Final (As approved)

HP Ordinance Committee Meeting -- 07/20/11

Present:

John Barr

Peter Bolo

Tom Dagger

Gary Goldsmith

Marty Kane

Tom Menard

Joan Nix

Chris Richter

Part I -- Meeting Summary:

1. Prior Meeting.  The summary of meeting of June 15, 2011 previously distributed was approved, with certain changes proposed by Peter Bolo and Joan Nix. 

2. Next Meetings.  There will be no meeting in August.  The next scheduled meetings will be September 13 and 27, at 7:30 p.m. in the Library.

3. Prior Bulk Requirements for Mountain Lakes.  At Peter Bolo’s request, Cindy Shaw had pulled together information on the prior history of bulk requirements in the Borough’s zoning ordinances for purposes of comparison with the zoning incentives that are being proposed by the Committee.  Cindy uncovered the following:

• Bulk requirements established on May 11, 1966 (Ord. #369) -- There were initially no bulk requirements for Floor Area Ratio (FAR) or Improved Lot Coverage (ILC).  However, there were “Minimum Floor Area” requirements (in total square feet for each story).  There was a minimum side setback of 25 feet for Zone R-AA and 20 feet for Zone R-A. 

• Bulk requirements were modified on Nov. 9, 1987 (Ord. #16-87) --FAR requirements were first introduced, with maximum FAR of 15% for Zone R-AA and 20% for Zone R-A.  The first ILC was established, with a limit of 20% for Zone R-AA and 25% for Zone R-A. 

• On Dec. 22, 1997 (Ord. #27-97), the maximum FAR was decreased to 13% for Zone R-AA and 17% for Zone R-A.  A note from Sandy Batty, then Chair of the Planning Board, to the Borough Council explained that this change was required to address the concern that “Houses built at the FAR that our ordinance currently allows are too large for their lots.”  Tom Menard recalled that the concern at the time was around homes that were being built out to the maximum permitted bulk requirements on newly subdivided lots (which are typically at the minimum range of lot sizes for the applicable residential zones).  New homes built on newly subdivided lots would not be eligible for the proposed bulk requirements bonuses, which would be limited to historic Hapgood and Belhall homes.

Summary

(1)        Limit on FAR:

Zone 1966 1987 1997 Proposed

R-AA               N/A                 15%                 13%                     16%

R-A                 N/A                 20%                 17%                     21%

(2)        Limit on ILC:

Zone 1966 1987    1997 Proposed

R-AA               N/A                 20%                 20%                     24%

R-A                 N/A                 25%                 25%                 30%

(3)        Minimum side setback (each side):

Zone 1966 1987    1997 Proposed

R-AA                 25’                   25’                   25’                 20’ ea/tot. 50’

R-A                   20’                   20’                   25’                 20’ ea/tot. 50’

4.         Conditions for Eligibility for Zoning Incentives.  The committee then discussed possible approaches to conditions that should be imposed in order for a homeowner to qualify for the zoning incentives. 

• The committee agreed the key considerations are (1) what are the criteria, and (2) who makes the determination whether they have been satisfied.

Who Decides:

• There was consensus around the importance of avoiding reliance on the construction official to administer and enforce complex criteria.  It was also the view of the committee that reliance on the Planning Board, ZBA or HPC to assess subjective criteria would potentially undercut the certainty that current or prospective homeowners would seek in taking advantage of the bulk requirements incentives.

• There was discussion whether an architectural firm could be hired by the Borough to administer the criteria.  However, this would result in added cost that would have to be passed through to the applicant (possibly $1,000 or more), and added time in the overall application process.

• The committee ultimately decided that the best alternative would be to have the criteria be certified, at the applicant’s expense, by a licensed professional architect, which could be the same architect hired by the homeowner to design the renovations or additions that are at issue in the application.  This would minimize cost and allow the architect to factor the criteria into the proposal at the initial design stage working with the homeowner.  While there is a risk that some architects might not be rigorous in applying the criteria, this should be mitigated to some extent through (1) the fact that the architect would be required to provide a certification under oath that the criteria are satisfied, (2) post-application review by the Planning Board or HPC of submitted architect certifications and guidance on proper application of the criteria to be taken into account in future applications, and (3) availability of Planning Board or HPC for consultation and/or advisory opinions on application of the criteria.

What Criteria:

• There was a concern that any criteria not be unduly lengthy or subjective.  Otherwise, they could potentially undercut the certainty that homeowners would seek in taking advantage of the bulk requirements incentives, and be more difficult to apply consistently across a broad range of applications.

• As a starting point for discussions, Joan Nix distributed copies of Standards for Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Naperville, Illinois historic preservation ordinance.  The committee discussed the appropriateness of using some or all of the criteria from the Naperville standards (reprinted below), which are representative of criteria typically used in historic preservation ordinances:

1.             Height. The height of the proposed improvement or additions or alterations should be compatible with surrounding improvements.

2.             Proportions of improvement's front facade. The proportion between the width and height of the proposed improvement should be compatible with nearby improvements.

3.             Proportions of openings into the facility. The proportions and relationships between doors and windows shou1d be compatible with existing improvements.

4.             Relationship of building masses and spaces. The relationship of an improvement to the open space between it and adjoining improvements should be compatible.

5.             Roof shapes. The design of the roof should be compatible with adjoining improvements.

6.             Landscape and appurtenances. Landscaping and the use of appurtenances should be sensitive to the individual improvements, its occupants and their needs. Further, the landscape treatment should be compatible with surrounding improvements and landscapes.

7.             Scale of improvement. The scale of the improvement should be compatible with surrounding improvements.

8.             Directional expression of front elevation. Street facades should blend with other improvements with regard to directional expression. When adjacent improvements have a dominant horizontal or vertical expression, this should be carried over and reflected.

9.             Architectural details. Architectural details and materials should be incorporated as necessary to relate the new with the old and to preserve and enhance the inherent characteristics of that area.

10.           Economic reasonableness. The Commission shall consider the economic reasonableness of any recommended changes it determines necessary to bring the application into conformity with the character of the district.

• The committee felt that these criteria were too broad for the proposed incentives because they were designed to apply broadly to all structures in a historic district under a traditional historic preservation regulatory framework.

• It is not the intention of the proposed historic preservation incentives for the Borough to prevent changes and updates to historic Hapgood and Belhall homes.  The main objective would be to preserve the existing streetscape and visual appearance of the homes as viewed from the street.  Accordingly, to the extent the Naperville criteria are applied, they should be modified to apply primarily to the front façade and roofline of the existing historic structure.

• There was considerable discussion of whether it should be permissible to raise the height of historic structures, at least up to the maximum height permitted under the existing bulk requirements.  Ultimately it was agreed that the proposed incentives, which would be available without a zoning variance, should be limited to homes where the roof line and height of the structure are not altered.  Rare cases where the homeowner wants to change either the roof line or height of the structure could be addressed through the variance process.

• The committee similarly agreed that front facades should be maintained intact, either consistent with the existing structure or the original structure (if it could be restored to the original).  For corner houses, the applicable façade would be the two sides of the home facing each street.  Side extensions would be consistent with the criteria, provided they are consistent with the bonus side setback requirements and are recessed from the original front façade by 2 feet or more.

• Roof lines and roof shapes should be maintained.  Addition of dormers would be consistent with this criterion.

• The committee discussed each of the Naperville criteria and tentatively decided that criteria numbers 1, 2, 3, 5 and 9, modified as described above, would be appropriate.

• The committee agreed there should be no restrictions of any kind on color.

Part II -- For Next Meeting (on 9/13)

• The committee will review and finalize a recommendation for eligibility criteria for bulk requirement bonuses to be included in the proposed ordinance.  Tom will circulate a draft set of criteria based on the discussion during tonight’s meeting and other considerations. 
• If time allows, we will discuss ways to address the subsequent alterations/additions issue raised by Joan Nix during the meeting on 6/15.
• If Barry Lewis is able to attend, we will take up the issue of disincentives for demolition of historic homes.