of the landscape package that the builder would put on the lot. Mr. Harvey said the typical builder offers three or more trees plus bushes, shrubs, etc. The Committee thought the additional requirements should be the minimum, not the optimum. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION .C1Tl` OF DU(3L(N JUNE 19, 2003 t""' ion of Planning Shier-Rings Road Dui Jhio 43016-1236 $a,,..,. 'fione/T00: 614-4 i 0-4600 Fax 614-161-6566 Neb Site: www.duhlin.oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 8. Administrative Request 03-014ADM - • Code Amendment -Landscape Code and Residential Appearance Standards Request: Review and approval of a revision to the landscape requirements in section 153.133 (requiring front yard trees for single family lots) and 153.134 (size and frequency of street trees); and adopting section 153.190 residential appearance standards. for one, two, and three unit structures. Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Brandol M. Harvey,AIA, AICP, Senior Planner. " MOTION:. To table this administrative request. b VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: After a short discussion, this administrative case was tabled. The Landscape Code portion will be presented again at the July 10 Commission meeting. The Residential Appearance Standards will be presented on July 17. STAFF CERTIFICATION i ~ '1 ~~`~ri ,C~~.~~ Barbara M. Clarke Planning Director 03-014ADM Code Amendment Landscape Code Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -June 19, 2003 Page 28 8. Administrative Request 03-014ADM - -Code Amendment -Landscape Code and Residential Appearance Standards Request: Review and approval of a revision to the landscape requirements in section 153.133 (requiring front yard trees for single family lots) and 153.134 (size and frequency of street trees); and adopting section 153.190 residential appearance standards. for one, two, and three unit structures. Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jarie S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Pazkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Brandol M. Harvey,AIA, AICP, Senior Planner. NOTE: The Commissioners received a handout June 5 on this subject which included minutes from the Appeazance Code Committee meetings, a copy of their recommendations, City Council's changes prior to the first reading, and requests for additional Commission discussion on select topics. City Council minutes for May 12 and 19 are not available. BACKGROUND: This case includes the specific Code amendments recommended by the City Council's Appeazance Code Committee to implement the Community Plan policies and strategies. The Appeazance Code Committee was appointed by City Council in July 2002 to investigate and make recommendations on residential appeazances of the City. It consisted of the following members: Chuck Kranstuber, City Council Representative George Peplow, Chairman John Messineo, Planning & Zoning Commission Charlie Driscoll, BIA Representative and Edwards Land Company David Meleca, AIA, Architect - Greg Wieland, AIA, Architect The Committee conducted 12 meetings over eight months, including research as to what makes neighborhoods successful, considering multiple facets of neighborhood chazacter, investigating current Code requirements which affect neighborhood appearance, the evolution of Dublin's development, and the potential for new development. Specific topics included subdivision layout and topography, architectural diversity, azchitectural design elements, four-sided azchitecture, street trees, private landscaping, and code enforcement. In summary, the Appearance Code Committee is recommending three sets of Development Code amendments. The first improves street tree standards and the second requires front yard trees for single-family lots. The third is the most extensive and complex and recommends Residential Appeazance Standards. City Council held two work sessions, made certain changes and identified several topics for the Commission to consider. The topics for additional Commission discussion and recommendations aze limited to the third set, the Residential Appeazance Standazds. At the June 5 meeting, the Commission received a document including the original recommendations of the Appearance Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -June 19, 2003 Page 29 Code Committee and text-box inserts identifying City Council's changes and topics for additional Commission consideration. CONSIDERATIONS: Amendments to the current Landscaping Code to increase the minimum street tree size from 1 3/< inches to 2-'/2 inches and decreasing minimum and maximum street tree spacing by five feet. These changes will create a denser and more effective street tree corridor. The Appearance Code Committee determined that street trees are the most important appearance element of neighborhoods. The City Forester participated in and supports these amendments. A complementary amendment to the Landscaping Code requires the planting of front yard trees on single-family lots. Currently all other land uses are already required to install private landscaping. Lots of 90 feet or greater width will be required to install three trees in the front yard, and narrower lots will be required to install two trees. The front yard trees species must be on the City's approved list of street trees. A set of new Residential Appearance Standards will apply to all new houses and existing houses requesting a 25 percent expansion of the livable area or a significant exterior alteration. A "house" includes one-, two- and three-family structures. "Significant exterior alteration" is defined as "a change in roofline, adding or removing windows or doors, altering projections and recesses, or changing the exterior building materials." The Residential Appearance Standards are by far the most lengthy and complex. They are detailed and interrelate to one another. Changing a detail in one may have impacts to several others. The following summarizes the key contents of the Residential Appearance Standards in the order contained in the ordinance. As mentioned above, City Council has requested that the Commission take a closer look at several topics and make recommendations to the City Council. Those select topics include bold text indicating City Council's general comments and requests. Planned Districts are specifically addressed with the intent to require compliance unless there are comparable or better design standards contained in the Planned District's adopted ordinance. For both existing and future Planned Districts, a comparison would be made between the (adopted or proposed) Planned District standards and these standards. The more restrictive standard would apply. A special provision is given to existing Planned Districts to allow an exemption for six months after the adoption of these standards. That should allow homes in existing Planned Districts currently being designed to proceed without difficulty. City Council requested the Commission to consider completely exempting existing Planned Districts that have an Architectural Review Committee. Design Standards cover the following basic topics: Garage placement and door size. Garages can be the dominate visual influence in an elevation. Only garages in a front elevation are proposed for regulation. Garages on the secondary street of a corner lot or through lot are exempt. The general intent is to limit the dominance of garages and garage doors in the front elevation. Limits to door sizes and percentage of the elevation are provided. Vinyl siding. It was found that the negative perception of vinyl homes is often caused by lack of detailing or siding pieces that have warped or separated. Any predominately vinyl-sided home must include detailing from a list of options. Minimum thickness and installation standards help to prevent warping and separation. City Council requested Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -June 19, 2003 Page 30 Commission to consider higher than 44 mil as a minimum thickness, a minimum thickness for the underlayment, and the detailing options. Four-sided architecture. The standards attempt to control the number and location of design elements to prevent a negative appearance at minimal costs. A higher importance is placed on street-facing elevations. Several tests aze required to discourage large azeas of blank wall. The City Council requested the Commission to consider developing a standard requiring the "balancing" of visual elements in astreet-facing side or rear elevation, or requiring additional setbacks or landscaping. Building Materials. Wood boazd, brick, stone, cultured stone, fibrous cement siding, stucco, glass block and vinyl siding are the permitted finish materials. The number of . materials used cannot exceed three. Asphalt dimensional shingles, slate, tile, standing seam metal, wood shingles or shakes are the permitted roof materials. Several standazds address how and when building materials should change as they occur in the elevations. City Council requested the Commission consider whether chimneys should be only brick, stone or stucco. Roof slopes. The main architectural roof must have a minimum 6:12 pitch. Flat roofs may be permitted, but not as the main azchitectural roof. Dormers, porches, and other similar secondary architectural features may have roofs with a minimum 4:12 pitch. Foundations. Foundations must be clad with facing material to include, but not be limited to brick, natural stone, imitation stone, or split block. Alternatively, if wood or vinyl siding is used, it may extend to within one foot of the finished grade at the base of the wall. City Council requested the Commission consider eliminating split block as an option for foundation faces and requiring minimum topsoil around foundations. Windows and trim. Shutters or trim will be required azound all windows within any elevation constructed of vinyl, stucco, wood, or fibrous cement siding. To maintain some degree of azchitectural integrity, shutters would have to be the sized as if they aze operable for the windows. Trim must be at least 3.5 inches in width. Special detailing above and below windows in brick or stone walls is encouraged. City Council requested the Commission to consider requiring mullions (real or otherwise) on front, side and rear elevation windows, perhaps instead of shutters in rear elevations. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is anticipated that a more detailed presentation and discussion will occur at subsequent meetings, either of the Commission as a whole or a subcommittee. In order to proceed, the Commission needs to determine whether a review subcommittee is needed and to select its membership. Additionally, a schedule needs to be set for future presentations. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -June 19, 2003 Page 12 7. Administrative Request 03-OSOADM: Community Plan Modifications '~(:'8. Administrative Request 03-014ADM - -Code Amendment -Landscape Code and Residential Appearance Standards Ms. Clarke said the amendments to the Community Plan are completely non-controversial. She said that Mr. Harvey tried to strengthen the connection between the Community Plan and the Code modifications and drafted additional text for inclusion in the Community Plan. These two ' cases can be heard together or separately, as the Commission chooses. Brandol Harvey said a report showed the combined recommendations from the Appearance Code Committee and City Council. The comments from Council resulted from its two work sessions and indicate areas for further study. He said the Appearance Code Committee was made up of George Peplow, Chuck Kranstuber, John Messineo, Charles Driscoll, David Meleca, and Greg Wieland. The Committee met twelve times over eight months. Mr. Harvey said the Committee researched various neighborhoods to determine the appropriate characteristics of "traditional suburban" developments. The Committee chose meandering streets, numerous topographic changes, heavy public and private landscaping, and diversity in setbacks and lot widths and important characteristics. He said consistent private and public landscaping along the streetscape become a strong neighborhood element, and it decreases the need for architectural diversity controls. Mr. Harvey said architectural diversity became a big issue because houses were so visible from the street, particularly in new developments. Mr. Harvey said suggestions are being made to the Policies, Issues and Strategies of the Community Plan. The Community Plan amendment establishes the findings and some strategies that would be implemented through the Code amendments. He said more trees are recommended on single-family lots. Other types of development currently require private landscaping, but not single-family houses. Recommendations include increasing the impact of street trees and landscaping cul de sacs. Mr. Harvey said amendments to the Landscape Code are proposed: to increase the size to 2'/z inches, to decrease the spacing by five feet, and to require additional trees in the front yard based on lot width. Mr. Harvey said the most complex issue is appearance standards for the houses themselves. The topics include garage placement and door size, vinyl siding, specifications and detailing for vinyl homes. Mr. Sprague interrupted and raised aluminum siding as an issue. Ms. Boring said when it states that City Council requested the Commission to consider an issue, not all Council members said to do it. Their discussion was getting too long and engrossed. The Commission should consider the issues and return with a recommendation to City Council. Mr. Gerber said their purpose tonight was to determine a process for review. Mr. Harvey said another topic was four-sided architecture. There were several formulas. He said City Council was generally satisfied with the recommendation. There was a comment that Planning Commission look at balancing or symmetry in a street facing elevation. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -June 19, 2003 Page 14 Ms. Clarke said all meetings had to meet in a public place, advertised in the media, and open to the public. Mr. Gerber suggested this be divided: Community Plan, Landscape Code, and Residential Appearance Code. Ms. Clarke suggested the Community Plan and the Landscape Code be combined. There is more of a learning curve for all of the architectural detail and standards proposed. Mr. Harvey suggested the Residential Appearance Code have one presentation on that entire part of the Code, and then it be broken into subunits for discussion. The topsoil and four-sided architecture issues may require separate meetings. Mr. Gerber asked if starting July 10th, the Commissioners agreed to an hour presentation for the Community Plan and Landscape Code, and then on July 17th, they would act upon it. The Residential Appearance Code could be addressed on August 14th. He said they would have the presentations and discussions of each topic at the beginning of the meetings. Ms. Boring suggested that they remember the audience. Mr. Sprague agreed, but said the Commissioners need to make these very important decisions at the beginning of the meetings. Mr. Gerber agreed. Ms. Clarke said the rest of the cases could be advertised to begin at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Zimmerman asked if new information would be in the July 10th Commission packet. Mr. Harvey no. Mr. Gerber asked for afive-minute outline of the probable schedule on July 10th. Mr. Gerber made a motion to table the Community Plan Modifications, and Mr. Ritchie seconded. The vote was unanimous in favor. (Tabled 7-0.) Mr. Gerber made a motion to table Landscape Code and Residential Appearance Standards, and Mr. Zimmerman seconded. The vote was unanimous in favor. (Tabled 7-0.) Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -June 13, 2003 Page 14 presentations and discussions of each topic at the beginning of the meetings. Ms. Boring suggested that they remember the audience. Mr. Sprague agreed, but said the Commissioners need to make these very important decisions at the beginning of the meetings. Mr. Gerber agreed. Ms. Clarke said the rest of the cases could be advertised to begin at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Zimmerman asked if new information would be in the July 10th Commission packet. Mr. Harvey no. Mr. Gerber asked for afive-minute outline of the probable schedule on July 10th. Mr. Gerber made a motion to table the Community Plan Modifications, and Mr. Ritchie seconded. The vote was unanimous in favor. (Tabled 7-0.) Mr. Gerber made a motion to table Landscape Code and Residential Appearance Standards, and Mr. Zimmerman seconded. The vote was unanimous in favor. (Tabled 7-0.) 9. Administrative Request 03-053ADM - Amendments to Planning and Zoning Commission Rules and Regulations Mr. Gerber said the Rules and Regulations reflect the Commission's suggestions from the last meeting. Ms. Boring noted page 5, F and E had not been changed as requested. Mr. Gerber made the motion to approve the amendments to the Commission Rules and Regulations. Mr. Ritchie seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ms. Boring, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Mr. Sprague, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Messineo, yes; Mr. Ritchie, yes; and Mr. Gerber. (Approved 7-0.) Mr. Gerber thanked Ms. Clarke for her help. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Respectively submitted, Libby Farley Administrative Assistant Planning Division RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of_._____ Dublin City_Council Mee~ing___ OAVTON LEGAL BLANK. INC.. EORM NO 101~B May 19, 2003 Page 4 Held 20 i Ordinance 5 -03 ~ Amendin ortions of the Zoning Code to Es blish the Historic Business (HB District d the Historic Residential (HR) D' trict (Case No. 01-113ADM -His ric l~, Distri Code Amendment) Ord' ance 54-03 R oning Approximately 83 Parcels omprising an Area of Approxim ely 72.7 cres in Historic Dublin and Vicini , To: HR, Historic Residential D' trict (Case No. 01-1142 -Historic Development strict Rezoning I). ~s Ordinance 55-03 ~ Rezoning Approximately 74 arcels Comprising an Area of A roximately 28.11 Acres in Historic Dublin a Vicinity, From: CCC, Central C munity Commercial District and CB, Central usiness District, To: HB, Histori usiness District (Case No. 01-1142- Historic velopment District Rezoning II). Ordinance 56-03 Amending Portio of the Zoning Code to Establis a "Architectural Review r District" and to e-Organize the Architectural Rev' w Board (ARB) and Repea g Sections 153. 0 through 153.187 (Case No.03- 9ADM -Architectural Revi !I District and rchitectural Review Board Proc ures). ! j Ordinanc 7-03 II . Adopti the Old Dublin Design Guidelin (Case No. 00-118ADM). Mr. Kr nstuber moved to introduce Ordin ces 53-03 through 57-03 and refer them to the arming & Zoning Commission. . Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the tion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici-Z rcher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, y ; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; r. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, s. Ms. Salay asked for an esti ed hearing date at P&Z. Ms. Clarke responded that a HB and HR districts must fir be established before properties can be rezon to those districts. The archite ural guidelines have bee in use for about five year ,and this formally adopts the g delines. The reorganiza ' n of the ARB would then foil ,and finally the rezoning of th parcels identified. She pects the process to begin i June and continue through La r Day. Mayor Kranst er asked that the titles of Ordi nces 58-03 and 59-03 b ead together, as they bot relate to the appearance code. Ordin ce 58-03 Ame ding Ordinance 123-97, by Adopting Modifications to the City of Dublin Co munity Plan to Incorporate Findings, Policies, Issues and Strategies Relating to Community Character and Residential Neighborhood Development. (Case No. 03- 050ADM -Community Plan modifications) ~ Ordinance 59-03 Amending Portions of the Zoning Code by Amending Section 153.133 (Minimum Landscape Requirements), Section 153.134 (Street Tree and Public Tree Requirements), and Adopting Section 153.190, Residential Appearance Standards. (Case No. 03-014 ADM -Landscape Code Amendment and Adopting Residential Appearance Standards) Mr. Kranstuber introduced Ordinances 58-03 and 59-03. Ms. Brautigam noted that at the last study session, the recommendations of the Appearance Code Committee were presented in part. Tonight's presentation includes the remainder of the recommendations. Mr. Harvey presented the recommendations to Council. Vinyl Siding ' The first recommendation relates to vinyl siding and the question of the proper thickness of the material. (He showed slides of the various examples of installation of vinyl siding in communities around the Greater Columbus area.) The Vinyl Institute recommends the 44 mills as a desirable standard. Some of the upper-end housing developers use 50 mills. The durability of 44 and 50 mills is expected to be 40 years. The cost differences between 44 to 50 mills is not substantial -fora 2,500 square foot home of 44 mills, the material cost is $3,600. At 40 mills, the savings is $900. Taking it from 44 to 50 mills brings an increase of $1,100. The Village of Highland Lakes houses shown in the slides use 50 mills, and the same developer building now at the Reserve at Ballantrae uses 50 ji mills. The restricted covenants for the original part of Ballantrae require 44 mills as a minimum. He added that proper installation is required to prevent warping and j j~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~iRUtes_o~__-_ Dublin City_Council Meeting-. DRYiON LEGAL BUNK. INC.. FOAM NO. 1018 May 19, 2003 Page 5 Held 20 ~ L separation of vinyl siding. Some municipalities have prohibited pneumatic Hailers, but the ~ newer equipment sets the nail properly on the siding. ~ i Mr. Kranstuber commented that many existing homes in Dublin have 36 mill siding, so this ~ will establish a standard. The Committee tried to be sensitive to the issues of affordable ~ i housing, and endorses a midline standard focusing on durability. Mayor McCash commented that the 50-mill siding is produced by only a few suppliers in Central Ohio, and would be available in fewer colors. From a diversity of color standpoint, it the higher standard may reduce the options. Mr. Harvey responded that several manufacturers provide 46 and/or 48 mill vinyl siding. Mr. Reiner commented that he endorses a higher standard so that the product will endure jl - perhaps a standard of 46 to 48 to minimize City inspections in the future. ~ Mayor McCash responded that the thickness would not affect the fading from ultraviolet l light. Mr. Reiner stated that he believes that the higher quality product has a superior ~ appearance. Mayor McCash noted that much of the look relates to the installation. it Mr. Kranstuber stated that banning vinyl siding has been considered by some groups in l the past, or limiting the percentage of homes with vinyl siding. Upon closer examination of i examples throughout the area, the Committee decided to focus on quality of the product. li Mr. Reiner noted that another consideration is the City inspection of installed siding -are I there times when the builder is required to remove poorly installed vinyl siding? If the only control the City has is over the material, and not the installation, he would support a higher ~ ii quality material I! Mr. Kranstuber emphasized that the desire is to establish a standard, as none exists at ~ this time. The concern is with not making the standard so high that housing becomes unaffordable. ~j I Mc Lecklider asked if the difference between 44 and 46 mills is noticeable? ii Mr. Harvey responded that it is not visibly different, but theoretically it would be proportionately stronger, last longer and would resist high temperature changes. Therefore, it would separate less over a period of time. Mr. Harvey then described the vinyl accessories that can improve the appearance of a home at an economical price. He showed slides of the various items available, i.e., door surrounds, mantel systems above windows, shutters, fascia boards, molding, trim boards, accent panels. He summarized that the recommendation of the Committee is for a minimum thickness of 44_ mills, that it must be applied to the OSB or plywood, that it must have a low oloss fnish, and that it must be properly installed to prevent warping or separation. Mr. Reiner asked about the dimensional thickness for the plywood. Mayor McCash stated it should be a minimum of due to the structural load. However, this is a building code issue and not related to the appearance code. Mayor McCash suggested as a follow-up, that the Building division staff should devise some proposed language to address these items. Mr. Harvey agreed that staff would research the thickness of the underlayment as suggested. i Additional Requirements for Predominantly Vinyl Siding Homes i~ Mr. Harvey stated that the Committee recommends that every predominantly vinyl home should be vinyl on the entry side. Where there is a vinyl sided elevation, a minimum 6" fascia board should be required. In addition, two other options -such as shutters, mantels, cornices, etc. -would be required. Mr. Lecklider suggested that P&Z also consider the windowpane look for other than front j elevations. These are done with inserts in the windows. j'. Mr. Kranstuber stated that these are a nuisance when cleaning the windows. i' Mrs. Boring commented that these types of inserts are not compatible with certain house designs. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of___- ___--Dublin City_Co_u_ncil_ Meeting _ DAYTON LEWLRIANN. INC_FORM NO_~0~~8 May 19, 2003 Page 6 Held 20 I Discussion followed about requiring mantels on other than the front of the house. lip' I . ~i Ms. Brautigam suggested that Council forward a detailed transcript of tonight's suggestions to the Planning Commission for their review, and that revisions not be made tonight to the draft Appearance Code. In this way, the Commission can consider all of the Committee's proposal as well as the concerns of Council I ! Four Sided Architecture Mr. Harvey noted that this is a trend in the industry, and it helps to achieve a sense of place or neighborhood. The Committee originally considered requiring three design I~ elements somewhere on each elevation. The Committee then focused efforts on the i, dispersal of design elements to avoid having blank walls. The Committee recommends at j~ least two design elements in any elevation wherever it faces, with a little more treatment for the street facing elevation. The Committee recommends this formula: Each elevation must contain at least two design elements and each street facing elevation must contain three design elements. it Further in all cases there must exist at least one design element in each one-half of the I1 elevation At least one design element should occur on the first floor, and should there be a large upper wall area that would otherwise be blank then at least one design element i' would have to be located in the upper wall area. He then detailed the various examples of design elements that would meet these requirements. Discussion followed. 1. Mc Reiner noted that using the chimney as an architectural element may be problematic, ;~I and asked that P&Z look at this closely. Discussion followed about the type of materials allowed for a chimney. I~ Mr. Harvey noted that the Committee is also recommending a set of definitions with illustrations. These are included in the draft Appearance Code. Another recommendation is to limit types of materials to be used on the exterior to wood, brick stone (natural or cultured) products of siding that are typical of the manufacturer hardy plank stucco glass block or vinyl siding. In the elevations, no more than three materials can be used (He showed an example of a house and the varous reouirements.) Foundations must be faced with either brick natural or cultured stone. split block, or the exterior siding material must be brought down over the foundation to within 12 inches of the finish grade. ~ I~ Mr. Reiner noted that the split block would not be an improvement over what is presently allowed. j Mc Harvey stated that the split block is becoming more of a common practice and it does il, break up the gray concrete block appearance. The Committee felt it could be an acceptable alternative. Mr. Kranstuber commented that the only consideration was bringing the foundation cover ~I down as much as possible while still allowing for mounding and landscaping. It was not a cost issue. Mr. Reiner objected to the split block - it is not a strong design element. He also suggested that the City consider an ordinance that requires that the topsoil from a lot is stored and then redistributed on the site after the house is built. He also endorses stone or brick to cover the foundation. Having concrete block or split block around the base of the house is very unattractive, and homebuyers then purchase foundation plantings to hide this block. ~I Mr. Kranstuber clarified that what the Committee is recommending is bringing the cedar, the stone or whatever material down to 12 inches from the ground. Mr. Reiner clarified that he is suggesting that the bottom 12 inches of base be brick or I~', stone. ~ Mr. Lecklider stated that he believes all of the builders will opt for the split block if allowed. ~ He would recommend the brick or stone base instead. Mr. Kranstuber summarized that perhaps staff could propose some alternative language for P&Z to consider, based on these concerns. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~linutes9f DublitLCity Council Mee~ng_ _____O_AY=ON LEGAI BLANK.INC.. FORM NO. l01K8 May 19, 2003 Page 7 I I~'I Held 20 II _ - Application I - Mr. Harvey stated that the appearance code standards would apply to all new construction 'i and for existing construction when there is an expansion of 25 percent livable area or it significant exterior alteration. Only the portion being changed must meet the new I standards. In terms of existing planned districts, the Committee is recommending a 'I period of transition of six months. After that exemption period, any new building permit must comply with the new standards. For new planned districts, they would have to meet it these standards at a minimum. For exemptions, all of the properties covered under the i, Architectural Review District would be exempt. Any interior alteration is exempt if not affecting the outside appearance of the house. Any building permit already submitted would also be exempt. i Discussion followed about the role of the subdivision architectural review committee fora planned district versus the appearance code requirements and their application. (I Mr. Kranstuber stated that the appearance code would establish the minimum standards I that all development must meet. In cases where the subdivisions review committee it requires less, the appearance code would govern. i i~' Mayor McCash stated that the way it is drafted, some people will be required to have the City review architectural styles, but others will be reviewed by their neighbors. It seems it ~I should be applied equally to all neighborhoods -whether or not a neighborhood has an architectural review committee. 11 Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that she is hopeful that P8LZ understands that Council desires that the appearance code be approved this year. Much of the work has already ~I I' vel where P&Z was re resented. P&Z's role should be to been ~~ne at the Committee le improve what already exists in the draft document. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved to refer Ordinances 58-03 and 59-03 to the Planning & II~ Zoning Commission. ' Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; ~ l Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. INTRODUCTION 8L PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTIONS ~ Resolution 26-03 ° Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into aOne-Year Contract for Legal Services with the Law Director. Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. Ms. Brautigam stated that at the time she joined the City, several Council Members j expressed concern about the legal fees and their hope for improved monitoring and li control in the future. She has discussed with Mr. Smith the various ways the legal fees could be reduced, and much of any litigation the City is involved in has been resolved. In ~i addition, a review was done of the average costs for the last three years and consideration has been given to implementing a retainer system. After reviewing the ;i, material, she believes that a retainer system,.as recommended in the report, would be a ;j good opportunity for the City. She believes that the City will save approximately $200,000 over the next year, based on the amount of previous billings. She has also worked with I~ members of staff to ensure that requests for legal services are closely reviewed. Routine, non-legal matters previously referred to Legal staff are now handled in house. The primary changes are as follows: 1) Presently, the City pays $6,000 per month for Mayor's Court legal fees. In the past year, the law firm has tracked the actual monthly costs for the Mayor's Court at the i previous hourly rate and it averages $9,800 a month for a service for which the City pays $6,000 per month. This is too large a loss for the law firm to bear, in her i~ view, and therefore she proposes increasing the fixed rate for Mayor's Court to i $9,000 per month. They will still experience a slight loss for this work, but it does serve as a training ground for new attorneys in municipal law. 2) The City will no longer have an hourly rate for general legal services. Instead of $120 per hour, which likely would have increased by ten percent this year, staff is ~i recommending a $60,000 per month retainer which will cover general legal matters, civil real estate matters including negotiations with property owners over ii right-of-way, and general litigation such as appeals from the Board of Zoning Appeals. The next level of complex real estate matters and litigation, involving numerous court appearances and discovery, will be charged at the hourly billing li Dublin 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 Chope, 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 Dublin City Council Study Session May 12, 2003 -Page 3 of 15 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 iri 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. 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 Dublin City Council Study Session May 12, 2003 -Page 4 of 15 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, on 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. 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. Dublin City Council Study Session May 12, 2003 -Page 5 of 15 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 none 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 for 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'/z 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, 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 Dublin City Council Study Session May 12, 2003 -Page 6 of 15 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 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 o one or o 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 older 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. Dublin City Council Study Session May 12, 2003 -Page 7 of 15 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 for 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 of single-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? 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'/<" 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 2-1/2" 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 2-1/2" or 3". Mr. Harvey stated that it actually varies from 3" to 6". Mr. Kranstuber stated Ms. Chope 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. Dublin City Council Study Session May 12, 2003 -Page 8 of 15 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 2-1/2" caliper, thereby ensuring that the City acquires a 2" tree. 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. Dublin City Council Study Session May 12, 2003 -Page 9 of 15 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. 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. Dublin City Council Study Session May 12, 2003 -Page 10 of 15 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. 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 of three-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 for solution, (3) chose 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 amore 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. Dublin City Council Study Session May 12, 2003 -Page 11 of 15 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. 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 more 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. Dublin City Council Study Session May 12, 2003 -Page 12 of 15 Mr. Reiner reiterated that the requirement would apply only to the builder with initial construction. 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 s- 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 Projection 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 a three-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 porch. 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 facade would be created. Is the issue to accommodate the Dublin City Council Study Session May 12, 2003 -Page 13 of 15 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/I 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 facade, which achieves another objective of the committee. Mr. Lecklider moved that fortwo-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." Mayor McCash agreed, but noted that he is comfortable that the Planning Commission will conduct that study. ..W Dublin City Council Study Session May 12, 2003 -Page 14 of 15 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. 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. .w Dublin City Council Study Session May 12, 2003 -Page 15 of 15 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