Loading...
05-11-15 PC AgendaAGENDA Planning Commission Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Conference Room Monday, May 11, 2015 7 pm 1. Approval of Minutes April 27, 2015, Regular Planning Commission Meeting 2. Informal Public Hearing — Zoning Code Text Amendment — Single Family Residential (R-1) Side Setbacks — Z000-98 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider amending language in the Zoning Code regarding side yard setbacks. --Short Recess -- 3. Other Business 4. Adjournment This document k available in alternate formats upon a 24our rcqu,:st. ?lase call 763-593-8006 (f _fY: 763-593-3968) to make a request. Examples of alternate format:; may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiucassette, etc. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 27, 2015 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, April 13, 2015. Chair Kluchka called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Blum, Cera, Johnson, Kluchka, Segelbaum, and Waldhauser. Also present was Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Baker was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes April 13, 2015, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Waldhauser referred to the discussion regarding surface water management for the Liberty Crossing proposal and said there seems to be some inconsistencies. She said that in some places the minutes state that the site would be net neutral and in other places the minutes state that the surface water issues on the site would be a net improvement. Zimmerman clarified that the applicant is responsible to do what they need to do to have the site be net neutral. He said the City is interested in going above and beyond that to get the site to a net positive position in regard to stormwater. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the April 13, 2015, minutes as submitted. 2. Single Family Residential (R-1) Side Setbacks Zimmerman gave a brief history of the side setback issues. He explained that in 2006, the City Council asked the Planning Commission to study issues related to the scale of remodeled and infill housing. In 2008, the City Council adopted the Planning Commission's recommendations regarding building height, side yard setbacks, and side wall articulation. He stated that the side yard setback requirements were amended so that they varied with the height of the structure, increasing the size of the setbacks as the home rose above 15 feet. He stated that staff was made aware of differences in interpretation between the language of the 2008 amendment and how it has since been applied. The City Council addressed the issue at their April 7 meeting and approved Zoning Code text amendments to help clarify the setback language and to grandfather in properties that had built under a different interpretation. Segelbaum asked if there is a distinction in the Zoning Code between new construction and renovation of existing structures. Zimmerman said yes, the Code does state that any new construction has to conform to the current requirements. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 27, 2015 Page 2 Zimmerman stated that at the April 7 Council meeting, staff was directed to bring this item back to the Planning Commission to help address the following concerns: protecting neighboring homes from the blockage of light and air by taller structures for both new homes and renovations, discouraging garage -dominated front facades and preserving back yard areas by not having such large side setbacks therefore pushing more of the home into the backyard, simplifying the Zoning Code for better comprehension and administration, adding illustrations to the Zoning Code to prevent misinterpretation in the future, and to consider how side setbacks should be applied going forward. Kluchka said the only actionable item seems to be the concern about discouraging garage -dominated front facades and preserving back yard areas. He asked if the Council had any discussions about the conflict between the recent subdivision study calling to leave rear yard setbacks alone, and the concern of preserving back yard areas. Zimmerman stated that the rear yard setback requirement was recently changed from 20% of the lot depth to 25 feet. He said the Council did not talk about potential Zoning Code changes as it relates of the recent subdivision study, but that there isn't necessarily a conflict depending on how deep the lot is. Waldhauser noted that allowing wider houses won't prevent people from building a house with a garage -dominated front facade. Zimmerman said modern families have a certain expectation for the size of a home. If that is restricted by requiring larger side yard setbacks they are still going to want the same size house, it will just force people to push the house further back on the lot, whereas if there is flexibility to spread the square footage across the front of the lot, more of the back yard space will be preserved. Zimmerman discussed some of the key items as amended in 2008 versus how they have been interpreted and applied. He said the Zoning Code states that the overall height of the home is measured at the front and that the additional setback is applied equally on both sides of the house. He said staff has been interpreting and applying the Code by determining the height of each portion of a home separately, and then determining setbacks individually on each side. He showed the Commissioners several pictures illustrating how existing homes could have been built using each interpretation. He showed another illustration that stemmed from a study that the City of Austin, TX, did which uses a tent -shaped building envelope. The tent shaped envelope is based on the same setback calculations as required by the current Zoning Code, and anything that fits in the envelope can be built. He showed several illustrations of existing homes built in the City, on various sized lots, and showed how they would fit within the tent -shaped building envelope. Zimmerman added that there are also building lot coverage maximums, impervious surface requirements, and articulation requirements that still apply and are taken into consideration. Kluchka said if there is an interest in discouraging garage -dominated front facades maybe the City should encourage allowing a benefit or incentive to people not doing a garage - dominated front facade, instead of changing the math and formulas. Cera questioned how much space would be available to build a house on an 80 -foot wide lot, with a three -stall garage and large side setbacks on both sides. Kluchka said that he Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 27, 2015 Page 3 thinks the market calls for three -stall garages and that there may be no way around garage dominated fronts. Waldhauser questioned if the City wants or needs three -stall garages on 80 -foot wide lots. Kluchka asked about the predominance of 80 -foot wide lots. Zimmerman said lot sizes vary throughout the City, but that 80 feet is the minimum required width. Segelbaum noted that the height of the houses in the illustrations were shown as being measured at the top of the roof line and not at the mid -point. Zimmerman explained that part of staffs interpretation has been to measure the overall height of a house at the mid- point of the highest pitched roof in the front. In order to determine the side yard setback, the height was measured along the side in question to the soffit if there was a hipped - roof, or to the mid -point if there was a gabled roof. Segelbaum said the City is at risk of having inconsistent interpretations of the Code and that simplicity and clarity is important. He said the tent -shaped building envelope might be a way to simplify things. Kluchka asked if the way the Code has been interpreted uses the tent -shaped building envelope. Zimmerman said it is similar, but there aren't different side yard setbacks for each side. Kluchka asked about the widths of the lots in the recently approved Laurel Ponds PUD proposal. Zimmerman said the lots in that PUD are approximately 40 feet in width. Kluchka said the houses in that proposal all had garage -dominated front facades and the Planning Commissioners were supportive of it. Waldhauser said part of the reason garage -dominated fronts worked in that situation is because it is a mini community unto itself that buyers will accept and was not being imposed on an existing neighborhood. Segelbaum said the tent -shaped building envelope is less restrictive and that it seems that if the City is more restrictive there will be more garage -dominated front facades. Waldhauser stated that there were neighbors who were excited about the clarification in the setbacks with the understanding that both side yard setbacks are supposed to be increased with the height of the house and she assumes the Council is aware of that. Kluchka agreed that the original intent was not to allow encroaching into a side yard. Zimmerman stated that Golden Valley has pretty aggressive side yard setback requirements compared to surrounding communities. He stated that on an 80 -foot wide lot, with the increased setback requirement on each side, there could be a 19 -foot setback on each side. Blum asked if there was extra space on smaller lots. Zimmerman said lots that are 65 feet or less in width have different setback requirements. Segelbaum said applicants could still go to the Board of Zoning Appeals and ask for a variance. He said he is concerned there could be unintended consequences with the tent - shaped building envelope method. Zimmerman said the same issues would apply with any method used. Kluchka said he would like to maintain some protection for the neighboring properties. Waldhauser said it would be nice to allow most renovations to be done without a variance. Cera questioned if different requirements should be adopted for new construction versus remodeling. Blum said he thinks a builder would use design software in order to come up with a design that fits the requirements of the Zoning Code, and it would probably be easier to figure that out using the tent -shaped method. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 27, 2015 Page 4 Zimmerman noted that if the Code is too restrictive people may not choose to build in Golden Valley. He said there is also the issue of allowing improvements to the current housing stock. Blum said he is interested in what kinds of incentives could be used to help stop garage - dominated front facades. Cera said they could encourage more impervious surface, but he doesn't think three -stall garages can be prohibited. Segelbaum suggested saying in the Code that no more than 75% of the front facade can be garage. Waldhauser said she knows the Board of Zoning Appeals has allowed variances for two - stall garages and asked if a standard sized garage is now three stalls. Zimmerman said no, the Board of Zoning Appeals still feels that a standard garage is two stalls. Kluchka asked the Commissioners how they felt about the Council's concern regarding the preservation of back yard space. Cera said he thinks changing the rear yard setback to 25 feet will go a long way in preserving back yard space. Waldhauser stated that properties with short back yards are usually on corner lots that have houses facing a side street with two front yard setback areas. Kluchka agreed that the recently approved 25 - foot rear yard setback requirement does preserve back yard space so he is not sure how much more restriction is needed. Kluchka opened the meeting for comments. Bob Shaffer, 3125 Quail Avenue North, said he was on the Planning Commission/City Council when the Zoning Code was rewritten. He said the intent was to allow one side of the structure to move with the increase in height, not both sides of the structure. He said he likes the tent -shaped building envelope because it won't really change the way things have been done, however it could be difficult for people to apply on their own and they may have to hire a professional. He said that topographical issues should be considered as well and he is not sure how that would work with the tent -shaped method. He said one of the issues in the past was having houses that towered over other ones because of the topography of the lot. He also said dealing with dormers should be considered, because those can become difficult. He stated that if side setbacks keep getting increased houses will be built further back on the lot and garages will dominate the front facade. He added that the group of people who have been upset about this issue is fairly small so the City needs to be careful about broad, sweeping changes that could affect the majority of the City. Cera questioned how the idea of requiring only one side to have a larger setback got lost. Shaffer said measurements were supposed to be taken on each side because it was the impact to the neighboring properties that was taken into account. He added that the tent - shaped idea will do the same thing. Cera asked Shaffer his thoughts on triple garage front facades. Shaffer referred to the City of Minneapolis and stated that they have many detached garages because they have alleys. He said Golden Valley doesn't have many alleys so the opportunity to build a detached garage isn't there. He noted that the culture and history of Golden Valley has Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 27, 2015 Page 5 been to have attached garages. Waldhauser stated that detached garages also take a large amount of back yard space. Shaffer said he doesn't want it to become so difficult to build that people won't build in Golden Valley. Blum asked Shaffer if he thinks the tent -shaped method will be harder to interpret. Shaffer said he thinks it will be a little harder to interpret. He added that a survey showing topography will probably need to be required as well. Peter Knaeble, 6001 Glenwood Avenue, said he supports what staff is recommending and suggested that the Zoning Code be rewritten to match how it has been interpreted for the last 7 to 8 years. He said he doesn't think there have been many complaints with the way the Code has been interpreted and he thinks there have been several good quality homes built. He stated that on a typical 80 -foot wide lot, a two-story home that is 28 feet in height would have 19 -foot setbacks on both sides if the Code were interpreted the way the Planning Commission and Council recently decided it should be. He reviewed the setback requirements for several other cities and said the City of Golden Valley should be careful in regard to requiring a 19 -foot setback on both sides because that would only allow for a 42 -foot wide house which will turn a lot of people away and doesn't make sense. Segelbaum asked Knaeble for his thoughts about garage -dominated front facades. Knaeble said the definition of "garage -dominated front" could be subjective. He said he thinks the market should be able to build what people want to build. He reiterated that the way the Code has been interpreted for the last several years has worked well. Waldhauser asked Knaeble about measuring the height at the mid -point of a roof at the front of the house to determine the side setbacks versus the height on the side of the house. Knaeble said he thinks staff has been interpreting height correctly. Waldhauser said the intent in 2008 was to measure the height of the house at the front facade and use that height measurement to determine what the setback should be on both sides. Knaeble said he doesn't think it is clear that that was the intent. He said he thinks the Code is clear enough to support the way staff has been interpreting it. Segelbaum said he is supportive of the tent -shaped building envelope method, but he wants the issue of the garage -dominated front facades addressed in the right way. He asked staff to review ways to attempt to address those issues. Kluchka asked about the process for this issue. Zimmerman said the direction from City Council was to clarify the Zoning Code language as soon as possible. He said the issue will come back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. He add that limiting the amount of garage in the front is something that can be addressed. Waldhauser said she doesn't want to restrict what houses look like. Blum said he respectfully disagrees with Shaffer that using the tent -shaped building envelope method to determine setbacks will be difficult for people to understand. He said he thinks that method will be fairly easy to use and is a clear visual representation of what can or cannot be done. He said he wants to keep lots attractive to people wanting to build in Golden Valley. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 27, 2015 Page 6 Cera said he thinks the tent -shaped building envelope method is better than the way staff has been interpreting the Zoning Code. He said he still doesn't have a clear idea how this method will avoid "too tall" houses. He said he wants to avoid garages that stick out in front of a house and suggested there be a starting point for houses and a starting point for garages. Waldhauser said she likes the tent -shaped building envelope approach because it gives design flexibility and doesn't take away light and air space from neighboring properties. She said she is sure there will be cases where it is difficult to use, but he she thinks most cases will be easy. She added that she would like to enforce the original interpretation of measuring the height of a house at the midpoint of the roof. Johnson said the reason the Zoning Code was probably misinterpreted is that the market pushed it that way. He said a ratio is easier to understand than the "wedding cake" interpretation. If the intent is to keep the original language and to have the house fall within the same parameters, he suggests the original language be reviewed to see if it still makes sense, and then consider adopting the ratio method rather than complicated math since Golden Valley already has aggressive setback requirements. Segelbaum said he supports using the tent -shaped building envelope approach. He said would like to address the other issues with garage -dominated fronts, etc. at a later point. He said there will also be complications with eaves and someone could circumvent the intent by having large eaves or roof overhangs. Zimmerman stated that the Code allows 30" of eaves and overhangs into the setback area. Segelbaum said because of topography, one home could still look like it is towering over its neighbor. He said looking at the height of the home along the side in question might help that situation, but the tent - shaped method might be the best compromise for simplicity. Waldhauser said all of the surrounding houses could be taken into account. Kluchka said he thinks the City Council concerns seem to be philosophically in conflict with the goals and outputs of the subdivision study. He said this tent -shaped method is doing the opposite. It is saying houses can be bigger and closer together. He said he is conflicted and confused by what the Council is saying they want. He said he likes the tent -shaped building envelope approach and thinks it could be successful, but he wants to offer deference to the original study and maybe start the side yard setbacks in a little further. Waldhauser said that not too long ago standard size lots were 100 feet wide and in most neighborhoods that is still the standard. Kluchka said he would like to know the relative impact and how many lots are 80 versus 100 feet wide. Zimmerman said he would get that information from the subdivision study and bring this item back to the next Planning Commission meeting. --Short Recess-- Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 27, 2015 Page 7 3. Other Business . Election of Officers Waldhauser nominated Cera as Chair, Cera accepted the nomination. Segelbaum volunteered to be the Vice Chair, Kluchka volunteered to be the Secretary. The vote was unanimous to elect Cera as Chair, Segelbaum as Vice Chair and Kluchka as secretary. Zimmerman referred to the language regarding design review that the Planning Commission has been adding as a condition on the past several PUD proposals He stated that the City Attorney has said that no authority has been given to the Planning Commission to have design review. Kluchka said that the former Planning Director stated in the past that when the Building Board of Review was disbanded that the Planning Commission was supposed to start considering design review. Segelbaum agreed and said the Planning Commission has been focused on quality materials more than design. Zimmerman noted that the PUD section of the Zoning Code does have some design review standards. Kluchka said the Planning Commission has to be more rigorous in the Preliminary review and be diligent in their findings in saying how PUDs meet the design standards in the Code. Segelbaum said he thinks there are trade-offs in approving a PUD and that the Planning Commission can ask for certain things. 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Waldhauser stated that the Bottineau Planning Advisory Committee had their last meeting. She said it will be several months until a recommendation is made about the location and number of stations, Zimmerman reported that the City Council agreed to a more conservative approach regarding the Community Center. Cera reported on the City Council's discussion about organized garbage hauling. He stated the Council consensus was not to have a single source garbage hauler, but to have staff review the idea of splitting the City into zones and having individual haulers pick up garbage on the same day. 5. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:01 pm. Charles D. Segelbaum, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant city 0 g. -ot I�,MEiM 0 R A N D U M valley Physical Development Department 763-593-80951763-593-8149 (fax) Date: May 11, 2015 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: Single Family Residential (R-1) Side Setbacks On March 26, the Planning Commission reviewed the current zoning language related to the side setbacks of R-1 zoned properties and confirmed the original intent behind the amended language which was adopted in 2008. The Planning Commission recommended grandfathering any homes built under a different interpretation, including unbuilt homes with an approved building permit, or those that have submitted plans for review for a building permit prior to April 15, 2015. The City Council approved these recommendations (3-2) at their meeting on April 7. During the public hearing on April 7, and throughout the discussion afterwards, the Council expressed a number of concerns regarding the side setback requirements. On a second vote (4- 1), the Council directed the Planning Commission to revisit Section 11.21, Subdivision 11 (A)(3) and recommend any changes as soon as possible. At the April 27 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission discussed with staff possible ways to address the concerns of the Council, including: Protecting neighboring homes from the blockage of light and air by taller structures (for both new homes and renovations). 2. Allowing for attractive and functional home design: discouraging garage -dominated front facades and preserving back yards. 3. Simplifying the code for better comprehension and administration, including diagrams within the zoning code. Based on the conversation, staff was asked to prepare a potential text amendment that allowed for a three dimensional building envelope within which new or remodeled homes could be constructed. Staff also agreed to look at potential ways to limit the amount of garage space on the front fagade of a structure and to prepare diagrams that could be incorporated into the zoning code. Proposed Zoning Text Amendment The language below is proposed to replace the current language in Section 11.21, Subdivision 11 (A)(3). Using the "tent" approach to determine side setbacks ensures that light and air can reasonably reach neighboring homes. Based on the language already approved by the City Council on April 7, these requirements would apply to both new construction and additions/remodels. Side Setback. Side yard setbacks are determined by the lot width at the minimum required front setback line. The distance between a structure and the side lot lines shall be governed by the following requirements: a. In the case of lots having a width of one hundred (100) feet or greater, the side setbacks for any portion of a structure fifteen (15) feet or less in height shall be fifteen (15) feet. The side setbacks for any portion of a structure greater than fifteen (15) feet in height shall be measured to an inwardly sloping plane at a ratio of 2:1 beginning at a point fifteen (15) feet directly above the side setback line [see Figure 11; b. In the case of lots having a width greater than sixty-five (65) feet and less than one hundred (100) feet, the side setbacks for any portion of a structure fifteen (15) feet or less in height shall be twelve and one-half (12.5) feet. The side setbacks for any portion of a structure greater than fifteen (15) feet in height shall be measured to an inwardly sloping plane at a ratio of 2:1 beginning at a point fifteen (15) feet directly above the side setback line [see Figure 2]; c. In the case of lots having a width of sixty-five feet (65) or less, the side setbacks for any portion of a structure fifteen (15) feet or less in height along the north or west side shall be ten percent (100) of the lot width and along the south or east side shall be twenty percent (200) of the lot width (up to twelve and one-half (12.5) feet). The side setbacks for any portion of a structure greater than fifteen (15) feet in height shall be measured to an inwardly sloping plane at a ratio of 4:1 beginning at a point fifteen (15) feet directly above the side setback line [see Figure 3] Building Envelope. Taken together, the front, rear, and side setbacks and the height limitation shall constitute the building envelope [see Figure 4]. No portion of a structure may extend outside the building envelope, except for: a. cornices and eaves, no more than thirty (30) inches; b. bay windows or chimney chases, no more than twenty-four (24) inches; c. chimneys, vents, or antennas; d. stairs and stair landings up to twenty-five (25) square feet in size; and e. accessible ramps. Side Wall Articulation. For any new construction, whether a new house, addition, or replacement through a tear -down, any resulting side wall longer than thirty two (32) feet in length must be articulated, with a shift of at least two (2) feet in depth, for at least eight (8) feet in length, for every thirty-two (32) feet of wall. Proposed Zoning Diagrams The four figures listed in the proposed language above are being created by the Communications Department. Drafts of the diagrams are shown below: 15'setback 15'setback 2:1 slope Lot width 100' or greater Figure 1— Front elevation -------------------- _\28' pitched roof maximum 25' flat roof maximum 15' height ( ) 15' height 12.5' setback 12.5' setback Lot width greater than 65' and less than 100' Figure 2 — Front elevation um I i i 4:1 slope ! i -� i' ®� i \28' pitched roof maximum 25' flat roof maximum 15' height if 115' height Setback 20% of width Setback 10% of width Lot width 65' or less Figure 3 — Front elevation Figure 4 — Building envelope It is anticipated that at the conclusion of the zoning amendment process, an informational handout would be created—incorporating the diagrams along with explanatory text—for use on the City website as well as at the Planning counter. Garage Dominated Facades Staff has begun the process of reviewing possible ways to help mitigate the impact of garage dominated front facades in new construction or through additions/remodels. The approaches taken by other communities are varied, but include limiting the linear feet of garage doors allowed to face the street on a given structure, setting a maximum percentage of the front facade that can consist of garage space, and requiring garages to be set behind the front plane of the structure by a certain distance. As proposed, the "tent" approach outlined above provides greater flexibility than the current code for the homeowner or builder to strike a balance between the garage and non -garage portions of the facade. Until the potential impacts of other approaches to limiting garages can be better understood, staff does not recommend moving forward with any additional garage requirements. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the language of the proposed zoning text amendment and the associated figures. Attachments Underlined-Overstruck Single Family Residential (R-1) Zoning Code Language (3 pages) *Subdivision 11. Principal Structures Subject to the modifications in Subdivision 12, below, principal structures in the R-1 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Setback Requirements. The following structure setbacks shall be required for principal structures in the R-1 zoning district. Garages or other accessory structures which are attached to the house or main structure shall also be governed by these setback requirements, except for stairs and stair landings up to twenty-five (25) square feet in size and for handicapped ramps. Source: Ordinance No. 292, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-12-04 1. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be thirty-five (35) feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. Decks and open front porches, with no screens, may be built to within thirty (30) feet of a front property line along a street right-of-way line. Source: Ordinance No. 429, 2nd Series Effective Date: 2-19-10 2. Rear Setback. The required rear setback shall be twenty-five (25) feet. Source: Ordinance No. 547, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-26-15 3. Side Setback. Side yard setbacks are determined by the lot width at the minimum required front setback line. The distance between a structure and the side lot lines shall be governed by the following requirements: a. In the case of lots having a width of one hundred (100) feet or greater, the side setbacks for any portion of a structures fifteen (15) feet or less in height shall be fifteen (15) feet. The side setbacks for any portion of a structure greater than fifteen (15) feet in height shall be fifteen (15) feet plus ene half (0.5) feet feF eaeh additional ene (I-) measured to an inwardly sloping plane at a ratio of 2:1 beginning at a point fifteen (15) feet directly above the side setback linelsee Figure b. In the case of lots having a width greater than sixty-five (65) feet and less than one hundred (100) feet, the side setbacks for any portion of a structures fifteen (15) feet or less in height shall be twelve and one- half (12.5) feet. The side setbacks for any portion of a structure greater than fifteen (15) feet in height shall be twelve and ene half (12.5) feet plus ene half (0.5) feet fGF eaeh additienal ene (1) feet (e pertien thereef) ef StFHEtHFe height ever- fifteen (15) feet measured to an inwardly sloping plane at a ratio of 2:1 beginning at a point fifteen (15) feet directly above the side setback line fsee Figure 21; c. In the case of lots having a width of sixty-five (65) feet or less, the side setbacks for any portion of a structures fifteen (15) feet or less in height along the north or west side shall be ten percent (10%) of the lot width and along the south or east side shall be twenty percent (20%) of the lot width (up to twelve and one-half (12.5) feet). The side setback for any portion of a structure greater than fifteen (15) feet in height aleng the north OF west side shall be ten peFeent (10%) ef the 'et width and aleng the seuth eF east side twenty per-eent (20%) ef the 'et width plus ene half (0.5) feet far- eaeh additienal twe (2) feet, . measured to an inwardly sloping Diane at a ratio of 4:1 beginning ata point fifteen (15) feet directly above the side setback line [see Figure 3]- 4. Corner Lot Setbacks. To determine the side yard setback, use the shorter front lot line. 5. Building Envelope. Taken together, the front, rear, and side setbacks and the height limitation shall constitute the building envelope [see Figure 41_ No portion of a structure may extend outside the building envelope except for: a. cornices and eaves, no more than thirty (30) inches b. bay windows or chimney chases, no more than twenty-four (24) inches: c. chimneys, vents, or antennas; d. stairs and stair landings up to twenty-five (25) square feet in size; e. accessible ramps. Source: Ordinance No. 347, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-26-15 B. Height Limitations. No principal structure shall be erected in the R-1 Zoning District with a building height exceeding twenty-eight (28) feet for pitched roof houses and twenty-five (25) feet for flat roof houses. Feplaeernent thFeugh On a teaF dewn, any wall leigger than thirty twe (32) feet length must be aFtieulated, with in a shift ef at, least twe (2) feet, in depth, feF at 'east feet ef wall. eight (8) feet length, feF eveFy thiFty twe (32) jouree. -l.i E eettve 4inanee-NB'. Dater- :3 28 ;382-; 2114-Ser4es 08 4. Corner Lot Setbacks. To determine the side yard setback, use the shorter front lot line. 5. Building Envelope. Taken together, the front, rear, and side setbacks and the height limitation shall constitute the building envelope [see Figure 41_ No portion of a structure may extend outside the building envelope except for: a. cornices and eaves, no more than thirty (30) inches b. bay windows or chimney chases, no more than twenty-four (24) inches: c. chimneys, vents, or antennas; d. stairs and stair landings up to twenty-five (25) square feet in size; e. accessible ramps. Source: Ordinance No. 347, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-26-15 B. Height Limitations. No principal structure shall be erected in the R-1 Zoning District with a building height exceeding twenty-eight (28) feet for pitched roof houses and twenty-five (25) feet for flat roof houses. Source: Ordinance No. 382, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-28-08 C. Structure Width Requirements. No principal structure shall be less than twenty-two (22) feet in width as measured from the exterior of the exterior walls. D. GeFnices and Eaves. GeFniees and eaves may net prejeet n9er-e than thirty . D. Side Wall Articulation. For any new construction, whether a new house, addition, or replacement through a tear - down, any resulting side wall longer than thirty-two (32) feet in length must be articulated, with a shift of at least two (2) feet in depth, for at least eight (8) feet in length, for every thirty-two (32) feet of wall. E. Decks. Decks over eight (8) inches from ground level shall meet the same setbacks as the principal structure in the side and rear yards. Source: Ordinance No. 429, 2nd Series Effective Date: 2-19-10 F. Fences. For the purpose of setbacks, fences are not considered structures.