Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/15/2012 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Regular Meeting1 AGENDA PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD November 9, 2012 WORKSESSION Friday, November 9, 2012, 12:00 – 3:00 PM, 281 N. College, Conf. Room A I Announcements II Call for Presentations/November 15, 2012 Hearing - 2.5 hour (+/-) Consent: 3 Mile Plan Update (Levingston) Discussion: Streetscape Design Standards & Guidelines Update (Wray) LUC – Phase II Multi Family (Lorson/Kadrich) IV Staff Reports - .5 hours (+/-)  Affordable Housing Redevelopment Relocation Mitigation Strategies Project (Waido) – 35 minutes V Other Business HEARING Thursday, November 15, 2012 – 6 PM, Chambers, 300 Laporte Avenue Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation MEMORANDUM DATE: November 2, 2012 TO: Members of the Planning and Zoning Board FROM: Pete Wray, Senior City Planner RE: Eastside & Westside Neighborhoods Character Study This memo informs and updates members of the Planning and Zoning Board on the status of the Eastside & Westside Neighborhoods Character Study. The purpose of this Work Session is to review the efforts to date and discuss next steps. Key question for the Board: 1. Does the Board have feedback on the information available from Phase 2, draft Preliminary Strategy Report? Since August, the staff and consultant team has worked towards developing a strategy to address the issues identified in Phase1. The primary work product is an illustrated strategy paper outlining neighborhood character areas and profiles, potential alternative tools or systems, and recommending specific measures that may then be refined to be considered for adoption. The staff and consultant team initially developed a list of potential tools to consider for addressing impacts of additions and new construction in the neighborhoods. First rounds of discussion group meetings were held in September to gain public input. On October 3, a second round of discussion group meetings was held to get feedback on potential tools and strategies to consider. Based on comments received, a draft preliminary strategy report (attached for your review) was developed in preparation for review and comment at the public workshop on November 5. An online visual survey is also available to take from November 1-11. Next Steps in Process:  Neighborhood workshop, Monday November 5, Lincoln Center (6:00-9:00 PM)  Council work session (11/27/12) For a summary of information on the Study and link to take the survey, see project web site: www.fcgov.com/eastwestneighboods Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Preliminary Strategy Report Draft #1 November 1, 2012 b Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Pete Wray, Project Manager City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 970-221-6754 pwray@fcgov.com www.fcgov.com/advance planning/eastwestneigh borhoods.php Noré Winter, President Abe Barge, Senior Planner Mary Phillips, Senior Planner 1265 Yellow Pine Ave. Boulder, CO 80304 www.winterandcompany.net Eastside and Westside Character Study Report Contents Introduction ............................................................................................... 1 Study Process Overview ....................................................................................................2 Project Phases ..................................................................................................................3 Neighborhood Profile ................................................................................. 5 Community Identified Features .........................................................................................5 Neighborhood Development Patterns ................................................................................7 Character Areas ..............................................................................................................26 Existing Regulations Summary ........................................................................................44 Recent Trends ................................................................................................................49 Community Comments ............................................................................. 53 Neighborhood Workshops ...............................................................................................54 Working Groups ..............................................................................................................61 September Working Groups ............................................................................................63 October Working Groups .................................................................................................64 Questionnaires and Surveys ............................................................................................65 Overall Themes in the Public Comment ...........................................................................71 Neighborhood Objectives and Issues ...............................................................................73 Potential Tools ......................................................................................... 75 Education and Communication ........................................................................................76 Process and Administration ............................................................................................79 Design Standards............................................................................................................83 Potential Application Strategies .......................................................................................98 Strategy Options .................................................................................... 101 Selection Criteria ..........................................................................................................102 Application Considerations ...........................................................................................103 Overview of Strategy Options ........................................................................................104 Tools Used in the Strategy Options ...............................................................................106 Next Steps ....................................................................................................................118 Appendix A: GIS Mapping Data Appendix B: Character Area Maps Appendix C: Building Permits Appendix D: Variances d Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Study Area The study area includes the Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (N-C-L) and Neigh- borhood Conservation Medium Density (N-C-M) zoning districts, which encompass the core area neighborhoods near Downtown Fort Collins. Preliminary Strategy Report 1 Introduction The Eastside and Westside Neighborhood Character study seeks to evaluate neigh- borhood character and change in the core area neighborhoods near Downtown and identify strategies to retain and enhance their unique character and context. The study was initiated primarily in response to resident concerns about changes to the character of the neighborhoods as a result of demolition and new construction. The community has struggled with issues related to the compatibility of new infill development in its older neighborhoods for many years. Although there have been incremental changes to regulations and programs over the years, the community has not implemented a comprehensive system to address neighborhood com- patibility since the 1991 adoption of the N-C-L and N-C-M zone districts that encompass the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods. Previous strategies and programs con- sidered by City Council have included: • 1995 Design Guidelines • 2010 FAR Adjustments (rescinded) • 2011 Landmark Preservation Com- mission Design Assistance Program Some past strategies and programs have been criti- cized as too restrictive or as responding to a problem that does not exist, or is very limited in scope. Prior to moving forward with future strategies, the City has sought to better understand the issues and evaluate the potential impact of any proposed solutions. This report documents the study process to date, provides background information on the character and context of the neighborhoods, summarizes community comments and presents initial strategy options for consideration by City Council. The final draft of the report will be updated with the results of the November neighborhood workshop (see page 60) and online visual survey (see page 70) before posting for City Council consideration prior to a work session in late November, 2012. 2 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Study Process Overview Overall City Council Goal In early 2011, a City Council Ad Hoc Committee established the following overall goal for the Eastside and Westside Neighborhood Character Study: "Retain and enhance the unique character and context of the neighborhoods as they continue to change with renovations, additions, and new housing construction, with a well-supported and effective public process resulting in appropriate and mutually agreeable solutions." Evaluate Existing Context Using Council’s overall goal as a starting point, the study includes identification of the existing unique character and context of the neighborhoods as a basis for evaluation of neighborhood issues and objectives. This process has identi- fied overall neighborhood features, as well as a series of distinct character areas within the neighborhoods. The existing character and context of the neighborhoods is summarized in Part 1: "Neighborhood Profile" on page 5. Conduct Public Process Identify Objectives Community comment generated by the public process for the Eastside and Westside Neighborhood Character Study has helped identify and clarify overall objectives for the neighborhoods. They are: 1. Promote awareness of what makes the neighborhoods great 2. Promote compatible redevelopment 3. Maintain a sense of community 4. Encourage communication among neighbors 5. Preserve flexibility for change and reinvestment 6. Acknowledge economic impacts Identify Issues The public process has also identified a number of issues with ongoing changes that may negatively impact existing residents and the unique character and context of the neighborhoods. They are: A. Additions and new construction that appear to be overly large in relation to surrounding houses or the neighborhood B. New building walls or elements that appear to loom over neighbors C. Additions or new construction that reduce solar access on neighboring lots D. Additions or new construction that incorporate incompatible design features E. Additions or new construction that impact trees and green space F. New large houses that replace valued older/more affordable homes The public process is summarized in Part 2: "Community Comments" on page 53. Evaluate Strategies The neighborhood objectives and issues listed above inform an evaluation of the potential tools described in Part 3: "Potential Tools" on page 75 and provide a foundation for the strategy options described in Part 4: "Strategy Options" on page 101. It is important to note that some participants in the public process have indicated that new construction is not an issue. Introduction 3 Eastside and Westside Character Study Project The Eastside and Phases Westside Neighborhood Character Study is organized into four key phases that will be shaped by ideas that emerge along the way. At the end of each phase, City Council will determine how to proceed to the next phase. Each phase of the study is briefly summarized below, and a schedule overview is provided on the next page. The study is currently in Phase 2. Phase and Context 1: Understand of the Neighborhoods the Character In this phase, the City gathered information from residents and other stakeholders about neighbor- hood attributes, objectives and issues using a variety of outreach strategies. Phase 1 was completed in July, 2012. The results are summarized in the Phase 1 Report, and in the Neighborhood Profile and Community Comments sections of this report. Phase 2: Develop a Strategy With Council direction, the City began this phase in August, 2012. It focuses on development of a strategy to address the neighborhood objectives and issues iden- tified in Phase 1. This report summarizes the results of Phase 2. It will be updated before posting for City Council consideration prior to a work session in late November, 2012. Phase Systems 3: to Develop Implement Tools the and Strategy At a work session in late November, 2012, City Council will determine whether to proceed to Phase 3. They will also provide direction on which strategy options described in this report should be further evaluated for potential development and implementation in Phase 4. Phase 4: Place the Tools into Action In this phase, the City Council will hold public hearings to consider adoption of tools to enhance the unique character and context of the neighborhoods while ad- dressing identified neighborhood objectives and issues. Process Objectives The Eastside and Westside Neighborhood Character Study seeks to: • Define and understand a complete range of character- istics of the neighborhoods, as a basis for any new initia- tives. Recognize differences in the characteristics of the neighborhoods. • Use data to define the char- acteristics of the neighbor- hoods. • Conduct a community in- volvement process for resi- dents and other stakehold- ers to evaluate whether any characteristics warrant new solutions to help retain and enhance them. • Continue the process noted 4 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study 2012 2013 May June July August September October November December January February Phase 1: Evaluate Context, Concerns and Objectives Project Kickoff Stakeholder Working Groups . Neighborhood Questionnaire . Neighborhood Workshops . Phase 1 Summary Report City Council Work Session CD Phase 2: Develop Strategy Review and Update Process Neigh. Character Evaluation Initial Phase 2 Working Groups . Develop Preliminary Strategy Economic Analysis Follow-up Phase 2 Working Groups . Visual Survey . Neighborhood Workshop . Peer Panel (if needed) . Final Strategy City Council Work Session CD Phase 3: Develop Tools to Implement Strategy Draft Early Implementation Tools Assess Additional Tools Draft Additional Tools Phase 3 Working Groups . Public Open House (if needed) . Phase 4: Adoption Adoption Hearing #1 (early implementation tools) . CD Adoption Hearing #2 (additional tools) . CD Community Participation Opportunity Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Project Schedule Chart Receive Direction from City Council Preliminary Strategy Report 5 Part 1 Neighborhood The Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Profile are diverse, with a range of existing character and contexts. These conditions help shape development and may influence its perceived compatibility. Understanding neighborhood characteristics, including physical conditions and dynamic aspects such as past and future changes, is an important part of this study. This part of the report outlines existing conditions in the neighborhoods. It begins with a summary of features identi- fied by participants in the public process, followed by a statistical description of overall development patterns and unique subareas, or "character areas" within the neighborhoods. It concludes with a description of existing regulations and information about recent trends in the neighborhoods. Community Features Identified As part of the project’s community engagement process, members of the community were asked to identify and describe a series of features which make the neighbor- hood unique and desirable to live in. Feedback from residents was largely consistent and included both physical and social characteristics. The most common traits participants described include friendly neighbors, diversity in people and buildings, and walkability. The following sections summarize the most commonly identified qualitative and physical neighborhood features of value to residents. Valued qualitative aspects of neighborhood character include: • Old charm and character of houses • Friendly/neighborly sense of community • Family/kid-friendly • Modest homes • Socioeconomic diversity • Evident pride of ownership • Diversity in ownership patterns • One of a limited number of neighborhoods in town that does not have an HOA 6 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Valued physical aspects of neighborhood character include: • Walkability and bikability • Proximity to amenities (including parks, schools, playgrounds, Old Town, trolley, CSU, etc.) • Historic character and homes • Integrity within blocks • Wide streets • Detached sidewalks • Variety in lot types • Alleys • Front porches • Views through lots • Not all fenced • Trees • Relative low density • Diversity of house style, age and scale • Uniqueness of character among Fort Collins neigh- borhoods • Less car-oriented design • Orientation towards neighbors • Houses designed with sustainability aspects already built into them (prior to car and air condi- tioning design) Part 1: Neighborhood Profile 7 Eastside and Westside Character Study Neighborhood Patterns As a part of the Eastside and Development Westside Neighborhoods Character Study, a range of variables related to devel- opment patterns were analyzed in order to gain an un- derstanding of the degree of consistency and the range of diversity that exists. When these variables are con- sidered at a neighborhood-wide level, they yield an un- derstanding of the general characteristics of the neigh- borhood. Then, when these variables are examined at a finer-grained degree, they suggest a series of smaller character areas, with shared characteristics. How This Information May Be Used The description of neighborhood development patterns and the features of the subordinate character areas is information that may be applied in these ways: 1. To inform an understanding of “context” for property owners planning improvements This information may be included in a design handbook or pattern book, which could be provided for voluntary use. It would help property owners plan a project that takes the immediate setting into consideration. 2. To inform considerations of variances The compatibility of a proposed improvement that requires a variance could be considered using the descriptions of key features from this analysis. 3. As a basis for applying revised development standards that are limited to certain contexts or subareas. An individual tool might be focused on one or more specific character areas where this variable is par- ticularly important to the sense of compatibility. 8 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study About Section the Maps Used in This The maps included in this report cover a large area, and may be difficult to read at the size of the report page. In some cases, a detail of a portion of a map is provided to help convey the character of the develop- ment patterns. Large-scale copies of the maps can be found in "Appendix A: GIS Mapping Data". The Eastside Neighborhood Overall Development Patterns The information that follows is derived from a series of maps illustrating the development patterns of the Eastside Neighborhood as a whole. They map informa- tion related to residential structures within the study area boundary. The information is extracted from the City’s GIS system. (Data is as of June, 2012.) Eastside General Observations In general, while there is diversity throughout the neigh- borhood, there are narrow ranges of variation for some variables. Others occur as subarea contexts, which are discussed in the next section. Part 1: Neighborhood Profile 9 Eastside and Westside Character Study Eastside Neighborhood: Building Age The Building Age map shows a pattern of development that begins in the northern portions of the neighbor- hood, and then builds out to the south and east. Note that building age in the GIS system tends to reflect the original building date, but may at times mean an “effective” building date, if, at a later stage, the property was significantly altered. The oldest portions of the Eastside Neighborhood lie north of E. Myrtle Street and along Peterson, Whedbee and Smith Streets. The majority of the buildings in this area date from before 1930, with approximately 50% dating from before 1910. These areas filled in slowly between the 1890s and 1920s. Many block faces have a high degree of similarity in building age in this area. The south and east portions of the neighborhood, near Circle and Eastdale Drives, developed in a much shorter period of time, in the 1950s and 1960s. These areas tend to have a higher degree of similarity in building features. Recent construction in the Eastside Neighbor- hood (the darkest blue color) is relatively sparse and is scattered throughout the neighborhood, but west of Stover Street. 4 119 272 220 351 20 5 3 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 East Side Neighborhoods - New Homes Built Number of houses built Eastside Neighborhood: Total Homes Built by Year Data In the Eastside Neighborhood, the number of new buildings con- structed has remained relatively low after construction peaked between 1941 and 1960. EDISON DR S MASON ST REMINGTON ST MATHE WS S T E PROSPECT RD E MYRTLE ST WHEDBE SMITH PL SMITH ST 10 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Eastside Neighborhood: Building Remodels The Building Remodels map indicates when remodeling projects occurred, by decade increments. This informa- tion is from construction permit records, and therefore may not capture all alterations that property owners have made. A few remodels are documented from before 1980 through 1989, more remodels occurred during the mid-90s, and the majority of remodels were done after 2000. They are generally evenly distributed throughout the neighborhood. 4 2 6 24 57 63 147 9 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 East Side Neighborhoods Number of Houses Remodeled Eastside Neighborhood: Total Building Remodels by Year Data In the Eastside Neighborhood, the number of building remodels drastically increased over the last decade. REMINGTON ST MATHE WS S T E PROSPECT RD E MYRTLE ST WHEDBEE ST SMITH PL SMITH ST EASTDALE DR COWAN ST E ELIZABETH ST L A K E P L E PENNOCK PL S COLLEGE AVE MONTEZUMA FULLER A REMINGTON ST GARFIELD ST Part 1: Neighborhood Profile 11 Eastside and Westside Character Study Eastside Neighborhood: House Size House size, measured in square footage of floor area, appears in 500 square foot increments in this map. In the Eastside, the homes are predominantly 1,500 square feet or less. Of these, many are less than 1,000 square feet. However, there are several homes that are in the 2,000 square foot range. Only a few are 2,500 square feet or more. One noticeable concentration of these larger homes is along Elizabeth Street, east of Stover Street. 1 323 371 179 79 26 7 6 2 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Square Footage of East Side Homes Number of Homes Eastside Neighborhood: House Size Data The majority of houses in the Eastside Neighborhood are 500 to 1,500 square feet, with relatively few homes over 2,000 square feet. The majority of houses in the Eastside Neighborhood are 500 to 1,500 square feet (shown in green, light green and yellow). See the Appendix for a full map. E PROSPECT RD SMITH PL DEINES CT BUCKEYE ST CIRCLE DR PETERSON PL BUCKEYE ST MATHEWS ST -PECT CT E LAKE ST CIRCLE DR PROS- PERSON CT ST O V E R S T CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, 12 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Eastside Neighborhood: Floor Area Ratio The proportion of house size to lot size is expressed as a Floor Area Ratio (FAR). On the Eastside, homes generally have an FAR of 0.25 or less. That is, a typical home has a floor area that is less than 25% of the land area of its lot. The next most frequently occurring FAR grouping is in the 0.26 – 0.30 range. These are scattered through- out the neighborhood, but occur less frequently along Elizabeth Street and in the southernmost portions of Stover Street. 124 602 216 43 9 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Floor Area Ratio of East Side Homes Number of Hom Eastside Neighborhood: Floor Area Ratio Data The majority of homes in the Eastside Neighborhood have a floor area ratio (FAR) of between 0.11 and 0.2. Relatively few homes have an FAR greater than 0.3. The majority of homes in the Eastside Neighborhood have a floor area ratio (FAR) of between 0.11 and 0.2 (shown in medium green). Very few houses have an FAR of 0.31 or greater (shown in orange and red). See the Ap- pendix for a full map. E PROSPECT RD SMITH PL SMITH ST EASTDALE DR E ELIZABETH ST L A K E P L E PENNOCK PL GARFIELD ST E PLUM ST DEINES CT SMITH ST KENROY CT ROBER TSO N Part 1: Neighborhood Profile 13 Eastside and Westside Character Study Eastside Neighborhood: Building Height The Building Height map shows the patterns of distri- bution of heights throughout the neighborhood. These are classified in full story and half-story increments. (A half-story is one in which the floor is partially contained within the roof form.) Throughout the neighborhood at large, the vast majority of homes are one story in height. However, there are several one-and-a-half story homes, as well as two-story homes, which are distrib- uted rather widely throughout the area. Buildings above two stories are very rare. 775 103 114 11 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1 Story 1.5 Story 2 Story 2.5 Story 3 Story Building Height of East Side Homes Number of Homes Eastside Neighborhood: Building Height Data Building height in the Eastside Neighborhood is predominantly one story with relatively few one-and-a-half and two-story homes. Building height in the Eastside Neighborhood is predominantly one-story (shown in dark blue). See the Appendix for a full map. EDISON DR REMINGTON ST E PROSPECT RD SMITH PL SMITH ST DEINES CT A ST MATHEWS ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L I S S 14 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Eastside Neighborhood: Lot Size The Lot Size map shows a distinct pattern in the dis- tribution of lot sizes. Lot sizes are expressed in in- crements of 1,000 square feet. The largest group of properties are between 9,000 and 9,999 square feet. However, there are a substantial number of smaller lots in this area, often located at corners. Two concentra- tions of smaller lots are noteworthy: One lies between Smith and Mathews Streets, from Locust to Pitkin. Another is the Circle Drive area. There are other smaller concentrations, sometimes as only an individual block face, which exist along the eastern and western edges of the neighborhood. Larger lots, those of 11,000 square feet or more, appear scattered in the northern parts of the neighborhood, and there are concentrations of these sizes along the southern boundaries. 3% 11% 11% 15% 13% 9% 25% 14% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Less than 4,000 sf 4,000 - 4,999 5,000 - 5,999 6,000 - 6,999 7,000 - 7,999 8,000 - 8,999 9,000 - 9,999 10,000+ East Side Parcel/Lot Size Percentage of Lots Eastside Neighborhood: Percentage Distribution of Lot Size Data Lot size in the Eastside Neighborhood is fairly evenly distributed, with the majority of lots lower than 9,000 square feet and the greatest concentration of lots being between 9,000 and 9,999 square feet. 25% of lots in the Eastside Neigh- borhood are between 9,000 and 9,999 square feet in size (shown in orange). See the Appendix for a full map. Part 1: Neighborhood Profile 15 Eastside and Westside Character Study Eastside Neighborhood: Lot Frontage The Lot Frontage map shows patterns in width of lots throughout the Eastside Neighborhood, in 50-foot increments. Combined with lot size, the frontage dimension determines the potential to be sub-divided. On the Eastside, the typical lot front width is 75 feet or less. Exceptions occur on corner lots, along curvilinear streets, and near E. Elizabeth Drive and Mathews Street, where larger lot width patterns occur. 5 464 366 110 26 11 10 11 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 East Side Lot Frontage Size Number of homes Eastside Neighborhood: Lot Frontage Data Lot frontages in the Eastside Neighborhood are predominantly less than 75 feet wide. A moderate number of lots are between 76 and 100 feet wide at the frontage, and relatively few are greater than 101 feet wide. Lot frontages in the Eastside Neighborhood are predomi- nantly less than 75 feet wide (shown in dark and light green). See the Appendix for a full map. EDISON DR REMINGTON ST E PROSPECT RD SMITH PL SMITH ST DEINES CT A ST MATHEWS ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L 16 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Eastside Neighborhood: Lot Coverage The Lot Coverage map shows patterns in percentage of covered lot throughout the neighborhood. Lot coverage typically varies throughout each block on the Eastside. Most lots are between 11% and 30% covered. 14 274 474 191 36 4 1 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 East Side Lot Coverage Number of Hom Eastside Neighborhood: Lot Coverage Data Lot coverage in the Eastside Neighborhood is predominantly be- tween 11% and 30%. A moderate number of lots also have between 31% and 40% coverage, and relatively few have coverage of 41% or greater. Lot coverage in the Eastside Neighborhood is predominantly between 11% and 30% (shown in green, light green and light yellow). See the Appendix for a full map. ROSPECT RD RTLE ST WHEDBEE SMITH PL SMITH ST EASTDALE DR COWAN ST E ELIZABETH ST L A K E P L E PENNOCK PL FIELD ST LUM ST GNOLIA ST PETERSON DEINES CT SMITH ST KENROY CT Part 1: Neighborhood Profile 17 Eastside and Westside Character Study The Westside Neighborhood Overall Development Patterns The information that follows is derived from a series of maps illustrating the development patterns of the Westside Neighborhood as a whole. These show infor- mation related to residential structures within the study area boundary. The information is extracted from the City’s GIS system. (Data is as of June, 2012.) General Observations for the Westside Neighborhood While variation and diversity in building and develop- ment patterns exist throughout the Westside Neighbor- hood, this typically occurs within a focused range of variation. In addition, several specific areas also con- sistently vary from each other, occurring as subarea contexts, which are discussed in the following section. 18 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Westside Neighborhood: Building Age The Building Age map shows patterns in construction throughout the history of the neighborhood. In the Westside, the oldest areas spread out along W. Mountain Avenue and the areas closest to downtown. These areas filled in slowly between the 1890s and the 1920s. This time period was the first of two major periods of con- struction in the neighborhood. The second major period of construction occurred between the 1940s and the 1960s. During this time areas of the edges of the neighborhood furthest from downtown developed in shorter time periods leading to less variety in building types in these areas. Recent construction is scattered throughout the neigh- borhood and most lots are within a four-block radius of recent construction. 0 179 604 380 733 148 30 28 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 West Side Neighborhoods - New Homes Built Number of houses b Westside Neighborhood: Total Homes Built by Year Data In the Westside Neighborhood, home construction was at its high- est points from 1901 to 1920, and from 1941 to 1960. Note that between 2001 and 2011, nearly as many new homes were built as in the previous two decades combined (1981-2000). In the Westside Neighborhood, home construction was at its highest points from 1901 to 1920 (shown in orange, light orange and yellow), and from 1941 to 1960 (shown in light green, teal and light blue). See the Appendix for a full map. W MULBERRY ST W OAK ST S MCKINLEY AVE WAGNER DR SCOTT AVE S SHIELDS ST N MACK ST ARMSTRON G A Part 1: Neighborhood Profile 19 Eastside and Westside Character Study Westside Neighborhood: Building Remodels The Building Remodels map shows the years in which remodels of homes have occurred. This information is from construction permit records, and therefore may not capture all alterations that property owners have made. Remodels have occurred throughout the history of the Westside Neighborhood. However, the pace of remodels increased over the 1980s and 1990s and the vast majority of remodels have occurred since 2000. Recent remodels occurred throughout the neighbor- hood, but are also heavily concentrated along and near W. Mountain Avenue. 6 9 13 62 128 187 365 14 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 West Side Neighborhoods Number of Houses Remodeled Westside Neighborhood: Total Building Remodels by Year Data In the Westside Neighborhood, the number of building remodels steadily grew and then significantly increased over the last decade. A N A V E AYLAND CT FISHBACK AVE W MULBERRY ST W OAK ST S MCKINLEY AVE WAGNER DR SCOTT AVE PEARL ST HANNA ST S SHIELDS ST N MACK ST ARMSTRON G A V E CHERRY ST 20 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Westside Neighborhood: Single Family House Size The House Size map shows patterns in the size of homes throughout the neighborhood. In the Westside, homes are predominantly between 500 and 1,500 square feet, with relatively few homes over 2,000 square feet. In most areas, the size of homes tends to remain fairly consistent across an individual block, but can vary between blocks. However, along W. Mountain Avenue the average house size is larger and varies more across an individual block. 9 709 863 299 146 43 21 9 3 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Square Footage of West Side Homes Number of Hom Westside Neighborhood: House Size Data The majority of houses in the Westside Neighborhood are 500 to 1,500 square feet, with relatively few homes over 2,000 square feet. The majority of houses in the Westside Neighborhood are 500 to 1,500 square feet (shown in green and light green). See the Appendix for a full map. W MULBERRY ST W OAK ST S MCKINLEY AVE WAGNER DR SCOTT AVE S SHIELDS ST ARMSTRON G A V E WEST DR W PLUM ST W OLIVE ST W COY DR SUNSET AVE W OA K Part 1: Neighborhood Profile 21 Eastside and Westside Character Study Westside Neighborhood: Floor Area Ratio (FAR) The Floor Area Ratio map shows patterns in the re- lationship of home sizes to lot sizes throughout the neighborhood. The proportion of house size to lot size is expressed as a Floor Area Ratio (FAR). In the Westside, homes predominantly have an FAR of 0.30 or less. That is, a typical home has a floor area that is less than 30% of the land area of its lot. A few houses with higher FARs are scattered throughout the neighborhood. Along and near W. Mountain Avenue, FARs are also larger and can vary widely across an individual block. 231 1327 428 98 14 4 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Floor Area Ratio of West Side Homes Number of Homes Westside Neighborhood: Floor Area Ratio Data The majority of homes in the Westside Neighborhood have a floor area ratio (FAR) of between 0.11 and 0.2. Relatively few homes have an FAR greater than 0.3. The majority of houses in the Westside Neighborhood have a floor area ratio (FAR) of between 0.11 and 0.2 (shown in green, light green and yellow). See the Appendix for a full map. -MORE CT S K Y L I N E D R HOMER CT CRESTMORE PL COOK DR S B R Y A N A 22 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Westside Neighborhood: Building Height The Building Height map shows patterns of distribu- tion of heights throughout the neighborhood. These are classified in full-story and half-story increments. (A half story is one in which the floor is partially contained within the roof form.) In the Westside Neighborhood, homes are predomi- nantly one story. Roughly equal numbers of one-and- a-half and two story houses can also be found dispersed throughout the neighborhood. Concentrations of taller homes occur along and near W. Mountain Avenue as well as in a sub-development at the northern edge of the neighborhood on Hanna Street. 1660 204 235 3 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 1 Story 1.5 Story 2 Story 2.5 Story 3 Story Building Height of West Side Homes Number of Hom Westside Neighborhood: Building Height Data Building heights in the Westside Neighborhood are predominantly one story with roughly equal numbers of one-and-a-half and two-story homes. Building heights in the Westside Neighborhood are predomi- nantly one story (shown in blue). See the Appendix for a full map. ST WAGNER DR SCOTT AV ARMSTRON G A V E WEST DR W PLUM ST W COY DR SUNSET AVE W MAGNOLIA ST BAYSTONE DR W MYRTLE ST E CO Y D Part 1: Neighborhood Profile 23 Eastside and Westside Character Study Westside Neighborhood: Lot Size The Lot Size map shows patterns in square footage of lots throughout the neighborhood. In the Westside Neighborhood, most blocks have a predominant lot size, but lot size varies from block to block. More variety in lot size within a block occurs in areas with curvilinear street patterns and where there are smaller or subdi- vided corner lots. Areas with H-shaped alleys will also have a large range in lot sizes, typically with several larger lots along a block of smaller lots. More variety in lot size also occurs along W. Mountain Avenue, though several individual blocks remain consistent. 2% 8% 15% 24% 12% 12% 15% 11% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Less than 4,000 sf 4,000 - 4,999 5,000 - 5,999 6,000 - 6,999 7,000 - 7,999 8,000 - 8,999 9,000 - 9,999 10,000+ West Side Parcel/Lot Size Percentage of Lots Westside Neighborhood: Percentage Distribution of Lot Size Data Lot size in the Westside Neighborhood is fairly evenly distributed, with greater percentages of lots sized between 6,000 and 6,999 square feet, and lower percentages of lots sized smaller than 5,000 square feet. Lot size in the Westside Neigh- borhood is fairly evenly distrib- uted, with greater percentages of lots (24%) sized between 6,000 and 6,999 square feet (shown in light green). See the Appendix for a full map. -MORE CT S 24 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Westside Neighborhood: Lot Frontage The Lot Frontage map shows patterns in width of lots throughout the neighborhood. Combined with lot size, the frontage helps determine if a lot may legally be subdivided. In the Westside Neighborhood, lot frontage is typically 75 feet or less, with some limited areas of slightly wider lots. Exceptions occur on corner lots, along curvilinear streets, and where H-shaped alleys occur. Several areas along W. Mountain Avenue also differ, having a much narrower lot frontage than the neighborhood's average. 14 1060 774 174 51 19 5 4 1 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 West Side Lot Frontage Size Number of hom Westside Neighborhood: Lot Frontage Data Lot frontages in the Westside Neighborhood are predominantly less than 75 feet wide. A limited number of lots are between 76 and 100 feet wide at the frontage, and relatively few are greater than 101 feet wide. Lot frontages in the Westside Neighborhood are predomi- nantly less than 75 feet wide (shown in green, and light green). See the Appendix for a full map. Y ST WAGNER DR ARMSTRON G A V E WEST DR W PLUM ST W COY DR SUNSET AVE BAYSTONE DR W MYRTLE ST E CO Y D R M A N Part 1: Neighborhood Profile 25 Eastside and Westside Character Study Westside Neighborhood: Lot Coverage The Lot Coverage map shows patterns in percentage of covered lot throughout the neighborhood. Lot coverage typically varies throughout each block in the Westside Neighborhood. Most lots are less than 50% covered. Blocks along W. Mountain Avenue and those developed in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s have a higher average lot coverage than is typical of the rest of the neighbor- hood. 23 545 1051 383 93 6 1 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 West Side Lot Coverage Number of Homes Westside Neighborhood: Lot Coverage Data Lot coverage in the Westside Neighborhood is predominantly be- tween 11% and 40%. A moderate number of lots also have between 41% and 50% coverage, and very few have coverage of less than 11% or greater than 50%. Lot coverage in the Westside Neighborhood is predominantly between 11% and 40% (shown in green, light green, yellow and orange). See the Appendix for a full map. -MORE CT S K Y L I N E D R HOMER CT CRESTMORE PL COOK DR W MULBERRY ST WAGNER DR ARMSTRON G A V E W PLUM ST W 26 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Character While the Eastside and Areas Westside Neighborhoods exhibit many features that may be considered universal, there are in fact distinct differences in development patterns that exist in individual subareas. These differenc- es contribute to the perceived sense of diversity that is often mentioned when describing these neighbor- hoods. These differing characteristics are important to consider when developing a design for new construc- tion that will be compatible with its context. Some areas, for example, have a very consistent range of building sizes, or a uniform range of lot coverage per- centages. In other places, diversity exists, but nonethe- less within a defined range. Other variables, including building height, floor area ratio, lot size and building age contribute to the differing contexts. Those variables were considered in setting forth the different character areas that are described in this section. A total of six distinct character area types are defined. These areas occur multiple times in both the Eastside and the Westside Neighborhoods. Each area has a unique combination of variables, but it also shares several similarities with at least one (and often more) of the other character areas. Using The Character Areas The character areas can help to inform discussions about existing context, which is a key consideration in designing improvements that will retain and enhance the unique character and context of the neighbor- hoods as they continue to change. They may serve as the foundation for an informational design handbook that property owners could use in developing design concepts for additions and infill. They also could be used in considering the appropriateness of allowing variances from existing development standards, or in determining how any potential refinements to devel- opment regulations might be tailored to settings with special sensitivity. Part 1: Neighborhood Profile 27 Eastside and Westside Character Study About the Character Area Boundaries The maps that identify the location of the character areas uses a hard line, which follows the edges of streets, alleys and property lines. But these boundaries may in some cases be more “fuzzy,” where transitions in character occur. In this sense, the boundaries help to define general concentrations of distinctive character- istics, but should not be considered to be definite, in contrast to zoning boundary lines. See page 42 for maps of the character area boundaries. Full size maps can also be found in "Appendix B: Character Area Maps" 28 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Character Area Summary Character Area 1 Character Area 2 Character Area 3 Character Area 4 Character Area 5 Character Area 6 Distribution of Properties Within Character Areas Total Properties 11% 24% 4% 36% 5% 19% Lot Size Typical Range Varies Varies 4,000 - 5,999 sf Varies 4,000 - 6,999 sf 6,000 - 6,999 sf 4,000 sf or less 7% 6% 5% 6% 4% 1% 4,000- 4,999 sf 9% 10% 26% 7% 12% 1% 5,000- 5,999 sf 8% 20% 12% 12% 24% 8% 6,000- 6,999 sf 15% 13% 5% 12% 17% 43% 7,000- 7,999 sf 12% 14% 3% 13% 10% 14% 8,000- 8,999 sf 10% 6% 0% 15% 11% 10% 9,000- 9,999 sf 28% 25% 2% 17% 12% 6% 10,000 sf or more 11% 5% 1% 16% 10% 11% Average 8, 020 sf 7,285 sf 6,540 sf 8,590 sf 7,085 sf 7,385 sf Lot Width Typical Range 26-75' 26-75' 26-50' 26-75' 26-75' 51-75' 25' or less 2% 15 3% 3% 2% 1% 26'-50' 52% 61% 75% 45% 36% 13% 51'-75' 33% 28% 17% 35% 45% 68% 76-100' 3% 6% 1% 11% 11% 14% 101' + 7% 3% 5% 6% 6% 4% Average 57 feet 53 feet 48 feet 60 feet 60 feet 65 feet Lot Coverage Typical Range 11-40% 11-40% 11-30% 11-30% 11-30% 21-30% 0-10% 1% 3% 3% 7% 7% 2% 11-20% 23% 22% 28% 31% 28% 22% 21-30% 45% 45% 53% 41% 49% 58% 31-40% 21% 23% 12% 17% 15% 16% Part 1: Neighborhood Profile 29 Eastside and Westside Character Study Character Area Summary Character Area 1 Character Area 2 Character Area 3 Character Area 4 Character Area 5 Character Area 6 Year Built Typical Range 1882-1920 1901-1920 1881-1920 1901-1960 1941-1960 1941-1960 Average 1912 1916 1914 1934 1951 1956 Year Remodeled Typical Range 2000-2009 2000-2009 1980-2009 2000-2009 1990-2009 1970-2009 Percent Remodeled 51% 39% 45% 34% 30% 24% Building Size Typical Range 500 - 2,499 sf 500 - 1,499 sf 500 - 999 sf 500 - 1,499 sf 500 - 1,499 sf 1,000 - 1,499 sf 999 sf or less 14% 37% 69% 40% 43% 26% 1,000 - 1,499 sf 35% 40% 27% 34% 40% 56% 1,500 - 1,999 sf 23% 16% 3% 13% 14% 14% 2,000 - 2,499 sf 18% 5% 1% 9% 2% 3% 2,500 sf or greater 10% 1% - 3% %3 4% Average 1,670 sf 1,220 sf 895 sf 1,280 sf 1,148 sf 1,225 sf Building Height Typical Range 1-2 stories 1-1.5 stories 1 story 1-2 stories 1 story 1 story 1 story 48% 79% 93% 78% 90% 91% 1.5 story 25% 13% 4% 10% 5% 1% 2 story 25% 9% 2% 12% 5% 8% 2.5 story 1% - - 0% - - Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Typical Range 0.4 or less 0.3 or less 0.11-0.2 0.3 or less 0.3 or less 0.11-0.2 0.0-0.11 8% 12% 13% 11% 11% 8% 30 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Character Area 1 This character area includes portions of the neighbor- hoods with richly-detailed homes that are somewhat larger in scale than those found in other parts of the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods. Much of the portion of Mountain Avenue that is close to Old Town is an example. Site Plan Features In many of these areas, building fronts align with uniform front yard setbacks. This establishes a prominent street wall. Lawns are predominant. Fences or site walls occur infrequently, and are relatively low in scale. Lot sizes vary between blocks, but are more consistent within an individual block face. Building Scale Features Just less than half of homes are one story. Many primary structures are also one-and-a-half stories with the upper floors expressed with dormer windows, or are a full two stories. A typical house has a substantial, one-story front porch, which when aligned with others along the block, establishes a consistent sense of scale, even when the overall building heights vary. Building sizes vary widely. Architectural Features • Most homes have sloping roof forms, in a mix of gable and hip shapes. • A combination of brick and wood siding. Many homes include both materials. • Front entries are defined with porches, and these are relatively large and in proportion to the building. • Trim details with contrasting colors add a sense of scale and provide visual interest. • As some of the earliest parts of the neighborhoods, a general consistency exists in building age (typically before 1920). Character Area 1: Key Features • Homes typically date from 1882-1920. • Richly-detailed homes with large front porches • Building scale and style are typically consistent within individual blocks. • Variety in home scales, with largest typical building size (height and square footage) • 1-, 1.5- and 2-story homes typical • Large variety in lot sizes with largest typical lot size overall Part 1: Neighborhood Profile 31 Eastside and Westside Character Study These homes are located in Character Area 1. Character Area 1 includes portions of the neighborhoods with richly-detailed homes that are some- what larger in scale than those found in other parts of the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods. 32 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Character Area 2 Most of the homes in this character area were built prior to 1940, and their sizes are in a “middle” range with respect to the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods as a whole. Homes exhibit a moderate to high degree of architectural details, which contribute to a sense of scale. Building and lot characteristics can vary within each area. However, individual blocks are more con- sistent. Some larger-scale homes are located on corner lots in these areas. Character Area 2 is similar to Character Area 4, but with a greater level of consistency in building styles and lot and building sizes. Site Plan Features In many of these areas, building fronts align, with uniform front yard setbacks; this establishes a prominent street wall. Lawns are predominant. Fences or site walls occur infrequently, and are relatively low in scale. Lot sizes and widths are in a “middle” range, with respect to the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods as a whole. Building Scale Features Many primary structures are one- to one-and-a-half stories with the upper floors expressed with dormer windows. A small percentage are a full two stories. A typical house has a substantial one-story front porch, which when aligned with others along the block, estab- lishes a consistent sense of scale, even when the overall building heights vary. Architectural Features • Most homes have sloping roof forms, in a mix of gable and hip shapes. • A combination of brick and wood siding. Many homes include both materials. • Front entries are defined with porches, and these are relatively large and in proportion to the building. • A general consistency exists in building age before 1940. (Many are between 1901 and 1920.) Character Area 2: Key Features • Homes typically date from 1901-1920. • Home have a moderate to high degree of architectural details. • Building scale and style are typically consistent within individual blocks. • Front entries are defined with large porches. • Home and lot sizes are in a “middle” range, with respect to the neighborhoods as a whole. • 1-1.5 story homes typical Part 1: Neighborhood Profile 33 Eastside and Westside Character Study These homes are located in Character Area 2. Most homes in Character Area 2 were built prior to 1945, and are in the “middle” range of building size with respect to the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods at large. 34 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Character Area 3 This character area includes homes with the lowest typical building scale. These are generally small pockets of development with very distinct character. Architec- tural details are more limited than in other areas, though they still help establish a sense of human scale. Homes appear consistent in character and size across one or more block faces. The majority of homes in these areas are predominantly one story, with a limited number of one-and-a-half and two-story structures. Site Plan Features In many of these areas, front yards are similar in depth and building fronts generally align. This establishes a prominent street wall. Lawns are predominant. Fences or site walls occur infrequently, and are relatively low in scale. Lot sizes are small relative to the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods as a whole. Building Scale Features Many primary structures are one story. A limited number are one-and-a-half stories with the upper floors expressed with dormer windows. A typical house has a moderate, one-story front porch, which when aligned with others along the block, establishes a con- sistent sense of scale. Home size is small relative to the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods as a whole. Architectural Features • Most homes have sloping roof forms, in a mix of gable and hip shapes. • A combination of brick and wood siding. Many homes include both materials. • Front entries are defined with moderate porches in proportion to the building front. • Building age is varied within a narrow range (1881- 1920). • There have been few remodels in this area; architec- tural character is consistent throughout. Character Area 3: Key Features • Homes typically date from 1901-1960. • Architectural details are more limited but help establish a sense of human scale. • Building scale and style are typically consistent within individual blocks. • Front entries are defined with moderate porches. • Home and lot sizes are in a “middle” range, with respect to the neighborhoods as a whole. • One story homes predomi- nate. Part 1: Neighborhood Profile 35 Eastside and Westside Character Study These homes are located in Character Area 3. A typical house in Character Area 3 has a moderate, one-story front porch, which when aligned with others along the block, establishes a consistent sense of scale. 36 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Character Area 4 In these areas there is no dominant style, rather the full variety of development in the neighborhoods is rep- resented. Homes date from early development of the neighborhood through to the mid-twentieth century. There is a large variety in building style and form across individual blocks in these areas. However, the homes are all of a similar scale with a moderate level of detailing. These areas have a greater degree of diversity, in terms of building age, scale and architectural styles and character that others. This character area category includes large portions of both the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods. These areas are similar in scale to those of Character Area 2, but with a much greater diversity in lot and building characteristics and house styles. Site Plan Features In many of these areas, building fronts align, with uniform front yard setbacks. This establishes a prominent street wall. Lawns are predominant. Fences or site walls occur infrequently, and are relatively low in scale. Building Scale Features The majority of homes are one story. A small percent- age of primary structures are also one-and-a-half stories, with the upper floors expressed with dormer windows, or they are a full two stories. Building sizes are in a “middle” range, with respect to the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods as a whole. Architectural Features • Most homes have sloping roof forms, in a mix of gable and hip shapes. • Primarily frame construction. • Front entries are defined with porches in proportion to the building. • More diversity in character; built throughout 1900- 1960. Character Area 4: Key Features • Homes typically date from 1881-1920. • Homes have a moderate to high degree of architectural details. • Front entries are defined with moderate porches • Building scale is typically consistent within individual blocks. • Building style varies widely within individual blocks. • Home and lot sizes are small with respect to the neighbor- hoods as a whole. • One-story homes predomi- nate, 1.5 and 2 story homes are also typical Part 1: Neighborhood Profile 37 Eastside and Westside Character Study These homes are located in Character Area 4. There is a large variety in building style and form across individual blocks in Character Area 4. 38 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Character Area 5 This character area represents the post-war home styles built in areas with older lot and block patterns. Homes are typically one story, with minimal detailing. Due to older lot shapes being narrow and deep, homes tend to be rectangular with street-facing front-gable roofs. These areas exhibit a relatively high degree of con- sistency in overall development patterns and building characteristics. These are small, distinct enclaves. These areas are similar in to scale to Areas 2 and 4, but have distinct building patterns and styles unique to the time period they were built. Site Plan Features In many of these areas, building fronts align, with uniform front yard setbacks. This establishes a prominent street wall. Lawns are predominant. Fences or site walls occur infrequently, and are relatively low in scale. Building Scale Features Most primary structures are one story. A typical house has a moderate one-story front porch or stoop. Building fronts align with others along the block, establishing a consistent sense of scale. Architectural Features • Most homes have low sloping roof forms, in a mix of gable and hip shapes. • A combination of brick and wood siding. Many homes include both materials. • Front entries are defined with porches or landings which are relatively small in proportion to the building. • A high level of consistency exists in building age (predominantly between 1941 and 1960). Character Area 5: Key Features • Homes typically date from 1941-1960. • Architectural details are more limited but help establish a sense of human scale. • Building scale is typically consistent within individual blocks. • Front entries are defined with small porches or landings. • Home and lot sizes are small to middle range, with respect to the neighborhoods as a whole. • One-story homes predomi- nate Part 1: Neighborhood Profile 39 Eastside and Westside Character Study These homes are located in Character Area 5. 40 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Character Area 6 This character area includes the mid-century modern subdivisions. Ranch style homes predominate, typically with limited, simple detailing, and rectangular forms with shallow roofs running parallel to the street. Houses are predominately one story in height, with a few split- level homes, and are low to medium scale. Street patterns include cul-de-sacs and curvilinear layouts, with no alleys and wide, shallow lots. Site Plan Features In many of these areas, building fronts align, with uniform front yard setbacks. This establishes a prominent street wall. Lawns are predominant. Fences or site walls occur infrequently, and are relatively low in scale. Building Scale Features Many primary structures are one story, others are split- level or a full two-story height. A typical house has a moderate stoop but typically does not have a porch. Building fronts align with others along the block, es- tablishing a consistent sense of scale. Many buildings in these areas have been remodeled. Architectural Features: • Most homes have low sloping roof forms, in a mix of gable and hip shapes. • A combination of brick and wood siding. Many homes include both materials. • Front entries are defined with landings, and these are relatively small in proportion to the building. • Very consistent in building age (typically between 1950 and 1970). Character Area 6: Key Features • Homes typically date from 1941-1960. • Architectural details are lim- ited. • Building scale is typically consistent within individual blocks. • Front entries are defined with small landings. • Home and lot sizes are in a “middle” range, with respect to the neighborhoods as a whole. • Lot widths are largest rela- tive to the neighborhoods as a whole. • One-story homes predomi- nate Part 1: Neighborhood Profile 41 Eastside and Westside Character Study These homes are located in Character Area 6. Ranch style homes predominate in Character Area 6, typically having limited, simple detailing, and rectangular forms with shallow roofs running parallel to the street. 42 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study EDISON DR S MASON ST REMINGTON ST MATHE WS S T E PROSPECT RD E MYRTLE ST WHEDBEE ST SMITH PL SMITH ST EASTDALE DR COWAN ST E ELIZABETH ST L A K E P L E PENNOCK PL S COLLEGE AVE MONTEZUMA FULLER ALLEY REMINGTON ST GARFIELD ST E PLUM ST E MAGNOLIA ST PETERSON ST DEINES CT SMITH ST KENROY CT ROBER TSO N S T . WILL I A M S ST LESSER DR LORY ST RO B E R T S O N S T A ST REMBRANDT DR Part 1: Neighborhood Profile 43 Eastside and Westside Character Study -MORE CT S K Y L I N E D R HOMER CT CRESTMORE PL COOK DR S B R Y A N A V E LAYLAND CT FISHBACK AVE W MULBERRY ST W OAK ST S MCKINLEY AVE HANNA ST WAGNER DR SCOTT AVE PEARL ST HANNA ST S SHIELDS ST N MACK ST W VINE DR ARMSTRON G A V E CHERRY ST N WHITCOMB ST LAPORTE AVE WEST DR E L M S T LYONS ST W PLUM ST W VINE DR SYLVAN CT ALAMEDA ST W OLIVE ST W COY DR JAMITH PL 44 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Existing The zoning code establishes Regulations the basic use Summary and dimensional requirements for additions and new construction in the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods. There are two zone districts within the study area, the Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (N-C-L) and the Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (N-C-M). Maps illustrating zoning district boundaries in the neighborhoods are provided on pages 50 and 51. Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (N-C-L) Buildable Area The transparent blue “building envelope,” illustrated on the example lot below, is the area of a lot in which it is permissible to build. Additional regulations will then limit the size and type of structures allowed within the envelope. The buildable area of a lot in the N-C-L is determined by its setbacks. Existing regulations that shape the building envelope in the N-C-L zone district include: A Min. front setback: 15’ (20’ for a garage) B Min. side setback: 5’ plus 1’ for every 2’ of height over 18’ C Min. rear setback: 5’ (15’ if no alley) Building Mass and Form The size and form of a building within the N-C-L building envelope is regulated by the following tools: Max. FAR: 0.40 (Total square footage limited to 40% of lot area) Max. rear FAR: Square footage in rear half of the lot limited to 12.5% of total lot area D Required entry feature: Porch, landing or portico E Max. roof pitch: 12:12 (shown), min. 2:12 F Max. height: 2 stories Accessory Buildings There is no limit on the number of accessory buildings allowed in the N-C-L district beyond the total allowable FAR. Accessory dwellings are allowed by administrative review in the N-C-L district, and are also not limited in number. G Max. accessory building height: 1.5 stories or 24' (20' if not habitable), with a max. roof eave height 13’ C A B B Part 1: Neighborhood Profile 45 Eastside and Westside Character Study Sample One-Story N-C-L Building Form Sample Two-Story N-C-L Building Form This basic two-story form illustrates one possible configuration for a house that maximizes the building area permitted within the N-C-L build- ing envelope on the sample lot. D E F This basic one-story form, with accessory struc- ture, illustrates another possible configuration for a house that maximizes the building area permitted within the N-C-L building envelope on the sample lot. D E G F Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (N-C-M) Buildable Area The transparent blue “building envelope,” illustrated on the example lot below, is the area of a lot in which it is permissible to build. Additional regulations will then limit the size and type of structures allowed within the envelope. The buildable area of a lot in the N-C-M zone is determined by its setbacks. Existing regulations that shape the building envelope in the N-C-M zone district include: A Min. front setback: 15’ (20’ for a garage) B Min. side setback: 5’ plus 1’ for every 2’ of height over 18’ C Min. rear setback: 5’ (15’ if no alley) C A B B 46 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Building Mass and Form The size and form of a building within the N-C-M building envelope is regulated by the following tools: Max. FAR: 0.50 (Total square footage limited to 50% of lot area) Max. rear FAR: Square footage in rear half of the lot limited to 16.7% of total lot area D Required entry feature: Porch, landing or portico E Max. roof pitch: 12:12 (shown), min. 2:12 F Max. height: 2 stories Accessory Buildings There is no limit on the number of accessory buildings allowed in the N-C-M district beyond the total allowable FAR. Accessory dwellings are allowed by administrative review in the N-C-M district, and are also not limited in number. G Max. accessory building height: 1.5 stories or 24' (20' if not habitable), with a max. roof eave height 13’ Sample Two-Story N-C-M Building Form Sample One-Story N-C-M Building Form This basic two-story form illustrates one pos- sible configuration for a house that maximizes the building area permitted within the N-C-M building envelope on the sample lot. This basic one-story form, with accessory struc- ture, illustrates another possible configuration for a house that maximizes the building area permitted within the N-C-M building envelope on the sample lot. D E G F D E F Part 1: Neighborhood Profile 47 Eastside and Westside Character Study EDISON DR S MASON ST REMINGTON ST MATHE WS S T E PROSPECT RD E MYRTLE ST WHEDBEE ST SMITH PL SMITH ST EASTDALE DR COWAN ST E ELIZABETH ST L A K E P L E PENNOCK PL S COLLEGE AVE MONTEZUMA FULLER ALLEY REMINGTON ST GARFIELD ST E PLUM ST E MAGNOLIA ST PETERSON ST DEINES CT SMITH ST KENROY CT ROBER TSO N S T . WILL I A M S ST LESSER DR LORY ST RO B E R T S O N S T A ST REMBRANDT DR 48 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study -MORE CT S K Y L I N E D R HOMER CT CRESTMORE PL COOK DR S B R Y A N A V E LAYLAND CT FISHBACK AVE W MULBERRY ST W OAK ST S MCKINLEY AVE HANNA ST WAGNER DR SCOTT AVE PEARL ST HANNA ST S SHIELDS ST N MACK ST W VINE DR ARMSTRON G A V E CHERRY ST N WHITCOMB ST LAPORTE AVE WEST DR E L M S T LYONS ST W PLUM ST W VINE DR SYLVAN CT ALAMEDA ST W OLIVE ST W COY DR JAMITH PL Part 1: Neighborhood Profile 49 Eastside and Westside Character Study Recent Across the country Trends many established residential neighborhoods have been experi- encing significant changes after years of relative stability. Over the last fifteen years residents began to notice changes in their neighborhoods, such as increased house size and height on additions and new construction. Such changes are indicative of current market trends in which established neighborhoods are becoming more desirable places to live. In some cases, such changes were seen as exciting oppor- tunities. In other cases, residents worried that inappropriate changes could ruin the character of their neighborhood. Overview of Recent Development Trends The Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods have experienced changes similar to those occurring in many other established residential neighborhoods nationwide. Most activity in the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods have been additions, which are often of substantial size relative to the existing structure. Both neighborhoods are also experiencing demolition and new construction, with replacement structures generally being significantly larger than the demolished homes. Trends by Neighborhood Both the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods are experiencing significant con- struction activity. However, the majority of activity (72% of all projects) is occurring in the Westside neighborhood. The Westside also has a higher percentage of new construction by comparison with the Eastside. 7% of recent activity in the Westside is new home construction and 93% is remodels, while only 3% of activity on the Eastside is new home construction and 97% is remodels. 50 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Recent new construction projects in the Westside have generally been larger than those on the Eastside. New homes built recently on the Westside range from 1,465 to 3,653 square feet with an average square footage of 2,376 and an average floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.32. New homes built recently on the Eastside range from 780 to 2,340 square feet with an average square footage of 1,530, and an average FAR of 0.22. Recent new construction projects in the Westside have generally been larger than those on the Eastside. Trends by Development Pattern and Lot Type Within each neighborhood, development trends may vary by different existing de- velopment patterns (see "Neighborhood Development Patterns" on page 7 for more information) or on different lot types. Such differing circumstances may also influence how new construction is perceived (i.e., concerns may be greater when a lot is subdivided to allow for the construction of two new homes, or when new con- struction occurs on an especially large or small lot). Additional evaluation will be necessary to determine the relationship between different development patterns and lot types. Two initial areas of evaluation will include: • Lots Large Enough to Subdivide. The subdivision of lots was mentioned during community feedback as a potential area of concern. Based on the minimum lot frontage and parcel sizes required, approximately 5% of lots on the Eastside and 3% of lots of the Westside could be subdivided. • Large Lots in Predominantly Small-Lot Blocks. Due to the variety of lot and alley forms in the neighborhoods, there are several areas where significantly larger lots occur on a block of predominately smaller lots. About 3% of the lots in both the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods are significantly larger (at least 3,000 square feet greater) than most others on their block. Part 1: Neighborhood Profile 51 Eastside and Westside Character Study Building Permit Trends GIS data on building permits granted since 1997 show recent increases in construction activity in the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods. Construction activity in the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods makes up just under 7% of the total citywide building permits. See "Appendix C: Building Permits" for maps that visually convey this data. GIS data on building permits granted since 1997 show recent increases in construction activity in the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods. Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Major Building Permits 1997-October 2012 Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Major Building Permits by 5-year Periods Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Major Building Permits by Year Construction activity in the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods makes up just under 7% of the total citywide building permits. A general increase in building activity in the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods since 1997 can be seen. 52 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Variance Trends GIS data on variances since 1997 show steady numbers of variances being granted in the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods since 2007. See "Appendix D: Variances" for maps that visually convey this data. Variances in the neighborhoods make up nearly 38% of all variances granted citywide. This is significantly greater than the 6.6% of total major building permits the neighborhoods represent. Variances in the Eastside and Westside Neigh- borhoods make up nearly 38% of all variances granted citywide. Citywide, Eastside and Westside Neigh- borhoods Variances 1997-October 2012 Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Variances by 5-year Periods GIS data on variances show steady numbers of vari- ances being granted in the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods since 1997. Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Variances by Year On average, the number of variances granted within the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods has remained steady since 1997. Preliminary Strategy Report 53 Part 2 Community The Eastside and Westside Comments Neighborhoods are highly valued. However, for many years, residents have expressed concern with the compatibility of some new con- struction and additions. Previous efforts to address these concerns have ended in controversy. To set the stage for a more inclusive and deliberative consideration of potential solutions, City Council has sought to more clearly define neighborhood ob- jectives and issues through a well-supported and effective public process. To date, the public process for the Eastside and Westside Neighborhood Character Study has provided a range of outreach venues for community comment, including: • Neighborhood Workshops • Working Groups • Questionnaires and Surveys This part of the report includes a summary of community comments from each of the outreach venues, followed by observations on the overall themes and preliminary identification of neighbor- hood objectives and issues that led to the strategy options described in Part 4: "Strategy Options" on page 101. 54 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Neighborhood Neighborhood workshops provide Workshops an opportunity for diverse residents and stakeholders to learn about the project, engage in interactive activities to work through issues and options, and provide feedback. They are widely advertised and open to all citizens who wish to participate. The Eastside and Westside Neighborhood Character Study includes two primary neighborhood workshops. The first occurred in July 2012 and was divided into separate sessions for the Eastside and Westside. The second is scheduled for November 5, 2012 and will combine residents and stakeholders from both neigh- borhoods. July Workshops On July 10 and 12, the City hosted neighborhood workshops to introduce the project, explore neighbor- hood character, explore aspects of design that affect compatibility of new construction, and consider current regulations. A workshop was conducted in each of the neighborhoods, with a total attendance of about 95 par- ticipants. An invitation letter was mailed to all owners and residents in the study area. Participants were also invited via email and the City's website. Each neighborhood workshop began with a visual pre- sentation by the project consultants. The presentation addressed: • The planning process • Existing context • Development trends • Existing regulations • Potential tools to address neighborhood character • Design alternatives • Aspects of design Workshop participants then completed four activities in teams of four to eight participants. At the conclusion of the workshops, participants from each team presented their activity results. Key comments and themes from the July workshops are summarized on the next page, followed by a summary of the results from each of the workshop activities. Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Neighborhood Workshop Meeting Objectives: To introduce the project, review neighborhood character, discuss neighborhood objectives and evaluate design alternatives for new construction Agenda Project Introduction 6:00 Presentation • The planning process • Existing context • Development trends • Existing regulations • Potential tools to address neighborhood character • Design alternatives • Introduction to the workshop activities 6:10 Team Activity #1: Existing Conditions • What are some key neighborhood assets? • Identify three distinct neighborhood areas Part 2: Community Comments 55 Eastside and Westside Character Study Eastside Workshop About 30 participants attended the Eastside workshop at Laurel Elementary School on July 10. Many partici- pants expressed a desire to find tools to protect specific elements of neighborhood character while also preserv- ing design flexibility for owners and promoting neigh- borhood affordability. Additional themes in the discus- sion included: • Participants often cited the mature tree canopy as a key neighborhood asset • Participants generally agreed on the key features of new development that influence neighborhood character and compatibility. • Participants generally agreed that compatible building massing would help new construction fit into the neighborhood. • Some participants stated that even though the activities identified aspects of design that help buildings fit in, they felt that the potential for in- compatible development was exaggerated. Westside Workshop About 65 participants attended the Westside workshop at Putnam Elementary School on July 12. Many partici- pants expressed an interest in preserving the design diversity of the neighborhood while ensuring that new construction does not have negative impacts on neigh- borhood character. Additional themes in the discussion included: • Participants often cited City Park, historic homes, alleys and Beaver's Market key neighborhood assets. • Some participants expressed interest in tools to support neighborhood consultation and dialogue. • Some participants indicated that any tools to address neighborhood character should be highly context sensitive (including consideration of adjacent properties). Additional participant feedback is provided in "Workshop Activities" beginning on page 56. Observations Many workshop participants expressed general agree- ment on neighborhood as- sets, objectives and potential concerns. However, they often expressed a diversity of opin- ion on possible future strate- gies or actions. 56 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Workshop Activities Participants at each neighborhood workshop completed four team activities designed to stimulate discussion and generate feedback on neighborhood assets, existing context, compatible design features, and existing regulations. Teams spent about 30 minutes completing each activity. An individ- ual worksheet was also available for participants to provide comments apart from the team activities. Activity #1: Existing Conditions This was a two-part activity. Participants first identi- fied and listed existing neighborhood assets. They then identified different subareas or "contexts" within their neighborhood. In the first part of the activity, commonly cited assets included: • Diversity of house size, design and resident income • Lack of architectural or other HOA-type restrictions • Proximity to Downtown • Walkability and bicycle access • Wide streets • Mature tree canopy and landscaping In the second part of the activity, participants marked neighborhood contexts, unique subareas and specific concerns on a poster map of the Eastside or Westside. Common map themes included: • Identification of subareas anchored by community resources such as schools and parks • Identification of neighborhood contexts differentiat- ed by street layout, building age, ownership patterns or level of renovation and new construction Map feedback provided by workshop participants informed development of the character areas described on page 7. Participants marked neighbor- hood contexts, unique subareas and specific concerns on an aerial map of the Eastside or Westside neighborhood. Part 2: Community Comments 57 Eastside and Westside Character Study Activity #2: Design Features In this activity, participants cut, pasted and captioned photographs of neighborhood houses and streetscapes to identify design features of homes that fit with their neighborhoods. Participants identified features that are characteristic of a compatible "Old Town" home, including: • Front porches and general street presence • Front yard trees • Small scale • Larger structures with varied massing Participants identified features that are generally out of character with the Eastside and Westside, including: • Facades dominated by garage doors or parking areas • Houses that appear to be significantly more massive than the structures around them In many cases, participants also indicated that context influences the appropriateness of design features. They identified features that could be appropriate in some, but not all, areas of the neighborhoods, including: • Visible garage doors or parking areas • Very large homes • Ultramodern designs using contemporary materials • Especially large or small front yard areas Participants used photographs of traditional neighborhoods and new construction to identify design features that help make properties compatible with their neighborhoods. Photographs illustrating gener- ous front porches and exist- ing small scale character were among those most often selected as illustrating appropriate de- sign features. 58 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Activity #3: Design Alternatives In this activity, participants reviewed a variety of hy- pothetical new construction designs on a sample lot in one of five neighborhood contexts. Participants indicated whether they felt that each design was compatible with its surrounding context and identified any illustrated design features that helped promote compatibility. Each context was illustrated with a three-dimensional computer model of existing conditions in a three- to four- block area of the Eastside or Westside neighborhoods. New construction designs on the sample lot in each context il- lustrated a number of variables, including height, lot coverage (the percent of the lot covered by buildings), building square footage and wall length/articulation. Understanding which design variables contribute most to neighborhood compatibility will help determine how new construction can best fit into a variety of neighbor- hood contexts. Participants identified a number of design features that could help reduce the perceived mass and scale of new construction and help it fit in with its surrounding context. Identified features included: • One-story elements along the side of a two story house where the context is one story • One-story elements on the front of a two-story house • Side wall offsets • Traditional roof pitch • Roof ridge offsets • Consistent spacing and rhythm of buildings along the block Participants also identified concerns, including: • The proportion of a building to the size of its lot • Large, boxy building masses that are out of character with their surrounding context • Wall height, in relation to closeness of side yard set back • Loss of solar access for properties to the north Participants reviewed a variety of hypothetical new construction designs on a sample lot in one of five neighborhood contexts. Participants identified a number of design features that could help reduce the perceived mass and scale of new construction and help it fit in with its surrounding context, including front porches, dormers, varied rooflines, one- story elements and side wall offsets. Part 2: Community Comments 59 Eastside and Westside Character Study Activity #4: Existing Regulations In this activity, participants reviewed and provided comments on the zoning regulations that currently apply to new construction in the Eastside and Westside. Existing zoning regulations in the Neighborhood Conser- vation Low Density (N-C-L) and Neighborhood Con- servation Medium Density (N-C-M) zone districts were illustrated on a graphic poster. Participants identified a number of concerns, including: • Concern that additional regulations could limit design flexibility and produce higher costs • Concern that existing regulations do not adequately address context or promote neighborhood dialogue • Concern that structures built on raised grade may tower over neighbors based on the existing height measurement system • Concern with ease of obtaining height and setback variances Individual Worksheet In addition to the four formal team activities, an in- dividual worksheet was provided for workshop partici- pants to submit optional comments and feedback. About a third of participants at each workshop completed an individual worksheet. All indicated that they were property owners in the neighborhoods. Key themes in the worksheet responses include: • Many participants indicated that there are both benefits and concerns associated with changes in the neighborhoods, including benefits associated with larger houses for new families and concerns with loss of green space and solar access • Most participants (74%) felt that there is an issue with some new construction in the neighborhoods, although many felt that issues were limited to certain areas of the neighborhoods, or to a small number of projects • Few participants (11%) specifically indicated that they thought there was no issue with new con- struction in the neighborhoods Participants reviewed and pro- vided comments on the zoning regulations that currently shape new construction in the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods. Observations Based on workshop partici- pant responses, addressing potential new construction issues in focused ways (i.e., only addressing the largest structures or particular types of lots) could satisfy many concerns. 60 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study November Workshop On November 5, the City will host a neighborhood workshop to review the character and context of the neighborhoods, summarize identified neighborhood objectives and issues and introduce options for City Council consideration. The workshop will bring Eastside and Westside residents together with other stakehold- ers to facilitate an informed dialogue with multiple viewpoints. Postcard invitations have been mailed to all owners and residents in the study area. Participants will also be invited via email and the City's website. The workshop will begin with a visual presentation by project consultants. The presentation will address: • The planning process • What we heard in Phase 1 • The character and context of the neighborhoods • Summary of identified issues and objectives • Overview of potential tools • Strategy options for City Council consideration • Overview of the visual survey Workshop participants will then complete several team activities. At the conclusion of the workshops, partici- pants from each team will present their activity results. Key comments and themes from the November workshop will be summarized in the next draft of this report. Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Neighborhood Workshop Objectives: Review the character and context of the neighborhoods, summarize identified neighborhood issues and objectives, and introduce strategy options for City Council consideration. Agenda Project Introduction 6:00 Presentation • The planning process • What we heard in Phase 1 • The character and context of the neighborhoods • Summary of identified issues and objectives • Overview of potential tools • Strategy options for City Council consideration • Overview of the visual survey 6:10 Team Activity #1: Character Areas • Do the identified character areas capture the general character and context of the neighborhoods? • What are some additional characteristics of the identified areas? • Are there important subareas to recognize? 7:00 Team Activity #2: Refined Design Alternatives • What key design variables should be addressed? • Which new construction designs are most compatible? 7:30 Team Activity #3: Strategy Options • Which strategy options best address identified issues and objectives? 8:00 Team Reports 9:30 For more information, visit the project Web site at http://www.fcgov.com/advanceplanning/eastwestneighborhoods.php Part 2: Community Comments 61 Eastside and Westside Character Study Working Working group Groups sessions provide opportunities for community members with diverse interests to discuss objectives, refine issues and outline potential strate- gies in a small group setting. They are advertised on the City's web site and invitations are sent to the City's email list of interested residents and stakeholders. The Eastside and Westside Neighborhood Character Study includes several sets of working group meetings. The first were held in June 2012 and included sessions for Eastside residents, Westside residents and real estate industry professionals. Subsequent sessions brought these diverse stakeholders together to discuss strategy options and provide feedback on the public participa- tion process. June Working Groups On June 14, 2012 the City hosted three prelimi- nary working group meetings for Eastside residents, Westside residents and real estate industry profession- als. There was no deliberation, and the outcome was simply for the study team to gain additional perspective as the project was being launched publicly. At each session, City staff provided a general introduc- tion and project consultants facilitated meeting discus- sion. Many working group participants indicated that the meeting format supported useful dialogue, and expressed desire to participate in future meetings with a similar format. However, some participants requested that future sessions include a wider range of viewpoints to begin a process of deliberation and conflict resolu- tion. Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Builders & Realtors Focus Group Meeting Objectives: To introduce the project, discuss differences with previous planning efforts, discuss market trends, better understand builder and realtor concerns and identify the best ways to engage a range of stakeholders. Agenda Project Introduction 10 Minutes Question & Answer 10 Minutes Discussion 1 Hour • What types of neighborhoods are your customers looking for, and why? • What features are your customers looking for in a new or existing home? • Have you encountered issues when working in the city’s established neighborhoods? • How can we ensure active participation from a variety of stakeholders? Wrap Up & Next Steps 10 Minutes For more information, visit the project Web site at http://www.fcgov.com/advanceplanning/eastwestneighborhoods.php 62 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study June Neighborhood Working Groups Two meetings of residents were held for Eastside and Westside areas respectively. 15 Eastside residents and 14 Westside residents attended. Participants answered four key questions: • What are some key assets of your neighborhood? • Do you have any concerns, or do you see specific benefits, with the types of changes occurring in your neighborhood? • What information do you need to make informed decisions about the future of your neighborhood? • How can we ensure active community engagement? Key discussion themes revolved around the neighbor- hoods as great places to live with a strong sense of community. While many participants were concerned with some large new construction negatively impacting neighborhood character and quality of life, questions also arose regarding the appropriateness of limiting owners' choices, given the degree of subjectivity in what is com- patible. Some participants also expressed frustration that the 2011 ordinance had been rescinded and noted that they felt organized economic interests were inherently more powerful than residents. June Real Estate Working Group This meeting included a total of nine builders, realtors, and architects. Participants answered four key questions: • What types of neighborhoods are your customers looking for, and why? • What features are your customers looking for in a new or existing home? • Have you encountered issues when working in the city’s established neighborhoods? • How can we ensure active participation from a variety of stakeholders? A key discussion theme was that the neighborhoods are highly successful in the market, with some of the highest values and shortest times on the market. This is related to concern that any new regulations would neg- atively affect the market and unduly limit owners’ flex- ibility. Several real estate professionals also noted the entire community should be engaged in the dialogue rather than just Eastside and Westside residents. More detailed information on discussion results is provided in the separate Phase 1 Report. Market Trends and Preferences Real estate industry profes- sionals provided insight into current market trends and home buyer preferences. Ob- servations included: • Old Town neighborhoods are highly desirable. • The market for Old Town properties has significantly outperformed the market in more suburban areas. • Buyers seek pedestrian- Part 2: Community Comments 63 Eastside and Westside Character Study September On September 12 and Working 13, 2012, the Groups City hosted two working group meetings to discuss issues identified in the study’s first phase and explore potential tools and strategies to address those issues. The meetings included a mixed group of Eastside and Westside residents as well as industry professionals in real estate, construction and architecture who have worked in the neighborhoods. At each session, City staff and project consultants gave a presentation on the results of the study's first phase and introduced potential tools for discussion in Phase 2. Participants then worked together to discuss these tools, recording key points of their discussion on a poster in the following categories: • Education and Communication Tools • Process and Administration Tools • Design Standards Although working group participants expressed a diversity of opinions, a number of general themes emerged from the discussion, including: • Strong support for educational tools such as non- mandatory design guidelines • Strong support for evaluating changes to the way that building height is measured to better account for the impact of grade changes on adjacent prop- erties • Strong support for tools that encourage diversity in building design • Support for process tools such as neighborhood notification requirements • Support for basing the application of tools on specific thresholds such as project size or new construction vs. additions • Interest in examining tools that would address the compatibility of large additions or new construc- tion • Interest in maintaining a “no change” option as that would keep existing processes and regulations in place without revisions More detailed information on discussion results is provided in the separate Summary of October Working Groups document. Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study September Working Group Meeting Objectives: Review issues identified in the project’s first phase and explore potential tools and strategies to address those issues. Agenda Introduction 5 Minutes Presentation • What it the role of this working group? • What issues have been identified? (Phase 1 results) • What tools and strategies are available to address those issues? • What are the next steps? 15 Minutes Question & Answer 10 Minutes Discussion (issues and potential tools) 1 Hour • Which tools clearly merit further exploration 64 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study October On October 3 and Working 8, 2012, the City Groups hosted three working group meetings to review preliminary strategy options for addressing identified objectives and issues in the neighborhoods. The meetings included a mixed group of Eastside and Westside residents as well as industry professionals in real estate, construction and archi- tecture who have worked in the neighborhoods. There were about 45 total working group participants. At each session, City staff and project consultants gave a presentation on tools suggested for further consid- eration based on overall community comments and September working group discussion. Participants then worked together to discuss and comment on strategy options for using the tools. Key themes in the October working group discussion included: • Process and education tools received the broadest support. Most participants supported tools to raise awareness and promote compatible design through education and process tools such as: x Increasing awareness of design assistance available from the City x Developing design guidelines or a pattern book x Extending neighborhood notification of new construction • Many participants felt that new or adjusted design standards may be necessary. Many (but not all) participants felt that one or more design standards would also be necessary to fully address identified issues. They are: x Adjust measurement of building height at the side yard setback. x Consider adjusting FAR standards and/or FAR measurement (if solar access is not specifically addressed). x Consider building wall articulation/building massing standards (if FAR is not addressed). x Consider addressing solar access (if FAR standards are not addressed). • Some participants continue to feel that no action is necessary. It is also important to note that several participants felt that a ”no change” option would be most appropriate. Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study October Working Group Meeting Objectives: Review preliminary strategy for addressing identified objectives and issues in the neighborhoods, including potential early implementation tools. Agenda Introduction 5 Minutes Presentation • The role of the working groups • Review of September Working Group discussion • Overview of preliminary strategy • Description of recommended early implementation tools • Description of additional tools to consider 15 Minutes Question & Answer 10 Minutes Part 2: Community Comments 65 Eastside and Westside Character Study Questionnaires Questionnaires and surveys and provide Surveys a venue for feedback on study concepts by the widest variety of participants, including residents and stakeholders who are unable to attend workshops or working groups. They are advertised online and via mailings, and are conducted primarily online, with the option to complete a printed version. The Eastside and Westside Neighborhood Character Study included a preliminary online questionnaire in July 2012 and will include a more detailed follow up visual survey in November 2012. July Neighborhood Questionnaire An online questionnaire was posted from July 2 to 15, 2012 to collect information on valued neighborhood qualities, clarify objectives and identify potential issues and concerns. Separate (but identical) questionnaires were targeted to property owners, tenants and the general public (interested citizens), allowing separate response tabulations for each group of participants. City staff mailed 5,579 notices to owners and residents living within either the Eastside or Westside Neighbor- hoods requesting they take the questionnaire. Partici- pants submitted 288 completed questionnaires. Key themes in the questionnaire responses are sum- marized on the following pages. 7/17/12 Eastside & Westside Neighborhoods Character Study ‑ Interested Citizens Survey https:/www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=UV4s4uDMi8lxqVFAaTaypDLQs9I950SNYUbPxzjvqyw… 1/2 Exit this survey Eastside & Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Interested Citizens 2. As a follow up to the previous question, what are the five most important qualities that define the positive character of the neighborhoods? (Select five using the examples provided or write in others below.) Trees Porches Alleys Close to Downtown Close to schools Close to parks Close to CSU Real estate values Yards and landscaping Walkable streets and blocks Neighbors and friends Historic character Social diversity Variety of house sizes Strength of rental market Architecture Flexibility to expand houses Other (please specify) Questionnaire Response Rates Participant Category Number of 66 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study 1. There is an issue, but it is limited. When asked to mark statements with which they agree regarding demolitions, new houses and additions, most property owners in both the Eastside and Westside selected options indicating that they feel there is an issue, as illustrated in the charts below. However, they also indicate that issues generally occur only in certain areas or situ- ations within the neighborhoods, or are limited to a small number of construction projects. Level of Concern Among Property Owners1 Regarding Demolitions, New Construction and Additions 70% 25% 5% Some issue or concern No issue or concern No response / "other" Some issue or concern No issue or concern No response/ other 1Responses from tenants and interested citizens indicate a similar pattern although interested citizens express a some- what higher level of concern (only 15% indicate that they have no issue or concern with new construction). Part 2: Community Comments 67 Eastside and Westside Character Study 41% 40% 26% 25% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Limited to a small number of projects Limited to certain areas/situations Widespread issues No issue or concern 2Responses total to more than 100% because some partic- ipants indicated agreement with more than one statement (i.e., many property owners stated that their concerns with new construction were both "limited to certain areas/situa- tions" and "limited to a small number of projects"). Property owners also cited diminished solar access, decreased socio- economic diversity, fewer "funky" properties and a number of other potentially negative aspects of neighborhood change in write-in responses. Distribution of Property Owners with Concerns by Neighborhood 79% 60% 33% 20% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Owners with concerns on the Westside Owners with concerns on the Eastside Owners with no concerns on the Eastside Owners with no concerns on the 68 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study 2. Many participants feel that some new construction is positive for the neighborhoods. Although most participants feel that there is some issue with new construction, many also indicated that some new construction and additions can benefit the neighborhoods. When asked to select potential reasons why there is no problem with new construction and demolitions in the neighbor- hoods, many property owners indicated that new construction can add to the eclectic evolution of the neighborhood and support families and home- ownership, as illustrated in the chart below. Property Owner Response on Potential Positive Aspects of Demolitions, New Construction or Additions2 50% 46% 36% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% "New construction mixed with older homes adds to the eclectic evolution of the neighborhoods." "Larger new construction supports families and homeownership." "Residential rebuilding has been positive and a good fit for the neighborhoods." 2Responses total to more than 100% because some partici- pants indicated agreement with more than one statement. Property owners also cited improved landscaping, increas- ing property values, higher rates of homeownership and a number of other potentially positive aspects of neighborhood change in write-in responses. Part 2: Community Comments 69 Eastside and Westside Character Study 3. Participants expressed significant agreement on key neighborhood assets. When asked about the five most important qualities that define the positive character of the neighbor- hoods, property owners most often cited walk- ability and proximity to Downtown as the most important neighborhood assets, as illustrated in the table below. These responses are consistent with feedback received from participants in the workshops and working groups. Property Owner1 Response on the Five Most Important Qualities that Define the Positive Character of the Neighborhoods 87% 74% 61% 60% 31% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% "Close to Downtown" "Walkable streets and blocks" "Trees" "Historic character" "Architecture" 1Responses from tenants and interested citizens indicate a similar pattern. Responses total more than 100% because participants were asked to select five positive qualities from a list of 17 potential positive qualities. 70 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study November Visual Survey An online visual survey will be conducted from November 1 to 11, 2012, to collect information on the effective- ness of a variety of tools that could be used to address identified issues and promote compatible development in the neighborhoods. Postcard invitations have been mailed to all owners and residents in the study area. Participants will also be invited via email and the City's website. The results of the November visual survey will be summarized in the next draft of this report. 4 Side Wall Height A change in height of all or part of a building side wall provides a variation in massing. Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the statements below. (Check one answer for each question) 6. Side wall heights similar to traditional buildings on a block can help enhance neighborhood compatibility. Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Disagree 7. Variation in side wall height should be considered as part of the neighbor- hood compatibility tool kit (education strategies, voluntary design guidelines, design standards, etc.). Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Disagree One-story wall runs the full length of the side. One-story wall runs the partial length of the side. One-story wall runs the partial length of the side. The online visual survey will collect information on the ef- fectiveness of a variety of design strategies that could be used to address identified issues and promote compatible develop- ment in the neighborhoods. Part 2: Community Comments 71 Eastside and Westside Character Study Overall Comment From across the Themes spectrum of in community the Public outreach venues, there is a consistent tone of concern that there is an issue with changes resulting from demolitions and new construction. However, this is not a universally held viewpoint. Many people, in all outreach venues, have said there is not a problem, or that no new regulatory changes should be made. These concerns are important to consider, and identifying ways to respond to them is still an area of exploration. Reviewing research related to existing conditions (for more information, see Neighborhood Profile beginning on page 5), and considering the comments received in neighborhood workshops, working groups and ques- tionnaires/surveys, some general themes emerge: 1. The neighborhoods are highly valued. This is perhaps stating the obvious, but a strong point of agreement is the belief that the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods are special. Many of the reasons for saying so are also broadly recog- nized, even among those who disagree about the character and impacts of new construction. This is reflected in the passion with which residents and property owners engage in debates about the future of their neighborhoods. 72 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study 2. Key features that define the neighborhoods are broadly recognized. The valued characteristics of these neighborhoods focus on convenient location, a walking-oriented environment and diversity. The main themes of neighborhood character can be grouped thus: • Proximity to amenities. Almost universally, people cite the convenient access to downtown, to schools and parks, to grocery stores, CSU and other services as “top of mind” features. • Livable Streets. Tree-lined streets, continuity of pedestrian and bicycle routes and a walkable scale to each block are features people note. Homes that face the street, and signal a connection to it with porches and other friendly features contribute to this aspect. • Sense of Community. These broad, somewhat intangible characteristics are those that have attracted people to these neighborhoods for decades. • Diversity. "Diversity" is a fundamental feature of these neighborhoods, in terms of people and the built environment. 3. Use of key design tools can help buildings fit into the neighborhoods. Although design diversity is a key feature of the neighborhoods, it is also recognized that there are key building design tools that designers can use to make new buildings more compatible with existing neighborhood character in certain contexts. Such tools generally address basic mass and scale rela- tionships between properties as well as preserva- tion of open space and solar access. 4. Living with change is a challenge. Residents are struggling to grasp the nature of change in their neighborhoods. Most recognize that change will occur, and believe that it should, but many hope that this change will not completely transform the place where they live. "Diversity" Residents often cite "diver- sity" as a defining charac- teristic of the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods. The term is used in a variety of ways, to describe people, their beliefs and their social, economic and cultural dif- ferences. It also is used to describe variety in the built environment, such as dif- ferences in house size, pe- riod and style that occur in a limited range throughout the neighborhoods. For some, the diversity of Part 2: Community Comments 73 Eastside and Westside Character Study Neighborhood and Issues Objectives Community comment generated by the public process for the Eastside and Westside Neighborhood Character Study has helped identify and clarify overall objectives for the neighborhoods. They are: 1. Promote awareness of what makes the neighbor- hoods great 2. Promote compatible redevelopment 3. Maintain a sense of community 4. Encourage communication among neighbors 5. Preserve flexibility for change and reinvestment 6. Acknowledge economic impacts The public process has also identified a number of issues with ongoing changes that may negatively impact existing residents and the unique character and context of the neighborhoods. They are: A. Additions and new construction that appear to be overly large in relation to surrounding houses or the neighborhood B. New building walls or elements that appear to loom over neighbors C. Additions or new construction that reduce solar access on neighboring lots D. Additions or new construction that incorporate incompatible design features E. Additions or new construction that impact trees and green space F. New large houses that replace valued older/more affordable homes The neighborhood objectives and issues listed above inform an evaluation of the potential tools described in Part 3, Potential Tools, and provide a foundation for the strategy options described in Part 4, Strategy. It is important to note that some participants in the public process indicated that they do not believe there are issues with new construction and additions in the neighborhoods and feel that new tools should not be considered. 74 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Preliminary Strategy Report 75 Part 3 Potential A number of potential Tools tools could be used to address neighborhood issues and ob- jectives identified during the public process. Most tools could be applied as voluntary policies, incentivized, or implemented as design standards (zoning requirements). They may be grouped into three primary categories: 1. Education and Communication These tools focus on providing in- formation to strengthen skills and build awareness of, and support for, neighborhood character and com- patibility. 2. Process and Administration These tools include neighborhood planning processes, as well as the procedures for review and permitting of new construction and additions in the neighborhoods. 3. Design Standards These tools provide quantitative code require- ments for development such as maximum height and minimum setbacks. This part of the report outlines tools in each category that could be used to address neighborhood issues and objectives. Tools suggested for formal consideration are described in "Strategy Options" on page 101. 76 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Education Communication These tools focus on and providing information to strength- en skills and build awareness of, and support for, neigh- borhood character and compatibility. They may also provide channels for communication among neighbors, builders and the City. Design Guidelines/Pattern Books Design guidelines and pattern books can provide helpful information that property owners can use to help ensure that a specific project fits with the neighborhood. They can address many aspects of design, including those at the neighborhood, site and building levels. Pattern books typically show how various building com- ponents, such as roof forms, porches and architectural details, can be combined to yield designs that will fit with the neighborhoods. Design guidelines are similar, but often provide more specific detail and direction and acknowledge an interactive dynamic between many design variables. Some interpretation will generally be needed to consider the interaction between guidelines and whether a specific design solution meets the overall intent. Design guidelines may be used in three ways: • Voluntary: Applicants for new construction or additions are not required to follow the guidelines • Advisory: Designs are reviewed by a board or commission, but applicants are not required to comply with board suggestions. This approach could be applied where a defined threshold is exceeded, such as above a specific floor area ratio (FAR). • Mandatory: Applicants are required to meet the intent of the guidelines to obtain approval for new construction or additions Design guidelines may be used to support a design review pro- cess that provides an additional level of detail and allows for a high level of context sensitivity in the design approval process. Part 3: Potential Tools 77 Eastside and Westside Character Study Advantages of Design Guidelines: • Helps ensure that additions and new construction are context-appropriate • Allows for flexible design solutions • May address a more detailed level of design than regulations can Potential Disadvantages of Design Guidelines: • Requires interpretation • May not provide predictable outcomes • May not always address issues if voluntary Existing Design Guidelines: In 1996 a voluntary Design Guidelines document was developed but is no longer distributed. Sample Design Guideline Design guidelines for established residential areas in the City of Galveston encourage new construction and additions with compatible mass and scale. 78 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Neighborhood Descriptions Character Neighborhood character descriptions establish a clear understanding of the characteristics of an area that residents value. This includes the basic physical framework of a neighborhood, defines similarities of design in terms of building and site design and a de- scription of the degree of diversity that appears. This analysis can help the community determine the degree of sensitivity that each area has to change. Existing Neighborhood Character Descriptions: Neighborhood character descriptions in various forms can be found in the 1996 design guidelines as well as the 1980s neighborhood plans. Awards Programs These are special programs for the recognition of highly compatible projects that can stimulate investment in properties as well as encourage owners to maintain neighborhood compatibility. Existing Programs: There are no existing awards programs in the neighborhoods for compatible devel- opment. Design Assistance These are special programs offered through the City which give owners a certain amount of design assis- tance, often in the form of a design professional's time. Existing Program: In late 2011, the City started a design assistance program that aims to enhance neighborhood compatibility through the assistance of experienced professionals with success in context-sensitive design. Through October of 2012, the program has been used to assist with 25 projects citywide. 4 of these projects were in the Eastside neighborhood and 6 were in the Westside neighborhood. Participants in the public process for this study noted that many residents are not aware of the existing design assistance program. Part 3: Potential Tools 79 Eastside and Westside Character Study Process These tools include and neighborhood Administration planning processes, as well as the procedures for review and permitting of new construction and additions in the neighborhoods. They may also address enforcement programs. Public Comment Notice and Neighborhood Requiring public notice of a proposed project may inform neighbors of a planned demolition or new con- struction. Such a requirement may be combined with a neighborhood comment program that provides an opportunity for neighbors to comment on, or discuss plans. Existing Requirements: The City currently requires mailed notice to property owners within 150' of a property where a zoning variance is requested. An existing de- molition/alteration review process also provides notifi- cation of potential demolition of buildings or structures 50 years old, or older (See http://www.fcgov.com/his- toricpreservation/review.php for more information). However,there is not a formal process for demolition of newer structures or notification of plans for new con- struction. 80 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Neighborhood Plans Many communities use neighborhood plans to guide development within an established context. Such plans provide a future vision and can guide development of other, more specific tools, such as design handbooks and guidelines. They may also be used in reviewing projects, and especially in considering any variances that may be requested. In some cases, in order to issue a variance the review body must find that the proposed action is in compliance with the neighborhood plan. A neighborhood plan could also provide a blueprint for streetscape design and other improvements on the public realm. Advantages of a Neighborhood Plan: • Provides specific policies, goals and objectives for future development at the neighborhood level • Provides a fine-tuned level of guidance for public im- provements (parks, paths, streetscape, etc.) • May guide development of context sensitive tools to promote desired design and development patterns Potential Disadvantages of Neighborhood Plans: • May be costly and time consuming • May not address current issues in a timely manner • May not be as strong as other regulations Existing Plans: In the late 1980s, the first Neighbor- hood Plans were adopted for the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods, establishing a policy basis for protect- ing the character of the neighborhoods. Updates to the neighborhood plans for the Eastside and Westside are currently on the City's work program for 2014. Part 3: Potential Tools 81 Eastside and Westside Character Study Historic Districts and Conservation Historic Districts A historic district designation focuses on preserving the significance of all of the historic structures that combine to create a sense of time and place, as well as to assure that new construction is compatible with this context. Historic districts are established under local zoning regulations, within the framework of appropriate state enabling legislation. The historic designation can be used for individual properties of historic significance, and neighborhoods that meet the criteria for listing as districts. This tool may also be used to protect certain significant proper- ties from demolition. Advantages of Historic Districts: • Preserves the historic character and integrity of places of significance. Potential Disadvantages of Historic Districts: • Can create a regulatory burden if overly complex to administer Existing Historic Districts: Portions of the Laurel School National Register Historic District are located in the study area. However, special preservation regula- tions apply only to locally-designated historic districts (the Old Town commercial district is currently the only locally-designated historic district in the city). Historic and Conservation District Goals The following goals typically motivate the creation of a Historic District: • To preserve the integrity of all historic resources that contribute to the district • To assure that the sense of time and place is maintained, through compatible new construction The following goals typically motivate the creation of a Conservation District: • To maintain neighborhood character • To enhance livability • To attract investment • To promote community sustainability • To preserve historic resources, if they exist in the area, as individual landmarks 82 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Conservation Districts The conservation district is a specialized form of zoning overlay which is specifically established to protect existing character. Conservation districts use broader criteria than historic districts, but still focus on re- specting the established context. A typical conservation district focuses on new construction, large additions and site design; minor alterations are not typically reviewed. A conservation district is used as an alternative to historic district designation for a variety of reasons, including: • The area does not contain a sufficient percentage of historic resources, • Or, politically, support does not exist for historic district designation, • Or, the government is concerned about the administrative burden of adding more historic properties to the city’s preservation review responsibilities. Historic buildings also can be embedded in a conser- vation district. These are individually landmarked, and conventional preservation protections and incentives apply to them. Advantages of a Conservation District: • Less administrative burden than historic districts. • A wider range of construction techniques may be available, assuring economical options. • Design guidelines are generally more broad, providing flexibility in approaches. • Political support may not exist for designating a historic district, while protecting livability of neigh- borhoods may enjoy wide support. Potential Disadvantages of Conservation Districts: • May not protect the historic integrity of a neighbor- hood • May not maintain significant character-defining features on historic structures Existing Conservation Districts: Conservation districts are not currently used in the N-C-M and N-C-L districts. Part 3: Potential Tools 83 Eastside and Westside Character Study Design These tools provide Standards quantitative code requirements for development such as maximum height and minimum setbacks. Neighborhood Level Standards Streetscape Design Standards The character of a neighborhood is substantially influ- enced by the design of the public realm. Standards for street trees, the use of planting strips along the curb, and the placement and materials of sidewalks are basic features. Street lights and other utilities also affect character. Advantages of Streetscape Design Standards: • Can support a cohesive street character Potential Disadvantages of Streetscape Design Standards: • May limit individuality of front yard designs Existing Regulations: No streetscape design standards are in place in the neighborhoods. Lot Size Standards Lot size standards determine density and influence the general character of single-family neighborhoods. They generally set a minimum size for lots but may also set a maximum. Lots may not be subdivided if a resulting lot would be smaller than the minimum standard. In addition, existing lots that are smaller than the minimum standard may be considered as “non-standard” and require variances to obtain permits for additions and new construction. Advantages of Lot Size Standards: • In combination with building size and number regula- tions, can help maintain density Potential Disadvantages of Lot Size Standards: • Can limit the ability to subdivide large lots Existing Regulations: Currently minimum lot size standards of 5,000 s.f. in N-C-M and 6,000 s.f. in N-C-L are in place. Building Coverage Diagram Accessory Structure Principal Structure Building Coverage Calculation Example Lot Size: 6,000 SF Area Covered by Principal: 1,300 SF Area Covered by Accessory: 500 SF Total Area Covered: 1,800 SF 1,800 / 6,000 = 30% Total Coverage 84 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Site Level Tools Tools such as lot coverage, building coverage, open space and landscaping standards help preserve and promote an existing or desired character within and among individual lots. They may determine where buildings are located relative to the street and sidewalk and how much green space is visible from the street or separates structures from each other. Building Coverage Building coverage standards establish the maximum percentage of a lot surface that may be covered by structures. Additional elements are sometimes excluded (in part or in whole) from building coverage to provide additional flexibility or to promote specific design elements. These may include: • Roof overhangs • Accessory structures • Roofed front porches • Any deck or patio areas that are not roofed • Gazebos that are not enclosed on more than two sides Advantages of Building Coverage Standards: • Helps maintain open space • Helps preserve side and rear yard areas • Mitigates privacy impacts by discouraging larger structures from extending substantially into the rear yard • Can be used to provide an incentive for front porches or detached garages/accessory structures Potential Disadvantages of Building Coverage Standards: • Could encourage taller structures if not combined with specific height or floor area ratio standards Existing Regulations: There is no building coverage standard currently in use. Part 3: Potential Tools 85 Eastside and Westside Character Study Lot Coverage Standards Lot coverage standards may dictate the maximum per- centage of a lot surface that can be covered by built areas such as buildings or paved areas. Often, any im- pervious surface area (that which sheds water such as building roofs, patios, driveways and walkways) is con- sidered as lot coverage. Advantages of Lot Coverage or Standards: • Helps maintain green space Potential Disadvantages of Lot Coverage Standards: • Could encourage taller structures (to allow for larger driveways, patios, etc.) if not combined with specific height or floor area ratio standards • Limits on all hard surfaces would not have as signifi- cant an effect on building form as building coverage standards Existing Regulations: A maximum hardscape area of 40% in the front of a lot is currently used in both the N-C-M and N-C-L zone districts. Open Space Standards Open space standards may generally be described as the inverse of lot coverage standards. That is, they specify a minimum amount of open space rather than a maximum area that may be covered by buildings or other surfaces and structures. Open space standards may differ from lot coverage standards when specific standards are set for the quality or location of the required open space. They are also more likely to be applied at a neighborhood, or framework, level, specifying the minimum amount of combined open space for a larger development. Existing Regulations: There is no open space standard currently in use. However, where a secondary dwelling is permitted it is required to have a separate yard of at least 120 square feet. Lot Coverage Diagram Paved Areas Buildings Lot coverage standards dic- tate a maximum percentage of a lot surface that can be covered, such as by buildings or paved areas. The illustra- tion above shows a lot cover- age of 40%. 86 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Landscape Buffering Standards Landscape buffering standards require vegetation to screen incompatible structures and uses. Most fre- quently used where commercial or industrial uses abut single-family residential uses, landscape buffering may have a role in protecting the privacy of side and rear yards or in screening parking areas from neighbors or the street. Landscape buffering is usually described as a planting area of a specified width along the property line. Detailed requirements for the plant material ensure that adequate buffering occurs. Some buffers also include a requirement for walls or fences. Advantages of Landscape Buffering Standards: • Evergreen vegetation provides a visual and functional screen between new development and existing homes. • Additional vegetation has a beneficial effect on air quality and helps reduce the heat island effect of paved areas. Potential Disadvantages of Landscape Buffering Standards: • Landscape buffering could limit the ability to provide adequate solar access if placed in some locations. • Most current landscape buffering requirements do not buffer “like from like,” meaning single-family homes next to other single-family homes, because these are usually considered compatible enough not to require a buffer. • May be difficult to enforce Existing Regulations: There are no landscape buffering standards currently in use. Landscape Buffer Diagram Required Landscape Buffer Landscape buffering stan- dards may be used to screen certain areas from the street or a neighboring property. They may include a plant- ing height requirement or an allowance for landscaped berms. Part 3: Potential Tools 87 Eastside and Westside Character Study Landscape Volume Ratio (LVR) Standards LVR measures soft vegetative volume. In mature resi- dential communities this can be as important as building volume because lots are likely covered with mature landscaping. In many older neighborhoods, landscape volume may be larger than building volume. A tear down is likely to result in a loss of mature vegetation. The LVR provides a means of measuring this. Advantages of Landscape Volume Ratio Standards: • Unlike most buffer systems, LVR is sensitive to the actual height and volume of both existing and proposed trees and other vegetation. • Relates amount of vegetation on the site to the size of the lot (large lots will require more vegetation to reach the same ratio). Potential Disadvantages of Landscape Volume Ratio Standards: • Difficult to calculate and enforce • Volume ratio does not specify placement of vegetation to serve as a screen. • Is not as effective in the winter when deciduous trees lose their leaves Existing Regulations: Landscape volume ratio standards are not currently used. 88 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Setback Standards Setback standards limit how close buildings may be placed to the front, sides or rear of a lot. The setback is usually calculated as the distance from the property line to the edge of the nearest building. Taken together, front, side and rear setback standards define the area of the lot where structures may be built. Advantages of Setback Standards: • Front setbacks help maintain a continuous pattern of open space along a block. • Side and rear setback standards can protect privacy (especially when new construction involves a two-story building) by ensuring that buildings on adjoining lots are separated by a minimum distance. • Incentives can also be included in setback standards to promote desirable design elements such as front porches or buildings that step down towards their neighbors (i.e. allowing front porches to encroach into the setback or providing different side setback standards for one and two-story building elements). Potential Disadvantages of Setback Standards: • In areas with varied setbacks, increased setback standards could cause some structures to become non-standard. Existing Regulations: Front, side and rear setback standards for both the primary and accessory structures are currently used within both the N-C-M and N-C-L districts. Setback Diagram Rear Setback Side and Rear Setbacks for Accessory Structure Front Setback Side Setback 1 Side Setback 2 Part 3: Potential Tools 89 Eastside and Westside Character Study Building Level Tools “Building level” tools govern the mass, scale and general design characteristics of buildings on individual lots. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Standards Floor area ratio standards limit the total square footage of all structures on a lot. FAR is generally expressed as two decimal digits, calculated by dividing the total building square footage by the total lot square footage. FAR standards do not alter the three-dimensional building envelope in which structures may be built, but will generally make it difficult or impossible to build a structure that fills the entire envelope. When the FAR is set at a level that is less than what otherwise could be constructed within setback, height and building coverage limits, then there is the opportunity for variation in building form. That is, different design solutions, with different massing arrangements, can occur. Additional elements are sometimes excluded (in part or in whole) from FAR to provide additional flexibility or to promote specific design elements. These may include: • Attic space • Accessory structures • Roofed porches Advantages of FAR Standards: • Directly relates the size of structures to the size of the lot • Relatively easy to understand and calculate • Can be combined with lot coverage and height limits to break down the overall scale of structures • Can be used to provide an incentive for front porches or detached garages and accessory structures FAR Diagrams When the FAR is set at a level that is less than what oth- erwise could be constructed within setback, height and building coverage limits, then there is the opportu- nity for variation in building form. That is, different de- sign solutions with different massing arrangements can occur. All of the structures illustrated above have a floor area ratio of 0.40. 90 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Potential Disadvantages of FAR Standards: • Could permit inappropriately tall or box-like struc- tures when not combined with other standards and guidelines • Could permit inappropriately large structures on large lots • Could constrain the building potential of small lots Existing Standards: The City currently specifies a minimum lot area in relation to the total floor area of buildings on the lot. This standard creates a de facto maximum FAR for the lot (0.40 in the N-C-L district and 0.5 in the N-C-M district). In addition, there is a separate FAR for the rear half of a lot (0.33 in the N-C-M district and 0.25 in the N-C-L district). Existing FAR standards include the floor area of the primary structure as well as the floor area of any accessory structures that are larger than 120 square feet. FAR Diagram Accessory Structure Principal Structure First Floor Second Floor Lot Size: 6,000 SF Principal 1st Floor Area: 1,300 SF Principal 2nd Floor Area: 900 SF Accessory Floor Area: 500 SF Total Floor Area: 2,700 SF 2,700 / 6,000 = 0.45 FAR Part 3: Potential Tools 91 Eastside and Westside Character Study Overall Height Overall building height standards dictate the maximum height a building may reach. Advantages of Height Standards: • Helps ensure that structures do not loom over their neighbors • Relatively easy to understand and calculate • Can be used to provide an incentive for specific roof forms that are consistent with a specific neighborhood character or tradition (i.e., height may be calculated to the mid-point of a sloped roof to encourage pitched roof forms). Potential Disadvantages of Height Standards: • Could permit inappropriately tall structures near neighbors unless combined with other standards • Can create confusion if methods of measurements are inconsistent Existing Regulations: The current maximum allowable building height is determined by side setbacks, sidewall height, a two-story maximum, and a maximum roof pitch of 12:12. There is no maximum number for height measured in feet for primary structures. However, there is a maximum height for accessory structures of 24 feet. The maximum sidewall height currently does not include any alterations to grade, which can result in a higher relative height for projects using a raised grade as compared to those which do not. 92 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Bulk Plane Standards Bulk plane standards shape the maximum permitted three-dimensional building envelope by limiting the height and mass of building elements on different parts of a lot. A bulk plane generally rises at a defined angle from the front, side or rear property line(s) or from the front, side or rear setback(s). It can begin at ground level, or at a predetermined point above ground level, and continue to rise toward the center of the lot until it meets the overall height limit or intersects a bulk plane rising from another side of the lot. Bulk planes ensure that taller portions of a structure are positioned in the center of the lot, rather than immediately adjacent to neighbors. Building elements often exempted from bulk plane standards: • Chimneys • Dormers (often limited in size) • Solar panels Advantages of Bulk Plane Standards: • Restricts taller or more massive building elements to certain portions of a lot • Helps reduce the potential of tall walls or massive structures to adversely affect their neighbors • Can be combined with lot coverage, FAR and/or CCR standards to mitigate mass and scale impacts while encouraging creative design solutions Potential Disadvantages of Bulk Plane Standards: • May not support existing conditions in areas where some traditional structures have tall exterior walls • Can be difficult to visualize or understand • May encourage longer buildings where very narrow lots occur Existing Regulations: Bulk plane standards are not ex- plicitly used in the project area. However, a de facto bulk plane is used which specifies a maximum building wall height based on distance from the side setback. Bulk Plane Diagram Bulk planes primarily serve to shape the three dimensional "envelope" in which a build- ing can be built. Part 3: Potential Tools 93 Eastside and Westside Character Study Solar Access Standards Solar access standards limit the amount of shadow a building can cast on a neighboring property. The areas for which solar access is protected can vary by applica- tion, and include: • Yards, • Rooftops, and/or • South-facing walls, or portions thereof. Typically a certain amount of solar access is designated for protection for a certain time period on the winter solstice. Often this is defined by the amount of shadow that would be cast by a hypothetical fence of a certain height on that area. Advantages of Solar Access Standards: • Supports the use of both active and passive strategies for lighting, heating and energy generation • Helps maintain the ability to garden in a yard • Can be combined with other standards to mitigate mass and scale impacts while encouraging creative design solutions Potential Disadvantages of Solar Access Standards: • May be more restrictive on certain lot conditions than on others • Can sometimes be difficult to visualize or understand • May encourage a stepped building form depending on application of standards • May encourage larger building mass along a southern property line Existing Standards: The City does not currently have solar access standards that apply in established residen- tial neighborhoods such as the Eastside and Westside. Solar access standards are, however, applied to new residential developments. Such standards prohibit casting shadow onto structures on adjacent properties greater than the shadow which would be cast by a 25' hypothetical wall located along the property lines of the project between the hours of 9:00 am and 3:00 pm, MST, on December 21. Solar Access Diagram Southern property line Northern property line Solar access standards limit the amount of shadow that a building can cast on a neigh- boring property. In this ex- ample the building mass is pushed to the south side of the property to maintain so- lar access for the neighbor to the north. 94 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Articulation and Wall Sculpting Articulation standards further refine the perception of building scale by “sculpting” the exterior of buildings. The primary objective is to reduce the perceived mass of a building by dividing it into smaller components, or “modules.” Articulation can be required in several different ways or can be required to include a certain number of methods. One Story Element A one-story porch or other element can be required along one or more building facades. Typically this would be required on the street front of a building in order to help reduce the apparent mass of the structure from the street. As an alternative to requiring a one-story element, an incentive can also be included in FAR or building coverage standards to encourage one-story front porch elements. Roof Ridge Articulation A maximum length can be established for the ridge line of a roof before an offset must occur. This can help minimize the perceived mass of the roof area. Wall Sculpting/Wall Height and Length Wall length and height standards may be combined to help sculpt building forms and discourage overly large or box-like shapes. Wall length standards set a maximum length for the wall planes of exterior building walls before they must jog or incorporate an offset. Wall height standards set a maximum permitted height for exterior building walls before they must step back. Wall heights are usually measured from either grade or the first finished floor to the highest horizontal framing member, or wall plate, that intersects the wall. This is usually the point at which the roof eave meets the wall. Wall height standards are often tied to setbacks to help ensure that taller or more massive building elements are located away from the edges of a lot. Such wall height standards can shape the permitted building envelope in a way that is similar to a bulk plane standard. Wall length standards may be tied to wall height to restrict the length of two-story walls while allowing longer walls if they are one story in height. Part 3: Potential Tools 95 Eastside and Westside Character Study Advantages of Articulation and Wall Sculpting Standards: • Reduces the perceived mass and scale of structures • Helps ensure that the mass of larger infill structures is broken up to reflect the size of traditional structures • Encourages division of building mass into modules • Facilitates varying the setbacks of building walls along the sides of properties • Helps mitigate the impacts of large side walls “looming” over neighbors Potential Disadvantages of Articulation and Wall Sculpting Standards: • May not support existing conditions in areas where traditional structures have tall or long walls • May not support some desired interior floor plan layouts Existing Regulations: Specific articulation and wall sculpting standards are not currently used within the neighborhoods. Articulation and Wall Sculpting Diagram Roof Ridge Articulation Wall Plane Articulation/ Sculpting One-Story Element 96 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Alternative Wall Articulation Options Front wall with one story element Front wall with offset Side wall offset No side wall offset Maximum front wall plane No maximum front wall plane Some articulation standards provide a "menu" of choices to achieve variety in massing. Part 3: Potential Tools 97 Eastside and Westside Character Study Cubic Content Ratio (CCR) Standards Cubic Content Ratio standards limit the total volume of all structures on a lot. CCR is generally expressed as a whole number with two decimal digits. It is calculat- ed by multiplying the maximum exterior height, width and depth of a structure and dividing the result by the total square footage of the lot. If a CCR standard of 7.50 was applied to a 10,000 square foot lot, a 15 foot tall (1-story) house could be about 70 feet wide and 71 feet deep. Both floors of a 30 foot tall (two-story) house could be approximately 50 feet wide and 50 feet deep. CCR standards do not directly alter the dimensions of the three-dimensional envelope in which buildings may be built. A CCR standard, however, will generally make it difficult or impossible to build a structure that fills the entire envelope. Accessory structures and porches are sometimes excluded from CCR calculations. Advantages of CCR Standards: • Directly relates the scale of structures to the size of the lot • May encourage lower floor-to-floor heights • Can be combined with lot coverage and height limits to break down the overall scale of structures • Can be used to provide an incentive for front porches or detached garages and accessory structures Potential Disadvantages of CCR Standards: • Could encourage overly box-like structures when not combined with other standards and guidelines • Could discourage wall sculpting and articulation • Could permit overly large structures on large lots • Could constrain the building potential of small lots • Very difficult to calculate and understand Existing Regulations: CCR standards are not currently used. Cubic Content Ratio Standards The primary structure illus- trated above is on a 7,500 square foot lot and is 35 feet wide (A), 50 feet deep (B) and 23 feet high (C). The resulting CCR is 5.37. A box shaped structure filling the entire area would have the same CCR. 98 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Potential Each potential tool Application discussed in the previous Strategies sections could be applied in different ways. Several approaches are discussed below, including: • Apply Tools Uniformly Throughout the Neighborhoods • Vary Their Application by Neighborhood or by a Smaller Character Area • Vary Their Application by Lot Size • Vary Their Application by Zoning District • Apply Tools Only in Certain Zoning Districts, Neigh- borhoods or Character Areas • Combined Application Option: Apply Tools Uniformly Throughout the Neighborhoods Those tools selected to be used could be applied in a uniform manner across the neighborhoods. That is, their application would not vary based on zoning district, lot size or other criteria. For example, a new maximum building coverage limit of 30% could be applied to all properties in the project area. Advantage of Uniform Application: • Simple to administer and enforce Potential Disadvantage of Citywide Application: • “One Size Fits All” – may have unintended conse- quences due to its broad application in all situations Part 3: Potential Tools 99 Eastside and Westside Character Study Option: Vary Application by Neighborhood or Area The selected tools could be applied differently depending on specific neighborhoods or areas (such as the character areas described on page 26). For example, a certain building coverage standard could be applied in the Eastside and a different building coverage standard could be applied in the Westside, both of which are currently within the two project zoning districts. Advantages of Varying Application by Neighborhood or Area: • Avoids the “one size fits all” issues of a uniform approach • Allows specific numeric standards to be developed for each neighborhood or area • Sensitive to context Disadvantages of Varying Application by Neighbor- hood or Area: • May be difficult to determine where these areas should be mapped • Multiple standards in different areas may be harder to enforce • May depend on time-consuming neighborhood planning efforts Option: Vary Application by Lot Size One possible approach to matching homes to their un- derlying lot size is to establish standards that vary by the lot size itself. When the standards were applied to smaller lots, the result would be a smaller house. Advantages: • Avoids the “one size fits all” issues of a citywide approach. • Allows specific numeric standards to be developed for each lot size. Matches house size to underlying lot. Disadvantages: • Multiple standards in a given zoning district may be harder to administer and enforce. 100 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Option: Vary Application by Zoning District Much like varying the standards by neighborhood or area, varying them by zoning district is possible. This approach assumes that areas zoned similarly have similar problems and should be treated in similar fashion. Advantages: • Avoids the “one size fits all” issues of a citywide approach • Allows specific numeric standards to be developed for each district Disadvantages: • Zoning districts may not be similar in character. • Multiple standards in different areas may be harder to enforce. Option: Apply Selected Tools Using Thresholds Another option is to “trigger” the use of a tool when a certain threshold is exceeded. For example, the existing FAR standard could be used as a filter for applying an additional requirement to articulate building form. In such a system, any new development that would result in a project exceeding an FAR of .35, for instance, would then be required to provide articulation, perhaps from a menu of choices, to break up the perceived mass of the building. Any project below that threshold would not be required to do so. Such a threshold system could also be used for public notice, or other process requirements. Option: Apply Tools Only in Certain Zoning Districts, Neighborhoods or Areas The recommended tools could be applied only to certain zoning districts, neighborhoods or areas. For example, they could be applied only in the N-C-L zoning district with no changes made in any other district. Option: Combined Application The final option worth considering is using a combina- tion of the approaches. Some tools may be implemented on a neighborhood-wide basis, while others relate to a specific area, and still others to small or large lots. This fine-grained combination would likely yield the best result. Preliminary Strategy Report 101 Part 4 Strategy City Council's overall goal Options for the study, is to retain and enhance the unique character and context of the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods as they continue to change with renovations, additions and new housing construction. Based on Public feedback to-date, pre- liminary strategy options have been identified for consideration. These strat- egies include the tools described in Part 3 that would best address the identified neighborhood objectives and issues while meeting criteria for fairness, predictabil- ity and effectiveness. The City would not develop all of the strategy options as a single package. Rather, after additional refinement, City Council may select one or more strategy options for further devel- opment. Community comments received at a neighborhood workshop and on an online visual survey in early November, will also inform revisions to the strategy options. See "Next Steps" on page 118 for more information. This part of the report begins with a description of selection criteria and application considerations, followed by a summary of the strategy options, details on the tools within each option, and information about next steps. 102 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Selection The tools included Criteria in the strategy options address identified neighborhood objectives and issues, as well as an initial evaluation of potential tools in focused community working group sessions. They also consider the following criteria: 1. Effectiveness The tool should directly address one or more specific objectives or issues identified within the neighborhoods. For example, adjusting the way that building height is measured at the side yard setback to account for grade changes directly addresses the issue of new construction and additions that appear to be overly large and tall in relation to their neighbors. 2. Fairness The tool should apply equally to all similar prop- erties and should not create undue hardships on unique properties. For example, the maximum wall height at the side yard setback should be the same for all similarly sized lots located within the same zone district, and should allow for sufficient flexibility under unique conditions such as espe- cially narrow or steeply sloping lots. 3. Predictability The tool should be understandable by property owners, neighbors, architects and builders. It should also produce predictable results by clearly defining what is permitted and what is not. For example, an FAR standard should support a rea- sonable understanding of the total volume/mass and scale of construction that could occur on a particular lot. 4. Efficiency The tool should be part of an easily adminis- tered process that is cost effective and sets clearly defined expectations for property owners, builders and architects. For example, a height measurement system that does not require extensive site surveys would be preferred. Objectives and Issues As described in Part 2: "Community Comments" on page 53, the study's public process identified a range of neighborhood ob- jectives and issues. Objectives include: 1. Promote awareness of what makes the neigh- borhoods great 2. Promote compatible re- development 3. Maintain a sense of community 4. Encourage communica- tion among neighbors 5. Preserve flexibility for change and reinvestment 6. Acknowledge economic impacts Part 4: Strategy Options 103 Eastside and Westside Character Study Application Although most participants Considerations in the public outreach process felt that there is an issue with demolitions, new construction and additions in the neighborhoods, they also indicated that they felt the issues were limited to certain areas or situations within the neighborhoods, or to a small number of construction projects. Therefore, some of the tools included in the strategy options, such as expanded notification, or standards to address perceived scale, would only apply to the largest new construction or additions (about 7% of projects, based on a threshold FAR of 0.35). See page 66 for more information on community comments. Other tools, such as voluntary design guidelines or adjusted measurement methods would likely apply to all new construction and additions in the N-C-L and N-C-M zone districts. If selected for further evalua- tion, any revisions to FAR standards would vary by zone district. "Potential Application Strategies" on page 98 of the Potential Tools section describes other possible appli- cation considerations, such as varying application by neighborhood, character area or lot size. These applica- tion strategies may be considered based on additional community comment or City Council direction. However, they are not currently suggested because: • Most participants from both neighborhoods indicated issues or concerns with demolition and new construction. • It is not clear that issues or concerns occur most often on particular sizes or types of lots. • Although issues or concerns may be more pro- nounced in some neighborhood areas, participants in other areas also have concerns. (See "Character Areas" on page 26 for more information) . 4 Suggested Strategy Options The strategy options are in- tended to balance identified objectives, including promot- ing compatible redevelopment and preserving flexibility for change and reinvestment. City Council may select one or more strategy options for further evaluation. Suggest- ed options are indicated with check marks in the following pages. It is not suggested that City Council consider developing all of the options as a single package. u Early Implementation Options In July, 2012, City Council requested identification of 104 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Overview The key strategy options of Strategy are briefly summarized Options below, and in the table on the next page. The tools included within each option are also described in greater detail in "Tools Used in the Strategy Options" starting on page 106. 4u 1. Promote Design Assistance. This would promote access to, and use of the City’s current design assistance program. The design assistance tool is described in greater detail on page 106. 4u. 2. Expand Notification. This would extend notification of requested variances exceeding a specific FAR threshold to allow for comment on pending changes in the neighborhoods. Expanded notification is described in greater detail on page 107. 4 3. Create Design Handbooks. This would include development of advisory (voluntary) design guidelines or pattern books to promote compatible development in unique character areas throughout the neighborhoods. Voluntary guidelines are described in greater detail on page 108. 4 4. Adjust Measurement. This would adjust the method for measuring building height at the minimum side setback and FAR to better account for the impact of tall walls on raised grade and high volume spaces. Measurement adjustments are described in greater detail on page 110. 5. Address Building Massing. This would apply new or adjusted design standards (zoning requirements) to address the impacts of larger new construction and additions. One of the following options would be con- sidered per direction from City Council: 5a. Address Scale Directly. This would reduce currently permitted maximum FAR standards to directly address concerns with the mass and scale of some new construction/additions. Note that this is not a suggested strategy option. Additional detail is provided on page 111. 4. 5b. Address Perceived Scale. This would provide a menu of options for articulating the mass of new construction/additions exceeding a specific FAR threshold. Additional detail is provided on page 112. 5c. Address Solar Access. This would introduce a standard limiting the amount of shadow that new construction/additions could cast on a neighboring property. Note that this is not a suggested strategy option. Additional detail is provided on page 116. 6. No Action/Limited Action. This would not introduce new regulatory tools or strategies. Additional detail is provided on page 117. 4 Strategy option suggested for further evaluation and development. u Strategy option suggested for early implementation. . Strategy option that would apply only to targeted properties/projects (would not apply to most new construction/additions) City Council will provide direction on strategy options in late November, 2012 Part 4: Strategy Options 105 Eastside and Westside Character Study Summary of Strategy Options Strategy Options Relationship to Character/Context Objectives Addressed Issues Addressed Potential Advantages Potential Disadvantages Process and Education Tools 1. Promote Design Assistance Market existing design assistance program • Promotes context-sensitive design 1. Awareness 2. Compatibility D. Design features • High level of agreement • Relatively fast implementation • Does not directly address key mass and scale concerns • Requires administration by the City 2. Expand Notification Expand Notification of Variances • May have greater impact on small or unusual lots 3. Community 4. Communica- tion B. Looming C. Solar Access 3. Guidelines Create Design Handbooks/ Develop Voluntary Design Guidelines / Pattern Book • Promotes context-sensitive design 1. Awareness 2. Compatibility 5. Flexibility D. Design features • High level of agreement • Context-sensitivity • Time/$ to develop • Voluntary guidelines may not address key mass and scale concerns Design Standards 4. Adjust Measurement Adjust Measurement of Height at Side Yard • Primarily impacts existing 106 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Tools Each strategy Used option in would the Strategy implement one Options or more education, process or design standards tools to address neighborhood objectives and issues. Each tool is sum- marized below. Market the Existing Design Assistance Program This is an educational tool that provides free or reduced cost architectural services to applicants seeking assistance with compatible design. Current Program In late 2011, the City started a design assistance program that aims to enhance neighborhood compatibility through the assistance of experienced profession- als with success in context-sensitive historic design. Participants in the public process for this study noted that many residents are not aware of the existing design assistance program. Character / Context A design assistance program can take into account information about the char- acter of the neighborhoods to promote context-sensitive design. For example, design professionals that are part of the program would be familiar with any design guidelines, character areas or other information available about design- ing new construction or additions to be compatible with existing conditions. Community Comment Many residents indicated that a program to provide design assistance could help promote compatible additions and new construction in the neighborhoods. Objectives Addressed: Issues Addressed: 1. Awareness 2. Compatibility D. Design features Pro / Con Design assistance programs received a high level of support in the public pro- cess and could be implemented relatively quickly. Suggested 4u Marketing the City's existing design assistance program is part of Strategy Option 1, which is suggested for further evaluation and development. It is an early implementation option that could be in place relatively quickly. It may also be combined with later development and implementation of other sug- gested strategy options. Scope Expanded marketing of the design assistance program would apply to all qualifying properties Citywide. Part 4: Strategy Options 107 Eastside and Westside Character Study Expand Existing Notification of Variances This is an administrative tool that provides neighborhood notice of applications for variances to existing zoning standards. Current Program The City currently requires mailed notice to property owners within 150' of a prop- erty where a zoning variance is requested. There is no requirement to post a sign. Notification is addressed in land use code section 2.10.2(F). Character / Context Variances may be requested on any property citywide, and are reviewed using a pro- cess that determines if the particular conditions of the property present a hardship that requires a variance, or satisfies the "nominal, inconsequential" or the "equal to or better than" standard. In practice, the conditions for granting a variance may oc- cur more often on small or unusual lots. This may be why variance requests in the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods account for almost 38% of variances citywide while the neighborhoods only account for 7% of all building permits citywide. Community Comment Many residents indicated that the current notification program for variances was not sufficient, and that mailed notice should be provided to more property owners, and/ or a sign should be posted. Objectives Addressed: Issues Addressed: 3. Community 4. Communication B. Looming C. Solar Access Pro / Con Most participants in the public process supported the concept of expanding notifi- cation of variance requests (which occur significantly more often in the Eastside and Westside than in other neighborhoods). While such a tool could promote communi- cation about changes in the neighborhood and be implemented relatively quickly, it would not directly address resident concerns about the mass and scale of some new construction and additions in the neighborhoods. Suggested 4u Expanding notification of variances is part of Strategy Option 2, which is sug- gested for further evaluation and development. It is an early implementation op- tion that could be in place relatively quickly. It may also be combined with later development and implementation of other suggested strategy options. Suggested extension of notification is to 500' or 800', with a posted sign on the subject property. As noted below, expanded notification of variances would ap- ply only to a small number of larger projects. Many residents also indicated that notice should be provided for larger new con- struction and additions in the neighborhoods. However, because such a program would apply to new construction that meets existing zoning standards, it could im- ply that neighborhood agreement is necessary before such a project could proceed. However, City Council may determine that notification of new construction should be evaluated further. Scope . Expanded variance notification is suggested only for new construction and ad- ditions that exceed an FAR of 0.35, which would impact about 7% of new con- struction and additions (based on average FAR of projects in the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods over the last 10 years). 108 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Create Voluntary Design Guidelines/Handbooks This is an education tool that can include advisory design guidelines, pattern books or other information to assist property owners and designers with compatible, con- text-sensitive, design in the neighborhoods. Existing In 1996 a voluntary Design Guidelines document was developed for the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods. However, it is no longer distributed. Character / Context Design handbooks can work closely with information about the existing character and context of the neighborhoods, such as that summarized in Part 1: "Neighbor- hood Profile" on page 5. They may also provide customized guidance for differ- ent character areas in the neighborhoods, such as those summarized on page 26. Community Comment Many residents expressed a strong interest in providing design guidelines or pat- tern books to educate property owners, architects and builders about compatible, context-sensitive design in the neighborhoods. Interest was primarily in applying design guidelines as voluntary or linked to incentives rather than as requirements. Objectives Addressed: Issues Addressed: 1. Awareness 2. Compatibility 5. Flexibility D. Design features Pro / Con Most participants in the public process supported development of design handbooks or guidelines. While such tools provide context-sensitive guidance and are highly flexible, their voluntary nature may not directly address resident concerns about the mass and scale of some new construction and additions in the neighborhoods. Suggested 4 Developing voluntary design handbooks or design guidelines to promote com- patible development in unique character areas throughout the neighborhoods is part of Strategy Option 3, which is suggested for further evaluation and devel- opment. It may be combined with development and implementation of other suggested strategy options. Design handbooks or guidelines should illustrate compatible projects that comply with all standards and regulations to assist with an understanding of what can be built in the neighborhoods. Although design handbooks are suggested to be voluntary, they could be linked to incentives such as the design assistance program. Scope Design handbooks or guidelines would provide guidance for all properties in the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods (N-C-L and N-C-M zoning districts). Part 4: Strategy Options 109 Eastside and Westside Character Study Adjust Measurement of Height at the Side Yard This is a design tool related to measurement of building height at the side yard. Current Standard The City currently limits building height to 18' at the 5' minimum side yard setback in the N- C-L and N-C-M zoning districts, with 2' of ad- ditional height allowed for each 1' of increased setback. Height is measured from actual grade at the base of the structure, allowing for a tall- er height in relation to neighbors when grade has been raised as illustrated at bottom right. Height in relation to side setback is addressed in land use code sections 4.7(E)(4) and 4.8(E)(4). Character / Context Adjusting measurement of building height at the minimum side yard setback is likely to have the greatest impact in Character Areas 3, 5 and 6, where most existing buildings are one story and there is a higher potential for taller new construction or additions to loom over neigh- bors. Community Comment Many residents indicated that the height of new construction in relation to neighbors was a key issue. They also noted that the current height measure- ment method may allow for structures that loom over their neighbors when they are built on a natural slope, or a site where the grade has been raised. Objectives Addressed: Issues Addressed: 2. Compatibility A. Mass and Scale B. Looming C. Solar Access Pro / Con Most participants in the public process felt that this tool would directly ad- dress key mass and scale and looming issues related to new construction and additions built on raised grade or sloping sites. In addition, this tool could in- directly address issues with solar access. However, some participants felt that adjusting the measurement method would be overly restrictive on some sites, especially when grade must be raised to address flood standards. Suggested 4 Adjusting the measurement method for building height at the side yard setback is part of Strategy Option 4, which is suggested for further evalu- ation and development. It may be combined with development and imple- mentation of other suggested strategy options. The measurement method would be adjusted to measure height from the natu- ral grade at the interior side lot line directly adjacent to the building wall as illustrated in "Comparison of Height Measurement Systems" on page 113. Potential exceptions for dormers, side-facing gables and other limited building elements may be considered. Scope Adjusted measurement of height at the side yard would apply to all proper- ties in the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods (N-C-L and N-C-M zon- ing districts). This tool is not relevant to other neighborhoods in the city because building height is not limited at the side yard outside of the N-C-L and N-C-M zoning districts. 110 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Adjust Measurement of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) This is a design tool related to measurement of FAR (also called "lot ratio" in existing regulations). Current Standard The City currently limits maximum FAR (or "lot ratio") in the N-C-L and N-C- M zoning districts. FAR measurement includes the floor area of the primary structure as well as the floor area of any accessory structures that are larger than 120 square feet. However, the current measurement method for FAR does not differentiate between interior building areas of different heights (a double height room with a cathedral ceiling is counted the same as a room with a typi- cal ceiling height). FAR is addressed in land use code sections 4.7(D)(1), 4.7(D) (5), 4.8(D)(1) and 4.8(D)(5). Character / Context Adjusting FAR measurement is likely to have the greatest impact in character areas where new construction and additions tend to have the highest FARs. Community Comment Many residents have indicated that the current measurement method for Floor Area Ratio (FAR) may not adequately account for the total volume or perceived mass and scale of different building or floor area configurations. Objectives Addressed: Issues Addressed: 2. Compatibility A. Mass and Scale C. Solar Access E. Green Space Pro / Con Many participants in the public process felt that this tool would help "close a loophole" that allows for the construction of large volume spaces that are counted the same as rooms with a typical ceiling height. In addition, this tool could indirectly address issues with solar access. However, some participants felt that adjusting the FAR measurement method would be overly restrictive. Suggested 4 Adjusting the FAR measurement method is part of Strategy Option 4, which is suggested for further evaluation and development. It may be combined with development and implementation of other suggested strategy options. The measurement method would be adjusted to establish a "virtual floor area" for large volume spaces (those with ceiling heights above about 13') so they are better accounted for in FAR measurement. Scope Adjusted FAR measurement would apply to all properties in the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods (N-C-L and N-C-M zoning districts). This tool is not relevant to other neighborhoods in the city where FAR standards are not in place. Part 4: Strategy Options 111 Eastside and Westside Character Study Consider Revising Base FAR Standards This is a design tool that relates permitted building square footage to lot size. Current Standard The City currently specifies a minimum lot area in relation to the total floor area of buildings on the lot in the N-C-L and N-C-M zoning districts. This standard creates a de facto maximum FAR for the lot. FAR is addressed in land use code sections 4.7(D)(1), 4.7(D)(5), 4.8(D)(1) and 4.8(D)(5). Character / Context Adjusting base FAR standards is likely to have the greatest impact in character areas where new construction and additions tend to have the highest FARs. Community Comment Many residents have expressed concern with some new construction that is seen as inappropriately large in relation to its neighbors or the traditional scale of the surrounding neighborhoods. Participants in the workshops and working groups have noted that adjustments to the City's current maximum floor area ratio (FAR) standards could help address mass and scale issues in the neigh- borhoods. Objectives Addressed: Issues Addressed: 2. Compatibility A. Mass and Scale C. Solar Access E. Green Space Pro / Con Many participants in the public process felt that FAR adjustments could most directly address issues with the mass and scale of some new construction. In addition, this tool could indirectly address issues with solar access. However, some participants felt that FAR adjustments would be overly restrictive. Not Suggested Adjusting base FAR standards is a tool choice in Strategy Option 5. It is not suggested for further development. Although it directly addresses key issues, many residents and other stakeholders feel that it is an overly restrictive tool that limits flexibility for expansion. However, City Council may determine that this tool should be evaluated further. Scope Any FAR adjustments could apply uniformly to both the N-C-L and N-C-M zone districts, or differently by zoning district or lot size. 112 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Address the Character of Side Walls This is a design tool that relates to the configuration of side building walls. Current Standard The City does not currently address the character of side building walls in the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods (N-C-L and N-C-M zoning districts). Character / Context Addressing the character of side walls is likely to have the greatest impact in character areas where larger or taller new construction and additions are being built on relatively small lots. Community Comment Community workshop participants reviewed alternative designs for new con- struction in a variety of contexts throughout the Eastside and Westside neigh- borhoods and identified which designs they felt were most compatible. The new construction that was most often identified as compatible featured articu- lated building masses that reduced the appearance of long walls, or of large, boxy shapes. Objectives Addressed: Issues Addressed: 2. Compatibility 5. Flexibility A. Mass and Scale B. Looming C. Solar Access Pro / Con Tools to address the character of side walls may address the perceived mass and scale of a building without limiting its floor area. However, they do not ad- dress mass and scale issues as directly as FAR. Suggested 4 Addressing the character of side walls is a tool choice in Strategy Option 5, which is suggested for further evaluation and development. A menu of articulation options would be provided to break down the mass and scale of long, tall side building walls. Such options would include wall offsets, varied rooflines and one-story elements. Scope . Tools to address the character of side walls are suggested to apply only to new construction and additions that exceed an FAR of 0.35, which would impact about 7% of new construction and additions (based on average FAR of projects in the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods over the last 10 years). Part 4: Strategy Options 113 Eastside and Westside Character Study Side Wall Design Alternatives A menu of options to address the character of the front façade to promote compatible mass and scale could include the design features illustrated below. Wall Offsets Step Down in Height One-Story Element Wall Notch 114 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Address the Character of the Front Façade This is a design tool that relates to the configuration of the front façade. Current Standard The City does not currently address the character of the front façade in the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods (N-C-L and N-C-M zoning districts). However, the City does require that the primary entrance to a dwelling be lo- cated along the front wall of the building and include an architectural entry feature unless an alternative is required for handicap access. Character / Context Addressing the character of side walls is likely to have the greatest impact in character areas where larger or taller new construction and ad- ditions are being built on relatively small lots. Community Comment As illustrated at right, community workshop participants selected design features that they felt would promote compatible new construc- tion in the Eastside and Westside neighbor- hoods. Lower-scale elements at the street, and covered front porches were among the most commonly selected elements. Objectives Addressed: Issues Addressed: 2. Compatibility 3. Community A. Mass and Scale Pro / Con Tools to address the character of the front fa- çade may promote compatible buildings and help maintain a sense of community without limiting floor area. However, they do not ad- dress mass and scale issues as directly as FAR. Suggested 4 Addressing the character of the front façade is a tool choice in Strategy Option 5, which is suggested for further evaluation and development. A menu of options would be provided to encourage compatible, pedestri- an-friendly façades. Such options would include wall offsets, front porches and one-story elements. Scope . Tools to address the character of the front façade are suggested to apply only to new construction and additions that exceed an FAR of 0.35, which would impact about 7% of new construction and additions (based on aver- age FAR of projects in the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods over the last 10 years). Part 4: Strategy Options 115 Eastside and Westside Character Study Front Façade Design Alternatives A menu of options to address the character of the front façade to promote compatible mass and scale could include the design features illustrated below. Wall Offsets Front Porch One-Story Element Limited Façade Width 116 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Consider Addressing Solar Access This is a design tool that relates to protecting solar access and addressing the potential shading impacts of new construction and additions. Current Standard The City does not currently have solar access standards that apply in the East- side and Westside neighborhoods (N-C-L and N-C-M zoning districts) or other established neighborhoods. Solar access standards are, however, applied to new residential developments. Such standards prohibit casting shadow onto structures on adjacent properties greater than the shadow which would be cast by a 25' hypothetical wall located along the property lines of the project be- tween the hours of 9:00 am and 3:00 pm, MST, on December 21. Although the City does not have specific solar access standards for existing neighborhoods, some related standards, such as the height limit at the side yard setback, encourage solar access on neighboring properties. Character / Context Addressing solar access is likely to have the greatest impact on narrow lots with an east/west orientation. Community Comment Many residents have indicated that maintenance of solar access is an important consideration as the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods continue to change and develop. Some have noted that, unlike other issues with neighborhood compatibility, solar access is also an economic issue. Objectives Addressed: Issues Addressed: 6. Economic Impacts C. Solar Access Pro / Con Solar access tools would directly address a key issue without limiting floor area. However, they would not address mass and scale issues directly and may be complex to create and ad- minister. In addition, some have noted that solar access regulation can result in looming impacts on the south side of a lot because the north side is required to step down to preserve solar access as illustrated at right. 3.8 Which of the follow the city should take? Make no changes to existing regulations Streamline/simplify new regulations). Change existing zon impacts of larger bu city’s single-family d Change existing zon impacts of larger bu targeted areas. Provide more flexib special conditions. Provide a voluntary addressing mass an Establish a design r process that is tailo neighborhoods. Change the existing to reduce possible e Part 4: Strategy Options 117 Eastside and Westside Character Study Consider Taking No Action or Only Limited Action Some residents indicated that they do not feel there is an issue and would like to ensure that City Council continues to consider taking no action, or only limited action to implement voluntary educational or administrative tools. City Council should continue to weigh the recommended strategies and tools against a "no change" option. Any new strategies and tools that are developed for Council review should also consider that not all residents feel there is an issue, and that many residents would like to preserve a high level of flexibility for new construction in the neighborhoods. Other Tools and Strategies for Future Consideration Other tools and strategies that are beyond the scope of the current Eastside and Westside Neighborhood character study, or would apply to properties outside of the project area, may also be considered to address identified objectives and issues. Such tools and strategies are briefly summarized below. Consider Adjusting Zoning for the Laurel School District Some residents have expressed concern regarding the possibility of larger, higher density, construction replacing existing single-family structures in portions of the Laurel School National Register Historic District that are within the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (N-C-B) zone district. The N-C-B zone district is outside of the area for the Eastside and Westside Neigh- borhood Character Study. However, the City should continue to evaluate possible zoning adjustments to include more of the Laurel School Historic District in the N-C-M zone district to encourage compatibly scaled redevelopment. Such adjust- ments may be best considered as part of a neighborhood planning process. Updates to the neighborhood plans for the Eastside and Westside are currently on the City's work program for 2014. Consider Other Zoning Boundary Adjustments Some residents have indicated that neighborhood areas beyond the current bound- aries of the N-C-L and N-C-M zone district experience similar issues and could benefit from strategies and tools implemented as part of this project. The City should continue to evaluate zoning boundaries to ensure that the N-C-L and N-C-M zone districts are properly applied to promote objectives and address issues in centrally-located traditional neighborhoods. Such adjustments may be best considered as part of a neighborhood planning process. Updates to the neighbor- hood plans for the Eastside and Westside are currently on the City's work program for 2014. 118 Preliminary Strategy Report (Draft 1) Eastside and Westside Character Study Consider Citywide Application of Tools and Strategies A number of participants in the public workshops and working group sessions said they felt that the N-C-L and N-C-M zone districts that apply in the Eastside and Westside should not receive special consideration, and that any tools and strategies developed for the neigh- borhoods could potentially be useful for other primarily single-family zone districts throughout the city. Once the Eastside and Westside Neighborhood Character study is complete, and selected strategies have been in place for a year or more, review each tool for possible application in other zone districts throughout the city. Next This report Steps will be updated based on community feedback received at a neighborhood workshop and on an online visual survey. City Council will then discuss the revised strategy options at a work session on November 27. Based on City Council direction, some strategy options may be developed for early implementation in January or February, 2013. City Council may also select additional strategy options for further development and public process through February, 2013. Appendix A: GIS Mapping Data GIS data was collected to visually portray the physical characteristics of the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods. This data helps to define the character of the neighborhoods as a whole, as well as to identify sub-areas with unique features. Eight maps for each of the neighborhoods are attached. The maps include: • Building Age • Building Remodels • House Size • Floor Area Ratio (FAR) • Building Height • Lot Size • Lot Frontage • Lot Coverage Eastside and Westside Character Study Appendix A: GIS Mapping Data i ii Preliminary Strategy Report Eastside and Westside Character Study EDISON DR S MASON ST REMINGTON ST MATHE WS S T E PROSPECT RD E MYRTLE ST WHEDBEE ST SMITH PL SMITH ST EASTDALE DR COWAN ST E ELIZABETH ST L A K E P L E PENNOCK PL S COLLEGE AVE MONTEZUMA FULLER ALLEY REMINGTON ST GARFIELD ST E PLUM ST E MAGNOLIA ST PETERSON ST DEINES CT SMITH ST KENROY CT ROBER TSO N S T . WILL I A M S ST LESSER DR LORY ST RO B E R T S O N S T A ST REMBRANDT DR Eastside and Westside Character Study Appendix A: GIS Mapping Data iii EDISON DR S MASON ST REMINGTON ST MATHE WS S T E PROSPECT RD E MYRTLE ST WHEDBEE ST SMITH PL SMITH ST EASTDALE DR COWAN ST E ELIZABETH ST L A K E P L E PENNOCK PL S COLLEGE AVE MONTEZUMA FULLER ALLEY REMINGTON ST GARFIELD ST E PLUM ST E MAGNOLIA ST PETERSON ST DEINES CT SMITH ST KENROY CT ROBER TSO N S T . WILL I A M S ST LESSER DR LORY ST RO B E R T S O N S T A ST REMBRANDT DR iv Preliminary Strategy Report Eastside and Westside Character Study EDISON DR S MASON ST REMINGTON ST MATHE WS S T E PROSPECT RD E MYRTLE ST WHEDBEE ST SMITH PL SMITH ST EASTDALE DR COWAN ST E ELIZABETH ST L A K E P L E PENNOCK PL S COLLEGE AVE MONTEZUMA FULLER ALLEY REMINGTON ST GARFIELD ST E PLUM ST E MAGNOLIA ST PETERSON ST DEINES CT SMITH ST KENROY CT ROBER TSO N S T . WILL I A M S ST LESSER DR LORY ST RO B E R T S O N S T A ST REMBRANDT DR Eastside and Westside Character Study Appendix A: GIS Mapping Data v EDISON DR S MASON ST REMINGTON ST MATHE WS S T E PROSPECT RD E MYRTLE ST WHEDBEE ST SMITH PL SMITH ST EASTDALE DR COWAN ST E ELIZABETH ST L A K E P L E PENNOCK PL S COLLEGE AVE MONTEZUMA FULLER ALLEY REMINGTON ST GARFIELD ST E PLUM ST E MAGNOLIA ST PETERSON ST DEINES CT SMITH ST KENROY CT ROBER TSO N S T . WILL I A M S ST LESSER DR LORY ST RO B E R T S O N S T A ST REMBRANDT DR vi Preliminary Strategy Report Eastside and Westside Character Study EDISON DR S MASON ST REMINGTON ST MATHE WS S T E PROSPECT RD E MYRTLE ST WHEDBEE ST SMITH PL SMITH ST EASTDALE DR COWAN ST E ELIZABETH ST L A K E P L E PENNOCK PL S COLLEGE AVE MONTEZUMA FULLER ALLEY REMINGTON ST GARFIELD ST E PLUM ST E MAGNOLIA ST PETERSON ST DEINES CT SMITH ST KENROY CT ROBER TSO N S T . WILL I A M S ST LESSER DR LORY ST RO B E R T S O N S T A ST REMBRANDT DR Eastside and Westside Character Study Appendix A: GIS Mapping Data vii EDISON DR S MASON ST REMINGTON ST MATHE WS S T E PROSPECT RD E MYRTLE ST WHEDBEE ST SMITH PL SMITH ST EASTDALE DR COWAN ST E ELIZABETH ST L A K E P L E PENNOCK PL S COLLEGE AVE MONTEZUMA FULLER ALLEY REMINGTON ST GARFIELD ST E PLUM ST E MAGNOLIA ST PETERSON ST DEINES CT SMITH ST KENROY CT ROBER TSO N S T . WILL I A M S ST LESSER DR LORY ST RO B E R T S O N S T A ST REMBRANDT DR viii Preliminary Strategy Report Eastside and Westside Character Study EDISON DR S MASON ST REMINGTON ST MATHE WS S T E PROSPECT RD E MYRTLE ST WHEDBEE ST SMITH PL SMITH ST EASTDALE DR COWAN ST E ELIZABETH ST L A K E P L E PENNOCK PL S COLLEGE AVE MONTEZUMA FULLER ALLEY REMINGTON ST GARFIELD ST E PLUM ST E MAGNOLIA ST PETERSON ST DEINES CT SMITH ST KENROY CT ROBER TSO N S T . WILL I A M S ST LESSER DR LORY ST RO B E R T S O N S T A ST REMBRANDT DR Eastside and Westside Character Study Appendix A: GIS Mapping Data ix EDISON DR S MASON ST REMINGTON ST MATHE WS S T E PROSPECT RD E MYRTLE ST WHEDBEE ST SMITH PL SMITH ST EASTDALE DR COWAN ST E ELIZABETH ST L A K E P L E PENNOCK PL S COLLEGE AVE MONTEZUMA FULLER ALLEY REMINGTON ST GARFIELD ST E PLUM ST E MAGNOLIA ST PETERSON ST DEINES CT SMITH ST KENROY CT ROBER TSO N S T . WILL I A M S ST LESSER DR LORY ST RO B E R T S O N S T A ST REMBRANDT DR x Preliminary Strategy Report Eastside and Westside Character Study -MORE CT S K Y L I N E D R HOMER CT CRESTMORE PL COOK DR S B R Y A N A V E LAYLAND CT FISHBACK AVE W MULBERRY ST W OAK ST S MCKINLEY AVE HANNA ST WAGNER DR SCOTT AVE PEARL ST HANNA ST S SHIELDS ST N MACK ST W VINE DR ARMSTRON G A V E CHERRY ST N WHITCOMB ST LAPORTE AVE WEST DR E L M S T LYONS ST W PLUM ST W VINE DR SYLVAN CT ALAMEDA ST W OLIVE ST W COY DR JAMITH PL Eastside and Westside Character Study Appendix A: GIS Mapping Data xi -MORE CT S K Y L I N E D R HOMER CT CRESTMORE PL COOK DR S B R Y A N A V E LAYLAND CT FISHBACK AVE W MULBERRY ST W OAK ST S MCKINLEY AVE HANNA ST WAGNER DR SCOTT AVE PEARL ST HANNA ST S SHIELDS ST N MACK ST W VINE DR ARMSTRON G A V E CHERRY ST N WHITCOMB ST LAPORTE AVE WEST DR E L M S T LYONS ST W PLUM ST W VINE DR SYLVAN CT ALAMEDA ST W OLIVE ST W COY DR JAMITH PL xii Preliminary Strategy Report Eastside and Westside Character Study -MORE CT S K Y L I N E D R HOMER CT CRESTMORE PL COOK DR S B R Y A N A V E LAYLAND CT FISHBACK AVE W MULBERRY ST W OAK ST S MCKINLEY AVE HANNA ST WAGNER DR SCOTT AVE PEARL ST HANNA ST S SHIELDS ST N MACK ST W VINE DR ARMSTRON G A V E CHERRY ST N WHITCOMB ST LAPORTE AVE WEST DR E L M S T LYONS ST W PLUM ST W VINE DR SYLVAN CT ALAMEDA ST W OLIVE ST W COY DR JAMITH PL Eastside and Westside Character Study Appendix A: GIS Mapping Data xiii -MORE CT S K Y L I N E D R HOMER CT CRESTMORE PL COOK DR S B R Y A N A V E LAYLAND CT FISHBACK AVE W MULBERRY ST W OAK ST S MCKINLEY AVE HANNA ST WAGNER DR SCOTT AVE PEARL ST HANNA ST S SHIELDS ST N MACK ST W VINE DR ARMSTRON G A V E CHERRY ST N WHITCOMB ST LAPORTE AVE WEST DR E L M S T LYONS ST W PLUM ST W VINE DR SYLVAN CT ALAMEDA ST W OLIVE ST W COY DR JAMITH PL xiv Preliminary Strategy Report Eastside and Westside Character Study -MORE CT S K Y L I N E D R HOMER CT CRESTMORE PL COOK DR S B R Y A N A V E LAYLAND CT FISHBACK AVE W MULBERRY ST W OAK ST S MCKINLEY AVE HANNA ST WAGNER DR SCOTT AVE PEARL ST HANNA ST S SHIELDS ST N MACK ST W VINE DR ARMSTRON G A V E CHERRY ST N WHITCOMB ST LAPORTE AVE WEST DR E L M S T LYONS ST W PLUM ST W VINE DR SYLVAN CT ALAMEDA ST W OLIVE ST W COY DR JAMITH PL Eastside and Westside Character Study Appendix A: GIS Mapping Data xv -MORE CT S K Y L I N E D R HOMER CT CRESTMORE PL COOK DR S B R Y A N A V E LAYLAND CT FISHBACK AVE W MULBERRY ST W OAK ST S MCKINLEY AVE HANNA ST WAGNER DR SCOTT AVE PEARL ST HANNA ST S SHIELDS ST N MACK ST W VINE DR ARMSTRON G A V E CHERRY ST N WHITCOMB ST LAPORTE AVE WEST DR E L M S T LYONS ST W PLUM ST W VINE DR SYLVAN CT ALAMEDA ST W OLIVE ST W COY DR JAMITH PL xvi Preliminary Strategy Report Eastside and Westside Character Study -MORE CT S K Y L I N E D R HOMER CT CRESTMORE PL COOK DR S B R Y A N A V E LAYLAND CT FISHBACK AVE W MULBERRY ST W OAK ST S MCKINLEY AVE HANNA ST WAGNER DR SCOTT AVE PEARL ST HANNA ST S SHIELDS ST N MACK ST W VINE DR ARMSTRON G A V E CHERRY ST N WHITCOMB ST LAPORTE AVE WEST DR E L M S T LYONS ST W PLUM ST W VINE DR SYLVAN CT ALAMEDA ST W OLIVE ST W COY DR JAMITH PL Eastside and Westside Character Study Appendix A: GIS Mapping Data xvii -MORE CT S K Y L I N E D R HOMER CT CRESTMORE PL COOK DR S B R Y A N A V E LAYLAND CT FISHBACK AVE W MULBERRY ST W OAK ST S MCKINLEY AVE HANNA ST WAGNER DR SCOTT AVE PEARL ST HANNA ST S SHIELDS ST N MACK ST W VINE DR ARMSTRON G A V E CHERRY ST N WHITCOMB ST LAPORTE AVE WEST DR E L M S T LYONS ST W PLUM ST W VINE DR SYLVAN CT ALAMEDA ST W OLIVE ST W COY DR JAMITH PL xviii Preliminary Strategy Report Eastside and Westside Character Study Appendix B: Character Area Maps See Part 1: Neighborhood Profile for full descriptions of the Character Areas. EDISON DR S MASON ST REMINGTON ST MATHE WS S T E PROSPECT RD E MYRTLE ST WHEDBEE ST SMITH PL SMITH ST EASTDALE DR COWAN ST E ELIZABETH ST L A K E P L E PENNOCK PL S COLLEGE AVE MONTEZUMA FULLER ALLEY REMINGTON ST GARFIELD ST E PLUM ST E MAGNOLIA ST PETERSON ST DEINES CT SMITH ST KENROY CT ROBER TSO N S T . WILL I A M S ST LESSER DR LORY ST RO B E R T S O N S T A ST REMBRANDT DR -MORE CT S K Y L I N E D R HOMER CT CRESTMORE PL COOK DR S B R Y A N A V E LAYLAND CT FISHBACK AVE W MULBERRY ST W OAK ST S MCKINLEY AVE HANNA ST WAGNER DR SCOTT AVE PEARL ST HANNA ST S SHIELDS ST N MACK ST W VINE DR ARMSTRON G A V E CHERRY ST N WHITCOMB ST LAPORTE AVE WEST DR E L M S T LYONS ST W PLUM ST W VINE DR SYLVAN CT ALAMEDA ST W OLIVE ST W COY DR JAMITH PL SUNSET AVE N SHIELDS ST Appendix GIS data was collected to C: visually Building portray building permits Permits granted since 1997. See Part 1: Neighborhood Profile for further information. EDISON DR S MASON ST REMINGTON ST MATHE WS S T E PROSPECT RD E MYRTLE ST WHEDBEE ST SMITH PL SMITH ST EASTDALE DR COWAN ST E ELIZABETH ST L A K E P L E PENNOCK PL S COLLEGE AVE MONTEZUMA FULLER ALLEY REMINGTON ST GARFIELD ST E PLUM ST E MAGNOLIA ST PETERSON ST DEINES CT SMITH ST KENROY CT ROBER TSO N S T . WILL I A M S ST LESSER DR LORY ST RO B E R T S O N S T A ST REMBRANDT DR -MORE CT S K Y L I N E D R HOMER CT CRESTMORE PL COOK DR S B R Y A N A V E LAYLAND CT FISHBACK AVE W MULBERRY ST W OAK ST S MCKINLEY AVE HANNA ST WAGNER DR SCOTT AVE PEARL ST HANNA ST S SHIELDS ST N MACK ST W VINE DR ARMSTRON G A V E CHERRY ST N WHITCOMB ST LAPORTE AVE WEST DR E L M S T LYONS ST W PLUM ST W VINE DR SYLVAN CT ALAMEDA ST W OLIVE ST W COY DR JAMITH PL SUNSET AVE N SHIELDS ST Appendix GIS data was collected D: to visually Variances portray variances granted since 1997. See Part 1: Neighborhood Profile for further information. EDISON DR S MASON ST REMINGTON ST MATHE WS S T E PROSPECT RD E MYRTLE ST WHEDBEE ST SMITH PL SMITH ST EASTDALE DR COWAN ST E ELIZABETH ST L A K E P L E PENNOCK PL S COLLEGE AVE MONTEZUMA FULLER ALLEY REMINGTON ST GARFIELD ST E PLUM ST E MAGNOLIA ST PETERSON ST DEINES CT SMITH ST KENROY CT ROBER TSO N S T . WILL I A M S ST LESSER DR LORY ST RO B E R T S O N S T A ST REMBRANDT DR -MORE CT S K Y L I N E D R HOMER CT CRESTMORE PL COOK DR S B R Y A N A V E LAYLAND CT FISHBACK AVE W MULBERRY ST W OAK ST S MCKINLEY AVE HANNA ST WAGNER DR SCOTT AVE PEARL ST HANNA ST S SHIELDS ST N MACK ST W VINE DR ARMSTRON G A V E CHERRY ST N WHITCOMB ST LAPORTE AVE WEST DR E L M S T LYONS ST W PLUM ST W VINE DR SYLVAN CT ALAMEDA ST W OLIVE ST W COY DR JAMITH PL SUNSET AVE N SHIELDS ST Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 18, 2012 6:00 p.m. Council Liaison: Mayor Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich Chair: Andy Smith Phone: (H) 482-7994 Chair Andy Smith called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. Roll Call: Campana, Carpenter, Hatfield, Schmidt, Smith, and Stockover Excused Absence: Kirkpatrick Staff Present: Kadrich, Eckman, Shepard, Holland, Lorson, and Sanchez-Sprague Agenda Review CDNS Director Laurie Kadrich reviewed the agenda and noted two proposed changes. The Board at their work session asked that Bucking Horse, Second Filing, Project Development Plan, PDP #120022 be moved to consent. Also staff asks that Land Use Code Amendments for Multi-Family Housing, Phase 2 be removed from the discussion agenda due to the need for additional staff work. It will come back to the Board at their hearing on November 15, 2012. Citizen participation: Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, said it seems lately every time that City Council meets they are hearing an appeal of a land use decision. He thinks that speaks to an issue of trust on what our government can accomplish. He said he attended a recent Type 1 hearing on a subdivision in the NCM zone. On that application, staff recommended a lot size modification of standards to 9,000 square feet from a minimum requirement of 10,000 square feet. He said there is nothing in our Land Use Code (LUC) that requires, advises, or welcomes staff to provide recommendation on modification of standards. He thinks that defeats the whole practice of having a hearing officer/a decision maker make those decisions. He said the LUC does require staff to comment on whether particular standards are applicable to a development proposal. He said that’s acceptable, wise and prudent. He thinks with staff recommendations the decision maker(s) job is already done and that’s a problem. Sutherland said at the Type 1 hearing he recently attended, staff did not any way comport with the thinking behind the particular standard (10,000 square foot minimum in the NCM). He said in this particular case there are exceptional circumstances why that one modification ought to be granted. He said those listed, because it would lead to great infill and development, is completely out of step when that precedent was set when that section of the LUC became code. He said he doesn’t understand why we do the things we do. He expects the LUC to provide protections and to provide opportunities that create the kind of community we want to create. He said there are probably more problems than have even been identified in this system. He doesn’t see an awful lot of work going into improving how things work and what we’re going to see instead is appeal after appeal as that’s the only way people have for Planning & Zoning Board October 18, 2012 Page 2 driving change in the system. He thinks that’s a bad way to do things and he would look to this Board to provide leadership to make sure that citizens input makes it into the city’s processes. Chair Smith asked if any member of the audience, the Board or staff wanted to pull an item from consent. No one did. Consent Agenda:  Minutes from the September 13 and 20, 2012 Hearings  Provincetowne P.U.D. Third Filing, One-Year Extension of Final Plan Vested Rights, #73-82X  Kechter Crossing Annexation #ANX120008  Bucking Horse, Second Filing, Project Development Plan, PDP #120022 Discussion Agenda:  Land Use Code Amendments for Multi-Family Housing, Phase 2 – REMOVED due to additional staff work required. It will be considered on the Board’s November 15, 2012 discussion agenda. Member Campana left the room due to a conflict on one of the items on the consent agenda. Member Schmidt made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the consent agenda with consists of Minutes from the September 13 Special Hearing and the September 20, 2012 Hearing, the Provincetowne P.U.D. Third Filing, One-Year Extension of Final Plan Vested Rights, #73-82X, the Kechter Crossing Annexation #ANX120008, and the Bucking Horse, Second Filing, Project Development Plan, PDP #120022. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5:0. Other Business: None The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director Andy Smith, Chair PROJECT: Three Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins, Colorado OWNER: N/A PROJECT DESCRIPTION This is the 2012 annual draft update of the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests the Planning and Zoning Board forward a recommendation to City Council regarding adoption of the 2012 annual update of the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. SUMMARY The Three-Mile Plan is a State Statute required policy document ensuring that the City complies with the regulations of Section 31-12-105 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. The Three-Mile Plan lists the plans, policies, maps, and other documents that have been adopted by the City of Fort Collins City Council, which generally describe the proposed location, character and extent of existing and proposed infrastructure and land use. State Statute also requires this plan to be updated on an annual basis. There are very few changes to this plan from the 2011 update. COMMENTS Section 31-12-105 of the Colorado Revised Statutes states, Prior to the completion of any annexation within the three-mile area, the municipality shall have in place a plan for that area, that generally describes the proposed location, character, and extent of streets, subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts, parkways, Three Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado November 15, 2012 P & Z Meeting Page 2 playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds, open spaces, public utilities, and terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation, and power to be provided by the municipality and the proposed land uses for the area. As such, this plan addresses land uses and infrastructure improvement needs if annexation were to occur in any of the areas within three miles of the City of Fort Collins’ current municipal boundaries. This Three Mile Plan describes each of the items listed in the Statute in four categories as follows: Transportation-related items:  Streets  Subways  Bridges  Parkways  Aviation Fields  Other Public Ways  Terminals for Transportation Parks, Natural Areas and Open Lands- related items:  Waterways  Waterfronts  Playgrounds  Squares  Parks  Grounds  Open Spaces Utilities and related items:  Public Utilities  Terminals for Water, Light, Sanitation, and Power Provided by the Municipality Proposed Land Uses:  Inside Growth Management Area (GMA)  Outside Growth Management Area (GMA) The Three-Mile Plan lists the plans, policies, maps, and other documents that have been adopted by the City of Fort Collins City Council, which generally describe the proposed location, character and extent of the specific characteristics listed above. In addition, there are some plans and policies that have been adopted, not by the City of Fort Collins, but by either: Larimer County, CSU or adjoining municipalities and special districts, as these are also located within the boundaries of the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. There have been very few changes to plans in the last year. Changes are highlighted and deletions are struck through. Please see attached draft copy of the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado Three Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado November 15, 2012 P & Z Meeting Page 3 The maps included reflect the changes that have occurred to the City limits since 2011. CONCLUSION The 2012 update of the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, is in compliance with regulations set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes Section 31-12- 105. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Board forward a recommendation to City Council to approve a resolution adopting the updated Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. ATTACHMENTS Draft copy of the 2012 update to the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado with changes highlighted and/or struck through. THREE-MILE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 2012 UPDATE Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado………………………………………………………….. 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ 2 I. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3 What is the Purpose of the Three-Mile Plan? ........................................................... 3 What Does the Three-Mile Plan Describe? .............................................................. 3 II. Elements of the Three-Mile Plan .............................................................................. 5 Transportation-related Items .................................................................................... 5 Parks, Natural Areas, and Open Lands-related Items .............................................. 6 Utilities and Related Items ....................................................................................... 8 Proposed Land Uses ................................................................................................ 9 ATTACHMENT A: Three-Mile Plan Boundary .............................................................. 11 ATTACHMENT B: Significant Waterways and Waterfronts within the Three-Mile Plan Boundary ....................................................................................................................... 12 ATTACHMENT C: Airports within the Three-Mile Plan Boundary ................................ 13 Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado………………………………………………………….. 3 I. Introduction What is the Purpose of the Three-Mile Plan? The Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, is a policy document that complies with the regulations set forth in Section 31-12-105 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. The plan identifies infrastructure and plans for lands within three miles of the current boundaries of the City of Fort Collins. Section 31-12-105 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires that the City complete a plan within three miles in any direction from any point of such municipal boundary as follows: Prior to the completion of any annexation within the three-mile area, the municipality shall have in place a plan for that area that generally describes the proposed location, character, and extent of streets, subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds, open spaces, public utilities, and terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation, and power to be provided by the municipality and the proposed land uses for the area. This plan shall be updated on an annual basis. What Does the Three-Mile Plan Describe? This Three-Mile Plan describes each of the items listed in the Statute in four categories, as follows: Transportation-related Items:  Streets  Subways  Bridges  Parkways  Aviation Fields  Other Public Ways  Terminals for Transportation Parks, Natural Areas and Open Lands-related Items:  Waterways  Waterfronts  Playgrounds  Squares  Parks  Grounds  Open Spaces Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado………………………………………………………….. 4 Utilities and Related Items:  Public Utilities  Terminals for Water, Light, Sanitation, and Power Provided by the Municipality Proposed Land Uses:  Inside Growth Management Area (GMA)  Outside Growth Management Area (GMA) Under each of these categories the plans, policies, maps, and other documents are listed that have been adopted by the City of Fort Collins City Council and other municipalities, organizations and service providers within the three-mile area that generally describe the proposed location, character and extent of the specific characteristics. Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado………………………………………………………….. 5 II. Elements of the Three-Mile Plan Transportation-related Items 1. Streets:  Capital Improvement Plan  City Plan  City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan  City of Fort Collins Street Standards  City of Fort Collins Bicycle Plan  City of Fort Collins Bicycle Safety Education Plan  City of Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan  Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan  Harmony Road Access Control Plan  I-25/392 Interchange Improvement Plan  Larimer County Transportation Master Plan  Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards  Mason Corridor Master Plan  North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan  North College and Highway 14 Access Control Plan  Northern Colorado Regional Planning Study  Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-25 Corridor Plan  Downtown Parking Plan (Council consideration on December 4, 2012)  South College Access Control Plan  Subarea Plans o CDOT US392 Environmental Overview Study o CDOT North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement o CDOT US287 Environmental Overview Study o Downtown Plan o Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Summary Report o Downtown Strategic Plan o East Mulberry Corridor Plan o East Side Neighborhood Plan o Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan o Harmony Corridor Plan o I-25 Subarea Plan o Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update o North College Corridor Plan o Northside Neighborhood Plan o Northwest Subarea Plan o Old Town Area Plan o Prospect Road Streetscape Program o South College Corridor Plan o State Highway 392 Access Control Plan o West Central Neighborhoods Plan o West Side Neighborhood Plan  Transfort Strategic Operating Plan  Transit Plan: Fort Collins, Loveland, and Larimer County (1996-2002) Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado………………………………………………………….. 6 2. Subways: None 3. Bridges:  Master Street Plan  North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan 4. Parkways: LCASS Streetscape Standards Update 5. Aviation Fields:  Airport Master Plan Update  The attached map entitled “Airports within the Three-Mile Area Plan Boundary” locates all the airports within the plan area 6. Other Public Ways: None 7. Terminals for Public Transportation:  Mason Corridor Master Plan Parks, Natural Areas, and Open Lands-related Items 1. Waterways:  Cache La Poudre River Landscape Opportunities Study  Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program  Stormwater Master Plan and Floodplain Regulations  The attached map entitled “Significant Waterways and Waterfronts within the Three-Mile Area Plan Boundary” locates all significant waterways within the plan area  Watershed Approach to Stormwater Quality 2. Waterfronts:  The attached map entitled “Significant Waterways and Waterfronts within the Three-Mile Area Plan Boundary” locates all significant waterways within the plan area 3. Playgrounds, Squares, Parks:  City Plan  Larimer County Comprehensive Parks Master Plan  Parks and Recreation Policy Plan  Poudre School District Master Plan  Subarea Plans o Campus West Community Commercial District Planning Study Report o CDOT US392 Environmental Overview Study o CDOT North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement o CDOT US287 Environmental Overview Study o Downtown Plan o Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Summary Report o Downtown Strategic Plan o East Mulberry Corridor Plan Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado………………………………………………………….. 7 o East Side Neighborhood Plan o Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan o Harmony Corridor Plan o I-25 Subarea Plan o Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update o North College Corridor Plan o Northside Neighborhood Plan o Northwest Subarea Plan o Old Town Area Plan o Prospect Road Streetscape Program o South College Corridor Plan o State Highway 392 Access Control Plan o West Central Neighborhoods Plan o West Side Neighborhood Plan  Thompson School District Master Plan  Trails Master Plan 4. Grounds, Open Spaces:  Bobcat Ridge Natural Area Management Plan – outside Growth Management Area (GMA)  Cache La Poudre River Natural Areas Management Plan  City Plan  City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Program Land Conservation and Stewardship Master Plan  Foundation for a New Century, Colorado State University (CSU) Master Plan 2012 Update  Foothills Natural Areas Management Plan  Foothills Study  Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plans  Fossil Creek Natural Areas Management Plan  Fossil Creek reservoir Regional Open Space Management Plan  Larimer County Open Lands Master Plan  Larimer County Comprehensive Parks Master Plan  Northern Colorado Regional Planning Study  Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland  Regional Community Separator Study  Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Management Plan – outside GMA  Subarea Plans o Campus West Community Commercial District Planning Study Report o CDOT US392 Environmental Overview Study o CDOT North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement o CDOT US287 Environmental Overview Study o Downtown Plan o Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Summary Report o Downtown Strategic Plan o East Mulberry Corridor Plan o East Side Neighborhood Plan o Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado………………………………………………………….. 8 o Harmony Corridor Plan o I-25 Subarea Plan o Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update o North College Corridor Plan o Northside Neighborhood Plan o Northwest Subarea Plan o Old Town Area Plan o Prospect Road Streetscape Program o South College Corridor Plan o State Highway 392 Access Control Plan o West Central Neighborhoods Plan o West Side Neighborhood Plan  Timnath and Windsor Community Separator Study Utilities and Related Items 1. Public Utilities:  2007 East Larimer County Water District (ELCO) Master Plan Update  2009 Energy Policy  208 Plan  Boxelder Sanitation District Wastewater Utility Plan  City Plan  Drinking Water Quality Policy  Fort Collins-Loveland Water District Master Plan  Fort Collins Water Supply and Demand Management Policy  Fort Collins Wastewater Master Plan Update  Fort Collins Revised Water Treatment Facility Master Plan  South Fort Collins Sanitation District Master Plan for Wastewater Collection and Treatment  Stormwater Master Plan and Floodplain Management  Water Conservation Plan 2. Terminals for Water, Light, Sanitation, Transportation, and Power Provided by the Municipality:  2009 Energy Policy  208 Plan  City Plan  City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan  City of Fort Collins Electric Long Range Plan  Drinking Water Quality Policy  Fort Collins-Loveland Water District Master Plan  Fort Collins Water Supply and Demand Management Policy  Fort Collins Wastewater Master Plan Update  Fort Collins Revised Water Treatment Facility Master Plan  South Fort Collins Sanitation district Master Plan for Wastewater Collection and Treatment  Stormwater Master Plan and Floodplain Management  Water Conservation Plan Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado………………………………………………………….. 9 Proposed Land Uses 1. Land Uses Defined within the Growth Management Area (GMA):  2009 Buildable Lands Inventory and Capacity Analysis  City Plan  City of Fort Collins Structure Plan  Fort Collins and Windsor Intergovernmental Agreement  Fort Collins and Timnath Intergovernmental Agreement  Foundation for a New Century, Colorado State University (CSU) Master Plan 2012 Update  Foundation for a New Century CSU Campus Master Plan, 2004, including: o Agricultural Research Development and Educational Center (ARDEC) Master Plan o Foothills Campus Master Plan o South Campus Master Plan  Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements  Subarea Plans o Campus West Community Commercial District Planning Study Report o CDOT US392 Environmental Overview Study o CDOT North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement o CDOT US287 Environmental Overview Study o Downtown Plan o Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Summary Report o Downtown Strategic Plan o East Mulberry Corridor Plan o East Side Neighborhood Plan o Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan o Harmony Corridor Plan o I-25 Subarea Plan o Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update o North College Corridor Plan o Northside Neighborhood Plan o Northwest Subarea Plan o Old Town Area Plan o Prospect Road Streetscape Program o South College Corridor Plan o State Highway 392 Access Control Plan o West Central Neighborhoods Plan o West Side Neighborhood Plan 2. Land Uses Outside the GMA:  A Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland  City of Loveland Three-Mile Area Plan  LaPorte Area Plan  Larimer County Master Plan  Loveland Comprehensive Master Plan  Loveland Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan  Northern Colorado Community Separator Study  Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-25 Corridor Plan  Town of Windsor Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado………………………………………………………….. 10  Town of Timnath Comprehensive Plan  Town of Wellington Comprehensive Master Plan Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado………………………………………………………….. 11 ATTACHMENT A: Three-Mile Plan Boundary Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado………………………………………………………….. 12 ATTACHMENT B: Significant Waterways and Waterfronts within the Three‐Mile Plan Boundary Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado………………………………………………………….. 13 ATTACHMENT C: Airports within the Three-Mile Plan Boundary PROJECT: Phase 2 Multi-Family Housing Type 2 Requirements APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins PROJECT DESCRIPTION: On October 8, 2012, City Council directed staff to draft an ordinance amending the LUC to require larger multi-family housing developments (50 dwelling units, or 75 bedrooms) to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2). Type 2 review requires that the developer hold a pre-submittal neighborhood meeting. The benefit of the neighborhood meeting is that the public is given an opportunity to provide input on a project while it is still in the early stages of development. In recent months several multi-family housing developments have been appealed by concerned citizens to City Council based on the assertion that the projects were not compatible with adjacent neighborhoods. This proposed procedural change seeks to provide more opportunity for the public to participate in the development review process for larger multi-family housing projects. The first reading of this Ordinance is scheduled to be heard by City Council on November 6, 2012, and the second reading is scheduled for November 20, 2012. RECOMMENDATION: Approval BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION: City Council directed staff to move forward with a three-phase approach to Land Use Code (LUC) changes for multi-family housing. Phase 1 was adopted by City Council on September 18, 2012. The principal purpose for Phase 2 is to address intensity concerns as voiced by concerned citizens and recommended in the West Central Neighborhoods Plan. At the October 8 Work Session, City Staff presented four potential LUC changes to address these concerns. City Council provided the following feedback: 1. Consider creating a threshold size for multi-family developments that can be reviewed administratively (Type 1) up to a maximum of 50 dwelling units or 75 bedrooms. Any larger development will have to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2). Phase 2 Multi-Family Housing Type 2 Requirements November 15, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 2 2 Council Feedback: City Council directed staff to develop an ordinance and schedule it for Council Hearing November 6, 2012. 2. Consider creating a 30% limit on the amount of 4-bedroom units that can be permitted in multi-family developments. Council Feedback: This option is being forwarded to the Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP) for further evaluation. (See attachment for more details.) 3. Consider creating a definition of student housing and/or create a university district. Council Feedback: City Council agreed with the staff recommendation not to define “student” housing. Council directed that the University District options be moved to the Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP) process for further vetting. 4. Consider adjusting the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone boundary. Council Feedback: City Council agreed with the staff recommendation to leave the TOD boundary in its current location. PUBLIC OUTREACH: The Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP) has done extensive outreach to stakeholders since summer 2011. Six meetings in September were specifically held in order to hear feedback regarding Phase 2 LUC proposals: 9/6/12 – Affordable Housing Board 9/11/12 – Fort Collins Board of Realtors Governmental Affairs Committee 9/14/12 – P&Z 9/18/12 – Northern Colorado Rental Housing Association 9/26/12 – Landmark Preservation Commission 9/27/12 – Building Review Board 10/17/12 – Women’s Commission While most of the feedback regarding this change was supportive, the Affordable Housing Board strongly objected to these requirements. See attached letter. ATTACHMENTS Item #1 Ordinance – Multi-family Housing Type 2 Requirements Item #2 10-9-12 City Council Work Session Summary Item #3 Letter from Affordable Housing Board 1 ORDINANCE NO. ___, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE BY DESIGNATING CERTAIN TYPES OF MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AS BEING SUBJECT TO PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD REVIEW WHEREAS, on October 8, 2012, the City Council directed staff to prepare and present to the City Council an ordinance amending the Land Use Code to require larger multi-family housing developments to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that review by the Planning and Zoning Board is beneficial for an enhanced public project review of larger multi-family housing developments because review by the Planning and Zoning Board also requires the holding of a neighborhood meeting which affords the public the opportunity to provide input on a project while it is still in the early stages of development; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that this Ordinance is in the best interests of the City because it provides more opportunity for the public to participate in the development review process for larger multi-family housing development projects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 4.5(B)(2)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) The following uses are permitted in the L-M-N District, subject to administrative review: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Single-family detached dwellings. 2. Two-family dwellings. 3. Single-family attached dwellings. 4. Multi-family dwellings (limited to eight [8] or less units per building) containing fifty (50) dwelling units or less; and, containing seventy-five (75) bedrooms or less. 5. Group homes for up to eight (8) developmentally disabled or elderly persons. 2 6. Mixed-use dwellings. 7. Extra occupancy rental houses with more than four (4) tenants. Section 2. That Section 4.5(B)(3)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (3) The following uses are permitted in the L-M-N District, subject to Planning and Zoning Board review: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Mobile home parks. 2. Group homes, other than allowed in subparagraph (2)(a)5 above. 3. Multi-family dwellings containing more than eight (8) units per building; or, containing more than fifty (50) dwelling units; or, containing more than seventy-five (75) bedrooms. Section 3. That Section 4.6(B)(2)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) The following uses are permitted in the M-M-N District, subject to administrative review: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Single-family detached dwellings on lots containing no more than six thousand (6,000) square feet. 2. Two-family dwellings. 3. Single-family attached dwellings. 4. Multi-family dwellings containing fifty (50) dwelling units or less; and, containing seventy-five (75) bedrooms or less. 5. Mixed-use dwellings. 6. Group homes for up to eight (8) developmentally disabled or elderly persons. 3 7. Extra occupancy rental houses with more than five (5) tenants. Section 4. That Section 4.6(B)(3)(1) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (3) The following uses are permitted in the M-M-N District, subject to Planning and Zoning Board review: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Group homes, other than allowed in subparagraph (2)(a) above. 2. Fraternity and sorority houses. 3. Multi-family dwellings containing more than fifty (50) dwelling units; or, containing more than seventy-five (75) bedrooms. Section 5. That Section 4.10(B)(2)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) The following uses are permitted in the H-M-N District, subject to administrative review: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Multi-family dwellings containing fifty (50) dwelling units or less; and, containing seventy-five (75) bedrooms or less. 2. Mixed-use dwellings. 3. Group homes for up to eight (8) developmentally disabled or elderly persons. 4. Extra occupancy rental houses with more than five (5) tenants. 5. Fraternity and sorority houses. Section 6. That Section 4.10(B)(3)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 4 (3) The following uses are permitted in the H-M-N District, subject to Planning and Zoning Board review: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Group homes, other than those permitted pursuant to subparagraph (2)(a) above. 2. Multi-family dwellings containing more than fifty (50) dwelling units; or, containing more than seventy-five (75) bedrooms. Section 7. That the table contained in Section 4.16(B)(2)A. of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 8. That Section 4.17(B)(2)(a) of the Land use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) The following uses are permitted in the R-D-R District, subject to administrative review: (a) Residential Uses: Land Use Old City Center Canyon Avenue Civic Center A. RESIDENTIAL Two-family dwellings Not Permitted Type 1 Not Permitted Single-family attached dwellings (up to four [4] units per building) Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Multi-family dwellings containing fifty (50) dwelling units or less; and, containing seventy-five (75) bedrooms or less. BDR Type 2 Type 2 Multi-family dwellings containing more than fifty (50) dwelling units; or, containing more than seventy-five (75) bedrooms. Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1. Single-family attached dwellings. 2. Single-family detached dwellings containing no more than eight hundred (800) square feet of floor area, constructed on lots which contain existing dwellings. 3. Two-family dwellings. 4. Multi-family dwellings containing fifty (50) dwelling units or less; and, containing seventy-five (75) bedrooms or less. 5. Group homes for up to eight (8) developmentally disabled or elderly persons. 6. Mixed-use dwellings. 7. Extra occupancy rental houses with more than five (5) tenants. Section 9. That Section 4.17(B)(3)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (3) The following uses are permitted in the R-D-R District, subject to Planning and Zoning Board review: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Group homes other than those in 2(a) above. 2. Multi-family dwellings containing more than fifty (50) dwelling units; or, containing more than seventy-five (75) bedrooms. Section 10. That Section 4.18 (B)(2)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) The following uses are permitted in the C-C District, subject to administrative review: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Single-family attached dwellings. 2. Two-family dwellings. 6 3. Multi-family dwellings containing fifty (50) dwelling units or less; and, containing seventy-five (75) bedrooms or less. 4. Group homes. 5. Extra occupancy rental houses with more than five (5) tenants. 6. Mixed-use dwellings. Section 11. That Section 4.18(B)(3)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (3) The following uses are permitted in the C-C District, subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Fraternity and sorority houses. 2. Multi-family dwellings containing more than fifty (50) dwelling units; or, containing more than seventy-five (75) bedrooms. Section 12. That Section 4.19(B)(2)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) The following uses are permitted in the C-C-N District, subject to administrative review: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Single-family detached dwellings on lots containing less than six thousand (6,000) square feet. 2. Two-family dwellings. 3. Single-family attached dwelling. 4. Multi-family dwellings containing fifty (50) dwelling units or less; and, containing seventy-five (75) bedrooms or less. 5. Group homes for up to eight (8) developmentally disabled or elderly persons. 7 6. Extra occupancy rental houses with more than five (5) tenants. 7. Mixed-use dwellings. Section 13. That Section 4.19(B)(3)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (3) The following uses are permitted in the C-C-N District, subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Group homes, other than allowed in subparagraph (2)(a)6 above. 2. Multi-family dwellings containing more than fifty (50) dwelling units; or, containing more than seventy-five (75) bedrooms. Section 14. That Section 4.20(B)(2)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) The following land uses are permitted in the C-C-R District, subject to administrative review: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Single-family attached dwellings. 2. Two-family dwellings. 3. Group homes. 4. Multi-family dwellings. containing fifty (50) dwelling units or less; and, containing seventy-five (75) bedrooms or less. 5. Mixed-use dwellings. 6. Extra occupancy rental houses with more than five (5) tenants. Section 15. That Section 4.20(B)(3)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 8 (3) The following uses are permitted in the C-C-R District, subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Single-family detached houses located on lots containing no more than six thousand (6,000) square feet. 2. Fraternity and sorority houses. 3. Multi-family dwellings containing more than fifty (50) dwelling units; or, containing more than seventy-five (75) bedrooms. Section 16. That the table contained in Section 4.21(B)(2)A. of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Land Use I-25/SH 392 (CAC) General Commercial District (C-G) A. RESIDENTIAL Extra occupancy rental houses with 5 or fewer tenants Not permitted BDR Shelters for victims of domestic violence Not permitted BDR Mixed-use dwellings Type 1 Type 1 Multi-family dwellings containing fifty (50) dwelling units or less; and, containing seventy-five (75) bedrooms or less. Not permitted Type 1 Multi-family dwellings containing more than fifty (50) dwelling units; or, containing more than seventy-five (75) bedrooms. Not permitted Type 2 . . . . . . . . . Section 17. That Section 4.22(B)(2)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) The following uses are permitted in the C-S District, subject to administrative review: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Single-family detached dwellings located on lots containing less than six thousand (6,000) square feet.* 9 2. Two-family dwellings.* 3. Single-family attached dwellings.* 4. Multi-family dwellings containing fifty (50) dwelling units or less; and, containing seventy-five (75) bedrooms or less.* 5. Group homes.* 6. Extra occupancy rental houses with more than five (5) tenants.* 7. Mixed-use dwellings. * Not allowed within two hundred (200) feet of North College Avenue. Section 18. That Section 4.22(B)(3) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (3) The following uses are permitted in the C-S District, subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Multi-family dwellings containing more than fifty (50) dwelling units; or, containing more than seventy-five (75) bedrooms. (ab) Institutional/Civic/Public Uses: 1. Major public facilities. (bc) Commercial/Retail Uses: 1. Drive-in restaurants. 2. Large retail establishments. 3. Day shelters, provided that they do not exceed ten thousand (10,000) square feet and are located within one thousand three hundred twenty (1,320) feet (one-quarter [¼] mile) of a Transfort route. 4. Outdoor amphitheaters. 10 (cd) Industrial Uses: 1. Recycling facilities. 2. Transport terminals (truck terminals, public works yards, container storage). Section 19. That the table contained in Section 4.24(B)(2)A of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Land Use Riverside Area All Other Areas A. RESIDENTIAL Single-family detached dwellings BDR BDR Two-family dwellings BDR BDR Single-family attached dwellings BDR BDR Multi-family dwellings containing fifty (50) dwelling units or less; and, containing seventy-five (75) bedrooms or less. BDR Type 1 Multi-family dwellings containing more than fifty (50) dwelling units; or, containing more than seventy-five (75) bedrooms. Type 2 Type 2 . . . . . . . . . Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of November, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk 11 Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk To: City Council From: Affordable Housing Board Date: October 9, 2012 Re: Phase II Multifamily Regulation Changes In our role as advisors to council on matters pertaining to affordable housing, we have reviewed the proposed phase II changes to the multifamily regulations. After review discussion among our board, we have identified two of the proposed phase II code changes as issues that we feel pertain to affordable housing. The first is the 25% limit on 4+ bedroom units in multifamily projects, and the second is the triggering of Planning & Zoning Board (type II) review for multifamily projects with 50 or more units or 75 bedrooms. We make the following recommendations on these two issues: 1. On September 20, 2012 our board voted 5‐0 to support planning staff's recommendation that multifamily units with 4+ bedroom be limited to no more than 25% of the total number of units. This seems to be quite reasonable. In our experience, it is important for families to have some 4+ bedroom units available, but from a management standpoint, we agree that having an overconcentration of this unit type is something to be avoided. We also discussed that we feel it is important to allow at least this 25% and recommend not to reduce the maximum to any less than that, however we feel that up to 30% of this unit type could be appropriate. 2. On September 20, 2012 our board voted 5‐0 to recommend to Council that Planning & Zoning Board (type II) review not be required for multifamily projects with 50 or more units or 75 or more bedrooms. Since many affordable housing projects are above this threshold, this proposed change may have a direct impact on the new supply of affordable housing in our community. It is our belief, and appears to be public perception, that the Type II review could invite more public input into the process as well as lead to delays in the process. These items can financially impact projects either directly through these delays or through required changes to projects that are driven more by political and personal agendas rather than strictly by code. With residential vacancy rates in our community continuing to fall, and affordable housing more in demand than ever, we believe and suggest that the City do everything it can to encourage developers to consider affordable housing projects as a viable economic project. Since margins on these types of projects are typically much smaller than ‘market rate’ projects, requiring a type II review on many of them, whether by perception or reality, may keep many developers from considering them as a viable option. We therefore recommend that Council does not require a type II review for multifamily projects with 50 or more units or 75 or more bedrooms. We appreciate the opportunity to forward our recommendations to Council on this matter. PROJECT: Streetscape Design Standards & Guidelines Update APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Streetscape Design Standards & Guidelines Update (SDSG) document was initially adopted in 2001 by the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County as part of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). Because the document is a part of the LCUASS, the update will again require joint adoption by City Council. The SDSG provides details for creating streets that are visually appealing as public spaces that contribute to Fort Collins’ distinct identity. These standards and guidelines deal specifically with the treatment of the parkways (between the curb and sidewalk), medians, intersections, roundabouts, and key gateway areas. The update involves two main aspects: 1) raising the bar for landscaping in arterial medians, and 2) clarifications and updated information throughout the entire document. The document provides citywide context to guide the design and management of streetscapes in public sector capital projects and private development projects. It is primarily used by City staff, for use in City projects, operations, and budgets. Secondarily, it provides parameters for developers and property owners doing landscape plans that involve City right-of-way. ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests that the Planning and Zoning Board make a recommendation to City Council regarding the update to the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards Appendix C, pertaining to Streetscape Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Fort Collins. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Ordinance A, 2012, Update to Appendix C of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. Streetscape Design Standards & Guidelines Update November 15, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 2 Description of Proposed Ordinance Ordinance A, 2012 updates Appendix C of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards for the City of Fort Collins, initially adopted in 2001. The SDSG document as revised is an exhibit to the Ordinance. The document incorporates new standards and guidelines for streetscape design, maintenance, irrigation, planting palette, and submittal requirements. Issues/Topics Resolved by Updated Design Standards & Guidelines: Examples of particular issues or topics for staff work on the SDSG document include:  Recognition of differences among arterial street corridors throughout the city on a new GIS map  Recognition of exceptional gateway intersection locations on the map, that warrant heightened investment in urban design  More detailed guidance for evaluating median design and practices with the City’s vision for a distinctive, world class community  More attention to the role of maintenance and life cycle costs in design.  More attention to the role of an appropriate interdepartmental staff team in the design and management of streetscapes  Consideration of best practices for landscape plantings including such factors as image, appropriate use of water, storm runoff and drainage, chemical application impacts, maintenance, and replacement needs  Consideration of design solutions to acknowledge inevitable vehicular damage to streetscapes  Considering and clarifying the use of specific design requirements versus general parameters to be interpreted in the design of each capital project or development project  Clarification of parkway landscaping between the curb and sidewalk  Considering traffic safety issues for maintenance operations  Identifying best approaches for renovating existing streetscape areas, including roles, responsibilities, and budget issues in replacing damaged planting beds and trees, concrete components, signage, lighting, and other design features Study Background: The SDSG update project is part of a larger, coordinated effort called the 2012 Streets and Stormwater Site Development Initiatives (2012 Initiative). The larger effort Streetscape Design Standards & Guidelines Update November 15, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 3 combines four related projects that will impact street design and infrastructure improvements within the City. The 2012 Initiative represents a new opportunity to collaborate among the Planning, Development, and Transportation Service Unit (PDT) and Utilities on these related projects and adjust current schedules to coordinate issues, analysis, staff resources, public outreach and recommendations, unified under a central theme. Of the four related projects, two include updates to LCUASS. The first is this SDSG document update, and the second is an update to the street classifications and cross- section design to include more flexible urban standards. The third related project is the Low Impact Development Standards project (LID), being developed by the City's Stormwater department. The fourth related project is a demonstration project incorporating and testing the elements from the other three efforts. Staff is bringing forward two of these four projects for City Council consideration for adoption on December 4, 2012, including an update to the SDSG document, and the newly created Low Impact Development Standards. The LID project is not being presented to the Planning and Zoning Board for a recommendation. The other two projects will be completed later in 2013. Since the SDSG was first adopted ten years ago, questions and issues have emerged regarding both the SDSG, and the City’s existing and aging streetscapes. This includes the quality of design and the type and amount of landscaping and amenities. As a result, staff was directed to rethink the design approach for arterial streetscapes, and “raise the bar” in overall appearance from existing standards. This update of the SDSG will identify options for standards and guidelines to create more appealing arterial streetscapes, including elements such as landscape plantings, mulches, use of concrete, irrigation systems, and other design features and amenities. The new standards will be applicable for new streets, and retrofit projects throughout the City. The level of design will be elevated even further at key gateway intersections. These proposed new standards will likely increase cost and potentially impact maintenance and life cycle. Additionally it will be important to recognize the differences among various arterials with constrained conditions throughout the City as well as targeted infill and redevelopment areas. A key finding has been the need for an active City program to implement these standards. An interdepartmental Streetscape Team has been formed to review compliance with new standards, monitor completed projects over time, and establish a data base to track plant material conditions and selection, maintenance upkeep, and replacement of landscaping. These efforts are at least as important as the SDSG document to achieve the quality of planting-based streetscapes that are described in the document. The key policy-level issues for the City involve questions of raising the bar for arterial streetscapes – and medians in particular. This involves corresponding costs for construction and maintenance, along with increased attention by staff. Streetscape Design Standards & Guidelines Update November 15, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 4 Besides the larger policy-level issues, the update will also involve clarifications, adjustments, and additional details regarding specific design components of streetscapes. For example, the update addresses choices involving landscape plantings, mulches, use of concrete, irrigation systems, and other design features and amenities. These choices include consideration of maintenance, renovations, and life cycle issues in design. They also include consideration of different circumstances affecting different street segments that have the same classification –especially the differences among arterial segments in differing contexts throughout the City. Policy Background: Major streets are complex and expensive public infrastructure, combining virtually all utility and transportation systems of the city. Besides all of the functional needs for traffic and utilities, a clear theme in City Plan is the importance of City streets as public space that creates first impressions, is experienced by all residents and visitors on a daily basis, and plays a large role in determining and conveying the civic intention of Fort Collins as a City. Closely related to City Plan, the Transportation Master Plan states:  “Travel infrastructure will be high quality and recognized as world class by residents, visitors, and peers.”  “Transportation infrastructure will be designed to be sensitive to the surrounding land use context.”  “Plan, build, and maintain streets, trails, intersections, and sidewalks as attractive public spaces.” These general themes are supported by a number of Principles and Policies that further explain the City’s civic intentions for streetscapes to be attractive, well-maintained, up- to-date, and sensitive to the context of land use, environmental, scenic, aesthetic, and historic values in the various parts of the city. Public Process: The planning process to update the SDSG document has included public outreach extending over the past two years that included:  Creating a multi-interdepartmental staff team meeting regularly throughout the process  Providing numerous updates to the Planning and Zoning Board, Transportation Board, and City Council  Coordinating streetscape construction projects with designers and interdepartmental staff team  Conducting a public open house meeting (August 9, 2012) Streetscape Design Standards Appendix C of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards November 1, 2012 Streetscape Design Standards and Guidelines Adopted … Long Range Planning 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 970-221-6376 fcgov.com/advanceplanning For additional copies, please download from our website, or contact us using the information above. 1 ► Table of Contents 1. Purpose and Intent 1.1 Explanation 2. Applicability and Use 2.1 Explanation 3. Project Plan Submittal and Review 3.1 Private Development Applications 3.2 City Capital Projects 3.3 Project Statement 4. All Streets 4.1 Street Trees 4.2 Parkway Landscaping – Turf Grass 4.3 Parkway Landscaping – Alternatives to Turf Grass 4.3 Sight Distance Triangles at Intersections 4.5 Low Impact Development – Stormwater Management 5. Arterial Streets 5.1 Arterial Streetscapes Map 5.2 Arterial Streetscape Design – Standard Arterial Streetscapes 5.3 Arterial Streetscape Design – Enhanced Travel Corridors (ETCs) 5.4 Arterial Streetscape Design – Other Special Planning Areas 5.5 Arterial Streetscape Design – Constrained Streetscapes 5.6 Arterial Streetscape Design – Gateway Intersections 6. Collector and Local Streets 6.1 Tree-Lined Parkway Landscaping 7. Maintenance Standards 8. Irrigation Standards 9. Soil Preparation Standards 10. Turf Seeding Standards Exhibit A – Plant Palette 2 ► 1 ► CHAPTER 1 Purpose and Intent 1.1 EXPLANATION Based on the City’s vision to create a vibrant, world class community, these standards set forth a coordinated approach to design and management of streets as visually appealing public spaces that contribute to Fort Collins’ distinct identity. The term “streetscape” generally encompasses the visual and pedestrian environment of a street. These streetscape standards involve parameters for tree-lined streets and sidewalks, other landscaping along street edges, and landscaped medians in arterial streets. In addition to plantings, streetscapes may also encompass various urban design elements in certain settings. Examples include special curb treatments and median edges, low planter walls and landscape walls, railings, bollards, planter pots, stone features, public art, pylons, specialty lighting, signal and light pole treatments, specialty paving, transit stops and furnishings, and the like. Every streetscape project involves its own context and constraints. Still, there is a need for standards to set the bar for level of quality and investment. These standards provide a framework for programming, budgeting, designing, maintaining, and renovating various incremental projects as part of a whole approach. Exact details must then be adapted to fit and function with the unique context and constraints which exist in every project. The context and constraints include existing conditions that are expected to remain for the long term, and future change planned or envisioned by the City. 2 ► CHAPTER 2 Applicability & Use 2.1 EXPLANATION These standards apply to all projects involving streetscapes in the City right- of-way including: Private development projects. City capital projects. Any other miscellaneous maintenance and renovation projects and efforts. Private development and public capital projects may involve construction of new streets, and/or changes to existing streets. The standards are intended to be used by: Staff, in the design and management of City streetscapes over time. Landscape architects and designers. Developers and decision makers in the development review process. Property owners, where plans and activities involve streetscapes. Citizens, City Councils, and staff, in discussions involving streetscape issues. 3 ► CHAPTER 3 Project Plan Submittal and Review 3.1 PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Streetscape projects that are part of development applications follow a standard City development review process, which will include collaboration with staff on streetscape design. 2.1 CITY CAPITAL PROJECTS City capital projects involving streetscapes are reviewed administratively by interested City departments in an internal process of collaboration and routing of plans. 2.1 PROJECT STATEMENT REQUIRED All streetscape projects involving landscaping and urban design elements shall include a Project Statement developed by City staff in collaboration with any project consultants, upon completion of design. The purpose is to record design intents and assumptions, and prompt designers and staff to consider maintenance and renovation implications related to the design. The statement shall: Be concise (Under 3 pages preferred) and avoid the use of jargon. Describe the design intent, assumptions, and maintenance and renovations that will be needed over time to realize the design intent. Note outstanding questions and issues that need to be monitored. Examples of topics to be summarized include: Reasons and concepts for all project decisions including planting, irrigation, mulches, boulders, hardscape, and urban design elements. Plant species needing pruning or trimming, specific weeding control practices, annual clean-up, dividing or periodic replacing to achieve the intent. Plant species with a limited track record in streetscapes that warrant monitoring. Mulches that need replenishing or 4 ► stocking of parts, or other maintenance and renovations. Any other information useful for future understanding and management of the streetscape. 3.4 Project Statement File. Staff shall maintain Project Statements for streetscapes on file in an internal administrative process. 5 ► CHAPTER 4 All Streets The following standards apply to all street classifications city-wide, except where alternative standards are adopted for specific planning areas. 4.1 STREET TREES 4.1.1 Purpose and intent. Rows of street trees along street edges are the fundamental, unifying element of continuity in city streetscapes. Street trees can be considered as multi-functional public infrastructure that: Defines the street as distinct space, providing a unifying framework for abutting developments. Provides canopy shading along streets and sidewalks to reduce glare and summer heat build-up. Provides a buffer between pedestrians on the sidewalk and vehicles in the roadway. Provides space for streetlights and signs, and for snow storage in winter. Street trees in an arterial parkway. 4.1.2 Tree planting in parkways. Wherever the sidewalk is separated from the curb in accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, rows of canopy shade trees shall be planted in the parkway at 30 to 40 foot intervals, centered between the curb and the sidewalk. Street trees in a local street parkway. 6 ► 4.1.3 Species groupings within tree rows. To the extent reasonably feasible, street tree rows in landscape areas, whether inside or outside of the sidewalk, shall be in groupings of three, five, or more of a single species. The intent is to provide a degree of species diversity within a deliberate, repeating design pattern. Designers are encouraged to arrange changes in species to reflect roadway conditions, such as open stretches of roadway between access points, stretches approaching intersections and driveways, and/or changes in adjoining land use. Plan view illustration of street trees showing groupings. 7 ► 4.1.4 Street trees in sidewalk cutouts. If a project involves a new sidewalk that must be attached to the curb due to unique constraints or context, then the sidewalk width shall be wide enough to incorporate planting cutouts with tree grates to the maximum extent feasible. To the maximum extent feasible, such sidewalks shall be 12-15 feet wide with cutouts at least 25 square feet at 30- to 50-foot spacing. Larger cutouts with more than 25 square feet are encouraged. In all cases, trees in sidewalk cutouts shall be located at least 8 feet away from buildings and offset from building entrances. If such an attached sidewalk has an abutting landscape area, then 8 feet shall be the minimum width in which canopy trees shall be provided in sidewalk cutouts. The minimum area of any sidewalk cutouts shall be 16 square feet, using 4x4-foot tree grates. Larger cutouts with more than 16 square feet of area are encouraged, for example 4x6-foot or 4x9-foot tree grates, to support tree health. 8-foot sidewalk with 4’x4’ tree grates, where there is an abutting landsape area. The soil surface in a sidewalk cutout shall be level with the bottom of the sidewalk slab. Trees shall then be planted with the top of the root ball 1-2 inches above the soil surface. All tree grates shall be installed per manufacturer’s instructions. Frames shall be set in a true, flat plane to prevent rocking of the grate. The grate or a template shall be set in the frame before concrete is poured to ensure the final installation is square and flat. Grates shall be of a pedestrian-safe ADA-compliant style with slot openings 3/8-inch or less. A spacing interval up to 50’ shall be permitted for street trees in grates where abutting commercial buildings face the street with no intervening vehicle use area between the street and the building. 8 ► 4.1.5 Tree planting outside of sidewalks where existing constraints preclude parkway tree planting or sidewalk cutouts. Where a sidewalk is attached to the curb and is less than 8 feet in width, canopy shade trees shall be established in an area ranging from 3 to 7 feet behind the sidewalk at 30 to 40 foot intervals. This standard shall also apply where unusual constraints preclude tree planting in a parkway. Any such planting will typically require coordination with abutting property owners. Examples of street trees outside of sidewalks. 4.1.6 Adjustment of spacing intervals. The Director or the City Forester may approve or require larger or smaller spacing intervals to better fit the growth habits of different street tree species, for safe use of the street or sidewalk, and to better fit with existing trees or other existing conditions unique to the location. 4.1.7 Overhead power line conflict. Ornamental trees may be planted in substitution of the canopy shade trees where overhead lines and fixtures prevent normal growth and maturity. 9 ► 4.1.8 Spacing from driveways. No tree shall be planted closer than 8 feet from any driveway or alley. 4.1.9 Tree separation From utilities. Landscape and utility plans shall be coordinated. Following are the minimum dimension requirements for the most common tree/utility separations. 40 feet between canopy shade trees and streetlights. Fifteen (15) feet between ornamental trees and streetlights. 10 feet between trees and water or sewer lines. 4 feet between trees and gas lines. 4 feet between trees and underground electric lines shall be provided to the extent reasonably feasible. Exceptions to these requirements may occur where utilities are not located in their standard designated locations, as approved by the City Forester or the Director. Tree/utility separations shall not be used as a means of avoiding the planting of required street trees. Street tree separation from streetlights and driveways. 8’ min. D r i v e w a y 40’ min. Canopy Shade Trees 15’ min. Ornamental Trees 10 ► 4.2 PARKWAY LANDSCAPING – TURFGRASS 4.2.1 Explanation. Efficiently irrigated, mowed turfgrass provides a living green edge to city streets over a long growing season. The green edge is a unifying element that can help define City streets as continuous spaces, in conjunction with street trees. Like street trees, turf grass can be considered part of public infrastructure. Turfgrass can be a sustainable, functional landscape solution consistent with “Xeriscape” and “Water-Wise” landscaping principles. These principles recognize turf as an appropriate use of water in high visibility, multi-functional, high-use areas, and parkways typically fit that description. Turfgrasss can be relatively drought tolerant, depending on the species and cultivar selected. Problems resulting from periods of neglect are relatively easy to correct, and turf seldom if ever needs replacement. Non-gardeners and typical commercial crews can readily maintain turfgrass. It naturally inhibits weeds, and mowing is an efficient way to control weeds that do occur. It works well in conjunction with street trees with tolerance for partial shading. In winter, dormant turf is easy to keep tidy and trash-free. Turf parkways provide continuity and multiple functions. 4.2.2 Turfgrass generally encouraged. Irrigated turfgrass is generally encouraged as a solution for landscaping in parkways, except: Where a plan document recommends alternatives. Where the existing development pattern is characterized by alternatives to turfgrass as part of the established context. 4.2.3 Requirements. Chapter 5 includes parkway landscaping standards for Arterial Streets. Chapter 6 includes parkway landscaping standards for Collector and Local Streets. 11 ► 4.3 PARKWAY LANDSCAPING - ALTERNATIVES TO TURFGRASS 4.3.1 Explanation. Mulched planting beds and non-turf ground cover plantings can be acceptable alternative solutions to turfgrass for parkway landscaping in some situations. These solutions require less water than turfgrass. With appropriate plant selection and proper maintenance they can offer seasonal interest and add character. While maintenance needs can be less frequent than a mowing regime, they can be more complex and occasionally more time-consuming as weeding, trimming, mulching and replacing materials are important to keep the plantings healthy and attractive. Mulched planting bed in the parkway limits water use and can provide visual interest. 4.3.2 Where Appropriate. Alternatives to irrigated turfgrass can be an appropriate choice for property owners abutting collector and local streets, depending on whether the parkways are governed by an approved Development Plan. Alternatives can also be appropriate for projects involving arterial streets in special plan areas that recommend alternatives. 4.3.3 Requirements. Chapter 5 includes parkway landscaping requirements for Arterial Streets. Chapter 6 includes parkway landscaping requirements for Collector and Local Streets. 12 ► 4.4 SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLES AT INTERSECTIONS A visual sight distance triangle, free of any structures or landscape elements shall be maintained at street intersections and driveways, as required in Figure 7-16 in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. Site Distance Triangle concept. Deciduous trees may be permitted to encroach into the clearance triangle provided that the lowest leaves shall be at least six (6) feet from grade and are spaced so that they do not obstruct line of sight. 4.5 LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT – STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 4.5.1 Purpose and intent. In a “Low Impact Development” (LID) approach to streetscapes, landscaped parkways and medians are depressed rather than raised, to help manage stormwater runoff closer to the source. Depressed landscape areas are designed with special soil mixes, corresponding plantings, and other design techniques to infiltrate and filter runoff, instead of concentrating and conveying all runoff to centralized detention and treatment facilities. The City’s Stormwater Criteria Manual, which governs the management of stormwater in the City, describes design, plant selection, and maintenance techniques applicable to streetscapes. 4.5.2 Applicability. LID techniques and technologies are encouraged whenever the drainage patterns and the infrastructure allows for such measures to be used. 4.5.2 Low Impact Development streetscape projects. In any streetscape where a Low Impact Development approach is used, Streetscape Standards shall be adapted or modified as needed per the Stormwater Criteria Manual. 13 ► Illustrations of LID concepts in a parkway. 14 ► CHAPTER 5 ARTERIAL STREETS The City’s arterial streets are complex and expensive public infrastructure, combining virtually all utility and transportation systems of the city. Besides the functional needs for traffic and utilities, a pervasive theme throughout the City’s Comprehensive Plan is the importance of streets as public space. As high-visibility public space, arterials create first impressions, are experienced by all residents on a daily basis, and play a large role in determining the character and conveying the civic intention of Fort Collins as a City. Arterial streetscapes vary widely, from the Downtown core, to suburban residential areas, to the Natural Areas in the Poudre River valley. Downtown core. Suburban residential area. Poudre River valley. Some arterials are distinguished by the inclusion of medians along street corridors and in roundabouts. Besides managing traffic, medians provide very high-visibility space for landscaping, and provide a refuge for pedestrians crossing the road. Medians can humanize the scale of a wide street, and add beauty and civic identity. They are a highly visible mainstay of urban design, and thus are a major aspect of the City’s streetscape efforts. Medians in a roundabout. 15 ► 5.1 ARTERIAL STREETSCAPES MAP 5.1.1 Purpose and Intent. The Arterial Streetscapes Map recognizes differences between various arterials throughout the City. It indicates where a “Standard Arterial Streetscape” approach should apply, and where other corridor segments and gateway intersections warrant their own tailored approach to streetscape design and management. The map works in conjunction with design standards in the following chapters to guide investment in streetscapes throughout the City. Types of Arterial Streetscapes: Standard Arterial Streetscapes. Enhanced Travel Corridors. Special Planning Areas Gateway Intersections Community Entrance Gateways (at Interstate 25) Streetscapes constrained by Existing Development. 16 ► 17 ► 5.2 ARTERIAL STREETSCAPE DESIGN: STANDARD ARTERIAL STREETSCAPES - MEDIANS The primary focus of “Standard Arterial Streetscapes” is on medians, including the medians in roundabouts. The whole approach of the median standards emphasizes mixed plantings of perennials, grasses, shrubs, and tree groupings, with a mulched ground surface. The intent is to reflect Fort Collins’ western regional character with regionally-specific plants suited to the harsh roadway environment. Planting compositions will include: Varied plant forms, textures, and foliage in addition to flowers. Coordinated, repeating groupings of plants to form an overall pattern. Accent groupings to add detail and variation within the overall pattern. Related elements such as mulches and boulders. Illustration of standard arterial median landscaping approach. 18 ► 5.2.1 Median width measurements. All references to median widths are from face of curb to face of curb. 5.2.2 Median grading. The ground surface in landscaped medians shall be crowned with a high point in the center, with slopes not to exceed 7:1 or approximately 14 percent. Exception: where a median has a cross slope due to opposing traffic lanes and curbs having different elevations, a crown may not be feasible. 5.2.3 Median grading in roundabouts. The ground surface in center medians in roundabouts shall be crowned with slopes not to exceed 7:1 or approximately 14 percent. The intent is to increase the visual prominence of landscaping, and work in conjunction with planting and hardscape elements to achieve year-round screening of visibility across the roundabout at a height of at least 4 feet. 5.2.4 Median planting general approach. Tree groupings and mixed plantings of other plant types shall be established and maintained in medians. Exceptions: Trees shall not be planted in medians less than seven feet wide. Medians less than three feet wide shall be paved rather than planted. 19 ► 5.2.5 Median tree groupings: Canopy shade trees, ornamental trees, and evergreen trees shall be planted in groups of three, five, or more to the extent reasonably feasible. Open intervals shall be provided between the groups. Open intervals between tree groups shall constitute 30%-60% of the length of a given median. These percentages are intended to convey a general proportion rather than a precisely measured formula. Determination of the open intervals shall be based on the design intent and growth assumptions for trees over a given time frame, made by the designer. Where median length allows, repetition of tree groupings is encouraged. 5.2.5 Tree Separation from median edges. Separation of trees from concrete edges shall be provided by designers as needed based on assumptions for growth and pruning over a given time frame. The following minimum separations shall be provided: Large canopy trees – 2.5 feet. Ornamental trees – 1.5 feet. Large evergreen trees – 7 feet. Small evergreen trees – 5 feet. 5.2.6 Evergreen tree setbacks from face of curbs. Evergreen trees shall be set back from the face of curbs: Large evergreen trees – 9 feet. Small evergreen trees – 7 feet. 5.2.7 Staggered median tree groupings if space permits. Tree groupings shall be staggered rather than aligned in straight rows, where median width permits a stagger of at least two feet. This equates to 15 feet in a median where typical concrete edges total 8 feet. Example plan view of a median showing tree groupings. 20 ► 5.2.8 Mixed plantings. Mixed plantings of perennials, ornamental grasses, shrubs, and shrubby trees shall be planted and maintained to cover at least 75% of the median area within 5 years, based on assumptions for growth and maintenance of plants by the designer. Mixed plantings shall be composed of groups of at least 3 plants per group, with each group composed of a single species. Mixed plantings shall be composed for understory conditions at tree groupings, and open conditions in intervals between tree groupings. Mixed planting in a newly planted median. Mixed plantings shall be arranged in an informal pattern rather than formal rows or geometrically-shaped groupings. The informal pattern shall include coordinated, repeating groupings of plants in an overall composition, rather than random placement. Plantings shall be designed and maintained to span the full width of the median at maturity. Mixed planting standards apply to all medians 3 feet wide or wider. 21 ► This – informal pattern, but with repeated groupings to create an overall order in the design pattern. Not This – formal, geometric pattern of massed plantings. While this kind of design pattern is not the “Standard Arterial Streetscape” approach, it may be appropriate for special planning areas. 22 ► 5.2.9 Mixed plantings – two options for intensity. Two options for mixed plantings shall be permitted: Perennial Variety Style. Shrub Variety Style. Perennial Variety Style: this option emphasizes the maximum degree of planting intensity, color, and variety, with perennials used for the full length of a median. This results in a higher number of different plant groupings and higher total number of plants to achieve the required 75% plant coverage. An average of at least 4 groupings of perennial or ornamental grasses, and 3 groupings of shrubs per 250 square feet shall be planted and maintained. Groupings shall be composed of single species with at least 3 plants. Extra emphasis on color and/or texture over a long growing season shall be implemented in open areas at the ends of medians at intersections. Illustration of Perennial Variety Style mixed planting, with open areas and tree groupings. 23 ► Shrub Variety Style: this option allows the use of larger shrubs and shrubby trees to achieve the required 75% coverage with a lower number of different plant groupings and lower total number of plants. An average of at least 3 groupings of shrubs per 250 square feet shall be planted and maintained. Groupings shall be composed of single species with at least 3 plants. In open areas at the ends of medians at intersections, at least 4 perennial or ornamental grass groupings and 3 shrub groupings shall be planted and maintained, with emphasis on color and/or texture over a long growing season. Example of a mixed shrub planting with regionally adapted species (not a streetscape). 5.2.10 Decision on options. The option to be used in any project shall be approved by the Director based on consideration of the relative importance of a given median to community image, intensity of adjacent land uses, the width and length of the median, and City budget considerations. In general, the Perennial Variety Style is more appropriate in higher-activity, mixed- use areas. The Shrub Variety Style is generally more appropriate in residential and other lower-activity areas. Plan view illustrations comparing perennial variety concept (on the left) and shrub variety concept (on the right) . 24 ► 5.2.11 Median noses and narrow ribbons - planting. Median areas 3-7 feet wide shall be planted with low mixed planting under 30 inches in height. 5.2.12 Plants and mulches in conjunction. Plant groupings shall be designed in association with either cobble mulch or organic mulch. Plants selected to feature green leaves and flowers are generally complemented by organic mulch, while stone mulch can detract from their effects. Stone mulch can complement evergreens, other plants selected to feature distinct forms or textures, and xeric plants grey-green foliage. When mulches are mixed, the patterns should be in long overlapping curves, and not rectangular blocks or strips along the edge. 5.2.13 Mulches. Organic mulch shall be used, either solely or in combination with stone mulch to add visual interest with a design pattern. Organic mulch shall be undyed shredded woody material. If a combination is used, the pattern shall be designed in conjunction with plant groupings, and the pattern shall span the full width of the median rather than dividing the median lengthwise into linear strips or lining the edge of the median. This - mulch pattern spans the median in a sweeping curve. Not this – mulch pattern in linear strips. This – mulch pattern in sweeping curves designed with the direction of travel in mind. Not this – mulch pattern in linear strips. Not this – mulch pattern in blocks. Stone mulch, if used, shall consist of 2- 4-inch stone combined with groupings of 4-12 inch or larger stone hand placed as accents for visual interest and to separate abutting organic and stone mulches. Larger stone shall be placed 25 ► first, to be embedded, mingled, and settled with the smaller stone rather than loosely dumped. Stone mulch placement example. 5.2.14 Boulders. Boulders may be used to structure and complement plant groupings. They shall be designed and placed in deliberate groupings in association with the planting and mulch design pattern, and any low walls or slopes. They shall be placed prior to planting and mulching, and slightly sunk into the ground, to be embedded and mingled with mulches and plantings. Permitted boulders shall be tan Masonville sandstone quarry blocks, rounded river boulders, or weathered moss rock boulders. Selection shall be based on continuing an established theme, or establishing a theme where none exists. Selection of stone should be coordinated with the staff streetscape team department to ensure appropriate stones are being selected for the theme. Tan Masonville sandstone quarry blocks. Rounded river boulders as part of a whole design approach to plantings and mulches (above and below). 5.2.15 Median hardscape – edges and paving. Hardscape treatments depend on different median widths and different contexts throughout the city: In median areas that are at least 7 feet wide, a double curb edge shall be installed where a project includes 1) a new median, or 2) an existing median that lacks splash blocks or has splash blocks that warrant replacement. The purposes are to provide additional depth for planting areas, space for maintenance personnel, an additional correction barrier for vehicles leaving 26 ► the roadway, and a visual design that complements the curb and gutter. Where a median tapers to less than 7 feet, the upper curb shall return across the median to enclose the upper landscape area. Double curb design. Illustration of double curb. Exception to the double curb: Sloped concrete splash blocks with integral tan tint and exposed aggregate finish shall be permitted in lieu of a double curb if a median project is located in a street segment or area of the city where existing splash blocks have a previously established theme and are expected to remain for a long term. Sloped splash block design. Standard Arterial Streetscape corridors throughout the city include extensive segments with existing sloped concrete splash blocks, per a former standard. Where a median is less than 7 feet wide, the edge shall be a standard 6-inch curb with no double curb or splash block. Median areas under 3 feet wide shall be paved rather than planted. Paving shall be rectangular concrete or brick pavers set on a concrete base. 27 ► Exception to pavers: where existing tan exposed-aggregate concrete median paving establishes a prevailing theme, it shall be permitted for paving of medians under 3 feet wide. Tan exposed-aggregate concrete median paving. 5.2.16 Roundabout planting and hardscape: Roundabout medians in Standard Arterial Streetscape areas shall be developed and maintained with tree groupings and mixed plantings in the Perennial Variety Style, with boulders and a mulched ground surface. Landscape walls may be included to reinforce the pattern and provide year-round structure for plantings. Apron paving and any special curbs shall be designed for visual interest with tinted, textured concrete, pavers, or the like. Design of each individual roundabout shall be unique unless multiple roundabouts are related in a pair or group as part of a single traffic management project. Design elements include planting themes, plant species, apron paving, and other hardscape details. Narrow median area 7 feet wide – mixed planting and ornamental trees to provide a sense of pedestrial scale. Narrow median area 3-7 feet wide – mixed planting, no trees. Narrow median area under 3 feet wide – pavers. 28 ► Plan view of roundabout components. 29 ► Illustrations of roundabout landscaping approach with mixed planting, boulders, mulch and hardscape patterns all designed in conjunction. Lower graphic shows landscape walls. 30 ► 5.3 ARTERIAL STREETSCAPE DESIGN: STANDARD ARTERIAL STREETSCAPES - PARKWAYS Parkways in Standard Arterial Streetscapes shall consist of irrigated turfgrass and street tree plantings as described in Chapter 4. Arterial street parkway. 5.4 ARTERIAL STREETSCAPE DESIGN: ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDORS (ETC’S) 5.3.1 Explanation. Standard Arterial Streetscape standards may or may not be adequate and appropriate for design and maintenance of these corridors, depending on unique circumstances in each ETC. These arterial corridors are intended to evolve as a framework that incorporates and supports high frequency transit with special emphasis on walkability and bicycling. For streetscape projects where previous ETC plans do not define a streetscape approach, the Standard Arterial Streetscape standards in Section 5.2 shall be considered as a basis for the level of quality and investment. Design and maintenance shall then be adapted to unique circumstances in each corridor as appropriate, based on study of and response to: Guiding policies for ETC’s. Established precedents in the corridor that are consistent with the vision and policies for ETC’s. Examples of potential design variations include: Planting patterns to reinforce the pattern of transit facilities. Hardscape elements – edge treatments, paving, planters, and the like, particularly where related to transit stops and shelters. Urban design amenities in a coordinated program, particularly including paving, furnishings, and structures at transit stops and shelters. In all cases, design should include repeating elements to create a theme for the corridor and avoid clutter of unrelated elements. 31 ► 5.5 ARTERIAL STREETSCAPE DESIGN: SPECIAL PLANNING AREAS 5.4.1 Explanation. Special planning areas have subarea plans, corridor plans, or other planning documents that recognize their unique context and character. The level of specific direction for streetscapes varies among the plans. These areas warrant their own distinctive streetscapes with tailored design and maintenance characteristics, rather than the Standard Arterial Streetcape. For streetscape projects where plan documents are not definitive, the Standard Arterial Streetscape standards in Section 5.2 shall be considered as a basis for the level of quality and investment, and may be considered as a reference for design. Design and maintenance shall then be adapted by project designers and staff based on study of and response to the context and any established precedents that are consistent with the vision and policies for the area, and are thus expected to remain. Examples of potential design variations on the Standard Arterial Streetscape include: Distinct patterns of trees and other plant groupings. Signature plant species. Hardscape elements – edge treatments, paving, low planter walls or landscape walls, and the like. Urban design amenities such as paving, street furnishings, and transit stop shelters or other themed structures in a coordinated program. In all cases, design should include repeating elements to create a theme for the area and avoid clutter. Custom-tailored streetscape with parkway and median details as part of a whole approach to a street segment in Campus West. 5.6 ARTERIAL STREETSCAPE DESIGN: CONSTRAINED CORRIDORS AND SEGMENTS 5.5.1 Explanation. These are arterial corridors and segments where the Standard Arterial Streetscape is not feasible due to physical constraints of existing 32 ► Example of a constrained arterial (East Prospect). Streetscape projects in these areas shall incorporate aspects of a Standard Arterial Streetscape to the extent reasonably feasible. Each individual project must determine the allocation of available space and the compromises on each component of the street. In general, the most important aspects are safe sidewalks and street trees as described in Chapter 4. 5.7 GATEWAY INTERSECTIONS 5.6.1 Purpose and intent. Gateway intersections are exceptional locations where the Standard Arterial Streetscape shall be augmented with additional intensity of streetscape development. These locations warrant the highest level of investment for design, construction and maintenance. The intent is to highlight entryways into the city, and also edges of districts within the city. The locations generally consist of intersections, extending out as appropriate to include approaching medians, up to about 1/8 mile. The point is for the user to notice the change in passing through, recognize it as an entry, and have a "sense of arrival." 5.4.2 Special Planning Areas. Where a gateway is designated in a Special Planning Area on the Arterial Streetscapes Map, any previous planning direction shall be factored into design and maintenance decisions in a streetscape project. In addition, designers and staff should study and factor in the unique context to build upon or adapt the Standard Arterial Streetscape approach. 5.6.2 Components. Gateways shall be enhanced with a coordinated program of components such as: Plantings of annual flowers in beds or large pots. Railings or low walls. Bollards. Pedestrian lighting/ other specialty lighting. Public art. Columns, pylons or other urban design structures. Traffic signal or light pole treatments. Color themes in repeated components. 33 ► Example of gateway enhancements – annuals, planter pots on plinths, railings, pedestrian lights, and public art pylons, and tinted concrete paving in addition to standard plant groupings. Example of median approaching a gateway intersection incorporating themed railings mingled with plant groupings. Illustrations of themed plantings, walls, median planters, specialty paving, and a sign wal as exampes of special treatments to mark a gateway intersection (left) and gateway roundabout (below). 34 ► 35 ► CHAPTER 6 COLLECTOR AND LOCAL STREETS 6.1 PARKWAY LANDSCAPING 6.1.1 Purpose and Intent. Streetscapes on collector and local streets typically consist of parkways only. The primary intent for parkway landscaping is to provide a setting for street trees, and work in conjunction with street trees for a number of purposes: Define streets as the framework of public space within which individual properties fit. Contribute to the attractiveness and visual interest of the street edge. Mark the transition from public to private space. Blend public interests in street infrastructure with interests of abutting property owners who are required to maintain these parkways by City Code. 6.1.2 Two approaches. Two main approaches to landscaping parkways are permitted: turf grass, and non-turf ground cover plantings. These involve different pros and cons as noted in chapter 4. 6.1.3 New development landscape plans. Where a developer desires to offer non-turf grass options to homeowners, the landscape plan may contain a note and drawings specifying options for non-turf ground cover plantings, with consistent mulch and a recommended plant palette. 6.1.4 Approved development plans govern. For developments with approved landscape plans, the parkway landscaping must be in accordance with the plan. A Homeowners Association (HOA), or a property owner with approval from the HOA, may request a Minor Amendment to an approved plan for parkway landscaping. 6.1.5 Turfgrass. Irrigated turfgrass shall be permitted and is encouraged as the landscape solution that is simplest for long-term maintenance. With proper soil preparation and an efficient irrigation system, the water required can be reasonable and appropriate given the 36 ► multiple functions and benefits of turf grass noted in chapter 4. The choice of grass species can make an incremental difference in water use needs. 6.1.4 Turfgrass. Irrigated turfgrass shall be permitted and is encouraged as the landscape solution that is simplest to maintain over a long term. With proper soil preparation and an efficient irrigation system, the water required can be reasonable and appropriate given the multiple functions and benefits of turf grass noted in chapter 4. The choice of grass species can make an incremental difference in water regime requirements. Turfgrass is particularly appropriate where it is congruent with multiple properties along a street. Turfgrass parkway congruent among properties along the street, and with adjoining landscaping. 6.1.6 Non-turf ground cover plantings. Alternatives to turf grass shall be permitted, including mulched planting beds and ground cover plantings. With an understanding of plant selection and proper irrigation and maintenance, these plantings can provide seasonal interest with little water required. Property owners are encouraged to incorporate choices that provide a degree of congruence with neighboring properties in terms of mulches and character of plantings. Perennial garden in a parkway. Combination of turf and planting beds. 37 ► 6.1.6 Requirements for Non-Turf Ground Cover Plantings: At least 50 percent of the area shall be covered with live plant material after 2 years of establishment. Plant materials shall be under 2 feet tall if within 5 feet of a driveway and under 3 feet tall in other areas. Owners are encouraged to select plants that maintain these height limits with little or no pruning. Plant materials must not obscure the line of sight for traffic or obstruct the sidewalk. Any plantings of any height that obstruct the line of sight or cause safety concerns may be required to be kept trimmed to a lower height or removed so visibility is provided/maintained. No fences or thorny/prickly plant material. In mulched planting beds, the soil surface shall be 2-3 inches below the curb and sidewalk to allow for mulch to be contained. No additional timbers, concrete products, or the like shall be included, to avoid clutter. Plat materials and mulch must be kept off the street and sidewalk. Avoid cutting tree roots if converting an established turf parkway to a planting bed. Within a tree’s dripline, minimize grade change to protect the tree roots. No edging shall be used to divide the parkway into thinner strips. If edging is needed to separate turf and mulch areas perpendicular to the street, such edging shall be flush or within 1 inch of the ground surface, so it is not a visible element. This – organic mulch, healthy plants, and stepping stones if needed. Not this – gravel that is not congruent with any other portions of the streetscape, dead plants, weeds, and exposed fabric prevent this parkway from contributing to the street as attractive public space. . 38 ► 39 ► Chapter 7 MAINTENANCE STANDARDS 7.1 Purpose. To ensure a consistent, high quality appearance for all streetscapes, whether maintained by the City, its agents, or by private developers, businesses, or individuals. Given the high visibility of city streetscapes, the public is able to observe maintenance practices in the field as well as the results of that maintenance. The public perception of a well-maintained landscape is promoted by practices which benefit the health of the landscape materials and achieve a neat, well-cared for appearance. Quality maintenance is a function of workmanship, funding, knowledge, and technique. These standards will ensure that all streetscapes are cared for in a manner which reflects the high esteem that citizens have for these important public spaces. Generally, all landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy condition throughout the growing season. A neat and attractive appearance is essential. Irrigation systems, structures, and sidewalks shall be maintained to represent the original integrity of the design and installation. 7.2 Tree Planting and Maintenance Standards. The City of Fort Collins Tree Management Standards and Best Management Practices serve as the standard for planting and maintenance for all trees in the public rights-of- way and apply whether the work is performed for the City contractually, by the City, or by private entities or individuals. Exceptions to the standards and practices require written approval of the City Forester. 7.3 Street Tree Permits. A free permit must be obtained from the City Forester before any planting, pruning, removal, or destruction of any tree or shrub within the public right-of-way of any street or sidewalk. Businesses performing this work must be licensed by the City. No tree shall be cut back in such a manner that its health will be impaired or it creates an unsafe condition. An exception to this rule may occur to provide emergency relief of an immediate danger to persons or property. Any such emergency procedures must be reported promptly to the City Forester with plans for completion or follow-up work submitted for approval. See the City Forestry Standards and Specifications on “Pruning and Removal Specifications” for details on acceptable pruning practices. All work requiring a permit shall be conducted in a manner as to cause the least possible interference with or annoyance to others. Pedestrian and vehicular traffic shall be allowed to pass through the work areas only under conditions of safety and with as little inconvenience and delay as possible. 40 ► 7.4 Maintenance Responsibilities. Maintenance of parkway planting of streetscapes on Collector and Local streets is the responsibility of the adjacent property owner per City Code. Surface maintenance of streetscapes on arterial streets with the following characteristics will be the responsibility of the City. The parkway is considerably isolated from the adjacent private property(s) and its location in reference to the street is such that it is highly visible to the general public. There is no individual, organization, or homeowners’ association that could be fairly allocated the landscape maintenance based on their benefit. This situation usually occurs where the parkway is to the back of a private property, separated from it with a privacy fence and located along an arterial street. However, a gate in the fence indicates the ability of the property owner to maintain the parkway. Street trees located on the City right-of-way are the responsibility of the City Forestry Division for replacing and management regardless of who maintains the surface. Four different scenarios for planting and continuing maintenance are possible. The developer installs the landscape and the City takes responsibility for tree maintenance, after a two-year period in which specific obligations are met. The surface (turf, shrubs, irrigation) is still maintained by the developer, homeowners’ association, or other responsible party. The developer installs the landscape and after meeting obligations during the first two years, the City takes responsibility for both tree and surface maintenance. Medians in arterial streets are maintained by the City. The landscape is part of a Capital Improvements Project and a contractor does the landscape work. The City is responsible for tree maintenance and may or may not be responsible for surface maintenance. Due to street oversizing, the City installs and maintains the trees although once again, the surface may or may not be maintained by the City. Adopt A Median. The City encourages homeowners’ associations, business groups, and other civic groups to take part in the Adopt-A-Median program. Contact the City Parks Division at 221-6660 for further information. 41 ► 7.5 Approval. Any landscaping not to these standards may be rejected by the City for inclusion in its maintenance program. Developers shall notify the City Parks Division and have a walk through with Parks and Forestry Division staff at the end of the developer’s maintenance period. Any defects in the landscaping or irrigation system shall be corrected by the developer. 7.6 Maintenance Standards. To ensure a quality appearance of the landscape, trash and weeds will be removed on a regular basis. In addition, proper maintenance of plant materials is necessary for plant health and appearance. This maintenance includes: 7.6.1 Trees. Public trees shall be managed in such a manner as to promote their general health by providing the necessary cultural practices which may include insect and disease control, fertilization, irrigation, staking, guying, wrapping, cabling, bracing, and pruning. Trees shall be maintained in such a manner so as not to endanger, interfere, or otherwise conflict with requirements of safe public use of an area. Hanging limb and branch height shall be maintained fourteen (14) feet above streets and eight (8) feet above sidewalks. Every owner of any tree overhanging any street or public right-of-way within the City shall prune the branches of the tree so that such branches shall not interfere with the safe use of the street or sidewalk or obstruct the view of any street intersection. The City is responsible for trimming trees per the City schedule and as needed. Excessive sprout growth from the stems and root collars of trees shall be removed each year early in the growing season by the Forestry Division or the City’s designated contractor after City maintenance responsibility begins. Suckers shall be removed from trees as they appear. Clipping them off shall be the preferred method or as directed by Forestry Division. 7.6.2 Turf grass. Grasses shall be maintained at a three inch cut during the growing season. Trimming shall also be on a weekly basis concurrent with mowing to match height of open turf area around obstructions – generally hard to reach areas such as trees, curbs, vacuum breakers, etc. Turf grass shall be edged concurrent with mowing; visible clippings shall be removed from sidewalks and streets after each mowing, trimming, or edging. Fertilization of turf grass shall be based on soil tests. Litter and leaves shall be picked up as needed to ensure a quality appearance. 42 ► 7.6.3. Native grass. Mowing shall be performed depending on the growth of the turf. This turf will grow rapidly in the early season and go dormant with the heat of summer and may pick up again in the cool of fall. The last mowing should be timed to either pick up or mulch the remaining leaves of the season. Litter and leaves shall be picked up as needed to ensure a quality appearance. 7.6.4 Shrubs. Shrubs shall be pruned as needed to maintain size, remove dead or diseased branches, and ensure plant health. Shrubs must not extend outside the median line or over splash block. All dead shrubs shall be removed immediately, and replaced as necessary. Where within parkways, shrubs must not extend over the curb head or over the sidewalk. 7.6.5 Perennials. Perennials shall be deadheaded and trimmed throughout the growing season. Depending upon the variety, perennials should be cut back in late fall or early spring prior to new growth. All dead perennials shall be removed immediately, and replaced as necessary. 7.6.6 Annuals. Planting of annuals in the spring shall be in designated annual flower beds. Annuals must be regularly deadheaded of spent blooms. Annuals should be removed in the fall after the first hard freeze. 7.6.7 Mulch. Organic mulch will be replaced every 2-3 years as needed. Rock mulch will be replaced as needed. 7.6.8 Weeds. All landscaped areas within the specified maintenance areas shall be kept free of weeds. (WEEDS=Any plant material not intended for placement in the landscape.) Weeding may be done manually or by the use of selective herbicide and or pre- emergent. The use of any restricted herbicides or soil sterilants is prohibited. In accordance with Best Management Practices observation of the effectiveness of the herbicide shall be monitored at this time. 43 ► CHAPTER 8 IRRIGATION STANDARDS 8.1 Purpose and Intent. Irrigation to median and parkway plant material is necessary to provide adequate moisture to maintain a high quality appearance and long term health for plants. It is the City’s intent to be good stewards and assure a high quality appearance along the landscaped right-of-way in a sustainable manner. All irrigation systems will be tailor designed to meet the needs of each unique landscape by following best management practices and up to date technology. Without proper irrigation design and maintenance, good stewardship of the landscapes is not achievable. Proper watering systems help achieve the City goals and citizens expectations of public spaces and thoroughfares. 8.1. General. 8.1.1. Irrigation design shall be done by a certified irrigation designer or someone approved by the City Parks Division. 8.1.2. Irrigation system design and installation shall be monitored, inspected, and approved by the City Parks Division. Irrigation systems shall be installed and maintained so that irrigation equipment will not spray onto any streets, walkways, or features and structures that could be damaged from water. 8.1.3. The irrigation system must comply with the International Plumbing Code and with the City of Fort Collins Electrical Code. 8.1.4. Any deviation in taps from the approved construction plans must be approved by City of Fort Collins Utilities prior to installation. Any water service line shall be coordinated with City of Fort Collins Utilities, 221-6700. 8.1.5. Any deviation in layout of the irrigation system from the approved construction plans must be reviewed and approved by the City Parks Division prior to or during installation. 8.1.6. The irrigation system must be designed to provide full coverage and matched precipitation rates. Lateral piping shall be sized based on flow demands (gpm's); velocities shall not exceed five and a half (5.5) feet per second. Xeriscape principals shall be utilized in the design of the irrigation system. All designs should meet the industry’s Best Management Practices from the Irrigation Association and ALCC (Associate Landscape Contractors of Colorado). Newly installed irrigation systems will be subject to water audits and must meet minimum requirements. The minimum distribution uniformity for spray heads should be .55, rotor heads should be .65, stream 44 ► rotors should be .75 and impacts should be .65. Some design considerations shall include: 1) shrub and perennial beds are to be zoned separately from turf areas; 2) sloped areas will have separate zoning for heads at the higher elevations from those at the lower elevation; 3) areas with different exposures are to be zoned separately; and 4) In-head check valvesare to be used for all areas adjacent to walkways and at the bottom of berms and pond areas. 8.2 Materials. 8.2.1 Contractor is responsible for supplying saddle for the PVC or AC pipe. 8.2.2. Backflow device and water meter per the City of Fort Collins standards and the flow meter to be Data Industrial. 8.2.2a A curb stop shall be installed between the meter pit and the backflow for isolation purposes. The curb stop should be sleeved from the valve to grade and covered with a round valve box. 8.2.2b A blowout tube no larger than ¼” should be placed between the meter pit-curb stop and the back flow. The injection port on the blow out tube must be sweated on attaching a female adapter with a threaded brass plug. 8.2.2c A blowout tee shall be installed immediately downstream of the back flow. This is preferred over a quick coupler. 45 ► 8.2.3. Copper is to be type K rigid conforming to ASTM Standard B88. 8.2.4. Mainline: Class 200 PVC, NSF approved. If three (3) inches or larger use ringtite pipe. 8.2.5. Laterals: 8.2.5.a. Two (2) inches or larger: Class 200 PVC, NSF approved. 8.2.5.b. One and a half (1.5) inches or one (1) inch: Class 200 PVC, NSF approved. 8.2.5.c. No laterals smaller than one (1) inch. 8.2.5.d. Trickle tubing shall be weather and UV resistant material. 8.2.5.e. Polyethylene Drip Pipe: NSF approved, SDR pressure rated pipe, only as approved for drip applications. 8.2.6. Pipe Fittings: 9.2.6.a. Funny pipe (pop-up spray heads only): to be compatible to the elbows needed for the sprinkler heads. 8.2.6.b. Lateral fittings: Schedule 40, Type 1, PVC solvent weld with ASTM Standards D2466 and D1784 8.2.6.c. Copper or cast bronze fittings, soldered or threaded per installation details for all copper pipe. 8.2.7. Mainline fittings: Ductile iron for three (3) inches and larger, PVC Schedule 80 for two and a half (2.5) inches and under. 8.2.8. Sleeving: Ductile iron pipe or PVC under all paved surfaces. 8.2.8.a. Sizes to be a minimum of two sizes larger than the pipe being sleeved. Minimum two (2) inches in diameter, or larger where appropriate, for irrigation lines. 8.2.8.b. Wires to be in separate sleeve from pipe, two (2) inch minimum size pipe for control wire sleeves. 8.2.8.c. Shall have traceable marker tape on upper side and both ends for future locates. 8.2.9. Valves: 46 ► 8.2.9.a. Remote Control Zone Valves: Electrically operated, appropriate for the water supply, with manual bleed device and flow control stem. Shall have a slow-opening and slow-closing action for protection against surge pressure. Brand and model to be Rainbird PE Series Remote Control Valves, scrubber option with self cleaning screen unless City specifies other brand and model. 8.2.9.a.1 Valves used for two-wire system need to be properly grounded per manufactures recommendation. 8.2.9.a.2 Drip Valves –Bubbler Valves-Micro Spray Valves: require pressure reducing devices matched with recommended filters to assure proper operation and reduced failure of such equipment. 8.2.9.b. Isolation Gate Valves: Kennedy 1571X or Matco #100M, able to withstand a continuous operating pressure of 150 psi. Clear waterway equal to full diameter of pipe. Shall be opened by turning square nut to the left (wheel opening is unacceptable). 8.2.9.c. Manual Drain Valve: Three-quarter (0.75) inch ball valve with tee handle. Watts, #B-6000, or approved equal. 8.2.9.d. Quick Couple Valves: One (1) inch brass, Rainbird #5RC units with rubber cover. Supply one (1) inch brass key for Rainbird 55K. 8.2.9.e Spears True Union ball valves – installed upstream of the remote control zone valve – substitutes will be accepted. 8.2.10 Valve Boxes: House valves in valve box with matching locking cover: Carson, Pentex or approved equal. Only one (1) valve per box. Install in box sizes as specified. 8.2.11. Control System: 9.2.11.a. Controller: Must have smart controller technology controller must be approved by Parks Department . Number of stations shall include two (2) extra stations for possible future use. Controller box shall be weather tight and vandal resistant with locking exterior disconnect. One (1) Eicon pigtail or compatible remote controller pigtail for each 12 stations. 8.2.11.b. Control System Enclosure: Hofman Model A242408LP with A24P24 steel panel, Model A-FK1208 floor stand kit and AL-2BR lock kit, or approved equal. 8.2.11c. Surge Protection: Eight (8) foot copper grounding rod, #4 solid copper wire, grounding buss receptacle, ground terminal strip and Irritrol SPD-587 surge protector per details. 47 ► 8.2.12. Electric Control Wiring: #14 solid copper direct burial UF or PE cable, UL approved, or larger, per system design and manufacturer's recommendations. 8.2.12.a. Five (5) wires with consistent color scheme throughout: Red = live; White = ground; Black, Blue and Green = extra If two-wire systems are used approved shielded wire or manufactures recommended wire must be met. 8.2.12.b. Approved wire connectors and water-proofing sealant to be used to join control wires to zone valve wires. 1) The wire connectors should be what each specific manufacture recommends. 2) Two wire systems need to use manufactures specified wire, warranty may be void. 8.2.12.c Master valve should be normally opened. 48 ► 8.2.12.c. All sprinkler heads shall be of the same manufacturer as specified on the plans, marked with the manufacturer's name and model in such a way that materials can be identified without removal from the system. City will specify brands and models to match other equipment in use in public systems in the vicinity. Gear driven rotor heads are to be Hunter or approved equal. Pop-up spray heads are to be Hunter, Rainbird, or approved equal. All heads should have pressure regulating device integrated in them to maintain proper operating pressure. They also should have anti water draining valves to avoid water waste when not in operation. Example: Rain Bird 1804 PRS/SAM heads. A minimum of 4” pop up is required. 8.2.12.d. Xeric Irrigation and Drip Systems come in a wide variety of configurations. It’s essential that the correct application is approved for each landscape design by the City Parks Department. 8.2.12.e. Trees that are planted in non-turf irrigated landscape require short term and long term irrigation and should be on individual or separate zones. Supplemental emitters shall be installed on top and around the root ball for short term health. Perimeter irrigation of the root ball shall be installed for long term and permanent irrigation. 8.3. Inspection. 8.3.1. Locate all utilities prior to trenching and protect from damage. Required calls shall include, but are not limited to the following: City Parks Division, 221-6660, for locates and 1-800-922-1987 for utility locates within the City of Fort Collins. Contact other utilities as required. 8.3.2. Inspect tap or other existing irrigation system, as applicable, prior to work. 8.4. Execution. 8.4.1. Water Service Connections (Taps): 48 hours prior to connection, contact the City of Fort Collins Utilities (Water), at 221-6700 to schedule the work for water taps and inspections. Minimum two (2) weeks prior notice is to be given to the Water Meter Shop, 221-6759, for installations which will require meters and / or backflow devices larger than two (2) inches. 8.4.1.a. Contractor is responsible for excavation, connection to corporation stop at the water main, providing the saddle for the PVC or A.C. pipe, making the connection to the existing water service, backfill and compaction, and pavement / shoulder / surface treatment replacement as needed. Soldered joints or fittings are permissible above grade or inside a vault. No solder, sealants, fluxes, pipe dope, and other materials shall contain any lead. All taps and installations are subject to approval and inspection by the City of Fort Collins Utilities (Water). Install meter as specified in precast vault. Inspection of service line (where appropriate), vault, water meter and backflow is to be coordinated with the City of Fort Collins Utilities (Water). 49 ► 8.4.1.b. Install winterization assembly downstream of meter vault on copper a minimum of six (6) feet away from the outside of the meter vault on the copper pipe. 8.4.1.c. Copper pipe to be soldered so that a continuous bead shows around the joint circumference. Insert a dielectric union wherever a copper-based metal (copper, brass, bronze) and an iron-based metal (iron, galvanized steel, stainless steel) are joined. 8.4.2. Pipe trenching: 8.4.2.a. Install pipe in open cut trenches of sufficient width to facilitate thorough tamping / puddling of suitable backfill material under and over pipe. 8.4.2.b. Trench depths: Mainline – Minimum of twenty-four (24) inches deep from top of pipe to finished grade. Trenches should be straight as possible and when there is 20 degrees or more bend proper fittings need to be used to reduce stress on the pipe. Lateral – Minimum of sixteen (16) inches deep from top of pipe to finished grade. Sleeves – Install sleeving at a depth which permits the encased pipe or wiring to remain at the specified burial depth. 8.4.3. Sleeving: Boring shall not be permitted unless obstruction in pipe path cannot be moved, or pipe cannot be re-routed. 8.4.3.a. Mainline installed in existing sleeves at greater depth than adjacent pipe, shall have a manual drain valve at each end if the sleeve is longer than twenty (20) feet, or at one end if the sleeve is less than twenty (20) feet. 8.4.3.b. Install sleeve so ends extend past edge of curb, gutter, sidewalk, bikepath or other obstruction, a minimum of two (2) feet. 8.4.3.c. Mark all sleeves with an “x” chiseled in walk (or other surface) directly over sleeve location. 8.4.3.d. Shall be laid to drain at minimum grade of five (5) inches per onehundred (100) feet. 8.4.3.e. Shall be bedded in two (2) inches of fill sand and covered by six (6) inches of fill sand. 8.4.3.f. Sleeves installed for future use shall be capped at both ends. 8.4.3.g. Separate sleeve (two (2) inch minimum size) shall be used for all wiring. 8.4.3.h. Sleeving shall not have joints unless necessary due to length of sleeving run. If joints are necessary, only solvent welded joints are allowed. 8.4.3.i. Compaction of backfill for sleeves shall be 95% of Standard Proctor Density, ASTM D698-78. Use of water (puddling) around sleeves for 50 ► compaction, will not be allowed. 8.4.4. Pipe Installation: 8.4.4.a. Use Teflon tape on all threaded joints; only Schedule 80 pipe may be threaded. 8.4.4.b. Reducing pipe size shall be with reducing insert couplings, at least six (6) inches beyond last tee of the larger pipe. 8.4.4.c. Snake PVC lateral pipe from side to side within trench. 8.4.4.d. Cut pipe ends square and deburr. Clean pipe ends before using primer and solvent cement. Join in a manner recommended by manufacturer and in accordance with accepted industry practices. Cure for 30 minutes before handling and 24 hours before allowing water in pipe. 8.4.4.e. Backfill shall be free from rubbish, stones larger than two (2) inch diameter, frozen material and vegetative matter. Do not backfill in freezing weather. If backfill material is rocky, the pipe shall be bedded in two (2) inches of fill sand covered by six (6) inches of fill sand. 8.4.4.f. After puddling or tamping, leave all trenches slightly mounded to allow for settling. 8.4.4.g. Compact to proper densities depending on whether surface area over the line will be paved or landscaped. 8.4.5. Thrust blocks: 8.4.5.a. Shall be installed where PVC mainline two and a half (2.5) inches or larger changes direction over 20 degrees. 8.4.5.b. Minimum of one (1) cubic foot of concrete. 8.4.5.c. Keep pipe joint clean of concrete. Do not encase. 8.4.5.d. Place wiring away from thrust block to avoid contact with concrete. 8.4.6. Valve Installation: Install at least twelve (12) inches from and align with adjacent walls or paved edges. 8.4.6.a. Automatic Remote Valves: Install in such a way that valves are accessible for repairs. Make electrical connection to allow pigtail so solenoid can be removed from valve with twenty-four (24) inches (minimum) slack to allow ends to be pulled twelve (12) inches above ground. 51 ► The zone wire should be coiled. Flush completely before installing valve. Thoroughly flush piping system under full head of water for three (3) minutes through furthest valve, before installing heads. Valve assembly to include ball valve and union per detail for ease of maintenance and repair. Install in valve box per details. 8.4.6.b. Quick Couple Valve. Install in ten (10) inch round locking valve box. Flush completely before installing valve. Thoroughly flush piping system under full head of water for three (3) minutes through furthest valve. 8.4.6.c. Isolation Gate Valves. Install in valve box. 8.4.6.d. Valve Boxes. Brand all valve boxes with the following codes: “SV” and the controller valve number per As-built plans for all remote control valves; “DV” for all drain valves; “GV” for all isolation valves; “DRGV” for all drip system isolation valves; “QC” for all quick coupling valves; “WA” for all winterization assemblies; “FM” for all flow meter assemblies; and “MV” for all master valve assemblies. Use a branding iron stamp with three (3) inch high letters. Valve box shall NOT rest on mainline, use brick or other noncompressible material per detail. Top of valve box to be flush with finish grade. Install valves in box with adequate space to access valves with ease. Valves shall not be too deep to be inaccessible for repairs. A three (3) inch depth of three-quarter (0.75) inch washed gravel to be placed in the bottom of each valve box with enough space to fully turn valve for removal (see detail) 6” valve boxes should be limited to wire splices, drip end caps, and drains.. 8.4.7. Head Installation: 7.4.7Set heads plumb and level with finish grade. In sloped area, heads to be tilted as necessary to provide full radius spray pattern. 8.4.7.b. Flush lateral lines before installing heads. Thoroughly flush piping system under full head of water for three (3) minutes through furthest head, before installing heads. Cap risers if delay of head installation occurs. 8.4.7.c. Pop-up heads along walks and bikeways: bed heads in a six (6) inch 52 ► layer of sand under the base of the head. Heads that boarder sidewalks and curbs shall be 1” – 11/2” from concrete. 8.4.7.d. Nozzles: Supply appropriate nozzle for best performance. 8.4.7.e. Adjustment: Adjust nozzles and radius of throw to minimize overspray onto hard surfaces. 8.4.8. Electrical Connections: New connections to be approved through City of Fort Collins Utilities (Light & Power), call 221-6700 to obtain power information and request connection. Actual connection to transformer or other power source to be done by City of Fort Collins Utilities (Light & Power). Work to be coordinated and scheduled with them by calling 221-6700. All work other than actual connection, including access to the transformer box where applicable, to be supplied by the contractor. All materials to be provided by the contractor. When working near any City Electric facility, prior coordination and approval is required. 8.4.9. Controller Installation: 8.4.9.a. To be installed in an above ground location suitable to prevent vandalism and provide protection from adverse weather conditions, and per City direction. All exposed wiring to and from the controller shall be encased in galvanized metal conduit. Exterior controllers to be installed on a six (6) inch thick concrete pad. 8.4.9.b. Install Controller per City direction and in accordance with manufacturers specifications. Install surge protection, grounding rods and other accessory components as specified. 8.4.9.c. Attach wire markers to the ends of control wires inside the controller unit. Label wires with the identification number of the remote control valve activated by the wire. 8.4.10 Wiring: 8.4.10.a. Comply with City of Fort Collins Electrical Code. 8.4.10.b. Power source brought to controller to a ground fault receptacle installed within controller casing. 8.4.10.c. String control wires as close as possible to mainline, consistently along and slightly below one side of the pipe. 8.4.10.d. Leave minimum loop of twenty-four (24) inches at each valve and controller and at each splice, at the ends of each sleeve, at one-hundred (100) foot intervals along continuous runs of wiring, and 53 ► change of direction of 90 degrees or more. Band wires together at ten (10) foot intervals with pipe wrapping tape. 8.4.10.e. Install common ground wire and one control wire for each remote control valve. Multiple valves on a single control wire are not permitted. Install three (3) extra wires, as specified, to the furthest valve on the system and / or each branch of the system. 8.5 Testing. All tests to be run in the presence of staff from the City Parks Division. Schedule all tests a minimum of 48 hours in advance. Repeat any failed tests until full acceptance is obtained. Operational Test: Activate each remote control valve from the controller in the presence of staff from the City Parks Division. Replace, adjust or move heads and nozzles as needed to obtain acceptable performance of system as directed by that staff member. Replace defective valves, wiring or other appurtenances to correct operational deficiencies. 8.6 Completion Services. 8.6.1. When project construction is complete, request a punchlist inspection for Construction Acceptance from the City Parks Division. 8.6.1.a. Demonstrate system to staff from the City Parks Division. 8.6.1.b. Provide staff from the City Parks Division with ordering information including model numbers, size and style for all components. 8.6.1.c. Provide (2) electronic As-built drawings on disc and two (2) sets of As-built drawings per below, showing system as installed with each sheet clearly marked “As-built Drawings”, the name of the project and all information clearly provided. One set of reproducible mylars, no larger than 24" x 36". One set of all sheets reduced to 11" x 17", with each station color coded, and each sheet plastic laminated. Provide completed backflow test for backflow device by licensed backflow tester. 8.6.1.d. Clean Up. Remove all excess materials, tools, rubbish and debris from site. 8.6.2. Once Construction Acceptance is obtained, begin warranty and maintenance period by contractor. Maintain irrigation system in optimal working condition for duration of period between Construction Acceptance and Final Acceptance. Make periodic adjustments to system to achieve most desirable application of water. 54 ► 8.6.3. Request Final Acceptance inspection from the City Parks Division at least 30 days before the end of the one year maintenance period. Provide the City Parks Division with operating keys, servicing tools, test equipment, warranties / guarantees, maintenance manuals, and contractor's affidavit of release of liens. Submittal of all these items must be accompanied by a transmittal letter and delivered to the City Parks Division offices, delivery at the project site is not acceptable. Provide the yearly backflow test on the backflow device and submit report to the City Parks Division. 8.7 Guarantee/Warranty and Replacement. For the period following Construction Acceptance notice by the City of Fort Collins, and prior to Final Acceptance, all irrigation materials, equipment, workmanship and other appurtenances are to be guaranteed / warranted against defects. Settling of trenches or other depressions, damages to structures or landscaping caused by settling and other defects to be corrected by the contractor at no cost to the City of Fort Collins. Make repairs within seven (7) days of notification by the City Parks Division. Guarantee / Warranty applies to all originally installed materials and equipment, and to replacements made during the guarantee/warranty period. 55 ► CHAPTER 9 FINE GRADING AND SOIL PREPARATION STANDARDS 9.1. General. 9.1.1. Soils tests conducted by the CSU Soils Lab must be completed and submitted to the City for review; recommendations in the lab reports shall be followed in all cases. Generally this will include soil amendment and fertilizer recommendations; in some cases, all new topsoil will be required. 9.1.2. If site is undisturbed, topsoil is to be stripped to a six (6) inch depth, or to topsoil depth as determined by field inspection. Stockpile and re-spread stripped topsoil over landscape areas after rough grades are established. If site has been disturbed, or sufficient topsoil is not available, topsoil is to be imported to achieve six (6) inch depth in all landscaped areas. 9.2. Submittals. 9.2.1. Soil Amendment. Submit sample and written confirmation from supplier of material composition including: percent organic matter, salts, nutrient composition and trademark. Sample is to be representative. 9.2.2. Topsoil. Submit sample and written confirmation from supplier of material composition including: percent organic matter, salts, and nutrient composition. Sample is to be representative. 9.3. Materials. 9.3.1. Soil Amendment. Premium 3, by A-1 Organics, or approved equal. A high quality composted material containing a minimum of 50% organic matter. The mixture shall be free from clay subsoil, stones, lumps, plants or roots, sticks, weed stolons, seeds, high salt content and other materials harmful to plant life. The compost shall be coarsely ground with an even composition and have an acidity in the range of pH 5.5 to pH 7.0. All material shall be sufficiently composted such that no material used is recognizable. 9.3.2. Topsoil. Must be taken from a well drained, arable site and shall be reasonably free of subsoil, stones, clods, sticks, roots and other objectionable extraneous matter or debris. No stones or other materials over two (2) inches in size shall be allowed. Topsoil shall contain no toxic materials and have an acidity in the range 56 ► of pH 5.5 to pH 8.5. 9.3.3. Fertilizer. Triple superphosphate with a chemical analysis of 0- 46-0. 9.4. Inspection. 9.4.1. Locate all utilities prior to trenching and protect from damage. Required calls shall include, but are not limited to the following: 221- 6660 for Parks Division locates and 1-800-922-1987 for utility locates. 9.4.2. Accept rough grading from other contractors per approved plans. Rough grade inspection is to allow for six (6) inch minimum depth of topsoil and specified soil amendments as part of the fine grading work. 9.5. Execution. 9.5.1. Grub and remove unsuitable woody and rock material present in the surface grade. 9.5.2. Take precautions to accommodate proper drainage and flow during and after grading and soil preparation. 9.5.3. Apply herbicide to areas where noxious weed beds have been established and / or where seed mix is to be planted. Herbicide must be applied by certified contractors at the rate recommended by the manufacturer after proper notification has been done in accordance with chemical applicator's standards. 9.5.4. Rip to 8 inch depth with agriculture subsoiler in all areas to receive plantings. Remove all objects greater than two (2) inches in diameter. 9.6. Application. 9.6.1. Spread six (6) inches topsoil over entire landscaped area and grade to smooth and even lines. Establish swales and drainage as required per plans. 9.6.2. Evenly distribute soil amendment at rate of three (3) cubic yards per 57 ► one-thousand (1,000) square of area, or one (1) inch depth over the entire area to be prepared; alter rate if soils test recommends otherwise. Till amendments into top six (6) inches of soil. Compact to a firm, but not hard (80% of Standard Proctor Density at 2% optimum moisture). Evenly distribute triple superphosphate fertilizer at the rate of 15 pounds per one-thousand (1,000) square feet; modify type and rate if soils test recommends otherwise. 9.6.3. Trim finish grade elevations adjacent to paved areas to one (1) inch below pavement finish grade. 58 ► 59 ► CHAPTER 10 TURF SEEDING STANDARDS [RE-NUMBER THIS SECTION] 8.1. General. 10.1.1. Seed Mix. Shall be approved by the City Parks Division based on the activity to take place, planned irrigation method and maintenance to be performed in the area being seeded. In all cases, a drought tolerant seed mix shall be used that does not contain more than five percent (5%) bluegrass. 10.1.1.a. Pre-approved Dryland Mix (for temporary or permanent unmowed and non-irrigated areas): 45% Blue Grama 25% Buffalograss (treated) 30% Little Bluestem 10.1.1.b. Pre-approved Irrigated Seed Mix (for mowed applications): A blend of five turf type dwarf Tall Fescues or a mix of Kentucky Bluegrass and Perennial Rye ( Perennial Rye not to exceed 15%). 10.1.2. Seeded Areas. Seeding is allowed in Parkways where approved by City, on side slopes of detention ponds to be maintained by the City, and in some temporary dryland applications. No seeding is allowed in medians. All proposed seeded areas are to be specifically approved by the City Parks Division. 10.2. Submittals. Certificates showing State, Federal or other inspection showing source and origin. 10.3. Materials. 10.3.1. Seed. Shall be of fresh, clean, new crop seed composed of the varieties approved by the City with tested minimum percentages of purity and germination clearly labeled on the package. All seed shall be free of Poa annua and all noxious objectionable weeds with a maximum crop of .1% and maximum weeds of .1% weeds. 10.3.2. Mulch. 10.3.2.a. For slopes 30% and less: Native grass straw without weed seed and consisting of grasses as specified for seeded application. 10.3.2.b. For slopes 30% and greater, and inaccessible areas: Hydromulch using Weyerhauser "Silva-Fiber" mulch or approved equal. The wood cellulose fiber for hydraulic mulching shall not contain any substance or factor which might inhibit germination or growth of 60 ► larger than one (1) inch from all areas to be seeded. 10.4. Execution. 10.4.1. Fertilizer. Apply eight (8) pounds per 1,000 square foot of seeded area and rake lightly into top one- eighth (0.12) inch of soil just prior to seeding operation. 10.4.2 Seeding. 10.4.2.a. Do not sow seed in windy weather or when ground is frozen or otherwise untillable. 10.4.2.b. Use brillion type drill or hydraulic seeding methods. Drill seed in manner such that after surface is raked and rolled, seed has one-quarter (0.25) inch of cover. 10.4.2.c. Hydraulic seeding will be used in areas that are not accessible for machine methods. Hydraulic pump capable of being operated at 100 gallons per minute and at 100 pounds per square inch pressure to be used. The equipment shall have an acceptable pressure gauge and a nozzle adaptable to hydraulic seeding requirements. Storage tanks shall have a means of agitation and a means of estimating the volume used or remaining in the tank. Do not seed and mulch in the same operation. 10.4.2.d. Rates: Dryland Mix – 12 pounds pure live seed per acre. Irrigated Mix – 9 pounds pure live seed per acre for the Tall Fescue blend, or 4 pounds pure live seed for the Kentucky Blue/Perennial Rye mix. 10.4.3. Mulching. 10.4.3.a. Native Grass Mulch: Apply at a rate of two (2) tons per acre. Mulch seed beds within 24 hours after seeding. 10.4.3.b. Hydromulching: Wood cellulose fibers must become evenly dispersed when agitated in water. When sprayed uniformly on the soil surface, the fibers shall form a blotter like ground cover which readily absorbs water and allows infiltration to the underlying soil. Cellulose fiber mulch shall be added with the proportionate quantities of water and other approved materials in the slurry tank. All ingredients shall be mixed to form a homogenous slurry. Using the color of the mulch as a metering agent, spray apply the slurry mixture uniformly over the seeded area. Apply with tackafier 61 ► hand watered until turf is established to prevent erosion; water these areas more often but for shorter periods of time. 10.4.6. Clean Up. Remove all hydromulch and other mulch materials from all plant materials, fences, concrete and other areas except for seed bed. 10.4.7. Protection. Provide and install barriers as required to protect seeded areas from pedestrian and vehicular damage. Provide signage if needed. 62 ► Exhibit A PLANT PALETTE The plant palette below contains recommended plant species for streetscapes. This palette will be monitored by staff as part of an ongoing program with periodic updates based on evaluation of success of plantings over time. Designers of individual streetscape projects may propose plants not on the palette based on the design intent for the particular project. [THE PLANT PALETTE IS BEING DEVELOPED SEPARATELY, PLACEMENT AND FORMAT PENDING.] 63 ► 64 ► Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation Services TO: Karla Smith Boards and Commissions Coordinator FROM: Andy Smith, Chair Planning and Zoning Board DATE: October 31, 2012 SUBJECT: Planning and Zoning Board Work Program - 2013 During 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board saw an increase in the number of development applications and has reviewed and approved some notable developments including Legacy Senior Residences, Regency Lakeview, Link-n-Greens, and Bucking Horse. A number of appeals on Type 1 and Type 2 projects were filed on projects approved during the year and included Legacy Senior Residences, The District at Campus West, Aspen Heights, and Regency Lakeview. The Board also reviewed and recommended approval of the Wild Plum Farm 1st & 2nd, Wood Street, Forney, Kechter 1st & 2nd, and Kechter Crossing Annexations. A number of policy plans were reviewed by the Board in 2012, including the Outdoor Vendor Study, Downtown Parking Plan, Streetscape Standards, and Oil and Gas Standards. Land Use Code changes to medical marijuana, appeal process, bicycle parking standards, and multi-family housing were also reviewed by the Board. Development applications increased through 2012 and are expected to continue to increase in 2013, based on recent trends in Conceptual Review requests and submittals, as well as phone inquiries. Many of the anticipated projects will be on infill/redevelopment sites, so the Board will be addressing compatibility issues in existing neighborhoods on these projects. The level of interest in developments that have either expired, or for which extensions are being requested has also increased. These developments have been in a holding pattern for several years and with the increased availability of investment money, projects that are already entitled are very appealing to the development industry. Several key development proposals are anticipated during 2013 for the Board’s review and include the Link-n-Greens PDP, Foothills Mall redevelopment and associated multi-family housing, Pateros Creek PDP, and the Banner Health Medical Campus on Harmony Road. In addition to reviewing and evaluating development proposals, the Board will address important land use policy issues during 2013, including: Commercial and River Downtown Redevelopment District Architectural Design Standards - This project was originally two separate projects that came out of the last City Plan update and were merged due to having similar subject matter. The River Redevelopment District vision is for redevelopment design to complement the existing historic structures and reflect the 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Work Plan October 31, 2012 Page 2 - 2 - agricultural-industrial aspects of the area’s history. The commercial development topic includes issues of community identity, pedestrian orientation and visual quality of individual buildings and developments and how those are brought together to shape streetscape, walkways, plazas and other areas that adjoin the public right-of-way. East Side/West Side Character Study – The East Side/West Side Character Study continued through 2012 and has a November 27, 2012 work session scheduled with City Council. Staff expects to bring recommendations to the Board in early 2013 in response to Council direction given at the work session. The focus of this study is to identify the characteristics of these neighborhoods that create their unique character and context and identify potential tools for retaining and enhancing these features. Harmony Corridor Plan Update/Gateway area – The Harmony Corridor Plan was adopted in 1991 and updated in 2003. In 2006, the Harmony Corridor Standards & Guidelines were adopted. The update to this plan will focus on the Harmony Road gateway at I-25 and will create design guidelines for future development in the gateway area. Land Use Code Amendments – In 2013, there will continue to be a major effort to identify and recommend code revisions to City Council to implement principles of Plan Fort Collins, as well as other plans and policies. Council’s preference for important code changes is to bring changes on an as-needed basis, rather than waiting for the annual update package. This will result in the Board being asked more frequently to make recommendations to City Council on code amendments, including the following items:  Multi-family housing related code changes, as a result of the Student Housing Action Plan;  Urban Agricultural Land Use code changes – this effort has been an extension of the 2012 work program to ensure the Land Use Code supports the community’s desires in relation to urban agriculture practices both when and where appropriate. This project will resume in early 2013.  Non-Native Trees – In October 2012, staff discussed whether or not the current regulations related to non-native trees, specifically Siberian elm and Russian olives, adequately addressed the ecological value these trees can provide. The proposed changes to the Code will be brought to the Board in early 2013. Lincoln Avenue Corridor Strategic Plan – This plan will provide a community-supported vision and strategies to implement that vision for the corridor area. The project will explore how the “Catalyst Project Area” concept can be achieved and provide a model for sustainability, collaboration and partnerships, transportation and social connections, and implement a “great green street” along with other unique ideas to strengthen existing area attributes. Mason Street Corridor – The Choice Center (re-development of the Johnson Mobile Home Park in 221 dwelling units/676 beds) is nearing completion. This project, along with the Mason Corridor/MAX improvements may act as a catalyst for other redevelopment along the Corridor. Future redevelopment proposals along the corridor may propose significant physical changes to the existing urban form and could include increased building height, unique architectural design, reduced vehicular parking spaces, and neighborhood compatibility issues. Mid-town Urban Design Plan – This plan will guide the design of future redevelopment in the Mid-town area, and identify opportunities to further enhance streetscapes and multi-modal connectivity. It is expected to address connectivity along/across College Avenue, integrate the Mason Trial and MAX stops with other ped connections, develop a parking strategy that 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Work Plan October 31, 2012 Page 3 - 3 - supports desired densities, provide guidelines for site planning, architecture, and massing of buildings, identify catalyst sites, and provide way-finding and signage recommendations. Construction of the new MAX guideway and stations along the Mason Corridor is tentatively scheduled to be completed by winter of 2013. Nature in the City Amenities in Mixed-Use Areas – This project was identified from the City Plan update and is intended to encourage the integration of unique landscape features into the design and architecture of development and capital projects. These features may range from informal and naturalized, to highly structured and maintained features (i.e. trees groves within a project, storm water facilities that become naturalized over time, walls with vines). Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Regulations – Assuming that the proposed Oil and Gas Regulations are adopted by City Council, the Board would receive memo-based updates once a month on the issue in order to more quickly respond to the need to adapt the regulations. Planning Development Overlay District (PDOD) – In 2012, the PDOD tool was refined by staff and a six-month Pilot Project was proposed to confirm whether the tool would work as intended and to assess interest from the development community. The pilot project was approved by the Board in mid-2012 and staff is meeting with Council members to further understand Council’s concerns about the Pilot Project. The Pilot Project is expected to be considered by City council in early 2013 and the Board is expected to review the first PDOD project sometime in 2013, depending on the level of interest from the development community. Student Housing Action Plan – This joint effort between C.S.U., neighbors, developers and other stakeholders to identity strategies to address the increasing need for student housing within the context of the existing neighborhoods will continue into 2013 and may result in additional Land Use Code changes for multi-family housing. West Central Neighborhood Plan Update – The West Central Neighborhood Plan was adopted in 1999 for the area that is generally bounded in an “L” shape by Mulberry Street on the north, Shields Street, and the BNSF Rail line on the east, Drake Road on the south, and Taft Hill Road on the west. in 1999, issues have emerged that warrant a plan update. The update this plan will begin in January 2013 and assess such things as student housing project impacts, neighborhood compatibility of new development, land use/zoning, and impacts of traffic/parking near CSU and adjoining neighborhoods. cc: Planning and Zoning Board Members Mayor Karen Weitkunat, Council Liaison Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager Karen Cumbo, PDT Director Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director AGENDA (Amended) PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD -- CITY OF FORT COLLINS Interested persons are invited to attend and be heard at the time and place specified. Please contact the Current Planning Department for further information on any of the agenda items at 221-6750. DATE: Thursday, November 15, 2012 TIME: 6:00 P.M. PLACE: Council Chambers, City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO A. Roll Call B. Agenda Review: If the Thursday, November 15, 2012 hearing should run past 11:00 p.m., the remaining items may be continued to Thursday, December 20, 2012 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, City Hall West. C. Citizen Participation (30 minutes total for non-agenda and pending application topics) D. Consent Agenda: The Consent agenda consists of items with no known opposition or concern and is considered for approval as a group allowing the Planning and Zoning Board to spend its time and energy on the controversial items. Any member of the Board, staff, or audience may request an item be “pulled” off the Consent Agenda. 1. Minutes from the October 18, 2012 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing The Planning and Zoning Board provides a recommendation to City Council on the following items: 2. 3 Mile Plan Update This is a request for a recommendation to City Council to adopt the 2012 annual update of the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. The Three-Mile Plan lists the plans, policies, maps, and other documents that have been adopted by the City of Fort Collins City Council which generally describe the proposed location, character and extent of existing and proposed infrastructure and land use. Applicant: City of Fort Collins Staff: Courtney Levingston 3. Land Use Code Amendments for Multi-Family Housing, Phase 2 This is a request for a recommendation to City Council on the proposed Phase 2 Amendments to the City’s Land Use Code to address Multi-Family Housing in areas adjacent to single-family neighborhoods. Applicant: City of Fort Collins Staff: Seth Lorson and Ted Shepard E. Discussion Agenda: Specific time for public input has been set aside for discussion on the following items: 4. Streetscape Design Standards & Guidelines Update This is a request for the Planning and Zoning Board to make a recommendation to City Council regarding the update to the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards Appendix C, pertaining to Streetscape Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Fort Collins. Applicant: City of Fort Collins Staff: Pete Wray and Clark Mapes F. Other Business 2013 Work Plan the Board will formally review and adopt their 2013 Work Plan. G. Adjourn used at a rate of 120 pounds per acre. Unless otherwise ordered for specific areas, fiber mulch shall be applied at the rate of 2,000 pounds per acre. Hydraulic mulching shall not be performed in the presence of free surface water resulting from rains, melting snow or other causes. 10.4.4. Netting. Net areas over 30% slope. If contractor fails to net and subsequent soil erosion occurs, contractor shall re-establish finish grade, soil preparation, seed bed and apply netting at no cost to the City of Fort Collins. 10.4.5. Watering. Immediately after seeding and mulching, water seeded area slightly to a depth of two (2) inches, but with care so that no erosion takes place and no gullies are formed. Water lightly two (2) times per day and keep seeded area moist until turf is established. Sloped areas should be grass seed. It shall be dyed a green color to allow metering of its application. 10.3.2.c. Tackafier use Teratack III, or approved equal. 10.3.3. Netting. For slopes greater than 30%, use Soil Saver jute netting, or approved equal. Netting to be stapled with No. 11 gauge steel wire forged into a six (6) inch long U-shape, and painted for visibility in mowed areas. 10.3.4. Fertilizer. Use a fertilizer with a formula of 18-46-0 on all areas to be seeded. 10.3.5. Inspection. Inspect finish grade and trim where needed to obtain finish grades of one (1) inch below adjacent pavements. Verify positive drainage away from all structures. Verify or complete removal of rock and debris Specialty paving. development. Typically, both parkways and medians are constrained. clean-up. (bullets continued on next page) Urban design features that may need touch ups, replacements, W OA K ST WEST ST PARK ST N WASHINGTON AVE LAPORTE AVE MA PLE ST W MAGNOLIA ST S CREST- SKYLINE DR GRANDVIEW AVE DALE CT S BRYAN AVE C L O VE R L N C R E S T M O R E P L WESTVIEW AVE L A K E SI D E A VE LELAND AVE S H E L D O N D R BAYSTONE DR MAPLE ST W MYRTLE ST ELM ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE SYCAMORE ST N LOOMIS AVE UN IVERSITY AVE S SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST N MELDRUM ST W OAK ST W MOUNTAIN AVE W MULBERRY ST BRO ADVIEW PL FREY AVE R ICHARDS PL WE S T V I E W A V E N R O O SEVELT AVE B E E C H C T N MCKINLEY AVE ST MADERA CT SCOTT AVE C O L U M B I N E C T SYCAMORE ST S SHIELDS ST AK I N AVE WOOD ST S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST W MYRTLE ST N MELDRUM ST CHERRY ST SKYLINE DR ORCHARD PL N CREST- W P L U M S T N R O O S E V E L T A V E S H E L D O N D R N MCKINLEY AVE C H E R RY ST CRESTMORE PL AZTEC DR COLUMBINE BI R CH ST W MAGNOLIA ST TEDMON DR RIDDLE DR DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST WEST ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRANT AVE S SHERWOOD ST -MORE CT H O M E R D R N FREY AVE CHERRY ST N ROOSEVELT AVE LYONS ST CITY PARK AVE LAPORTE AVE FRANKLIN ST POMONA ST MILLER DR JACKSON AVE BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST S MACK ST HAWKINS ST GRIFFIN PL W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST WOOD ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST S MELDRUM ST W OLIVE ST N MELDRUM ST W E L I Z A B E T H S T N BRYAN AVE MAPLE ST CLOVER LN BIRCH ST W MOUNTAIN AVE SYLVA N CT PEARL ST JUNIPER CT HANNA ST N SHIELDS ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE ELM CT PARK ST MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST N SHERWOOD ST MAPLE ST SYCAMORE ST LAN CER DR BROADVIEW PL COLLINS CT CITY PARK DR W ELIZABETH ST S ROOSEVELT AVE BISHOP ST LYONS ST N MCKINLEY AVE DAISY ST BEECH ST N SHIELDS ST BUNGALOW CT ELM ST W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE CANYON AVE ISOTOPE DR W LAUREL ST LAB - POLARIS DUNN ELEMENTARY LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL ST JOSEPHS SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FULLANA ELEMENTARY OAKWOOD SCHOOL PUTNAM ELEMENTARY LINCOLN CENTER POTTERY STUDIO THE FARM THE FARM THE FARM MULBERRY POOL THE FARM PARK MAINTAINANCE BLDG CITY PARK POOL CITY PARK CENTER THE FARM LINCOLN CENTER Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Westside Variances: 1997-2012 (YTD) CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: October 30, 2012 © 0 500000 1,000 2, Feet Water Features Parcels City Limits Westside Neighborhood Variances Year 1997 - 2001 2002 - 2006 2007 - 2012 (YTD) On average, the number of variances granted within the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods has remained steady since 1997, with a greater percentage being located in the Westside Neighborhood. xxiv Preliminary Strategy Report Eastside and Westside Character Study MATHEWS ST LOCUST ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L I S S T EDWARDS ST E LAUREL ST M O R G A N S T GARFIEL D S T R I V E RSI D E A V E UNIVERSITY AVE OLD MAIN DR S COLLEGE AVE S COLLEGE AVE E MOUNT A IN AVE BUCKEYE ST WHEDBEE ST CIRCLE DR RIVERSIDE AVE LILAC LN C O L O R A D O S T E L A K E S T S LEMAY AVE EDWARDS ST E ELIZABETH ST E OAK ST PETERSON PL PETERSO N ST SMITH ST EASTDALE DR RIVERSIDE AVE B U C K E Y E S T E PITKIN ST LOCUS T C T ENDICOTT ST S MA SO N ST S MASON ST BUCKEYE ST MATHEWS ST E PITKIN ST STOVER ST E MYRTLE ST APEX DR E MULBERRY ST S MASON ST -PECT CT MATHEWS ST E LAKE ST E OLIVE ST CIRCLE DR S T OVER S T COWAN ST G R E E N S T R O B ERTSON ST S LEMAY AVE PROS- REMI NG T ON S T PERSON CT E LAUREL ST E MULBERRY ST WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E L O C U ST ST E PROSPECT RD L O R Y S T HARRIS BILINGUAL IMMERSION CENTENNIAL SR HIGH LAUREL ELEMENTARY BARTON EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER LESHER MIDDLE SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FT COLLINS MUSEUM FT COLLINS PUBLIC LIBRARY Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Eastside Variances: 1997-2012 (YTD) CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: October 30, 2012 © 0 250000 500 1, Feet Water Features Parcels City Limits Eastside Neighborhood Variances Year 1997 - 2001 2002 - 2006 2007 - 2012 (YTD) On average, the number of variances granted within the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods has remained steady since 1997, with a lesser percentage being located in the Eastside Neighborhood. Eastside and Westside Character Study Appendix D: Variances xxiii W OA K ST WEST ST PARK ST N WASHINGTON AVE LAPORTE AVE MA PLE ST W MAGNOLIA ST S CREST- SKYLINE DR GRANDVIEW AVE DALE CT S BRYAN AVE C L O VE R L N C R E S T M O R E P L WESTVIEW AVE L A K E SI D E A VE LELAND AVE S H E L D O N D R BAYSTONE DR MAPLE ST W MYRTLE ST ELM ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE SYCAMORE ST N LOOMIS AVE UN IVERSITY AVE S SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST N MELDRUM ST W OAK ST W MOUNTAIN AVE W MULBERRY ST BRO ADVIEW PL FREY AVE R ICHARDS PL WE S T V I E W A V E N R O O SEVELT AVE B E E C H C T N MCKINLEY AVE ST MADERA CT SCOTT AVE C O L U M B I N E C T SYCAMORE ST S SHIELDS ST AK I N AVE WOOD ST S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST W MYRTLE ST N MELDRUM ST CHERRY ST SKYLINE DR ORCHARD PL N CREST- W P L U M S T N R O O S E V E L T A V E S H E L D O N D R N MCKINLEY AVE C H E R RY ST CRESTMORE PL AZTEC DR COLUMBINE BI R CH ST W MAGNOLIA ST TEDMON DR RIDDLE DR DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST WEST ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRANT AVE S SHERWOOD ST -MORE CT H O M E R D R N FREY AVE CHERRY ST N ROOSEVELT AVE LYONS ST CITY PARK AVE LAPORTE AVE FRANKLIN ST POMONA ST MILLER DR JACKSON AVE BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST S MACK ST HAWKINS ST GRIFFIN PL W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST WOOD ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST S MELDRUM ST W OLIVE ST N MELDRUM ST W E L I Z A B E T H S T N BRYAN AVE MAPLE ST CLOVER LN BIRCH ST W MOUNTAIN AVE SYLVA N CT PEARL ST JUNIPER CT HANNA ST N SHIELDS ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE ELM CT PARK ST MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST N SHERWOOD ST MAPLE ST SYCAMORE ST LAN CER DR BROADVIEW PL COLLINS CT CITY PARK DR W ELIZABETH ST S ROOSEVELT AVE BISHOP ST LYONS ST N MCKINLEY AVE DAISY ST BEECH ST N SHIELDS ST BUNGALOW CT ELM ST W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE CANYON AVE ISOTOPE DR W LAUREL ST LAB - POLARIS DUNN ELEMENTARY LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL ST JOSEPHS SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FULLANA ELEMENTARY OAKWOOD SCHOOL PUTNAM ELEMENTARY LINCOLN CENTER POTTERY STUDIO THE FARM THE FARM THE FARM MULBERRY POOL THE FARM PARK MAINTAINANCE BLDG CITY PARK POOL CITY PARK CENTER THE FARM LINCOLN CENTER Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Westside Building Permits: 1997-2012 (YTD) CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: October 30, 2012 © 0 500000 1,000 2, Feet Water Features Parcels City Limits Westside Neighborhood Building Permits Year 1997 - 2001 2002 - 2006 2007 - 2012 (YTD) GIS data on building permits granted since 1997 show recent increases in construction activity in the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods. A greater percentage of this activity is concentrated in the Westside Neighborhood. xxii Preliminary Strategy Report Eastside and Westside Character Study MATHEWS ST LOCUST ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L I S S T EDWARDS ST E LAUREL ST M O R G A N S T GARFIEL D S T R I V E RSI D E A V E UNIVERSITY AVE OLD MAIN DR S COLLEGE AVE S COLLEGE AVE E MOUNT A IN AVE BUCKEYE ST WHEDBEE ST CIRCLE DR RIVERSIDE AVE LILAC LN C O L O R A D O S T E L A K E S T S LEMAY AVE EDWARDS ST E ELIZABETH ST E OAK ST PETERSON PL PETERSO N ST SMITH ST EASTDALE DR RIVERSIDE AVE B U C K E Y E S T E PITKIN ST LOCUS T C T ENDICOTT ST S MA SO N ST S MASON ST BUCKEYE ST MATHEWS ST E PITKIN ST STOVER ST E MYRTLE ST APEX DR E MULBERRY ST S MASON ST -PECT CT MATHEWS ST E LAKE ST E OLIVE ST CIRCLE DR S T OVER S T COWAN ST G R E E N S T R O B ERTSON ST S LEMAY AVE PROS- REMI NG T ON S T PERSON CT E LAUREL ST E MULBERRY ST WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E L O C U ST ST E PROSPECT RD L O R Y S T HARRIS BILINGUAL IMMERSION CENTENNIAL SR HIGH LAUREL ELEMENTARY BARTON EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER LESHER MIDDLE SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FT COLLINS MUSEUM FT COLLINS PUBLIC LIBRARY Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Eastside Building Permits: 1997-2012 (YTD) CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: October 30, 2012 © 0 250000 500 1, Feet Water Features Parcels City Limits Eastside Neighborhood Building Permits Year 1997 - 2001 2002 - 2006 2007 - 2012 (YTD) GIS data on building permits granted since 1997 show recent increases in construction activity in the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods. A lesser percentage of this activity is concentrated in the Eastside Neighborhood. Eastside and Westside Character Study Appendix C: Building Permits xxi W OA K ST WEST ST PARK ST N WASHINGTON AVE LAPORTE AVE MA PLE ST W MAGNOLIA ST S CREST- SKYLINE DR GRANDVIEW AVE DALE CT S BRYAN AVE C L O VE R L N C R E S T M O R E P L WESTVIEW AVE L A K E SI D E A VE LELAND AVE S H E L D O N D R BAYSTONE DR MAPLE ST W MYRTLE ST ELM ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE SYCAMORE ST N LOOMIS AVE UN IVERSITY AVE S SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST N MELDRUM ST W OAK ST W MOUNTAIN AVE W MULBERRY ST BRO ADVIEW PL FREY AVE R ICHARDS PL WE S T V I E W A V E N R O O SEVELT AVE B E E C H C T N MCKINLEY AVE ST MADERA CT SCOTT AVE C O L U M B I N E C T SYCAMORE ST S SHIELDS ST AK I N AVE WOOD ST S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST W MYRTLE ST N MELDRUM ST CHERRY ST SKYLINE DR ORCHARD PL N CREST- W P L U M S T N R O O S E V E L T A V E S H E L D O N D R N MCKINLEY AVE C H E R RY ST CRESTMORE PL AZTEC DR COLUMBINE BI R CH ST W MAGNOLIA ST TEDMON DR RIDDLE DR DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST WEST ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRANT AVE S SHERWOOD ST -MORE CT H O M E R D R N FREY AVE CHERRY ST N ROOSEVELT AVE LYONS ST CITY PARK AVE LAPORTE AVE FRANKLIN ST POMONA ST MILLER DR JACKSON AVE BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST S MACK ST HAWKINS ST GRIFFIN PL W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST WOOD ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST S MELDRUM ST W OLIVE ST N MELDRUM ST W E L I Z A B E T H S T N BRYAN AVE MAPLE ST CLOVER LN BIRCH ST W MOUNTAIN AVE SYLVA N CT PEARL ST JUNIPER CT HANNA ST N SHIELDS ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE ELM CT PARK ST MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST N SHERWOOD ST MAPLE ST SYCAMORE ST LAN CER DR BROADVIEW PL COLLINS CT CITY PARK DR W ELIZABETH ST S ROOSEVELT AVE BISHOP ST LYONS ST N MCKINLEY AVE DAISY ST BEECH ST N SHIELDS ST BUNGALOW CT ELM ST W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE CANYON AVE ISOTOPE DR W LAUREL ST LAB - POLARIS DUNN ELEMENTARY LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL ST JOSEPHS SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FULLANA ELEMENTARY OAKWOOD SCHOOL PUTNAM ELEMENTARY LINCOLN CENTER POTTERY STUDIO THE FARM THE FARM THE FARM MULBERRY POOL THE FARM PARK MAINTAINANCE BLDG CITY PARK POOL CITY PARK CENTER THE FARM LINCOLN CENTER Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: October 01, 2012 0 500000 1,000 2, Feet Character Area 1 Character Area 2 Character Area 3 Character Area 4 Character Area 5 Character Area 6 Draft Character Areas - Westside Neighborhood ▲ North xx Preliminary Strategy Report Eastside and Westside Character Study MATHEWS ST LOCUST ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L I S S T EDWARDS ST E LAUREL ST M O R G A N S T GARFIEL D S T R I V E RSI D E A V E UNIVERSITY AVE OLD MAIN DR S COLLEGE AVE S COLLEGE AVE E MOUNT A IN AVE BUCKEYE ST WHEDBEE ST CIRCLE DR RIVERSIDE AVE LILAC LN C O L O R A D O S T E L A K E S T S LEMAY AVE EDWARDS ST E ELIZABETH ST E OAK ST PETERSON PL PETERSO N ST SMITH ST EASTDALE DR RIVERSIDE AVE B U C K E Y E S T E PITKIN ST LOCUS T C T ENDICOTT ST S MA SO N ST S MASON ST BUCKEYE ST MATHEWS ST E PITKIN ST STOVER ST E MYRTLE ST APEX DR E MULBERRY ST S MASON ST -PECT CT MATHEWS ST E LAKE ST E OLIVE ST CIRCLE DR S T OVER S T COWAN ST G R E E N S T R O B ERTSON ST S LEMAY AVE PROS- REMI NG T ON S T PERSON CT E LAUREL ST E MULBERRY ST WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E L O C U ST ST E PROSPECT RD L O R Y S T HARRIS BILINGUAL IMMERSION CENTENNIAL SR HIGH LAUREL ELEMENTARY BARTON EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER LESHER MIDDLE SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FT COLLINS MUSEUM FT COLLINS PUBLIC LIBRARY Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: October 01, 2012 0 250000 500 1, Feet Character Area 1 Character Area 2 Character Area 3 Character Area 4 Character Area 5 Character Area 6 ▲ North Draft Character Areas - Eastside Neighborhood Eastside and Westside Character Study Appendix B: Character Area Maps xix SUNSET AVE N SHIELDS ST W OA K ST WEST ST PARK ST N WASHINGTON AVE LAPORTE AVE MA PLE ST W MAGNOLIA ST S CREST- SKYLINE DR GRANDVIEW AVE DALE CT S BRYAN AVE C L O VE R L N C R E S T M O R E P L WESTVIEW AVE L A K E SI D E A VE LELAND AVE S H E L D O N D R BAYSTONE DR MAPLE ST W MYRTLE ST ELM ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE SYCAMORE ST N LOOMIS AVE UN IVERSITY AVE S SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST N MELDRUM ST W OAK ST W MOUNTAIN AVE W MULBERRY ST BRO ADVIEW PL FREY AVE R ICHARDS PL WE S T V I E W A V E N R O O SEVELT AVE B E E C H C T N MCKINLEY AVE ST MADERA CT SCOTT AVE C O L U M B I N E C T SYCAMORE ST S SHIELDS ST AK I N AVE WOOD ST S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST W MYRTLE ST N MELDRUM ST CHERRY ST SKYLINE DR ORCHARD PL N CREST- W P L U M S T N R O O S E V E L T A V E S H E L D O N D R N MCKINLEY AVE C H E R RY ST CRESTMORE PL AZTEC DR COLUMBINE BI R CH ST W MAGNOLIA ST TEDMON DR RIDDLE DR DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST WEST ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRANT AVE S SHERWOOD ST -MORE CT H O M E R D R N FREY AVE CHERRY ST N ROOSEVELT AVE LYONS ST CITY PARK AVE LAPORTE AVE FRANKLIN ST POMONA ST MILLER DR JACKSON AVE BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST S MACK ST HAWKINS ST GRIFFIN PL W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST WOOD ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST S MELDRUM ST W OLIVE ST N MELDRUM ST W E L I Z A B E T H S T N BRYAN AVE MAPLE ST CLOVER LN BIRCH ST W MOUNTAIN AVE SYLVA N CT PEARL ST JUNIPER CT HANNA ST N SHIELDS ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE ELM CT PARK ST MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST N SHERWOOD ST MAPLE ST SYCAMORE ST LAN CER DR BROADVIEW PL COLLINS CT CITY PARK DR W ELIZABETH ST S ROOSEVELT AVE BISHOP ST LYONS ST N MCKINLEY AVE DAISY ST BEECH ST N SHIELDS ST BUNGALOW CT ELM ST W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE CANYON AVE ISOTOPE DR W LAUREL ST LAB - POLARIS DUNN ELEMENTARY LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL ST JOSEPHS SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FULLANA ELEMENTARY OAKWOOD SCHOOL PUTNAM ELEMENTARY LINCOLN CENTER POTTERY STUDIO THE FARM THE FARM THE FARM MULBERRY POOL THE FARM PARK MAINTAINANCE BLDG CITY PARK POOL CITY PARK CENTER THE FARM LINCOLN CENTER Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Westside Lot Coverage CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: July 05, 2012 © 0 500000 1,000 2, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Westside Neighborhood Lot Coverage Less than 5% 5% - 9% 10% - 14% 15% - 19% 20% - 24% 25% - 29% 30% - 34% 35% - 39% 40% - 44% 45% - 49% 50% + Westside Neighborhood: Lot Coverage The Lot Coverage map shows patterns in percentage of covered lot throughout the neighborhood. Lot coverage typically varies throughout each block in the Westside. Most lots are less than 50% covered. Blocks along W. Mountain Avenue have a higher average lot coverage than is typical of the rest of the neighborhood. -MORE CT S K Y L I N E D R HOMER CT CRESTMORE PL COOK DR S B R Y A N A V E LAYLAND CT FISHBACK AVE W MULBERRY ST W OAK ST S MCKINLEY AVE HANNA ST WAGNER DR SCOTT AVE PEARL ST HANNA ST S SHIELDS ST N MACK ST W VINE DR ARMSTRON G A V E CHERRY ST N WHITCOMB ST LAPORTE AVE WEST DR E L M S T LYONS ST W PLUM ST W VINE DR SYLVAN CT ALAMEDA ST W OLIVE ST W COY DR JAMITH PL SUNSET AVE N SHIELDS ST W OA K ST WEST ST PARK ST N WASHINGTON AVE LAPORTE AVE MA PLE ST W MAGNOLIA ST S CREST- SKYLINE DR GRANDVIEW AVE DALE CT S BRYAN AVE C L O VE R L N C R E S T M O R E P L WESTVIEW AVE L A K E SI D E A VE LELAND AVE S H E L D O N D R BAYSTONE DR MAPLE ST W MYRTLE ST ELM ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE SYCAMORE ST N LOOMIS AVE UN IVERSITY AVE S SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST N MELDRUM ST W OAK ST W MOUNTAIN AVE W MULBERRY ST BRO ADVIEW PL FREY AVE R ICHARDS PL WE S T V I E W A V E N R O O SEVELT AVE B E E C H C T N MCKINLEY AVE ST MADERA CT SCOTT AVE C O L U M B I N E C T SYCAMORE ST S SHIELDS ST AK I N AVE WOOD ST S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST W MYRTLE ST N MELDRUM ST CHERRY ST SKYLINE DR ORCHARD PL N CREST- W P L U M S T N R O O S E V E L T A V E S H E L D O N D R N MCKINLEY AVE C H E R RY ST CRESTMORE PL AZTEC DR COLUMBINE BI R CH ST W MAGNOLIA ST TEDMON DR RIDDLE DR DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST WEST ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRANT AVE S SHERWOOD ST -MORE CT H O M E R D R N FREY AVE CHERRY ST N ROOSEVELT AVE LYONS ST CITY PARK AVE LAPORTE AVE FRANKLIN ST POMONA ST MILLER DR JACKSON AVE BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST S MACK ST HAWKINS ST GRIFFIN PL W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST WOOD ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST S MELDRUM ST W OLIVE ST N MELDRUM ST W E L I Z A B E T H S T N BRYAN AVE MAPLE ST CLOVER LN BIRCH ST W MOUNTAIN AVE SYLVA N CT PEARL ST JUNIPER CT HANNA ST N SHIELDS ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE ELM CT PARK ST MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST N SHERWOOD ST MAPLE ST SYCAMORE ST LAN CER DR BROADVIEW PL COLLINS CT CITY PARK DR W ELIZABETH ST S ROOSEVELT AVE BISHOP ST LYONS ST N MCKINLEY AVE DAISY ST BEECH ST N SHIELDS ST BUNGALOW CT ELM ST W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE CANYON AVE ISOTOPE DR W LAUREL ST LAB - POLARIS DUNN ELEMENTARY LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL ST JOSEPHS SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FULLANA ELEMENTARY OAKWOOD SCHOOL PUTNAM ELEMENTARY LINCOLN CENTER POTTERY STUDIO THE FARM THE FARM THE FARM MULBERRY POOL THE FARM PARK MAINTAINANCE BLDG CITY PARK POOL CITY PARK CENTER THE FARM LINCOLN CENTER Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Westside Lot Coverage CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: July 05, 2012 © 0 500000 1,000 2, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Westside Neighborhood Lot Coverage Less than 5% 5% - 9% 10% - 14% 15% - 19% 20% - 24% 25% - 29% 30% - 34% 35% - 39% 40% - 44% 45% - 49% 50% + SUNSET AVE N SHIELDS ST W OA K ST WEST ST PARK ST N WASHINGTON AVE LAPORTE AVE MA PLE ST W MAGNOLIA ST S CREST- SKYLINE DR GRANDVIEW AVE DALE CT S BRYAN AVE C L O VE R L N C R E S T M O R E P L WESTVIEW AVE L A K E SI D E A VE LELAND AVE S H E L D O N D R BAYSTONE DR MAPLE ST W MYRTLE ST ELM ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE SYCAMORE ST N LOOMIS AVE UN IVERSITY AVE S SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST N MELDRUM ST W OAK ST W MOUNTAIN AVE W MULBERRY ST BRO ADVIEW PL FREY AVE R ICHARDS PL WE S T V I E W A V E N R O O SEVELT AVE B E E C H C T N MCKINLEY AVE ST MADERA CT SCOTT AVE C O L U M B I N E C T SYCAMORE ST S SHIELDS ST AK I N AVE WOOD ST S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST W MYRTLE ST N MELDRUM ST CHERRY ST SKYLINE DR ORCHARD PL N CREST- W P L U M S T N R O O S E V E L T A V E S H E L D O N D R N MCKINLEY AVE C H E R RY ST CRESTMORE PL AZTEC DR COLUMBINE BI R CH ST W MAGNOLIA ST TEDMON DR RIDDLE DR DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST WEST ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRANT AVE S SHERWOOD ST -MORE CT H O M E R D R N FREY AVE CHERRY ST N ROOSEVELT AVE LYONS ST CITY PARK AVE LAPORTE AVE FRANKLIN ST POMONA ST MILLER DR JACKSON AVE BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST S MACK ST HAWKINS ST GRIFFIN PL W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST WOOD ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST S MELDRUM ST W OLIVE ST N MELDRUM ST W E L I Z A B E T H S T N BRYAN AVE MAPLE ST CLOVER LN BIRCH ST W MOUNTAIN AVE SYLVA N CT PEARL ST JUNIPER CT HANNA ST N SHIELDS ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE ELM CT PARK ST MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST N SHERWOOD ST MAPLE ST SYCAMORE ST LAN CER DR BROADVIEW PL COLLINS CT CITY PARK DR W ELIZABETH ST S ROOSEVELT AVE BISHOP ST LYONS ST N MCKINLEY AVE DAISY ST BEECH ST N SHIELDS ST BUNGALOW CT ELM ST W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE CANYON AVE ISOTOPE DR W LAUREL ST LAB - POLARIS DUNN ELEMENTARY LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL ST JOSEPHS SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FULLANA ELEMENTARY OAKWOOD SCHOOL PUTNAM ELEMENTARY LINCOLN CENTER POTTERY STUDIO THE FARM THE FARM THE FARM MULBERRY POOL THE FARM PARK MAINTAINANCE BLDG CITY PARK POOL CITY PARK CENTER THE FARM LINCOLN CENTER Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Westside Lot Frontage CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: July 05, 2012 © 0 500000 1,000 2, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Westside Neighborhood Lot Frontage Feet 25 - 50 51 - 75 76 - 100 101 - 125 More than 125 Westside Neighborhood: Lot Frontage The Lot Frontage map shows patterns in width of lots throughout the neighborhood. Combined with lot size, the frontage helps determine if a lot may legally be subdivided. In the Westside, lot frontage is typically 75 feet or less, with some areas of slightly wider lots. Exceptions occur on corner lots, along curvilinear streets, and where "H"-shaped alleys occur. Several areas along W. Mountain Avenue also differ, having much narrower lot frontage than the neighborhood's average. -MORE CT S K Y L I N E D R HOMER CT CRESTMORE PL COOK DR S B R Y A N A V E LAYLAND CT FISHBACK AVE W MULBERRY ST W OAK ST S MCKINLEY AVE HANNA ST WAGNER DR SCOTT AVE PEARL ST HANNA ST S SHIELDS ST N MACK ST W VINE DR ARMSTRON G A V E CHERRY ST N WHITCOMB ST LAPORTE AVE WEST DR E L M S T LYONS ST W PLUM ST W VINE DR SYLVAN CT ALAMEDA ST W OLIVE ST W COY DR JAMITH PL SUNSET AVE N SHIELDS ST W OA K ST WEST ST PARK ST N WASHINGTON AVE LAPORTE AVE MA PLE ST W MAGNOLIA ST S CREST- SKYLINE DR GRANDVIEW AVE DALE CT S BRYAN AVE C L O VE R L N C R E S T M O R E P L WESTVIEW AVE L A K E SI D E A VE LELAND AVE S H E L D O N D R BAYSTONE DR MAPLE ST W MYRTLE ST ELM ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE SYCAMORE ST N LOOMIS AVE UN IVERSITY AVE S SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST N MELDRUM ST W OAK ST W MOUNTAIN AVE W MULBERRY ST BRO ADVIEW PL FREY AVE R ICHARDS PL WE S T V I E W A V E N R O O SEVELT AVE B E E C H C T N MCKINLEY AVE ST MADERA CT SCOTT AVE C O L U M B I N E C T SYCAMORE ST S SHIELDS ST AK I N AVE WOOD ST S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST W MYRTLE ST N MELDRUM ST CHERRY ST SKYLINE DR ORCHARD PL N CREST- W P L U M S T N R O O S E V E L T A V E S H E L D O N D R N MCKINLEY AVE C H E R RY ST CRESTMORE PL AZTEC DR COLUMBINE BI R CH ST W MAGNOLIA ST TEDMON DR RIDDLE DR DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST WEST ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRANT AVE S SHERWOOD ST -MORE CT H O M E R D R N FREY AVE CHERRY ST N ROOSEVELT AVE LYONS ST CITY PARK AVE LAPORTE AVE FRANKLIN ST POMONA ST MILLER DR JACKSON AVE BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST S MACK ST HAWKINS ST GRIFFIN PL W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST WOOD ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST S MELDRUM ST W OLIVE ST N MELDRUM ST W E L I Z A B E T H S T N BRYAN AVE MAPLE ST CLOVER LN BIRCH ST W MOUNTAIN AVE SYLVA N CT PEARL ST JUNIPER CT HANNA ST N SHIELDS ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE ELM CT PARK ST MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST N SHERWOOD ST MAPLE ST SYCAMORE ST LAN CER DR BROADVIEW PL COLLINS CT CITY PARK DR W ELIZABETH ST S ROOSEVELT AVE BISHOP ST LYONS ST N MCKINLEY AVE DAISY ST BEECH ST N SHIELDS ST BUNGALOW CT ELM ST W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE CANYON AVE ISOTOPE DR W LAUREL ST LAB - POLARIS DUNN ELEMENTARY LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL ST JOSEPHS SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FULLANA ELEMENTARY OAKWOOD SCHOOL PUTNAM ELEMENTARY LINCOLN CENTER POTTERY STUDIO THE FARM THE FARM THE FARM MULBERRY POOL THE FARM PARK MAINTAINANCE BLDG CITY PARK POOL CITY PARK CENTER THE FARM LINCOLN CENTER Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Westside Lot Frontage CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: July 05, 2012 © 0 500000 1,000 2, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Westside Neighborhood Lot Frontage Feet 25 - 50 51 - 75 76 - 100 101 - 125 More than 125 SUNSET AVE N SHIELDS ST W OA K ST WEST ST PARK ST N WASHINGTON AVE LAPORTE AVE MA PLE ST W MAGNOLIA ST S CREST- SKYLINE DR GRANDVIEW AVE DALE CT S BRYAN AVE C L O VE R L N C R E S T M O R E P L WESTVIEW AVE L A K E SI D E A VE LELAND AVE S H E L D O N D R BAYSTONE DR MAPLE ST W MYRTLE ST ELM ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE SYCAMORE ST N LOOMIS AVE UN IVERSITY AVE S SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST N MELDRUM ST W OAK ST W MOUNTAIN AVE W MULBERRY ST BRO ADVIEW PL FREY AVE R ICHARDS PL WE S T V I E W A V E N R O O SEVELT AVE B E E C H C T N MCKINLEY AVE ST MADERA CT SCOTT AVE C O L U M B I N E C T SYCAMORE ST S SHIELDS ST AK I N AVE WOOD ST S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST W MYRTLE ST N MELDRUM ST CHERRY ST SKYLINE DR ORCHARD PL N CREST- W P L U M S T N R O O S E V E L T A V E S H E L D O N D R N MCKINLEY AVE C H E R RY ST CRESTMORE PL AZTEC DR COLUMBINE BI R CH ST W MAGNOLIA ST TEDMON DR RIDDLE DR DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST WEST ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRANT AVE S SHERWOOD ST -MORE CT H O M E R D R N FREY AVE CHERRY ST N ROOSEVELT AVE LYONS ST CITY PARK AVE LAPORTE AVE FRANKLIN ST POMONA ST MILLER DR JACKSON AVE BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST S MACK ST HAWKINS ST GRIFFIN PL W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST WOOD ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST S MELDRUM ST W OLIVE ST N MELDRUM ST W E L I Z A B E T H S T N BRYAN AVE MAPLE ST CLOVER LN BIRCH ST W MOUNTAIN AVE SYLVA N CT PEARL ST JUNIPER CT HANNA ST N SHIELDS ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE ELM CT PARK ST MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST N SHERWOOD ST MAPLE ST SYCAMORE ST LAN CER DR BROADVIEW PL COLLINS CT CITY PARK DR W ELIZABETH ST S ROOSEVELT AVE BISHOP ST LYONS ST N MCKINLEY AVE DAISY ST BEECH ST N SHIELDS ST BUNGALOW CT ELM ST W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE CANYON AVE ISOTOPE DR W LAUREL ST LAB - POLARIS DUNN ELEMENTARY LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL ST JOSEPHS SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FULLANA ELEMENTARY OAKWOOD SCHOOL PUTNAM ELEMENTARY LINCOLN CENTER POTTERY STUDIO THE FARM THE FARM THE FARM MULBERRY POOL THE FARM PARK MAINTAINANCE BLDG CITY PARK POOL CITY PARK CENTER THE FARM LINCOLN CENTER Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Westside Single-Family Lot Size CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: July 05, 2012 © 0 500000 1,000 2, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Westside Neighborhood Lot Size Square Feet Less than 4,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 + Westside Neighborhood: Lot Size The Lot Size map shows patterns in square footage of lots throughout the neighborhood. In the Westside, most blocks have a predomi- nant lot size, with the exception of curvilinear street patterns and smaller or subdivided corner lots. Areas with "H"-shaped alleys will also have a large range in lot sizes, typically with several larger lots along a block of smaller lots. More variety in lot size also occurs along W. Mountain Avenue, though several individual blocks remain consistent. -MORE CT S K Y L I N E D R HOMER CT CRESTMORE PL COOK DR S B R Y A N A V E LAYLAND CT FISHBACK AVE W MULBERRY ST W OAK ST S MCKINLEY AVE HANNA ST WAGNER DR SCOTT AVE PEARL ST HANNA ST S SHIELDS ST N MACK ST W VINE DR ARMSTRON G A V E CHERRY ST N WHITCOMB ST LAPORTE AVE WEST DR E L M S T LYONS ST W PLUM ST W VINE DR SYLVAN CT ALAMEDA ST W OLIVE ST W COY DR JAMITH PL SUNSET AVE N SHIELDS ST W OA K ST WEST ST PARK ST N WASHINGTON AVE LAPORTE AVE MA PLE ST W MAGNOLIA ST S CREST- SKYLINE DR GRANDVIEW AVE DALE CT S BRYAN AVE C L O VE R L N C R E S T M O R E P L WESTVIEW AVE L A K E SI D E A VE LELAND AVE S H E L D O N D R BAYSTONE DR MAPLE ST W MYRTLE ST ELM ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE SYCAMORE ST N LOOMIS AVE UN IVERSITY AVE S SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST N MELDRUM ST W OAK ST W MOUNTAIN AVE W MULBERRY ST BRO ADVIEW PL FREY AVE R ICHARDS PL WE S T V I E W A V E N R O O SEVELT AVE B E E C H C T N MCKINLEY AVE ST MADERA CT SCOTT AVE C O L U M B I N E C T SYCAMORE ST S SHIELDS ST AK I N AVE WOOD ST S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST W MYRTLE ST N MELDRUM ST CHERRY ST SKYLINE DR ORCHARD PL N CREST- W P L U M S T N R O O S E V E L T A V E S H E L D O N D R N MCKINLEY AVE C H E R RY ST CRESTMORE PL AZTEC DR COLUMBINE BI R CH ST W MAGNOLIA ST TEDMON DR RIDDLE DR DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST WEST ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRANT AVE S SHERWOOD ST -MORE CT H O M E R D R N FREY AVE CHERRY ST N ROOSEVELT AVE LYONS ST CITY PARK AVE LAPORTE AVE FRANKLIN ST POMONA ST MILLER DR JACKSON AVE BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST S MACK ST HAWKINS ST GRIFFIN PL W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST WOOD ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST S MELDRUM ST W OLIVE ST N MELDRUM ST W E L I Z A B E T H S T N BRYAN AVE MAPLE ST CLOVER LN BIRCH ST W MOUNTAIN AVE SYLVA N CT PEARL ST JUNIPER CT HANNA ST N SHIELDS ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE ELM CT PARK ST MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST N SHERWOOD ST MAPLE ST SYCAMORE ST LAN CER DR BROADVIEW PL COLLINS CT CITY PARK DR W ELIZABETH ST S ROOSEVELT AVE BISHOP ST LYONS ST N MCKINLEY AVE DAISY ST BEECH ST N SHIELDS ST BUNGALOW CT ELM ST W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE CANYON AVE ISOTOPE DR W LAUREL ST LAB - POLARIS DUNN ELEMENTARY LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL ST JOSEPHS SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FULLANA ELEMENTARY OAKWOOD SCHOOL PUTNAM ELEMENTARY LINCOLN CENTER POTTERY STUDIO THE FARM THE FARM THE FARM MULBERRY POOL THE FARM PARK MAINTAINANCE BLDG CITY PARK POOL CITY PARK CENTER THE FARM LINCOLN CENTER Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Westside Single-Family Lot Size CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: July 05, 2012 © 0 500000 1,000 2, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Westside Neighborhood Lot Size Square Feet Less than 4,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 + SUNSET AVE N SHIELDS ST W OA K ST WEST ST PARK ST N WASHINGTON AVE LAPORTE AVE MA PLE ST W MAGNOLIA ST S CREST- SKYLINE DR GRANDVIEW AVE DALE CT S BRYAN AVE C L O VE R L N C R E S T M O R E P L WESTVIEW AVE L A K E SI D E A VE LELAND AVE S H E L D O N D R BAYSTONE DR MAPLE ST W MYRTLE ST ELM ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE SYCAMORE ST N LOOMIS AVE UN IVERSITY AVE S SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST N MELDRUM ST W OAK ST W MOUNTAIN AVE W MULBERRY ST BRO ADVIEW PL FREY AVE R ICHARDS PL WE S T V I E W A V E N R O O SEVELT AVE B E E C H C T N MCKINLEY AVE ST MADERA CT SCOTT AVE C O L U M B I N E C T SYCAMORE ST S SHIELDS ST AK I N AVE WOOD ST S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST W MYRTLE ST N MELDRUM ST CHERRY ST SKYLINE DR ORCHARD PL N CREST- W P L U M S T N R O O S E V E L T A V E S H E L D O N D R N MCKINLEY AVE C H E R RY ST CRESTMORE PL AZTEC DR COLUMBINE BI R CH ST W MAGNOLIA ST TEDMON DR RIDDLE DR DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST WEST ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRANT AVE S SHERWOOD ST -MORE CT H O M E R D R N FREY AVE CHERRY ST N ROOSEVELT AVE LYONS ST CITY PARK AVE LAPORTE AVE FRANKLIN ST POMONA ST MILLER DR JACKSON AVE BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST S MACK ST HAWKINS ST GRIFFIN PL W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST WOOD ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST S MELDRUM ST W OLIVE ST N MELDRUM ST W E L I Z A B E T H S T N BRYAN AVE MAPLE ST CLOVER LN BIRCH ST W MOUNTAIN AVE SYLVA N CT PEARL ST JUNIPER CT HANNA ST N SHIELDS ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE ELM CT PARK ST MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST N SHERWOOD ST MAPLE ST SYCAMORE ST LAN CER DR BROADVIEW PL COLLINS CT CITY PARK DR W ELIZABETH ST S ROOSEVELT AVE BISHOP ST LYONS ST N MCKINLEY AVE DAISY ST BEECH ST N SHIELDS ST BUNGALOW CT ELM ST W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE CANYON AVE ISOTOPE DR W LAUREL ST LAB - POLARIS DUNN ELEMENTARY LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL ST JOSEPHS SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FULLANA ELEMENTARY OAKWOOD SCHOOL PUTNAM ELEMENTARY LINCOLN CENTER POTTERY STUDIO THE FARM THE FARM THE FARM MULBERRY POOL THE FARM PARK MAINTAINANCE BLDG CITY PARK POOL CITY PARK CENTER THE FARM LINCOLN CENTER Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Westside Single-Family Building Height CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: July 05, 2012 © 0 500000 1,000 2, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Westside Neighborhood Building Height Stories 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Westside Neighborhood: Building Height The Building Height map shows patterns in the height of homes throughout the neighborhood. In the Westside, homes are typically one story, with scattered one-and-a-half and two story as well. Along and near W. Mountain Avenue average heights are taller, typically at one-and-a-half stories with several two-story homes as well. -MORE CT S K Y L I N E D R HOMER CT CRESTMORE PL COOK DR S B R Y A N A V E LAYLAND CT FISHBACK AVE W MULBERRY ST W OAK ST S MCKINLEY AVE HANNA ST WAGNER DR SCOTT AVE PEARL ST HANNA ST S SHIELDS ST N MACK ST W VINE DR ARMSTRON G A V E CHERRY ST N WHITCOMB ST LAPORTE AVE WEST DR E L M S T LYONS ST W PLUM ST W VINE DR SYLVAN CT ALAMEDA ST W OLIVE ST W COY DR JAMITH PL SUNSET AVE N SHIELDS ST W OA K ST WEST ST PARK ST N WASHINGTON AVE LAPORTE AVE MA PLE ST W MAGNOLIA ST S CREST- SKYLINE DR GRANDVIEW AVE DALE CT S BRYAN AVE C L O VE R L N C R E S T M O R E P L WESTVIEW AVE L A K E SI D E A VE LELAND AVE S H E L D O N D R BAYSTONE DR MAPLE ST W MYRTLE ST ELM ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE SYCAMORE ST N LOOMIS AVE UN IVERSITY AVE S SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST N MELDRUM ST W OAK ST W MOUNTAIN AVE W MULBERRY ST BRO ADVIEW PL FREY AVE R ICHARDS PL WE S T V I E W A V E N R O O SEVELT AVE B E E C H C T N MCKINLEY AVE ST MADERA CT SCOTT AVE C O L U M B I N E C T SYCAMORE ST S SHIELDS ST AK I N AVE WOOD ST S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST W MYRTLE ST N MELDRUM ST CHERRY ST SKYLINE DR ORCHARD PL N CREST- W P L U M S T N R O O S E V E L T A V E S H E L D O N D R N MCKINLEY AVE C H E R RY ST CRESTMORE PL AZTEC DR COLUMBINE BI R CH ST W MAGNOLIA ST TEDMON DR RIDDLE DR DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST WEST ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRANT AVE S SHERWOOD ST -MORE CT H O M E R D R N FREY AVE CHERRY ST N ROOSEVELT AVE LYONS ST CITY PARK AVE LAPORTE AVE FRANKLIN ST POMONA ST MILLER DR JACKSON AVE BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST S MACK ST HAWKINS ST GRIFFIN PL W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST WOOD ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST S MELDRUM ST W OLIVE ST N MELDRUM ST W E L I Z A B E T H S T N BRYAN AVE MAPLE ST CLOVER LN BIRCH ST W MOUNTAIN AVE SYLVA N CT PEARL ST JUNIPER CT HANNA ST N SHIELDS ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE ELM CT PARK ST MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST N SHERWOOD ST MAPLE ST SYCAMORE ST LAN CER DR BROADVIEW PL COLLINS CT CITY PARK DR W ELIZABETH ST S ROOSEVELT AVE BISHOP ST LYONS ST N MCKINLEY AVE DAISY ST BEECH ST N SHIELDS ST BUNGALOW CT ELM ST W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE CANYON AVE ISOTOPE DR W LAUREL ST LAB - POLARIS DUNN ELEMENTARY LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL ST JOSEPHS SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FULLANA ELEMENTARY OAKWOOD SCHOOL PUTNAM ELEMENTARY LINCOLN CENTER POTTERY STUDIO THE FARM THE FARM THE FARM MULBERRY POOL THE FARM PARK MAINTAINANCE BLDG CITY PARK POOL CITY PARK CENTER THE FARM LINCOLN CENTER Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Westside Single-Family Building Height CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: July 05, 2012 © 0 500000 1,000 2, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Westside Neighborhood Building Height Stories 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 SUNSET AVE N SHIELDS ST W OA K ST WEST ST PARK ST N WASHINGTON AVE LAPORTE AVE MA PLE ST W MAGNOLIA ST S CREST- SKYLINE DR GRANDVIEW AVE DALE CT S BRYAN AVE C L O VE R L N C R E S T M O R E P L WESTVIEW AVE L A K E SI D E A VE LELAND AVE S H E L D O N D R BAYSTONE DR MAPLE ST W MYRTLE ST ELM ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE SYCAMORE ST N LOOMIS AVE UN IVERSITY AVE S SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST N MELDRUM ST W OAK ST W MOUNTAIN AVE W MULBERRY ST BRO ADVIEW PL FREY AVE R ICHARDS PL WE S T V I E W A V E N R O O SEVELT AVE B E E C H C T N MCKINLEY AVE ST MADERA CT SCOTT AVE C O L U M B I N E C T SYCAMORE ST S SHIELDS ST AK I N AVE WOOD ST S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST W MYRTLE ST N MELDRUM ST CHERRY ST SKYLINE DR ORCHARD PL N CREST- W P L U M S T N R O O S E V E L T A V E S H E L D O N D R N MCKINLEY AVE C H E R RY ST CRESTMORE PL AZTEC DR COLUMBINE BI R CH ST W MAGNOLIA ST TEDMON DR RIDDLE DR DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST WEST ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRANT AVE S SHERWOOD ST -MORE CT H O M E R D R N FREY AVE CHERRY ST N ROOSEVELT AVE LYONS ST CITY PARK AVE LAPORTE AVE FRANKLIN ST POMONA ST MILLER DR JACKSON AVE BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST S MACK ST HAWKINS ST GRIFFIN PL W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST WOOD ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST S MELDRUM ST W OLIVE ST N MELDRUM ST W E L I Z A B E T H S T N BRYAN AVE MAPLE ST CLOVER LN BIRCH ST W MOUNTAIN AVE SYLVA N CT PEARL ST JUNIPER CT HANNA ST N SHIELDS ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE ELM CT PARK ST MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST N SHERWOOD ST MAPLE ST SYCAMORE ST LAN CER DR BROADVIEW PL COLLINS CT CITY PARK DR W ELIZABETH ST S ROOSEVELT AVE BISHOP ST LYONS ST N MCKINLEY AVE DAISY ST BEECH ST N SHIELDS ST BUNGALOW CT ELM ST W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE CANYON AVE ISOTOPE DR W LAUREL ST LAB - POLARIS DUNN ELEMENTARY LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL ST JOSEPHS SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FULLANA ELEMENTARY OAKWOOD SCHOOL PUTNAM ELEMENTARY LINCOLN CENTER POTTERY STUDIO THE FARM THE FARM THE FARM MULBERRY POOL THE FARM PARK MAINTAINANCE BLDG CITY PARK POOL CITY PARK CENTER THE FARM LINCOLN CENTER Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Westside Floor Area Ratio CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: July 05, 2012 © 0 500000 1,000 2, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Westside Neighborhood Floor Area Ratio 0.03 - 0.05 0.06 - 0.10 0.11 - 0.15 0.16 - 0.20 0.21 - 0.25 0.26 - 0.30 0.31 - 0.35 0.36 - 0.40 0.41 - 0.45 0.46 - 0.50 0.51 - 1.18 Westside Neighborhood: Floor Area Ratio (FAR) The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) map shows patterns in the FAR of homes throughout the neighborhood. In the Westside, homes predominantly have an FAR of 0.25 or less, with a few homes of larger FARs scattered throughout the area. Along and near W. Mountain Avenue average FARs are larger and vary more across an individual block. -MORE CT S K Y L I N E D R HOMER CT CRESTMORE PL COOK DR S B R Y A N A V E LAYLAND CT FISHBACK AVE W MULBERRY ST W OAK ST S MCKINLEY AVE HANNA ST WAGNER DR SCOTT AVE PEARL ST HANNA ST S SHIELDS ST N MACK ST W VINE DR ARMSTRON G A V E CHERRY ST N WHITCOMB ST LAPORTE AVE WEST DR E L M S T LYONS ST W PLUM ST W VINE DR SYLVAN CT ALAMEDA ST W OLIVE ST W COY DR JAMITH PL SUNSET AVE N SHIELDS ST W OA K ST WEST ST PARK ST N WASHINGTON AVE LAPORTE AVE MA PLE ST W MAGNOLIA ST S CREST- SKYLINE DR GRANDVIEW AVE DALE CT S BRYAN AVE C L O VE R L N C R E S T M O R E P L WESTVIEW AVE L A K E SI D E A VE LELAND AVE S H E L D O N D R BAYSTONE DR MAPLE ST W MYRTLE ST ELM ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE SYCAMORE ST N LOOMIS AVE UN IVERSITY AVE S SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST N MELDRUM ST W OAK ST W MOUNTAIN AVE W MULBERRY ST BRO ADVIEW PL FREY AVE R ICHARDS PL WE S T V I E W A V E N R O O SEVELT AVE B E E C H C T N MCKINLEY AVE ST MADERA CT SCOTT AVE C O L U M B I N E C T SYCAMORE ST S SHIELDS ST AK I N AVE WOOD ST S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST W MYRTLE ST N MELDRUM ST CHERRY ST SKYLINE DR ORCHARD PL N CREST- W P L U M S T N R O O S E V E L T A V E S H E L D O N D R N MCKINLEY AVE C H E R RY ST CRESTMORE PL AZTEC DR COLUMBINE BI R CH ST W MAGNOLIA ST TEDMON DR RIDDLE DR DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST WEST ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRANT AVE S SHERWOOD ST -MORE CT H O M E R D R N FREY AVE CHERRY ST N ROOSEVELT AVE LYONS ST CITY PARK AVE LAPORTE AVE FRANKLIN ST POMONA ST MILLER DR JACKSON AVE BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST S MACK ST HAWKINS ST GRIFFIN PL W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST WOOD ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST S MELDRUM ST W OLIVE ST N MELDRUM ST W E L I Z A B E T H S T N BRYAN AVE MAPLE ST CLOVER LN BIRCH ST W MOUNTAIN AVE SYLVA N CT PEARL ST JUNIPER CT HANNA ST N SHIELDS ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE ELM CT PARK ST MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST N SHERWOOD ST MAPLE ST SYCAMORE ST LAN CER DR BROADVIEW PL COLLINS CT CITY PARK DR W ELIZABETH ST S ROOSEVELT AVE BISHOP ST LYONS ST N MCKINLEY AVE DAISY ST BEECH ST N SHIELDS ST BUNGALOW CT ELM ST W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE CANYON AVE ISOTOPE DR W LAUREL ST LAB - POLARIS DUNN ELEMENTARY LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL ST JOSEPHS SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FULLANA ELEMENTARY OAKWOOD SCHOOL PUTNAM ELEMENTARY LINCOLN CENTER POTTERY STUDIO THE FARM THE FARM THE FARM MULBERRY POOL THE FARM PARK MAINTAINANCE BLDG CITY PARK POOL CITY PARK CENTER THE FARM LINCOLN CENTER Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Westside Floor Area Ratio CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: July 05, 2012 © 0 500000 1,000 2, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Westside Neighborhood Floor Area Ratio 0.03 - 0.05 0.06 - 0.10 0.11 - 0.15 0.16 - 0.20 0.21 - 0.25 0.26 - 0.30 0.31 - 0.35 0.36 - 0.40 0.41 - 0.45 0.46 - 0.50 0.51 - 1.18 SUNSET AVE N SHIELDS ST W OA K ST WEST ST PARK ST N WASHINGTON AVE LAPORTE AVE MA PLE ST W MAGNOLIA ST S CREST- SKYLINE DR GRANDVIEW AVE DALE CT S BRYAN AVE C L O VE R L N C R E S T M O R E P L WESTVIEW AVE L A K E SI D E A VE LELAND AVE S H E L D O N D R BAYSTONE DR MAPLE ST W MYRTLE ST ELM ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE SYCAMORE ST N LOOMIS AVE UN IVERSITY AVE S SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST N MELDRUM ST W OAK ST W MOUNTAIN AVE W MULBERRY ST BRO ADVIEW PL FREY AVE R ICHARDS PL WE S T V I E W A V E N R O O SEVELT AVE B E E C H C T N MCKINLEY AVE ST MADERA CT SCOTT AVE C O L U M B I N E C T SYCAMORE ST S SHIELDS ST AK I N AVE WOOD ST S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST W MYRTLE ST N MELDRUM ST CHERRY ST SKYLINE DR ORCHARD PL N CREST- W P L U M S T N R O O S E V E L T A V E S H E L D O N D R N MCKINLEY AVE C H E R RY ST CRESTMORE PL AZTEC DR COLUMBINE BI R CH ST W MAGNOLIA ST TEDMON DR RIDDLE DR DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST WEST ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRANT AVE S SHERWOOD ST -MORE CT H O M E R D R N FREY AVE CHERRY ST N ROOSEVELT AVE LYONS ST CITY PARK AVE LAPORTE AVE FRANKLIN ST POMONA ST MILLER DR JACKSON AVE BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST S MACK ST HAWKINS ST GRIFFIN PL W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST WOOD ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST S MELDRUM ST W OLIVE ST N MELDRUM ST W E L I Z A B E T H S T N BRYAN AVE MAPLE ST CLOVER LN BIRCH ST W MOUNTAIN AVE SYLVA N CT PEARL ST JUNIPER CT HANNA ST N SHIELDS ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE ELM CT PARK ST MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST N SHERWOOD ST MAPLE ST SYCAMORE ST LAN CER DR BROADVIEW PL COLLINS CT CITY PARK DR W ELIZABETH ST S ROOSEVELT AVE BISHOP ST LYONS ST N MCKINLEY AVE DAISY ST BEECH ST N SHIELDS ST BUNGALOW CT ELM ST W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE CANYON AVE ISOTOPE DR W LAUREL ST LAB - POLARIS DUNN ELEMENTARY LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL ST JOSEPHS SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FULLANA ELEMENTARY OAKWOOD SCHOOL PUTNAM ELEMENTARY LINCOLN CENTER POTTERY STUDIO THE FARM THE FARM THE FARM MULBERRY POOL THE FARM PARK MAINTAINANCE BLDG CITY PARK POOL CITY PARK CENTER THE FARM LINCOLN CENTER Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Westside Single-Family House Size CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: July 05, 2012 © 0 500000 1,000 2, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Westside Neighborhood House Size Square Feet Less than 500 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 + Westside Neighborhood: House Size The House Size map shows patterns in the size of homes throughout the neighborhood. In the Westside, homes are predominantly similar in size along a block and 1,500 s.f. or less. However, along W. Mountain Avenue the average house size is larger and varies more across an individual block. -MORE CT S K Y L I N E D R HOMER CT CRESTMORE PL COOK DR S B R Y A N A V E LAYLAND CT FISHBACK AVE W MULBERRY ST W OAK ST S MCKINLEY AVE HANNA ST WAGNER DR SCOTT AVE PEARL ST HANNA ST S SHIELDS ST N MACK ST W VINE DR ARMSTRON G A V E CHERRY ST N WHITCOMB ST LAPORTE AVE WEST DR E L M S T LYONS ST W PLUM ST W VINE DR SYLVAN CT ALAMEDA ST W OLIVE ST W COY DR JAMITH PL SUNSET AVE N SHIELDS ST W OA K ST WEST ST PARK ST N WASHINGTON AVE LAPORTE AVE MA PLE ST W MAGNOLIA ST S CREST- SKYLINE DR GRANDVIEW AVE DALE CT S BRYAN AVE C L O VE R L N C R E S T M O R E P L WESTVIEW AVE L A K E SI D E A VE LELAND AVE S H E L D O N D R BAYSTONE DR MAPLE ST W MYRTLE ST ELM ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE SYCAMORE ST N LOOMIS AVE UN IVERSITY AVE S SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST N MELDRUM ST W OAK ST W MOUNTAIN AVE W MULBERRY ST BRO ADVIEW PL FREY AVE R ICHARDS PL WE S T V I E W A V E N R O O SEVELT AVE B E E C H C T N MCKINLEY AVE ST MADERA CT SCOTT AVE C O L U M B I N E C T SYCAMORE ST S SHIELDS ST AK I N AVE WOOD ST S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST W MYRTLE ST N MELDRUM ST CHERRY ST SKYLINE DR ORCHARD PL N CREST- W P L U M S T N R O O S E V E L T A V E S H E L D O N D R N MCKINLEY AVE C H E R RY ST CRESTMORE PL AZTEC DR COLUMBINE BI R CH ST W MAGNOLIA ST TEDMON DR RIDDLE DR DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST WEST ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRANT AVE S SHERWOOD ST -MORE CT H O M E R D R N FREY AVE CHERRY ST N ROOSEVELT AVE LYONS ST CITY PARK AVE LAPORTE AVE FRANKLIN ST POMONA ST MILLER DR JACKSON AVE BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST S MACK ST HAWKINS ST GRIFFIN PL W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST WOOD ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST S MELDRUM ST W OLIVE ST N MELDRUM ST W E L I Z A B E T H S T N BRYAN AVE MAPLE ST CLOVER LN BIRCH ST W MOUNTAIN AVE SYLVA N CT PEARL ST JUNIPER CT HANNA ST N SHIELDS ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE ELM CT PARK ST MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST N SHERWOOD ST MAPLE ST SYCAMORE ST LAN CER DR BROADVIEW PL COLLINS CT CITY PARK DR W ELIZABETH ST S ROOSEVELT AVE BISHOP ST LYONS ST N MCKINLEY AVE DAISY ST BEECH ST N SHIELDS ST BUNGALOW CT ELM ST W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE CANYON AVE ISOTOPE DR W LAUREL ST LAB - POLARIS DUNN ELEMENTARY LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL ST JOSEPHS SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FULLANA ELEMENTARY OAKWOOD SCHOOL PUTNAM ELEMENTARY LINCOLN CENTER POTTERY STUDIO THE FARM THE FARM THE FARM MULBERRY POOL THE FARM PARK MAINTAINANCE BLDG CITY PARK POOL CITY PARK CENTER THE FARM LINCOLN CENTER Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Westside Single-Family House Size CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: July 05, 2012 © 0 500000 1,000 2, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Westside Neighborhood House Size Square Feet Less than 500 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 + SUNSET AVE N SHIELDS ST W OA K ST WEST ST PARK ST N WASHINGTON AVE LAPORTE AVE MA PLE ST W MAGNOLIA ST S CREST- SKYLINE DR GRANDVIEW AVE DALE CT S BRYAN AVE C L O VE R L N C R E S T M O R E P L WESTVIEW AVE L A K E SI D E A VE LELAND AVE S H E L D O N D R BAYSTONE DR MAPLE ST W MYRTLE ST ELM ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE SYCAMORE ST N LOOMIS AVE UN IVERSITY AVE S SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST N MELDRUM ST W OAK ST W MOUNTAIN AVE W MULBERRY ST BRO ADVIEW PL FREY AVE R ICHARDS PL WE S T V I E W A V E N R O O SEVELT AVE B E E C H C T N MCKINLEY AVE ST MADERA CT SCOTT AVE C O L U M B I N E C T SYCAMORE ST S SHIELDS ST AK I N AVE WOOD ST S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST W MYRTLE ST N MELDRUM ST CHERRY ST SKYLINE DR ORCHARD PL N CREST- W P L U M S T N R O O S E V E L T A V E S H E L D O N D R N MCKINLEY AVE C H E R RY ST CRESTMORE PL AZTEC DR COLUMBINE BI R CH ST W MAGNOLIA ST TEDMON DR RIDDLE DR DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST WEST ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRANT AVE S SHERWOOD ST -MORE CT H O M E R D R N FREY AVE CHERRY ST N ROOSEVELT AVE LYONS ST CITY PARK AVE LAPORTE AVE FRANKLIN ST POMONA ST MILLER DR JACKSON AVE BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST S MACK ST HAWKINS ST GRIFFIN PL W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST WOOD ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST S MELDRUM ST W OLIVE ST N MELDRUM ST W E L I Z A B E T H S T N BRYAN AVE MAPLE ST CLOVER LN BIRCH ST W MOUNTAIN AVE SYLVA N CT PEARL ST JUNIPER CT HANNA ST N SHIELDS ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE ELM CT PARK ST MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST N SHERWOOD ST MAPLE ST SYCAMORE ST LAN CER DR BROADVIEW PL COLLINS CT CITY PARK DR W ELIZABETH ST S ROOSEVELT AVE BISHOP ST LYONS ST N MCKINLEY AVE DAISY ST BEECH ST N SHIELDS ST BUNGALOW CT ELM ST W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE CANYON AVE ISOTOPE DR W LAUREL ST LAB - POLARIS DUNN ELEMENTARY LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL ST JOSEPHS SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FULLANA ELEMENTARY OAKWOOD SCHOOL PUTNAM ELEMENTARY LINCOLN CENTER POTTERY STUDIO THE FARM THE FARM THE FARM MULBERRY POOL THE FARM PARK MAINTAINANCE BLDG CITY PARK POOL CITY PARK CENTER THE FARM LINCOLN CENTER Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Westside Single-Family Building Remodels CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: July 05, 2012 © 0 500000 1,000 2, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Westside Neighborhood Year Remodeled Prior to 1960 1960 - 1964 1965 - 1969 1970 - 1974 1975 - 1979 1980 - 1984 1985 - 1989 1990 - 1994 1995 - 1999 2000 - 2004 2005 to Present Westside Neighborhood: Building Remodels The Building Remodels map shows the years in which remodels of homes have occurred. This map shows that remodels have occurred throughout the history of the Westside. However, the vast majority of them have occurred since 2000 (the darker shades of blue). Recent remodels are also heavily concentrated along or near W. Mountain Avenue. -MORE CT S K Y L I N E D R HOMER CT CRESTMORE PL COOK DR S B R Y A N A V E LAYLAND CT FISHBACK AVE W MULBERRY ST W OAK ST S MCKINLEY AVE HANNA ST WAGNER DR SCOTT AVE PEARL ST HANNA ST S SHIELDS ST N MACK ST W VINE DR ARMSTRON G A V E CHERRY ST N WHITCOMB ST LAPORTE AVE WEST DR E L M S T LYONS ST W PLUM ST W VINE DR SYLVAN CT ALAMEDA ST W OLIVE ST W COY DR JAMITH PL SUNSET AVE N SHIELDS ST W OA K ST WEST ST PARK ST N WASHINGTON AVE LAPORTE AVE MA PLE ST W MAGNOLIA ST S CREST- SKYLINE DR GRANDVIEW AVE DALE CT S BRYAN AVE C L O VE R L N C R E S T M O R E P L WESTVIEW AVE L A K E SI D E A VE LELAND AVE S H E L D O N D R BAYSTONE DR MAPLE ST W MYRTLE ST ELM ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE SYCAMORE ST N LOOMIS AVE UN IVERSITY AVE S SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST N MELDRUM ST W OAK ST W MOUNTAIN AVE W MULBERRY ST BRO ADVIEW PL FREY AVE R ICHARDS PL WE S T V I E W A V E N R O O SEVELT AVE B E E C H C T N MCKINLEY AVE ST MADERA CT SCOTT AVE C O L U M B I N E C T SYCAMORE ST S SHIELDS ST AK I N AVE WOOD ST S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST W MYRTLE ST N MELDRUM ST CHERRY ST SKYLINE DR ORCHARD PL N CREST- W P L U M S T N R O O S E V E L T A V E S H E L D O N D R N MCKINLEY AVE C H E R RY ST CRESTMORE PL AZTEC DR COLUMBINE BI R CH ST W MAGNOLIA ST TEDMON DR RIDDLE DR DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST WEST ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRANT AVE S SHERWOOD ST -MORE CT H O M E R D R N FREY AVE CHERRY ST N ROOSEVELT AVE LYONS ST CITY PARK AVE LAPORTE AVE FRANKLIN ST POMONA ST MILLER DR JACKSON AVE BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST S MACK ST HAWKINS ST GRIFFIN PL W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST WOOD ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST S MELDRUM ST W OLIVE ST N MELDRUM ST W E L I Z A B E T H S T N BRYAN AVE MAPLE ST CLOVER LN BIRCH ST W MOUNTAIN AVE SYLVA N CT PEARL ST JUNIPER CT HANNA ST N SHIELDS ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE ELM CT PARK ST MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST N SHERWOOD ST MAPLE ST SYCAMORE ST LAN CER DR BROADVIEW PL COLLINS CT CITY PARK DR W ELIZABETH ST S ROOSEVELT AVE BISHOP ST LYONS ST N MCKINLEY AVE DAISY ST BEECH ST N SHIELDS ST BUNGALOW CT ELM ST W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE CANYON AVE ISOTOPE DR W LAUREL ST LAB - POLARIS DUNN ELEMENTARY LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL ST JOSEPHS SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FULLANA ELEMENTARY OAKWOOD SCHOOL PUTNAM ELEMENTARY LINCOLN CENTER POTTERY STUDIO THE FARM THE FARM THE FARM MULBERRY POOL THE FARM PARK MAINTAINANCE BLDG CITY PARK POOL CITY PARK CENTER THE FARM LINCOLN CENTER Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Westside Single-Family Building Remodels CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: July 05, 2012 © 0 500000 1,000 2, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Westside Neighborhood Year Remodeled Prior to 1960 1960 - 1964 1965 - 1969 1970 - 1974 1975 - 1979 1980 - 1984 1985 - 1989 1990 - 1994 1995 - 1999 2000 - 2004 2005 to Present SUNSET AVE N SHIELDS ST W OA K ST WEST ST PARK ST N WASHINGTON AVE LAPORTE AVE MA PLE ST W MAGNOLIA ST S CREST- SKYLINE DR GRANDVIEW AVE DALE CT S BRYAN AVE C L O VE R L N C R E S T M O R E P L WESTVIEW AVE L A K E SI D E A VE LELAND AVE S H E L D O N D R BAYSTONE DR MAPLE ST W MYRTLE ST ELM ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE SYCAMORE ST N LOOMIS AVE UN IVERSITY AVE S SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST N MELDRUM ST W OAK ST W MOUNTAIN AVE W MULBERRY ST BRO ADVIEW PL FREY AVE R ICHARDS PL WE S T V I E W A V E N R O O SEVELT AVE B E E C H C T N MCKINLEY AVE ST MADERA CT SCOTT AVE C O L U M B I N E C T SYCAMORE ST S SHIELDS ST AK I N AVE WOOD ST S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST W MYRTLE ST N MELDRUM ST CHERRY ST SKYLINE DR ORCHARD PL N CREST- W P L U M S T N R O O S E V E L T A V E S H E L D O N D R N MCKINLEY AVE C H E R RY ST CRESTMORE PL AZTEC DR COLUMBINE BI R CH ST W MAGNOLIA ST TEDMON DR RIDDLE DR DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST WEST ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRANT AVE S SHERWOOD ST -MORE CT H O M E R D R N FREY AVE CHERRY ST N ROOSEVELT AVE LYONS ST CITY PARK AVE LAPORTE AVE FRANKLIN ST POMONA ST MILLER DR JACKSON AVE BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST S MACK ST HAWKINS ST GRIFFIN PL W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST WOOD ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST S MELDRUM ST W OLIVE ST N MELDRUM ST W E L I Z A B E T H S T N BRYAN AVE MAPLE ST CLOVER LN BIRCH ST W MOUNTAIN AVE SYLVA N CT PEARL ST JUNIPER CT HANNA ST N SHIELDS ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE ELM CT PARK ST MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST N SHERWOOD ST MAPLE ST SYCAMORE ST LAN CER DR BROADVIEW PL COLLINS CT CITY PARK DR W ELIZABETH ST S ROOSEVELT AVE BISHOP ST LYONS ST N MCKINLEY AVE DAISY ST BEECH ST N SHIELDS ST BUNGALOW CT ELM ST W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE CANYON AVE ISOTOPE DR W LAUREL ST LAB - POLARIS DUNN ELEMENTARY LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL ST JOSEPHS SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FULLANA ELEMENTARY OAKWOOD SCHOOL PUTNAM ELEMENTARY LINCOLN CENTER POTTERY STUDIO THE FARM MULBERRY POOL PARK MAINTAINANCE BLDG CITY PARK POOL CITY PARK CENTER Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Westside Single-Family Building Age CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: July 05, 2012 © 0 500000 1,000 2, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Westside Neighborhood Year Built Prior to 1890 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 to Present Westside Neighborhood: Building Age The Building Age map shows patterns in construction throughout the history of the neighborhood. In the Westside, the oldest areas spread out along W. Mountain Avenue and the areas closest to downtown. These areas filled in slowly between the 1890s and the 1920s. The edges of the neighborhood furthest from downtown developed in much shorter periods of time between the 1940s and the 1960s, leading to less variety in building types in these areas. Recent construction (the darkest blue) is scattered throughout the area and most lots are within a four-block radius of recent construction. -MORE CT S K Y L I N E D R HOMER CT CRESTMORE PL COOK DR S B R Y A N A V E LAYLAND CT FISHBACK AVE W MULBERRY ST W OAK ST S MCKINLEY AVE HANNA ST WAGNER DR SCOTT AVE PEARL ST HANNA ST S SHIELDS ST N MACK ST W VINE DR ARMSTRON G A V E CHERRY ST N WHITCOMB ST LAPORTE AVE WEST DR E L M S T LYONS ST W PLUM ST W VINE DR SYLVAN CT ALAMEDA ST W OLIVE ST W COY DR JAMITH PL SUNSET AVE N SHIELDS ST W OA K ST WEST ST PARK ST N WASHINGTON AVE LAPORTE AVE MA PLE ST W MAGNOLIA ST S CREST- SKYLINE DR GRANDVIEW AVE DALE CT S BRYAN AVE C L O VE R L N C R E S T M O R E P L WESTVIEW AVE L A K E SI D E A VE LELAND AVE S H E L D O N D R BAYSTONE DR MAPLE ST W MYRTLE ST ELM ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE SYCAMORE ST N LOOMIS AVE UN IVERSITY AVE S SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST N MELDRUM ST W OAK ST W MOUNTAIN AVE W MULBERRY ST BRO ADVIEW PL FREY AVE R ICHARDS PL WE S T V I E W A V E N R O O SEVELT AVE B E E C H C T N MCKINLEY AVE ST MADERA CT SCOTT AVE C O L U M B I N E C T SYCAMORE ST S SHIELDS ST AK I N AVE WOOD ST S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST W MYRTLE ST N MELDRUM ST CHERRY ST SKYLINE DR ORCHARD PL N CREST- W P L U M S T N R O O S E V E L T A V E S H E L D O N D R N MCKINLEY AVE C H E R RY ST CRESTMORE PL AZTEC DR COLUMBINE BI R CH ST W MAGNOLIA ST TEDMON DR RIDDLE DR DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST WEST ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRANT AVE S SHERWOOD ST -MORE CT H O M E R D R N FREY AVE CHERRY ST N ROOSEVELT AVE LYONS ST CITY PARK AVE LAPORTE AVE FRANKLIN ST POMONA ST MILLER DR JACKSON AVE BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST S MACK ST HAWKINS ST GRIFFIN PL W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST WOOD ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST S MELDRUM ST W OLIVE ST N MELDRUM ST W E L I Z A B E T H S T N BRYAN AVE MAPLE ST CLOVER LN BIRCH ST W MOUNTAIN AVE SYLVA N CT PEARL ST JUNIPER CT HANNA ST N SHIELDS ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE ELM CT PARK ST MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST N SHERWOOD ST MAPLE ST SYCAMORE ST LAN CER DR BROADVIEW PL COLLINS CT CITY PARK DR W ELIZABETH ST S ROOSEVELT AVE BISHOP ST LYONS ST N MCKINLEY AVE DAISY ST BEECH ST N SHIELDS ST BUNGALOW CT ELM ST W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE CANYON AVE ISOTOPE DR W LAUREL ST LAB - POLARIS DUNN ELEMENTARY LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL ST JOSEPHS SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FULLANA ELEMENTARY OAKWOOD SCHOOL PUTNAM ELEMENTARY LINCOLN CENTER POTTERY STUDIO THE FARM MULBERRY POOL PARK MAINTAINANCE BLDG CITY PARK POOL CITY PARK CENTER Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Westside Single-Family Building Age CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: July 05, 2012 © 0 500000 1,000 2, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Westside Neighborhood Year Built Prior to 1890 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 to Present MATHEWS ST LOCUST ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L I S S T EDWARDS ST E LAUREL ST M O R G A N S T GARFIEL D S T R I V E RSI D E A V E UNIVERSITY AVE OLD MAIN DR S COLLEGE AVE S COLLEGE AVE E MOUNT A IN AVE BUCKEYE ST WHEDBEE ST CIRCLE DR RIVERSIDE AVE LILAC LN C O L O R A D O S T E L A K E S T S LEMAY AVE EDWARDS ST E ELIZABETH ST E OAK ST PETERSON PL PETERSO N ST SMITH ST EASTDALE DR RIVERSIDE AVE B U C K E Y E S T E PITKIN ST LOCUS T C T ENDICOTT ST S MA SO N ST S MASON ST BUCKEYE ST MATHEWS ST E PITKIN ST STOVER ST E MYRTLE ST APEX DR E MULBERRY ST S MASON ST -PECT CT MATHEWS ST E LAKE ST E OLIVE ST CIRCLE DR S T OVER S T COWAN ST G R E E N S T R O B ERTSON ST S LEMAY AVE PROS- REMI NG T ON S T PERSON CT E LAUREL ST E MULBERRY ST WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E L O C U ST ST E PROSPECT RD L O R Y S T HARRIS BILINGUAL IMMERSION CENTENNIAL SR HIGH LAUREL ELEMENTARY BARTON EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER LESHER MIDDLE SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FT COLLINS PUBLIC LIBRARY FT COLLINS MUSEUM Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Eastside Lot Coverage CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: July 05, 2012 © 0 250000 500 1, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Eastside Neighborhood Lot Coverage Less than 5% 5% - 9% 10% - 14% 15% - 19% 20% - 24% 25% - 29% 30% - 34% 35% - 39% 40% - 44% 45% - 49% 50% + Eastside Neighborhood: Lot Coverage The Lot Coverage map shows patterns in percentage of covered lot throughout the neighborhood. Lot coverage typically varies throughout each block in the Eastside. Most lots are less than 50% covered. EDISON DR S MASON ST REMINGTON ST MATHE WS S T E PROSPECT RD E MYRTLE ST WHEDBEE ST SMITH PL SMITH ST EASTDALE DR COWAN ST E ELIZABETH ST L A K E P L E PENNOCK PL S COLLEGE AVE MONTEZUMA FULLER ALLEY REMINGTON ST GARFIELD ST E PLUM ST E MAGNOLIA ST PETERSON ST DEINES CT SMITH ST KENROY CT ROBER TSO N S T . WILL I A M S ST LESSER DR LORY ST RO B E R T S O N S T A ST REMBRANDT DR MATHEWS ST LOCUST ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L I S S T EDWARDS ST E LAUREL ST M O R G A N S T GARFIEL D S T R I V E RSI D E A V E UNIVERSITY AVE OLD MAIN DR S COLLEGE AVE S COLLEGE AVE E MOUNT A IN AVE BUCKEYE ST WHEDBEE ST CIRCLE DR RIVERSIDE AVE LILAC LN C O L O R A D O S T E L A K E S T S LEMAY AVE EDWARDS ST E ELIZABETH ST E OAK ST PETERSON PL PETERSO N ST SMITH ST EASTDALE DR RIVERSIDE AVE B U C K E Y E S T E PITKIN ST LOCUS T C T ENDICOTT ST S MA SO N ST S MASON ST BUCKEYE ST MATHEWS ST E PITKIN ST STOVER ST E MYRTLE ST APEX DR E MULBERRY ST S MASON ST -PECT CT MATHEWS ST E LAKE ST E OLIVE ST CIRCLE DR S T OVER S T COWAN ST G R E E N S T R O B ERTSON ST S LEMAY AVE PROS- REMI NG T ON S T PERSON CT E LAUREL ST E MULBERRY ST WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E L O C U ST ST E PROSPECT RD L O R Y S T HARRIS BILINGUAL IMMERSION CENTENNIAL SR HIGH LAUREL ELEMENTARY BARTON EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER LESHER MIDDLE SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FT COLLINS PUBLIC LIBRARY FT COLLINS MUSEUM Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Eastside Lot Coverage CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: July 05, 2012 © 0 250000 500 1, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Eastside Neighborhood Lot Coverage Less than 5% 5% - 9% 10% - 14% 15% - 19% 20% - 24% 25% - 29% 30% - 34% 35% - 39% 40% - 44% 45% - 49% 50% + MATHEWS ST LOCUST ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L I S S T EDWARDS ST E LAUREL ST M O R G A N S T GARFIEL D S T R I V E RSI D E A V E UNIVERSITY AVE OLD MAIN DR S COLLEGE AVE S COLLEGE AVE E MOUNT A IN AVE BUCKEYE ST WHEDBEE ST CIRCLE DR RIVERSIDE AVE LILAC LN C O L O R A D O S T E L A K E S T S LEMAY AVE EDWARDS ST E ELIZABETH ST E OAK ST PETERSON PL PETERSO N ST SMITH ST EASTDALE DR RIVERSIDE AVE B U C K E Y E S T E PITKIN ST LOCUS T C T ENDICOTT ST S MA SO N ST S MASON ST BUCKEYE ST MATHEWS ST E PITKIN ST STOVER ST E MYRTLE ST APEX DR E MULBERRY ST S MASON ST -PECT CT MATHEWS ST E LAKE ST E OLIVE ST CIRCLE DR S T OVER S T COWAN ST G R E E N S T R O B ERTSON ST S LEMAY AVE PROS- REMI NG T ON S T PERSON CT E LAUREL ST E MULBERRY ST WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E L O C U ST ST E PROSPECT RD L O R Y S T HARRIS BILINGUAL IMMERSION CENTENNIAL SR HIGH LAUREL ELEMENTARY BARTON EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER LESHER MIDDLE SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FT COLLINS MUSEUM FT COLLINS PUBLIC LIBRARY Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Eastside Lot Frontage CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: July 05, 2012 © 0 250000 500 1, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Eastside Neighborhood Lot Frontage Feet 25 - 50 51 - 75 76 - 100 101 - 125 More than 125 Eastside Neighborhood: Lot Frontage The Lot Frontage map shows patterns in width of lots throughout the neighborhood. Combined with lot size, the frontage will help de- termine if a lot may legally be subdivided. In the Eastside, lot frontage is typically 75 feet or less. Exceptions occur on corner lots, along curvilinear streets, and near E. Elizabeth Drive and Mathews Street where larger lot patterns occur. EDISON DR S MASON ST REMINGTON ST MATHE WS S T E PROSPECT RD E MYRTLE ST WHEDBEE ST SMITH PL SMITH ST EASTDALE DR COWAN ST E ELIZABETH ST L A K E P L E PENNOCK PL S COLLEGE AVE MONTEZUMA FULLER ALLEY REMINGTON ST GARFIELD ST E PLUM ST E MAGNOLIA ST PETERSON ST DEINES CT SMITH ST KENROY CT ROBER TSO N S T . WILL I A M S ST LESSER DR LORY ST RO B E R T S O N S T A ST REMBRANDT DR MATHEWS ST LOCUST ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L I S S T EDWARDS ST E LAUREL ST M O R G A N S T GARFIEL D S T R I V E RSI D E A V E UNIVERSITY AVE OLD MAIN DR S COLLEGE AVE S COLLEGE AVE E MOUNT A IN AVE BUCKEYE ST WHEDBEE ST CIRCLE DR RIVERSIDE AVE LILAC LN C O L O R A D O S T E L A K E S T S LEMAY AVE EDWARDS ST E ELIZABETH ST E OAK ST PETERSON PL PETERSO N ST SMITH ST EASTDALE DR RIVERSIDE AVE B U C K E Y E S T E PITKIN ST LOCUS T C T ENDICOTT ST S MA SO N ST S MASON ST BUCKEYE ST MATHEWS ST E PITKIN ST STOVER ST E MYRTLE ST APEX DR E MULBERRY ST S MASON ST -PECT CT MATHEWS ST E LAKE ST E OLIVE ST CIRCLE DR S T OVER S T COWAN ST G R E E N S T R O B ERTSON ST S LEMAY AVE PROS- REMI NG T ON S T PERSON CT E LAUREL ST E MULBERRY ST WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E L O C U ST ST E PROSPECT RD L O R Y S T HARRIS BILINGUAL IMMERSION CENTENNIAL SR HIGH LAUREL ELEMENTARY BARTON EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER LESHER MIDDLE SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FT COLLINS MUSEUM FT COLLINS PUBLIC LIBRARY Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Eastside Lot Frontage CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: July 05, 2012 © 0 250000 500 1, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Eastside Neighborhood Lot Frontage Feet 25 - 50 51 - 75 76 - 100 101 - 125 More than 125 MATHEWS ST LOCUST ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L I S S T EDWARDS ST E LAUREL ST M O R G A N S T GARFIEL D S T R I V E RSI D E A V E UNIVERSITY AVE OLD MAIN DR S COLLEGE AVE S COLLEGE AVE E MOUNT A IN AVE BUCKEYE ST WHEDBEE ST CIRCLE DR RIVERSIDE AVE LILAC LN C O L O R A D O S T E L A K E S T S LEMAY AVE EDWARDS ST E ELIZABETH ST E OAK ST PETERSON PL PETERSO N ST SMITH ST EASTDALE DR RIVERSIDE AVE B U C K E Y E S T E PITKIN ST LOCUS T C T ENDICOTT ST S MA SO N ST S MASON ST BUCKEYE ST MATHEWS ST E PITKIN ST STOVER ST E MYRTLE ST APEX DR E MULBERRY ST S MASON ST -PECT CT MATHEWS ST E LAKE ST E OLIVE ST CIRCLE DR S T OVER S T COWAN ST G R E E N S T R O B ERTSON ST S LEMAY AVE PROS- REMI NG T ON S T PERSON CT E LAUREL ST E MULBERRY ST WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E L O C U ST ST E PROSPECT RD L O R Y S T HARRIS BILINGUAL IMMERSION CENTENNIAL SR HIGH LAUREL ELEMENTARY BARTON EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER LESHER MIDDLE SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FT COLLINS PUBLIC LIBRARY FT COLLINS MUSEUM Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Eastside Single-Family Lot Size CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: July 05, 2012 © 0 250000 500 1, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Eastside Neighborhood Lot Size Square Feet Less than 4,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 + Eastside Neighborhood: Lot Size The Lot Size map shows patterns in square-footage of lots throughout the neighborhood. In the Eastside, most blocks have a predominant lot size, with the exception of curvilinear street patterns and smaller or subdivided corner lots. EDISON DR S MASON ST REMINGTON ST MATHE WS S T E PROSPECT RD E MYRTLE ST WHEDBEE ST SMITH PL SMITH ST EASTDALE DR COWAN ST E ELIZABETH ST L A K E P L E PENNOCK PL S COLLEGE AVE MONTEZUMA FULLER ALLEY REMINGTON ST GARFIELD ST E PLUM ST E MAGNOLIA ST PETERSON ST DEINES CT SMITH ST KENROY CT ROBER TSO N S T . WILL I A M S ST LESSER DR LORY ST RO B E R T S O N S T A ST REMBRANDT DR MATHEWS ST LOCUST ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L I S S T EDWARDS ST E LAUREL ST M O R G A N S T GARFIEL D S T R I V E RSI D E A V E UNIVERSITY AVE OLD MAIN DR S COLLEGE AVE S COLLEGE AVE E MOUNT A IN AVE BUCKEYE ST WHEDBEE ST CIRCLE DR RIVERSIDE AVE LILAC LN C O L O R A D O S T E L A K E S T S LEMAY AVE EDWARDS ST E ELIZABETH ST E OAK ST PETERSON PL PETERSO N ST SMITH ST EASTDALE DR RIVERSIDE AVE B U C K E Y E S T E PITKIN ST LOCUS T C T ENDICOTT ST S MA SO N ST S MASON ST BUCKEYE ST MATHEWS ST E PITKIN ST STOVER ST E MYRTLE ST APEX DR E MULBERRY ST S MASON ST -PECT CT MATHEWS ST E LAKE ST E OLIVE ST CIRCLE DR S T OVER S T COWAN ST G R E E N S T R O B ERTSON ST S LEMAY AVE PROS- REMI NG T ON S T PERSON CT E LAUREL ST E MULBERRY ST WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E L O C U ST ST E PROSPECT RD L O R Y S T HARRIS BILINGUAL IMMERSION CENTENNIAL SR HIGH LAUREL ELEMENTARY BARTON EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER LESHER MIDDLE SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FT COLLINS PUBLIC LIBRARY FT COLLINS MUSEUM Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Eastside Single-Family Lot Size CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: July 05, 2012 © 0 250000 500 1, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Eastside Neighborhood Lot Size Square Feet Less than 4,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 + MATHEWS ST LOCUST ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L I S S T EDWARDS ST E LAUREL ST M O R G A N S T GARFIEL D S T R I V E RSI D E A V E UNIVERSITY AVE OLD MAIN DR S COLLEGE AVE S COLLEGE AVE E MOUNT A IN AVE BUCKEYE ST WHEDBEE ST CIRCLE DR RIVERSIDE AVE LILAC LN C O L O R A D O S T E L A K E S T S LEMAY AVE EDWARDS ST E ELIZABETH ST E OAK ST PETERSON PL PETERSO N ST SMITH ST EASTDALE DR RIVERSIDE AVE B U C K E Y E S T E PITKIN ST LOCUS T C T ENDICOTT ST S MA SO N ST S MASON ST BUCKEYE ST MATHEWS ST E PITKIN ST STOVER ST E MYRTLE ST APEX DR E MULBERRY ST S MASON ST -PECT CT MATHEWS ST E LAKE ST E OLIVE ST CIRCLE DR S T OVER S T COWAN ST G R E E N S T R O B ERTSON ST S LEMAY AVE PROS- REMI NG T ON S T PERSON CT E LAUREL ST E MULBERRY ST WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E L O C U ST ST E PROSPECT RD L O R Y S T HARRIS BILINGUAL IMMERSION CENTENNIAL SR HIGH LAUREL ELEMENTARY BARTON EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER LESHER MIDDLE SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FT COLLINS MUSEUM FT COLLINS PUBLIC LIBRARY Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Eastside Single-Family Building Height CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: July 05, 2012 © 0 250000 500 1, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Eastside Neighborhood Building Height Stories 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Eastside Neighborhood: Building Height The Building Height map shows patterns in the height of homes throughout the neighborhood. In the Eastside, the homes are predominantly one story. Several more are one-and-a-half and two story, and only two are taller than two stories. EDISON DR S MASON ST REMINGTON ST MATHE WS S T E PROSPECT RD E MYRTLE ST WHEDBEE ST SMITH PL SMITH ST EASTDALE DR COWAN ST E ELIZABETH ST L A K E P L E PENNOCK PL S COLLEGE AVE MONTEZUMA FULLER ALLEY REMINGTON ST GARFIELD ST E PLUM ST E MAGNOLIA ST PETERSON ST DEINES CT SMITH ST KENROY CT ROBER TSO N S T . WILL I A M S ST LESSER DR LORY ST RO B E R T S O N S T A ST REMBRANDT DR MATHEWS ST LOCUST ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L I S S T EDWARDS ST E LAUREL ST M O R G A N S T GARFIEL D S T R I V E RSI D E A V E UNIVERSITY AVE OLD MAIN DR S COLLEGE AVE S COLLEGE AVE E MOUNT A IN AVE BUCKEYE ST WHEDBEE ST CIRCLE DR RIVERSIDE AVE LILAC LN C O L O R A D O S T E L A K E S T S LEMAY AVE EDWARDS ST E ELIZABETH ST E OAK ST PETERSON PL PETERSO N ST SMITH ST EASTDALE DR RIVERSIDE AVE B U C K E Y E S T E PITKIN ST LOCUS T C T ENDICOTT ST S MA SO N ST S MASON ST BUCKEYE ST MATHEWS ST E PITKIN ST STOVER ST E MYRTLE ST APEX DR E MULBERRY ST S MASON ST -PECT CT MATHEWS ST E LAKE ST E OLIVE ST CIRCLE DR S T OVER S T COWAN ST G R E E N S T R O B ERTSON ST S LEMAY AVE PROS- REMI NG T ON S T PERSON CT E LAUREL ST E MULBERRY ST WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E L O C U ST ST E PROSPECT RD L O R Y S T HARRIS BILINGUAL IMMERSION CENTENNIAL SR HIGH LAUREL ELEMENTARY BARTON EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER LESHER MIDDLE SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FT COLLINS MUSEUM FT COLLINS PUBLIC LIBRARY Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Eastside Single-Family Building Height CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: July 05, 2012 © 0 250000 500 1, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Eastside Neighborhood Building Height Stories 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 MATHEWS ST LOCUST ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L I S S T EDWARDS ST E LAUREL ST M O R G A N S T GARFIEL D S T R I V E RSI D E A V E UNIVERSITY AVE OLD MAIN DR S COLLEGE AVE S COLLEGE AVE E MOUNT A IN AVE BUCKEYE ST WHEDBEE ST CIRCLE DR RIVERSIDE AVE LILAC LN C O L O R A D O S T E L A K E S T S LEMAY AVE EDWARDS ST E ELIZABETH ST E OAK ST PETERSON PL PETERSO N ST SMITH ST EASTDALE DR RIVERSIDE AVE B U C K E Y E S T E PITKIN ST LOCUS T C T ENDICOTT ST S MA SO N ST S MASON ST BUCKEYE ST MATHEWS ST E PITKIN ST STOVER ST E MYRTLE ST APEX DR E MULBERRY ST S MASON ST -PECT CT MATHEWS ST E LAKE ST E OLIVE ST CIRCLE DR S T OVER S T COWAN ST G R E E N S T R O B ERTSON ST S LEMAY AVE PROS- REMI NG T ON S T PERSON CT E LAUREL ST E MULBERRY ST WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E L O C U ST ST E PROSPECT RD L O R Y S T HARRIS BILINGUAL IMMERSION CENTENNIAL SR HIGH LAUREL ELEMENTARY BARTON EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER LESHER MIDDLE SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FT COLLINS PUBLIC LIBRARY FT COLLINS MUSEUM Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Eastside Floor Area Ratio CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: July 05, 2012 © 0 250000 500 1, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Eastside Neighborhood Floor Area Ratio 0.03 - 0.05 0.06 - 0.10 0.11 - 0.15 0.16 - 0.20 0.21 - 0.25 0.26 - 0.30 0.31 - 0.35 0.36 - 0.40 0.41 - 0.45 0.46 - 0.50 0.51 - 1.18 Eastside Neighborhood: Floor Area Ratio (FAR) The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) map shows patterns in the FAR of homes throughout the neighborhood. In the Eastside, the homes predomi- nantly have an FAR of 0.25 or less, with a few homes with larger FARs scattered throughout the area. EDISON DR S MASON ST REMINGTON ST MATHE WS S T E PROSPECT RD E MYRTLE ST WHEDBEE ST SMITH PL SMITH ST EASTDALE DR COWAN ST E ELIZABETH ST L A K E P L E PENNOCK PL S COLLEGE AVE MONTEZUMA FULLER ALLEY REMINGTON ST GARFIELD ST E PLUM ST E MAGNOLIA ST PETERSON ST DEINES CT SMITH ST KENROY CT ROBER TSO N S T . WILL I A M S ST LESSER DR LORY ST RO B E R T S O N S T A ST REMBRANDT DR MATHEWS ST LOCUST ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L I S S T EDWARDS ST E LAUREL ST M O R G A N S T GARFIEL D S T R I V E RSI D E A V E UNIVERSITY AVE OLD MAIN DR S COLLEGE AVE S COLLEGE AVE E MOUNT A IN AVE BUCKEYE ST WHEDBEE ST CIRCLE DR RIVERSIDE AVE LILAC LN C O L O R A D O S T E L A K E S T S LEMAY AVE EDWARDS ST E ELIZABETH ST E OAK ST PETERSON PL PETERSO N ST SMITH ST EASTDALE DR RIVERSIDE AVE B U C K E Y E S T E PITKIN ST LOCUS T C T ENDICOTT ST S MA SO N ST S MASON ST BUCKEYE ST MATHEWS ST E PITKIN ST STOVER ST E MYRTLE ST APEX DR E MULBERRY ST S MASON ST -PECT CT MATHEWS ST E LAKE ST E OLIVE ST CIRCLE DR S T OVER S T COWAN ST G R E E N S T R O B ERTSON ST S LEMAY AVE PROS- REMI NG T ON S T PERSON CT E LAUREL ST E MULBERRY ST WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E L O C U ST ST E PROSPECT RD L O R Y S T HARRIS BILINGUAL IMMERSION CENTENNIAL SR HIGH LAUREL ELEMENTARY BARTON EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER LESHER MIDDLE SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FT COLLINS PUBLIC LIBRARY FT COLLINS MUSEUM Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Eastside Floor Area Ratio CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: July 05, 2012 © 0 250000 500 1, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Eastside Neighborhood Floor Area Ratio 0.03 - 0.05 0.06 - 0.10 0.11 - 0.15 0.16 - 0.20 0.21 - 0.25 0.26 - 0.30 0.31 - 0.35 0.36 - 0.40 0.41 - 0.45 0.46 - 0.50 0.51 - 1.18 MATHEWS ST LOCUST ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L I S S T EDWARDS ST E LAUREL ST M O R G A N S T GARFIEL D S T R I V E RSI D E A V E UNIVERSITY AVE OLD MAIN DR S COLLEGE AVE S COLLEGE AVE E MOUNT A IN AVE BUCKEYE ST WHEDBEE ST CIRCLE DR RIVERSIDE AVE LILAC LN C O L O R A D O S T E L A K E S T S LEMAY AVE EDWARDS ST E ELIZABETH ST E OAK ST PETERSON PL PETERSO N ST SMITH ST EASTDALE DR RIVERSIDE AVE B U C K E Y E S T E PITKIN ST LOCUS T C T ENDICOTT ST S MA SO N ST S MASON ST BUCKEYE ST MATHEWS ST E PITKIN ST STOVER ST E MYRTLE ST APEX DR E MULBERRY ST S MASON ST -PECT CT MATHEWS ST E LAKE ST E OLIVE ST CIRCLE DR S T OVER S T COWAN ST G R E E N S T R O B ERTSON ST S LEMAY AVE PROS- REMI NG T ON S T PERSON CT E LAUREL ST E MULBERRY ST WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E L O C U ST ST E PROSPECT RD L O R Y S T HARRIS BILINGUAL IMMERSION CENTENNIAL SR HIGH LAUREL ELEMENTARY BARTON EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER LESHER MIDDLE SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FT COLLINS PUBLIC LIBRARY FT COLLINS MUSEUM Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Eastside Single-Family House Size CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: July 05, 2012 © 0 250000 500 1, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Eastside Neighborhood House Size Square Feet Less than 500 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 + Eastside Neighborhood: House Size The House Size map shows patterns in the size of homes throughout the neighborhood. In the Eastside, the homes are predominantly 1,500 s.f. or less, with a few larger homes scattered throughout the area. EDISON DR S MASON ST REMINGTON ST MATHE WS S T E PROSPECT RD E MYRTLE ST WHEDBEE ST SMITH PL SMITH ST EASTDALE DR COWAN ST E ELIZABETH ST L A K E P L E PENNOCK PL S COLLEGE AVE MONTEZUMA FULLER ALLEY REMINGTON ST GARFIELD ST E PLUM ST E MAGNOLIA ST PETERSON ST DEINES CT SMITH ST KENROY CT ROBER TSO N S T . WILL I A M S ST LESSER DR LORY ST RO B E R T S O N S T A ST REMBRANDT DR MATHEWS ST LOCUST ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L I S S T EDWARDS ST E LAUREL ST M O R G A N S T GARFIEL D S T R I V E RSI D E A V E UNIVERSITY AVE OLD MAIN DR S COLLEGE AVE S COLLEGE AVE E MOUNT A IN AVE BUCKEYE ST WHEDBEE ST CIRCLE DR RIVERSIDE AVE LILAC LN C O L O R A D O S T E L A K E S T S LEMAY AVE EDWARDS ST E ELIZABETH ST E OAK ST PETERSON PL PETERSO N ST SMITH ST EASTDALE DR RIVERSIDE AVE B U C K E Y E S T E PITKIN ST LOCUS T C T ENDICOTT ST S MA SO N ST S MASON ST BUCKEYE ST MATHEWS ST E PITKIN ST STOVER ST E MYRTLE ST APEX DR E MULBERRY ST S MASON ST -PECT CT MATHEWS ST E LAKE ST E OLIVE ST CIRCLE DR S T OVER S T COWAN ST G R E E N S T R O B ERTSON ST S LEMAY AVE PROS- REMI NG T ON S T PERSON CT E LAUREL ST E MULBERRY ST WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E L O C U ST ST E PROSPECT RD L O R Y S T HARRIS BILINGUAL IMMERSION CENTENNIAL SR HIGH LAUREL ELEMENTARY BARTON EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER LESHER MIDDLE SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FT COLLINS PUBLIC LIBRARY FT COLLINS MUSEUM Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Eastside Single-Family House Size CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: July 05, 2012 © 0 250000 500 1, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Eastside Neighborhood House Size Square Feet Less than 500 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 + MATHEWS ST LOCUST ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L I S S T EDWARDS ST E LAUREL ST M O R G A N S T GARFIEL D S T R I V E RSI D E A V E UNIVERSITY AVE OLD MAIN DR S COLLEGE AVE S COLLEGE AVE E MOUNT A IN AVE BUCKEYE ST WHEDBEE ST CIRCLE DR RIVERSIDE AVE LILAC LN C O L O R A D O S T E L A K E S T S LEMAY AVE EDWARDS ST E ELIZABETH ST E OAK ST PETERSON PL PETERSO N ST SMITH ST EASTDALE DR RIVERSIDE AVE B U C K E Y E S T E PITKIN ST LOCUS T C T ENDICOTT ST S MA SO N ST S MASON ST BUCKEYE ST MATHEWS ST E PITKIN ST STOVER ST E MYRTLE ST APEX DR E MULBERRY ST S MASON ST -PECT CT MATHEWS ST E LAKE ST E OLIVE ST CIRCLE DR S T OVER S T COWAN ST G R E E N S T R O B ERTSON ST S LEMAY AVE PROS- REMI NG T ON S T PERSON CT E LAUREL ST E MULBERRY ST WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E L O C U ST ST E PROSPECT RD L O R Y S T HARRIS BILINGUAL IMMERSION CENTENNIAL SR HIGH LAUREL ELEMENTARY BARTON EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER LESHER MIDDLE SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FT COLLINS PUBLIC LIBRARY FT COLLINS MUSEUM Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Eastside Single-Family Building Remodels CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: July 05, 2012 © 0 250000 500 1, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Eastside Neighborhood Year Remodeled Prior to 1960 1960 - 1964 1965 - 1969 1970 - 1974 1975 - 1979 1980 - 1984 1985 - 1989 1990 - 1994 1995 - 1999 2000 - 2004 2005 to Present Eastside Neighborhood: Building Remodels The Building Remodels map shows the years in which remodels of homes have occurred. This map shows that remodels have occurred throughout the history of the Eastside. However, the vast majority of them have occurred since 2000 (the darker shades of blue). EDISON DR S MASON ST REMINGTON ST MATHE WS S T E PROSPECT RD E MYRTLE ST WHEDBEE ST SMITH PL SMITH ST EASTDALE DR COWAN ST E ELIZABETH ST L A K E P L E PENNOCK PL S COLLEGE AVE MONTEZUMA FULLER ALLEY REMINGTON ST GARFIELD ST E PLUM ST E MAGNOLIA ST PETERSON ST DEINES CT SMITH ST KENROY CT ROBER TSO N S T . WILL I A M S ST LESSER DR LORY ST RO B E R T S O N S T A ST REMBRANDT DR MATHEWS ST LOCUST ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L I S S T EDWARDS ST E LAUREL ST M O R G A N S T GARFIEL D S T R I V E RSI D E A V E UNIVERSITY AVE OLD MAIN DR S COLLEGE AVE S COLLEGE AVE E MOUNT A IN AVE BUCKEYE ST WHEDBEE ST CIRCLE DR RIVERSIDE AVE LILAC LN C O L O R A D O S T E L A K E S T S LEMAY AVE EDWARDS ST E ELIZABETH ST E OAK ST PETERSON PL PETERSO N ST SMITH ST EASTDALE DR RIVERSIDE AVE B U C K E Y E S T E PITKIN ST LOCUS T C T ENDICOTT ST S MA SO N ST S MASON ST BUCKEYE ST MATHEWS ST E PITKIN ST STOVER ST E MYRTLE ST APEX DR E MULBERRY ST S MASON ST -PECT CT MATHEWS ST E LAKE ST E OLIVE ST CIRCLE DR S T OVER S T COWAN ST G R E E N S T R O B ERTSON ST S LEMAY AVE PROS- REMI NG T ON S T PERSON CT E LAUREL ST E MULBERRY ST WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E L O C U ST ST E PROSPECT RD L O R Y S T HARRIS BILINGUAL IMMERSION CENTENNIAL SR HIGH LAUREL ELEMENTARY BARTON EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER LESHER MIDDLE SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FT COLLINS PUBLIC LIBRARY FT COLLINS MUSEUM Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Eastside Single-Family Building Remodels CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: July 05, 2012 © 0 250000 500 1, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Eastside Neighborhood Year Remodeled Prior to 1960 1960 - 1964 1965 - 1969 1970 - 1974 1975 - 1979 1980 - 1984 1985 - 1989 1990 - 1994 1995 - 1999 2000 - 2004 2005 to Present MATHEWS ST LOCUST ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L I S S T EDWARDS ST E LAUREL ST M O R G A N S T GARFIEL D S T R I V E RSI D E A V E UNIVERSITY AVE OLD MAIN DR S COLLEGE AVE S COLLEGE AVE E MOUNT A IN AVE BUCKEYE ST WHEDBEE ST CIRCLE DR RIVERSIDE AVE LILAC LN C O L O R A D O S T E L A K E S T S LEMAY AVE EDWARDS ST E ELIZABETH ST E OAK ST PETERSON PL PETERSO N ST SMITH ST EASTDALE DR RIVERSIDE AVE B U C K E Y E S T E PITKIN ST LOCUS T C T ENDICOTT ST S MA SO N ST S MASON ST BUCKEYE ST MATHEWS ST E PITKIN ST STOVER ST E MYRTLE ST APEX DR E MULBERRY ST S MASON ST -PECT CT MATHEWS ST E LAKE ST E OLIVE ST CIRCLE DR S T OVER S T COWAN ST G R E E N S T R O B ERTSON ST S LEMAY AVE PROS- REMI NG T ON S T PERSON CT E LAUREL ST E MULBERRY ST WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E L O C U ST ST E PROSPECT RD L O R Y S T Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Eastside Single-Family Building Age (Draft) CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: May 23, 2012 © 0 250000 500 1, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Eastside Neighborhood Year Built Prior to 1890 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 to Present Eastside Neighborhood: Building Age The Building Age map shows patterns in construction throughout the history of the neighborhood. In the Eastside the oldest areas are north of E. Mulberry Street and then moving south along Peterson, Whedbee and Smith Streets. These areas filled in slowly between the 1890s and the 1920s. The south and east portions of the neighborhood, near Circle Drive and Eastdale Drive, developed in a much shorter period of time in the 1950s and '60s, leading to less variety in building types in these areas. Recent construction (the darkest blue) is relatively sparse and scattered throughout the area. EDISON DR S MASON ST REMINGTON ST MATHE WS S T E PROSPECT RD E MYRTLE ST WHEDBEE ST SMITH PL SMITH ST EASTDALE DR COWAN ST E ELIZABETH ST L A K E P L E PENNOCK PL S COLLEGE AVE MONTEZUMA FULLER ALLEY REMINGTON ST GARFIELD ST E PLUM ST E MAGNOLIA ST PETERSON ST DEINES CT SMITH ST KENROY CT ROBER TSO N S T . WILL I A M S ST LESSER DR LORY ST RO B E R T S O N S T A ST REMBRANDT DR MATHEWS ST LOCUST ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L I S S T EDWARDS ST E LAUREL ST M O R G A N S T GARFIEL D S T R I V E RSI D E A V E UNIVERSITY AVE OLD MAIN DR S COLLEGE AVE S COLLEGE AVE E MOUNT A IN AVE BUCKEYE ST WHEDBEE ST CIRCLE DR RIVERSIDE AVE LILAC LN C O L O R A D O S T E L A K E S T S LEMAY AVE EDWARDS ST E ELIZABETH ST E OAK ST PETERSON PL PETERSO N ST SMITH ST EASTDALE DR RIVERSIDE AVE B U C K E Y E S T E PITKIN ST LOCUS T C T ENDICOTT ST S MA SO N ST S MASON ST BUCKEYE ST MATHEWS ST E PITKIN ST STOVER ST E MYRTLE ST APEX DR E MULBERRY ST S MASON ST -PECT CT MATHEWS ST E LAKE ST E OLIVE ST CIRCLE DR S T OVER S T COWAN ST G R E E N S T R O B ERTSON ST S LEMAY AVE PROS- REMI NG T ON S T PERSON CT E LAUREL ST E MULBERRY ST WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E L O C U ST ST E PROSPECT RD L O R Y S T Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Eastside Single-Family Building Age (Draft) CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: May 23, 2012 © 0 250000 500 1, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Eastside Neighborhood Year Built Prior to 1890 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 to Present 3.6 The impact of existing solar access regulations on building form should be evaluated. 3.7 In determining the compatibility of major additions and new construction in your neighborhood, please rate the six variables discussed above from most important (1) to least important (6). ______ Relationship to lot size ______ Building coverage ______ Paved surfaces ______ Side wall height ______ Side wall length ______ Solar access forms Part 4: Build 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree Each of the four sce pages illustrates a hou a 7,000 square foot lot neighborhood in Boulde represents typical cond areas but may not repres your neighborhood. How various scenarios will h or not specific regulatio Please select one answ best describes your o house illustrated in eac Building mass stepped to meet solar access requirements. Southern property line Solar Access Forms The city’s existing solar access regulations limit the amount of shadow that a building can cast on a neighboring property. In some cases this may result in a building form that is tallest near the southern property line and steps down on the north side. Not Suggested Addressing solar access is a tool choice in Strategy Option 5. It is not sug- gested for further development. Although they directly address a key issue, solar access regulations can be complex to create and administer. Their im- pact also differs greatly by lot size and orientation, which could create restric- tive conditions on some lots. In addition, suggested tools to address building massing such as adjusting measurement of height at the side setback and addressing the character of side walls would help address concerns with solar access. However, City Council may determine that this tool should be evaluated further. Scope Any tools to address solar access would likely apply uniformly to both the N-C-L and N-C-M zone districts. low-clace character areas 2. Compatibility A. Mass and Scale C. Solar Access E. Green Space • Directly addresses key issues • Relative ease of implementation • Diversity of opinions (there is a relatively high level of support - especially for Adjust Measurement of height) Floor Area Ratio (FAR) • Primarily impacts character areas with larger construction on small lots 2. Compatibility 5. Select Address one Building option (a, Massing b, or c): 5a. Address Scale Directly Revise Maximum FAR • Primarily impacts character areas with larger construction on small lots 2. Compatibility A. Mass and Scale C. Solar Access E. Green Space • Directly addresses key mass and scale issues • Diversity of opinions 5b. Address Perceived Scale Address Character of Side Walls • Primarily impacts character areas with larger construction on small lots 2. Compatibility 5. Flexibility A. Mass and Scale B. Looming C. Solar Access • Does not limit house size • Diversity of opinions • May not address issues as Address Character of Front directly as FAR Façade • Primarily impacts character areas with larger construction on small lots 2. Compatibility 3. Community A. Mass and Scale 5c. Address Solar Access Implement Solar Access Standards • Primarily impacts character areas with taller new construction 6. Economic Impacts C. Solar Access • Directly addresses key issue • Does not limit house size • Diversity of opinions • Complex implementation 6. Take Take No no Action Action/Limited Action 5. Flexibility • Diversity of opinions • Does not address issues tools that could be adopted and implemented relatively quickly. These "Quick Wins" tools would help address identified objectives and is- sues while additional tools are evaluated. Promoting the City's existing design assistance program and expanding variance no- tification are suggested as potential early implementa- tion tools. They are indicated with diamond symbols in the following pages. Issues include: A. Additions and new con- struction that appear to be overly large in relation to surrounding houses or the neighborhood B. New building walls or elements that appear to loom over neighbors C. Additions or new con- struction that reduce solar access on neighboring lots D. Additions or new construc- tion that incorporate in- compatible design features E. Additions or new con- struction that impact trees and green space F. New large houses that replace valued older/ more affordable homes buildings and people is used as a rationale for accommo- dating new buildings that are different, and thereby add to the diversity of the area. For others, the perceived "same- ness" of new construction is actually diluting the diversity of the neighborhoods. Westside Property Owner Agreement with Statements About Demolitions, New Construction or Additions2 Responses Property Owners 115 Residents or Tenants 15 Interested Citizens 158 Total 288 Discussion 1 Hour • Do the recommended early implementation tools provide sufficient “quick wins” to address issues and objectives while additional tools are developed? • How should the recommended additional tools be calibrated and applied? • What are some community outreach ideas for generating feedback on the strategy? Wrap Up & Next Steps 5 Minutes For more information, visit the project Web site at http://www.fcgov.com/advanceplanning/eastwestneighborhoods.php (recognizing that some tools may only apply under certain circumstances)? • Which tools require additional information to support further discussion? • Which tools should be considered for early implementation? Wrap Up & Next Steps 5 Minutes For more information, visit the project Web site at http://www.fcgov.com/advanceplanning/eastwestneighborhoods.php friendly neighborhoods with a sense of community and architectural diversity. • Buyers most often seek 1,500 to 2,200 square foot homes with two to three bedrooms. • Most buyers do not want to be subject to restrictive homeowner's association rules. Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Neighborhood Focus Group Meeting Objectives: To introduce the project, discuss differences with previous planning efforts, gain insight into neighborhood concerns and identify the best ways to engage neighborhood residents. Agenda Project Introduction 10 Minutes Question & Answer 10 Minutes Discussion 1 Hour • What are some key assets of your neighborhood? • Do you have any concerns, or do you see specific benefits with the types of changes occurring in your neighborhood? • What information do you need to make informed decisions about the future of your neighborhood? • How can we ensure active community engagement? Wrap Up & Next Steps 10 Minutes For more information, visit the project Web site at http://www.fcgov.com/advanceplanning/eastwestneighborhoods.php • What are some changes occurring in these areas? 6:40 Team Activity #2: Design Features • What design elements contribute to neighborhood compatibility? 7:00 Team Activity #3: Design Alternatives • Which new construction designs are most compatible? 7:20 Team Activity #4: Existing Regulations • Do you have comments on existing regulations? 8:00 Team Reports 8:15 For more information, visit the project Web site at http://www.fcgov.com/advanceplanning/eastwestneighborhoods.php SUNSET AVE N SHIELDS ST W OA K ST WEST ST PARK ST N WASHINGTON AVE LAPORTE AVE MA PLE ST W MAGNOLIA ST S CREST- SKYLINE DR GRANDVIEW AVE DALE CT S BRYAN AVE C L O VE R L N C R E S T M O R E P L WESTVIEW AVE L A K E SI D E A VE LELAND AVE S H E L D O N D R BAYSTONE DR MAPLE ST W MYRTLE ST ELM ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE SYCAMORE ST N LOOMIS AVE UN IVERSITY AVE S SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST N MELDRUM ST W OAK ST W MOUNTAIN AVE W MULBERRY ST BRO ADVIEW PL FREY AVE R ICHARDS PL WE S T V I E W A V E N R O O SEVELT AVE B E E C H C T N MCKINLEY AVE ST MADERA CT SCOTT AVE C O L U M B I N E C T SYCAMORE ST S SHIELDS ST AK I N AVE WOOD ST S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST W MYRTLE ST N MELDRUM ST CHERRY ST SKYLINE DR ORCHARD PL N CREST- W P L U M S T N R O O S E V E L T A V E S H E L D O N D R N MCKINLEY AVE C H E R RY ST CRESTMORE PL AZTEC DR COLUMBINE BI R CH ST W MAGNOLIA ST TEDMON DR RIDDLE DR DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST WEST ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRANT AVE S SHERWOOD ST -MORE CT H O M E R D R N FREY AVE CHERRY ST N ROOSEVELT AVE LYONS ST CITY PARK AVE LAPORTE AVE FRANKLIN ST POMONA ST MILLER DR JACKSON AVE BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST S MACK ST HAWKINS ST GRIFFIN PL W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST WOOD ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST S MELDRUM ST W OLIVE ST N MELDRUM ST W E L I Z A B E T H S T N BRYAN AVE MAPLE ST CLOVER LN BIRCH ST W MOUNTAIN AVE SYLVA N CT PEARL ST JUNIPER CT HANNA ST N SHIELDS ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE ELM CT PARK ST MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST N SHERWOOD ST MAPLE ST SYCAMORE ST LAN CER DR BROADVIEW PL COLLINS CT CITY PARK DR W ELIZABETH ST S ROOSEVELT AVE BISHOP ST LYONS ST N MCKINLEY AVE DAISY ST BEECH ST N SHIELDS ST BUNGALOW CT ELM ST W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE CANYON AVE ISOTOPE DR W LAUREL ST LAB - POLARIS DUNN ELEMENTARY LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL ST JOSEPHS SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FULLANA ELEMENTARY OAKWOOD SCHOOL PUTNAM ELEMENTARY LINCOLN CENTER POTTERY STUDIO THE FARM THE FARM THE FARM MULBERRY POOL THE FARM PARK MAINTAINANCE BLDG CITY PARK POOL CITY PARK CENTER THE FARM LINCOLN CENTER Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Westside Neighborhood CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: October 01, 2012 0 500000 1,000 2, Feet Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (NCL) Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) Current Zoning - Westside Neighborhood ▲ North MATHEWS ST LOCUST ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L I S S T EDWARDS ST E LAUREL ST M O R G A N S T GARFIEL D S T R I V E RSI D E A V E UNIVERSITY AVE OLD MAIN DR S COLLEGE AVE S COLLEGE AVE E MOUNT A IN AVE BUCKEYE ST WHEDBEE ST CIRCLE DR RIVERSIDE AVE LILAC LN C O L O R A D O S T E L A K E S T S LEMAY AVE EDWARDS ST E ELIZABETH ST E OAK ST PETERSON PL PETERSO N ST SMITH ST EASTDALE DR RIVERSIDE AVE B U C K E Y E S T E PITKIN ST LOCUS T C T ENDICOTT ST S MA SO N ST S MASON ST BUCKEYE ST MATHEWS ST E PITKIN ST STOVER ST E MYRTLE ST APEX DR E MULBERRY ST S MASON ST -PECT CT MATHEWS ST E LAKE ST E OLIVE ST CIRCLE DR S T OVER S T COWAN ST G R E E N S T R O B ERTSON ST S LEMAY AVE PROS- REMI NG T ON S T PERSON CT E LAUREL ST E MULBERRY ST WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E L O C U ST ST E PROSPECT RD L O R Y S T HARRIS BILINGUAL IMMERSION CENTENNIAL SR HIGH LAUREL ELEMENTARY BARTON EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER LESHER MIDDLE SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FT COLLINS MUSEUM FT COLLINS PUBLIC LIBRARY Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Zoning Districts - Eastside Neighborhood CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: October 01, 2012 © 0 250000 500 1, Feet Neighborhood Conservation Low Density Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density SUNSET AVE N SHIELDS ST W OA K ST WEST ST PARK ST N WASHINGTON AVE LAPORTE AVE MA PLE ST W MAGNOLIA ST S CREST- SKYLINE DR GRANDVIEW AVE DALE CT S BRYAN AVE C L O VE R L N C R E S T M O R E P L WESTVIEW AVE L A K E SI D E A VE LELAND AVE S H E L D O N D R BAYSTONE DR MAPLE ST W MYRTLE ST ELM ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE SYCAMORE ST N LOOMIS AVE UN IVERSITY AVE S SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST N MELDRUM ST W OAK ST W MOUNTAIN AVE W MULBERRY ST BRO ADVIEW PL FREY AVE R ICHARDS PL WE S T V I E W A V E N R O O SEVELT AVE B E E C H C T N MCKINLEY AVE ST MADERA CT SCOTT AVE C O L U M B I N E C T SYCAMORE ST S SHIELDS ST AK I N AVE WOOD ST S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST W MYRTLE ST N MELDRUM ST CHERRY ST SKYLINE DR ORCHARD PL N CREST- W P L U M S T N R O O S E V E L T A V E S H E L D O N D R N MCKINLEY AVE C H E R RY ST CRESTMORE PL AZTEC DR COLUMBINE BI R CH ST W MAGNOLIA ST TEDMON DR RIDDLE DR DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST WEST ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRANT AVE S SHERWOOD ST -MORE CT H O M E R D R N FREY AVE CHERRY ST N ROOSEVELT AVE LYONS ST CITY PARK AVE LAPORTE AVE FRANKLIN ST POMONA ST MILLER DR JACKSON AVE BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST S MACK ST HAWKINS ST GRIFFIN PL W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST WOOD ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST S MELDRUM ST W OLIVE ST N MELDRUM ST W E L I Z A B E T H S T N BRYAN AVE MAPLE ST CLOVER LN BIRCH ST W MOUNTAIN AVE SYLVA N CT PEARL ST JUNIPER CT HANNA ST N SHIELDS ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE ELM CT PARK ST MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST N SHERWOOD ST MAPLE ST SYCAMORE ST LAN CER DR BROADVIEW PL COLLINS CT CITY PARK DR W ELIZABETH ST S ROOSEVELT AVE BISHOP ST LYONS ST N MCKINLEY AVE DAISY ST BEECH ST N SHIELDS ST BUNGALOW CT ELM ST W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE CANYON AVE ISOTOPE DR W LAUREL ST LAB - POLARIS DUNN ELEMENTARY LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL ST JOSEPHS SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FULLANA ELEMENTARY OAKWOOD SCHOOL PUTNAM ELEMENTARY LINCOLN CENTER POTTERY STUDIO THE FARM THE FARM THE FARM MULBERRY POOL THE FARM PARK MAINTAINANCE BLDG CITY PARK POOL CITY PARK CENTER THE FARM LINCOLN CENTER Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: October 01, 2012 0 500000 1,000 2, Feet Character Area 1 Character Area 2 Character Area 3 Character Area 4 Character Area 5 Character Area 6 Draft Character Areas - Westside Neighborhood ▲ North MATHEWS ST LOCUST ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L I S S T EDWARDS ST E LAUREL ST M O R G A N S T GARFIEL D S T R I V E RSI D E A V E UNIVERSITY AVE OLD MAIN DR S COLLEGE AVE S COLLEGE AVE E MOUNT A IN AVE BUCKEYE ST WHEDBEE ST CIRCLE DR RIVERSIDE AVE LILAC LN C O L O R A D O S T E L A K E S T S LEMAY AVE EDWARDS ST E ELIZABETH ST E OAK ST PETERSON PL PETERSO N ST SMITH ST EASTDALE DR RIVERSIDE AVE B U C K E Y E S T E PITKIN ST LOCUS T C T ENDICOTT ST S MA SO N ST S MASON ST BUCKEYE ST MATHEWS ST E PITKIN ST STOVER ST E MYRTLE ST APEX DR E MULBERRY ST S MASON ST -PECT CT MATHEWS ST E LAKE ST E OLIVE ST CIRCLE DR S T OVER S T COWAN ST G R E E N S T R O B ERTSON ST S LEMAY AVE PROS- REMI NG T ON S T PERSON CT E LAUREL ST E MULBERRY ST WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E L O C U ST ST E PROSPECT RD L O R Y S T HARRIS BILINGUAL IMMERSION CENTENNIAL SR HIGH LAUREL ELEMENTARY BARTON EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER LESHER MIDDLE SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FT COLLINS MUSEUM FT COLLINS PUBLIC LIBRARY Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: October 01, 2012 0 250000 500 1, Feet Character Area 1 Character Area 2 Character Area 3 Character Area 4 Character Area 5 Character Area 6 ▲ North Draft Character Areas - Eastside Neighborhood 0.11-0.2 42% 56% 72% 54% 63% 78% 0.21-0.3 32% 24% 11% 20% 24% 13% 0.31-0.4 14% 6% 5% 5% 1% 1% 0.4 + 5% 2% - 1% 1% - Average 0.22 0.19 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.16 40% + 10% 7% 4% 5% 4% 2% Average 27% 27% 24% 24% 25% 25% COY DR SUNSET AVE S CREST- SKYLINE DR DALE CT S BRYAN AVE C R E S T M O R E P L WESTVIEW AVE L A K E SI D E A VE S H E L D O N D R BAYSTONE DR W MYRTLE ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L W MULBERRY ST BRO ADVIEW PL WE S T V I E W A V E ST SCOTT AVE S SHIELDS ST SKYLINE DR ORCHARD PL N CREST- W P L U M S T CRESTMORE PL COLUMBINE BI R CH ST W MAGNOLIA ST DEL NORTE PL P I O N E E R A V E S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE -MORE CT H O M E R D R CITY PARK AVE MILLER DR BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST W E L I Z A B E T H S T BIRCH ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE BROADVIEW PL W ELIZABETH ST DAISY ST W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST LAB - POLARIS DUNN ELEMENTARY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY MAINTAINANCE BLDG CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. © 0 500000 1,000 2, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Westside Neighborhood Lot Coverage Less than 5% 5% - 9% 10% - 14% 15% - 19% 20% - 24% 25% - 29% 30% - 34% 35% - 39 40% - 44 45% - 49 50% + A N A V E AYLAND CT FISHBACK AVE W MULBERRY ST W OAK ST S MCKINLEY AVE WAGNER DR SCOTT AVE PEARL ST HA S SHIELDS ST N MACK ST ARMSTRON G A V E CHERRY ST N WHITCOMB ST LYONS ST W PLUM ST SYLVAN CT W OLIVE ST W COY DR JAMITH PL SUNSET AVE N SHIELDS ST W OA K ST WEST ST PARK ST N WASHINGTON AVE LAPORTE AVE MA PLE ST S BRYAN AVE C L O VE C R E S T M O R E P L WESTVIEW AVE L A K E SI D E A VE LELAND AVE S H E L D O N D R BAYSTONE DR MAPLE ST W MYRTLE ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE SYCAMORE ST N LOOMIS AVE UN IVERSITY AVE HARDS PL WE S T V I E W A V E N R O O SEVELT AVE B E E C H C T N MCKINLEY AVE ST SCOTT AVE C O L U M B I N E C T SYCAMORE ST S SHIELDS ST AK I N AVE WOOD ST S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST W P L U M S T R O O S E V E L T A V E S H E L D O N D R N MCKINLEY AVE C H E R RY ST CRESTMORE PL COLUMBINE BI R CH ST W MAGNOLIA ST TEDMON DR RIDDLE DR DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRANT AVE CHERRY ST N ROOSEVELT AVE LYONS ST CITY PARK AVE LAPORTE AVE FRANKLIN ST MILLER DR JACKSON AVE BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST S MACK ST HAWKINS ST W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST MAPLE ST CLOVER LN BIRCH ST W MOUNTAIN AVE SYLVA N CT PEARL ST JUNIPER CT N SHIELDS ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST OLLINS CT CITY PARK DR W ELIZABETH ST S ROOSEVELT AVE BISHOP ST LYONS N MCKINLEY AVE DAISY ST BEECH ST BUNGALOW CT W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE DUNN ELEMENTARY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FULLANA ELEMENTARY OAKWOOD SCHOOL PUTNAM ELEMENTARY POTTERY STUDIO M CITY PARK POOL CITY PARK CENTER CT S K Y L I N E D R HOMER CT CRESTMORE PL COOK DR W MULBERRY ST WAGNER DR SCOTT AVE S SHIELDS ST ARMSTRON G A V E W PLUM ST W OLIVE ST W COY DR SUNSET AVE - SKYLINE DR DALE CT S BRYAN AVE C R E S T M O R E P L WESTVIEW AVE L A K E SI D E A VE S H E L D O N D R BAYSTONE DR W MYRTLE ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L S WASHINGTON UN IVERSITY A W MULBERRY ST BRO ADVIEW PL WE S T V I E W A V E ST SCOTT AVE S SHIELDS ST AK I N AVE S LOOMIS AV S WHITCOMB SKYLINE DR ORCHARD PL N CREST- W P L U M S T S H E L D O N D R CRESTMORE PL COLUMBINE BI R CH ST W MAGNOLIA ST DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE -MORE CT H O M E R D R CITY PARK AVE MILLER DR JACKSON AVE BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST S W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST W OLIVE ST W E L I Z A B E T H S T BIRCH ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST BROADVIEW PL CITY PARK DR W ELIZABETH ST DAISY ST W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AV S LOOMIS AVE LAB - POLARIS DUNN ELEMENTARY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY PARK MAINTAINANCE BLDG CITY PARK POOL CITY PARK CENTER CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. © 0 500000 1,000 2, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Westside Neighborhood Lot Coverage Less than 5% 5% - 9% 10% - 14% 15% - 19% 20% - 24% 25% - 29% 30% - 34% 35% - 39% 40% - 44% 45% - 49% 50% + Westside Neighborhood: Lot Coverage Map Detail T Z P L UN IVERSITY AVE S SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST ST SCOTT AVE S SHIELDS ST W MYRTLE ST CRESTMORE PL COLUMBINE BI R CH ST DEL NORTE PL P I O N E E R A V E S WASHINGTON AVE S GRANT AVE CITY PARK AVE MILLER DR BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST S MELDRUM ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST DAISY ST W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S LOOMIS AVE ISOTOPE DR W LAUREL ST DUNN ELEMENTARY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY LINCOLN CENTER MULBERRY POOL LINCOLN CENTER Printed: July 05, 2012 Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Westside Neighborhood Lot Frontage Feet 25 - 50 51 - 75 76 - 100 101 - 125 More than 125 N MACK ST ARMSTRON G A V E CHERRY ST N WHITCOMB ST LAPORTE AVE WEST DR T AVE W OA K ST WEST ST PARK ST N WASHINGTON AVE LAPORTE AVE MA PLE ST W MAGNOLIA ST T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE SYCAMORE ST N LOOMIS AVE UN IVERSITY AVE S SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST N MELDRUM ST W OAK ST W MOUNTAIN AVE AK I N AVE WOOD ST S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST W MYRTLE ST N MELDRUM ST CHERRY ST DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRANT AVE S SHERWOOD ST S MACK ST HAWKINS ST W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST S MELDRUM ST W OLIVE ST N MELDRUM ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST N SHERWOOD ST MAPLE ST EECH ST BUNGALOW CT W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE CANYON AVE ISOTOPE DR W LAUREL ST DUNN ELEMENTARY ST JOSEPHS SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FULLANA ELEMENTARY LINCOLN CENTER MULBERRY POOL LINCOLN CENTER Westside Neighborhood: Lot Frontage Map Detail K Y L I N E D R HOMER CT CRESTMORE PL COOK DR S B R Y A N A V E W MULBERRY ST W OAK ST S MCKINLEY AVE WAGNER DR SCOTT AVE S SHIELDS ST ARMSTRON G A V E W PLUM ST W OLIVE ST W COY DR SUNSET AVE W OA K ST S CREST- SKYLINE DR DALE CT S BRYAN AVE C R E S T M O R E P L WESTVIEW AVE L A K E SI D E A VE S H E L D O N D R BAYSTONE DR W MYRTLE ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE UN IVERSITY AVE W MULBERRY ST BRO ADVIEW PL WE S T V I E W A V E ST SCOTT AVE S SHIELDS ST AK I N AVE S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST SKYLINE DR ORCHARD PL N CREST- W P L U M S T S H E L D O N D R CRESTMORE PL COLUMBINE BI R CH ST W MAGNOLIA ST DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE -MORE CT H O M E R D R CITY PARK AVE MILLER DR JACKSON AVE BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST S MACK ST W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST W E L I Z A B E T H S T BIRCH ST W MOUNTAIN AVE M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST BROADVIEW PL CITY PARK DR W ELIZABETH ST S ROOSEVELT AVE DAISY ST W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE LAB - POLARIS DUNN ELEMENTARY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY OAKWOOD SCHOOL POTTERY STUDIO MU PARK MAINTAINANCE BLDG CITY PARK POOL CITY PARK CENTER CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. © 0 500000 1,000 2, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Westside Neighborhood Lot Size Square Feet Less than 4,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 + A N A V E AYLAND CT FISHBACK AVE W MULBERRY ST W OAK ST S MCKINLEY AVE WAGNER DR SCOTT AVE PEARL ST HAN S SHIELDS ST N MACK ST ARMSTRON G A V E CHERRY ST N WHITCOMB ST LYONS ST W PLUM ST SYLVAN CT W OLIVE ST W COY DR JAMITH PL SUNSET AVE N SHIELDS ST W OA K ST WEST ST PARK ST N WASHINGTON AVE LAPORTE AVE MA PLE ST S BRYAN AVE C L O VE R C R E S T M O R E P L WESTVIEW AVE L A K E SI D E A VE LELAND AVE S H E L D O N D R BAYSTONE DR MAPLE ST W MYRTLE ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE SYCAMORE ST N LOOMIS AVE UN IVERSITY AVE HARDS PL WE S T V I E W A V E N R O O SEVELT AVE B E E C H C T N MCKINLEY AVE ST SCOTT AVE C O L U M B I N E C T SYCAMORE ST S SHIELDS ST AK I N AVE WOOD ST S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST W P L U M S T N R O O S E V E L T A V E S H E L D O N D R N MCKINLEY AVE C H E R RY ST CRESTMORE PL COLUMBINE BI R CH ST W MAGNOLIA ST TEDMON DR RIDDLE DR DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRANT AVE CHERRY ST N ROOSEVELT AVE LYONS ST CITY PARK AVE LAPORTE AVE FRANKLIN ST MILLER DR JACKSON AVE BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST S MACK ST HAWKINS ST W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST MAPLE ST CLOVER LN BIRCH ST W MOUNTAIN AVE SYLVA N CT PEARL ST JUNIPER CT N SHIELDS ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST OLLINS CT CITY PARK DR W ELIZABETH ST S ROOSEVELT AVE BISHOP ST LYONS N MCKINLEY AVE DAISY ST BEECH ST BUNGALOW CT W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE DUNN ELEMENTARY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FULLANA ELEMENTARY OAKWOOD SCHOOL PUTNAM ELEMENTARY POTTERY STUDIO M CITY PARK POOL CITY PARK CENTER Westside Neighborhood: Lot Size Map Detail R M A N T Z P L UN IVERSITY AVE S SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST ST SCOTT AVE S SHIELDS ST W MYRTLE ST CRESTMORE PL COLUMBINE BI R CH ST W MAGNOLIA ST DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE CITY PARK AVE MILLER DR JACKSON AVE BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST S MELDRUM ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST DAISY ST W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S LOOMIS AVE CANYON AVE ISOTOPE DR W LAUREL ST DUNN ELEMENTARY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY LINCOLN CENTER MULBERRY POOL LINCOLN CENTER Printed: July 05, 2012 uildings Water Features arcels City Limits Westside Neighborhood Building Height Stories 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 WAGNER DR SCOTT AVE PEARL ST HANNA ST S SHIELDS ST N MACK ST ARMSTRON G A V E CHERRY ST N WHITCOMB ST LAPORTE AVE WEST DR OLIVE ST W COY DR JAMITH PL SUNSET AVE N SHIELDS ST W OA K ST WEST ST PARK ST N WASHINGTON AVE LAPORTE AVE MA PLE ST W MAGNOLIA ST MYRTLE ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE SYCAMORE ST N LOOMIS AVE S SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST N MELDRUM ST W OAK ST W MOUNTAIN AVE ST SCOTT AVE C O L U M B I N E C T SYCAMORE ST S SHIELDS ST AK I N AVE WOOD ST S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST W MYRTLE ST N MELDRUM ST CHERRY ST BI R CH ST AGNOLIA ST RIDDLE DR DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRANT AVE S SHERWOOD ST BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST S MACK ST HAWKINS ST W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST S MELDRUM ST W OLIVE ST N MELDRUM ST PEARL ST JUNIPER CT N SHIELDS ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE ELM C MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST N SHERWOOD ST MAPLE ST BEECH ST BUNGALOW CT W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE CANYON AVE ISOTOPE DR W LAUREL ST DUNN ELEMENTARY ST JOSEPHS SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FULLANA ELEMENTARY LINCOLN CENTER MULBERRY POOL LINCOLN CENTER N MACK ST ARMSTRON G A V E CHERRY ST N WHITCOMB ST LAPORTE AVE WEST DR W OA K ST WEST ST PARK ST N WASHINGTON AVE LAPORTE AVE MA PLE ST W MAGNOLIA ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE SYCAMORE ST N LOOMIS AVE S SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST N MELDRUM ST W OAK ST W MOUNTAIN AVE AK I N AVE WOOD ST S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST W MYRTLE ST N MELDRUM ST CHERRY ST WAYNE ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRANT AVE S SHERWOOD ST S MACK ST HAWKINS ST W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST S MELDRUM ST W OLIVE ST N MELDRUM ST T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE ELM C MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST N SHERWOOD ST MAPLE ST BUNGALOW CT W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE CANYON AVE ISOTOPE DR W LAUREL ST DUNN ELEMENTARY ST JOSEPHS SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FULLANA ELEMENTARY LINCOLN CENTER MULBERRY POOL Westside Neighborhood: Building Height Map Detail V E FISHBA W MULBERRY ST W OAK ST S MCKINLEY AVE WAGNER DR SCOTT AVE S SHIELDS ST N MAC ARMSTRON G A V E N WHITCO W PLUM ST SYLVA W OLIVE ST W COY DR SUNSET AVE W OA K ST N WASHIN S CREST- SKYLINE DR GRAND DALE CT S BRYAN AVE C R E S T M O R E P L WESTVIEW AVE L A K E SI D E A VE S H E L D O N D R BAYSTONE DR W MYRTLE ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE N LOOM UN IVERSITY A W MULBERRY ST BRO ADVIEW PL FR R ICHARDS PL WE S T V I E W A V E N MCKIN ST SCOTT AVE S SHIELDS ST AK I N AVE S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST SKYLINE DR ORCHARD PL N CREST- W P L U M S T S H E L D O N D R CRESTMORE PL COLUMBINE BI R CH ST W MAGNOLIA ST DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRAN -MORE CT H O M E R D R N ROOSE LYON CITY PARK AVE MILLER DR JACKSON AVE BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST S MACK ST W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST W E L I Z A B E T H S T BIRCH ST W MOUNTAIN AVE PEAR N SHIEL M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST BROADVIEW PL CITY PARK DR W ELIZABETH ST S ROOSEVELT AVE DAISY ST BUNGALOW CT W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE LAB - POLARIS DUNN ELEMENTARY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY OAKWOOD SCHOOL POTTERY STUDIO PARK MAINTAINANCE BLDG CITY PARK POOL CITY PARK CENTER CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. © 0 500000 1,000 2, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Westside Neighborhood Floor Area Ratio 0.03 - 0.05 0.06 - 0.10 0.11 - 0.15 0.16 - 0.20 0.21 - 0.25 0.26 - 0.30 0.31 - 0.35 0.36 - 0.40 0.41 - 0.45 0.46 - 0.50 0.51 - 1.18 A N A V E AYLAND CT FISHBACK AVE W MULBERRY ST W OAK ST S MCKINLEY AVE WAGNER DR SCOTT AVE PEARL ST HANNA ST S SHIELDS ST N MACK ST ARMSTRON G A V E CHERRY ST N WHITCOMB ST E L M S T LYONS ST W PLUM ST SYLVAN CT W OLIVE ST W COY DR JAMITH PL SUNSET AVE N SHIELDS ST W OA K ST WEST ST PARK ST N WASHINGTON AVE LAPORTE AVE MA PLE ST S BRYAN AVE C L O VE R L N C R E S T M O R E P L WESTVIEW AVE L A K E SI D E A VE LELAND AVE S H E L D O N D R BAYSTONE DR MAPLE ST W MYRTLE ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE SYCAMORE ST N LOOMIS AVE HARDS PL WE S T V I E W A V E N R O O SEVELT AVE B E E C H C T N MCKINLEY AVE ST SCOTT AVE C O L U M B I N E C T SYCAMORE ST S SHIELDS ST AK I N AVE WOOD ST S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST W P L U M S T N R O O S E V E L T A V E S H E L D O N D R N MCKINLEY AVE C H E R RY ST CRESTMORE PL COLUMBINE BI R CH ST W MAGNOLIA ST TEDMON DR RIDDLE DR DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRANT AVE CHERRY ST N ROOSEVELT AVE LYONS ST CITY PARK AVE LAPORTE AVE FRANKLIN ST MILLER DR JACKSON AVE BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST S MACK ST HAWKINS ST W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST MAPLE ST CLOVER LN BIRCH ST W MOUNTAIN AVE SYLVA N CT PEARL ST JUNIPER CT N SHIELDS ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE ELM CT MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST OLLINS CT CITY PARK DR W ELIZABETH ST S ROOSEVELT AVE BISHOP ST LYONS ST N MCKINLEY AVE DAISY ST BEECH ST BUNGALOW CT W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE DUNN ELEMENTARY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FULLANA ELEMENTARY OAKWOOD SCHOOL PUTNAM ELEMENTARY POTTERY STUDIO M CITY PARK POOL CITY PARK CENTER Westside Neighborhood: Floor Area Ratio Map Detail ST W MAGNOLIA ST S H E L D O N D R BAYSTONE DR W MYRTLE ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE UN IVERSITY AVE S SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST N MELDRUM ST W OAK ST W MOUNTAIN AVE ST SCOTT AVE S SHIELDS ST AK I N AVE S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST W MYRTLE ST S H E L D O N D R CRESTMORE PL COLUMBINE BI R CH ST W MAGNOLIA ST DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE S SHERWOOD ST CITY PARK AVE MILLER DR JACKSON AVE BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST S MACK ST W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST S MELDRUM ST W OLIVE ST BIRCH ST W MOUNTAIN AVE M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST DAISY ST W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE CANYON AVE ISOTOPE DR W LAUREL ST DUNN ELEMENTARY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY OD SCHOOL LINCOLN CENTER MULBERRY POOL LINCOLN CENTER Printed: July 05, 2012 Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Westside Neighborhood House Size Square Feet Less than 500 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 + N MACK ST ARMSTRON G A V E CHERRY ST N WHITCOMB ST LAPORTE AVE WEST DR T AVE W OA K ST WEST ST PARK ST N WASHINGTON AVE LAPORTE AVE MA PLE ST W MAGNOLIA ST T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE SYCAMORE ST N LOOMIS AVE S SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST N MELDRUM ST W OAK ST W MOUNTAIN AVE AK I N AVE WOOD ST S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST W MYRTLE ST N MELDRUM ST CHERRY ST DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRANT AVE S SHERWOOD ST S MACK ST HAWKINS ST W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST S MELDRUM ST W OLIVE ST N MELDRUM ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE E MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST N SHERWOOD ST MAPLE ST EECH ST BUNGALOW CT W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE CANYON AVE ISOTOPE DR W LAUREL ST DUNN ELEMENTARY ST JOSEPHS SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FULLANA ELEMENTARY LINCOLN CENTER MULBERRY POOL LINCOLN CENTER Westside Neighborhood: House Size Map Detail N WHITCOMB ST T LYONS ST W PLUM ST SYLVAN CT W OLIVE ST W COY DR JAMITH PL SUNSET AVE N SHIELDS ST W OA K ST WEST ST PARK ST N WASHINGTON AVE LAPORTE AVE MA PLE ST S BRYAN AVE C L O VE R L N C R E S T M O R E P L WESTVIEW AVE L A K E SI D E A VE LELAND AVE S H E L D O N D R BAYSTONE DR MAPLE ST W MYRTLE ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE SYCAMORE ST N LOOMIS AVE HARDS PL WE S T V I E W A V E N R O O SEVELT AVE B E E C H C T N MCKINLEY AVE ST SCOTT AVE C O L U M B I N E C T SYCAMORE ST S SHIELDS ST AK I N AVE WOOD ST S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST W P L U M S T N R O O S E V E L T A V E S H E L D O N D R N MCKINLEY AVE C H E R RY ST CRESTMORE PL COLUMBINE BI R CH ST W MAGNOLIA ST TEDMON DR RIDDLE DR DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRANT AVE CHERRY ST N ROOSEVELT AVE LYONS ST CITY PARK AVE LAPORTE AVE FRANKLIN ST MILLER DR JACKSON AVE BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST S MACK ST HAWKINS ST W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST MAPLE ST CLOVER LN BIRCH ST W MOUNTAIN AVE SYLVA N CT PEARL ST JUNIPER CT N SHIELDS ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE ELM C MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST OLLINS CT CITY PARK DR W ELIZABETH ST S ROOSEVELT AVE BISHOP ST LYONS ST N MCKINLEY AVE DAISY ST BEECH ST BUNGALOW CT W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE DUNN ELEMENTARY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FULLANA ELEMENTARY OAKWOOD SCHOOL PUTNAM ELEMENTARY POTTERY STUDIO MU CITY PARK POOL CITY PARK CENTER -MORE CT S K Y L I N E D R HOMER CT CRESTMORE PL COOK DR S B R Y A N A V E LAYLAND CT FISHBACK AVE W MULBERRY ST W OAK ST S MCKINLEY AVE WAGNER DR SCOTT AVE S SHIELDS ST N MACK ST ARMSTRON G A V E N WHITCOMB ST LYONS ST W PLUM ST SYLVAN CT W OLIVE ST W COY DR JAMITH PL SUNSET AVE W OA K ST WE PAR N WASHINGTON AVE LAPORTE AVE MA PLE ST S CREST- SKYLINE DR GRANDVIEW AVE DALE CT S BRYAN AVE C R E S T M O R E P L WESTVIEW AVE L A K E SI D E A VE LELAND AVE S H E L D O N D R BAYSTONE DR W MYRTLE ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE N LOOMIS AVE UN IVERSITY AVE S SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST BRO ADVIEW PL FREY AVE R ICHARDS PL WE S T V I E W A V E N R O O SEVELT AVE N MCKINLEY AVE ST SCOTT AVE C O L U M B I N E C T S SHIELDS ST AK I N AVE WOO S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST SKYLINE DR ORCHARD PL N CREST- W P L U M S T S H E L D O N D R N MCKINLEY AVE CRESTMORE PL COLUMBINE BI R CH ST W MAGNOLIA ST DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRANT AVE S SHERWOOD ST -MORE CT H O M E R D R N ROOSEVELT AVE LYONS ST CITY PARK AVE LAPORTE AVE MILLER DR JACKSON AVE BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST S MACK ST W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST W E L I Z A B E T H S T MAPLE ST CLOVER LN BIRCH ST W MOUNTAIN AVE SYLVA N CT PEARL ST JUNIPER CT N SHIELDS ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST N SHERWOOD ST BROADVIEW PL COLLINS CT CITY PARK DR W ELIZABETH ST S ROOSEVELT AVE BISHOP ST N MCKINLEY AVE DAISY ST BUNGALOW CT W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE CANYON AVE LAB - POLARIS DUNN ELEMENTARY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FULLANA ELEMENTARY OAKWOOD SCHOOL LINC CEN POTTERY STUDIO MULBERRY POOL PARK MAINTAINANCE BLDG CITY PARK POOL CITY PARK CENTER LINCOLN CENTER CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: J © 0 500000 1,000 2, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Westside Neighborhood Year Remodeled Prior to 1960 1960 - 1964 1965 - 1969 1970 - 1974 1975 - 1979 1980 - 1984 1985 - 1989 1990 - 1994 1995 - 1999 2000 - 2004 2005 to Present In the Westside Neighborhood, the number of building remodels significantly increased over the last decade (shown in dark blue). See the Appendix for a full map. Westside Neighborhood: Building Remodels Map Detail V E N WHITCOMB ST WEST DR W PLUM ST SYLVAN CT W OLIVE ST W COY DR JAM SUNSET AVE W OA K ST N WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST VE A VE S H E L D O N D R BAYSTONE DR W MYRTLE ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE N LOOMIS AVE UN IVERSITY AVE S SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST N MELDRUM ST W OAK ST W MOUNTAIN AVE N MCKINLEY AVE ST SCOTT AVE S SHIELDS ST AK I N AVE S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST W MYRTLE ST S H E L D O N D R CRESTMORE PL COLUMBINE BI R CH ST W MAGNOLIA ST DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRANT AVE S SHERWOOD ST LYONS ST CITY PARK AVE MILLER DR JACKSON AVE BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST S MACK ST W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST S MELDRUM ST W OLIVE ST N MELDRUM ST BIRCH ST W MOUNTAIN AVE PEARL ST N SHIELDS ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST N SHERWOOD ST ETH ST DAISY ST BUNGALOW CT W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE CANYON AVE ISOTOPE DR W LAUREL ST DUNN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY AKWOOD SCHOOL LINCOLN CENTER MULBERRY POOL Printed: July 05, 2012 Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Westside Neighborhood Year Built Prior to 1890 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 to Present WAGNER DR SCOTT AVE PEARL ST HA S SHIELDS ST N MACK ST ARMSTRON G A V E CHERRY ST N WHITCOMB ST LAPORTE AVE WEST DR W OLIVE ST W COY DR JAMITH PL SUNSET AVE N SHIELDS ST W OA K ST WEST ST PARK ST N WASHINGTON AVE LAPORTE AVE MA PLE ST W MAGNOLIA ST MYRTLE ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE SYCAMORE ST N LOOMIS AVE UN IVERSITY AVE S SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST N MELDRUM ST W OAK ST W MOUNTAIN AVE ST SCOTT AVE C O L U M B I N E C T SYCAMORE ST S SHIELDS ST AK I N AVE WOOD ST S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST W MYRTLE ST N MELDRUM ST CHERRY ST BI R CH ST MAGNOLIA ST RIDDLE DR DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRANT AVE S SHERWOOD ST BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST S MACK ST HAWKINS ST W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST S MELDRUM ST W OLIVE ST N MELDRUM ST PEARL ST JUNIPER CT N SHIELDS ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST N SHERWOOD ST MAPLE ST BEECH ST BUNGALOW CT W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE CANYON AVE ISOTOPE DR W LAUREL ST DUNN ELEMENTARY ST JOSEPHS SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FULLANA ELEMENTARY LINCOLN CENTER MULBERRY POOL N MACK ST ARMSTRON G A V E CHERRY ST N WHITCOMB ST LAPORTE AVE WEST DR W OA K ST WEST ST PARK ST N WASHINGTON AVE LAPORTE AVE MA PLE ST W MAGNOLIA ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE SYCAMORE ST N LOOMIS AVE UN IVERSITY AVE S SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST N MELDRUM ST W OAK ST W MOUNTAIN AVE AK I N AVE WOOD ST S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST W MYRTLE ST N MELDRUM ST CHERRY ST WAYNE ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRANT AVE S SHERWOOD ST S MACK ST HAWKINS ST W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST S MELDRUM ST W OLIVE ST N MELDRUM ST N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST N SHERWOOD ST MAPLE ST BUNGALOW CT W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE CANYON AVE ISOTOPE DR W LAUREL ST DUNN ELEMENTARY ST JOSEPHS SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FULLANA ELEMENTARY LINCOLN CENTER MULBERRY POOL Westside Neighborhood: Building Age Map Detail ROBER TSO N S T . WILL I A M S ST LESSER DR LORY ST RO B E R T S O N S T UST ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L I S S T EDWARDS ST E LAUREL ST M O R G A N S T GARFIEL D S T R I V E RSI D E A V E BUCKEYE ST WHEDBEE ST CIRCLE DR VE LILAC LN C O L O R A D O S T E L A K E S T S LEMAY AVE ARDS ST ABETH ST PETERSON PL PETERSO N ST SMITH ST EASTDALE DR RIVERSIDE AVE B U C K E Y E S T E PITKIN ST LOCUS T C T ENDICOTT ST TKIN ST STOVER ST E MYRTLE ST APEX DR E MULBERRY ST E LAKE ST LIVE ST CIRCLE DR S T OVER S T COWAN ST G R E E N S T R O B ERTSON ST S LEMAY AVE PERSON CT UREL ST BERRY ST WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E L O C U ST ST E PROSPECT RD L O R Y S T HARRIS BILINGUAL IMMERSION TENNIAL HIGH LAUREL ELEMENTARY BARTON EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER LESHER MIDDLE SCHOOL PUBLIC LIBRARY Printed: July 05, 2012 Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Eastside Neighborhood Lot Coverage Less than 5% 5% - 9% 10% - 14% 15% - 19% 20% - 24% 25% - 29% 30% - 34% 35% - 39% 40% - 44% 45% - 49% 50% + Eastside Neighborhood: Lot Coverage Map Detail W MULBERRY ST W OAK ST S MCKINLEY AVE WAGNER DR SCOTT AVE S SHIELDS ST N MACK ST ARMSTRON G A V E N WHITCOMB ST WEST DR W PLUM ST SYLVAN CT W OLIVE ST W COY DR JAMITH SUNSET AVE W OA K ST N WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST VE A VE S H E L D O N D R BAYSTONE DR W MYRTLE ST E CO Y D R M A N T Z P L S WASHINGTON AVE W MOUNTAIN AVE N LOOMIS AVE UN IVERSITY AVE S SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST N MELDRUM ST W OAK ST W MOUNTAIN AVE N MCKINLEY AVE ST SCOTT AVE S SHIELDS ST AK I N AVE S LOOMIS AVE S WHITCOMB ST W MYRTLE ST S H E L D O N D R CRESTMORE PL COLUMBINE BI R CH ST W MAGNOLIA ST DEL NORTE PL WAYNE ST P I O N E E R A V E GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE W MAGNOLIA ST S GRANT AVE N GRANT AVE S SHERWOOD ST LYONS ST CITY PARK AVE MILLER DR JACKSON AVE BLUEBELL ST ASTER ST S MACK ST W PLUM ST W MYRTLE ST W OLIVE ST W OAK ST S MELDRUM ST W OLIVE ST N MELDRUM ST BIRCH ST W MOUNTAIN AVE PEARL ST N SHIELDS ST M O N T E V I S T A A VE WOODFORD AVE MERIDIAN AVE S WHITCOMB ST N SHERWOOD ST ETH ST DAISY ST BUNGALOW CT W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE CANYON AVE ISOTOPE DR W LAUREL ST DUNN ELEMENTARY ST JOSEPHS SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY AKWOOD SCHOOL LINCOLN CENTER MULBERRY POOL LINCOLN CENTER Printed: July 05, 2012 Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Westside Neighborhood Lot Coverage Less than 5% 5% - 9% 10% - 14% 15% - 19% 20% - 24% 25% - 29% 30% - 34% 35% - 39% 40% - 44% 45% - 49% 50% + I S S T EDWARDS S COLLEGE AVE BUCKEYE ST CIRCLE DR EDWARDS ST PETERSON PL B U C K E Y E S T BUCKEYE ST MATHEWS ST E PITKIN ST A -PECT CT E LAKE ST CIRCLE DR PROS- PERSON CT WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E PROSPECT R BARTON EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER LESHER MIDDLE SCHOOL CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. © 0 250000 500 1, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Eastside Neighborhood Lot Frontage Feet 25 - 50 51 - 75 76 - 100 101 - 125 More than 125 EDISON DR S MASON ST REMINGTON ST MATHE WS S T E PROSPECT RD E MYRTLE ST WHEDBEE SMITH PL SMITH ST EASTDALE DR COWAN ST E ELIZABETH ST S COLLEGE AVE MONTEZUMA FUL REMINGTO GARFIELD ST E PLUM ST E MAGNOLIA ST PETERSON DEINES CT SMITH ST KENROY CT ROBER TSO N S T . WILL I A M S ST LESSER DR A ST REMBRANDT DR MATHEWS ST LOCUST ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L I S S T EDWARDS ST E LAUREL ST M O R G A N S T GARFIEL D UNIVERSITY AVE OLD MAIN DR S COLLEGE AVE S COLLEGE BUCKEYE ST WHEDBEE ST CIRCLE DR VE LILAC LN C O L O R A D O S T E L A K E S T EDWARDS ST E ELIZABETH ST PETERSON PL PETERSO N ST SMITH ST EASTDALE DR RIVERSIDE AVE B U C K E Y E S T E PITKIN ST LOCUS T C T ENDICOTT ST S MA SO N ST S MASON BUCKEYE ST MATHEWS ST E PITKIN ST STOVER ST E MYRTLE ST APEX DR S MASON ST -PECT CT MATHEWS E LAKE ST E OLIVE ST CIRCLE DR S T OVER S T COWAN ST PROS- REMI NG T ON S T PERSON CT E LAUREL ST E MULBERRY ST WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E L O C U ST ST E PROSPECT RD HARRIS BILINGUAL IMMERSION CENTENNIAL SR HIGH LAUR ELEMEN BARTON EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER LESHER MIDDLE SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FT COLLINS MUSEUM PUBLIC LIBRARY CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. © 0 250000 500 1, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Eastside Neighborhood Lot Frontage Feet 25 - 50 51 - 75 76 - 100 101 - 125 More than 125 Eastside Neighborhood: Lot Frontage Map Detail PROSPECT RD SMITH PL SMITH ST E ELIZABETH ST L A K E P L E PENNOCK PL RFIELD ST DEINES CT KENROY CT ROBER TSO N S T . WILL I A M S ST LORY ST RO B E R T S O N S T CUST ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L I S S T EDWARDS ST M O R G A N S T GARFIEL D S T BUCKEYE ST CIRCLE DR E L A K E S T S LEMAY AVE WARDS ST ZABETH ST PETERSON PL B U C K E Y E S T E PITKIN ST LOCUS T C T PITKIN ST APEX DR E LAKE ST CIRCLE DR G R E E N S T R O B ERTSON ST PERSON CT WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E L O C U ST ST E PROSPECT RD L O R Y S T HARRIS BILINGUAL IMMERSION LAUREL ELEMENTARY BARTON EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER LESHER MIDDLE SCHOOL Printed: July 05, 2012 Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Eastside Neighborhood Lot Size Square Feet Less than 4,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 + REMINGTON ST MATHE WS S T E PROSPECT RD E MYRTLE ST SMITH PL SMITH ST EASTDALE DR COWAN ST E ELIZABETH ST L A K E P L E PENNOCK PL S COLLEGE AVE MONT GARFIELD ST E PLUM ST E MAGNOLIA ST DEINES CT SMITH ST KENROY CT ROBER TSO N S T . WILL I A M S ST LESSER DR LORY ST RO B E R T S O N S T MATHEWS ST LOCUST ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L I S S T EDWARDS ST E LAUREL ST M O R G A N S T GARFIEL D S T R I V E RSI D E A V E TY AVE N DR S COLLEGE AVE BUCKEYE ST WHEDBEE ST CIRCLE DR LILAC LN C O L O R A D O S T E L A K E S T S LEMAY AVE EDWARDS ST E ELIZABETH ST PETERSON PL PETERSO N ST SMITH ST EASTDALE DR RIVERSIDE AVE B U C K E Y E S T E PITKIN ST LOCUS T C T ENDICOTT ST BUCKEYE ST MATHEWS ST E PITKIN ST STOVER ST E MYRTLE ST APEX DR E MULBERRY ST -PECT CT E LAKE ST E OLIVE ST CIRCLE DR S T OVER S T COWAN ST G R E E N S T R O B ERTSON ST S LEMAY AVE S- REMI NG T ON S T PERSON CT E LAUREL ST E MULBERRY ST WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E L O C U ST ST E PROSPECT RD L O R Y S T HARRIS BILINGUAL IMMERSION CENTENNIAL SR HIGH LAUREL ELEMENTARY BARTON EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER LESHER MIDDLE SCHOOL ON SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying ries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR D OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE ese map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL y of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless ability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having endent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of e City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or equential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof Printed: July 05, 2012 500 1,000 Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Eastside Neighborhood Lot Size Square Feet Less than 4,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 + Eastside Neighborhood: Lot Size Map Detail T EDWARDS S COLLEGE AVE BUCKEYE ST CIRCLE DR EDWARDS ST PETERSON PL B U C K E Y E S T BUCKEYE ST MATHEWS ST E PITKIN ST A -PECT CT E LAKE ST CIRCLE DR PROS- PERSON CT WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E PROSPECT BARTON EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER LESHER MIDDLE SCHOOL CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. © 0 250000 500 1, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Eastside Neighborhood Building Height Stories 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 EDISON DR S MASON ST REMINGTON ST MATHE WS S T E PROSPECT RD E MYRTLE ST WHEDBEE ST SMITH PL SMITH ST EASTDALE DR COWAN ST E ELIZABETH ST S COLLEGE AVE MONTEZUMA FULLER A REMINGTON ST GARFIELD ST E PLUM ST E MAGNOLIA ST PETERSON ST DEINES CT SMITH ST KENROY CT ROBER TSO N S T . WILL I A M S ST LESSER DR A ST REMBRANDT DR MATHEWS ST LOCUST ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L I S S T EDWARDS ST E LAUREL ST M O R G A N S T GARFIEL D UNIVERSITY AVE OLD MAIN DR S COLLEGE AVE S COLLEGE AVE BUCKEYE ST WHEDBEE ST CIRCLE DR RSIDE AVE LILAC LN C O L O R A D O S T E L A K E S T EDWARDS ST E ELIZABETH ST PETERSON PL PETERSO N ST SMITH ST EASTDALE DR RIVERSIDE AVE B U C K E Y E S T E PITKIN ST LOCUS T C T ENDICOTT ST S MA SO N ST S MASON ST BUCKEYE ST MATHEWS ST E PITKIN ST STOVER ST E MYRTLE ST APEX DR S MASON ST -PECT CT MATHEWS ST E LAKE ST E OLIVE ST CIRCLE DR S T OVER S T COWAN ST PROS- REMI NG T ON S T PERSON CT E LAUREL ST E MULBERRY ST WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E L O C U ST ST E PROSPECT RD HARRIS BILINGUAL IMMERSION CENTENNIAL SR HIGH LAUR ELEMEN BARTON EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER LESHER MIDDLE SCHOOL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FT COLLINS MUSEUM FT COLLINS PUBLIC LIBRARY CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. © 0 250000 500 1, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Eastside Neighborhood Building Height Stories 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Eastside Neighborhood: Building Height Map Detail S T . WILL I A M S ST LORY ST RO B E R T S O N S T LOCUST ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L I S S T EDWARDS ST M O R G A N S T GARFIEL D S T BUCKEYE ST WHEDBEE ST CIRCLE DR C O L O R A D O S T E L A K E S T S LEMAY AVE EDWARDS ST ELIZABETH ST PETERSON PL PETERSO N ST EASTDALE DR B U C K E Y E S T E PITKIN ST LOCUS T C T E PITKIN ST APEX DR E LAKE ST CIRCLE DR G R E E N S T R O B ERTSON ST S LEMAY AVE PERSON CT WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E L O C U ST ST E PROSPECT RD L O R Y S T HARRIS BILINGUAL IMMERSION LAUREL ELEMENTARY BARTON EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER LESHER MIDDLE SCHOOL Printed: July 05, 2012 Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Eastside Neighborhood Floor Area Ratio 0.03 - 0.05 0.06 - 0.10 0.11 - 0.15 0.16 - 0.20 0.21 - 0.25 0.26 - 0.30 0.31 - 0.35 0.36 - 0.40 0.41 - 0.45 0.46 - 0.50 0.51 - 1.18 ROSPECT RD RTLE ST WHEDBEE ST SMITH PL SMITH ST EASTDALE DR COWAN ST E ELIZABETH ST L A K E P L E PENNOCK PL FIELD ST LUM ST GNOLIA ST PETERSON ST DEINES CT SMITH ST KENROY CT ROBER TSO N S T . WILL I A M S ST LESSER DR LORY ST RO B E R T S O N S T UST ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L I S S T EDWARDS ST E LAUREL ST M O R G A N S T GARFIEL D S T R I V E RSI D E A V E BUCKEYE ST WHEDBEE ST CIRCLE DR RIVERSIDE AVE LILAC LN C O L O R A D O S T E L A K E S T S LEMAY AVE ARDS ST ABETH ST OAK ST PETERSON PL PETERSO N ST SMITH ST EASTDALE DR RIVERSIDE AVE B U C K E Y E S T E PITKIN ST LOCUS T C T ENDICOTT ST TKIN ST STOVER ST E MYRTLE ST APEX DR E MULBERRY ST E LAKE ST LIVE ST CIRCLE DR S T OVER S T COWAN ST G R E E N S T R O B ERTSON ST S LEMAY AVE PERSON CT UREL ST BERRY ST WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E L O C U ST ST E PROSPECT RD L O R Y S T HARRIS BILINGUAL IMMERSION TENNIAL HIGH LAUREL ELEMENTARY BARTON EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER LESHER MIDDLE SCHOOL FT COLLINS PUBLIC LIBRARY Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Eastside Neighborhood Floor Area Ratio 0.03 - 0.05 0.06 - 0.10 0.11 - 0.15 0.16 - 0.20 0.21 - 0.25 0.26 - 0.30 0.31 - 0.35 0.36 - 0.40 0.41 - 0.45 0.46 - 0.50 0.51 - 1.18 Eastside Neighborhood: Floor Area Ratio Map Detail and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless rom and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of hese products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or ability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. © 0 250000 500 1, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Westside Neighborhood House Size Square Feet Less than 500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 + EDISON DR S MASON ST REMINGTON ST MATHE WS S T E PROSPECT RD E MYRTLE ST WHEDBEE SMITH PL SMITH ST EASTDALE DR COWAN ST E ELIZABETH ST S COLLEGE AVE MONTEZUMA FUL REMINGTO GARFIELD ST E PLUM ST E MAGNOLIA ST PETERSO DEINES CT SMITH ST KENROY CT ROBER TSO N S T . WILL I A M S ST A ST REMBRANDT DR MATHEWS ST LOCUST ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L I S S T EDWARDS ST E LAUREL ST M O R G A N S T GARFIEL UNIVERSITY AVE OLD MAIN DR S COLLEGE AVE S COLLEGE BUCKEYE ST WHEDBEE ST CIRCLE DR E LILAC LN C O L O R A D O S T E L A K E S T EDWARDS ST E ELIZABETH ST PETERSON PL PETERSO N ST SMITH ST EASTDALE DR RIVERSIDE AVE B U C K E Y E S T E PITKIN ST LOCUS T C T ENDICOTT ST S MA SO N ST S MASON BUCKEYE ST MATHEWS ST E PITKIN ST STOVER ST E MYRTLE ST APEX DR S MASON ST -PECT CT MATHEWS E LAKE ST E OLIVE ST CIRCLE DR S T OVER S T COWAN ST PROS- REMI NG T ON S T PERSON CT E LAUREL ST E MULBERRY ST WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E L O C U ST ST E PROSPECT RD CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. © 0 250000 500 1, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Westside Neighborhood House Size Square Feet Less than 500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 + Eastside Neighborhood: House Size Map Detail E PLUM ST E MAGNOLIA ST PETERSON ST DEINES CT SMITH ST KENROY CT ROBER TSO N S T . WILL I A M S ST LESSER DR LORY ST RO B E R T S O N S T MATHEWS ST LOCUST ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L I S S T EDWARDS ST E LAUREL ST M O R G A N S T GARFIEL D S T R I V E RSI D E A V E TY AVE N DR S COLLEGE AVE S COLLEGE AVE BUCKEYE ST WHEDBEE ST CIRCLE DR RSIDE AVE LILAC LN C O L O R A D O S T E L A K E S T S LEMAY AVE EDWARDS ST E ELIZABETH ST PETERSON PL PETERSO N ST SMITH ST EASTDALE DR RIVERSIDE AVE B U C K E Y E S T E PITKIN ST LOCUS T C T ENDICOTT ST BUCKEYE ST MATHEWS ST E PITKIN ST STOVER ST E MYRTLE ST APEX DR E MULBERRY ST -PECT CT MATHEWS ST E LAKE ST E OLIVE ST CIRCLE DR S T OVER S T COWAN ST G R E E N S T R O B ERTSON ST S LEMAY AVE S- REMI NG T ON S T PERSON CT E LAUREL ST E MULBERRY ST WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E L O C U ST ST E PROSPECT RD L O R Y S T HARRIS BILINGUAL IMMERSION CENTENNIAL SR HIGH LAUREL ELEMENTARY BARTON EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER LESHER MIDDLE SCHOOL FT COLLINS PUBLIC LIBRARY FT COLLINS MUSEUM ON SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying ries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR D OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE ese map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL y of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless ability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having endent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of e City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or equential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof Printed: July 05, 2012 500 1,000 Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Eastside Neighborhood Year Remodeled Prior to 1960 1960 - 1964 1965 - 1969 1970 - 1974 1975 - 1979 1980 - 1984 1985 - 1989 1990 - 1994 1995 - 1999 2000 - 2004 2005 to Present Building remodels in the Eastside Neighborhood are predomi- nantly from between 2000-2009 (shown in dark blue). See the Appendix for a full map. E PROSPECT RD SMITH PL SMITH ST EASTDALE DR COWAN E ELIZABETH ST L A K E P L E PENNOCK PL GARFIELD ST E PLUM ST DEINES CT SMITH ST KENROY CT ROBER TSO N S T . WILL I A M S ST LESSER LORY ST RO B E R T S O N S T LOCUST ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L I S S T EDWARDS ST E LAUREL ST M O R G A N S T GARFIEL D S T I V E RSI D E A V E BUCKEYE ST WHEDBEE ST CIRCLE DR C O L O R A D O S T E L A K E S T S LEMAY AVE EDWARDS ST E ELIZABETH ST PETERSON PL PETERSO N ST EASTDALE DR B U C K E Y E S T E PITKIN ST LOCUS T C T ENDICOT MATHEWS ST E PITKIN ST STOVER APEX DR E LAKE ST CIRCLE DR G R E E N S T R O B ERTSON ST S LEMAY AVE PERSON CT E LAUREL ST WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E L O C U ST ST E PROSPECT RD L O R Y S T HARRIS BILINGUAL IMMERSION CENTENNIAL SR HIGH LAUREL ELEMENTARY BARTON EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER LESHER MIDDLE SCHOOL Printed: July 05, 2012 Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Eastside Neighborhood Year Remodeled Prior to 1960 1960 - 1964 1965 - 1969 1970 - 1974 1975 - 1979 1980 - 1984 1985 - 1989 1990 - 1994 1995 - 1999 2000 - 2004 2005 to Present Eastside Neighborhood: Building Remodels Map Detail EASTDALE DR COWAN ST E ELIZABETH ST S COLLEGE AVE MONTEZUMA FU REMINGTO GARFIELD ST E PLUM ST E MAGNOLIA ST PETERSO DEINES CT SMITH ST KENROY CT ROBER TSO N S T . WILL I A M S ST LESSER DR A ST REMBRANDT DR MATHEWS ST LOCUST ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L I S S T EDWARDS ST E LAUREL ST M O R G A N S T GARFIEL D S T UNIVERSITY AVE OLD MAIN DR S COLLEGE AVE S COLLEG BUCKEYE ST WHEDBEE ST CIRCLE DR E LILAC LN C O L O R A D O S T E L A K E S T EDWARDS ST E ELIZABETH ST PETERSON PL PETERSO N ST SMITH ST EASTDALE DR RIVERSIDE AVE B U C K E Y E S T E PITKIN ST LOCUS T C T ENDICOTT ST S MA SO N ST S MASO BUCKEYE ST MATHEWS ST E PITKIN ST STOVER ST E MYRTLE ST APEX DR S MASON ST -PECT CT MATHEW E LAKE ST E OLIVE ST CIRCLE DR S T OVER S T COWAN ST G R E E N S T PROS- REMI NG T ON S T PERSON CT E LAUREL ST E MULBERRY ST WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E L O C U ST ST E PROSPECT RD CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. © 0 250000 500 1, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Eastside Neighborhood Year Built Prior to 1890 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 to Present The largest number of houses in the Eastside Neighborhood were built between 1941 and 1960 (shown in light green and teal). See the Appendix for a full map. EDISON DR REMINGTON ST E PROSPECT RD SMITH PL SMITH ST E ELIZABETH ST GARFIELD ST E PLUM ST DEINES CT KENROY CT ROBER TSO N S T . WILL I A M S ST LORY ST RO B E R T S O A ST MATHEWS ST LOCUST ST PETERSON ST N E W S O M S T E L L I S S T EDWARDS ST M O R G A N S T GARFIEL D S T UNIVERSITY AVE OLD MAIN DR S COLLEGE AVE BUCKEYE ST CIRCLE DR C O L O R A D O S E L A K E S T EDWARDS ST E ELIZABETH ST PETERSON PL EASTDALE DR B U C K E Y E S T E PITKIN ST LOCUS T C T S MA SO N ST BUCKEYE ST MATHEWS ST E PITKIN ST APEX DR -PECT CT E LAKE ST CIRCLE DR G R E E N S T PROS- PERSON CT WHEDBEE ST ST O V E R S T S T O V E R S T ELLIS ST E L O C U ST ST E PROSPECT RD CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. © 0 250000 500 1, Feet Buildings Water Features Parcels City Limits Eastside Neighborhood Year Built Prior to 1890 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 to Present Eastside Neighborhood: Building Age Map Detail above to derive solutions from the desires of residents, the Planning and Zoning Board, and the Landmark Preservation Commission, resulting in buy-in and in- formed consent. • Include necessary funding or staffing resources in any solutions. • Include testing and monitor- ing of any actions to evaluate objective results for effective- ness and consequences.