STAFF REPORT

STAFF REPORT

Planning and Development Committee, April 18, 2007

Future Town Wide Residential Appearance Regulations (PL07-035)
Consideration of potential regulations regarding garagescapes and anti-monotony standards
Speaker: Mr. Dan Matthys

From: Jeff Ulma, AICP, Planning Director
Prepared by: Dan Matthys, AICP, Current Planning Manager

Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

On February 17, 2007, staff presented numerous development related topics to the P&D Committee to get direction on potential future amendments to the Land Development Ordinance (LDO). During the meeting, the Committee directed staff to continue with research on the topics related to garagescapes and anti-monotony standards, and bring back to the Committee a recommendation. The Town of Cary historically has regulated the appearance of non-residential development but has not, to date, included single-family residential units in our appearance regulations. Staff has reviewed numerous regulations throughout the nation and is seeking Council direction whether to proceed with developing draft ordinance language that could be included in the next round of LDO amendments.

Topic: Garagescapes (or snout-nose garages)

Council raised concerns about the aesthetics of garage front housing, known as “snout-nose” garages, where the garage occupies a larger portion of the façade or protrudes from the front façade of the house.

Numerous jurisdictions have adopted regulations regarding the placement of garages to avoid the “snout-nose” garage effect. These regulations can include a variety of options, such as a greater setback for the garage itself, requiring side-loading or rear-loading garages, or allowing the garage to be flush with the front of the residential unit but requiring that the overall façade be broken up via architectural changes.

The Town of Cary addresses garagescapes in a couple of documents. Within the Alston Concept Plan, our new design requirements stipulate an off-set of 2 feet between the primary façade and the garage face. In addition, the Town of Cary Design Guidelines encourage residential units to be arranged to reduce the visibility of garages through a variety of suggestions, such as recommendations to avoid placing the garage in front of, or aligned with the primary house façade. Examples from other communities include:

Municipality	Regulation	Paraphrased Language
City of Battle Ground, MI	LDC	Garages must be set back a minimum of 4’ from the front of the house or be a side entry garage. Side entry garages must include architectural features to blend with the house, including windows, shutters, and entry door or flower box.
City of Temecula, CA	City-Wide Design Guidelines	At least 20% of residences shall have side loading, detached or rear garage layouts. Alley access should be explored on lots under 10,000 square feet and porch entries instead of garage fronts should be visible from the street. Garage doors must be set back a minimum of 6” from the face of the garage and cover panels or windows used to break up the large planes of garage doors. Front loading garages shall be set back from the face of the main house and shall not incorporate more than 50% of the width of the house. In 2 story houses, roof forms, trellises and balconies should be located directly above the garage door to minimize the visual impact of the garage from the street.
City of Lavene, AZ	Residential Design Guidelines	Additional setbacks required for garages from the front of the house. Garages must be compatible with the residence in color, architecture and detailing. No more than 40% of garages within a subdivision can be front loading garages. Garage door cannot exceed 40% of dwelling façade.

Should the Council desire to proceed with similar ordinance language, the Planning Department recommends use of a variety of methods, including possible establishment of a maximum percent of front loading garages per subdivision. For dwelling units with front loading garages, a mixture of regulations is also suggested, including increased setbacks for garages, architectural standards for garages and garage doors, and a maximum percentage of garage size to housing façade. These standards can be either directly codified in the Land Development Ordinance with specific language, or language can be added in the LDO giving a heightened emphasis on the Cary Design Guidelines. Should the latter be the direction of Council, Staff would recommend revisiting the Design Guidelines to include more language and guidance for minimizing garagescapes (example).

Topic: Anti-monotony standards

Council has raised concerns regarding monotony among residential units along a street. This usually occurs when tract builders offer a limited number of housing models, therefore constructing subdivisions where many of the dwelling units located side-by-side look identical. Several jurisdictions across the nation have adopted anti-monotony regulations, which include requirements that like models be separated by a different model, or require residential units to differ from one another by providing a variety of options, including, but not limited to wall or siding materials, architectural style, roof type or shape, window and door orientation. The table below depicts a snapshot of regulations from four jurisdictions with respect to regulating monotony in residential developments:

Municipality	Regulation	Paraphrased Language
Village of Winthrop Harbor, IL	151.200	No two identical houses can be placed on the same side of any street. Various criteria are established to break up monotony such as roof line, window and construction materials.
Village of Huntley, IL	Ch. 157	No building permit shall be issued for a new single-family or multi-family dwelling unit which is similar in appearance to any dwelling on the same street within three lots’ distance. Various criteria established to break monotony include roof type, roof height, dimensions of front wall, shape of elevation, window location, garage location and types of siding and color.
City of Clayton, OH	Ch. 1171	Single-family or two-family dwellings in proximity (lot on either side or directly across the street) shall not look alike. Dwellings must use at least two criteria to differentiate units, such as wall or siding material, architectural style, porches or turrets, roof type and shape, building footprint and window and door orientation. In addition, residential developments must adhere to strict residential design guidelines.
City of Westminster, CO	Residential Design Guidelines	Homes should be similar type and size and be designed so that streetscapes are similar. However, all proposed models shall be distinguished with different exterior elevations that meet at least two of the following criteria: architectural styles, roof forms/lines/profiles, façade composition (window & door placement, garage entry), entry treatments (porches, columns, etc) and number of stories.

The Town of Cary currently does not include any regulations within the Land Development Ordinance (LDO), the Community Appearance Manual (CAM) or Town Design Guidelines regarding anti-monotony in residential subdivisions.

Should the Council desire to proceed with ordinance language, the Planning Department recommends a blend of various methods to establish anti-monotony limits in residential developments such as limiting similar models within two lots on either side of said model and requiring two or more differentiating features. These features should include a variety of architectural styles, façade components, garage placements, height, color, roof types, etc. (example).

Fiscal Impact: None

Staff Recommendation: Staff requests Council direction regarding the drafting of ordinance language regarding anti-monotony and snout-nose garage regulations for inclusion in the next round of LDO amendments including a thorough evaluation of the legal authority available to implement such regulations.