HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 01/04/2011 - ITEMS RELATING TO THE EAST AND WEST SIDE NEIGHBORH DATE: January 4, 2011
STAFF: Joe Frank, Steve Dush,
Megan Bolin, Clark Mapes
Items Relating to the East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 002, 2011, Increasing the Membership of the Landmark Preservation
Commission and Expanding Its Functions to Include Establishing an Advisory Committee.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 003, 2011, Making Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code
Pertaining to East Side and West Side Neighborhood Design Standards (Option A or B).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study began in January 2010 to explore concerns that new
houses and additions are not compatible with the established character found in these core, older neighborhoods.
The fundamental question is whether the City's current regulations warrant revision to better reflect adopted policies
of protecting established neighborhood character. City Council confirmed that changes are necessary, and directed
staff to proceed with the implementation of items that would address the size and design of new construction. These
options would:
1. Allow the Landmark Preservation Commission to offer voluntary design consultation.
2. Revise house size limits in the Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (NCL) and Neighborhood
Conservation Medium Density (NCM)zoning districts.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Staff, at the direction of City Council, initiated a study in January 2010 to explore concerns related to the compatibility
of new single family houses and additions in Fort Collins'oldest neighborhoods. Some are concerned that a portion
of the new construction is not compatible with established neighborhood character. Of particular concern is that small,
older houses are being removed and replaced with larger new construction. The fundamental question is whether the
City's current zoning regulations warrant revision to better reflect adopted polices of protecting established
neighborhood character.
The Study explored these concerns and clarified the issues through a public process. In February 2010, staff
presented an initial project scope and schedule at a Council work session. The scope outlined the process and
methodology for the Study, which Council supported and directed staff to proceed. (See Attachment 1, a summary
of the February 23, 2010 Council work session.) After numerous meetings with a Citizen Advisory Committee, and
two public meetings with neighborhood residents, a second Council work session was held in August to present the
results of the Study. (See Attachment 2,the Study's final report). Staff asked Council whether changes to regulations
were warranted to address the size and design of new construction, and several potential options were presented.
(See Attachment 3, a summary of the August 24, 2010 Council work session.) Council confirmed that changes were
necessary and, at a third work session in November, directed staff to bring forward three options for formal Council
consideration. (See Attachment 4, a summary of the November 23, 2010 Council work session.) The three options
are:
1. Allocate funding for a Design Assistance Program.
2. Allow the Landmark Preservation Commission to offer voluntary design consultation.
3. Revise house size limits.
Staff has worked to take the necessary steps towards implementation of each item.The Design Assistance Program
was submitted as a budget request,and the other options were developed into Ordinances. Each is discussed in detail
below.
January 4, 2011 -2- ITEM 13
Design Assistance Program
The purpose of the Design Assistance Program (DAP)is to address concerns about compatible design, and provide
financial assistance for professional design consultation and drawings. The process would be similar to the previous
DAP that was available to owners of historic landmark structures. The new DAP would be offered annually to
approximately 20 property owners proposing additions to existing structures or construction of new structures,within
the East Side and West Side Neighborhoods, regardless of whether or not they are a historic landmark.
On December 21, 2010, City Council approved,on Second Reading, an Ordinance adopting the Budget for 2011 and
2012, including $40,000 each year for the Design Assistance Program "pending decision about the East Side/West
Side design standards". Once the Council has enacted Option A or B of Ordinance No. 003,2011, no further Council
action will be needed to authorize the funding for the DAP.
ORDINANCE NO. 002, 2011 -Voluntary Design Consultation
Ordinance No.002,2011,amends City Code to add a function allowing the Landmark Preservation Commission(LPC)
to offer voluntary design consultation for interested property owners, and to increase the membership of the LPC from
seven to nine members. Currently the City does not review the design of new houses and additions, and the LPC is
interested and willing to provide this service in order to foster compatibility. A sub-committee of the LPC would be
formed to provide this service. Because some property owners receiving design assistance may also conceivably be
applicants to the LPC at some point, members of the sub-committee would have to recuse themselves from such
decision-making. Therefore, LPC membership should be increased in order to avoid problems meeting a quorum as
necessary to take formal action. The policies and procedures for design consultation would be prepared by City staff
in consultation with the LPC.
House Size Limits
Regulating House Size
The issue that led to potential Land Use Code revisions is the size of larger new houses/additions in the older, core
neighborhoods. The options presented below focus on amendments to the Neighborhood Conservation Low Density
(NCL) and Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density(NCM)zoning districts. This topic of regulating house size
received considerable attention throughout the study process,and led to ideas for options to lower existing size limits.
The fundamental question for this Study was whether the City's existing zoning regulations warrant revision to better
implement adopted policy of protecting established neighborhood character. City policy defines character to include
size(i.e.,scale,mass, building separation, building placement,and building height),in addition to design aspects such
as building materials, and architectural style. Therefore, in examining current size regulations, the Study considered
the established development pattern and the adequacy of existing zoning regulations to protect the character created
by that pattern.
Existing Size Limit Regulations
The City currently regulates house size in the two zone districts by limiting the ratio of total building floor area to lot
size, commonly referred to as Floor Area Ratio(FAR). In the NCL zone, the ratio is.40, or 40%of lot size, and in the
NCM zone it is .50, or 50%of lot size. The table below illustrates the current size limits using the example of a house
and a 500 square foot garage.
Table 1: Potential House Sizes by Lot Size and FAR
NCL (.40 FAR) NCM (.50 FAR)
4,000 sq ft lot 1,100 sq ft house + 500 sq ft garage 1,500 sq ft house + 500 sq ft garage
9,500 sq ft lot 3,300 sq ft house + 500 sq ft garage 4,250 sq ft house + 500 sq ft garage
January 4, 2011 -3- ITEM 13
Existing Development Pattern
The existing size limits noted above do not reflect prevailing established development patterns in the neighborhoods.
Prevailing FARs most commonly average about.15-.25,and original house sizes most commonly average about 800-
1500 sq.ft. There are larger house size and FAR exceptions,typically involving larger,recent new construction,and/or
small lots such as those created by subdivision of original corner lots, which result in higher FARs.
Difference Between Existing Development Pattern and Existing Size Limit Regulations
The difference between current FAR limits in the zoning regulations(.40 and.50)and the existing development pattern
(about.15-.25 FAR) clearly illustrates the issue that this Study has tried to address.
The difference is clear even where larger, recent construction has now become part of the existing pattern on many
blocks. Although many recent house expansions are significantly larger than the original housing stock,very few have
approached the upper limits of.40 or.50 FARs. Very few of the expanded houses exceed 3,000 sq.ft., and very few
exceed a FAR of.33.
While there are wide differences in interpretation, there is little or no disagreement that the .40 and .50 FARs allow
new construction that does not reflect existing development patterns in terms of size. In response, two main
approaches were identified and explored to address this issue: (1) take a more tailored, contextual approach using
averages found in existing development; or(2) lower the FARs. Additional details and the merits of each option are
discussed below.
ORDINANCE NO. 003, 2011 - Option A: Average-Plus Concept
This option would limit house size to the average size house on the same block face plus an additional 50 percent,
or 2,000 sq. ft.,whichever is greater. Basements and detached garages would not be included in these figures. Also,
the current limits of total floor area on a lot (.40 and .50), including garages and other accessory buildings, would
remain in place. Applicants wanting to expand/rebuild would use the County Assessor's data to find the average
existing house size and calculate the 50 percent increase.
If the established pattern is one where lot sizes vary considerably, but house sizes remain fairly consistent, it seemed
logical to derive a standard for allowable house size based on the more consistent variable. The average-plus concept
establishes a house size standard based on the context of the block face, and allows for an additional increase in size
in order to accommodate contemporary living(50%). A 2,000 sq.ft.allowance was added as a compromise to reflect
concerns that the average-plus 50%was overly restrictive for those block faces with small houses.
Pros
• Reflects, to a certain degree, the existing development pattern (at the block face level)
• Reduces the most dramatic potential increases in house size
• Allows for long term evolution in house size
• The minimum allowance provides for new construction to accommodate contemporary living
Cons
• New, untested method and may result in undesirable and/or unintended consequences
• "Micro-manages" incremental house sizes in the 2,000-3,200 square foot range (e.g., 2,000 sq. ft. allowed
on one block face, vs. 2,400 on another, vs. 2,600 on another, etc.)
o Contention that these increments of size limits do not address character issues, i.e., the difference
between a 2,000 and 2,500 sq. ft. house may not matter as much as the design; design can completely
mask the size difference, so the result may not be worth the complexity
• Once the 2,000 sq. ft. allowance is included for small block faces, the contextual approach is diminished
• The concept is diluted by some blocks that have existing size ranges of double to quadruple from the smallest
to the largest, which weakens the concept of averaging
• Technical calculation questions, i.e.,volume, is a key concept of the whole Study, but the existing house size
data from the Assessor's office does not capture the volume of any one-story houses that may contain space
that would be counted as second floor area in the proposed "loophole" fix (explained below)
January 4, 2011 -4- ITEM 13
• Concern that the block face is not adequate to represent neighborhood character, because it gives undue
influence to a few houses that happen to be nearby
• Contention that lot size should be taken into account, i.e., larger lots should be allowed to contain larger size
houses
• Penalizes the"first-one-in", because the average-plus increases as more property owners on the block face
expand
• Debate that a different limit on different blocks due to different house sizes is unfair
ORDINANCE NO. 003, 2011 - Option B: Lower the FARs
This option would lower the FAR limits in the NCL and NCM zones for single family detached homes to .27.
Basements and detached garages would not count toward the limit. Table 2 provides a comparison of the house sizes
allowed with a .27, .40, or.50 FAR based on varying lot sizes. Attachment 5 provides a more extensive comparison
of FARs ranging from .10-.50.
Table 2: Allowed House Size Comparison
Lot Size(Sci ft
FAR 10,000 9,500 9,000 8,500 8,000 7,500 7,000 6,500 6,000 5,500 5,000
.27 2,700 - 2,565 2,430 2,295 2,160 2,025 1,890 1,755 1,620 1,485 1,350
.40 4,000 3,800 3,600 3,400 3,200 3,000 2,800 2,600 2,400 2,200 2,000
50 5,000 4,750 4,500 4,250 4,000 3,750 3,500 3 250 3.000 1 2.750 2 500
Considering that prevailing FARs in these two neighborhoods are between .15-.25, lowering the standard to .27 is
better aligned with the existing development pattern, and still allows for houses to reasonably expand to meet the
needs of contemporary households.
Pros
• Reduces the most dramatic potential increases in house size
• Provides a predictable standard
• Limits floor area in relation to lot size
• Lowering FARs comes closer to reflecting the established character of the neighborhoods
Cons
• Smaller lots are more limited than larger lots in terms of potential expansion
• District-wide FAR standards do not necessarily reflect the unique character of individual areas within the
neighborhoods
Other Land Use Code Revisions
Regardless of which option to limit house size is preferred, staff recommends that two minor, technical clarifications
to the Land Use Code be adopted, along with some minor text edits. The technical clarifications are related to the
relevant zoning standards, and would revise the way that house size is measured as described below:
1. Address the"volume,loophole"by counting upper building space as a second floor, regardless of whether the
floor is built, where the volume exceeds the typical volume associated with a one-story house.
2. Change the point of measurement for side wall height to be at the property line rather than at the base of the
side wall at finished grade.
These changes are imbedded in both Land Use Code Ordinance options.
In addition, in order to help ensure that any variance of the new standards adopted by Ordinance No. 003,2011, does
not result in new construction or additions that are incompatible with existing structures in the City's residential
January 4, 2011 -5- ITEM 13
neighborhoods, the Ordinance also amends Section 2.10.2(H) of the Land Use Code, pertaining to variances, to
require that any application fora variance of these new standards be accompanied by a written recommendation from
a committee of the Landmark Preservation Commission, as authorized under Section 2-278(b)(5) of the City Code.
Two-year review
Both Options A and B include a provision directing the City Manager to submit a report and recommendation to the
City Council no later than January 31, 2013, regarding the implementation of the provisions of this Ordinance and, in
particular,whether such implementation has achieved the stated purposes of ensuring the compatibility of additions,
alterations and new construction with existing structures in residential neighborhoods of the City without working an
undue hardship on affected property owners.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Economic Planning Systems(EPS)has been contracted to analyze the economic impacts of revising house size limits.
The final report will be presented to Council at the meeting on January 4, 2011.
Staff has been asked about the financial/economic impacts with regard to historic value. See Attachment 6 for a
compilation of existing research and data from an architectural-level survey completed for the East and West Side
Neighborhoods.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Staff finds no direct or definable impact on environmental resources with any of these items. One concern that was
raised in the process was the protection of solar access. After careful analysis, staff determined that there is no
reasonable new standard for defining or controlling property owners' rights to solar access due to the established
pattern of development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council adopt Ordinance No.002,2011,which allows the Landmark Preservation Commission
to offer voluntary design consultation.
Staff recommends that Council adopt Ordinance No. 003, 2011, Option B, which revises house size limits for single
family houses in the NCL and NCM zones to limit new single-family houses to a FAR of.27. See Attachment 7,a table
that compares existing house size standards to the average-plus concept and .27 FAR option.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its regular meeting on December 9, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend that
City Council adopt the Ordinance amending the City Code. (See Attachment 8 for the minutes of the meeting).At the
time of the Planning and Zoning Board meeting, only one Ordinance was presented to revise house size limits,which
was to use the average plus 50%concept, presented here as Ordinance No. 003, 2011, Option A. The Board voted
unanimously to recommend that Council not adopt the average-plus 50% house size regulation. With regard to the
two minor Land Use Code clarifications,the Board recommended that Council only adopt the change thatwould revise
the point of measurement for side wall height. After the Planning and Zoning Board meeting,further analysis led staff
to develop a second option to revise house size limits, which would lower the FAR to .27 for both relevant zoning
districts. Although Council is asked to consider both Options of Ordinance No. 003, 2011, the Planning and Zoning
Board was not able to make a recommendation regarding the FAR change that is presented here as Option B.
January 4 2011 -6- ITEM 13
At its regular meeting on December 8, 2010, the Landmark Preservation Commission voted unanimously to
recommend the average-plus 50%house size regulation(as described in Ordinance No.003,2011,Option A),to allow
the Commission to offer voluntary design consultation (as described in Ordinance No. 002, 2011), and to fund the
Design Assistance Program. (see Attachment 9 for the LPC minutes)
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Three City Council work sessions were held on February 23, 2010, August 24, 2010, and November 23, 2010.
Fourjoint work sessions with the Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z) and Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA)were held
on June 11, 2010, July 9, 2010, October 15, 2010, and November 12, 2010.
Four Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC)work sessions were held on June 23, 2010, July 28, 2010, October
13, 2010, and November 10, 2010.
Three public meetings with property owners residing in the East and West Side Neighborhoods were held on April 7,
2010, July 29, 2010, and November 15, 2010.
A Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) assisted staff throughout the process in a series of 13 meetings. The CAC
included residents from the East and West Side Neighborhoods, builders, architects, real estate professionals, and
representatives from the LPC, P&Z, and ZBA.
Staff also met twice with the Fort Collins Board of Realtors and the Chamber of Commerce Local Legislative Affairs
Committee.
ATTACHMENTS
1. February 23, 2010 City Council Work Session Summary
2. East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study- Final Report
3. August 24, 2010 City Council Work Session Summary
4. November 23, 2010 City Council Work Session Summary
5. Table of House Sizes for Various Floor Area Ratios and Lot Sizes
6. Financial/Economic Impacts of Demolitions/Alterations on Historic Value/Character
7. Comparison of Potential Size Limit Standards
8. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, December 9, 2010
9. Landmark Preservation Commission minutes, December 8, 2010
10. PowerPoint Presentation
ATTACHMENT 1
City of Advance Planning
281 North College Avenue
Po Box 560
Fort Collins,
F6rt
Collins 970.221.63 60 80522
970.224.6111-fax
kgov.com/advanceplanning
MEMORANDUM
DT: February 26, 2010
TO: Mayor and City Council members
TH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager
Joe Frank, Advance Planning Directo
FM: Megan Bolin, City Planner\R/
RE: February 23, 2010 Work Session Summary—Single Family Design Standards for the East
and West Side Neighborhoods
Staff presented an overview of the issue regarding the compatibility of new single family
construction, or"pop-ups" and "scrape-offs"occurring in Fort Collins' East and West Side
Neighborhoods.Advance Planning will manage the project to,study the issue with
neighborhood outreach, and determine if additional design standards are necessary. Specific
questions asked of Council included:
1. Does Council support staff proceeding with the project at this time?
2. Does Council support the proposed project scope and process as outlined?
3. Are there other issues not identified that Council would like staff to address?
There was a consensus of support with regard to the first question, and staff will proceed with
the project and return for a second work session in August.The following suggestions were
made to improve the process, including:
■ Increase the number of owner-occupied property owners serving on the Citizen
Advisory Committee (CAC) from two to six (three from the East and three from the
West).
■ The real estate/design members of the CAC,to the extent practical, should also be
residents of the East and West Side Neighborhoods.
• Address how historic preservation interacts with compatibility issues.
Council also asked that specific data be developed as part of the study, including:
■ What was the condition or historic significance of the buildings that have been recently
lost to demolition?
• How many buildings remain which-could be threatened by demolition?
City of
art Collins
■ Compare the square footage of the recently demolished buildings with those that have
replaced them.
■ Try to give a "grade"to the buildings that have been recently constructed as a result of
demolition in the neighborhoods—how compatible are they?
o How does the new construction compare to proposed regulations?
Council also asked for an update regarding the City's previously adopted Solar Access Plan. Staff
will assemble the information and respond with a follow-up memo.
ATTACHMENT 2
East and West Side Neighborhoods
Design Standards Study
Final Report
August 13, 2010
CRY of
FOft� in5
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report
Contents
Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Acknowledgements . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . rose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Citizen Advisory Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
PublicInput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Boards and Commissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Phase I : Examine Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
CityPlan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
East Side Neighborhood Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
West Side Neighborhood Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8
DevelopmentStandards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8
Design Guidelines . . . . , , 11 11 rose I 1 11 11 11 11 11 1 9
DifferentPerspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Phase II : Issue Identification and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Size ( Volume ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Size ( Height ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Phase III : Implementation Options . , , , , , , , , , , , , 18
Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
StandardizedApproach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
ContextualApproach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Staff Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Citizen Advisory Committee Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Landmark Preservation Commission Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Zoning Board of Appeals Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Appendix A — April Public Open House Results and Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Appendix B — July Public Meeting Results and Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 56
Appendix C — Floor Area Ratio ( FAR ) Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
2
CRY of
FOft� in5
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report
Acknowledgements
Citizen Advisory Committee Planning and Zoning Board
Dee Amick Gino Campana
Jennifer Carpenter, Planning and Zoning Jennifer Carpenter
Board John Hatfield
Sondra Carson , Landmark Preservation David Lingle
Commission Brigitte Schmidt
Bud Frick, Landmark Preservation Andy Smith
Commission Butch Stockover, Chair
Randy Kahle
Katy Kohen Zoning Board of Appeals
Steve Levinger Mike Bello
Stephen Mack Peter Bohling
Dana McBride, Zoning Board of Appeals Alison Dickson
Sam Moes Dwight Hall
Kevin Murray Dana McBride, Chair
Chris Ray John H . McCoy
Randy Shortridge Jim Pisula
Eric Smith
Dennis Sovick City Staff
Julia Veir Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director
Steve Dush , CDNS Director
Landmark Preservation Commission Megan Bolin , City Planner
John Albright Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
Sondra Carson Mike Gebo, Chief Building Official
Doug Ernest Clark Mapes, City Planner
Bud Frick Karen McWilliams, Preservation Planner
Terence Hoaglund , Chair
Earen Hummel
Ron Sladek
3
CRY of
FO� t� l`5
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report
Overview
In January 2010, at the direction of City Council , City staff began a process to examine concerns
and issues related to small older houses being replaced and expanded with much larger new
construction in Fort Collins' oldest neighborhoods . A key question which prompted this study
was whether the City' s current Land Use Code standards governing such development are
adequate and appropriate to protect established neighborhood character, as established by
City policy . This report summarizes the process, presents key background information and
analysis, and concludes with a range of potential options for City Council to consider regarding
whether and how to proceed with any further work .
Figure 1 is a map showing the location of the East and West Side Neighborhoods which are the
subject of this study . More specifically, the study area consists of three zoning districts which
generally correspond to the neighborhoods . These zones are the Neighborhood Conservation
Low Density ( NCL ) zone , the Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density ( NCM ) zone, and the
Neighborhood Conservation Buffer ( NCB ) zone . These zones contain the relevant Land Use
Code standards that govern development in the neighborhoods .
Figure 1 : East and West Side Neighborhoods Study Area and Zoning
W VINE DR E VINE UP
❑ V
u
UJI
W =
C
■ ME E VE -1 Z �'AS, E LINCOLN AVE
O,y
Me
AND
sr
s%
W ULBERRY T W E MULrBERRY
2 ^
W
�pMEN
U N MEN
LL MEN
Legend M W
�......,. /�� a
;r...... I Study Areas - a
W
CityZoning
MUN
W
9 s _
- Neighborhood Conservation Buffer ( NCB ) m EPRIPPE TRD N
- Neighborhood Conservation Low Density ( NCL )
- Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density ( NCM ) J --
4
CRY of
FO� t� l`5
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report
Background
The East Side and West Side Neighborhoods are identified by their classical block pattern ,
architecturally diverse houses in traditional or classical styles, mature landscaping, and
proximity to the Downtown business district .
While the neighborhoods have always been a desirable place to live, pressure to expand or
demolish and replace houses has increased over the past decades, primarily due to the age and
condition of the housing stock, changing lifestyles, and building technology . The primary factor
in the pressure for change is the small size of many of the original houses . Built in the early- to
mid - 1900s, most are much smaller than the average size of new homes today . Modern
homeowners want to enjoy the quality of life offered by these charming neighborhoods, but
often feel the need to expand the original house to accommodate today' s lifestyles and
amenities . A sampling of available records indicates that 72 building permits for significant
alterations were issued between 2004 and 2006, and 30 demolition permits were issued
between 2007 and 2009 . 1 This data , though limited , may help give a general sense of the
extent of the trends .
There is a strong desire among residents to protect the unique character of these
neighborhoods, and City policy supports this goal . Over the past twenty years, the City has
undertaken a continuum of community planning efforts to craft appropriate regulations in this
regard .
The City' s past efforts to develop policies and regulations include the following :
■ In the late 1980s, the first Neighborhood Plans were adopted for the area , establishing a
policy basis for protecting the character of the neighborhoods .
■ In the early 1990s, three new zoning districts with development standards were created
to implement the policies .
■ In the mid 1990s, a Design Guidelines document was developed in order to address
appropriate design in greater detail with design - based language and illustrations .
Development of this document also resulted in a few selected mandatory design
standards adopted as additional regulations .
■ Through the 1990s and 2000s, zoning district standards have been "tweaked "
periodically with minor adjustments, for example :
o In 2004, design standards were adopted for accessory buildings and additions in
rear yards .
o In 2006, the minimum lot area was modified from 3 to 2 % times the floor area in
the NCL zone .
Despite these past efforts to craft appropriate regulations, expansions and replacements of
houses continue to raise significant concerns among citizens . The sentiment is that
incompatible new construction is still occurring, which is undermining the character that
This is the only readily available data , due to changing technologies in the tracking system .
5
CRY of
ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report `*Zoao"� �
defines these neighborhoods . It must be noted that these concerns continue to be countered
by other citizens who find that the changes that have been happening are for the better, and
who are concerned about any new regulations that would hinder these major reinvestments in
the neighborhoods .
Process
The study process was organized in three phases :
Phase I : Examine Existing Conditions — February- March 2010
Phase II : Identify and Analyze Issues — April - May 2010
Phase III : Explore Implementation Options — June -July 2010
Citizen Advisory Committee
A key component of the process was the formation of a Citizen Advisory Committee ( CAC ) . The
CAC was comprised of citizen volunteers from the community and represented a variety of
expertise and view points . There was a purposeful mix of neighborhood residents and industry
professionals; two members represented the Landmark Preservation Commission , one
represented the Planning and Zoning Board , and another represented the Zoning Board of
Appeals . The CAC typically met twice a month , for a total of nine meetings .
Public Input
A public open house was held on April 7, 2010 to gauge how citizens felt about various issues,
and to clarify whether a problem exists that may warrant Code changes . A questionnaire was
developed to help formally collect input . Over 100 people attended the open house, and 162
questionnaire responses were collected . A summary of the results and comments received are
in Appendix A .
A second public meeting was held on July 29, 2010 to present the identified issues and analysis,
and ask for feedback on whether and how the City should proceed . Staff provided a formal
presentation twice, with each presentation followed by an informal session for questions and
discussion . A questionnaire was distributed to formally collect feedback, and attendees were
able to view a self-guided display and hold informal discussions . About 75 residents attended
and 63 responses were collected . A summary of the results and comments received are in
Appendix B .
Boards and Commissions
Three key Boards and Commissions were identified and asked for input throughout the process :
the Planning and Zoning Board , the Zoning Board of Appeals, and the Landmark Preservation
Commission . Staff met with each body at the very beginning of the process to introduce the
study . Two joint work sessions were held with the Planning and Zoning Board and Zoning Board
of Appeals, and two work sessions with the Landmark Preservation Commission were held to
obtain feedback .
6
CRY of
ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report `*MOOO"��
In addition to the formal public events, staff responded to numerous phone calls and a - mails
throughout the study . Presentations were also made to the Chamber of Commerce Local
Legislative Affairs Committee and the Fort Collins Board of Realtors .
The remainder of this report presents key information from each phase of the process, leading
to recommendations at the end of the report .
Phase I : Examine Existing Conditions
For the purposes of this study, it is crucial to understand what existing policies and regulations
call for, and also to consider examples of construction done under those regulations .
Policies
There are three adopted planning documents that set a policy framework for development in
the study area : City Plan, the East Side Neighborhood Plan, and the West Side Neighborhood
Plan .
City Plan
Updated in 2004, City Plan contains several policies relevant to this study :
■ " New buildings in existing neighborhoods will be designed to incorporate or improve
upon essential positive qualities for residents, such as proportion and shape, pattern of
buildings and yards, orientation to the street, and building materials and styles . " ( p . 31 )
■ "The character of stable residential neighborhoods should be preserved through
neighborhood planning, assistance to neighborhood organizations, and supportive
regulatory techniques . " ( p . 117 )
■ " . . . the City will follow specific design standards for infill development and
redevelopment with an emphasis on protecting existing residential neighborhood
character . " ( p . 163 -4 )
East Side Neighborhood Plan
Adopted in 1986, the East Side Neighborhood Plan was created to protect the quality of life
enjoyed by the residents of this area . Relevant policies include the following :
■ "Any new construction or renovation should respect the character and architectural
style of its immediate surroundings . " ( p . 20 )
■ "A change of use may be deemed appropriate if it conforms to the surrounding
neighborhood character, including, but not limited to : scale ; mass; building separation ;
building placement; building height; finish materials ; and architectural style . . . " ( p . 23 )
7
F CRY of ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report `*ZOOO"� �
■ "The preservation and enhancement of the existing housing stock in these areas is a key
element of this Plan . All other policies affecting the East Side Neighborhood should be
evaluated as to their impacts on the stability of the existing residential areas designated
for Neighborhood Preservation . " ( p . 23 )
■ " Property owners doing major additions, remodeling, or new construction should be
encouraged to take care that the resulting exterior treatment ( scale, mass, building
height, and materials ) and architectural style is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood . " ( p . 35 )
West Side Neighborhood Plan
Adopted in 1989 , the West Side Neighborhood Plan contains language aimed at protecting
neighborhood character :
■ " New construction , where deemed appropriate , will be designed to enhance the
existing residential character of the West Side Neighborhood . " ( p . 4- 20 )
■ " New construction in the Conservation areas must be residential and conform to the
surrounding neighborhood in scale , design , and other physical characteristics . " ( p . 4- 21 )
■ " . . . every effort should be made to establish an image and identity and enforce standards
which characterize the West Side Neighborhood as a unique historic, Fort Collins
neighborhood . " ( p . 7 - 3 )
■ " Residential design standards should be developed and maintained into the future .
Considerations should include . . . Establishment and encouragement of common design
framework : scale ; texture ; color; signage ; street furniture ; and setbacks/ landscaping . "
( p . 7 - 3 )
These policy statements not only direct the City to protect neighborhood character, but they go
further and specifically define what contributes to that established character, including scale,
mass, building height and materials, and architectural style . Furthermore, they specifically
identify the need for new construction to conform and be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood .
Development Standards
The Land Use Code contains standards to implement City policies . Key standards relevant to
this study are found in three zoning districts in the Land Use Code : Neighborhood Conservation
Low Density ( NCL) , Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density ( NCM ) , and Neighborhood
Conservation Buffer ( NCB ) . These zones are uniquely tailored to a greater degree, with greater
detail , than any other neighborhood zones in the city, reflecting the value placed on the
established neighborhood character . Table 1 below summarizes the key standards which
govern the magnitude of enlargement or construction of structures within each zone .
8
CRY of
FOft� in5
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report
Table 1 : Existing Development Standards by Zone
NCL NCM NCB
Minimum lot area 6, 000 sq ft, or at 5, 000 sq ft, or 5, 000 sq ft, or at
least 2 % times at least 2 times least equivalent
total floor area total floor area to total floor
area
Maximum floor area on the rear 25 % of rear % lot 33 % of rear % 33 % of rear % lot
50% of the lot area lot area area
Maximum floor area for accessory 600 sq ft 600 sq ft 600 sq ft
building
Minimum lot width 40 ' 40 ' 40 '
Minimum front setback 15 ' 15 ' 15 '
Minimum rear yard setback 5 ' from alleys 5' from alleys 5' from alleys
15 ' otherwise 15 ' otherwise 15 ' otherwise
Minimum side setback 5 ' plus 5' plus 5' plus
1 ' for every 2 ' of 1 ' for every 2 ' 1 ' for every 2 '
wall height of wall height of wall height
above 18 ' above 18 ' above 18 '
Maximum building height 2 stories 2 stories 3 stories
Source : City of Fort Collins Land Use Code
In addition to standards that regulate building size, the three zoning districts also contain some
basic architectural design standards for single -family houses and accessory buildings . These are
the only such single -family design standards in the city . They cover a limited scope of design ,
and have little effect . Rather, the quality of design in the neighborhoods has resulted more
from owners' attention to compatible design .
Design Guidelines
In 1996, a document called Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines for the East Side and
West Side Neighborhoods was adopted . It offers general explanations and illustrations of design
concepts for compatible alterations and new construction .
These are voluntary, informational guidelines offered as suggestions for homeowners seeking
to alter their properties . The document articulates aspects of design that define the character
of the neighborhoods . In fact, six different design character areas were identified within the
two neighborhoods, each with unique prevailing qualities . The guidelines encourage adaptation
of existing structures, rather than demolition and replacement, and also address various
aspects of design , whether for remodels, additions, or new structures .
The guidelines were originally intended to be written as standards and incorporated into the
zoning regulations by reference , but when they were brought forward for adoption in 1996,
some standards triggered controversy and opposition for being overly prescriptive and
restrictive of individual owners' choices . The standards which triggered the greatest
9
CRY of
ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report `*Moao"� �
controversy involved fences, landscaping, and exterior paint color . The document was revised
for adoption as guidelines only, although a few selected standards were extracted and adopted
into the Land Use Code in the NCL, NCM , and NCB zoning districts .
Different Perspectives
The review of existing conditions began to highlight the wide range of concerns and opinions
among citizens, which can be summarized into two main perspectives :
■ One perspective is that the status quo is satisfactory .
■ The other perspective is that changes to the City' s design standards or review process
are warranted .
In general , those who support the status quo would be opposed to new regulations or design
review processes that could hinder property owners ' choices to alter their property . This
perspective generally reflects the following viewpoints :
■ The larger new houses in the neighborhoods are a positive needed improvement,
breathing new life into the area . Design has typically been of high quality, and the
neighborhoods continue to become more desirable .
■ Some older houses are reaching the end of their life cycle, often as depreciated rental
property, and need to be completely reinvented or replaced .
■ Current standards are working to foster owner reinvestment .
■ Additional City regulations may stifle such reinvestment .
■ Direct impacts from new houses upon adjacent, existing, smaller houses are acceptable
within the limits of current standards . When major reinvestment is needed , new design
and construction should not be required to incorporate limits from past eras, or limits
from adjacent houses that may be in disrepair .
Conversely, those who would support new regulations or design review generally emphasize
the following viewpoints :
• Current limits on expansion do not foster improvements or support additions to the
existing houses ; instead , they encourage demolition and replacement with new houses
two to four times larger than the original houses .
• The allowances for larger, new houses are excessive and detract from established
neighborhood character .
• Smaller, old houses have value and contribute to the established character of these
neighborhoods as a unique and limited resource . Thus, regulations should favor
reinvestments that incorporate the existing houses .
• When reinvestment is needed and beneficial , new construction should be compatible
with defining characteristics of the surroundings .
• Direct impacts to adjacent, existing, smaller houses can be onerous, substantially
detracting from quality of life for adjacent residents .
10
F CRY of ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report `*0000"� �
These different perspectives were kept in mind and explored throughout the process .
Phase II : Issue Identification and Analysis
The next phase of the study focused on clarifying citizens' concerns about incompatible houses,
and identifying specific issues that were further analyzed . It was important to begin to define
the elements of the new construction that were causing concerns . The following key issues
were initially identified that impact compatibility :
Land Use and Dimensional Issues
■ Building size ( volume ) .
■ Height difference between adjacent house ( s ) .
■ Height of highest point .
■ Measurement of height .
■ Total floor area on lot .
■ Floor area in the rear half of the lot .
■ Solar access impacts ( shading other properties ) .
Design Issues
■ Building materials .
■ Design character/style/detailing .
■ Architectural Review of building applications .
Neighborhood Issues
■ Effect of the currently allowed expansion as an incentive for demolition and
replacement, rather than remodel / restoration/additions to existing houses .
■ Potential effects of any reduction in allowed expansion as a disincentive for
reinvestment ( owners moving rather than remodeling/ restoring/adding on /demolishing
and replacing ) .
■ Role of existing houses in the social fabric of the neighborhood ( gentrification ) .
■ Lack of neighborhood information and discussion on major expansions/replacements .
In the spectrum of issues, some are fairly objective and easier to quantify and analyze , such as
those involving building square footage and height . Others are more subjective, and difficult or
impossible to quantify, such as the role of existing houses in the demographics of the
neighborhoods .
Also, some issues center on direct impacts to adjacent properties, such as shading a window or
garden , while others reflect broader or cumulative impacts to neighborhood character, such as
the loss of existing houses that have contributed to established character .
Through the process of sifting through the issues and examining how well recent construction
"fits in " with its surroundings, the primary issue identified relates to building size and the
concern that new houses are "too big" . The seemingly simple topic of building size involves all
11
F CRY of ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report `*Moao"��
of the land use and dimensional issues noted above , which are already regulated to some
degree by zoning standards . A secondary issue relates to the design of new construction , and
the concern that poorly designed houses can be nearly as detrimental to neighborhood
character as those that are "just too big" . Crucial analysis follows regarding these two
significant issues that emerged .
Size (Volume)
There are currently limits on building size in existing City standards . The question is whether the
limits are appropriate .
The most fundamental measure of a building' s size is its volume . In terms of basic geometry, a
building' s volume is its floor area in combination with its height . Current standards limit the
volume of buildings on lots indirectly by limiting floor area , in combination with other standards
that limit height . The standards that limit floor area are summarized in Table 1 . They limit the
total amount of floor area on a lot, and also limit the portion of the total floor area that can be
built on the rear half of the lot . These standards are unique to these neighborhoods, based on
the predominant pattern of narrow, deep lots . Further analysis identified these floor area
standards as the key variable determining the volume of new building construction in the
neighborhoods .
These standards are not stated as simple square footage limits ; rather, they limit floor area
based on lot area - the larger the lot, the more floor area is allowed . The most common way of
stating this type of zoning standard is known as Floor Area Ratio, or FAR, with the floor area
divided by the lot area . For example , a FAR of . 50 would allow a 10, 000 sq ft lot to contain 5 , 000
sq ft of floor area ( 5, 000/ 10, 000 = . 50 ) . If this floor area were in a one - story building, it could
cover 50 % of the lot area . If the floor area were in a two -story building, it would cover half as
much lot area as a one - story building .
Note that another way of articulating the same concept is to say the lot area must be two times
the floor area of buildings . That is how the Land Use Code currently states the standard . One
minor housekeeping issue identified in this study is to change the way the ratio is stated ,
regardless of any policy decisions regarding Code changes .
Bearing in mind that the size of new houses and additions is a public concern among enough
residents to trigger a response from City Council , it is logical to question whether the current
FARs are appropriate for implementing adopted policy regarding conservation of established
character . To consider this question , it is necessary to understand the floor area ratios that help
define the existing, established character in these neighborhoods .
To do this, first consider that many typical , original lots have dimensions of 50' by 190' , which
gives 9, 500 sq ft of lot area . However, in many cases, the corner lots at the ends of the blocks
were subdivided into two or three separate lots, which then face the street perpendicular to
the original lotting pattern , and create much smaller lots in the 3 , 000 to 4, 750 sq ft range ( see
Figure 2 ) .
12
CRY of
FOft� in5
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report
Figure 2 : Example of a Typical Old Town Block and Lot Pattern
LE
w
w =
m F
0
w �
Typical 50' x190' Lots
Lots at ends of blocks divided
LAUREL to face the other streets
FTTFFFn F=T
Despite these differences in lot size, the size of the houses was originally fairly consistent,
typically ranging from 800 to 1 , 400 sq ft . This similarity in building size is arguably an aspect of
the established character that is to be protected under adopted policies . The combination of
similar house sizes on different-size lots creates dramatically varying FARs within a block . For
example, a 1 , 200 sq ft house on a 3 , 000 sq ft lot has a FAR of . 40 . If a 300 sq ft garage is
present, the FAR is . 50 . However, the same size house and garage on a 9 , 500 sq ft lot gives an
existing FAR of . 16 . Appendix C is a sample of the prevailing FARs found in the study areas .
If this example house and garage were in the NCL zone, which allows a . 40 FAR, then the house
could not be expanded if located on a 3 , 000 sq ft lot — its . 50 FAR would already exceed the . 40
limit . However, the same house and garage on a 9, 500 sq ft lot could add 3 , 250 sq ft . The
original 1, 200 sq ft house could be expanded to, or demolished and replaced with , a 4, 450 sq ft
house .
The plan view graphics that follow illustrate this point . Figure 3 depicts a 1, 200 sq ft house with
a 500 sq ft garage ( 1 , 700 total sq ft ) on a 9, 500 sq ft lot ( FAR = . 18 ) . If this house and garage
were in the NCL zone , which allows a . 40 FAR, the house could either add 2 , 100 sq ft, or it could
be demolished and replaced with a 3, 300 sq ft house, shown in Figure 4 . For simplicity, the
graphics illustrate the building sizes of one -story buildings .
13
CRY of
FOf t� l`5
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report
Figure 3 : Example of an Existing House
i
5oo_
Figure 4 : Potential Expansion Allowed in NCL
4 €
3300
Boor
If this example house and garage were in the NCM zone district, which allows a . 50 FAR, the
1 , 200 sq ft house could add 3 , 050 sq ft, resulting in a 4, 250 sq ft house, shown in Figure 5 .
Figure 5 : Potential Expansion Allowed in NCM
I
Le
Boor
The explanation above uses typical blocks from original , historic City plats as an example . This
is the most predominant pattern in the neighborhoods . However, house and lot sizes and
14
CRY
Yof ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report
patterns vary considerably within the study area , raising further questions about FAR standards
that are uniformly applied throughout each of the three zoning districts .
Staff believes the discrepancy between the building square footage currently allowed by the
City and the size of many existing houses in the study area is the fundamental issue . When
typical FARs range from . 15 - . 37 ( depending on lot size ) , and the City allows . 40 or . 50 in the NCL
and NCM zones, respectively, the result is dramatic size differences between existing and new
houses . Furthermore , those concerned with size further argue that the ability to double , triple,
or quadruple the size of a house adds an economic incentive to demolish and replace existing
houses, rather than encouraging compatible additions .
Staff does not believe that this size discrepancy is a significant issue for the NCB zone . The NCB
covers a relatively small portion of the study area and allows for a 1 . 0 FAR, which is much larger
than what is allowed in the other two zones . However, the NCB is intended to be a buffer
between the Downtown business district and the predominant residential areas, and allows for
more intense building sizes to provide a transition . It is common in this area to have single -
family houses converted into office or commercial space, which is not typical in the NCL or NCM
zones .
Size (Height)
Along with volume , height is identified as an issue for those concerned that new construction is
"too big" to be compatible with the character of the neighborhood . The Land Use Code does
not currently specify a height limit in feet . Rather, buildings are limited to two stories in the NCL
and NCM zones, and three stories in the NCB zone , with a story defined as 12 ' 8" . These limits
work in combination with side wall height limits and setbacks, and a roof pitch limit, to
indirectly limit height . Figure 6 illustrates these height components . The cumulative effect of
the standards effectively limits the maximum height of a house in the NCL and NCM zoning
districts to about 35 feet . The height of two - story houses in these zones is not unusual , and no
potential changes have been identified or discussed regarding a maximum height limit per se .
15
Fort Collins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report
Figure 6: Illustration of Height Standards
These steep-sloping lines represent
the limits of the 1' setback for each
2' of additional height. The building
must remain within this limit.
Maximum roof pitch is 12 : 12. This is
not a height limit, but an aspect of
building height.
The minimum side setback is 5', but y
any wall above 18' must be setback \ \
an additional 1' for every 2' of \
additional height. 3 e \\ \
1
This wall exceeds 18' in height — in \\
this case it's approximately 24' — 1a'
that's 6' taller than 18', so it must be
setback an additional 3' beyond the '7
minimum side setback (which is 5').
I
The general concern about height seems to mainly involve dramatic differences between small
existing houses and new construction on abutting lots . However, the only specific issue
identified for further discussion in this regard , is the way that height is measured . Currently, the
Land Use Code requires height to be measured from the finished grade at the building walls . In
some new construction , this finished grade has been raised above the original grade of the
area , in order to accommodate stormwater requirements or basements for new houses . The
photo below illustrates this point : the house to the right has been raised above the original
grade, exacerbating the height difference between it and the adjacent house shown on the left .
Figure 7 : Height Issue Example Photo
a
� r
MEN
OW-,
16
F CRY of ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report `*Moao"��
The current method of measurement could inadvertently increase the allowable height and
impacts of height differences beyond the intent of the standards that establish height limits .
Solar access was raised as an issue very closely related to height . It is a key part of concerns
about larger new construction . In particular, strong concerns have been raised regarding
existing, smaller houses which lose their access to sunshine in interiors, gardens, and yards
when new construction occurs on an abutting lot .
Under current standards, new houses can be built which introduce shading onto abutting
properties . This is true city-wide ; no Land Use Code regulations prevent this in any zone district .
Some solar access standards are found in the Land Use Code in Section 3 . 2 . 3 , but they pertain
mostly to development plans for new construction , and do not effectively address the concerns
noted in the study area .
Examination of this issue led to several key clarifications :
■ This is mainly an issue where houses face east and west, occurring on the north -south
streets .
■ This is a much lesser issue where houses either face south or their backs face south ,
which occurs along the east-west streets .
■ The main issue is loss of sunshine through the middle of the day . All houses receive at
least some morning and afternoon sunshine .
■ In order to effectively address the issue, houses along the north - south streets would
need to be limited to one story, except for one house at the north end of each block .
■ In many cases, trees have as much or more effect on solar access as houses . The
neighborhoods are characterized by mature trees, creating an urban forest with
significant shading effects .
Other cities have dealt with solar access, and staff has reviewed some other cities' regulations .
No new concepts were found to shed any new light on the fundamental shading situation
created by the development patterns in the neighborhoods .
Design
Throughout the study process, there was universal acknowledgement about the benefits of
thoughtful , quality design that is responsive to established neighborhood character . Quality
design can help make larger new construction more compatible, and help mitigate its impacts .
Furthermore, staff found wide agreement that most of the recent construction in the
neighborhoods has been architecturally well - designed .
While broad agreement exists about the general importance of design , that agreement breaks
down in regard to ensuring compatible design through additional City standards and review .
Examples of building characteristics that could be addressed by any additional standards or
review process include the following :
17
CRY of ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report `*Zoao"��
■ Building proportions ( articulating large houses into smaller, compatible proportions ) .
■ Placement of larger building mass on the lot .
■ Roof forms .
■ Building materials .
■ Design character ( e . g . , windows and doors compatible in size , shape , and pattern ) .
Building design characteristics did not raise the magnitude of concerns or issues that were
raised with regard to building size . Thus, they did not generate significant discussion or analysis .
Phase III : Implementation Options
The final phase of the study built upon the identified issues and focused on developing
potential implementation options for City Council to consider . Implementation options were
developed with the following goals in mind :
■ Protect the character of established neighborhoods, including structures and outdoor
spaces, while allowing reasonable expansion to accommodate the needs of modern
households .
■ Minimize negative impacts on adjacent properties from inappropriate development .
Assumptions :
■ The options presented will only be applied to single -family development and are not
intended to address two, three , or four- unit dwellings, which are allowed in these areas .
■ The options represent a range of broad concepts . Any preferred option ( s ) will require a
more detailed analysis of the economic, social , and environmental impacts .
■ The options are not mutually exclusive . For instance , options to address size and design
could be implemented concurrently .
Size
The options to address size were developed under the assumption that the fundamental issue
is that City standards currently allow too much expansion . Although they are all aimed at
reducing the allowable building size, there are two different methods of accomplishing that
goal . One is to take a standardized approach , whereby the City would continue to regulate size
uniformly by zoning district, and the other is to take a contextual approach , whereby size is
regulated based on a house' s immediate surroundings, rather than applied across an entire
zone . Each option is described below .
Standardized Approach
➢ Lower the floor area limit ( FAR ) in the NCL zone . The FAR is currently . 40 . Prior to 2006,
the FAR in the NCL was . 33 . It was increased because many of the properties in the NCL
became nonconforming when an amendment ( adopted in 1996 ) resulted in the
inclusion of all detached buildings as part of the total floor area allowed on a lot . The
City was processing numerous requests for variances, and determined that increasing
18
CRY of ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report `*MOOO"��
the FAR to . 40, in addition to the other development standards, would be sufficient to
safeguard against over- building a lot, while also reducing the number of variance
requests .
This option would likely lower the FAR to be between . 33 and . 40 .
➢ Lower the floor area limit ( FAR ) in the NCM zone . The FAR is currently . 50, and this
option would likely lower the FAR to be between . 40 and . 50 .
Effects
■ Continues to apply a uniform standard across varying lot and block patterns .
■ Reduces allowable building expansion from what is currently allowed .
■ In the NCL zone, reducing the FAR could increase requests for variances as seen
in the past .
Contextual Approach
Allow each house to expand by a certain percentage . For example , the City could
establish anywhere from a 20- 50% allowable increase in a building' s square footage .
Using 40% as an example, an existing 1 , 000 sq ft house could either add 400 sq ft or, if
the house was demolished , a new 1 , 400 sq ft house could be built in its place .
➢ Allow each house to expand based on averaging with the two adjacent houses . This
option would require a property owner to calculate the average square footage
between their house and the two houses immediately adjacent on either side . For
example , if the property owner' s house is 1, 000 sq ft, and the two adjacent houses were
1 , 500 sq ft and 1, 700 sq ft, the average is 1, 400 sq ft . Therefore, the property owner
could either add 400 sq ft or, if the house was demolished , a new 1 , 400 sq ft house
could be built in its place .
Allow each house to expand based on the average size house on the block face . This
option would require that the average square footage be calculated for each house on a
block face, and any expansion or new house would be limited to that average . Table 2
illustrates how this concept would work .
19
CRY of
FOrt� l`5
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report
Table 2 : Block Face Averaging Example
Houses on a House Size
Block Face ( sq ft )
1 1, 850
2 1, 520
3 2, 620
4 21600
5 1, 970
6 1, 020
Average 1,930
In the above example , each house on that block face could only expand up to 1 , 930 sq
ft . That means that houses 1 , 2 , and 6 are the only properties that could add additional
square footage , because the other three already exceed the average .
Allow each house to expand based on the average size house on the block face, plus
an additional percentage . This option takes the previous one a step further . Using the
example from above, if the average building size is 1 , 930 sq ft, and the City limited any
new house or significant addition to that average plus 40%, for example, then a house
on that block could be expanded or demolished and rebuilt with a maximum 2, 702 sq ft
( [ 1, 930 x . 40 ] + 1 , 930 ) . Allowing an additional percent increase above the average would
allow all of the houses in the above example to add additional square footage .
Effects
■ Amount of allowable expansion is derived from the established neighborhood
pattern .
■ Typically reduces the allowable building expansion from what current standards
allow .
■ Allows for long term evolution in building size, rather than dramatic increases .
■ More complex than a uniform standard .
Design
The options to address design either add new standards or add a level of architectural review .
The goal is to assist property owners in making context-sensitive improvements to better foster
compatibility . The following lists the options in more detail :
Require neighborhood meetings . Property owners would be required to notify their
neighbors if they plan to significantly add onto or demolish/ replace their existing house .
The area of notification would need to be established and could include as few as the
adjacent neighbors on either side , to all residents on the block face, to all neighbors
within a 500' radius . Neighbors would not have any decision - making power; rather, they
would simply be able to comment and dialogue about the proposed development .
20
CRY of
FOrt� l`5
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report
Effects
■ Increases neighborhood awareness and understanding .
■ Necessitates additional City resources .
➢ Reinstate the Design Assistance Program and extend to non - historic houses . This is a
former City-administered program that offered property owners financial assistance to
put towards time with an architect or designer, prior to submitting plans to the City . The
goal is to help residents as early in the process as possible when they are considering
expanding or building a new house to incorporate good design elements that
complement the surrounding neighborhood .
Effects
■ Necessitates additional City resources .
■ Incentivizes the use of design expertise .
Codify select design guidelines and make them standards . Another option could be to
select appropriate design guidelines from the Neighborhood Character Design
Guidelines document and adopt them into the Land Use Code . Potential standards could
address roof types, window and door size and placement, etc .
Effects
■ Requires compatible design elements that are not currently addressed in the
Land Use Code .
Require architectural review by the Landmark Preservation Commission, or a newly
formed Architectural Review Committee, for significant expansions and new houses .
This option would require plans to expand or demolish / replace existing houses ( above a
certain threshold , i . e . adding greater than 200 sq ft ) to be reviewed for architectural
compatibility by a committee ; that committee could either be the existing Landmark
Preservation Commission , or the City could form a new Architectural Review
Committee . The plans would be reviewed and approved or denied . Specific criteria
would need to be developed in order for the committee to make objective and fair
decisions .
Effects
■ Necessitates additional City resources .
■ Requires greater attention to compatible design .
Recommendations
Staff Recommendations
Staff supports changes to the City' s development standards in order to address the issue of size .
Specifically, staff recommends taking the contextual approach to address size, and prefers the
option to use the block face average plus an additional percentage for the following reasons :
21
CRY of
FOft� in5
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report
■ Established policy clearly directs the City to protect and preserve established
neighborhood character, and building size is identified as a primary element that defines
character .
■ Existing standards that apply a uniform FAR are not based upon the established pattern
of the neighborhood , and do not take into account the variety of house and lot sizes
that create that pattern .
■ Therefore , taking a contextual approach and deriving building size based upon a house ' s
immediate surroundings is the better method to preserve the established neighborhood
character .
Furthermore, staff recommends that if any of the contextual options are implemented , a
minimum allowance be established for all property owners wanting to make modest
improvements . In addition , a maximum size should be established to prevent an unlimited
number of expansions .
With regard to design , staff recommends that Council not implement any of the potential
options . Analysis did not reveal a significant issue and , in general , staff believes the new
construction occurring is well designed and does not pose a significant threat to neighborhood
character in that regard .
Regardless of whether Council directs staff to pursue any of the implementation options, there
is broad agreement among the stakeholders that a minor, technical Land Use Code issue needs
to be addressed . In the wording of current standards, there is a potential loophole that could
result in a one -story building as tall as, or taller than , a two -story building, while counting only
the ground floor area , thus allowing a one -story building more than twice the size of an two-
story building .
The recommended Code change would clarify that if an exterior wall is higher than 13 ' to the
eave, for example , then the floor area of a second story would be assigned to the space above
13 ' . The concept is that impacts of house size are the same, whether or not the interior actually
contains a second floor in the interior space that exceeds a typical one -story height .
In other words, if a one - story house is proposed to be taller than a typical story to create large
open interior space, counting the additional upper space as floor area will reduce the ground
floor coverage on the lot . This is exactly how floor area ratios are intended to work .
A related , minor aspect of this housekeeping change would be to also count any qualifying area
under a tall roof as floor area . Zoning standards currently count any such floor area where the
ceiling height is 7 % feet, and the concept is that this upper space should count the same
whether or not the floor is actually built . Again , the impact of the building' s size is the same for
zoning purposes, regardless of whether the additional floor area is actually built in the upper
space .
22
F CRY of ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report `*MOOO"� �
Staff would also recommend a further technical Land Use Code amendment that would change
the method of measuring height . As previously discussed , the current method of measurement
could inadvertently increase the allowable height and impacts of height differences beyond the
intent of the standards that establish height limits . Therefore, staff suggests that the point of
measurement be established as the property line, rather than the finished grade .
Citizen Advisory Committee Recommendations
The Committee, much like the general public, is split fairly evenly between those who think that
changes are warranted and those who are satisfied with the status quo . All agree that staff
should address the minor Land Use Code changes explained above . For those in favor of further
standards, the " averaging plus" was favored to address size, and reinstatement of the Design
Assistance Program and/or codifying design guidelines were preferred to address design .
Landmark Preservation Commission Recommendations
The Commission also agrees that changes are warranted , and prefers to take the contextual
approach to address size, favoring the averaging plus concept . Furthermore, the Commission
supports the reinstatement of the Design Assistance Program and codifying design guidelines .
The Commission is open to being the organization responsible for Architectural Review, if that
option is chosen .
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendations
The Board does not feel there is a significant issue, but does support the Land Use Code
changes recommended by staff. The sentiment is that there are a few " bad " examples but, by
and large, the existing policies, standards, and guidelines are resulting in compatible
development .
Zoning Board of Appeals Recommendations
The Zoning Board of Appeals shares the same recommendation as the Planning and Zoning
Board .
23
CRY of
FO� t� l`5
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report
Appendix A — April Public Open House Results and Comments
Combined Survey Results and Comments from April Open House
In an effort to engage the public and collect input, a survey was developed and distributed at
the April 7 open house . The same survey was also available online for those who were unable
to attend the event . The questions were designed to help determine the strength of public
opinion and define the aspects of " pop - ups" and /or "scrape - offs" that people like or dislike .
Questions were purposefully framed as a value statement ( either problem or benefit ) and
respondents were asked to rate to what extent they agreed/disagreed with the statement . The
opportunity was provided after each question for the respondent to write in any additional
comment they had related to the question . Many people took the chance to write in their
opinion , resulting in pages of comments .
Question 1 : " Pop- ups" and "scrape-offs" are beneficial because they increase the value of
properties in the neighborhood .
Results: Question 1
Responses ■ Strongly agree
Strongly agree 46
Somewhat agree 48 2o�ro 28% ■ Somewhat agree
No opinion 5 ❑ No opinion
Somewhat disagree 32 20%
Strongly disagree 33 ❑ somewhat
3% 29% disagree
■ Strongly disagree
Comments :
■ They make the neighborhoods exclusive . Good families get excluded . . .
■ Must be controlled to take into account the character of the neighborhood .
■ Some are well done but some are ugly . Obviously beauty is in the eye of the beholder . I
prefer designs somewhat keeping with the character of the neighborhood . Ultra modern
designs really do stand out .
■ You can add space by not wrecking the original house .
■ While the new houses themselves might be more valuable, their presence dramatically
compromises the qualities that are so endearing and attractive about these
neighborhoods in the first place . Over time, this replacement will result in the entire
neighborhood becoming less desirable overall .
■ As long as they are done in a manner that " fits " the character of their surrounding
environment .
■ Increasing the size of the house does not mean that the house is worth more . The
quality of the house is far more valuable in the short and long term aspects of home
24
CRY of
ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report `*Moao"��
value . Scraping a house to build a new home may increase the dollar value of the
neighborhood but it can ruin the historical , aesthetic and scale of the neighborhood if
the house is not done correctly to match the existing homes .
■ In principle they are not intrinsically bad , but the problem is that usually the small house
is replaced by a monster that fills the lot from edge to edge , and towers over its,
neighbors, cutting off natural light . Scrapeoff replacements should be consistent with
the neighborhood , not with the ego of the new owner .
■ If the new construction " fits " in with neighboring houses, then this works . If 2 or 3 story
houses are built next to small bungalows, it doesn ' t seem respectful of the next door
homes .
■ If the homes are done in the style of existing houses I would agree .
■ if they fit the scale and design of the neighborhood
■ Only if done in a manner that is consistent and compatible w/ existing architecture and
does not impede on neighboring homes ie : overshadowing smaller homes .
■ The houses that are " scrape - offs " usually change from rentals into family dwellings .
■ If done correctly, meaning that they are done in a way that feels consistent with the
historic feel of the neighborhood , they can increase the value of the property around it .
■ This can be true, but much of the continual investment in existing homes also increases
the value of properties in the neighborhood .
■ They decrease the value of the " traditional Old Town style " architecture by dwarfing the
original houses and ruining the flavor of the neighborhood .
■ If done properly, a pop - up can be beneficial ; scrape-offs can be beneficial if they replace
eyesores . On the other hand , intentionally letting old house decay and stand vacant so
that a scrape -off seems justified seems to be gaming the system . Some scrape - offs
become ghastly eyesores in themselves .
■ Pop- ups are only beneficial if the design strictly adheres to the style of the original
house and neighboring properties . Scrape -offs should be discouraged unless the original
house is beyond repair or renovation .
■ If done with sensitivity to the existing architectural style of the home and neighboring
houses, pop - ups and scrape -offs improve the overall value . However frequently, they do
not because of poor planning which results in a home that does not " fit " in the existing
neighborhood .
■ Like all things, it depends . We have examples of " pop ups " that are very tastefully done ,
and fit the neighborhood .
■ This is without question . Anyone who thinks that a major home improvement in their
neighborhood doesn ' t affect property values in that neighborhood is not thinking .
■ There are different feelings based on degree of size differential between existing houses
in the neighborhood and the " pop ups " . Enlarging a house somewhat can mean that a
family can live more comfortably in the house , and that benefits the neighborhood . But,
huge differences in scale can result in diminished value for the older, smaller homes in
the block by making them look insubstantial .
■ Some seem to take over the property and then are too large for the lot . Others expand
while keeping size in check . When the new house towers over the surrounding houses
and fills its lot then it is a monstrosity . Could there be a ratio that new houses and
25
CRY of
ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report `*Zoao"��
additions could adhere to so that some of the lot is preserved and they don 't look too
large for their space ?
■ Neighborhoods are organic systems that evolve over time . Old town neighborhoods are
inherently valuable due to proximity to downtown and CSU . As houses age and styles
change, renovations will naturally follow the styles . Homes are places where people live,
not museums .
■ Whether they are problems or benefits is very much dependent on the existing
structure and the scale & style of the proposed plan . The historic preservation
committee has been very beneficial in determining the appropriateness and value of
various projects .
■ 1 think the issue is not pop - ups and scrape - offs per se, but the extent to which the
results accommodate the character of the neighborhood .
■ Within limits these are ok, but if they do not fit with design or they are badly done, it
doesn 't help the value of properties
■ There is a limit in sizing of pop - ups, but getting rid of scrape -offs especially is beneficial
due to that they are almost always a detriment, i . e . very neglected and ugly .
■ Replacing an older home with an ugly, out-of-scale, large structure will not increase the
value of the adjacent homes in the neighborhood !
■ done tastefully
■ 1 own a ranch style rental house on Park Street ( not on the infamous block) that just had
a very large house built next to it, which covers over 70% of the lot . Two realtors have
told me that while having a new house next door increased the property value at the
same time having that new house on the south side overwhelm my house and block
sunlight from the yard lowered the property values . At best, they feel , it was a wash
and , more likely, a loss in property value .
■ While this is true , I would rather preserve the neighborhood as it is, than increase my
property value .
■ They don 't increase the value of my house unless I want to sell it . I just pay higher taxes
because it ' s suddenly worth more because someone else built a larger/ more expensive
house .
■ They increase the property taxes, too . Many people like us buy to stay here and not on
speculation so affordability and gentrification are real concerns .
■ The City ' s current zoning and design standards more than adequate to regulate the size
and appearance or pop - ups and scrape - offs . However the City frequently gives variances
for these projects . It makes the system unpredictable and the projects very disparate . I
would rather see the regulations relaxed somewhat and then consistently enforced than
to have draconian regulations that are not enforced consistently .
■ Only if done in harmony with respect to existing neighbors ( southern exposure, noise ,
privacy, etc . )
■ Many times there are existing homes that are not worth preserving . They don ' t meet
code and cause " Life Safety " issues
■ Neighborhoods vary a lot in downtown , so this is context dependant
■ They do improve the neighborhood -- we ' ve lived our house 24 years and did something
of a " pop- up " 13 yrs ago . We kept the existing attic in front and added a 1/2 story at the
26
CRY of
ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report `*Zoao"��
back -- we think it blends in relatively well . We had trouble in the early 90s getting
anyone to lend us money to add on -- we were red - lined I believe . A few years later we
had banks calling us offering to lend us money after we had already added on . ( We
needed to add on because our house was too small for our family . )
■ it depends on their quality
■ Nice design , details, larger, energy efficient homes are more valuable and help to pull up
property values in the whole neighborhood .
■ The quality of the work is what ' s important . . . the integration of the new with the old into
the existing structure ( style, materials, etc ) and the neighborhood ( style, size, etc . )
■ This can often be the case , it depends on what was scraped off. I ' m not as concerned
with increasing property values, more with not decreasing property values . I don ' t want
to loose ground .
■ Pop- ups are not too bad , however the scrape - offs are TERRIBLE . Many times the scrape -
offs do not keep in line with the historic nature . One example, the corner of Magnolia
and Jackson . They ( a realtor) scraped off 1 house and built 3 VERY LARGE houses on the
lot . Another example is the house on Oak between Jackson and mulberry, another
example is the house on in the 1000 block of Mountain . The list could go on and on .
■ neighbors should be glad to see their property values increase and their neighborhoods
cleaned up an revitalized
■ This entirely depends on what is built . A home that is designed to reflect the character
of the neighborhood is acceptable to me .
■ There is nothing inherently wrong with either pop ups or scrape offs . Adhering to proper
planning codes and limiting variances is important .
■ It works only if the additions or new houses maintain the " scale " of the lots in the
neighborhood as well as the early 20th century feel .
■ The fact that the new owners/builders are not being honest is also a problem . Example :
I ' m just building a garage that turned into a 2 story house . Also the one that went up for
sale before being completed .
■ Of course it raises property values, it will also raises taxes to all homes because their
value has increased , another future problem .
■ It is unfortunate, but there are several homes in the Old Town area that are owned or
occupied by irresponsible individuals . Consequently, these historical homes deteriorate
creating a negative impact on the uniquely beautiful appearance that make up the Old
Town area . Pop - ups and scrape - offs are therefore beneficial to the degree that they
rehabilitate or replace a structure that has been neglected , however, there needs to be
uniformity with new construction and the existing homes . Often , the new construction
overwhelms the nearby historical homes creating an awkward appearance to the
street ' s architectural appearance . The new construction is often too large compared to
the older, original nearby homes . Also, there are a handful of homes whose new
construction type do not fit into the neighborhood . These new non -conforming
construction types traditionally are the uber modern or " green " architecture or
Victorian -type construction .
■ 1 think pop - ups are beneficial for some families since many old town homes have little
square footage . I would like to see additions made being sensitive to the design of the
27
CRY of
ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report `*Zoao"��
home and the size of homes in the neighborhood . Scrape - offs should only occur if the
structure of the home is compromised . Otherwise, in keeping with Old Town residences,
I would love to see renovation versus demolition .
■ It is a problem of scale ! Out- of-size new construction , and out- of- design construction is
intrusive .
■ If done in a sensitive manner, consistent with style of existing homes, and with quality .
■ Depends who you are and how you are effected by pop up . They may increase value as
far as taxes etc . , but lose value to those trying to sell next to huge homes that take away
privacy, sunshine etc .
■ They probably reduce the value of unaltered houses - this would be a good thing for the
city to find out .
■ I ' m not sure that ' s really a benefit . I think it brings in speculators . Right now I have a 9
year old next door neighbor, students across the street, and families . I also think people
are attracted to Old Town because of proximity to town , parks, the river, lots of trees
and nature landscape, being able to hang out laundry, have chickens, ect . It ' s not house
size !
■ If you ruin the historic look of the neighborhood , it does nothing for value !
■ Crowding existing homes with large , looming house devalues properties in the area .
■ If the new/changed house doesn ' t match the neighborhood , it decreases values for all .
We don ' t need flaunted wealth .
■ 1 don ' t believe they do increase the value . In fact, in a historic district, they destroy
value .
■ No one ' s property value is increased by having a huge house next door that is looming
over its neighbors .
■ 320 Sherwood . Yep there ' s a real increase in property values for the neighbors . It is like
having a 6 foot 8 inch linebacker shadowing a ballerina .
■ This is my main complaint . As a single homeowner the tear-downs increase property
taxes and thus tax the lower- income people out of our neighborhoods . America as we
all know is losing the middle class as we become a nation of haves and have - nots .
■ Old Town ' s attraction is its small scale . The complete disregard of the Old Town ' s
atmosphere by the monstrosities being constructed ( e . g . on Wood ) is destroying the Old
Town ambience .
■ People want the original and the original homes property up the value of the scrapes
and pops .
■ Rising property values are not always desirable as some low to middle income people
could be priced out of their homes due to rising property taxes .
■ Most of the residents in the area are long term residents who are not wanting or
planning to sell so it is a mute point .
■ 1 think lot price increases in value of property based on location more ?
■ Too broad of a statement . They may or may not be depending on the quality of design
of each property .
■ Depends on which one - but it is clear the increase taxable appraised value which
increases revenue to government, for better and worse .
■ If they are done tastefully .
28
CRY of
FOft� in5
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report
■ Any kind of renewal is beneficial , even if it doesn ' t add to total built area .
■ The pop up or scrape off that is extremely out of scale with the rest of the
neighborhood , can disproportionally add value to neighboring homes, sometimes
unaffordably .
■ There are houses in my neighborhood that should be scraped off - most are student
rentals, absent owners, who don ' t care what they look like . This adversely affects the
property value for all .
■ Sometimes it makes homes too expensive .
■ It is not that I have " no opinion " , but I think a larger house can increase property values
if done right . If not, it will decrease values .
■ If you are in the " shadow " of a very high house you would not feel a benefit !
■ Can reduce value of adjoining property ex : 605 Smith .
■ Property values have increased not because of new structures but from the perception
of it being Old Town .
■ Gentrification is occurring because of the above . I don ' t think that is beneficial to the
neighborhood .
■ Only when well done !
■ They may raise the individual houses market value but decrease the overall property
values of the " historic neighborhood " . My 95 year old house has more market value per
square food than a comparably sized new home in a new subdivision .
■ They are so tall they can ruin the sun exposure of the homes to the north of them and
thus making them less desirable, thus less valuable .
■ It depends . If it is ugly, poor design , oversized - then how can the neighbors ' home keep
their value . They don ' t - they lose it !
■ They renovate the neighborhood .
■ Only if done right .
■ Can be untrue if new construction is ugly or energy inefficient .
■ Many residents value historic homes and the design of older homes . Large homes that
do not reflect our community ' s design aesthetic might actually decrease property
values . . .
■ Not always do they improve values . Some are just for the homeowners and their
expansion needs . At times this is not a healthy financial choice but one made of need .
■ Higher property values are key to convert rentals into owner occupied homes that will
be better maintained .
■ There can be exceptions, of course .
■ Capping the size of homes creates a price ceiling for every home regardless of size . A
price ceiling translates to no tax- revenue growth for the city . In addition , a size cap
wipes out the potential of a property . I ' ve owned my home for 10 years and I feel like
I ' m being mugged .
■ They are great - I would love to see more pop- ups and scrape -offs . Again go to Denver .
Observatory Park and Wash Park areas .
■ No debate here either . The neighborhoods do need to maintain some mix of income
groups . I think this is more important than the size of the house .
29
CRY of
ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report `*Zoao"� �
■ Most of the time when you add square footage , your increasing value . Hopefully if one
scrapes a house the intent is to increase the value of the property .
Question 2 : " Pop- ups" and "scrape-offs" are a problem because they are out of scale with the
existing houses in the neighborhood .
Results : Question 2
Responses ■ Strongly agree
Strongly agree 50 19 /o 0 ■ Somew hat agree
Somewhat agree 44 30%
NO Opinion 4 ❑ No opinion
Somewhat disagree 36 22%
❑ Somewhat
Strongly disagree 32 2% o disagree
27 /o
■ Strongly disagree
Comments :
■ Some are and some are not . A 2 + story home maximized to the building envelope size
does overpower a 1 -story next door .
■ If people don ' t like what they are buying then they should build .
■ They are an ostentatious eyesore , and stand out like sore thumbs .
■ There are many bad examples of this in Old Town where the contractor maxed out what
they could with no consideration of the adjacent properties .
■ There are far too many examples of homes being out of scale for the respective
neighborhood . They stand out like a sore and are easy to identify .
■ see above ( In principle they are not intrinsically bad , but the problem is that usually the
small house is replaced by a monster that fills the lot from edge to edge, and towers
over its, neighbors, cutting off natural light . Scrapeoff replacements should be
consistent with the neighborhood , not with the ego of the new owner . )
■ Same as above ( If the new construction " fits " in with neighboring houses, then this
works . If 2 or 3 story houses are built next to small bungalows, it doesn ' t seem
respectful of the next door homes . )
■ If they are kept in reasonable guidelines it shouldn 't be a problem .
■ Most of the pop - ups and scrape -offs in my neighborhood ( Oak and Loomis ) have pretty
much maintained scale and design . I would say that > 75 % are such designs and I LIKE
AND APPROVE of almost all of them -- there are a few that are flat out bad , but most
have IMPROVED the area ; not the other way around !
■ Many new pop off offs and new construction projects are too large and out of scale with
smaller bungalow style homes . Old town is not a good place to build ' trophy " homes in
my opinion , it detracts from the historic aesthetic of the neighborhood .
30
CRY of
ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report `*Zoao"� �
■ This depends on the property itself. I have seen some pop - ups that are extremely well
done, such as the house at the SW corner of Smith and Laurel that most people don ' t
even realize is a pop- up .
■ This can be true as well , but there are also examples of well done pop - ups and scrape -
offs .
■ it ' s really block to block - we ' re on the corner of Peterson and Plum - on Plum Street
pop - ups and scrape - offs would be out of scale and out of character - on Peterson there
is a mix of pop - ups and scrape - offs already in place
■ 1 never liked the city plan for high - density housing in Old Town - so I ' m glad design
standards will eliminate those out-of-scale townhomes and apartment buildings .
■ And they are bright and ugly .
■ Scale is only one of the problems, and perhaps not the most important .
■ They can be ( and frequently are ) out of scale .
■ It ' s all about design and scale
■ 1 very much disagree with this . The renovations I ' ve seen in my neighborhood have been
very appropriate for the areas .
■ Not all pop - ups are out of scale . It can be tastefully done, especially when preserving the
" face " of the existing house and using expansions at the rear/yard surface, or in side
gables .
■ Neighborhoods will inevitably change through time . One of the great things about old
town is the diversity of dwellings within small areas .
■ 1 would agree if I thought they were out of scale, but all the renovations I ' ve seen in my
neighborhood have been modest, tasteful , and have fit the scale of the neighborhood
■ However, I do think that owners should be allowed to modify and even increase the size
of their homes within certain size and design limitations . I think that pop ups should be
consistent in design with the existing architecture .
■ We chose to live in an eclectic neighborhood in the first place . These remodels are the
evolution of a neighborhood and an investment in our fabulous old town .
■ Housing cost are high enough in Old Town right now, that most people who are buying
houses to pop - up or scrape off are doing a great job of improving the neighborhood .
Let' s face it, there are a lot of really ugly houses in old town that could use a makeover .
■ It depends .
■ They often are , but don ' t need to be .
■ Please see my comment above . Very complicated issue . It almost seems that new
designs would have to be approved site by site which would be overwhelming .
■ Not all but more and more new builds/ remodels seem out of scale and character .
■ The garages are bigger than surrounding homes .
■ Many of new construction -- especially the scrape - offs -- are completely out of line with
the existing scale and character of the neighborhood . They seem to be interested only in
square footage and not much else . My neighbor to the south did an almost complete
renovation which completely blocked my southern exposure ( limiting my own ability to
renovate for more solar energy gain ) and installed a massive aircon unit right outside my
bedroom window, which is now an " acoustic canyon . "
31
CRY of
ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report `*Zoao"��
■ How narrow minded can anyone be . That is like saying we should have kept tents and
sod houses . In time all housing inventory needs to be upgraded to save energy
consumption
■ Depends on context and adjacent houses
■ Some of the newer pop - ups and new- builds are really big and " stick out . " They do not
blend well with the existing neighborhood . Interestingly enough , a furor at 223 Park
occurred last summer when a shack- like house was scraped off and a new one was built .
We think this new house actually looks pretty good and blends in reasonably well . Some
of the others look really " ginormous " next to some existing homes .
■ it depends on how well they are designed
■ There are plenty of old larger homes on the normal Old Town 50x190 lots that fit well .
Same for most of the newer renovations .
■ Again , if the former comments are taken into consideration , a new project can fit into
an old neighborhood very nicely . (The quality of the work is what ' s important . . . the
integration of the new with the old into the existing structure ( style, materials, etc ) and
the neighborhood ( style, size, etc . ) )
■ This is becoming more the norm . However, I ' ve seen some excellent pop - ups recently
that are seamless to the original building and look very good .
■ See comments from item # 1 . ( pop - ups are not too bad , however the scrape - offs are
TERRIBLE . Many times the scrape - offs do not keep in line with the historic nature . One
example , the corner of Magnolia and Jackson . They ( a realtor) scraped off 1 house and
built 3 VERY LARGE houses on the lot . Another example is the house on Oak between
Jackson and mulberry, another example is the house on in the 1000 block of Mountain .
The list could go on and on . )
■ See above comment . The homes on my block are all single story structures for the most
part . Two new homes have been built on my block . One is acceptable , although I think it
is too tall but its design is congruent with the style of homes around it, the other is
horrendous, huge and not aesthetically appealing at all .
■ Some are wonderful additions and updates . Others are atrocious, blocking out the sun
to neighboring houses and not architecturally balanced with neighbors .
■ Especially when the buildings move forward on the property .
■ Most of the homes that are being scrapped off are structurally not sound or laid out so
poorly they are not expandable . Most of the surrounding housing will need to be torn
down or extensively renovated in the near future .
■ One can design to fit the neighborhood in many ways, with thoughtful design .
■ 1 have seen wonderful pop - ups and scrape - offs that fit the scale of the neighborhood
but I have also seen some that are ENORMOUS ! It doesn ' t take more than one on a
block to ruin the feel of the neighborhood and offset the scale . It should be a Sesame
Street skit - " one of these things is not like the other . . . " The houses that are out of scale
with the existing homes affect the entire neighborhood ( home values, the look and feel
of the neighborhood , taxes, etc . )
■ It is a problem of scale ! Out- of-size new construction , and out- of- design construction is
intrusive .
■ Some are, some are not - again , it is the quality and sensitivity of the project .
32
CRY of
ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report `*Zoao"� �
■ The house on the corner of Jackson and Magnolia is totally out of scale . I thought the 2
houses they built on that lot were too big but now I know what out of scale is .
■ Bringing in 4 feet of dirt just starts to ruin the neighborhood .
■ To me , this is the big problem . If they were restricted in size with space between them
and existing homes, I ' d be fine with these structures .
■ An older house can be added onto without destroying the character of the
neighborhood , but most people don ' t have that sensitivity .
■ If these people want to build McMansions, they should buy empty lots in 80528, 80526,
etc .
■ Disproportionate size is ?, Old Town has a predominately ' small town ' environment .
MacMansions with their cookie cutter designs look like they belong in the burbs .
■ Truly some additions can be designed with sensitivity . And some houses have suffered
so much neglect that they have to go .
■ I ' ve mentioned " squeezing " neighbors . One of my concerns is the larger carbon
footprint . A big house may fit a family today out ? Be a multi - individual rental
" tomorrow . "
■ It depends . In our eastside neighborhood the pop ups for the most part have been
tastefully done . The scrape off at 805 Smith is awful . It is 2 1/2 stories high and dwarfs
the surrounding 1 story homes and is in no way architecturally compatible with the
existing homes .
■ This can only be addressed on a case by case basis and not with a blanket statement .
■ Depends on which one .
■ It all depends on the neighborhood . Strongly agree in the case at the west side of the
300 South Sherwood St . mansion recently built .
■ Some of them are out of scale .
■ 1 have no problem with P/ U or S . offs but there needs to be a limit to site .
■ Some are out of scale and some are not . The regulations should be designed so that if
everyone theoretically built to the limit it would not fundamentally and adversely
impact the neighborhood .
■ The pop up or scrape off that is extremely out of scale with the rest of the
neighborhood , can disproportionally add value to neighboring homes - sometimes
unaffordably .
■ Could be - look at the lot size at 617 W . Magnolia . Crammed on to the lot - and
infringing on the historic home next door .
■ Some are too big . Ex : house on northeast corner of Mountain and Grant .
■ Houses ( for example yellow house at Mountain and Grant ) that are out of scale don ' t
belong . How did they ever get a variance for one that huge ? ?
■ They are usually6 two story which makes them look odd for the area . Single stories
would be more appropriate .
■ When done well , scale will be maintained .
■ Not always - some folks have common sense and are respectful to their neighbors . But
others build the biggest monstrosities they can afford . We need to regulate this in terms
of size/scale and style .
33
F CRY of ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report `*Zoao"��
■ You got it ! ! Denies privacy for neighbors, takes away from the neighbors ' homes and
that clearly doesn ' t matter and then our community gets destroyed .
■ Neighborhoods change .
■ In general , " pop- ups " and " scrape-offs " are well designed and built .
■ They can be - let ' s agree to some standards not a " yes "/ " no " solution .
■ Again , it can be done correctly and within neighborhood standards .
■ But I think they can be done tastefully .
■ For me the issue is shading . If larger homes restrict existing solar access, that ' s a
problem . Gardens and solar power are issues here .
■ Redevelopment can produce out- of- scale homes . However, with work, why wouldn ' t we
expect a design aesthetic that is bigger but still beautiful ? We should make clear about
what we desire . Be the change we want to see in the world ?
■ The city has developed standards to keep this from happening .
■ 1 somewhat agree, but diversity is the key .
■ Some may be " out- of- scale " but that is no justification for limiting what the owner can
do with his/ her home .
■ Current standards address this .
■ Go to Denver - look at homes in DU - observatory Park area . Not everyone wants or
needs a yard . City Park is always accessible .
■ See # 1 and #6 comments . Many times the ' existing houses are far too small for the scale
of the lot sizes and neighborhood . One example in my neighborhood that my neighbors
object to ( near Smith and Plum ) has a new infill house that is properly scaled to the
neighborhood , where the adjacent corner lot has 4 very small houses on a lot that
should contain only 2 houses . In this case the 4 small houses are the ones that are out of
scale !
■ All pop ups or scrape offs are not bad .
Question 3 : " Pop- ups" and "scrape-offs" are beneficial to neighborhoods because they
replace or renovate housing .
Results: Question 3
❑ Strongly agree
Responses
Strongly agree 47 17% ❑ Somew hat agree
Somewhat agree 50 29%
No opinion 10 17% ❑ No opinion
Somewhat disagree 28 ❑ Somew hat
Strongly disagree 27 6% 31 % disagree
■ Strongly disagree
Comments :
■ Some houses, even though old , are really not worth saving . Diversity of housing types
does add to the overall character of the neighborhood .
34
CRY of
ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report
■ It doesn ' t keep the look in the neighborhood .
■ They are beneficial when done with consideration and care for how they will impact the
bigger picture . Too many times they are viewed as a postage stamp with no contextual
review .
■ 1 disagree because there is still a high demand for original Old Town homes . Renovation
of an existing home is a different story . Additions onto the structure , if done properly to
match the architecture and scale of the home , is acceptable . The number of homes in
the east and west parts of Old Town that " should be " scraped is very low and there are
too many homes that could have been renovated are being wrongfully demolished .
■ Only if done in keeping with the predominant architecture of the neighborhood .
■ One of the homes in our neighborhood was torn done and replaced with a very nice
house . The older home had no historical value and was in the process of falling down . It
certainly improved the neighborhood when it was replaced .
■ Sometimes a scrape off or a complete demo is beneficial . There are examples of
unmaintained/ rental homes that have been demoed and cleared for new homes that fit
in . Big renovations that take place on the rear of the property help to maintain a historic
look and give the owner flexibility to expand .
■ 1 generally agree with this statement, with the qualification that the design is in keeping
with the feel of the other homes around it .
■ 1 do not necessary agree with your value statement here - we chose to live in this
neighborhood because we appreciate the diversity in housing stock - both the old and
the new .
■ Renovation would be nice --- if the styles were kept similar to originals . We should NOT
be replacing houses that have been here for 100 years ! People who want the modern
styles should move south !
■ If the housing is in NEED of replacement or renovation , then pop - ups/scrape - offs can be
a benefit . But not all small , old houses need to be replaced or renovated .
■ If someone wants to live in a new neighborhood then they should purchase a home in a
new neighborhood .
■ Depends on what they are replacing
■ To date , the ones I ' ve seen have replaced/renovated homes in poor condition or in need
of a lot of work .
■ When a house has been abused for many years as a rental , a newer home, if in scale ,
can be very beneficial to the neighborhood . The problem is in the scale of the change .
■ Most are gentrification of preexisting character within the neighborhood . Most glaring
example I ' ve seen recently - 300 block N Whitcomb
■ Only to the extent they renovate or replace housing that is either already incompatible
( and the new project rectifies this ) or is so run down that restoration isn ' t possible .
■ If done well , which most are .
■ If they contribute to the aesthetics and " feel " to the neighborhood , and are consistent
with the scale of the other homes, they may be beneficial . Often , they are not, and in
many cases they are detracting from the neighborhoods .
■ In rare cases when a house is condemned , a new house could be beneficial . but let ' s
limit the size of the replacing house ! !
35
CRY of
FOft� in5
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report
■ If the original house was unsightly/rundown , it ' s a good thing to have it
replaced / renovated .
■ Some of the best improvements have been made to existing stock - creative, in -sync
with the neighborhood , adding charm and attractiveness . Yes, some new builds do this,
but many make our little houses look second/ lower-class .
■ 1 love living downtown , but the original house size no longer meets our needs ( ^ 990 sq .
ft ) . A well done renovation allows households of more than 1 person to have livable
space , and could also address some of the concerns of living in a very, very old house .
■ No need to build a huge monstrosity .
■ Depends on what they are replacing ! Megahouses completely change the feel of east-
west neighborhoods, especially the spacious, modest ( more energy efficient ) mixed
income feeling I value .
■ neighborhoods vary a lot in downtown , so this is context dependant
■ It ' s a toss - up ; sometimes they do and sometimes they don ' t . If they are really huge and
out of character they detract from the historic value . However, if thought is taken and
the builder/architect considers historic elements, they add value to existing
neighborhoods .
■ many times, very small residences cannot accommodate today ' s families --the
alternative is to buy or rent in the automobile suburbs at the city fringes
■ Having a new, properly maintained , owner- occupied , energy efficient home is important
to reviving our neighborhoods .
■ Scrape - offs are TERRIBLE . They do not fit in with neighborhood and can pit neighbors
against each other . These are actually hurting neighborhood relationships .
■ Again , it all depends on how the house is designed . I favor renovation whenever
possible .
■ Again . . . . putting a 6, 000 sq ft house where there once was a 900 sq ft house would seem
ridiculous, but somehow, the city has permitted versions of that to happen .
■ Older homes can be renovated to include " necessary " modern conveniences .
Renovation is also greener in most instances . Undoubtedly, some homes are beyond
repair, but new ones should address the architectural style and be in keeping with the
atmosphere of the neighborhood .
■ As I mentioned earlier, I ' m all for pop - ups which use sensitive renovation ( designed to fit
the house ) and scrape -offs if a house is structurally unsound and replacing it is
necessary or significantly easier/cost effective than trying to re - structure a house .
■ It is a problem of scale ! Out- of-size new construction and out-of-design construction .
■ Depends on quality and compatibility issues .
■ Again , depends on lot size etc . Discourse of huge homes looming over smaller can be
harmful to neighborhoods .
■ This may be true in some cases, but they tend to be way too big . A good example is the
monstrosity on the corner of Grant and Mountain . Another example is on Sherwood
either 300 or 400 block . They nearly fill the lots are " faux " historic and they dwarf the
more charming smaller houses nearby .
■ 1 think if will make Old Town a haven for the wealthy, it would be unfortunate not to
have a mixed community .
36
CRY of
ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report `*Zoao"� �
■ There are people who are willing to live in smaller homes . Many who would be happy to
be there !
■ An older house can be added on to without destroying the character of the
neighborhood - but most people don ' t have that sensitivity .
■ It is possible that they could appropriately renovate but it almost never happens .
■ Out of character .
■ Tear- downs are beneficial .
■ Disproportionate size is not ? ? . Old Town has a predominately ' small town '
environment . MacMansions with their cookie cutter designs look like they belong in the
burbs .
■ Merely replacing or renovating existing housing that is considered " old " is not a valid
argument .
■ Pop- ups and scrape -offs are different . Design has so much to do with it . Large structures
need to be set back further in some cases .
■ It depends . In our eastside neighborhood the pop ups for the most part have been
tastefully done . The scrape off at 805 Smith is awful . It is 2 1/2 stories high and dwarfs
the surrounding 1 story homes and is in no way architecturally compatible with the
existing homes .
■ Scrape offs are often better built .
■ This question is too vague to formulate a response .
■ Depends on ? .
■ Especially dumpy- looking, poorly constructed existing homes including many older
rentals .
■ It all depends on what ends up being built, but in general it is better to have some
renewal activity than none at all .
■ If the resulting remodel follows within the character and style of the neighborhood and
looks as if it has always been there , the area benefits .
■ Sometimes, if done within design standards that do not disrupt the neighborhood look .
■ Sometimes yes, the home needs to be scraped .
■ My house was 900 sq . ft . before I added a modest 3rd bedroom and bath .
■ Depends on the size -verses the lot .
■ Totally dependent on the project .
■ Pop- ups and additions/ remodels can add value to the home and ' hood ' if done within a
comparable style and scale as neighboring homes .
■ They bring the value of the older homes down when they are in their shadow .
■ Many older homes are not worth saving . Some are , some are designated historical
which is great . Renovation can be extremely expensive .
■ Renovation is necessary . Houses built 100 years ago, won ' t fit 100% today ' s needs .
Design could be similar to old house .
■ Some homes need replacing and renovating .
■ Only if they are done to strict standards .
■ If the new housing meets good energy and design standards this can be true . Otherwise ,
spending the money to renovate the ? Historical buildings is better .
37
CRY of
ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report
■ If redevelopment designs reflect the character of the neighborhood , history is reflected
instead of preserved . ( Not a perfect 100 % solution , but 80- 90% " historic feel " might be a
worthy accomplishment . )
■ Many houses are too small for families and end up being student rentals .
■ Not all houses age well - replace3ment/ renovations is necessary from time to time .
■ Some of the homes in my neighborhood are junky ! They need to be scraped .
■ See # 2 comments . I don ' t think there is much debate on this issue . Again , I don ' t believe
that truly historical properties are the ones being scraped regularly .
■ Some homes should be scraped because of poor construction design , materials or poor
condition .
Question 4 : " Pop- ups" and "scrape-offs" are a problem because the neighborhood loses
historical properties .
Results : Question 4
Responses ■ Strongly agree
Strongly agree 54
1 9% ■ Somewhat agree
Somewhat agree 37 32%
NO Opinion 6 ❑ No opinion
Somewhat disagree 35 22%
Strongly disagree 30 ❑ somewhat
Vo disagree
4 /0 23%
■ Strongly disagree
Comments :
■ As stated above, some old houses are ugly and devoid of character and really do not
need to be saved . A new home would improve the neighborhood .
■ The house next to loss it historical look and there is nothing original about it .
■ Typically Historic Review does a good job of keeping the general character in - line .
■ Protecting the older homes preserves the history of the city for today ' s generation and
generations to come .
■ This isn ' t necessarily bad , since some " historical " properties are dumps, but often
extremely nice older homes are replaced by giant structures that are a hodge - podge of
styles with no coherence or connection with the neighborhood
■ This probably doesn 't happen often , in my opinion .
■ When done to match existing architectural features, historical features are still intact .
■ Some, but not all homes are historical .
■ Again , most of the pop - ups and scrape -offs in my neighborhood ( Oak and Loomis ) have
pretty much maintained scale and design and architectural characteristics and historical
" look and feel . " I would say that > 75 % are such designs . . . guidelines can help ensure that
the other 25 % fit in .
■ This can be true, but is more relevant on a case by case basis rather than as a broad
value statement .
38
CRY of
ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report `*Zoao"��
■ There are already a number of historical properties - there ' s no historical relevance to
the houses in my neighborhood .
■ Once the historic properties are changed , we can never go back . These builders
completely ignore the historic value of these properties . By the way, the word is " loses, "
NOT " looses ! "
■ Other than the spelling error in the question , I agree that -- to the extent the
neighborhood has historical properties that seem significant -- scrape -offs make us lose
that . Pop - ups are more preserving of our history, and are more in line with the way a lot
of houses have evolved over the years .
■ Some " pop- ups " are integrated very well into the historical home , so there isn ' t a black-
or-white answer .
■ As long as the final design fits the historical nature of the neighborhood I have no
problem with this .
■ This statement is ludicrous . The properties we lose are not properties that appear to be
worth keeping just for the sake of history . That ' s a ridiculous reason to adopt standards
for this; just to preserve history .
■ If the size increase is kept in scale, and the design style of the house reflects the
neighborhood character, it can enhance those houses that are truly historical by keeping
a well tended look for all the houses .
■ Of course, any remodeling or replacement should be with respect to the historical style
of the neighborhood .
■ 1 am in favor of comprehensive yet common sense decisions by the HPC . Some historic
properties are worth renovations and some would be better off to be removed and
something that fits the architecture replaces it .
■ 1 agree that maintaining historical character is important . I think most homeowners
value historical elements and strive to retain them . The homes being torn down were
poorly constructed eyesores, not historical properties . I would be concerned if ultra
large or modern structures, out of character with the neighborhood , were being
constructed .
■ Current pop - ups and scrape - offs are being done well . Our real problem is all the houses
that were renovated or built 20-40 years ago . Lots of ugly apartment complexes and
houses . Can we scrape those off?
■ If the historical designs can be maintained , I don ' t believe they are too much of a
problem .
■ Although historical properties in some areas may be a consideration , age alone does not
a historical property make . I live on Maple St . The small homes here ( mine once was
also ) need upgrading . This neighborhood can become more desirable by bringing these
homes up to date for energy- efficiency and livability and will in turn raise property
values and beautify the neighborhood .
■ Not if done properly . Pop - ups need to blend in with the existing architecture, and of
course the new homes need to also !
■ The problem is often that the design of the changes are inconsistent with the
neighborhood .
■ If the property is that historical , the Historical Society should intervene as they are able .
39
CRY
F tof ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report
■ It seems like the neighborhoods have historical value as a whole , not sure this is true of
each and every home
■ Depends on how you define historical properties . . .
■ Architectural element standards could be established to keep the look of the
neighborhood , while allowing homeowners to upgrade the " Life Safety " issues as well as
be more responsible with energy efficiency .
■ See comment on #3 ( It ' s a toss - up ; sometimes they do and sometimes they don ' t . If they
are really huge and out of character they detract from the historic value . However, if
thought is taken and the builder/architect considers historic elements, they add value to
existing neighborhoods . )
■ It depends on whether the original house has any historic merit .
■ Almost every pop - up or scrap -off I ' ve seen have more character than the original house .
■ Again , these properties can be enhanced if done well ( e . g . using proper materials and
design details from the house ' s or neighborhood ' s time period ) . In addition , just
because a house is old doesn 't mean it ' s better .
■ With the current historical preservation laws, historic value is reasonably preserved .
■ this isn ' t happening to historically significant properties
■ I would like to see the new houses resemble the surrounding historical properties .
■ Owners have the option of declaring their homes " historical " and preserving them in
proper historical condition .
■ The historical character and charm are the reasons we moved to Fort Collins and sought
a home in Old Town in the first instance .
■ 1 was in one of the " historical " houses with the intent of purchasing it . The complete
structure of the home was a disaster, it was not feasible to renovate . I did not have the
time or the money to scrap it off or fight with the historical society about the status of
the house . Luckily the person that purchased the house had the time and money and
was able to put a beautiful home in it ' s place .
■ It is the very rare occasion where the pop- up or scrape - off fits into the neighborhood .
Please see, South Washington and Grant Avenues for examples .
■ Allowing larger homes does not mean zoning standards disappear . Existing regulations
already limit size , height, and footprint .
■ Yes, that ' s the real shame with scrape-offs . Pop- ups don ' t have to be a problem if, this is
key, the additions are made following the natural , historical design of the house . I think
you can add square footage to a home without losing the historical " feel " of the
property .
■ It is a problem of scale ! Out- of-size new construction and out-of-design construction .
■ Many homes are not structurally sound . Many are not " Washington Park " homes . Again ,
it is the issue of the quality and compatibility that determines outcome .
■ As it is going, can be, but it certainly loses charm .
■ 1 think design standards which preserve the general character of the neighborhoods, but
with less onerous requirements than landmark or historic designation would be a good
compromise .
■ Some of the homes are not worth saving but many are fine old homes, some remodels
are done well and don ' t impact the neighbors ' micro climate of their yard .
40
CRY of
FOft� in5
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report
■ Look what Otter is going to do next to the historic houses on Meldrum !
■ If a pop - up were at the rear of the house on a deep lot it may not be so objectionable . If
a scrape - off were replaced with an historical looking house that matched its neighbors,
it would be helpful . The worst of all would be if it looked out of place , which some of
them absolutely do .
■ West Mountain Avenue has been completely ruined as an historical district . People can
avoid these problems by land marking their homes . This " out " should be proposed by
the city more often .
■ More restrictive measures needed to keep historic homes .
■ Perfect example , the monstrosity McMansion at 280 Circle Dr . and 805 Smith . Circle
Drive was the first " subdivision " in Fort Collins . Why was 280 Circle approved ? I do not
believe we were notified to protest .
■ It is very discouraging to have people build so high and not inform neighbors and then
pay fines because they went too high . " Oops " they say .
■ 1 have seen only one ( 1 ! ) pop - up that can be considered a neighborhood enhancement .
Most are big boxes attached to little houses which they overpower .
■ But this is not the only result . The streetscape is negatively affected by the replacement
or addition if the design of the new structure is not sensitive to the existing homes in
the neighborhood .
■ The charms of the Old Town are is the historical homes and the newer large homes are
not even keeping with the " period " .
■ Again , it depends on the design and the size .
■ lepends on their design .
■ What could be considered a loss if a historic home is added to in an approved manner ?
( Historic standards or excellent design example )
■ It depends if the house is truly historic - not based on a local criteria ( i . e . " it is the best
example in town ) because , frankly, there are precious few truly significant houses in
town from multiple eras .
■ Define historic ? 20 ' s, 30 ' s style/craftsman , then yes . 40 ' s thru 70 ' s design are not
historic in my opinion and scraping them usually results in no historic/cultural loss . The
historical committee should have fairly strict rules re : destroying totally ( = scrape off)
buildings of historical/cultural significance .
■ For the most part, the scrape -offs I know of lack historical significanc3e , and there is as
much or even more activity that renovates and preserves older houses . I do believe that
there have been a lot of " bad " pop - ups that should be reduced by requiring vigorous
review by the LPC .
■ Homes of truly historical value are , more times than not, preserved . But to keep a house
simply because it is old , reduces the owner ' s right to express their tastes .
■ 1 understood that we wanted to " protect " the historic flavor and quality of the older
neighborhoods . I like new, but I live in the oldest neighborhoods for a reason ! !
■ Sometimes this happens .
■ When done without consideration for neighborhood character .
■ A lot of these older houses are so far out of current code that they will eventually have
to be replaced . Although on the west side the property values have increased
41
CRY of
ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report `*Zoao"� �
drastically . Not because of the new houses . A lot of the older houses have been cleaned
up and that has been what improved the neighborhood , not the new additions .
■ Many homes need total remodels - often less expensive to scrape . Run -down homes
and property value of my home .
■ Homes are not ( in my opinion ) scraped off if they are viable . When older homes,
especially on rubble foundations, are pulling down neighborhood values due to their
unsightly nature and run -down appearance, a neighborhood is improved with a major
remodel or scrape -off.
■ Loses the character of a historically relevant area ; once lost never regained .
■ In general , new houses blend well with the neighborhood , while allowing owners
freedom to pick their preferred design based on their needs/ likes . There should be
some basic regulations while allowing owners to decide the best for their house,
whether it is scrape - off, expanding or remodeling .
■ It is new history .
■ Design standards are the key . Some homes are not historically valuable and detract
from neighborhoods .
■ Some " historical homes " need to be lost . But not all . The solution needs to be nuanced .
Standards need to place value criteria on historical homes AND on the design of the
replacements .
■ If redevelopment designs reflect the character of the neighborhood , history is reflected
instead of preserved . ( Not a perfect 100 % solution , but 80- 90% " historic feel " might be a
worthy accomplishment . )
■ All plans are scrutinized by the historic society anyway .
■ Most pop - ups and scrape -offs end up looking as historical as many of the existing . Most
look better than what they replaced .
■ Generally historical homes are not subject to " scrape -offs " or radical transformation via
" pop - ups " . There is a difference between old homes and historical homes that needs to
be rigorously observed .
■ Old does not mean historic . We don ' t live in ye old Fort Collins town . Choice is essential
to the vibrant and interesting neighborhoods we live in .
■ If the home being scraped or popped is truly historically significant, i . e . not just old , then
I would tend to agree . I do not feel there is a need to protect old poorly designed , small
bungalows which are an eye -sore .
■ It does not lose historical values - it creates a much better neighborhood .
■ Very few scrape-offs are removing genuinely " historic " homes . The ones in my
neighborhood are replacing rundown , non -descript housing stock with modern , well -
constructed larger homes . These allow younger families with small children to return or
move to these neighborhoods and find housing comparable in size and amenities to new
" greenfield " development . Gentrification is a separate, but related , issue that needs to
be also considered .
■ Current standards protect historically significant homes .
42
CRY of
ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report `*Zoao"��
Question 5 : " Pop- ups" and "scrape-offs" are beneficial to neighborhoods because they
increase the variety of housing designs .
Results: Question 5
■ Strongly agree
Responses
Strongly agree 32 20ro 0 ■ Somew hat agree
Somewhat agree 37 29%
No opinion 7 ❑ No opinion
Somewhat disagree 39 23% ❑ Somewhat
Strongly disagree 48 24% 4% disagree
■ Strongly disagree
Comments :
■ Go to a new neighborhood but not an old one or historical designated neighborhoods .
■ The charm of Old Town is the diversity of character, I think this is a good thing to have
variety . Old Town North is a great example or Prospect in Longmont . It is still a cohesive
neighborhood even with the variety .
■ There is already a variety of housing designs in Old Town . Variety and aesthetic appeal
do not necessarily go hand - in - hand . No one wants to live in a homogenous environment
where every home looks the same, but fortunately Old Town has a wide variety of
architectural styles because of the wide time span that development occurred .
■ They do increase the variety, but often to the detriment of the neighborhood .
■ Should still " fit " with the neighborhood .
■ This works only if the new home has a style that echoes an historical style .
■ They improve individual energy efficiency and help cut down on GHG emissions .
■ Variety s good in old town as long as the architecture is in line with the variety of
existing period designs .
■ 1 don ' t think radically different/ non historical looking housing designs should be
permitted in Old Town .
■ 1 think that the City would best be able to handle this issue by instituting a form - based
zoning ( or some other similar application ) that allows the general character of the
neighborhood to remain unchanged . I think that pop - ups and scrape - offs should be
allowed , but with zoning regulations that retain the diversity of existing housing designs .
Homeowners should be able to do new construction , but while maintaining a street
view that is consistent with bungalows, Victorians, arts & crafts, and 40s/50s -era
ranches . However, a house like that recently constructed on Circle Ave that is clearly
inconsistent with a single architectural design standard of ANY housing type in the
neighborhood , should be prohibited because it does change the character of the
neighborhood . Meanwhile, there are several other significant additions to homes on
Circle Ave , that present no such change in character because the streetfront view of the
home remains in character with the other homes in that area .
■ 1 think that renovations are fine, however they should stay true to the character and
nature of the neighborhood . I find the photo of the renovated home on the homepage
43
CRY of
ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report `*Zoao"��
to be an example of a house that does not fit the character of historic old town . It is
obnoxious !
■ The new styles tend to be similar to each other, while the older houses had more variety
and flavor .
■ The old neighborhoods in question are in no need of further variety; this is a problem of
NEW neighborhoods .
■ Housing designs should blend with the historical nature of the neighborhood
■ The worst kind of pop - ups are those huge in scale , and modern or markedly different in
design and style, that do not relate at all to the historic feel of the development of a
block .
■ This neighborhood already has variety of housing designs -a feature that is evident and
appealing to anyone wanting to live in the neighborhood .
■ 1 would be in favor of housing standards for new designs that require that they fit the
existing styles and architecture of the neighborhood .
■ It is nice if the character of the street is maintained , but some blocks are well suited to
newer designs .
■ If done properly . . . nothing " modern " by today ' s standards, as they used to do in the
past, when adding new homes to the area , eg . 50s era homes next to 20s era .
■ 1 don ' t like to see building styles that are out of character with the rest of the
neighborhood
■ The new building in our neighborhood DOES NOT reflect variety of housing ! they all look
alike and they are all too large to have character .
■ Lots of variety exists already and can be enhanced . . . or not .
■ If someone wants a huge house look in a newer neighborhood .
■ 1 would say that they have the potential to increase the variety, but its not a guarantee .
The ones I have seen in the east-west neighborhood ( where I live ) --especially the
scrapes--appear to be mostly of the same ilk .
■ as long as there is opportunity for creativity in the code
■ Absolutely .
■ Many of these older neighborhoods already have varied housing designs with unique
character and features . Scrape - offs tend to produce generic " mass housing
development " designs .
■ The house design should match the design of the houses in the neighborhood .
■ If they are done well , they should blend with the neighborhood and not increase the
variety .
■ There is already a variety of housing in the historic neighborhoods . If the house is so bad
it can not be saved , then a scrape -off and replacement of the same type of home should
be required .
■ most of the single family are designed to blend with the neighborhood , its the condo
and mixed use that stand out
■ The best part of Old Town neighborhoods is the historic value they bring . If a new home
is built that doesn 't reflect that character it is an eyesore .
■ Older neighborhoods should try to preserve an historical " feel " whether they are new
homes or older ones .
44
CRY
F tof ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report �
■ A walk in the residential areas of Old Town provides plenty of variety of style already
without the ostentatious kitsch of tacky modern design and McMansions . One of the
attributes that makes Old Town so charming and authentic is the modesty of scale and
relative simplicity of design of the homes . It resonates with a simpler time in America .
■ The Old Town area consists of historical homes with unique architecture and
construction . If an owner wants a large, modern home there are numerous options
outside of the Old Town area .
■ 1 think Old Town homes are already full of a variety of designs ; Craftsmen bungalows,
prairie -style, 4-squares, shotguns, etc . Pop - ups and scrape - offs are not adding to what
already exists .
■ 1 believe we don ' t want to stop creativity .
■ Some larger houses, particularly 2 - story designs, are beneficial by breaking up the
monotony of some streetscapes, and increasing the density of the neighborhood with
infill redevelopment ( if well designed ) .
■ 1 grew up in Denver by Washington Park and Observatory Park and Denver University .
This is happening there, and it is great ! ! These little 2 - bedroom , 1 bathroom homes are
being made into lovely homes . Families can live downtown and just the suburbs .
■ If I wanted cookie cutter sameness, I ' d move to Oakridge .
■ My neighborhood is diverse being built from the 1880 ' s to today . Few houses are
identical , few are the same style . This is the reason that I live here and have for 47
years !
■ Redevelopment is beneficial because homeowners today 1 ) desire amenities of modern
homes, i . e . larger kitchens, more bathrooms, etc . 2 ) modernizing the housing stock
invigorates neighborhoods near a downtown 3 ) family homes feed students into schools
that are not crowded - a key issue for our city .
■ Design guidelines are the key to this issue . Keep up the good work ! !
■ Old town already has a variety of housing designs .
■ We need to keep downtown vibrant and maintain value . Some changes are important to
modernize interiors to today ' s living standards and some houses aren ' t worth
protecting .
■ We still need some guidelines - but NOT heavy handed .
■ There is a lot of rundown houses . Without enabling " pop - ups " , " scrape -offs " , the
neighborhood would deteriorate . Easing restrictions is necessary for the neighborhood
to get better .
■ They destroy the character of a neighborhood - out of scale and destroy their neighbors '
home value making it " unsellable . "
■ The big houses make the small bungalows look " puny" by comparison . They bring the
value of them down .
■ We need mandatory scale and setback and height standards that prevent building a
6000 sq . ft . house next to 1200 sq . ft . houses . We want to maintain the historic
character of our neighborhood because it retains property values and it is Old Town -
they are not making any more .
■ 1 would prefer my neighborhood to maintain its character - i . e . Victorian and craftsman
style, front porches, etc .
45
CRY of
ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report `*Zoao"� �
■ Some of the new houses consume virtually the whole lot, making things a little tight for
neighborhoods .
■ Pop- ups can be beneficial . Scrapeoffs need to conform to existing structures . Bad
example : 605 Smith . This survey does not address add - ons or remodels .
■ Some scrape - offs are too large for the smaller lots . However, some that are " spread " -
When additions are added are more acceptable .
■ Additions and new homes are an improvement if done right . What I really don ' t like are
new homes and additions that don ' t fit with the character of the neighborhood .
■ It can improve neighborhoods . It depends on the size , how much on the lots it takes up ,
■ As long as the footprint of the original home is not increased - destroying trees,
landscaping or viewpoint of neighbors .
■ Homes that have lost their value or have become eye -sores due to deterioration need to
be improved upon to maintain the integrity and character of the neighborhood and
bring new life to the area .
■ There is already plenty of variety in housing designs throughout these neighborhoods .
■ 1 am not so concerned with increasing design varieties as the size of the new building
( due to pop - up or new construction ) . As a long-time Old Town resident, I would prefer
to see new building kept more in character with the surrounding historical " classic "
home designs ( i . e . Craftsman ) , hence my disagreement .
■ Zoning should establish area/ height available - then government should minimize its
involvement .
■ Allow housing to accommodate modern or evolving living patterns . Cities are constantly
evolving organisms . They shouldn 't be " frozen " ( like Williamsburg, VA ) unless they are
museums . Current limitations adequately keep scale appropriate .
■ If resources ( remodel , addition , renovation , improvements, replacement ) are not put
into our historic ( & new ! ) neighborhoods, they fall into disrepair . Witness inner cities &
resulting property value decline . Living standards change, materials use, use of livable
space in contemporary times, without adequate flexibility in design . The result could be
critical .
■ When altering an old house it is possible to match historical styles . Standards need to be
in place to preserve .
■ It depends . In our eastside neighborhood the pop- ups for the most part have been
tastefully done . The scrape -off at 805 Smith is awful . It ' s 2 1/2 stories high and dwarfs
the surrounding 1 -story homes and is in no way architecturally compatible with the
existing homes .
■ Pop- ups can be visually complimentary but not always some squeeze the adjacent
houses, some deprive neighbors of solar access, some don ' t fit in .
■ Not when they destroy the ' feel ' of the area and tower over all the other homes .
■ The interests of the existing neighborhood design should not be sacrificed .
■ It is important to maintain the historic flavor of these neighborhoods . The design of
each remodel should meet historic district type design standards .
■ 1 have seen only one ( 1 ! ) ' pop - up ' that can be considered a neighborhood enhancement .
Most are big boxes attached to little houses which they overpower .
46
CRY of
ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report
■ Our stock of existing historic homes are an endangered species . Near overlay zoning
that includes guidelines ( standards ) with teeth .
■ " Pop- ups " and " scrape -offs " are uniformly poorly designed ugly actually . They are poorly
proportioned with the size of the lot . People wanting to build McMansions should head
for the " 80528 " zip code .
■ There are already plenty of different housing designs in these neighborhoods . The new
replacement houses do not fit into the neighborhoods .
■ A pop - up and scrape -off are very different and are not equal .
■ They do increase the variety of designs but any benefit is completely overshadowed by
the negatives .
■ They are running the quaintness of Old Town . Look at 409 S . Whitcomb and 309 S .
Sherwood . These are prime examples .
■ Many are OK but any are inappropriate and look like they should be in Murtle Beach or
Savannah . Huge monolithic house who take away someone ' s sunshine . 40 ' is too tall !
■ " Old Town " already has a good variety of ages and designs . Our neighborhood has mere
" uniform " design - built in the 1950 ' s - We don ' t currently have any scrape - offs, but
there are a few " pop- ups " . Although these ( or some ) pre - date the Westside plan .
■ Depends on lot size house size and how many per street and block .
■ PU ' s and SO ' s can be beneficial or a detraction . The issue is quality of the project .
■ Not a clearly answerable question ! It is a problem of scale ! Out- of- size new
construction , and out-of- design construction is intrusive .
Question 6 : " Pop- ups" and "scrape-offs" are a problem because they change the character of
the neighborhood .
Question 6
Results: ■ Strongly agree
Responses
21 % in Somew hat agree
Strongly agree 46 27%
Somewhat agree 43 ❑ No opinion
No opinion 9 19%
Somewhat disagree 30 ❑ Somewhat
6% 27% disagree
Strongly disagree 34 ■ Strongly disagree
Comments :
■ Yes they change the look of the house and neighborhood .
■ This is a huge problem . Once the original homes are demolished or dramatically altered ,
the neighborhood character is gone forever .
■ They are a problem if the character of the neighborhood is changed due to them not
" fitting " with the context .
■ This is entirely dependent upon the quality and the design that the old structure had
and the new or improved structure will have . There are some examples of ' pop - ups ' and
47
CRY of
ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report `*0000"� �
" scrape -offs " that have been done well and they improve the character of the
neighborhood . However, for every one that is done well , there are two or three done
poorly .
■ If done right !
■ 1 think that the City would best be able to handle this issue by instituting a form - based
zoning ( or some other similar application ) that allows the general character of the
neighborhood to remain unchanged . I think that pop - ups and scrape - offs should be
allowed , but with zoning regulations that retain the diversity of existing housing designs .
Homeowners should be able to do new construction , but while maintaining a street
view that is consistent with bungalows, Victorians, arts & crafts, and 40s/50s -era
ranches . However, a house like that recently constructed on Circle Ave that is clearly
inconsistent with a single architectural design standard of ANY housing type in the
neighborhood , should be prohibited because it does change the character of the
neighborhood . Meanwhile, there are several other significant additions to homes on
Circle Ave , that present no such change in character because the streetfront view of the
home remains in character with the other homes in that area .
■ The character of the neighborhood is a RESULT of its ability to change . I used to live next
to a crack house, now I don ' t because it was remodeled and priced out of the rental
market .
■ 1 moved to Old Town because I wanted to live in OLD Town , not New Town !
■ They can be a problem , though some neighborhoods are so far gone as to need some
kind of improvement in character, and pop- ups/scrape - offs can provide that . The issue
is whose standards to use in determining when a neighborhood is in need of character
change .
■ They are only a problem if the design and size do not match the character of the
neighborhood .
■ This hasn ' t been the case, from my perspective .
■ If the intent is to build a home with modern amenities, and more spacious feel , it can be
done in a style to preserve the neighborhood character .
■ Old Town is eclectic . It is nice to have people moving into the older areas so that the
heart of the city isn ' t abandoned to the neighborhoods . I think it is necessary to update
the houses, and for some that means expanding or starting over . I just think that it
needs to be done to the character of the homes on the adjacent blocks .
■ They distract from the character .
■ The HPC and Planning Div should retain the authority to require pop - ups or scrape - offs
to fit the existing character .
■ Change is inevitable . . . . nothing is frozen in time . This keeps the neighborhoods
interesting and appealing to those of us who live here . this keeps the downtown
neighborhoods healthy . We do not want to live in a cookie cutter world . Pop ups or
scrape offs allow for larger homes to encourage families to stay in the neighborhoods .
We like the diversity . . . .
■ Most people who buy in this neighborhood want to maintain the character, so their
renovations reflect that character .
■ That is not a problem . They make the character more desirable to more people .
48
F CRY of ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report `*Zoao"� �
■ See above . ( If done properly . . . nothing " modern " by today ' s standards, as they used to
do in the past, when adding new homes to the area , eg . 50s era homes next to 20s era . )
■ Often , this is true .
■ They certainly can do this, depending on the design
■ the houses are so large , they block sun and mature trees are removed to accommodate
the houses . this DEFINITELY detracts from the character of the neighborhood !
■ It depends on the use of the property . If a house gets enlarged so it can be rented out to
more people, it ' s a problem in a single -family neighborhood .
■ Again , it depends but many are being built w . o any regard for the existing context .
■ The ones I have seen that were created in recent years are very well done .
■ Nothing like cramming two or three homes on a lot that previously held one .
■ Big is not necessarily beautiful !
■ They don 't have to change the character of neighborhoods if the criteria is spelled out
correctly
■ See comments #3 ( It ' s a toss- up ; sometimes they do and sometimes they don ' t . If they
are really huge and out of character they detract from the historic value . However, if
thought is taken and the builder/architect considers historic elements, they add value to
existing neighborhoods . )
■ The eastside and Westside neighborhoods have been marked from the beginning of
town settlement by a heterogeneity in scale and style
■ Old Town is all about diversity !
■ Read earlier comments ( Many of these older neighborhoods already have varied
housing designs with unique character and features . Scrape - offs tend to produce
generic " mass housing development " designs . ; Again , these properties can be enhanced
if done well ( e . g . using proper materials and design details from the house ' s or
neighborhood ' s time period ) . In addition , just because a house is old doesn 't mean it ' s
better . ; The quality of the work is what ' s important . . . the integration of the new with the
old into the existing structure ( style, materials, etc ) and the neighborhood ( style, size ,
etc . ) )
■ Many of the scrape -offs are too modern , do not have the historic look and there are
several old trees and bushes that give their life for a " McMansion " . I have lived in Ft .
Collins for over 40 years and change can be good but there needs to be some
management as well .
■ It depends on the style of the new house . I ' d like to see the style harken to the historical
style .
■ The can change the character and sometimes have .
■ They do change the character of the neighborhood , most of the time that is a good
thing .
■ This is hard to comment on . I could say I somewhat agree or somewhat disagree . I don ' t
think they are a problem in general , only if they are done in keeping with the character
of the neighborhood . If not, then they are a problem .
■ The words pop up and scrape off has nothing to do with the design .
■ Very few neighborhoods have the size of the houses as a distinguishing characteristic of
the neighborhood ( i . e . Circle Drive ) . Everywhere else, enhancing the character of the
49
CRY of ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report `*Zoao"� �
neighborhood by allowing and encouraging a variety of housing sized , scales and designs
is beneficial .
■ Nonsense .
■ A great example is Winter Park, Florida wher3e many homes were scraped , yet the
neighborhoods have retained their charm ( rare in Florida ! ) .
■ Imposing the aesthetic values of a few on everyone is the job of a homeowners
association . No HOA means my neighborhood is an eclectic mix of houses of all different
style, sizes and colors . If I wanted an HOA, I would have moved somewhere else any my
beige house of a certain size would at least include a community swimming pool .
■ Who defines character ? And , why is a change to the character of a neighborhood a
problem ? A neighborhood ' s character is defined by its residents and is constantly
changing .
■ Most have historic or unique aspects that fit the existing diversity of the neighborhood .
■ They enhance the diversity .
■ See previous . The world changes around us, our neighborhoods change . To some degree
we can control the direction of change if we can properly define a " character of a
neighborhood " .
■ Change is not always bad . Especially if carefully planned .
■ 1 think they can maintain and even add to the character if done well .
■ Not if they are done correctly and carefully .
■ We need " some " restrictions and guidelines . They can also enhance the " character " of
the neighborhood .
■ There should be basic regulations in terms of design and size . Everything else should be
optional .
■ Neighborhood character is constantly changing . Very few neighborhoods stay constant .
■ Again - depends on size and scale of surrounding homes .
■ Modest, carefully designed pop- ups don ' t always change the character of the ' hood ' but
the giant ones and the overly modern pop ups and new houses are a problem .
■ Many are well done and pay homage to the historic character/style .
■ Most are double story and do add to the neighborhood .
■ They have a lot more potential to change the character, but if done right, they don 't
need to .
■ Once again - design standards, set backs and size of footprint changes the character of
the neighborhood .
■ Many that I have seen change the neighborhoods and most of the time it is not for the
better .
■ Again , it depends . If everyone built to the limit of current regulations, then character
would change dramatically - both visual and socio-economic . Don ' t want these
neighborhoods to become upper middle class ghettos !
■ Again , depends on design of building and if it is in line with the existing neighborhood . A
bad/ ugly design should be prevented/controlled for by the city .
■ Depends on which one .
■ Again this must be answered on a case - by-case basis . Too broad .
■ It depends . See comment # 1
50
CRY of
ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report `*Zoao"��
■ It prevents economic diversity as people are forced to move out of their own homes .
■ Without adequate design guidelines being enforced by city planning and the LPC - this
can ' t help but happen .
■ Some of us are not into ostentation or keeping up with the Jones . I am an environmental
minded person who lives in 774 sq ft for 25 years .
■ Yep . Totally .
■ 1 live on west Magnolia , near Shields . There are some truly ugly huge new houses and
additions on my street .
■ They reduce privacy, reduce yard sizes - thus reduce neighbor interactions, and
generally look out of place .
■ Look at 309 South Sherwood .
■ Indeed they do for the most part .
■ This is also true of other radical remodeling - a house in our neighborhood has so
radically changed its fagade that it no longer looks like it belongs .
■ Unless done to fit lot and neighborhood like house on Laurel and Smith .
■ If done with sensitivity and quality projects can minimize their impact on a
neighborhood .
Question 7 : What do you think about the " pop- ups " and " scrape -offs " that have been built ?
Choose all that apply. " Pop- ups " and " scrape -offs " . . .
Results : NOTE : This survey question was flawed in the online version . Therefore, only
comments are reported .
Comments :
■ raise property taxes, hence gentrifying the neighborhood
■ 1 had to check something, see comments in survey .
■ Often preserve the existing structure that wasn ' t worth preserving
■ Some do fit in , and some are well designed , but not too many .
■ Note-There are some exceptions . Some of the scrape - offs in the West Oak Street
neighborhood have been extremely well -done . Others, however, are monstrous
abortions totally out of character .
■ all of these apply in different applications around town
■ There is no epidemic of huge houses . Why is the city spending scarce resources on this ?
■ Some are well designed , others not .
■ Increase Property value . Property taxes also increase
■ 1 prefer to not select any of the above answers, but your survey won ' t allow be to do
this . This is a ridiculous survey . . . they can be any of these things . . . it all depends on the
design of the house . . . there are no generalizations as your survey is trying to create .
■ All of the above can apply, it is a function of the design . A well designed expansion can
fit in , increase value and look great . A poorly designed on is exactly the opposite .
■ Improve the neighborhood
■ 1 have seen examples of well done homes, and excessive homes .
51
CRY of
FOft� in5
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report
■ The houses themselves may be well designed , but they don ' t fit in .
■ Hard to generalize ; some very good , some very bad -- where ' s the check box for Other ?
It made me choose one of the answers above, and I didn 't want to .
■ Way too general of a question . Depends on the neighborhood and the building in
question .
■ Some are designed well , some aren ' t . I can ' t generalize each and every one of them .
Some are too tall , some aren ' t .
■ Where did this list come from ? There' s far more " problems " listed than benefits . How
about " replace dilapidated properties " for example
■ It is impossible to generalize -- I have seen some that are tastefully done and are an asset
to the existing neighborhood . I have seen many that make no attempt to preserve the
feel of the neighborhood . Would hate to throw out the good ones with those big
insensitive projects .
■ A few are too tall or bulky . . . many are done nicely and add to the character and charm of
Old Town .
■ They could certainly be the opposite of any of the above with oversight . A good example
- 600 block of Smith
■ some have been done well , others are incompatible
■ 1 could see where blocking solar-gain could be a problem for some .
■ There are some exceptions .
■ All of these CAN apply but do not always
■ Seriously jeopardize solar access
■ Are generally fine aesthetically and increase the property values of surrounding homes .
■ Pop- ups seems to be more wisely designed and less massive overall . . .
■ This is too broad of a question . There have been no good design standards to allow
residences to have options
■ there are both good and bad examples throughout downtown
■ If they ' re designed well , they ' re great .
■ some, not all
■ This question is too limiting but " requires " and answer from the survey monkey--these
issues can only be addressed on a case - by case basis
■ Results vary by builder
■ Nice , lots of positive comments to choose from . Survey is slanted !
■ Scrape - offs are going too far . There can be remodeling instead of scrap - offs . Pop - ups are
fine .
■ Don ' t always match older/ newly built houses
■ general answer is not possible applicable to all projects
■ If it improves the neighbor quality and livability it can ? It .
■ No, it has not reduce the amount of mature trees . Most of the trees removed in my
neighborhood due to scrape offs are just weed trees like Siberian elms anyway .
Designed well for the most part . Don ' t have to reduce the privacy if designed well . For
me, it all comes down to good design . Large houses can be designed well to fit in with
the neighborhood , just like small houses can be detrimental to the neighborhood due to
poor design , poor color choices, poor site planning, etc .
52
F CRY of ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report `*0000"� �
■ Most I have seen are good . We need more .
■ Have not seen any that are inconsistent with the historical nature of the neighborhood .
Most are a significant improvement . We do not want the city council or any other
homeowners association groups . If you don ' t allow such improvements , the quality of
these historical neighborhoods will go down . Cannot remain static .
■ Generally the new homes look better and function better than the homes they replaced .
■ In my experience , pop ups and scrape offs have been beneficial to the appearance ,
livability and probably the value of the neighborhood . Sometimes a two story can cast
winter shade on its neighbor . That ' s the nature of urban living and I ' m ok with it !
■ Provide diversity, increased taxes better infrastructure .
■ Some good , some atrocious . Many don ' t like rules and standards but this is what will
keep downtown strong and vibrant . There are many places for the folks who don ' t want
rules to go . Let them leave . The nicer we keep Fort Collins, the more people will want to
be here .
■ The problem is just this . We have examples of all of this . We need to learn from our
mistakes and our successes . We can do better .
■ Love most, but the new house on Circle really sticks out .
■ Some are great - some are awful .
■ Some height restrictions are needed . Some are too bulky . A lot of them fit in the
neighborhood . Some overshadow smaller houses . Many are designed well , some are
not . Some " historic " feature shouldn ' t be protected . I think the historical preservation
has imposed some restrictions that cause poor design .
■ Most of them are designed well . There are good and bad ones . Most of the time they
seem to be done well and rid of a dangerous eyesore .
■ More regulation is bad . Existing standards are too much .
■ If they belong in the south end of town where lot/lines merge , then they are out of
place . Three car garages are out of style and place for the character of the
neighborhood . There is no consistency among these redesigns which has negatively
impacted the neighborhoods and in turn the sense of community existing on blocks .
■ This question appears to be written to encourage the position that scrape - offs and/or
pop - ups are a problem . I disagree with this position .
■ Too tall , too large and too close to the little houses . I want to live in a valley and lose
my6 sun -exposure to a mansion . The bigger homes are a bigger footprint, less plants,
more energy needed to heat them .
■ Frequently too tall . Frequently too bulky . Some fit in , some don ' t . Big problem
overshading . I want the city to increase standards to : a . protect the historic character of
our neighborhood ; b . protect any historic homes ' market value ; c . regulate the scale ,
size and lot coverage of new additions, pop - ups and scrape offs ; d . minimize the
demolition of older smaller homes which help keep old town a welcoming diverse
neighborhood with diverse size , style housing, diverse age groups and family sized and
diverse incomes .
■ Solar access must be protected or maintained ! ! ! No new construction should block solar
access .
■ New single story houses would be more appropriate than two story houses .
53
CRY of
FO� t� l`5
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report
■ Too large for most lots !
■ Aesthetically I like some of the pop - ups and scrape offs, but over all I think they are
detrimental to neighborhoods .
■ Some can be too tall , say yellow house on Mtn and Grant . Some are too bulky, but also
can be done well . A few are designed well . A few are not designed well .
■ These do not apply to all that I ' ve seen , but there are many that do not belong in these
neighborhoods . And those houses are very out of place and intrusive .
■ 1 only checked the negative things because that is what should be addressed . Some of
the new construction I ' ve seen is modest, in character, and adds value . I would like the
regulations and review processes to strive for all new construction to be designed well
and respect adjacent properties ' access to solar and views .
■ Sometimes to all .
■ Often too tall if greater than 30 ' - 35 ' . Do not fit in on 300 S . Sherwood Street ! ! ! Overly
shade at 300 S . Sherwood Street- bad ! bad ! bad ! Definitely reduce privacy, depending on
window placement . Are not designed well depends on the designer; Sovicte Designs
does it well and should be a model for Old Town .
■ Depends on which one, isn ' t that obvious ? Between building department, historical
commission , there is already extensive, I think over-done, involvement of government in
the process .
■ Too Broad . I could comment here if specific examples were provided . There are certainly
good examples and bad examples .
■ This is rarely an all or nothing .
■ Pop- ups and scrape -offs should be differentiated in this survey . I feel differently about
the two . My primary concerns are that : 1 . badly constructed older homes should not be
designated as historical simply for emotional reasons ; 2 . solar access is respected ; 3 . if
possible, although probably not that the socio-economic mix of these areas remain ; 4 .
strict design standards although poising to protect history, character and mixed
character of neighborhoods may easily become a lot of red tape that do none of these
things .
■ 805 Smith St . is too tall . 805 Smith St and 420 E Laurel are too bulky . 715 Smith St and
531 E Laurel fit in with the neighborhood . 715 Smith St and 531 E . Laurel are designed
well . 805 Smith St and 420 E . Laurel are not designed well .
■ A broad brush - depends on the design . Solar access is a problem . Big houses should be
set back further than their neighbors .
■ Are clearly monstrosities in my immediate neighborhood .
■ They are all bad in my opinion .
■ Incorporate NPS standards into a ? District .
■ There is a range of designs . Some actually make an effort to fit into the neighborhood .
Many are horrendously out of scale for the lot and adjacent properties . I think there are
two separate issues . One is the need for design standards that require new or
remodeled houses to be consistent with the neighborhood . The other is (to me at least )
the undesired ability of losing the economic diversity of a neighborhood . I bought my
house in 1977, long before anyone talked about " Old Town " . I liked the variety of homes
and people . I do not want to be surrounded only by rich people !
54
CRY of
ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report `*Zoao"��
■ There should be a limit to the % of the lot that can be occupied by a new house . And
that means height limits as well as the footprint .
■ Of the houses I ' m aware of, all of the checked boxes may not apply to everyone, but any
of the negatives is detrimental to the neighborhood .
■ They almost always look out of place because they ' re so large . They crowd the lot,
crowd adjacent homes, do not " fit in " .
■ Can we get rid of the ones we have ?
■ There are some nice ones that don ' t impact their neighbors . I think the biggest think is
the effect on the neighbors . Loss of sunshine , homes about basement floodline .
■ A good place for the city to start addressing some of these issues would be to stop
granting every variance request that comes along . I ' ve been getting the minutes at the
P &Z board and Zoning appeals board for about a year and it seems like they never turn
down any variance request . This should stop !
■ Are way too tall . Are for people who can afford homes already built for their needs in
Old Town .
■ The issue again is the appropriateness and quality of the project . Some are well done,
others are a travesty . City plan ' s density and lot size is partially responsible for what is
happening . If you want a large lot, scrape a house in Old Town .
■ They are a real problem when they do all these things . Can be okay if they are designed
well and not too large .
■ More of a problem with run -down houses than these . 80+% of these are great . Do you
want old student rentals, or the investment of owners, variety, mix is good . Maybe
design standards, but they need archit . Longitude . Love good design that makes it look
old . Do we want reinvestments ?
■ More resistance to great rebuilding than ? Junky house . " too nice for the ? "
55
CRY of
FO� t� l`5
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report
Appendix B — July Public Meeting Results and Comments
Comment Card Results from July 29 Public Meeting
The City hosted a second public meeting to present the results of the study and ask for
feedback on whether the City should change its development standards and , if so, which of the
potential implementation options would be supported . The questions were presented as
follows :
1 . Should the City change its development standards to further address the compatibility
of expansions and new houses in the East and West side neighborhoods ? Yes or No
2 . If you answered "Yes" , which of the following potential solutions would you support ?
Check all that apply .
❑ Lower the floor area limit in the Neighborhood Conservation Low Density ( NCL)
zone
❑ Lower the floor area limit in the Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density
( NCM ) zone
❑ Allow each house to increase by a certain percentage
❑ Allow each house to expand based on the average size house on the block face
❑ Allow each house to expand based on the average size house on the block face,
plus an additional percentage
❑ Allow each house to expand based on averaging with the two adjacent houses
❑ Require neighborhood meetings for expansions and new houses
❑ Reinstate the Design Assistance Program
❑ Codify select design guidelines and make them standards
❑ Require review by the Landmark Preservation Commission or a newly formed
Architectural Review Committee for expansions and new houses
Respondents were also asked to share any additional comments they might have on the
comment card . The following documents the answers of those who responded and the
comments collected .
1 . Should the City change its development standards to further address the compatibility
of expansions and new houses in the East and West side neighborhoods ?
# Respondents ❑ Yes
Yes 36
No 27 ■ No
Total 63
56
CRY of
FO� t� l`5
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report
Comments from those that answered "yes" :
■ People move to FC because of its uniqueness, especially in Old Town . The more we
move away from that singular uniqueness, the more common will become + we will lose
our reason for being a top place to live . Also please remember that we cannot replace
what we destroy . Leave the new houses to Harmony, Timberline etc . Old Town ' s history
is too precious to kill .
■ 1 don ' t have experience with the concept of basing expansion on the average size on the
block . This might work, but does not address the neighborhoods as a whole . As shown in
your graphic, only restricting FAR does not solve the problem of height + volume . Needs
to be used in combination with design standards . There' s more to life than numbers !
■ Review of citizen comments to date reflect dissatisfaction with specific " pop - ups" and
"scrape -offs" within the Eastside/Westside neighborhoods . Staff should evaluate these
poor examples and drill down to the design elements that contribute to their perceived
character — is it absolute total floor area , height, finished floor elevation , grading, roof
pitch , materials, color, setbacks ? What are the design characteristics that create the
conflict ?
■ Impact is the major issue . Whether by shading/density change, foot print, property
access . Height & Footprint addressed ? Cubic Foot would resolve .
Codify select design guidelines and make them standards 4 Rights of adjacent home
owner
■ Reinstate the design assistance program 4 YES, as long as it' s advisory .
■ Put as many roadblocks as possible in the way of so called "development" of this area . I
appreciate the time and effort put in by city staff. This is a good use of my tax dollars .
■ 1 would be particularly supportive of the idea of creating guidelines and making them
standards . As a homeowner in the West Side neighborhood , I ' ve been especially
disturbed by new homes that introduce a large garage facing the street . One of the
reasons I chose to buy in Old Town was to avoid living in a neighborhood filled with the
blank stares of garage doors facing the street, as one often finds in newer subdivisions .
■ Allow each house to expand based on averaging with the two adjacent houses 4 very
important .
■ My concern with the "contextual " options is that is would allow entire blocks to be torn
down & redeveloped . For example, the new development by " By Design " on Maple &
Grant does not fit in at all with the character of Old Town . Some sort of design review &
real standards ARE NEEDED . My family fully supports ANY sort of way to regulate and
stop this problem . Also, too many variances for " hardships" etc . seem to be granted
currently
■ Codify select design guidelines and make them standards 4 but allow to petition for
exceptions . Increase setback on sides of lots . If height increases, setback should increase
by a factor of 1 — 1 . 5 . The shape and size of a lot is the CHARACTER of the lot and
shouldn ' t be used to claim a hardship ! ( See Maple between Locus & Grant ) . Stop giving
out variances so easily — There' s no confidence in the system .
57
CRY of ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report
■ Codify select design guidelines and make them standards 4 Yes ! Make the regulations
stick please . ( 1 . ) consider using footprint rather than FAR as the criterion for limiting
expansion . ( 2 . ) Thank you for doing this ; this is EXACTLY what we pay taxes for . You ' re
doing your jobs well & gracefully . ( 3 . ) Also, shading & the facades that neighbors might
view happen to be particular pertinent in our block . (4 . ) Please involve a moratorium
until we have standards which preserve the charm of the city .
■ FAR limits should be lower on all NCM , NCL lots — suggest range of . 35 - . 40 . ( 2 . )
Consider sliding scale of FAR based on lotsize — possibly allow slightly higher on smaller
lots . ( 3 . ) Should consider using a solar access standard based on the "virtual solar fence"
concept — I ' m sure you know what that is — see Boulder . ( 4 . ) Should explain the
front/back sub - limitations on FAR . ( 5 . ) Should include standard based on minimum open
space/ maximum impervious surface in addition to FAR limits .
■ One problem is evidenced by a new, very tall green house in the 800 Block of Smith
Street . If it meets a 40 foot height max, that' s TOO tall ! It dwarfs nearby houses in
height, and it is ugly — purely a box ! Height should be compatible with others on the
block — and 40 is too tall ! Also, to set standards by # of stories is vague — one can build
16' stories and can put in a basement that is 12 feet tall ! Establish that "ground level " is
former ground level OR that of adjoining houses . Thanks ! Eric Hermann 482 -8339
■ Expand historic districts i . e . east to Lemay in East Old Town . Lower the floor area limit
in the NCL Zone 4 Consider but doesn ' t address high/tall homes . Allow each house to
increase by a certain percentage 4 No ! depends on neighborhood . Require
neighborhood meetings for expansions and new houses 4 At least open
communication to prevent hard feelings when too late . Limit # of pop - ups per block
immediately so contractors don ' t try to ramrod pop- ups before new guidelines are
formulated and approved . As I see some long battles over these ( temporary limits until
final in place ) . Limit max height of basement from 12 feed to 8 at most ! Good point
made that some restrictions are too strict, like small porches — expansion while
mansions are allowed to be built . Codify select design guidelines and make them
standards 4 maybe vague — what are they ? Require review by LPC or newly formed
ARC for expansions and new houses 4 do they have to pass or just review ?
■ Temporary restrictions — a great idea . A woman suggested enacting some "temporary
restrictions" in order to counteract those contractors who try to race against these
guidelines . I agree !
■ Allow each house to increase by a certain % 4 real estate disaster — big houses can
expand more ! Allow each house to expand based on averaging with the two adjacent
houses 4 biggest can ' t expand . Require neighborhood meetings for expansions and
new houses 4 Ooh ! Neighbor table ! I strongly favor MANDATORY rules, but ones that
are contextual ( see other side ) + with an appeals process — so that if a clever designer
can make a bigger expansion look ok, they should be allowed to do it . I lived in a
neighborhood without historic commission — a bad idea because these commissions
attract CRAZY people ! I like the eclectic architectural styles on my street ( Smith St ) . A lot
of problems could be solved by not granting so many variances to existing standards .
■ Increase side setbacks with height additions ( not just sidewalk height but peak height ) .
Require review by the LPC or a newly formed ARC for expansions and new houses 4
58
F CRY of ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report `*Zoao"��
Do not form a new Architectural Review Committee (ARC ) to review expansions and
new houses . Make some of the design guidelines into standards . Re : Limit FAR &
setbacks . Establish a 6-9 month moratorium on scrape - offs and large expansions until
codes change . Consider regulating cubic feet instead of sq ft .
■ Consider idea of cubic foot limits to encourage energy efficiency
■ Lower the floor area RATIO limit in NCL and NCM . Allow each house to increase by a
certain % 4 No , arbitrary — how many times can you expand ? Allow each house to
expand based on the avg size house on the block face 4 Too inconsistent, some blocks
have already seen a lot of expansion . Allow each house to expand based on avg
size . . . plus an additional % 4 Arbitrary . Allow each house to expand based on avg with
the two adj . homes 4 Creates strange circumstance for owners/ purchasers . My
house' s value could drop because neighboring houses are too small to allow expansion .
Require neighborhood meetings for expansions and new houses 4 No Way ! Too
political , complicated , time consuming, etc . Reinstate the Design Assistance Program
No — too costly and complicated to address simple size issue . Codify select design
guidelines and make them standards 4 No — need for more enforcement . Simple
design standard lowering FAR . Require review by the LPC or a newly formed ARC for
expansions and new houses --) No — just adds more bureaucracy on a simple problem .
■ Primary Concerns for Regulation : ( 1 . ) Shade Effect . ( 2 . ) Predictability .
Primary Concerns against Regulation : ( 1 . ) City doesn ' t become HOA . ( 2 . ) Infringe Rights .
( 3 . ) $ $/Time to Enforce .
Solution : Limit height compared to neighbors' houses . If house goes back, it doesn ' t
affect shade or appearance from street ( so sq . ft . limits don ' t work ) & allows
homeowners to go bigger with fewer effects on neighbors .
■ Address buffer area also . It was total ignored in this presentation — would it then not be
included in solutions ?
■ We have to protect the integrity of the neighborhood .
Comment from one that abstained :
■ Don ' t want to choose NOW — some expansions and new houses are gorgeous . Others —
726 Maple — Atrocious !
Comments from those that answered " no" :
■ Right now you ' re hearing complaints from people who have objections to new homes . I
predict that if you extend restrictions on how much space can be added , you ' ll hear
complaints from people who bought a small home with hopes of expanding when their
families grow or when they could afford it . All different kinds of folks want to live in the
city .
■ Mega -Overreach by government . The city is spending way too much time, money,
resources on being an HOA . The city cannot dictate my home, or my future expansions
that are within city code .
59
CRY of ins
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report
■ We shouldn ' t be spending City resources and time and money on this subject . There are
already zoning laws and building standards in place to address these issues . As long as I
pay my fees and follow the process in place that should be all I need to do . If I want to
live in an HOA area I would , but I don ' t and neither do the rest of the folks in these
areas . Why is City staff wasting time and money on this study ? Just another sign of
waste in our City that could easily be cut . This whole study/ process is yet another
reason I won ' t be supporting the ballot issue regarding a tax increase . Ridiculous ! Note :
If changes are put into place limiting what I can do in the future vs . when I purchased
my home, expect a huge fight on your hands . In that case, all folks that owned property
when the new policies are put into place should be grandfathered to the current
policies . Otherwise it affects my ability to use my home as an investment as I intended .
■ ABSOLUTELY NOT !
■ We DO NOT need a City of Fort Collins HOA ! ! We should not waste money right now
based upon a select few not wanting growth & redevelopment . Solar issues : does that
mean that I could cut down all of my trees if I wanted to use solar energy ? I thought that
wasn ' t allowed . There are already limits on construction . Zoning does NOT change mid -
block . There are consistencies . What about the homeowner who' s been in their home
20 years ? Are they now limited on what they can do ?
■ Realistically, the most efficient solution is set standards . I ' m not sure what the concerns
are since they weren ' t really covered . Shading effect; Impact on solar energy
possibilities .
■ Expand the historical district !
■ No — This entire policy violates homeowners legal rights . Free market will result in
improvement built to standards that provide character for marketability . This proposal
violates and discriminates against those who own property on % lots . Regulatory
governance by unqualified staff and neighbors is a violation of homeowner' s rights .
Regulations will increase cost and hardship for EVERYONE . What will you do if a home is
in ill repair and the owner CANNOT afford ? Many of these houses need updating and
repair . The "free Market" will naturally create sustainable quality .
■ All the neighborhoods are unique and should be decided on a case by case basis . We
own a house at 712 W . Laurel which sits on 2 lots . We have been approved to tear it
down and build a 2 unit townhomes and a 3 unit townhomes each on their own lot . We
are surrounded by run down rentals across from CSU . We see this as an improvement to
the area — and do not want to be affected by these changes when we area about to start
this project . We have worked on this project for 6 months and already spend a sizable
amount of money going thru the city process . Thanks
■ It' s been working for 26 years ! A very nice evolution . Improvement in appearance and
values . If you stifle this the area will ultimately deteriorate over time .
■ This is a VERY slippery slope . Drive into neighborhoods south of the discussed area
( south of Prospect ) and you find endless examples of bad/ uninspired design and falling
home prices . That is where proposals like this inevitably lead .
60
CRY of
FOrt� l`5
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report
2 . If you answered " Yes " , which of the following potential solutions would you support ?
Yes Unmarked ' No'
Lowered the Floor Area Limit in the NCL Zone 19 17 1
Lower the Floor Area Limit in the NCM Zone 21 15 1
Allow Each House to Increase by a Certain % 6 30 2
Allow Each House to Expand Based on the Avg 12 24 0
Size House on the Block Face
Allow Each House to Expand Based on the Avg 10 26 1
Size House on the Block Face, Plus an
Additional %
Allow Each House to Expand Based on 6 30 2
Averaging with the Two Adjacent Houses
Require Neighborhood Meetings for 11 25 1
Expansions and New Houses
Reinstate the Design Assistance program 21 15 1
Codify Select Design Guidelines and Make 20 16 2
Them Standards
Require Review by the Landmark Preservation 13 23 3
Commission or a Newly Formed Architectural
Review Committee for Expansions and New
Houses
' " Unmarked" refers to the number of times that each option was not chosen out of the total 36 respondents that
answered "yes" .
3 There were three respondents that answered " no" to the first question, but still answered the second and chose
some potential implementation options .
61
City
toColUns
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report
Require Review bythe Landmark Preservation Commission or
a Newly Formed Arcdhitectural Review Committee for
Expansions and New Houses
Codify Select Design Guidelines and Make Them Standards
777
Reinstate the Design Assistance program
Require Neighborhood Meetings for Expansions and New
Houses
Allow Each House to Expand Based on Averaging with the Two ■ Yes
Adjacent Houses
❑ Unmarked
Allow Each House to Expand Based on the Avg Size House on
the Block Face , Plus an Additional %
Allow Each House to Expand Based on the Avg Size House on
the Block Face
Allow Each House to Increase by a Certain %
Lower the Floor Area Limit in the NCM Zone
Lowered the Floor Area Limit in the NCL Zone
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
62
CRY
FtoGoWns
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report
Appendix C — Floor Area Ratio ( FAR ) Analysis
City of Fort Collins
West Side FAR Analysis
NCM West
Address Floor Area Total Lot Area FAR
330 West St 1892 8556 0 . 22
328 West St 1502 8500 0 . 18
326 West St 1808 8500 0 . 21
320 West St 1092 8281 0 . 13
318 West St 1252 8653 0 . 14
316 West St 1648 8500 0 . 19
312 West St 2316 8408 0 . 28
308 West St 1720 8577 0 . 20
302 West St 996 8097 0 . 12
Average 1581 8452 0. 19
938 Maple St 2259 4505 0 . 50
301 Park St 1054 3821 0 . 28
Average 1657 4163 0 . 39
528 S Grant Ave 1459 6261 0 . 23
524 S Grant Ave 884 8300 0 . 11
520 S Grant Ave 2179 12417 0 . 18
512 S Grant Ave 1658 12431 0 . 13
504 S Grant Ave 1348 5282 0 . 26
500 S Grant Ave 1262 7255 0 . 17
Average 1465 8658 0. 18
717 W Mulberry St ? ? ?
713 W Mulberry St 1508 6780 0 . 22
709 W Mulberry St 1342 6206 0 . 22
705 W Mulberry St 931 6236 0 . 15
Average 1260 6407 0. 20
63
CRY of
i`5
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report
NCB West
Address Floor Area Total Lot Area FAR
503 W Mulberry St 1886 5500 0 , 34
507 W Mulberry St 1622 9500 0 , 17
511 W Mulberry St 1375 9500 0 , 14
515 W Mulberry St 1167 9500 0 , 12
Average 1513 8500 0. 20
504 S Whitcomb St 1256 9000 0 , 14
506 S Whitcomb St 1711 9000 0 , 19
510 S Whitcomb St 832 9000 0 , 09
516 S Whitcomb St 1613 9500 0 , 17
522 S Whitcomb St 3138 9000 0 , 35
526 S Whitcomb St 2508 5500 0 , 46
530 S Whitcomb St 2625 5750 0 , 46
Average 1955 8107 0. 26
64
CRY
FtoGoWns
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report
NCL West
Address Floor Area Total Lot Area FAR
200 S Grant Ave 1204 5822 0 . 21
719 W Oak St 1160 3570 0 . 32
713 W Oak St 1245 6300 0 . 20
Average 1203 5231 0 . 24
201 S Loomis Ave 1845 6254 0 . 30
205 S Loomis Ave 1522 6962 0 . 22
209 S Loomis Ave 2623 9530 0 . 28
215 S Loomis Ave 2603 9500 0 . 27
219 S Loomis Ave 1971 9635 0 . 20
221 S Loomis Ave 1015 9500 0 . 11
225 S Loomis Ave 1424 5114 0 . 28
229 S Loomis Ave 1534 5044 0 . 30
Average 1817 7692 0. 24
1404 W Mountain Ave 1789 8519 0 . 21
1408 W Mountain Ave 2944 8506 0 . 35
1412 W Mountain Ave 2774 8406 0 . 33
1416 W Mountain Ave 2670 9446 0 . 28
1420 W Mountain Ave 2896 9000 0 . 32
1426 W Mountain Ave 2480 8078 0 . 31
Average 2592 8659 0. 30
104 N Roosevelt Ave 2366 5670 0 .42
116 N Roosevelt Ave 1566 8275 0 . 19
120 N Roosevelt Ave 1536 8275 0 . 19
124 N Roosevelt Ave 1528 8486 0 . 18
128 N Roosevelt Ave 1192 8275 0 . 14
134 N Roosevelt Ave 2472 8469 0 . 29
140 N Roosevelt Ave 1059 5765 0 . 18
150 N Roosevelt Ave 984 6417 0 . 15
Average 1588 7454 0. 22
65
CRY
FtoGolUns
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study - Final Report
City of Fort Collins
East Side FAR Analysis
NCM East
Address Gross Floor Area Total Lot Area FAR
330 Peterson St 2898 9500 0 . 31
416 E Magnolia St 1376 4500 0 . 31
420 E Magnolia St 1037 4500 0 . 23
Average 1770 6167 0 . 28
509 E Plum St 1150 4750 0 . 24
519 E Plum St 464 2500 0 . 19
521 E Plum St 666 2500 0 . 27
525 E Plum St 724 2250 0 . 32
Average 751 3000 0 . 25
801 Smith St 732 2000 0 . 37
805 Smith St 2810 9500 0 . 30
807 Smith St 1389 9500 0 . 15
809 Smith St 1048 9500 0 . 11
817 Smith St 996 9500 0 . 10
821 Smith St 1560 9272 0 . 17
825 Smith St 2546 9728 0 . 26
829 Smith St 1132 5000 0 . 23
Average 1527 8000 0 . 21
516 Locust St 1056 4500 0 . 23
512 Locust St 1651 5250 0 . 31
500 Locust St 1717 8500 0 . 20
Average 1475 6083 0 . 25
521 Garfield St 1105 5435 0 . 20
517 Garfield St 1374 5600 0 . 25
513 Garfield St 1195 8400 0 . 14
509 Garfield St 1124 7308 0 . 15
511 Garfield St 1468 7000 0 . 21
Average 1253 6749 0 . 19
1100 Whedbee St 1514 5609 0 . 27
1104 Whedbee St 1518 5425 0 . 28
Average 1516 5517 0 . 27
66
CRY of
F t, i`5
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study — Final Report
NCB East
Address Gross Floor Area Total Lot Area FAR
1016 Remington St 2260 7433 0 , 30
1010 Remington St 3944 9100 0 , 43
1008 Remington St 4136 9100 0 , 45
Average 3447 8544 0 . 40
211 E Mulberry St 3762 ? ?
215 E Mulberry St 2246 2380 0 , 94
503 Matthews St 3066 7420 0 , 41
Average 3025 4900 0. 68
NCL East
Address Gross Floor Area Total Lot Area FAR
409 Buckeye St 1256 8346 0 , 15
415 Buckeye St 1686 11756 0 , 14
423 Buckeye St 2234 9480 0 , 24
427 Buckeye St 985 9750 0 , 10
Average 1540 9833 0 . 16
1401 Whedbee St 2425 7648 0 , 32
1415 Whedbee St 1966 7319 0 , 27
1445 Whedbee St 1553 7893 0 , 20
Average 1981 7620 0 . 26
67
/► ATTACHMENT 3
Its/ Of Advance Planning
Ci
ty 281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
6rt Collins 9Fort Collins,70.221.6376
C080522
970.224.6111 -fax
fcgov.com/advancep/anning
MEMORANDUM
DT: August 27, 2010
TO: Mayor and City Council members
TH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager ( —
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager
Karen Cumbo, Interim PDT Director
FM: Joe Frank, Advance Planning Direc
Megan Bolin, City PlannerffOl
RE: August 24 City Council Work Session: East and West Side Neighborhoods Design
Standards Study
Council members present: Mayor Hutchinson, Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson, Ben Manvel, Aislinn
Kottwitz, Wade Troxell, and David Roy.
Staff present: Diane Jones, Megan Bolin,Joe Frank, Clark Mapes, Steve Dush, and Karen
McWilliams.
Question for Council: Which, if any, of the implementation options does Council prefer to
change development standards and/or review processes to address the compatibility of single-
family expansions and new construction in the East and West Side Neighborhoods?
Summary of discussion:
■ Most Council members agreed that there is a problem to solve, meaning changes to our
current standards and/or processes are warranted.
■ Most of the improvements and new additions that have been built are well designed
and contribute positively to the character of the neighborhood. There are likely only a
few "bad" examples.
■ Do not want to hinder further improvements with too much regulation.
■ The issue is not only about size and should consider the historical significance of
structures, as well as design.
■ More public outreach is needed including public meetings and perhaps an additional
work session with staff's recommended solution to consider.
• Requiring neighborhood meetings is not a preferred implementation option.
■ More research is needed regarding solar access regulations.
• Council would like to see actual examples of recent construction that has been built.
■ Staff must clarify whether any new regulations would only apply to single-family
dwellings, and consider how duplex, triplex, and four-plexes would be addressed.
■ Support for the Design Assistance Program.
■ Council would like clear data on the number of demolitions, how many are considered
problematic, how many had historical significance, and then how would staffs proposed
regulations compare to what has already been built. Would the new regulation have
prevented the "bad" examples?
CityATTACHMENT 4
't`/ O� Advance Planning
V 281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins Fort ,C080522
970.221.6371.6376
970.224.6111-fax
fcgov.com/advancep/anning
MEMORANDUM
DT: November 24, 2010
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
TH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manag
Karen Cumbo, Interim PDT Dire r toN lot''
FM: Joe Frank, Advance Planning Direcctf
Megan Bolin, City Planner
RE: November 23 City Council Work Session Summary—
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study
Councilmembers present: Mayor Hutchinson, Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson, Wade Troxell, Aislinn
Kottwitz, David Roy, Ben Manvel.
Staff present: Karen Cumbo, Joe Frank, Megan Bolin, Clark Mapes, Peter Barnes.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED:
1. Which, if any, options to address the compatibility of new houses and additions in the
East and West Side Neighborhoods should staff prepare for Council action?
2. Does Council support the proposed schedule?
The options include the following:
1. No change.
• 2. Design Assistance Program.
3. Voluntary design review.
4. Average-plus concept for zoning size limits.
5. Design standards in zoning regulations.
Summary of discussion:
• Council directed staff to bring forward options 2, 3, and 4.
r
Page 1 of 2
CitV of
F&t Collins
■ Council also requested that staff investigate what it would take to conduct an economic
impact analysis of Option 4, to characterize the likely effects. Darin will then discuss the
scope and costs of such an effort with the Leadership Team, to determine whether and
how to proceed under the current schedule for Council action on January 4, 2011.
■ Council requested that staff electronically send the chart with its corresponding photos to
Councilmembers.
• A Councilmember requested a similar chart showing the effects of Option 4 on additions
to existing houses, rather than new houses, to evaluate whether those projects would have
been allowed.
• A Councilmember invited staff to consider whether the current floor area ratios are
appropriate to retain as the caps on total floor area.
• Staff will investigate the question of a house being allowed to be rebuilt after a fire, under
Option 4.
■ Other Council discussion included pros, cons, and perspectives on the various options,
questions about solar access and shading, and ideas regarding neighborhood involvement.
Page 2 of 2
r
ATTACHMENT 5
House Sizes for Various Floor Area Ratios and Lot Sizes
FAR Lot Size
12 , 000 11 , 000 % 000 % 500 % 000 8 , 500 8 , 000 7 , 500 7 ,000 61500 61000 51500 51000
0 . 50 6 , 000 5 , 500 51000 41750 41500 41250 41000 31750 31500 31250 31000 21750 21500
0 .40 4 , 800 4 ,400 41000 31800 31600 31400 31200 31000 21800 21600 21400 21200 21000
0 . 39 4 , 680 4 , 290 31900 31705 31510 31315 31120 21925 21730 21535 21340 21145 11950
0 . 38 4560 4 , 180 31800 31610 31420 31230 31040 21850 21660 21470 21280 21090 11900
0 . 37 41440 41070 31700 31515 31330 31145 21960 21775 21590 21405 25220 25035 15850
0 . 36 41320 31960 31600 31420 31240 31060 21880 21700 21520 25340 25160 15980 15800
0 . 35 41200 31850 31500 31325 31150 21975 21800 21625 21450 21275 21100 15925 15750
0 . 34 41080 31740 31400 31230 31060 21890 21720 21550 21380 21210 25040 15870 15700
0 . 33 31960 31630 31300 31135 21970 21805 21640 21475 21310 25145 15980 15815 15650
0 . 32 31840 31520 31200 31040 21880 21720 21560 21400 21240 25080 15920 15760 15600
0 . 31 31720 31410 31100 21945 21790 21635 21480 21325 21170 25015 15860 15705 15550
0 . 30 31600 31300 31000 21850 21700 21550 21400 21250 21100 15950 15800 15650 15500
0 .29 31480 31190 21900 21755 21610 21465 21320 21175 21030 15885 15740 15595 15450
0 .28 31360 31080 21800 21660 21520 21380 21240 21100 11960 15820 15680 15540 15400
0 .27 3 ,240 2 ,970 25700 25565 25430 25295 25160 25025 15890 15755 15620 15485 15350
0 .26 31120 21860 21600 21470 21340 21210 21080 11950 11820 13690 13560 13430 13300
0 .25 31000 21750 21500 21375 21250 21125 21000 21250 11750 13625 13500 13375 13250
0 .24 21880 21640 21400 21280 21160 21040 11920 11800 11680 13560 13440 13320 13200
0 .23 21760 21530 21300 21185 21070 11955 11840 11725 11610 13495 13380 13265 13150
0 .22 21640 21420 21200 21090 11980 11870 11760 11650 11540 13430 13320 13210 13100
0 .21 21520 21310 21100 11995 11890 11785 11680 11575 11470 13365 13260 13155 13050
0 .20 21400 21200 21000 11900 11800 11700 11600 11875 11400 13300 13200 13100 13000
0 . 15 11800 11650 11500 11425 11350 11275 11200 11125 11050 975 900 825 750
0 . 10 11200 11100 11000 950 900 850 800 750 700 650 600 550 500
City/ of ATTACHMENT 6
Fort Collins
East and West Side Neighborhoods
Financial/Economic Impacts of Demolitions/Alterations on Historic Value/Character
Historic residential neighborhood character may be lost through the demolition of the finite
number of extant historic buildings, and through inappropriate alterations and new
construction. While the financial impact of retaining historic resources and regulating
compatible new design can be difficult to establish, a growing body of scholarship supports the
case for historic preservation of neighborhoods as a vital and cost-effective economic
development tool.'
Demolitions and inappropriate alterations erode the historic fabric within a potential historic
neighborhood, diminishing that neighborhood's ability to be designated as a district. This
precludes these property owners and long-term tenants from benefitting from the financial
programs for designated properties! Typically comprised of a few residential blocks, each
historic district requires that a preponderance of its properties contribute to the district's
historic significance, i.e., not be significantly altered or recently constructed. A 2002 study,
"Demolition/Alteration Review Process Evaluation," investigated the historic district potential
of thirty residences in two blocks along West Mountain Avenue. The study concluded that 23%
of the homes in the study area no longer retained historic integrity and would not contribute to
a district; and further, that 57% of these demolitions or inappropriate alterations had taken
place recently, in just the four years prior to the study.3
Relatively few Fort Collins properties qualify for individual designation. Between June 1997 and
June 2001, the architectural integrity of 5,316 historic buildings and structures in the East and
West Side Neighborhoods were evaluated, as part of a State Historic Fund survey project. The
survey results found that 12% of the historic buildings in the East Side, and 6%of the West Side
buildings, could qualify for individual designation on the National Register and as Fort Collins
Landmarks. An additional 621 buildings, scattered throughout both neighborhoods, could
qualify for individual designation as Fort Collins Landmarks, but did not have sufficient integrity
to qualify for individual recognition on the National Register. Far more could potentially qualify
'Frey,Patrice. "Making the Case: Historic Preservation as Sustainable Development."White Paper Prepared for
the National Trust for Historic Preservation Sustainable Preservation Research Retreat,2007.
http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/sustainability/additional-resources/Discussion Draft 10 15.pdf
z Designated residential properties receive financial benefits,notably 20%Colorado Tax Credits,20%Federal Tax
Credits,and$7,500 City Rehabilitation Loans.
3 Gamble,Darcy. "Demolition/Alteration Review Process Evaluation(DARE)." Paper prepared for coursework
leading to Masters in Historic Preservation,June 2002. Working copy in City's Historic Preservation Office.
F�`orrt of
as contributing to a National Register of Fort Collins Landmark historic district: 80% in the East
Side and 72% in the West Side.°
Residential neighborhoods profit from local historic designation and design review regulations.
A comprehensive study on the economic benefits of historic preservation in Colorado was
commissioned by the Colorado Historical Foundation. Completed in 2002, and updated in
2005, the study demonstrated that, though historic designation does impose an additional layer
of regulation on homeowners, this does not reduce property value; instead, designated
properties, when compared with corresponding, non-designated properties, "experience value
increases that were either higher than, or the same as, nearby undesignated areas.i5
Additionally, the study found that median home prices in historic districts often are greater
than in comparable non-designated areas, and increase at a faster rate.b
Historic preservation helps conserve energy and other natural resources, and promotes
environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable development. Preserving existing
homes, rather than scraping and rebuilding, is inherently energy efficient, because it reduces
demand for new resources, reduces waste from demolition and construction, and preserves the
energy embodied in an existing building. In a 2007 study, Mike Jackson, Chief Architect of the
Preservation Services Division of the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, demonstrated that if
an existing building were demolished and replaced with a new energy efficient building, even
when factoring in deconstruction and reuse of the building's components, it would take 65
years to recover the energy expended in demolition and reconstruction.' The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that 115 Ibs of waste is generated per square foot for
residential demolition. Thus, the demolition of a 2000 square foot home results in 230,000
Ibs
of landfill waste.$
Finally, while much harder to quantify, neighborhood preservation promotes social
sustainability and quality of life. Our unique built environment provides us with a sense of
place that helps shape our identity."As noted by Patrice Frey, "The core purpose of
preservation is to protect ... cultural resources and ensure their survival for future
generations.i9 Setha Low, former president of the American Anthropological Association and a
professor of Environmental Psychology and Anthropology, states that maintaining the built
environment is essential to personal and collective identity. Low notes that "...physical
°McWilliams, Karen. "Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods, Fort Collins, Larimer County,Colorado:A Cultural
Resources Survey." 2001: City Of Fort Collins Advance Planning Department.
5 Clarion Associates of Colorado, LLC, and BBC Research and Consulting. The Economic Benefits of Historic
Preservation in Colorado:Technical Report. Denver:Colorado Historical Foundation,October 2005.
6 ibid.
Mike Jackson, "Embodied and Operating Energy: Balancing the Eco Equation—Presentation." St. Paul, MN,
October 5, 2007.
8Franklin Associates, Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States.
Washington, D.C:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,[1998],
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/sqg/c&d-rpt.pdf, pg. 2-6 and 2-7.
9 Frey, pg. 19.
2
of
`o�rt Collins
reminders provide a sense of place attachment, continuity and connectedness that we are
rarely aware of but that play a significant role in our psychological development as individuals
and in our "place identity' or "cultural identity' as families or ethnic and cultural groups."io
10 Frey, pg.20.
3
East and West Side Neighborhoods Building Size Standards Comparison
Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (NCL) - West Side Neighborhood
Address Floor Area of House Lot Area FAR Allowed Floor Area FAR Average + 50% Floor Area of House FAR Floor Area of House FAR
(House + Garage)
713 W Oal 1,008 6,300 0.16 2,520 DAD 1,476 0.23 1,701 0.27
719 W Oal 960 3,570 0.27 1,428 DAD 1,476 0.41 964 0.27
Average 980 5,231 0.21 ],9J0 0.40 1,4J6 0.32 1,332 0.2J
2015 Loomis Ave Lnito 6,254 0.27 2,502 0.40 2,012 0.32 1,689 0.27
2055 Loomis Ave 976 6,962 0.14 2,78.5 0.40 2,012 0.29 1,880 0.27
2095 Loomis Ave 2,143 9,530 On 3,812 0.40 2,143 0.22 2,93 0.27
2155 Loomis Ave L427 9,500 0.15 3,800 0.40 2,012 0.21 2,565 0.27
2195 Loomis Ave L355 9,635 0.14 3,8W 0.40 2,012 2 2,601 0.27
2215 Loomis Ave JW &9,500 0.07 3, p 0.40 2,012 021 2,565 0.27
2255 Loomis Ave L172 5,114 0.23 2,046 0.40 2,012 0.39 1,381 0.27
2295 Loomis Ave L270 5,044 A25 2,018 0.40 2,012 0.40 1,362 oD
Average 7,692 0.18 0.40 2,012 2,012 0.28 1,769 0.23
1404 W Mountain Ave 1,536 8,519 618 3,408 0.40 3,251 0.38 2,300 0.27
14C8 W Mountain Ave 2,264 8,506 027 3,402 0.40 3,251 0.38 2,297 0.27
1412 W Mountain Ave 2,395 8,406 An 3,362 0.40 3,251 0.39 2,270 0.27
1416 W Mountain Ave 2,090 9,446 0.22 3,778 0.40 3,251 0.34 2,550 0.27
rA 1420 W Mountain Ave 2,456 9,000 0.27 3, 0 0.40 3,251 0.36 2,430 0.27
1426 W Mountain Ave 2,264 8,078 0.28 3,231 0.40 3,251 0.40 2,181 0.27
Average 2,164 8,09 0.25 3,461 0.40 3�51 3,25] 0.38 2,338 0.27
104 N Roosevelt Ave 2,366 5,670 0.42 2,268 0.40 2,366 0.42 1,531 0.27
116 N Roosevelt Ave 990 8,275 0.12 3,310 0.40 1,932 0.23 2,234 0.27
120 N Roosevelt Ave 936 8,275 0.11 3,310 0.40 1,932 0.23 2,234 0.27
124 N Roosevelt Ave 1,048 xU6 0.12 3,394 0.40 1,932 0.23 2,291 0.27
128 N Roosevelt Ave 952 8,275 0.12 3,310 0.40 1,932 Ol 2,234 0.27
134 N Roosevelt Ave 2,472 xM9 0.29 3,388 0.40 2,472 0.29 2287 0.27
140 N Roosevelt Ave 919 5,765 0.14 2,306 0.40 1,932 0.34 1,557 0.27
150 N Roosevelt Ave no 6,417 0.11 2,567 0.40 1,932 0.30 1,733 0.27
0.m 1,932 0.=
700 W Mountain Ave(house+office) 3,492 8,375 0.42 3,350 0.40 3,492 0.42 2,261 0.27
704W Mountain Ave 2,389 8,282 0.29 3,313 0.40 3,455 0.42 2,236 0.27
708 W Mountain Ave 1,996 8,250 0.24 3,300 0.40 3,455 0.42 2,228 0.27
734W Mountain Ave 2,268 8,366 0.27 3,346 0.40 3,455 0.41 2,259 0.27
718W Mountain Ave 1,134 8,155 0.14 3,262 0.40 3,455 OA2 2,202 0.27
722 W Mountain Ave 2,451 8,503 0.29 3,401 0.40 3,455 0.41 2,296 0.27
726 W Mountain Ave 1,738 5,997 0.29 2,399 0.40 3,455 0.58 1,619 0.27
730 W Mountain Ave 2,960 5,878 0.50 2,351 0.40 3,455 0.59 1,587 0.27
2,304 7,72b 3A
1101W Oak St 1,316 9,500 0.14 3,80 0.40 2,948 0331 2,565 0.27
1105 W Oak St 1,016 9,500 0.11 3,80 0.40 2,948 0.31 2,565 0.27
1109 W Oak St 2,293 9,500 0.24 3,80 0.40 2,948 0.31 2,565 0.27
1115 W Oak St 1,854 9,500 0.20 3,80 0.40 2,948 0.31 2,565 0.27
111JWOak St 2,591 9,500 0.27 3,80 0.40 2,948 0.31 2,565 0.27
1121 W Oak St 1,857 9,500 0.20 3,80 0.40 2,948 0.31 2,565 0.27
1125 W Oal 2,W1 9,500 0.28 3,800 0.40 2,948 0.31 2,565 0.27
1129 W Oal 2,154 9,500 0.23 3,800 0.40 2,948 0.31 2,565 0.27
A 1,965 9,500 0.21 3,800 4m 0.31
221 Lyons At 965 6,000 0.16 2,403 0.40 1,292 0.22 1,620 0.27
223 Lynne St 896 5,941 0.15 Z376 0.40 1,292 0.22 1,604 0.27
225 Lyons St on 5,912 0.11 2,365 0.40 1,292 0.22 1,596 0.27
227 Lyons St 864 5,971 0.14 Z, 0.40 1,292 0.22 1,612 0.27
229 Lyons St 864 6,000 0.14 non 0.40 1,292 0.22 1,620 0.27
231 Lyons St 864 5,953 0.15 2,381 0.40 1,292 0.22 1,607 0.27
233 Lyons St 864 5,896 0.15 2,358 0.40 1,292 0.22 1,592 0.27
235 Lyons St 864 6,025 0.14 2,410 0.40 1,292 0.21 1,627 0.27
237 Lyons St 896 5,822 0.15 2,329 0.40 1,292 0.22 1,572 0.27
861 5,945 0.14 1,292 1,292 0.22
* Blue font indicates that the house would be allowed 2,000 sq ft. Red font indicates that the house would be limited to either the .40 or .50 FAR maximum.
East and West Side Neighborhoods Building Size Standards Comparison
Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) - West Side Neighborhood
Address Floor Area of House98,55ba.15
AR Allowed Floor Area FAR Average plus 50% Floor Area of House FAR Floor Area of House FAR
(House + Garage)
302 Wert 5t 456 0.06 4,W9 0.50 1,665 0.21 2,186 0.27
308 Wert St 1,2W 0.14 4,289 0.50 1,665 0.19 2,316 0.27
312Wes[St 1,5% 0.19 4,204 0.50 1,665 0.20 2,270 0.27
316Wes[St L216 0.14 4,L 0.50 1,665 0.20 2,295 0.27
318 WeA St 902 0.10 4,327 0.50 1,665 0.19 2,336 0.27
32DWes[St 1,092 0.12 4,141 0.50 1,665 0.20 2,236 0.27
326 Wert 5t 968 0.15 4,250 0.50 1,665 0.20 2,295 0.27
328 Wert 5t 1,241 0.15 4,250 0.50 1,665 0.20 2,295 0.27
330 Wert St 1,320 0.15 4,278 0.50 1,665 0.19 2,310 0.27
Average 1,120 Bf52 0.13 4,226 1,66s
5005 Grant Ave 1,020 7,255 0.14 3,629 0.50 1,883 0.26 1,959 0.27
5045 Grant Ave 1,128 5,282 0.21 2,641 0.50 1,883 0.36 1,426 0.27
5125 Grant Ave 1,658 12,431 0.13 6,216 0.50 1,883 0.15 3,356 0.27
5205 Grant Ave 1,W3 12,417 0.13 6,209 0.50 1,883 0.15 3,353 0.27
5245 Grant Ave 884 8,300 0.11 4,150 0.50 1,883 0.23 2,241 0.27
5285 Grant Ave 1,239 6,261 0.20 3,131 0.50 1,883 0.30 1,690 0.27
Average 3,08 0.15 4,329 0. MMEj-,8a3 I,M 0.24 2,338 0.27
705 W MulberrySt 931 6,236 0.15 3,118 0.50 1,473 0.24 1,684 0.27
709 W MulberrySt 1,078 6,206 0.17 3,1W 0.50 1,473 0.24 1,676 0.27
713 W MulberrySt 936 6,780 0.14 3,390 0.50 1,473 0.22 1,831 0.27
Average 982 6,407 0.0 3,204 0.50 1,473 1,473 0.23 1,730 0.27
400 Park 5t 954 10,200 0.09 5,1W 0.50 1,873 0.18 2,754 0.27
404 Park St 2,187 6,800 0.32 3,4W 0.50 2,187 0.32 1,836 0.27
408 Park 5t 92 8,392 0.12 4,196 0.50 1,872 0.22 2,266 0.27
412 Park 5t 840 8,702 0.10 4,351 0.50 1,872 0.21 2,350 0.27
418 Park 5t 694 8,515 0.08 4,258 0.50 1,872 0.22 2,299 0.27
420 Park St(duplex) 1,720 8,500 0.20 4,250 0.50 1,872 0.22 2,295 0.27
424 Park 5t 92 8,500 0.11 4,250 0.50 1,872 0.22 2,295 0.27
428 Park 5t 1," 8,562 0.12 4,281 0.50 1,871 0.22 2,312 0.27
432 Park St 1,876 8,500 0.22 4,250 0.50 1,876 0.22 2,295 0.27
Average 3,519 0.0 4,260 0.50 MIL1,811 02- ZZZZ2 0.2]
MI Park 5t 704 5,696 1 0.12 2,848 0.50 1,489 626 1,538 0.27
405 Park 5t 960 5,750 0.17 Z875 0.50 1,489 0.26 1,553 0.27
407 Park 5t 1,152 5,766 0.20 2,843 0.50 1,489 0.26 1,557 0.27
411 Park 5t 1,248 5,789 0.22 Z895 0.50 1,489 0.26 1,563 0.27
413 Park 5t 6J2 5,871 0.11 2,936 0.50 1,489 0.25 1,585 0.27
417 Park 5t 6J2 5,795 0.12 2,898 0.50 1,489 0.26 1,565 0.27
421 Park 5t 1,465 5,696 0.26 2,848 0.50 1,489 0.26 1,538 0.27
425 Park St 1,068 5,798 0.18 2,899 0.50 1,489 0.26 1,565 0.27
Average 993 5,]]0 0.1] ] 885 0.50 1r489 1,489 0.26 1,5 0.27
30155herwood 5t 2,188 4,750 0.46 2,375 0.50 3,330 0.70 1,283 0.2J
307 S Sherwood 5t 1,280 9,500 0.13 4,750 0.50 3,330 0.35 2,565 0.27
3095Sherwood 5t 3,653 9,500 0.38 4,750 0.50 3,653 0.38 2,565 0.27
3155Sherwood 5t 1,148 9,500 0.12 4,750 0.50 3,330 0.35 2565 0.27
3255Sherwood 5t 1,963 6,250 0.31 3,125 0.50 3,330 0.53 1,688 0.27
3295Sherwood St (triplex) 3,088 6,250 0.49 3,125 0.50 3,330 0.53 1,688 0.27
Average 2,22D 7,05 0.32 3,813 aw 3,330 3,380 0.48 2,059 0.27
215 Park St 1,455 7,054 0.21 3527 0.50 1,889 0.54 1,905 0.27
217 Park St 800 8,800 0.09 "00 0.50 1,889 0.43 2,376 0.27
219 Park 5t 840 8,783 0.10 4392 0.50 1,889 0.43 2,371 0.27
221 Park 5t 856 8,500 0.10 4250 0.50 1,889 o" 2,295 0.27
223 Park St 2,597 8,500 0.31 4250 0.50 2597 0.61 2,295 0.27
225 Park St 852 8,500 0.10 4250 0.50 1,889 0." 2,295 0.27
227 Park St 960 8,473 0.11 4237 0.50 1,889 0.45 2,288 0.27
229 Park St 1,716 8,500 0.20 4250 0.50 1,889 0." 2,295 0.27
Average 1,NA 8,389 0.0 4194 aw 1889 1,9]8 Mop2,265 0.27
316 Wood St 2,725 8,640 0.32 4320 0.50 2,J25 0.63 2333 0.27
320 Wood 5t 1,127 J,ll6 0.16 3588 0.50 2,120 0.59 1,938 0.27
326 Wood St 1,26D 1 7,253 1 0.17 3627 0.50 2,120 0.58 1,958 0.27
330 Wood 5t 1,853 1 10,392 1 0.18 5196 0.50 2,120 0.41 2,806 0.27
Average 1,70 8,30 0.21 4183 ow 2612 2,2]] 2 259 0.27
612 W Oak St 1,855 5,036 0.37 2518 0.50 2,391 0.95 1,360 0.27
616 W Oak St 992 9,436 0.11 4718 0.50 2,391 0.51 2548 0.27
620 W Oak St 2,776 8,986 0.31 M93 0.50 2776 0.62 2,426 0.27
626 W Oak St (2 houses) 2,266 8,787 0.26 4394 0.50 2,391 0.54 2,372 0.27
630 W OakSt 1,262 5,205 0.24 26(6 0.50 2,391 0.92 1,4115 0.27
Avvye 1,8i0 7J390 2f68 0.2]
804 Maple St 888 4,531 0.20 2266 0.50 1,481 0.65 1,223 0.27
810 Maple St 1,116 9,086 0.12 4543 0.50 1,481 0.33 2,453 0.27
814 Maple St 1,016 4,713 0.22 2357 0.50 1,481 0.63 1,273 O.ZI
816 Maple St 882 4833 0.18 2417 0.50 1,481 0.61 1,305 O.ZI
818 Maple St 1,264 J,195 0.18 35% 0.50 1,481 0.41 1,943 O.ZI
824 Maple St 756 7,122 0.11 3586 o.So 1,481 0.41 1,936 O.ZI
828 Maple St 2,W8 4,900 0.42 2450 0.50 2W8 0.85 1,323 O.ZI
830 Maple St 2,153 4,865 C." 2433 o.So 2153 0.89 1,314 O.ZI
Average 1,2b9 5,912 0.23 190M1 MEMEMEMIN
* Blue font indicates that the house would be allowed 2,000 sq ft. Red font indicates that the house would be limited to either the .40 or .50 FAR maximum. 2
East and West Side Neighborhoods Building Size StandardsComparison
Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (NCL) - East Side Neighborhood
Address Floor Area of House Lot Area FAR Allowed Floor Area FAR Average plus 50% Floor Area of House FAR Floor Area of House FA
(House + Garage)
409 Buckeye St 1,003 8 0.12 3,338 0.40 1,887 0.23 2,253 0.27
415 Buckeye St 1,338 11,J56 0.11 4,702 1 0.40 1,882 0.16 3,174 0.27
423 Buckeye St 1,706 9-MO 0.18 3,792 1 0.40 1 1,887 0.20 2,5W 0.27
427 Buckeye St 985 9,J50 0.10 3,900 1 0.40 1 1,887 0.19 2,fi33 0.27
Average 1,258 9,833 0.13 3,933 0.40 1,881 1,887 0.12 2,655 0.27
1401 Whedbee St 2,425 J,648 0.32 3p59 0.40 2,782 0.36 2,065 0.27
1415 Whedbee St 1 1,606 7,319 0.22 2,928 1 0.40 2,782 0.38 1 1,976 0.27
1445 Whedbee St 1 1,533 7,893 0.19 3,157 1 0.40 2,782 0.35 1 2,131 0.27
Average 1,855 7,620 0.24 3,048 am 2,M2 "2,3�
0.37 2,D57 0.27
406 Buckeye St 901 9,750 0.09 3,900 0.40 0.20 2,633 0.27
410 Buckeye St 1,238 8,346 0.15 3,338 0.40 0.23 2,253 0.27
414 Buckeye St 1,519 11,756 0.13 4,702 0.40 0.16 3,174 0.27
418 Buckeye St 1,462 9,480 0.15 3,792 0.40 0.20 2,5W 0.27
1,280 9,833 0 3,933 0 2,05 0.27
1501 Peterson St 2,307 8,454 0D 3,382 0.40 0.27 2,283 0.27
1507 Peterson St 1,368 8,424 0.16 3,370 0.40 2,309 0.27 2,274 0.27
1511 Peterson St 832 8,712 0.10 3,485 0.40 2,309 0.27 2,352 0.27
1515 Peterson St 84fi 8,558 0.10 3,423 0.40 2,309 0.27 2,311 0.27
1519 Peterson St 1," 8,587 0.12 3,435 0.40 2,309 0.27 2,318 0.27
152 Peterson St 1,79fi 8,500 1 0.211 3,400 0.40 1 2,309 0.27 2,295 0.27
1527 Peterson St 1,355 8,365 0.16 3,34fi 0.40 2,309 0.28 2,259 0.27
1531 Peterson St 1,169 8,591 0.14 3,436 0.40 2,309 0.27 2,320 0.27
1535 Peterson St 2,D 9,087 0.31 3,635 0.40 2,729 0.31 2,453 0.27
1539 Peterson St 1,875 9,690 0.19 3,876 0.40 2,309 0.24 2,616 0.27
2,309
726 Eastdale Dr 1,181 5,796 0.20 2,318 0.40 1,655 0.29 1,565 0.27
728 Eastdale Dr 939 8,125 0.12 3,250 0.40 1,655 0.20 2,194 0.27
J30 Fartdale Dr 1,429 7,618 0.19 3,047 0.40 1,655 0.22 2,057 0.27
J32 Fartdale Dr 1,224 7,503 0.16 3,001 0.40 1,655 0.22 2,026 0.27
J36 Eartdale Dr 1,198 7,392 0.16 2,957 0.40 1,655 0.22 1,996 0.27
JW Eartdale Dr 791 5,284 0.15 2,114 0.40 1,655 0.31 1,427 0.27
J44 Eastdale Dr 960 12,180 0.08 4,8J2 0A0 1,655 0.14 3,289 0.27
Average 1,103 ),J00 0.15 .W 1,05 1,655 M23 I 2,OJ9 0.2)
* Blue font indicates the house would be allowed to be 2,000 sq ft. Red font indicates the house would be limited to either the .40 or .50 FAR maximum. 3
East and West Side Neighborhoods Building Size StandardsComparison
Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) - East Side Neighborhood
Existing Conditions Existing Standards Average plus 50% .27 FAR
Address Floor Area of House Lot Area FAR Allowed Floor Area FAR Average plus 50% 11,�
f House FAR Floor Area of House FAR
(House + Garage)
416 E Magnolia St 1,096 4,500 0.24 2,250 0.50 0.30 1,215 0.27
420 E Magnolia St 729 4,500 0.16 2,250 0.50 0.30 1,215 0.27
Average 6,167 0.20 0.50 1,369 MID 1,215 0.27
509 E Plum St 970 4,750 0.20 2,375 0.50 0.22 1,283 0.27
519 E Plum St 464 2,500 0.19 1250 0.50 0.42 675 0.27
521 E Plum St 656 2,500 D.27 1,250 0.50 0.42 675 0.27
525 E Plum St 724 2,250 0.32 1,125 0.50 0.47 608 0.27
3,000 0.24 1,500 039 810 0.27
8m Smith St 588 2,000 0.29 1,0W 0.50 0.84 540 0.27
805 Smith St 2,210 9,500 0.23 4,750 0.50 2,210 0.23 2,565 0.27
807 Smith St 949 9,500 1 0.10 4,750 0.50 1,fi80 0.18 2,565 0.27
809 Smith St 833 9,500 0.09 4,750 0.50 1,684 0.18 2565 0.27
817 Smith St 660 9,50D 0.07 4,750 0.50 1,fi84 0.18 2565 0.27
821 Smith St 1,W4 9,272 0.11 4,636 0.50 1,fi84 0.18 2,503 0.27
825 Smith St 1,766 9,728 0.18 4,864 0.50 1,766 0.181 2,627 0.27
829 Smith St 932 5,000 0.19 2,500 1 0.501 1 1,684 0.341 1,350 0.27
Average 1,123 1 a," 0.161 4,M 1 0.50 1,684 1 1,70 1 0.29 2,160 0.27
500locost 5t 1,2D 8,500 0.15 4,250 0.50 1)28 0 2,295 02]
512locost 5t 1,123 5,250 0.21 2,621 0.50 1,J28 0.33 1,418 0.27
5161nwrt5t 1,056 4,500 0.23 2,250 0.501 1)28 1 0.38 1 1,215 027
Average 1,152 6,083 0.20 3,042 0.50 1,728 1,728 031 1,fi43 0.2J
509 Garfield St 860 7,308 0.12 3,654 0.50 1,393 0.19 1,973 0.27
511 Garfield St (duplex) 988 7,000 0.14 3,500 0.50 1,493 0.20 1,890 0.27
513 Garfield St 906 8,400 0.11 4,200 0.50 1,493 0.17 2,268 0.27
SD Garfield 5[ 1,170 1 5,600 1 0.21 2,800 0.50 1,499 0.25 1,512 0.27
521 Garfield St RO 5,435 0.13 2,J18 0.50 1,393 0.26 1,467 0.27
Average 929 6,749 0.14 3,374 0.50 1,393 1,393 0.21 1,822 0.27
1100 Whedbee St (duplex) 1,130 5,609 0.20 2,805 050 1,604 0.29 1,514 0.27
11M Whedbee St 1,008 5,425 0.19 2,713 0.50 1,604 0.30 1,465 0.27
1,069 5,517 019 0.50 1'eim M IAA a2J
304 E Myrtle St 1,472 9,500 0.15 4,750 0.50 2,078 0.22 2,565 0.2J
308 E Myrtle St 1,374 9,S00 0.14 4,750 0.50 2,078 0.22 2,565 0.27
312 E Myrtle St 2,360 9,S00 0.25 4,750 0.50 2,360 0.25 2,565 0.27
318 E Myrtle St (2 houses) 1,736 9,500 0.18 4,750 0.50 2,078 1 2 2,565 0.2J
322 E Myrtle St 800 9,500 0.08 4,750 0.50 2,078 0.22 2,565 0.27
326E Myrtle St 1,473 9,500 0.16 4,750 0.50 2,078 1 0.22 2,565 0.27
330E Myrtle St 480 9,500 0.05 4,750 0.50 2,078 1 0.22 2,565 0.27
Average 1,385 9,049 0.15 4,52A 0 2,118 0.22 2,565 0.27
305 E Myrtle St 1,356 5,998 0.23 2,999 0.50 1,619 0.27 1,619 0.27
309 E Myrtle St (duplex) 1,248 6,W0 0.21 3,000 0.50 1,619 0.27 1,620 0.27
325 E Myrtle St 956 5,000 0.19 2,500 0.50 1,619 0.32 1,350 0.27
327 E Myrtle St 758 7,000 0.11 3,500 0.50 1,619 0.23 1,890 0.27
Average 1,080 6,000 0.0 3,000 O.2J
502 Edwards St 957 5,201 0.18 2,601 0.50 1,717 0.33 1,W4 0.27
504 Edwards St(duplex) 1,48o 5,WO 0.26 2,800 0.50 1,717 0.31 1,512 0.27
506 Edwards St 783 5,821 0.13 2,911 0.50 1,717 0.29 1,572 0.27
512 Edwards St 651 5,728 0.11 2,864 0.50 1,717 0.30 1,547 0.27
516 Edwards St 1,110 5,600 0.20 2,800 0.50 1,717 0.31 1,512 I a21
518 Edwards St 980 5,630 O.lJ 2,815 0.SO 1,J1J 0.31 1,520 0.27
520 Edwards St 2,298 5,663 0.41 2,832 0.50 2,298 0.41 1529 0.27
522 Edwards St 1,650 1 5,563 0.29 1 2,832 1 0.50 1 1 1,717 1 0.301 1,529 0.27
524 Edwards St 15,WO 1 0.111 2,800 I 0.50 1 11,717 1 0.311 1,512 0.27
526 Edwards St 1 912 1 5,783 1 0.16 2,892 1 0.50 1 1 1,717 1 0.301 1,561 0.27
Average 1,14.5 I 5,629 10.20 1 1,J17 I 1,JJ5 032 1,520
* Blue font indicates the house would be allowed to be 2,000 sq ft. Red font indicates the house would be limited to either the .40 or .50 FAR maximum. 4
ATTACHMENT 8
Planning &Zoning Board DRAFT
December 9, 2010 ;
Page 5
C. a OI Town mo — Final Pla oes of comply wi ecti n 4.8(D) of e
Distric stan rds locate in ARTI E 4.
Me Schmidt ded the mot n. T motion pa ed 7:
Project: Eastside/Westside Design Standards
Project Description: Staff requests that the Planning and Zoning Board make>recommendations to City
�.-25
Council regarding three Ordinances for potential Code changes related to the East
and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards=Study.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Ordinances A and C
Ad-
Hearing
Testimony, Written Comments and Other�EVidnce
City Planner Megan Bolin said staff members Clark Mapes'Karen McWilliams and Peter�,Barnes are .
here tonight to discuss the Eastside/Westside Design Stan dards:FTliey are seeking the Planning &
Zoning Board recommendation to City Council to adopt the EastsideLWestside Design Standards.
y�
Bolin said in January of this year, at the direc�o of�City Council, sta inn tiated.a study to explore general
concerns related to neighborhood compatibility(of ew construction. The c ea rest, strongest concerns
involve the removal of small, older houses and replacemeµwith much larger new construction. The
fundamental question was whether the City's current zomngtiregulations warrant change to better reflect
adopted policies of protecting established neighborh d haracter.
The ordinances have been'developeci from an extensive public process including three public open
house meetings with.p�operty owners-,,and staff met w th the Fort Collins Board of Realtors, and the
Chamber of Commerce Local°Legislative Affairs Coma i a In addition there were three work sessions
with the City Council, and several=,work essions with the Landmark Preservation Commission, Planning
and Zoning Boand Zoning Board of Appeals A Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) advised staff
throughout tfe process m asenes of13 meetings The CAC included residents from the East and West
Side Neighborhoods, builders;,architects jeal estate professionals, and representatives from the relevant
i
boards and commissions.
The process identified several mplemeritation options and at City Council's November 23, 2010
Worksession C ikouncil directed staff to prepare potential Land Use Code changes that Council will
consider for adoptionon January 4, 2011. Staff worked to develop ordinances which are the topics
tonight. ,.
A. Landmark PreseivatiI Commission Voluntary Design Assistance. This Ordinance would change
the Municipal Coije Section that defines the functions of the Landmark Preservation Commission
(LPC), in order to allow the LPC to offer non-binding design advice to interested property owners
regarding historically appropriate design of new construction. It would also increase the
membership of the LPC from 7 to 9 members.
B. Block Face Averaging-Plus. This would change the way floor area limits are set for houses in the
Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (NCL) and Neighborhood Conservation Medium
Density (NCM) zoning districts. House size limits would be derived from the average size of
Planning &Zoning Board
December 9, 2010
Page 6
existing houses on the block face, plus 50%, or 2,000 square feet,whichever is greater, up to a
cap of the current floor area ratio limits, which are .4 in the NCL and .5 in the NCM zone. The
floor area ratio limits of .4 and .5 mean that total floor area of all buildings on the lot shall not
exceed 40% of the lot area or 50% of the lot area respectively. This Ordinance would generally
have the effect of reducing allowable house sizes on most block faces, to be closer to existing
house sizes. This Ordinance would also include some minor, technical clarifications and
wordsmithing of language in the two zoning districts. The minor changes include two main
provisions: 1) measuring building side wall height from the property line, rather than the finished
grade at the wall, and 2) counting building space as a second.floor where the volume of the
building exceeds the typical volume associated with a one-story house a "volume loophole"
in floor area limits that would allow a one-story house to be twicea large as a two-story house in
terms of building volume).
Because of the amount of discussion at the last Planning &Zoning ard worksession on Friday,
December 3; staff presented and reviewed a few slides that id6htify the problems and how the changes
ads; 1 ,__=
proposed solve it. Staff asks the Board to recommend to City Council the adoptiont6f--the
Eastside/Westside Design Standards.
Board's Questions
Member Lingle said he's not clear why if we have a loopholewith regard to volume it only applies to the
NCM and NCL zones. Bolin said these are the only two zoning;districts that have the Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) standards where the LMN and MMN'districts do not. Mapessaid there are two others—the RL
and the NCB which have FAR but that simply hawnot come up. That=g%omething they should perhaps
consider with City Council as the logic would pertain
Member Lingle said we've been debating the lot size of LMN ZOn those smaller lots is there no criterion
that governs the size of a home?,GIs that not a corSflict? Lingle saidWeems like if we're making an issue
of this it would apply in others onesMapes said his point is true for those zones that have FAR so staff
could go back and consi&e whetherthey want to expand the scope a little bit and bring forward Code
changes as part of this- rbject with another round of annual Land Use Code (LUC) changes.
L
s V
�x
Member Lingle said the Board discusMi this=topic at work session a couple of times. In reading through
the ordinance, e s not seeing anything specificEbbout modification or appeal. What would the
provisions be?z-Will it=be a modif able=standard with the same modification of standard criteria (equal to
or better than, etc.)? Staff indicated'yes�Lingle said the burden then would be on an applicant to prove
that to r., Sta
theFdecision make rect? ff indicated yes.
-..
Member C pester asked if thereis an estimate of what this would do to the Landmark Preservation
Commission (LPa workload. Are;they okay with this? Bolin said yes, the LPC is very supportive.
Member Schmidt asked,aboutthe slide/staff comments regarding measurement at the mid-point.
Schmidt did not see that inaheordinance. Bolin said the mid-point of the side wall is perpendicular at the
property line. It is in Section 4.7 (E)(4).—the side wall height standard. They did make one change on
the ordinance since copi s were distributed at work session. The change came out of the discussion
with the 18 %feet of the interior space. the side wall measurement (the mid-point) was in the version of
the ordinance version distributed at work session. The newest version ordinance should be in 4.7 (D) (2)
(c). Eckman said see the bottom of page 3. He said the same language can be found at the top of
page 8.
Member Schmidt said in the wording itself it doesn't say anything about a mid-point measure although
the diagram shows that. Would the ordinance need to specify that? She's wondering about houses that
have a lot of different contours on the side. Mapes said it's measured to the nearest side lot line
Planning &Zoning Board
December 9, 2010
Page 7
perpendicular to the center of the way—it doesn't say mid-point, it says center. Mapes said that
language in conjunction with the diagram is meant to "be clear". Schmidt asked if the measurement
would be taken at the highest point mid-point section or is it the middle of the whole length of the house.
Mapes said the intention is there is a side wall height limit that's relative to the setback of the building.
Mapes said right now it's measured from finished grade at the bottom to the top of the wall. He said he
would think that in any section of wall where the height is being considered, you would find the mid-point
of that. He added, if a house has more than one section of wall being considered for the setback; you'd
find the mid-point of each section.
J
Member Schmidt said she read all the public comment. She asked how>§taff would summarize the
results. It certainly looks like there's a lot of mixed opinion. Bolin said that=':sAhe best summary. There
are two sides to the issue—wanting or not wanting the City to addr - this IBolin said at the last public
.z
meeting with a summary of the on-line comments; it was strongly ifffavor of no' hange.
Member Schmidt said some numbers were quoted. What are we really looking at Or as certain
sections of some neighborhoods being targeted for redevelopment?¢Is it one house scatteredevery 4
blocks. Schmidt's trying to get a better feel of the pro blem=we're trying to fix. Bolin said,tha4's`something
they've not been able to do—quantify the problem; simply because the e�is no agreementpon the
problem. Some may say a house is too big or they don't like tl'e'des gn. You can show`fhat same house
to a different group of people—some would think it's a great houseland an improvement to the
neighborhood and others would not. Staff doers think the compatibifityissues are limited to a handful of
sites of new construction. Mapes said enough people have expressed th it concern to City Council.
Enough that City Council has concluded it warrants`1the.--st dy. Mapes says ize has arisen as a potential
topic to address. There's pretty wide agreement that th¤t standard`s'(that limits the size of
houses) are not derived very well or based very well onthe�existmgF elopment pattern. They allow
%houses much larger than the prevailing size of housesdn the neighborhoods. He said less than a handful
of houses have been built to_the maximum size. u
f
Mapes said one aspect is the potential problem of the current standards not doing a good job of
implementing policy to protect the existing established de ev lopment patterns. There are two parts to the
problem. One is arguing whethera,giventhouse is a pproblem and how many houses have created that
situation. The other which is the-basis thaFthey havwbrought forward, is this problem with the current
standards not-being<very.effective,in-protecting the established, existing character.
Member`Schmidt since thetga dmark Preservation Commission (LPC) has been involved in this; is the
f
issue i lot of time with houses-next to historic homes. Is there interest in a historic district? Bolin said not
T i '`
that she knows=of. � I
Member Hatfield sked with regard to the LUC changes, what benefit is it to the homeowners. Bolin said
it depends on yourperspectivel,but if you were a homeowner who lived in a row of houses and you
bought into the area becauseryou enjoyed the character and feel of your block/neighborhood. The
benefit of this standard is`somebody couldn't come in and build a house that was extremely out of scale
with the houses surrounding you. It would protect character in terms of size. Bolin said the LPC review
option would be beneficial to property owners because they would be offered assistance from
professionals to help make sure that future houses and additions are designed more compatibly and
sensitively to the surrounding neighborhoods.
Mapes said on the other hand someone may buy a lot with a small home on it because of the potential to
put a much larger house. The proposed 2,000 foot minimum is quite a bit bigger than a lot of houses on
block faces so it still allows a larger house. It does limit the amount of expansion potential and some
Planning &Zoning Board
December 9, 2010
Page 8
people view that as a good thing and others do not. Bolin said the new standard offers more protection
in terms of size than what the current standards would allow.
Member Carpenter said at one time staff discussed just reducing the FAR percentage. She asked them
to talk a little bit about that and why they decided not to go that direction. Mapes said if you understand .
that this is deriving the size limits from the average on the block face; currently the size limits are a FAR
applied throughout an entire zone. A long time ago, one of the ideas was just lower the current limits.
That is something they considered. It would still provide essentially the first fundamental function of
shaving off the potential for the largest, most dramatic increases in size compared to the current
standards. Mapes said it would not be based quite as much on context ands here£there are smaller lots.
_
Mapes said on smaller lots, lowering the FAR would further limit the ability to=expand and create more
houses more limited in their ability to expand. Mapes said with anaverage`p s concept, you have a
2,000 square foot minimum allowance—most of the allowable size limits be in tlae2,000-3,200 square
foot range in the average plus. If you just lowered the FAR, you'&elliiminate considering all those minor
incremental differences between the 2,000 and the upper cap.
Member Carpenter said this current proposal does not take nto account lot size. So largelots are not
treated differently than smaller lots, is that correct? Mapes;said exceptrfor the ultimate cap which is
based on the lot area. He said the contextual increments in the2;g00-3,000 square foot range are not
based on lot size; they're based on house size. Y
Member Smith wanted to visit when someone wants,to add an addition or scrape/rebuild. They go to look
at the data for the block face. The applicant wou tl=.go t lCounty record nd come up with what that
block face average plus. They would be able to=go ah`eadiand build up to 50% above that. A couple of
years later someone down the street continues to do that Theoretically could there be a ratcheting
effect that would simply slow down the issue until a point`where everybody has reached the maximum
FAR? Mapes said yes.
Member Lingle asked stao explain where the 2,000 square foot maximum came from. Bolin said in
discussion with the Citizens AdvisorykCommittee (CAC)when they were originally looking at the average
plus 50% what that came ou to,manylbelieved was to estrictive. In those discussions, they decided
that 2,000 square feet was about th,a rightsi a for what households are wanting right now. Also, when
they looked a"t building permits from 2004 to 2010, the average sized new house was about 2,000 square
feet.
TO
Member Hatfield asked if the'LUI I would only affect new construction when it's adopted by City Council.
d„
Bolin said new construction and additions.
:: . W
Public Input ` '
Jill Kuch lives at 709 Sto ertStreet. She'd like to offer her personal experience. They are currently in the
process of trying to designan addition to their home. Their home was built in 1923. From the time they
purchased their home they knew they wanted to build an addition. It's about 900 square feet and the
addition they have planned (2,300 square feet) would not be allowed with the current average plus.
They don't support nor do they want this change because it would breed inequality based on the different
block faces. They happened to buy a 9,500 square foot lot so it's one of the largest lots in their
neighborhood and there are no additions that have increased square footage on their block face. They
have a very small average and it makes it difficult for them (the first in the neighborhood who want to add
onto their home). Neighbors on both sides are in support of their addition because they believe it would
increase the values of their homes and improve the aesthetic feel of the neighborhood.
Planning &Zoning Board
December 9, 2010
Page 9
Kuch said the second story to be included in their design is a half wall second story so the roof height
would be limited and shorter. Unfortunately they are caught right in the middle and any change would
then limit them/prevent them from doing the addition they would like to have. She agrees that some
houses being built in NCM can be excessive so she's not fully against change altogether but she thinks
the average plus really does bring inequalities. At the last neighborhood meeting, there was an example
that showed block face in NCL (which is the lower density neighborhood). That block face instance could
actually build a larger home than what they could because they would be limited to the 2,000 cap. It just
doesn't make sense—the inequalities between the block faces.
Member Schmidt asked if the addition is going to be 2,300 square feet. Ku hl said;2,300 is the total—the
new main floor and a small second story loft.
fps-
tom"•
Jan Kruckt lives at 127 N. Sherwood. He lives in old town. He was cunousbecause he thought there
were just three options for recommendation. He said in the lastneighborhoodtmeeting he attended there
were 7 ideas, what happened to the rest. Bolin said City Counciltnarrowed it down'to,those being
proposed tonight. Kruckt said he has comments on the options. He's not in favor of th`ejs`—the volume
basically on the principle on the artificial nature of the number 2,000 splus the different applicability to
different streets. There is really not any uniformity. Actuallythis would really limit the things-.you can do
in terms of sizes on a very homogenous street. He said th6gaare veryy f v in old town
He agrees with the ratching effect in terms of the being able to d6-'something different as the average
changes. He would also like to highlight the complexity of this. It's2not really that trivial. Already these
zones are the most restrictive (heights, squarWfootage, etc) comparedf6%other zones in the city. To his
knowledge, there are two other numbers that are arfificial:n the current zoning use which is the 1,000 for
an additional dwelling on a property plus 600 square feet (Wh chfis the footprint of a garage). Once we
adopt a constant, classic number you are limiting ghat you can do even though perhaps the intentions
are good in adopting them.
He's participated in the whole proces and he's neve gotten convinced there's actually an issue. This is
emotional and probably spl is the neighborhood. There�are some people who are really vocal but in
general, given the numbers`and given the article in the Sunday paper- even the people who are in favor
of limiting or adding more restnctions1,admitAhere is notFa wide spread issue of misuse.
yl
Kruckt said relative-to ex a ding the�LPC and doing the voluntary design. He doesn't know what
voluntaryrneans—is it going to mean that people who do not use the volunteer service are going to be
penaliz& n some way. Hess not in favor—r6ating more bureaucracy and control. Just because the
LPC14provides,the service, it doesn't necess wily mean that it's going to be a good design. It's just very
subjective.`�Itsyjust one approach
End of Public-Put
Chairman Stockoversaid=the e's been a lot of work at worksession prior to this hearing.
Board's Questions
Member Smith asked about local district designations. Is that an option for protection? What is the
process/feasibility? What are some examples of existing local districts? Historic Preservation Planner
Karen McWilliams said if a group of properties wish to become a local landmark or a Fort Collins
Landmark District, the process includes a lot of education. They have to decide as a group whether they
want to support a district—it does not need to be 100% support. It would than go to the LPC who would
make recommendation to City Council. City Council would be looking for strong neighborhood support
before they implement a district in any specific area. The size could range from a small cluster of homes
to a large area. There is one Fort Collins residential district—the Sheeley Drive Neighborhood District.
Planning &Zoning Board
December 9, 2010
Page 10
There is also the Old Town Historic District and a few small clusters such as the Avery Complex (Avery
House with its carriage house and associated structures).
Member Smith asked what level of support is required. McWilliams said there is not a specific number.
It's up to City Council to determine if there is sufficient neighborhood interest and support. Staff would
not bring forward anything that was less than 50%. They'd have grave concerns unless they saw 75-
80% but ideally higher. Smith asked, what protections might a district provide a neighborhood? Would
being a district address some of the issues being considered with the proposed design standard?
McWilliams said districts would address the issues being addressed because=the protection mechanisms
f
offered through district designation is that before alterations or additions aretmad'e;that will change its
character; those have to be approved by the LPC (made up of historic/architectural/design experts) to
Secretary to the Interior standards. McWilliams said district designation offers financial incentives (20%
of material and labor and no interest loans up to $7,500) to encourage property_owners to make
additions and alteration that would be appropriate. `,
Member Lingle asked about increasing the LPC to 9 members. With this voluntary,design review, with
people who make their living by doing this service; do yo think you'll have any problems offering the
voluntary side of it when there is going to be a desirejbyssm a of the`rnembers to be paid for Being that?
McWilliams said this voluntary design assistance program-was=actually in,place for many,years through
`1 .;:3 sf 1 '3i
the LPC. They never had any trouble in getting board members-who were interested in volunteering.
Most of the members are there because of their love for historic buildings and their appreciation of the
character of Fort Collins. Anyone who provides voluntary design review�assistance cant benefit
monetarily for their services. Should it come`to=theLPC, they would need to "conflict out" because of
��� --RK
their involvement with that project. That is theNreason why they need to eand the Commission to
insure they don't have problems meeting quorums. `�4
Member Carpenter said that underthis voluntary design;we're not talking about someone taking it
through complete working.plansltwouldn't take theplace of an architect or a designer, is that correct?
, l
McWilliams said voluntary,design rev ew is completely optional to an interested party. They can listen to
the advice or they can£r ject.the advice McWilliams said it's general advice—typically 30-45 minute
top _
reviews of photographs/sketches. They'd like to have some measurements so they'll get some idea of
size. They then just discuss`heir plans h �hey can et them, are there alternatives that can better
fit their needs((an&'also protect ajnd p serve a.h sty one property from losing that ability to being
considered.histo'nc): MIND-
`
P WO
Member arpenter said at`o a point we;hadfan actual design assistance program where we had a list of
professio alswho had been approved by;the City and we had grant funds for that. Are we looking at
something like.that with this iteration. McWilliams said that's a budget item—City Council is considering
reestablishing=tDesign Assistance Program. It was originally established in 1996 and ran for about 10
years. It provided=a-small amount of funding for people to take advantage of hiring a preapproved
architect or design�pr essionarengineer depending on the issue they were facing. They actually ended
up with fully developedfplans
y„
Member Campana aske!if with regard to the first half of this ordinance, he's all right to have voluntary
input from the LPC. The balance of the ordinance sorts of reminds him of remodeling an old house
because you never know what you're going to get into. In worksession, every time we tried to fix one
loophole, we'd create another. He doesn't think we've fully satisfied all the potential loopholes. He's a
little confused on what the intent really is. At one point, you said the intent is to minimize volume but he
always thought the underlying issue was character and maintaining character throughout the
neighborhood. He sees volume as being a part of that. He sees wall heights as being a part of that. He
thinks that the measurement to the property line makes a lot of sense. When we start doing volume, he
looks at the data going to be required for existing heights and how we're going to obtain that.
Planning &Zoning Board
December 9, 2010
Page 11
Member Campana asked are we going to require an applicant to measure the wall heights of every
house on that block face to determine what the average area is. Is that volume taken into consideration
in the current average area? Bolin said the average plus calculation only refers to the square footage of
the house that's on the block face. Campana said he understands that but isn't the definition of that area
the volume as well so that any area above 18 '/2 feet... Mapes said no. Campana asked only new
construction? Campana said so we're going to get an average floor area with only floor area on the
single floor but for your new construction or addition, we're going to apply a different definition. Mapes
said correct. Campana said that doesn't make much sense. Who's going to=track that data on-going?
Mapes said they talked about that following the worksession. What yourtalking about (for others
benefit) is to take a block face...someone builds a new house which,,is a o. story building that has
greater volume and has had some 2nd floor area assigned regarding the li im is .The next person who
�_,
comes in and looks at the assessor's data is not going to see the floor area that--was fl assigned for the
limit. Campana said that's part of it. But, the initial calculation s4only*going to be off=of the assessor's
data which wouldn't include that volume. How could that new standard be applied to new construction?
Mapes said first of all this situation is pretty rare in these eighborhoods. He does not kn�o how often
you're going to see somebody with just one floor and,highfceilings so that it triggers some ofahis volume.
If it does happen on a block face and the next person comeszin on theblock face to "do"a=house, they
go to the assessor's data and the assessor is not reflecting the floor rea that was added for our
calculations into this; it would be in their interest to go to our build ng,permit records, find this (to the
benefit of someone looking for more square footage), and use build mg�permit data from the City rather
than the assessor's data. Campana said if they went to the effort, theftould increase the average
block. 3-
Member Campana let's take for example the house built rri 1923 (see_p bu lic input). Most of the houses
y;->- 4 `�l�� "V
he's worked on in that vintage�h a 10 foot cedmgsywi jh>an 8/12 pEh which would certainly create a
scenario like house with a second floor loft. None ofthat area, if we're really looking at volume, is taking
into consideration the baseline for therblock average. That's not fair to someone who's trying to do the
same design that was=done in 1923.4 If we're trying to
Ow
%6intain character, we haven't captured that.
Mapes said that's true
Member Campanarsaid.with reg ra dtto roof pitch he doesn't think the intent was volume so he thinks we
all agree that 0n rr*j%ry to circumvent this or h e another loophole by decreasing the roof pitch to
have a larger area. Again that would,push us out of the character we are trying to preserve. He doesn't
agree %ali that. .
Ogg
Member Campana said he does not likethe 2,000 square foot maximum because the floor area ratio
(FAR) makes ai bt,m(:)re sense.I jyou're on a 9,500 square foot lot, he thinks the character can be
I !-
preserved with a>lar`ger house than if you're on a 4,000 square foot lot with a 2,300 square foot house.
We have to take that'.lotaarea into consideration. It's his impression it will be capped at 2,000. Mapes
said it's not a limit; it's n'allowance where the average plus 50% would otherwise be less. Campana
said okay-that's better. He's okay with that. He said the two citizens who spoke had his original
understanding—he asketl'staff to repeat their recommendation. Bolin said you'd take the block face
average plus 50% and if that result is less than 2,000 square feet; you're allowed 2,000 square feet. If
your block face average plus 50 was 2,300 square feet, you would be allowed 2,300 square feet.
Member Schmidt asked if it's less than 2,000 your limit is 2,000. Bolin said correct. Schmidt said if you
happen to be on a block with smaller house and you're the first one that wants to be developed, you're
limited to the 2,000. Bolin said correct. Campana said in the case where you have a corner lot that was
subdivided (and now you have a smaller lot); you'd be allowed to put a 2,000 square foot house on that
which perhaps pushes it out of character with the neighborhood. Bolin said you'd still have to comply
Planning &Zoning Board
December 9, 2010
Page 12
with the maximum .4 and .5 FAR caps. If you had a 3,000 square foot lot, you couldn't put a 2,000
square foot house on it. The FAR caps would still be maintained. They would be applied to the smaller
lots in most cases. Mapes said if there was a problem with a cap allowing a house that is incompatible,
that would be a problem with the current standards not with the proposed standards.
Member Campana said when the topic was first brought to the Board during worksession and staff was
just trying to get a feeling what they thought as a Board—whether or not there was an issue. Their
consensus was they didn't think there was an issue at that time. Since then, it's been brought back to
them for recommendation to City Council. He appreciates all the work that's-been done and he
10M
appreciates that people are passionate on both sides of the question but hestill"feels that the current
Code pretty much addresses it. He doesn't think there's.that much of ami§sue to require additional
ordinances for new standards to be put in place. !
l�J�
Member Schmidt said it's her understanding that people can apply for a varianceIto the FAR. Bolin and
Mapes both indicated yes. Schmidt said that's why we have the=house on Jackson`Street but certainly
when we're talking about FAR and how much of the lot should be left, in that case fhere,isn't. Schmidt
asked what type of standards they need. Are they similar.fo the Planning & Zoning Boards? Eckman
��r
said the only standard that ZBA lacks is the important community need.standard, they haveall others.
t N `f
Member Schmidt said old town is such a really unique place and3wh'en you talk about character, one of
�.r
the nicest things is. as many of the Board has mentioned, thereare so many kinds of houses in different
situations that all fit in. It's not like going to one_of the new subdivisions, where every house looks the
same. She had a lot of difficulty saying "this lot has really changed the character of the neighborhood"
because she thinks the character is sort of eclectiscs-But-if she was the neighbor living in the small house
next door, she might not like it. She's wonderingtif th iideas4hat have been brought forward really help
VA
that impact. If you are going to build a much biggei hous�e�dowe have enough setbacks from a smaller
one. In many large houses she observed they lookedAown on a garage or driveway. There maybe a
shadowing issue but she din t thinethere was a privacy issue Maybe we re not really meeting the
needs of the people whoihave the concerns. Maybe we say its the character of the whole neighborhood,
maybe it's really the direetpacts on the adjacent properties. Maybe in that case more setbacks or
some different kinds of standards might be more appropriate. She does like measuring from the
-cam ce!
property line and not the grade�T is a Bally big improivement.
Member Carpenter-said she's been P&Z Board Liaison to CAC (Citizen Advisory Committee) for the past
A��two years and she knows how"hard staffs worked and what a difficult subject it is. She has several
-po-
She,reallyShe really thinks in trying so hard to meet the size problem that we are putting some things in
plate'in,which we will have some unintended consequences. Almost every time we look at this
with any,_i oard, we come up with a different unintended consequence.
She's reallyuncomfortagle that we're putting things in that will really encourage other aspects of
character to 641ruined imbur old town area.
he• She thinks wn westart talking about the volume problem to allow people to get more square
footage by changJhTtheir roof line that to her is a huge character (compatibility with the
neighborhood) problem. As she looks at it, she's afraid that we are making a bigger problem
than we have now.
• She's really concerned about the complexity of this. We (the Board) do things like this all the time
and everybody is confused given the number of times it's come before the Board. Yet we're
going to be giving this to citizens. She thinks it's going to be very difficult for citizens to
understand.
• She thinks it's going to be very difficult to administer.
• The voluntary pieces for the LPC she thinks are fabulous. She thinks that works very well and
the help that people get in those meetings is very useful—it results in better outcomes.
Planning &Zoning Board
December 9, 2010
Page 13
• She doesn't believe a block face is a neighborhood and she's voiced this several times. She
doesn't think it's a big enough space-we need to be looking broader. Old town is a very diverse
place. That's part of what we love about it. We want to protect that character but she doesn't
think block face is broad enough.
• She's concerned that lot size is not taken into consideration. She thinks it makes a huge
difference. If you have a large lot, the impact to neighbors is dramatically different than if you
have a small lot. She'd like to keep that element.
• The feedback we've received at meetings has been really half and half. People who see a
problem and people who don't see any problem so she doesn't believe-'we have any real
consensus that there is a problem although there are a few houses°that`everybody can agree that
was a problem and it shouldn't have happened. '
�h
• She'd rather see this be taken care of by historic districting. s,something that other cities do
a lot. It brings neighbors together. To her, it's a much better way to taketicare of it. It takes care
of a lot of other neighborhood character issues besides Just siI e. She's afraid we're going to get
hodge-podge instead of continuous good additions. G
• The parts she does think are good are some of thepieces where we filled irithe,loopholes—not
the volume pieces but where you measure height .etc. She thinks we shouldback to the
drawing board and see if that helps the problem so we don't really have to do aryl
regulations )
• Or let's get the education done on historic districting. mayihelp the people who brought this
forward and are concerned about their neighborhood.
RO .
Member Smith said when we get to historic preservation or regulating neighborhood character, incenting
positive behavior usually produces better outcomes#han regulating undesired behavior. That's probably
the basis for the districting option as a tool for thbne ghborh'ood. Design's sistance is a step in the right
s .�
direction. Staff has done a very good job of handling aweryxtoug � It speaks volumes to the care
that the City has taken toward neighborhood character, To know=.what the elements are that contribute
V
to a diverse neighborhood cl aracteif&The eclectic nature of downtown is one of the critical factors that
have made it very vital and�economisally resilient. Its performed well over the past few years when it
seems the rest of the Worlftas been falling apart in the,real estate world. That is probably because it's
Z- 4, N3 Y4-',-�
eclectic, diverse, resilient"and,a verydesirable place to .e. He would hate to see something harm that.
Smith said that relatively larger omes that,are wellF1designed are much more acceptable than a smaller
yt �..
home that arespoorly�designed He thinks that a of the things that makes the downtown very vibrant is
the resident al compo ent%that social=fabric of families. When a lot of downtowns are in shambles, they're
trying.to get families to move iri, We have _w portunity to be able to continue to have families grow in
an appropr ate manner with the,tools we ady have in place. He'd hate to discourage that because
that's something that would behard to get back once it's gone. As far as tools, the block face average
formula could-penalize the "first'one in". It could delay rehabs that are catalytic in nature with regard to
economic vital itydxharacter. The ratching effect as a tool only really delays as opposed to prevents
what Council has stated is the,goal. If a neighborhood really wants to prevent a house of a certain size
and to maintain some°design standards, the designated district is probably the best way to go. It does
create a higher burden fothe neighborhood to rally and make their case and that's probably a good
thing. <pr
Smith said design assistance and some of the technical cleanup of what's being proposed—increase the
membership of the LPC he can support. The block face average formula is going to be a problem and
because of that he won't support it.
Member Schmidt said she's not familiar with districting. If you do a district, can you still scrape homes
and build something that is contemporary or are there limits to the types of house you can build when
you're in a district. McWilliams said if you are in a Fort Collins Historic District then any alternation or
Planning &Zoning Board
December 9, 2010
Page 14
changes including scraping off/rebuilding would have to be approved by the LPC. There are very
definite restrictions or regulations that have to be met—specifically, the Secretary of the Interior
standards. It would be difficult for a property owner to just decide they want to tear down their house and
rebuild. It would have to have something more cataclysmic (such as fire) happen to it. The same thing
applies to a large addition. Schmidt said you'd probably be more limited on a particular housing style.
McWilliams said if a new house is being built in a district then there's a lot of flexibility in design. It could
look like a new modern house. Typically that house no longer qualifies for the credits and benefits of
being in the district. When you have a district you have properties that contribute to the district and
some that do not. Obviously, a modern new house would not contribute to the`district.
Member Carpenter said but additions are still allowed. McWilliams saidadditions are allowed they just
need to be compatible with the historic property that the addition is going onto
ZV
Chairperson Stockover said this is a difficult one. His thoughts�ha a alwaysbe n,if there's a problem
let's slow down, let's put some limits on, let's make sure it's rno idid fiable—or have`,va_fiances available, and
let's track it. A year from now, if there are concerns or problems,ms, identify them anii-change it. In his
opinion, it's always better to rein things in a little. In his experience, there've been times when other
things should have been considered before moving forward- is�so much that he likes about the
proposal but there are a few that still give him concern Whatever Wellcome up with, he s;always in favor
of putting limits and making sure there's a tracking mechanisefil§o we know when to readjust.
Member Lingle said he doesn't have much ibRadd because he pretty uch agrees with everything that's
already been said particularly what's been said by Member Campanazrelative to the volume of the
existing block face houses not being part of the 1h ial calculation. That's one of the unforeseen
ift !s%
consequences that could snowball and catch you. In his party lar blockhey've got lots of 900-1200
square foot homes that have very large volumeslt sett a character but it isn't really reflected in what
we're doing here tonight. He tends to think the 2,OQ0 square feet--- is too small and a little too arbitrary
for him. He agrees with what Member,Smith is sayi g bout the fir'- one in being penalized. There are
a lot of consequences;foremost is45m I going to be=the first one to take the leap and invest in my
neighborhood". It may not'be what some want to do because they can't get to the level they want to
make a viable house'and`have,enoug ,resale value. They also may not want to wait 15 years for the
"ratchet" thing to catch up with to wherejtthe n then ha a what they want. The only other thing that
has not been mentioned (as mentioned at pubh�nput) is the inequity and the one block versus the other
block or one,street-versus-another=street. And how, just because of an existing development pattern
already,been established Why_that should give one property owner an advantage over another property
owner when they may wantto;have th se arrielkind of lifestyle and the same kind of amenities in their
home WOW
` En
Member Lingle said he's lived in.his old town neighborhood for 12 years and he's seen because people
have been able to come in and irivest in their neighborhood by building small additions, they've got
young families where they didn�tabefore. When they moved in, his daughter was the only kid within 6
blocks—now there are kdsyeverywhere and he thinks that's a healthy thing particularly for old town
neighborhoods that were=struggling with a lot of student rentals. To have stability and to allow people to
live there—put their root I own with their families and be able to do what they want to do he doesn't
think that we as a City should put up impediments to that kind of investment and desire to invest in that
neighborhood.
Member Schmidt asked which is Ordinance A and which is Ordinance C? She thinks they can make a
motion on the one related to LPC. Bolin said they took away the labels because one ordinance amends
the City Code and the other amends the LUC. They can be distinguished that way should the Board
choose. Bolin said in the staff memo what they were originally thinking is they were going to have two
options—one the averaging plus with their technical clarifications and another that only included the
Planning &Zoning Board
December 9, 2010
Page 15
technical clarifications in case the average plus was an issue. They decided to combine them into one
with all of the LUC changes. Schmidt said they're just making recommendations. Eckman said if the
Board needs to identify one ordinance or the other, you could refer to the one that amends Chapter 14 of
the City Code pertaining to the LPC. Schmidt said from Board discussion regarding LPC changes, she
thinks the Board would recommend that. The other she's not sure—do we want to list our areas of
concern or have a vote and be specific about their areas of concern.
Member Carpenter said for her the block face averaging is something she cannot recommend but
measuring the side wall from the property line she would support. Eckman saiclCity Council would
l
appreciate the feeling of the board itself more than individual Board members'so ifyou can reach
consensus on parts of the ordinance that would be okay too.
Member Smith said if he's reading the staff report correctly by selecting Optioi� it contains everything
other than the block face average element. Is that true? Carpentersaid if shewas making the motion,
lG`�
she'd like take the volume loophole out because she thinks it s�problematic. She said it's been thought
through; we just haven't come to a good conclusion. Carpenter said the only pieceM d recommend, if
she was going to make a motion, is the piece of measuring the highest point of the building side wall
from the property line. y
�f
Member Schmidt moved to recommend to City Council theapproval of the ordinance to the City
Code increasing the members of the Landmark Preservation=Commission from 7 to 9.and adding
the language about the voluntary revieWin Section 5. MemberXampana seconded the motion.
��f
Motion was approved 7:0
PP hk
fir— f
c
Chairperson Stockover asked Eckman if a motion to recommend__ with tha ception of...and list them
would that be acceptable. Eckman said anyway you'd like tow7commuuni ate with City Council and the
easiest way for you to decide tonight would be acceptable. Stockover than offered deny except for ' .
Schmidt said the only part they d r�mmend could I o be an option. Eckman said a motion with
amendments would als�be accept5bI&
OEM
ONE
The Board worked for a time5to create=the wordingof a motion that would be acceptable to the Board
and which Deputy City Atto ney�ckman agreed was appropriate to convey the Board's intent. At one
point Member Carpenter made Mmotion to recommend to City Council that they adopt only dimensional
standard co900
on 47(E)
Member Lingle said not to belabor the issue but there are tiny pieces throughout the ordinance, for
instance theme p of page 9 whe my one word is struck—those things are not called out in our staff
WOMO
report but thoypre in the ordinance:
Member Schmidtasaid she doesfitthink City Council will care if the Board comments on them. She said
.depending on how'City Councillmoves forward, some may be necessary while others may not. Member
Lingle said based on' am comment, "the only thing you're recommending is found on the bottom of
page 5/and middle of the=page 10 , he wondered if they needed to address all the items. He agrees he's
not worried about it either
Member Campana asked which sections pertain to average plus. Bolin said Section 4.7 (D)(2) and 4.8
(D)(2) and on the associated subsections a, b, and c.
Member Carpenter said we could probably go with "we don't recommend anything except dimensional
standards--measuring the building side wall height from the property line rather than the finished grade at
the wall." She said she thinks the Board knows what they're saying as did staff.
Planning &Zoning Board
December 9, 2010
Page 16
Member Carpenter made a motion to recommend only the adoption of the dimensional standards
section (measuring the building side wall height from the property line rather than the finished
grade at the wall). Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7:0.
Member Schmidt asked if the Board wanted to summarize comments that indicate consensus of the
Board. Carpenter said she's pretty much said what she wanted to say before. Schmidt concern was
whether City Council would be able to draw the conclusion that the Board agrees on most items from the
minutes. Mapes said he thinks yes. They'll have minutes and staff has a list of comments. He believes
it will come through. ��
Member Schmidt said in worksession staff said there were going to beYsome design elements. Are we
saving that for later? Bolin said one of the options they presented to City Council on November 23'd was
adding design standards to the LUC but they did not support moving!forwardwith that.
{ .
�� ', %
AMER
Other Business: _
None Vfflffift
Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
f�P i
-
I;
Steve Dush, CDNS Director � Butch�Stockover, Chair
&%i
y�.
ce
�m
W
f
h
IS "1
r
_ % 4�
4O � l
i
% -
�x
Landmark Preservation Commission DRAFF
ATTACHMENT 9
December 8,2010 -3 -
alternating heights across the s'ignage. The heaters would be placed right past the fluorescent
It out of view from the sidewalk. Mr. Frick asked if they would be put in a straight '
Mr. To sponded that the heat coverage would not be sufficiently increased if t aters are
put in a line an t staggered. The purpose of the heaters is to keep custom arm as they
wait in line to get in e establishment. Electric heaters offer lower an propane, so more
heaters are required.
Mr. Towry stated the m ting hardware will be on the sign and not structurally
attached to the building. The heater ' ht is less th 0 pounds. Mr. Frick expressed concern
about the massive appearance of the sign rs. Mr. Towry responded that they would
place them halfway up the middle of the so wouldn't be visible from the sidewalk. Mr.
Hoaglund stated that he understood . rick's conc but that this proposed solution is better
than the solution offered by t ner last time it was pre ed. Other Commission members
echoed that the appeara will not greatly detract from the str e.
, Mr. Slade ade a motion that the Landmark Preservation mission approve the
Conceptual final Design Review for installation of electrical heater the sign bands at
212-21 nden Street,finding that the work meets the criteria contained in n 14-48 of
the nicipal Code. Mr.Albright seconded the motion. Motion passed: (5-0).
DISCUSSION—EAST SIDE AND WEST SIDE NEIGHBORHOODS DESIGN
JSTANDARDS STUDY: Megan Bolin, City Planner,Advance Planning Department: Ms.
McWilliams stated she would act as the presenter for this topic. Mr. Frick stated that he felt the
guidelines need to be more restrictive. The 50% plus regulations and 2,000 square foot maximum
is an improvement, but it doesn't address the block face issues.
Mr. Frick made.a motion that the Commission make a formal recommendation to City
Council on the East Side and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study to recommend
the average plus 50% house size regulation and to reinstate the Design Assistance Program
and the Voluntary Design Program. Mr. Ernest seconded the motion. Motion passed(5-0).
The Commission took a break at 6:05 p.m. and resumed the meeting at 6:18 p.m.
DISCUSSION: PLAN FORT COLLINS: LPC COMMENTS. TIMOTHY
DER, SENIOR CITY PLANNER,ADVANCE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
Mr. ' der addressed the Commission and stated that the purpose of the discussion was eview
the Com ' ion's previous comments, inquire if they are any additional comments ascertain
if the Commis will offer a recommendation. The draft plan is a semi-fin cument, but
there is still time for mmendations and changes. City Council will four more work
sessions to discuss the Pla . e Planning&Zoning Board is the al recommending body to
City Council for the Comprehens Ian,and the Transporta ' oard will make
recommendations to City Council on the nsportation Plan Fort Collins will be presented
to City Council in February for adoption.
Mr. Wilder reviewed comments from t a ark Preservation Commission from the
November 10, 2010 meeting:
(1) A concern was expr about energy efficie nd whether that excludes
consideration f istoric resources. Wilder stated s has included a policy to
ensure hist resources are considered in energy efficie
(2) Discu n about targeted redevelopment areas. Wilder disp d a map. The
r reas indicate commercial areas; orange dots are activity cente There is a
me distinction between the two. The goal in identifying these areas is ards
economic vitality, keeping the City healthy, and attracting investments in to
of jobs and housing. At the last meeting,the Landmark Preservation
Commission had stated they would like to see some areas excluded from these
ATTACHMENT 10
East Side and West Side Neighborhoods
Design Standards Study
City Council
January 4, 2011
\ Fort Collins
Council Action
1 . Ordinance No . 002, 2011
2 . Option A, Ordinance No . 003, 2011
3 . Option B, Ordinance No . 003, 2011
- -- City of
1
ATTACHMENT 10
Background
• Study initiated in January, 2010
• Explore concerns that some new houses and additions are
not compatible with established neighborhood character
• Do current zoning regulations warrant revision ?
Fort Collins
Public Process
• 3 Public Meetings
• Meetings with the Board of Realtors and Chamber of
Commerce Local Legislative Affairs Committee
• Project website, e - newsletter, phone calls and a - mails
City of
Fort Collins
2
ATTACHMENT 10
Public Process
• Work sessions with the Landmark Preservation
Commission ( LPC ) , Planning and Zoning Board ( P &Z ) , and
Zoning Board of Appeals ( ZBA)
• Citizen Advisory Committee
— Residents from both neighborhoods, builders,
architects, real estate professionals, representatives
from LPC, P &Z, and ZBA
• Council work sessions in February, August, and November
Fort Collins
Implementation Options
• Design Assistance Program ( 2011- 2012 Budget )
• Landmark Preservation Commission ( LPC ) Voluntary
Design Consultation ( City Code amendment )
• Revise house size limits ( Land Use Code amendment )
— Minor, technical clarifications
— Two-year monitor and review
— LPC recommendation for variance requests
City of
Fort Collins
3
ATTACHMENT 10
Design Assistance Program
City Budget Offer
• Financial assistance for professional design consultation
• Available to all property owners in the East and West Side
Neighborhoods
• $40, 000 in 2011 and 2012
Fort Collins
Voluntary Design Consultation
Amend City Code
• Increase LPC membership from 7 to 9 members
• Add function to allow the LPC to advise property owners
regarding appropriate design and site planning
Fortes
4
ATTACHMENT 10
House Size Limits
Current Regulations
• Floor Area Ratio ( FAR )
— . 40, or 40% of the lot, in Neighborhood Conservation
Low Density ( NCL)
. 50, or 50% of the lot, in Neighborhood Conservation
Medium Density ( NCM )
• Agreement that current limits do not protect established
neighborhood character
• Two options for Land Use Code amendments
Fort Collins
Option A - Block Face Averaging- Plus
• House size limited to the average size house on a block
face plus 50%, or 2, 000 square feet, whichever is greater
• Basements and detached garages are not counted
• . 40 and . 50 Floor Area Ratio limits kept as maximum floor
area allowed
City of
Fortes
5
ATTACHMENT 10
Option B — Lower the FARS
• . 27 FAR in both NCL and NCM
• Basements and garages are excluded from the FAR limit
Lot Size (square feet)
FAR 10, 000 91000 81000 71000 61000 5, 000
. 27 2, 700 2,430 2, 160 1,890 1,620 1,350
Fort Collins
Other Land Use Code Changes
• Measure side wall height from the property line,
rather than finished grade at the wall
)For
ide
Midpointall
Ofeight
Side Walleasurement
Setback
urposes
Fort Collins
6
ATTACHMENT 10
Other Land Use Code Changes
• Count space as a second floor where volume exceeds the
typical volume associated with a one-story house
F�t Collins
Current Zoning Regulations
1x 2x
This Part Counts For
Floor Area Limits
Second Floor
Ground Floor
moo moww�
House Same House,
With One Floor Only,
Second Floor Double the Lot Coverage ,
Twice as Big
City of
Forts
7
ATTACHMENT 10
Count Same Volume as Second Floor Area
Count as
JThis Part Counts For "Second Floor ' For
Floor Area Limits Floor Area Limits
%' _ — _ _ _ 7 %' — —
Second Floor
- - 1a '/' 1a %'
Ground Floor - - Ground Floor
House Count Equivalent
With Space as Second
Second Floor Floor Area
Fort Collins
&L dwoo�
Proposed New Standard
Horizontal Eave
Count as "Second Floor" On Side Wall
For Over 13' Height
Floor Area Limits
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
13'
Front View
Property ]
Line @
Midpoint of I
Side Wall
`Irt Collins
s
ATTACHMENT 10
Staff Recommendation
1 . Ordinance No . 002, 2011
2 . Option B Ordinance No . 003, 2011
Fort
9
ORDINANCE NO . 002, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
INCREASING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE LANDMARK PRESERVATION
COMMISSION AND EXPANDING ITS FUNCTIONS TO INCLUDE
ESTABLISHING AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
WHEREAS , Policy HSG-3 . 1 of the City' s Comprehensive Plan provides that the character
of stable residential neighborhoods should be preserved through neighborhood planning, assistance
to neighborhood organizations, and supportive regulatory techniques ; and
WHEREAS , the City Council has adopted the East Side Neighborhood Plan and the West
Side Neighborhood Plan, which plans establish a vision and policies for their respective areas; and
WHEREAS , City staff has been directed to prepare for the City Council ' s consideration
revisions to the City Code or Land Use Code that would help protect existing neighborhoods in the
City from the construction of new dwelling units, or additions to existing dwelling units , that are
incompatible in size or design with the character of neighboring structures and in particular, those
structures that are, or may be, historically significant; and
WHEREAS , pursuant to Section 2-276 of the City Code, the City Council has established
a Landmark Preservation Commission (the "Commission") , the duties of which include promoting
an awareness and understanding of, and an appreciation for, the value of historic resource
preservation in contributing to the quality of life in the City, and actively encouraging property
owners to voluntarily designate their properties as historic landmarks ; and
WHEREAS , in response to the foregoing direction, City staff has recommended that the
duties of the Commission be expanded to include the establishment of a committee to provide
"voluntary design review" of alterations, additions, and new construction affecting eligible historic
properties and properties located near eligible historic properties ; and
WHEREAS , in order for the Commission to adequately provide this service, the membership
of the Commission needs to be expanded from seven to nine members ; and
WHEREAS , the City Council has determined that the proposed revisions to Section 2-277
and 2 -278 of the City Code are in the best interests of the City and its citizens .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows :
Section 1 . That Section 2-277 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows :
Sec. 2-277. Membership ; term.
(a) The Commission shall consist of seven (7)nine (9) members appointed by the
City Council. In making appointments to the Commission, the City Council shall
give due consideration to maintaining a balance of interests and skills in the
composition of the Commission and to the individual qualifications of the candidates
including but not limited to their training, experience, knowledge or interest in any
one ( 1 ) or more of the fields of architecture, landscape architecture, architectural
history, structural engineering, general contracting, urban planning, mortgage
lending and commerce .
Section 2 . That Section 2-278 (b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows :
Sec. 2-278. Functions.
(b) The Commission shall also perform the following additional functions :
( 1 ) PromotingPromote awareness and understanding of, and appreciation for, the
value of historic resource preservation in contributing to the quality of life in
the City, and actively encourage property owners to voluntarily
designate their properties as historic landmarks ;
(2) AdvisingAdvise the City Council and City staff with regard to the
identification and evaluation of historic resources within the Growth
Management Area and providingprovide information regarding the
significance of the resources, the nature and degree of threat to their
preservation, and methods for their protection;
(3 ) zisingAdvise the City Council and City staff with regard to appropriate
policies, incentives and regulations for encouraging and/or requiring
preservation and rehabilitation of historic resources;
(4) eoordinafingCoordinate with the various other City boards, commissions and
City staff members whose actions may affect the preservation of historic
resources in the community; and
(5 ) Establish a committee of its members to provide advice and, if required under
Section 2 . 10 .2(H) of the Land Use Code, written recommendations to the
owners of eligible historic properties, and of properties located near eligible
historic properties, regarding historically appropriate design and site planning
for additions, alterations, and new construction in the City; provided,
-2-
however, that any members of such committee who provide such advice or
recommendations to property owners under this provision shall refrain from
participating in any subsequent decisions of the Commission related to such
properties ; and
(56) Performing such other duties and functions as may be provided by the City
Council by ordinance or resolution.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of
January, A.D . 2011 , and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of January, A.D . 2011 .
Mayor
ATTEST :
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of January, A.D . 2011 ,
Mayor
ATTEST :
City Clerk
-3 -
OPTION A
ORDINANCE NO , 0039 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING AMENDMENTS
TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE
PERTAINING TO EAST SIDE AND WEST SIDE NEIGHBORHOOD
DESIGN STANDARDS
WHEREAS , on March 18 , 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 051 , 1997 , the
City Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code") ; and
WHEREAS, Policy HSG-3 . 1 of the City' s Comprehensive Plan provides that the
character of stable, residential neighborhoods should be preserved through neighborhood
planning, assistance to neighborhood organizations, and supportive regulatory
techniques; and
WHEREAS , Policy EXN- 1 .4 of the City ' s Comprehensive Plan provides that the
City will follow specific design standards for infill development and redevelopment with
an emphasis on protecting existing residential neighborhood character; and
WHEREAS , the City Council has also adopted the East Side Neighborhood Plan
and the West Side Neighborhood Plan, which plans establish a vision and policies for
their respective areas ; and
WHEREAS , at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the
understanding of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be
subject to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of
errors, but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic
document capable of responding to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals
and citizens of the City; and
WHEREAS , City staff has been requested to prepare and present to the City
Council certain changes to the Land Use Code to address issues of concern regarding the
compatibility of the size of new single-family houses and additions to existing single-
family houses in the East Side and West Side Neighborhoods, particularly in the
Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density Zone District and the Neighborhood
Conservation, Medium Density Zone District, as compared to the size of existing
principal structures in those zone districts; and
WHEREAS , the City Council has received and considered the recommendation of
the Planning and Zoning Board; and
WHEREAS , the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use
Code amendments comport with the City' s Comprehensive Plan and the East Side
1
Neighborhood Plan and West Side Neighborhood Plan, and are in the best interest of the
City and its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF FORT COLLINS that the Land Use Code is hereby amended as follows :
Section 1 . That Section 2 . 10 .2(H) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
as follows :
(H) Step 8 (Standards) : Applicable, and the Zoning Board of Appeals may
grant a variance from the standards of Articles 3 and 4 only if it finds that
the granting of the variance would neither be detrimental to the public
good nor authorize any change in use other than to a use that is allowed
subject to basic development review; and that:
( 1 ) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary
and exceptional situations unique to such property, including, but
not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness,
shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder
the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict
application of the standard sought to be varied would result in
unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or
undue hardship upon the occupant of such property, or upon the
applicant, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused
by the act or omission of the occupant or applicant;
(2) the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the
standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better
than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which
the variance is requested; or
(3 ) the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of
the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be varied
except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the
context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the
purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1 .2 .2 .
Any finding made under subparagraph ( 1 ), (2) or (3 ) above shall be
supported by specific findings showing how the proposal, as submitted,
meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph ( 1 ), (2) or (3 ) .
If a variance is sought from the standards contained in Division
4. 7, Section (D) or subparagraphs 4 or 5 of Section (E), or Division
4. 8 , Section (D) or subparagraphs 4 or 5 of Section (E), the
application for such variance shall be accompanied by a written
recommendation from a committee of the Landmark Preservation
2
Commission, as authorized under Section 2-278 (b)(5) of the City
Code .
Section 2 . That Sections 4 .7(D) and (E) of the Land Use Code are hereby
amended to read as follows :
Division 4 .7 Neighborhood Conservation , Low Density District (N-C-L)
(D) Land Use Standards.
( 1 ) Required Lot Area. Nfiniffmfn !Lot area shall be
at least two and one-half (21/2) times the totalaggregate floor area of
the building(s) situated on the lot, as further provided below, lttand
not less than six thousand (6,000) square feet per principal building.
"Aggregate floor area" shall mean the total gross floor area of all
principal buildings as measured along the outside walls of each
finished or unfinished floor level of such buildings, plus the total
gross floor area of the ground floor of any accessory building larger
than one hundred twenty ( 120) square feet, plus that portion of the
floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven
and one-half (71/2) feet located within any such accessory building
located on the lot.
(2) Allowable Floor Area of Street-Fronting Single Family Dwellings.
The allowable floor area of a street-fronting, single-family dwelling
may be determined by either "block face averaging" as provided
below, or by utilizing the alternative maximum allowable floor area of
two thousand (2,000) square feet. Utilizing block face averaging, the
allowable floor area of any street-fronting single-family dwelling
shall not exceed the average floor area of the residential, street-
fronting, principal buildings that are either existing or for which a
building permit has been issued that have a street address on the same
block face, plus an additional fifty (50) percent of floor area (See
Figure XX) . Utilizing either method, allowable floor area shall not
exceed forty (40) percent of lot area. Allowable floor area of the
residential, street-fronting, principal building(s) may be calculated by
utilizing County Assessor records or by actual measurement and
certified survey or by such other means as may be approved by the
Director. For the purposes of this provision, "allowable floor area "
shall mean the total gross floor area of the street-fronting single-
family dwelling, including each finished or unfinished floor level, as
measured along the outside walls of such building. Additionally, the
following shall apply : "tatal
floof area"
allmean the total gfo s of of n of
al r -ine pa
buildings as measufed aleng the outside walls of sueh buildiiigs an
inel iding eae finished
inishe or- unfinished
nfi ishe floor level
Alin the total
gloss
floor- area of the gfound floof of afly aeeessoffy building larger- thffiflm
one h rvetFenty ( 120) sqaafe feet, plus that
portion of the floo
afea of an�r seeend story having a eeifing height of a4 least seven and.
one half
(71/) foot formed within any cue nr�riiQa.sso -y building
loeate�
on
the let.
Figure XX Example of Block Faces used for Block Face Averaging
Street
'' (�/ '' �� /V� �� '' BLOCK FACE CC � � ��� �
{J I n I nc I Lam/ {�/ 1..�� I`J
rr'M�1 i i i o
Ily � v
LL a
� Y
Alley x
m
I 1 i i i r
`rIL' JIL JIIvV J , , V J !�
v BVVLO KFA E AA
Street
Houses facing the same street
on the same block face
(like those labeled A) are used for
block face averaging.
(a) The following shall not be included in the computation of
the allowable floor area:
1 . basements ;
2 , open balconies ;
3 , attached garages (if more than one-half ( 1 /2) of the
dwellings on the same block face have attached
garages) ;
4. detached accessory buildings .
(b) If any horizontal eave along a side lot line is more than
thirteen ( 13) feet above grade, the floor area will be
calculated as if the building includes a second floor
regardless of whether a second floor is physically built.
Such horizontal eaves shall be measured from the grade at
the nearest side lot line perpendicularly to the center of the
eave.
4
(c) If any one story portion of a street-fronting single-family
dwelling exceeds eighteen and one-half ( 18 1 /2) feet in
height, such portion shall be counted as both a first and
second floor even if such second floor is not physically
built, or if such portion consists partly or wholly of attic
space .
Figure XX Volume that Counts as Floor Area
Horizontal Eave
Count as " Second Roor" Onside Wall
For Over 13' Height
Roor Area Lim its
13'
Front View
Property
Line @:
Midpoint of I
side Wall
Count as
" Second Roor" For
Roor Area Limits
18 '/2' 18 'h'
Ground Floor
(Open balconies and basements steal „TCI1 be counted as floor aFea
N1l rN 0 ses; e e 1n111 Aat Ng IYe s i t Y
(23 ) " es�Allowable Floor Area of Carriage Houses. Any new
single-family dwelling that is proposed to be located behind a street-
fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of eight hundred
(800) square feet of floor area unless such new single-family dwelling
5
contains a two-car garage, in which case it shall contain a maximum
of one thousand ( 1 ,000) square feet of floor area, including the
garage . Floor area shall include all floor space within the basement
and first floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story
having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (71/2) feet. A
new single-family dwelling may be located in any area of the rear
portion of such lot, provided that it complies with the setback
requirements of this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation
between structures . The building footprint for such single-family
dwelling shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet.
(-34) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future
Habitable Space). Any accessory building with water and/or sewer
service shall be considered to have habitable space . An applicant may
also declare an intent for an accessory building to contain habitable
space . Any such structure containing habitable space that is located
behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of
six hundred (600) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include
all floor space within the basement and ground floor plus that portion
of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least
seven and one-half (71/2) feet. Such accessory building may be
located in any area of the rear portion of a lot, provided that it
complies with the setback requirements of this District and there is at
least a ten-foot separation between structures.
(45) Accessory Buildings Without Habitable Space. Any accessory
building without water and/or sewer service, which has not been
declared to contain habitable space by the applicant, shall not exceed
a total floor area of six hundred (600) square feet. Floor area shall
include all floor space (including basement space) within the building
having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (71/2) feet.
(56) Floor Area Ratio of Rear Half of Lot (FAR). Lots are subject to a
maximum FAR of twenty-five hundredths (0 .25) on the rear fifty (50)
percent of the lot as
it existed orrn6t e�z�T, 99�The lot area
z„rnsocaa nn t -, Nnn1n fqr- 4hv �i A �.n � mi � n4� �r� 4AII ho r �v� n � � ovo nl the-,
m � v� � miim
lot size within the zone distfiet. All principal buildings and detached
accessory buildings that exceed one hundred twenty ( 120) square feet
of floor area shall be included in the calculation of FAR.
(E) Dimensional Standards.
( 1 ) Minimum lot width shall be forty (40) feet.
(2) Minimum front yard setback shall be fifteen ( 15) feet. Setbacks from
garage doors to the backs of public walks shall not be less than twenty
(20) feet.
6
(3) Minimum rear yard setback shall be five (5) feet from existing alleys
and fifteen ( 15 ) feet in all other conditions .
(4) Minimum side yard width shall be five (5) feet for all interior side
yards . Whenever any portion of a wall or building exceeds eighteen
( 18) feet in height, such portion of the wall or building shall be set
back from the interior side lot line an additional one ( 1 ) foot, beyond
the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of wall
or building height that exceeds eighteen ( 18) feet in height (as
measured from the grade at the nearest side lot line perpendicularly to
the center of the wall) . Minimum side yard width shall be fifteen ( 15 )
feet on the street side of any corner lot. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, minimum side yard width for schools and places of
worship shall be twenty-five (25) feet (for both interior and street
sides) .
Figure XX Measurement of Side Wall Height
Side
Midpoint Wall
Of Height
Side Wall Measurement
For Setback
Purposes
��d vie
(5 ) Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case
of carriage houses, and accessory buildings containing habitable
space, which shall be a maximum of one and one-half ( 11/2) stories.
Section 3 . That Sections 4 . 8 (D) and (E) of the Land Use Code are hereby
amended to read as follows :
Division 4.8 Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District (N-C-M)
(D) Land Use Standards.
( 1 ) Required Lot Area. Lot
area shall be the equivalent o at least two times the toWaggregate
floor area of the building(s) situated on the lot, as further provided
below, butand not less than the following : five thousand (5 ,000)
square feet per principal building for a single-family or two-family
7
dwelling, and six thousand (6,000) square feet for all other uses .
"Aggregate floor area" shall mean the total gross floor area of all
principal buildings as measured along the outside walls of each
finished or unfinished floor level of such buildings, plus the total
gross floor area of the ground floor of any accessory building larger
than one hundred twenty ( 120) square feet, plus that portion of the
floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven
and one-half (71/2) feet located within any such accessory building
located on the lot.
(2) Allowable Floor Area of Street-Fronting Single-Family Dwellings.
The allowable floor area of a street-fronting, single-family dwelling
may be determined by either "block face averaging" as provided
below, or by utilizing the alternative maximum allowable floor area of
two thousand (2,000) square feet. Utilizing block face averaging, the
allowable floor area of any street-fronting single-family dwelling
shall not exceed the average floor area of the residential, street-
fronting, principal buildings that are either existing or for which a
building permit has been issued that have a street address on the same
block face, plus an additional fifty (50) percent of floor area (See
Figure XX) . Utilizing either method, allowable floor area shall not
exceed fifty (50) percent of lot area. Allowable floor area of the
residential, street-fronting, principal building(s) may be calculated by
utilizing County Assessor records or by actual measurement and
certified survey or by such other means as may be approved by the
Director. For the purposes of this provision, "allowable floor area "
shall mean the total gross floor area of the street-fronting single-
family dwelling, including each finished or unfinished floor level, as
measured along the outside walls of such building. Additionally, the
following shall apply For- thepurposes f ealeul ting density,
buildings
r ' e2I[.'1effwr II al,���e_afl the total gfos J' floor
-GL(fe f all
l buildings
ll an measured along
the /1111Vtnide walls
of
such
u ld ngs /�n1Vln
i eludin Y enaeom fYllntiled of
1 n.fi is" NeA floof level plusthe total gross
floor area of
the
ground
ll fleet of
any aeeessor I building
large ` tN aYI
t zty 12 ) sfeet, plus that portion the floo
area of any secondstory having a ceiling height of at least sever) and.
onehalf (71�) feet leeaten Mritw llvl ffl �j niil.h neeennel-l � building lenn4e�
on 4vI the lot.
Figure XX Example of Block Faces used for Block Face Averaging
8
S t r e e t
BLOCK FACE C n I1 ^^r�
ininininint,
� -
� I
dU 'UI
LL Alley Y
` Y
V1 0 _ __ _ _ _ I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _I _ _ I� O N
ccr 'n 1 pJp
E E 11 I 1 I i I T`J-
- - I I I I I I
EllIE
BLOCK FACE A
Street
Houses facing the same street
on the same block face
(like those labeled A) are used for
block face averaging.
(a) The following shall not be included in the computation of
the allowable floor area:
1 . basements ;
2 , open balconies ;
3 , attached garages (if more than one-half ( 1 /2) of the
dwellings on the same block face have attached
garages) ;
4, detached accessory buildings .
(b) If any horizontal eave along a side lot line is more than
thirteen ( 13 ) feet above grade, the floor area will be
calculated as if the building includes a second floor
regardless of whether a second floor is physically built.
Such horizontal eaves shall be measured from the grade at
the nearest side lot line perpendicularly to the center of the
eave.
(c) If any one story portion of a street-fronting single-family
dwelling exceeds eighteen and one-half ( 18 1 /2) feet in
height, such portion will be counted as both a first and
second floor even if such second floor is not physically
built, or if such portion consists partly or wholly of attic
space .
Figure XX Volume that Counts as Floor Area
9
Horizontal Eave
Count as " Second Floor" On9deWall
For Over 13' Height
Floor Area Limits
13'
Front View
Property
Line @:
Midpoint of I
Side Wall
Count as
" Second Floor" For
Floor Area Limits
18 '/z' 18 '/z
Ground Floor
(Open ba-leonies and basements shallzrnot ve—^countoa s floof afea
(23 ) " ��alAllowable Floor Area of Carriage Houses. Any new
single-family dwelling that is proposed to be located behind a street-
fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of one thousand
( 1 ,000) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space
within the basement and first floor plus that portion of the floor area of
any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half
(7 %) feet. A new single-family dwelling may be located in any area of
the rear portion of such lot, provided that it complies with setback
requirements of this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation
between structures . The building footprint for such single-family
dwelling shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet.
10
(34) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future
Habitable Space). Any accessory building with water and/or sewer
service shall be considered to have habitable space. An applicant may
also declare an intent for an accessory building to contain habitable
space. Any such structure containing habitable space that is located
behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum six
hundred (600) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor
space within the basement and ground floor plus that portion of the floor
area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and
one-half (71/2) feet. Such accessory building may be located in any area
of the rear portion of a lot, provided that it complies with the setback
requirements of this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation
between structures.
(45) Accessory Buildings Without Habitable Space. Any accessory building
without water and/or sewer service, which has not been declared to
contain habitable space by the applicant, shall not exceed a total floor
area of six hundred (600) square feet. Floor area shall include all floor
space (including basement space) within the building having a ceiling
height of at least seven and one-half (71/2) feet.
(56) Floor Area Ratio of Rear Half of Lot (FAR). Lots are subject to a
maximum FAR of thirty-three hundredths (0 . 33) on the rear fifty (50)
percent of the lot. asit existed on OEtober- 25 , 19° 1�a area
as the basis
for- the FAR
D eale latio i steal be considered the minimum
rope within the zone distfie . All principal buildings and detached
accessory buildings that exceed one hundred twenty ( 120) square feet
of floor area shall be included in the calculation of FAR.
(E) Dimensional Standards.
( 1 ) Minimum lot width shall be forty (40) feet for each single-family and
two-family dwelling and fifty (50) feet for each other use. If more
than one ( 1 ) principal building is proposed to be constructed side-by-
side on the same lot, then each such principal building must have at
least forty (40) feet of street frontage for single-family and two-family
dwellings, and at least fifty (50) feet of street frontage for each other
use.
(2) Minimum front yard setback shall be fifteen ( 15) feet. Setbacks from
garage doors to the backs of public walks shall not be less than twenty
(20) feet.
(3 ) Minimum rear yard setback shall be five (5) feet from existing alleys
and fifteen ( 15 ) feet in all other conditions .
11
(4) Minimum side yard width shall be five (5) feet for all interior side
yards . Whenever any portion of a wall or building exceeds eighteen
( 18) feet in height, such portion of the wall or building shall be set
back from the interior side lot line an additional one ( 1 ) foot, beyond
the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of wall
or building height that exceeds eighteen ( 18) feet in height (as
measured from the grade at the nearest side lot line perpendicularly to
the center of the wall) . Minimum side yard width shall be fifteen ( 15 )
feet on the street side of any corner lot. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, minimum side yard width for schools and places of
worship shall be twenty-five (25) feet (for both interior and street
sides) .
Figure XX Measurement of Side Wall Height
Side
Midpoint Wall
Of Height
Side Wall Measurement
For Setback
Purposes
��de Vie
(5 ) Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except for carriage
houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which
shall be limited to one and one-half ( 1 t/2) stories .
Section 4 . That the definition "Block face" contained in Section 5 . 2 . 1 of the
Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows :
Block face shall mean the pot4ie"' of ^ bloe-]K *h^* AMRts ^ s*, 00*one ( 1 ) side
of a City block that abuts a street between two (2) intersections .
Section 5 . That Section 5 .2 . 1 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new definition "Principal building" which reads in its entirety as follows :
Principal building shall mean any building except a detached accessory
building.
Section 6 . That the City Manager is hereby directed to prepare and submit to
the City Council, on or before January 31 , 2013 , a written report and recommendation
regarding the implementation of the provisions of this Ordinance and, in particular,
whether such implementation has, in his or her opinion, achieved the stated purposes of
ensuring the compatibility of additions, alterations and new construction with existing
12
structures in residential neighborhoods of the City without working an undue hardship on
affected property owners .
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th
day of January, A.D . 2011 , and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of
January, A.D . 2011 .
Mayor
ATTEST :
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of January, A.D . 2011 .
Mayor
ATTEST :
City Clerk
13
OPTION B
ORDINANCE NO , 0039 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING AMENDMENTS
TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE
PERTAINING TO EAST SIDE AND WEST SIDE NEIGHBORHOOD
DESIGN STANDARDS
WHEREAS , on March 18 , 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 051 , 1997 , the
City Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code") ; and
WHEREAS, Policy HSG-3 . 1 of the City ' s Comprehensive Plan provides that the
character of stable, residential neighborhoods should be preserved through neighborhood
planning, assistance to neighborhood organizations, and supportive regulatory
techniques; and
WHEREAS , Policy EXN- 1 .4 of the City ' s Comprehensive Plan provides that the
City will follow specific design standards for infill development and redevelopment with
an emphasis on protecting existing residential neighborhood character; and
WHEREAS , the City Council has also adopted the East Side Neighborhood Plan
and the West Side Neighborhood Plan, which plans establish a vision and policies for
their respective areas ; and
WHEREAS , at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the
understanding of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be
subject to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of
errors, but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic
document capable of responding to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals
and citizens of the City; and
WHEREAS , City staff has been requested to prepare and present to the City
Council certain changes to the Land Use Code to address issues of concern regarding the
compatibility of the size of new single-family houses and additions to existing single-
family houses in the East Side and West Side Neighborhoods, particularly in the
Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density Zone District and the Neighborhood
Conservation, Medium Density Zone District, as compared to the size of existing
principal structures in those zone districts; and
WHEREAS , the City Council has received and considered the recommendation of
the Planning and Zoning Board; and
WHEREAS , the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use
Code amendments comport with the City' s Comprehensive Plan and the East Side
1
Neighborhood Plan and West Side Neighborhood Plan, and are in the best interest of the
City and its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF FORT COLLINS that the Land Use Code is hereby amended as follows :
Section 1 . That Section 2 . 10 .2(H) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
as follows :
(H) Step 8 (Standards) : Applicable, and the Zoning Board of Appeals may
grant a variance from the standards of Articles 3 and 4 only if it finds that
the granting of the variance would neither be detrimental to the public
good nor authorize any change in use other than to a use that is allowed
subject to basic development review; and that:
( 1 ) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary
and exceptional situations unique to such property, including, but
not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness,
shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder
the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict
application of the standard sought to be varied would result in
unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or
undue hardship upon the occupant of such property, or upon the
applicant, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused
by the act or omission of the occupant or applicant;
(2) the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the
standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better
than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which
the variance is requested; or
(3 ) the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of
the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be varied
except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the
context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the
purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1 .2 .2 .
Any finding made under subparagraph ( 1 ), (2) or (3 ) above shall be
supported by specific findings showing how the proposal, as submitted,
meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph ( 1 ), (2) or (3 ) .
If a variance is sought from the standards contained in Division
4. 7, Section (D) or subparagraphs 4 or 5 of Section (E), or Division
4. 8 , Section (D) or subparagraphs 4 or 5 of Section (E), the
application for such variance shall be accompanied by a written
recommendation from a committee of the Landmark Preservation
2
Commission, as authorized under Section 2-278 (b)(5) of the City
Code .
Section 2 . That Sections 4 .7(D) and (E) of the Land Use Code are hereby
amended to read as follows :
Division 4 .7 Neighborhood Conservation , Low Density District (N-C-L)
(D) Land Use Standards.
( 1 ) Required Lot Area. Nfiniffmfn !Lot area shall be
at least two and one-half (21/2) times the totalaggregate floor area of
the building(s) situated on the lot, as further provided below, lttand
not less than six thousand (6,000) square feet per principal building.
"Aggregate floor area" shall mean the total gross floor area of all
principal buildings as measured along the outside walls of each
finished or unfinished floor level of such buildings, plus the total
gross floor area of the ground floor of any accessory building larger
than one hundred twenty ( 120) square feet, plus that portion of the
floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven
and one-half (71/2) feet located within any such accessory building
located on the lot.
(2) Allowable Floor Area of Street-Fronting Single-Family Dwellings.
The allowable floor area of a street-fronting single-family dwelling
shall not exceed twenty-seven (27) percent of the area of the lot upon
which the dwelling is situated. For the purposes of this provision,
"allowable floor area " shall mean the total gross floor area of the
street-fronting single-family dwelling, including each finished and
unfinished floor level, as measured along the outside walls of such
building. Additionally, the following shall apply : ^^ ''
ealc g sity, "total floor area"
all mono. the total �s floo liZ'[I CY*l�C[�nTiL� LSr7ZVVECTr LSIl iIIGLLrf g�O
suchbuildings
and
ineliiling eae finished
or unfinished
floor level
buildingarg€f than
one
hundred twenty
120)square feet, plus
that
poftion of the floor- area of any seeend story hm7ing a eeiling height o
at least seven and one half (717�) feet loeated within any sue
aeeessor-y building leeated on the lot;
(a) If any horizontal eave along a side lot line is more than
thirteen ( 13 ) feet above grade, the floor area shall be
calculated as if the building includes a second floor
regardless of whether a second floor is physically built.
Such horizontal eaves shall be measured from the grade at
3
the nearest side lot line perpendicularly to the center of the
eave.
(b) If any one story portion of a street-fronting single-family
dwelling exceeds eighteen and one-half ( 18 1 /2) feet in
height, such portion shall be counted as both a first and
second floor even if such second floor is not physically
built, or if such portion consists partly or wholly of attic
space .
Figure XX Volume that Counts as Floor Area
al Eave
Count as " Second Floor" OnrSdetWall
For Over 13' Height
Floor Area Limits
13'
Front View
Property I
Line @:
Midpoint of I
Side Wall
Count as
" Second Floor" For
Floor Area Limits
18 '/2 18 '/2'
Ground Floor
(c) The following shall not be included in the computation of
the allowable floor area:
4
1 . basements ;
2 . open balconies ;
3 . attached garages (if more than one-half ( 1 /2) of the
dwellings on the same block face have attached
garages) ;
N 4, detached accessory buildings .
(Open
balconies and basements shall
not be—counted
as Tl ooF (
area
Tpi`
pur-ponon of a le l .ating densityl VCL l�Jl
(23 ) -e�Allowable Floor Area of Carriage Houses. Any new
single-family dwelling that is proposed to be located behind a street-
fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of eight hundred
(800) square feet of floor area unless such new single-family dwelling
contains a two-car garage, in which case it shall contain a maximum
of one thousand ( 1 ,000) square feet of floor area, including the
garage . Floor area shall include all floor space within the basement
and first floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story
having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (71/2) feet. A
new single-family dwelling may be located in any area of the rear
portion of such lot, provided that it complies with the setback
requirements of this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation
between structures . The building footprint for such single-family
dwelling shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet.
(34) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future
Habitable Space). Any accessory building with water and/or sewer
service shall be considered to have habitable space . An applicant may
also declare an intent for an accessory building to contain habitable
space . Any such structure containing habitable space that is located
behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of
six hundred (600) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include
all floor space within the basement and ground floor plus that portion
of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least
seven and one-half (71/2) feet. Such accessory building may be
located in any area of the rear portion of a lot, provided that it
complies with the setback requirements of this District and there is at
least a ten-foot separation between structures.
(45) Accessory Buildings Without Habitable Space. Any accessory
building without water and/or sewer service, which has not been
declared to contain habitable space by the applicant, shall not exceed
a total floor area of six hundred (600) square feet. Floor area shall
include all floor space (including basement space) within the building
having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (71/2) feet.
5
(56) Floor Area Ratio of Rear Half of Lot (FAR). Lots are subject to a
maximum FAR of twenty-five hundredths (0 .25) on the rear fifty (50)
percent of the lots it existed on Eteber- 25T O 1�a area
as the basis for- the FAR e le lmie shall be eonsider-e the
miairy tffi
rot size within the '^ZV�TLTIet.. All principal buildings and detached
accessory buildings that exceed one hundred twenty ( 120) square feet
of floor area shall be included in the calculation of FAR.
(E) Dimensional Standards.
( 1 ) Minimum lot width shall be forty (40) feet.
(2) Minimum front yard setback shall be fifteen ( 15) feet. Setbacks from
garage doors to the backs of public walks shall not be less than twenty
(20) feet.
(3) Minimum rear yard setback shall be five (5) feet from existing alleys
and fifteen ( 15 ) feet in all other conditions .
(4) Minimum side yard width shall be five (5) feet for all interior side
yards . Whenever any portion of a wall or building exceeds eighteen
( 18) feet in height, such portion of the wall or building shall be set
back from the interior side lot line an additional one ( 1 ) foot, beyond
the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of wall
or building height that exceeds eighteen ( 18) feet in height (as
measured from the grade at the nearest side lot line perpendicularly to
the center of the wall) . Minimum side yard width shall be fifteen ( 15 )
feet on the street side of any corner lot. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, minimum side yard width for schools and places of
worship shall be twenty-five (25) feet (for both interior and street
sides) .
Figure XX Measurement of Side Wall Height
Side
Midpoint Wall
Of Height
Side Wall Measurement
For Setback
Purposes
5�ae vie
6
(5 ) Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case
of carriage houses, and accessory buildings containing habitable
space, which shall be a maximum of one and one-half ( 11/z) stories.
Section 3 . That Sections 4 . 8 (D) and (E) of the Land Use Code are hereby
amended to read as follows :
Division 4.8 Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District (N-C-M)
(D) Land Use Standards.
( 1 ) nens407Atensit , of "e1fe opmen 'Required Lot Area. Mini=m !Lot
area shall be the equivale at least two times the toWaggregate
floor area of the building(s) situated on the lot, as further provided
below, wand not less than the following : five thousand (5 ,000)
square feet per principal building for a single-family or two-family
dwelling, and six thousand (6,000) square feet for all other uses .
"Aggregate floor area" shall mean the total gross floor area of all
principal buildings as measured along the outside walls of each
finished or unfinished floor level of such buildings, plus the total
gross floor area of the ground floor of any accessory building larger
than one hundred twenty ( 120) square feet, plus that portion of the
floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven
and one-half (71/2) feet located within any such accessory building
located on the lot.
(2) Allowable Floor Area of Street-Fronting Single-Family Dwellings.
The allowable floor area of a street-fronting single-family dwelling
shall not exceed twenty-seven (27) percent of the area of the lot upon
which the dwelling is situated. For the purposes of this provision,
"allowable floor area " shall mean the total gross floor area of the
street-fronting single-family dwelling, including each finished and
unfinished floor level, as measured along the outside walls of such
building. Additionally, the following shall apply: For- the p„r-peses or
calculating density,
"total
T7eer area"
r " shall mean f total
ot grosJTflLoorr
area of all pr-i eipal buildings
as measi .reil alev. `e the outside
walls e�
suchbuildings
and
i eluding ear(�l� lfi ic� l-. ei-1 or(yi nfiv� ic/��l� e(1 floor level
plus }Ne total gross T eeff- area of
twenty
t a ground
TIAAr of
any aeeeClsot.1 1
bull anger- than
one
hundred tw l=in�r20square feet, plies that
pe4`�1e-N-a/1f the, floor area of mly seven story having
a Ge1lifig 11e11Y11�t��a/1•�T
at last seven and one half ( 71�) fe€t loeated within any sue
aeeesser-y building lee& ell A. H. thea, lei
(a) If any horizontal eave along a side lot line is more than
thirteen ( 13 ) feet above grade, the floor area shall be
calculated as if the building includes a second floor
7
regardless of whether a second floor is physically built.
Such horizontal eaves shall be measured from the grade at
the nearest side lot line perpendicularly to the center of the
eave.
(b) If any one story portion of a street-fronting single-family
dwelling exceeds eighteen and one-half ( 18 1 /2) feet in
height, such portion shall be counted as both a first and
second floor even if such second floor is not physically
built, or if such portion consists partly or wholly of attic
space .
Figure XX Volume that Counts as Floor Area
00
00*14
Horizontal Eave
Count as " Second Roor" On9deWall
For Over 13' Height
Roor Area Lim its
13'
ON Front View
Property
Line @:
Midpoint of I
Side Wall
8
Count as
00 " Second Floor" For
R oo r Area Limits
18 '/z' 18 '/2
Ground Floor Ni
(c) The following shall not be included in the computation of
the allowable floor area:
1 . basements ;
2 . open balconies ;
3 . attached garages (if more than one-half ( 1 /2) of the
dwellings on the same block face have attached
garages) ;
balconies
' 4. „ � basements
accessory buildings . (
((Open�/� ie � ll and b G��ements steal not be counted
as floor nrP�ipl'
pur-P 0sOP e /fin l /�lll tang density �/U lJl
(23 ) " ^ Allowable Floor Area of Carriage Houses. Any new
single-family dwelling that is proposed to be located behind a street-
fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of one thousand
( 1 ,000) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space
within the basement and first floor plus that portion of the floor area of
any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half
(71/2) feet. A new single-family dwelling may be located in any area of
the rear portion of such lot, provided that it complies with setback
requirements of this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation
between structures . The building footprint for such single-family
dwelling shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet.
(34) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future
Habitable Space). Any accessory building with water and/or sewer
service shall be considered to have habitable space. An applicant may
also declare an intent for an accessory building to contain habitable
space. Any such structure containing habitable space that is located
behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum six
9
hundred (600) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor
space within the basement and ground floor plus that portion of the floor
area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and
one-half (71/2) feet. Such accessory building may be located in any area
of the rear portion of a lot, provided that it complies with the setback
requirements of this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation
between structures.
(45) Accessory Buildings Without Habitable Space. Any accessory building
without water and/or sewer service, which has not been declared to
contain habitable space by the applicant, shall not exceed a total floor
area of six hundred (600) square feet. Floor area shall include all floor
space (including basement space) within the building having a ceiling
height of at least seven and one-half (71/2) feet.
(56) Floor Area Ratio of Rear Half of Lot (FAR). Lots are subject to a
maximum FAR of thirty-three hundredths (0 . 33) on the rear fifty (50)
percent of the lot as it e�E=iste d on Oeteber 25 1991 . The lot area u-Re
as the basis
for-
the FAR
R ealeu atio shag be eonsidefe the fffi =
rot size thin the zene distfie . All principal buildings and detached
accessory buildings that exceed one hundred twenty ( 120) square feet
of floor area shall be included in the calculation of FAR.
(E) Dimensional Standards.
( 1 ) Minimum lot width shall be forty (40) feet for each single-family and
two-family dwelling and fifty (50) feet for each other use. If more
than one ( 1 ) principal building is proposed to be constructed side-by-
side on the same lot, then each such principal building must have at
least forty (40) feet of street frontage for single-family and two-family
dwellings, and at least fifty (50) feet of street frontage for each other
use.
(2) Minimum front yard setback shall be fifteen ( 15) feet. Setbacks from
garage doors to the backs of public walks shall not be less than twenty
(20) feet.
(3 ) Minimum rear yard setback shall be five (5) feet from existing alleys
and fifteen ( 15) feet in all other conditions .
(4) Minimum side yard width shall be five (5 ) feet for all interior side
yards . Whenever any portion of a wall or building exceeds eighteen
( 18) feet in height, such portion of the wall or building shall be set
back from the interior side lot line an additional one ( 1 ) foot, beyond
the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of wall
or building height that exceeds eighteen ( 18) feet in height (as
measured from the grade at the nearest side lot line perpendicularly to
10
the center of the wall) . Minimum side yard width shall be fifteen ( 15)
feet on the street side of any corner lot. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, minimum side yard width for schools and places of
worship shall be twenty-five (25 ) feet (for both interior and street
sides) .
Figure XX Measurement of Side Wall Height
AL
Side
Midpoint Wall
Of Height
Side Wall Measurement
For Setback
Purposes
5Nd ;�y\e
(5 ) Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except for carriage
houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which
shall be limited to one and one-half ( 11/2) stories.
Section 4 . That the definition "Block face" contained in Section 5 .2 . 1 of the
Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows :
Block face shall mean the portionof " block that abuts
a s one ( 1 ) side
of a City block that abuts a street between two (2) intersections .
Section 5 . That Section 5 .2 . 1 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new definition "Principal building" which reads in its entirety as follows :
Principal building shall mean any building except a detached accessory
building.
Section 6 . That the City Manager is hereby directed to prepare and submit to
the City Council, on or before January 31 , 2013 , a written report and recommendation
regarding the implementation of the provisions of this Ordinance and, in particular,
whether such implementation has, in his or her opinion, achieved the stated purposes of
ensuring the compatibility of additions, alterations and new construction with existing
structures in residential neighborhoods of the City without working an undue hardship on
affected property owners .
11
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th
day of January, A.D . 2011 , and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of
January, A.D . 2011 .
Mayor
ATTEST :
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of January, A . D . 2011 .
Mayor
ATTEST :
City Clerk
12