HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 08/24/2010 - EAST SIDE AND WEST SIDE NEIGHBORHOODS DESIGN STAND DATE: August 24, 2010
STAFF: Joe Frank, Steve Dush WORK SESSION ITEM
Megan Bolin, Clark Mapes FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
East Side and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In January 2010, at the direction of City Council, staff began a process to examine concerns related
to the replacement and expansion of small older houses with larger new construction in Fort Collins'
oldest neighborhoods. Prior to January, City Council and staff heard from a number of concerned
residents that some of the new single-family development was incompatible with the neighborhood
character.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 defined by City policy. The Final 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 implementation
actions.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
• 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?
BACKGROUND
The East and West Side Neighborhoods are the two residential areas adjacent to the downtown
business district, where Fort Collins' first homes were built (see Attachment 1). As pressure to
expand or demolish and replace houses has increased over the past decades,a strong desire remains
among residents to protect the quality of life associated with living in these traditional
neighborhoods. The City has a history of efforts to create appropriate policies and regulations in
this regard. However,some residents are concerned that incompatible new construction is occurring
and should be addressed.
The study process was organized into three phases: (1)examine existing conditions;(2)identify and
analyze issues; and (3) explore potential implementation options. A Citizen Advisory Committee
(CAC) was formed to assist staff with the study, and input was sought from the general public,
Planning and Zoning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, and Landmark Preservation Commission.
August 24, 2010 Page 2
J
Attachment 2 is the Final Report, which 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 implementation actions.
In the spectrum of identified 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
to quantify, such as the role of existing houses in the diversity of the neighborhoods. Additionally,
there were various viewpoints with differing perspectives about how to address the issues. For
instance, one key issue identified throughout the outreach was a feeling that the building square
footage currently allowed by City development standards may be too large, and is not consistent
with the prevailing development pattern typically found in the study area. This issue can result in
dramatic size differences between existing and newly constructed houses or additions. Others feel
that design, not simply size, plays a critical role in the feel of the neighborhood and, in general,that
the impacts of larger houses can be mitigated with appropriate building design.
IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS
Staff has provided a range of potential implementation options for Council to consider. Options to
address the issue 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.
The options that have been developed to address size focus on reducing the allowable building size
to better align with the prevailing pattern of the neighborhoods. Other options address design review
and design assistance to encourage design that is sensitive to the neighborhood context. The options
to consider are:
• Size
• 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 averaging with the two adjacent houses.
• 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.
• Design
• Require neighborhood meetings.
• Reinstate the Design Assistance Program and extend to non-historic houses.
• Codify select design guidelines and make them standards.
August 24, 2010 Page 3
• Require architectural review by the Landmark Preservation Commission,or a newly
formed Architectural Review Committee, for expansions and new houses.
Regardless of whether Council directs staff to pursue any of the implementation options, staff
recommends that a few minor technical Land Use Code items be addressed. Those technical Land
Use Code items are explained in greater detail in the Final Report. Addressing the items is
supported by the Planning and Zoning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, Landmark Preservation
Commission, and CAC. Attachment 3 shows the relevant sections of the Land Use Code for the
three affected zoning districts: Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (NCL); Neighborhood
Conservation Medium Density (NCM); and Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Map of the study area.
2. East Side and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study—Final Report.
3. Land Use Code Divisions 4.7 Neighborhood Conservation Low Density District(NCL),4.8
Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density District (NCM), and 4.9 Neighborhood
Conservation Buffer District (NCB).
4. Citizen Advisory Committee meeting summaries
5. PowerPoint Presentation
ATTACHMENT
J l
c PQ A
VPNf�O U , Vw ■
U Y
3 oc F
LU LL O Z
CIO o z Jz
n " H Y m o CHERRY ILJ
a ZMAPFLE3Ha � � MAPLE �� N
�. ...� M
> JUNIPER
' " H LAORTE Y r�i� O
W
F'P LINCOLN
LL RICHAR S o a x a
a 152 -MOUNTAIN
._
OLIVE
'^ ■MAGNO�LI�A�n � nnr� ' ' �■■
rill -
r
. z
z } m
EN VIE MYRTLE W
ORCHARD
BIRCH , „ -
■m_o_o__000�rZ
ORCHARD VIM7 W
o Q MLAUREL �
ac BAYSTONE �
I O W 0 Wj L'IJ � H
P Plil„ _ O M k- ;_ NORTH W JPENNOCK
East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study
�■■■■■■■■■= � �� L•I-ZABETH Q Y
Study Area a n
�■■■■■■■■n > —CSF►R�F Q D
ac
City Zoning z EUj
. w
I Neighborhood Conservation Buffer ( NCB ) ITI�yN� - W c
LU_ W M
Neighborhood Conservation Low Density ( NCL) I LAKE 3 e z m
v�Z = W LAKE
Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density ( NCM ) �U a
m DEINES APEX
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 obtained :
■ 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
CCity of
rt Ins
CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE
DIVISION 4.7 NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, LOW DENSITY DISTRICT(N-C-L)
(A) Purpose. The Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District is intended to preserve the
character of areas that have a predominance of developed single-family dwellings and have
been given this designation in accordance with an adopted subarea plan.
(B) Permitted Uses.
(1) The following uses are permitted in the N-C-L District, subject to basic development
review, provided that such uses are located on lots that are part of an approved site
specific development plan:
(a) Residential Uses:
1. Single-family detached dwellings, but not to include
2. Shelters for victims of domestic violence.
(b) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings, provided that they contain no habitable space.
2. Accessory uses.
(c) Any use authorized pursuant to a site specific development plan that was
processed and approved either in compliance with the Zoning Code in effect on
March 27, 1997, or in compliance with this Land Use Code (other than a final
subdivision plat, or minor subdivision plat, approved pursuant to Section 29-643
or 29-644 of prior law, for any nonresidential development or any multi-family
dwelling containing more than four [4] dwelling units), provided that such use
shall be subject to all of the use and density requirements and conditions of said
site specific development plan.
(d) Any use which is not hereafter listed as a permitted use in this zone district
but which was permitted for a specific parcel of property pursuant to the zone
district regulations in effect for such parcel on March 27, 1997; and which
physically existed upon such parcel on March 27, 1997; provided, however, that
such existing use shall constitute a permitted use only on such parcel of
property.
1
City of
rt�ins
(e) Institutional/Civic/Public Uses:
1. Neighborhood parks as defined by the Parks and Recreation Policy
Plan.
(2) The following uses shall be permitted in the N-C-L District, subject to administrative
review:
(a) Residential Uses:
1. Single-family detached dwellings when there is more than one (1)
dwelling on the lot or when the lot has only alley frontage.
(b) Institutional/Civic/Public Uses:
1. Parks, recreation and other open lands, except neighborhood parks as
defined by the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan.
(c) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings containing habitable space.
(3)The following uses are permitted within the N-C-L District, subject to review by the
Planning and Zoning Board:
(a) Residential Uses:
1. Group homes.
(b) Institutional/Civic/Public Uses:
1. Public and private schools for elementary, intermediate and high
school education.
2. Places of worship or assembly.
3. Community facilities.
4. Minor public facilities.
(c) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Wireless telecommunication equipment.
2
City of
(C) Prohibited Uses. All uses that are not (1) expressly allowed as permitted uses in this Section
or (2) determined to be permitted by the Director or the Planning and Zoning Board pursuant to
Section 1.3.4 of this Land Use Code shall be prohibited.
(D) Land Use Standards.
(1) Density. Minimum lot area shall be equivalent to at least two and one-half(2%) times
the total floor area of the building(s), but not less than six thousand (6,000) square feet.
For the purposes of calculating density, "total floor area" shall mean the total gross floor
area of all principal buildings as measured along the outside walls of such buildings and
including each finished or unfinished floor level 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(7%) feet located within any such accessory building located on
the lot. (Open balconies and basements shall not be counted as floor area for purposes
of calculating density).
(2) Residential. 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(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 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.
(3)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(7%:) 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.
(4)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
3
Foty of
r'" -t�ins
shall include all floor space (including basement space) within the building having a
ceiling height of at least seven and one-half(7%) feet.
(5) FloorAreo Ratio (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 on October 25, 1991. The lot
area used as the basis for the FAR calculation shall be considered the minimum lot size
within the zone district.
(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. 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).
(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(1%) stories.
(F) Development Standards.
(1) Building Design.
(a) All exterior walls of a building that are greater than six (6) feet in length shall
be constructed parallel to or at right angles to the side lot lines of the lot
whenever the lot is rectilinear in shape.
(b) The primary entrance to a dwelling shall be located along the front wall of the
building, unless otherwise required for handicap access. Such entrance shall
include an architectural feature such as a porch, landing or portico.
4
ity of
Fo`rt�` Co ins
(c) Accessory buildings and attached garages shall have a front yard setback that
is at least ten (10)feet greater than the front setback of the principal building
that is located on the front portion of the lot.
(d) A second floor shall not overhang the lower front or side exterior walls of a
new or existing building.
(e) Front porches shall be limited to one (1) story, and the front facades of all
one- and two-family dwellings shall be no higher than 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(1'/) stories.
(f) In the event that a new dwelling is proposed to be constructed on the rear
portion of a lot which has frontage on two (2) streets and an alley, the front of
such new dwelling shall face the street.
(g) The minimum pitch of the roof of any building shall be 2:12 and the maximum
pitch of the roof of any building shall be 12:12, except that new, detached
accessory buildings and additions to existing dwelling units may be constructed
with a pitch that matches any roof pitch of the existing dwelling unit.
Additionally, the roof pitch of a dormer, turret or similar architectural feature
may not exceed 24:12 and the roof pitch of a covered porch may be flat
whenever the roof of such a porch is also considered to be the floor of a second-
story deck.
(2) Bulk and Massing.
(a) Building Height.
1. 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(1%) stories.
2. The height of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot or an
accessory building containing habitable space shall not exceed twenty-
four (24) feet.
3. The height of an accessory building containing no habitable space shall
not exceed twenty (20) feet.
5
of
rt�ins
(b) Eave Height.
1. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not
exceed thirteen (13) feet from grade for a dwelling unit located at the
rear of the lot or an accessory building with habitable space.
2. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not
exceed ten (10) feet from grade for an accessory building containing no
habitable space.
3. If a second story has an exterior wall that is set back from the lower
story's exterior wall,the eave height shall be the point of an imaginary
line at which the upper story's roofline (if extended horizontally) would
intersect with the lower story's exterior wall (if extended vertically).
24' E
k S
a--:a °+
I llil2rE Eli { 1!I ' 't' � �E;�'Iti E
6�E iLii
Illustration of Carriage House Roofline and Eave Heights
(3) Carriage Houses and Habitable Accessory Buildings.
(a) Carriage Houses.
1. Water and sewer lines may be extended from the principal building on
the lot to the carriage house.
2. A minimum of one (1) off-street parking space must be provided for
every bedroom contained within a carriage house.
6
City of
rt` C�ol�lins
(b) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space. An accessory building with water
and/or sewer service shall be considered as containing habitable space.
Habitable space does not necessarily mean a dwelling unit, but is space that is
intended to eventually serve as indoor, habitable space for human occupancy.
Accessory building applications must include the applicant's declaration as to
whether or not the space is intended to be habitable. If water and/or sewer
services are provided to the building, it shall be considered as containing
habitable space. If an applicant declares that a space is not intended to become
habitable, no water and/or sewer connections will be allowed to the building,
and less restrictive bulk and massing requirements are allowed as provided
below.
(c) Additional Review Criteria for Carriage Houses and Accessory Buildings With
Habitable Space. The following additional standards are intended to ensure that
the design and operating characteristics of the carriage house, or other
accessory building with habitable space, is compatible with the character of the
surrounding neighborhood and shall apply to the review of all applications for
approval of a carriage house or accessory building containing habitable space:
1. The site plan shall provide a separate yard area containing at least one
hundred twenty (120) square feet to serve both the carriage house and
the existing principal dwelling. Such yard area shall be at least ten (10)
feet in its smallest dimension, and must provide privacy and screening for
abutting properties.
2. To the extent reasonably feasible, decks, entry doors, major entry
access stairs and major windows shall face the existing principal building
or the alley (if the lots front the alley). To the extent reasonably feasible,
windows that overlook an abutting side or rear yard shall be minimized.
3. Buildings, structures, open spaces and other features of the site plan
shall be oriented and located such that they maintain natural resources,
including existing significant trees and shrubs, to the extent reasonably
feasible.
(4) Landscape/Hardscape Material. A maximum of forty (40) percent of the front yard of
a lot may be covered with inorganic material such as asphalt or cement concrete, paving
stone, flagstone, rock or gravel.
(5)Access. Whenever a lot has frontage along an alley, any new off-street parking area
located on such lot must obtain access from such adjoining alley; provided, however,
that such alley access shall not be required when a new detached garage is proposed to
be accessed from an existing driveway that has a curbcut along a public street, or when
alley access is determined by the City Engineer to be a hazard to persons or vehicles.
7
art` Co ins
(6)Site Design. Permanent open off-street parking areas for all permitted principal uses,
other than single-family dwellings, shall not be located any closer to a public street
right-of-way than the distance by which the principal building is set back from the street
right-of-way. This provision shall not be construed to preclude temporary parking in
driveways.
(7)Subdividing of Existing Lots. No existing lot may be further subdivided in such
manner as to create a new lot in the rear portion of the existing lot.
(Ord. No. 90, 1998, 5/19/98; Ord. No. 228, 1998 §92, 12/15/98; Ord. No. 165, 1999 §36,
11/16/99; Ord. No. 204, 2001 §§1, 27-29, 12/18/01; Ord. No. 173, 2003 §22, 12/16/03; Ord.
No. 063, 2004 §2, 4/20/04; Ord. No. 198, 2004 §§19, 20, 12/21/04; Ord. No. 131, 2006 §3,
9/19/06; Ord. No. 192, 2006 §§21, 22, 12/19/06; Ord. No. 081, 2007 §14, 7/17/07; Ord. No.
073, 2008 §24, 7/1/08; Ord. No. 066, 2009 §21, 7/7/09)
DIVISION 4.8 NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, MEDIUM DENSITY DISTRICT (N-C-M)
(A) Purpose. The Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District is intended to preserve
the character of areas that have a predominance of developed single-family and low-to
medium-density multi-family housing and have been given this designation in accordance with
an adopted subarea plan.
(B) Permitted Uses.
(1) The following uses are permitted in the N-C-M District, subject to basic development
review, provided that such uses are located on lots that are part of an approved site
specific development plan:
(a) Residential Uses:
1. Single-family detached dwellings, but not to include carriage houses.
2. Two-family dwellings where there is only one (1) principal building on
the lot, provided that no structural additions or exterior alterations are
made to an existing building or the dwellings are constructed on a vacant
lot or a parcel which did not contain a structure on October 25, 1991.
3. Shelters for victims of domestic violence.
(b) Institutional/Civic/Public Uses:
1. Places of worship or assembly.
8
City of
ins
2. Minor public facilities.
3. Neighborhood parks as defined by the Parks and Recreation Policy
Plan.
(c) Commercial/Retail Uses:
1. Child care centers.
2. Adult day/respite care centers.
(d) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings, provided that they contain no habitable space.
2. Accessory uses.
(e) Any use authorized pursuant to a site specific development plan that was
processed and approved either in compliance with the Zoning Code in effect on
March 27, 1997, or in compliance with this Land Use Code (other than a final
subdivision plat, or minor subdivision plat, approved pursuant to Section 29-643
or 29-644 of prior law, for any nonresidential development or any multi-family
dwelling containing more than four [4] dwelling units), provided that such use
shall be subject to all of the use and density requirements and conditions of said
site specific development plan.
(f) Any use which is not hereafter listed as a permitted use in this zone district
but which was permitted for a specific parcel of property pursuant to the zone
district regulations in effect for such parcel on March 27, 1997; and which
physically existed upon such parcel on March 27, 1997; provided, however, that
such existing use shall constitute a permitted use only on such parcel of
property.
(2)The following uses are permitted in the N-C-M District, subject to administrative
review:
(a) Residential Uses:
1. Single-family detached dwellings, when there is more than one (1)
principal building on the lot or when the lot has only alley frontage.
2. Two-family dwellings when there is more than one (1) principal
building on the lot, provided that no structural additional or exterior
alterations are made to an existing building or the dwellings are
9
City of
rt Co ins
constructed on a vacant lot or a parcel which did not contain a structure
on October 25, 1991, and provided that such two-family dwelling is
located within a street-fronting principal building.
3. Multi-family dwellings up to four (4) units per building, provided that
no structural additions or exterior alterations are made to the existing
building, or the dwellings are constructed on a vacant lot or a parcel
which did not contain a structure on October 25, 1991, and provided that
such multi-family dwelling is located within a street-fronting principal
building.
4. Group homes.
(b) Institutional/Civic/Public Uses:
1. Community facilities.
2. Parks, recreation and other open lands, except neighborhood parks as
defined by the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan.
(c) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings containing habitable space.
(3)The following uses are permitted in the N-C-M District, subject to Planning and
Zoning Board review:
(a) Residential Uses:
1. Two-family and multi-family dwellings up to four (4) units per building
when structural additions or exterior alterations are made to an existing
building, or when the dwellings are constructed on a lot or a parcel which
contained a structure on October 25, 1991, provided that such two-family
or multi-family dwelling is located within a street-fronting principal
building.
(b) Institutional/Civic/Public Uses:
1. Public and private schools for elementary, intermediate and high
school education.
(c) Commercial/Retail Uses:
1. Bed and breakfast establishments with six (6) or fewer beds.
10
�rtof
` ins
(d) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Wireless telecommunication equipment.
(C) Prohibited Uses. All uses that are not (1) expressly allowed as permitted uses in this Section
or (2) determined to be permitted by the Director or the Planning and Zoning Board pursuant to
Section 1.3.4 of this Land Use Code shall be prohibited.
(D) Land Use Standards.
(1) Density/Intensity of Development. Minimum lot area shall be the equivalent of two
(2) times the total floor area of the building(s), but not less than the following: five
thousand (5,000) square feet for a single-family or two-family dwelling and six thousand
(6,000) square feet for all other uses. For the purposes of calculating density, "total floor
area" shall mean the total gross floor area of all principal buildings as measured along
the outside walls of such buildings, including each finished or unfinished floor level, 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(7'/:) feet located within any
such accessory building located on the lot. (Open balconies and basements shall not be
counted as floor area for purposes of calculating density).
(2) Residential. 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.
(3)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(7%) 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.
11
City of
Fort Collins
(4)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(7Y2) feet.
(5) Floor Area Ratio (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 existed on October 25,
1991. The lot area used as the basis for the FAR calculation shall be considered the
minimum lot size within the zone district.
(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. 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).
(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%) stories.
(F) Development Standards.
(1) Building Design.
12
City of
Foy art` o Ins
(a) All exterior walls of a building that are greater than six (6) feet in length shall
be constructed parallel to or at right angles to the side lot lines of the lot
whenever the lot is rectilinear in shape.
(b) The primary entrance to a dwelling shall be located along the front wall of the
building, unless otherwise required for handicap access. Such entrance shall
include an architectural feature such as a porch, landing or portico.
(c) Accessory buildings and attached garages shall have a front yard setback that
is at least ten (10) feet greater than the front setback of the principal building
that is located on the front portion of the lot.
(d) A second floor shall not overhang the lower front or side exterior walls of a
new or existing building.
(e) Front porches shall be limited to one (1) story, and the front facades of all
one- and two-family dwellings shall be no higher than two (2) stories, except for
carriage houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall
be limited to one and one-half(1%) stories.
(f) In the event that a new dwelling is proposed to be constructed on the rear
portion of a lot which has frontage on two (2) streets and an alley, the front of
such new dwelling shall face the street.
(g)The minimum pitch of the roof of any building shall be 2:12 and the maximum
pitch of the roof of any building shall be 12:12, except that new, detached
accessory buildings and additions to existing dwelling units may be constructed
with a pitch that matches any roof pitch of the existing dwelling unit.
Additionally, the roof pitch of a dormer, turret or similar architectural feature
may not exceed 24:12 and the covered porch may be flat whenever the roof of
such porch is also considered to be the floor of a second-story deck.
(2) Bulk and Massing.
(a) Building Height.
1. 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%) stories.
2. The height of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot or an
accessory building containing habitable space shall not exceed twenty-
four (24) feet.
13
of
I't�5
3. The height of an accessory building containing no habitable space shall
not exceed twenty (20) feet.
(b) Eave Height.
1. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not
exceed thirteen (13) feet from grade for a dwelling unit located at the
rear of the lot or an accessory building with habitable space.
2. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not
exceed ten (10) feet from grade for an accessory building containing no
habitable space.
3. If a second story has an exterior wall that is set back from the lower
story's exterior wall,the eave height shall be the point of an imaginary
line at which the upper story's roofline (if extended horizontally) would
intersect with the lower story's exterior wall (if extended vertically).
(See illustration contained in Division 4.7.)
(3) Carriage Houses and Habitable Accessory Buildings.
(a) Carriage Houses.
1. Water and sewer lines may be extended from the principal building on
the lot to the carriage house.
2. A minimum of one (1) off-street parking space must be provided for
every bedroom contained within a carriage house.
(b) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space. An accessory building with water
and/or sewer service shall be considered as containing habitable space.
"Habitable space" does not necessarily mean a dwelling unit, but is space that is
intended to eventually serve as indoor, habitable space for human occupancy.
Accessory building applications must include the applicant's declaration as to
whether or not the space is intended to be habitable. If water and/or sewer
services are provided to the building, it shall be considered as containing
habitable space. If an applicant declares that a space is not intended to become
habitable, no water and/or sewer connections will be allowed to the building,
and less restrictive bulk and massing requirements are allowed as provided
below.
(c) Additional Review Criteria for Carriage Houses and Accessory Buildings With
Habitable Space.The following additional standards are intended to ensure that
14
City
�tCoins
the design and operating characteristics of the carriage house or other accessory
building with habitable space are compatible with the character of the
surrounding neighborhood and shall apply to the review of all applications for
approval of a carriage house or accessory building containing habitable space:
1. The site plan shall provide a separate yard area containing at least one
hundred twenty (120) square feet to serve both the carriage house and
the existing principal dwelling. Such yard area shall be at least ten (10)
feet in its smallest dimension, and must provide privacy and screening for
abutting properties.
2. To the extent reasonably feasible, decks, entry doors, major entry
access stairs and major windows shall face the existing building or the
alley (if the lots front the alley). To the extent reasonably feasible,
windows that overlook an abutting side or rear yard shall be minimized.
3. Buildings, structures, open spaces and other features of the site plan
shall be oriented and located such that they maintain natural resources,
including existing significant trees and shrubs, to the extent reasonably
feasible.
(4) Landscape/Hordscope Material. A maximum of forty (40) percent of the front yard of
a lot may be covered with inorganic material such as asphalt or cement concrete, paving
stone, flagstone, rock or gravel.
(5)Access. Whenever a lot has frontage along an alley, any new off-street parking area
located on such lot must obtain access from such adjoining alley; provided, however,
that such alley access shall not be required when a new detached garage is proposed to
be accessed from an existing driveway that has a curbcut along a public street, or when
alley access is determined by the City Engineer to be a hazard to persons or vehicles.
(6) Site Design. Permanent open off-street parking areas for all permitted principal uses,
other than single-family dwellings, shall not be located any closer to a public street
right-of-way than the distance by which the principal building is set back from the street
right-of-way. This provision shall not be construed to preclude temporary parking in
driveways.
(7) Subdividing of Existing Lots. No existing lot may be further subdivided in such
manner as to create a new lot in the rear portion of the existing lot.
(Ord. No. 90, 1998, 5/19/98; Ord. No. 228, 1998 §92, 12/15/98; Ord. No. 165, 1999 §37,
11/16/99; Ord. No. 59, 2000 §32, 6/6/00; Ord. No. 204, 2001 §§1, 30-32, 12/18/01; Ord. No.
090, 2003 §11, 6/17/03; Ord. No. 173, 2003 §23, 12/16/03; Ord. No. 063, 2004 §3, 4/20/04;
Ord. No. 091, 2004 §33, 6/15/04; Ord. No. 198, 2004 §§21, 22, 12/21/04; Ord. No. 015, 2005
15
of
ft�S
§2, 2/15/05; Ord. No. 131, 2006 §3, 9/19/06; Ord. No. 192, 2006 §23, 12/19/06; Ord. No. 081,
2007 §15, 7/17/07; Ord. No. 073, 2008 §§11, 12, 24, 7/1/08; Ord. No. 066, 2009 §§22, 23,
7/7/09)
DIVISION 4.9 NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, BUFFER DISTRICT(N-C-B)
(A) Purpose. The Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District is intended for areas that are a
transition between residential neighborhoods and more intensive commercial-use areas or high
traffic zones that have been given this designation in accordance with an adopted subarea plan.
(B) Permitted Uses.
(1) The following uses are permitted in the N-C-B District, subject to basic development
review, provided that such uses are located on lots that are part of an approved site
specific development plan:
(a) Residential Uses:
1. Single-family detached dwellings, but not to include carriage houses.
2. Two-family dwellings when there is only one (1) principal building on
the lot.
3. Multi-family dwellings up to four (4) units per building, provided that
no structural additions or exterior alterations are made to the existing
building, or the dwellings are constructed on a vacant lot or a parcel
which did not contain a structure on October 25, 1991.
4. Extra occupancy rental houses with five (5) or fewer tenants.
5. Mixed-use dwellings which are not combined with a use permitted
subject to administrative review or Planning and Zoning Board review,
provided that no structural additions or exterior alterations are made to
the existing building, or the dwellings are constructed on a vacant lot or a
parcel which did not con-tain a structure on October 25, 1991.
6. Shelters for victims of domestic violence.
(b) Institutional/Civic/Public Uses:
1. Places of worship or assembly.
16
cfty
Fot�hs
2. Minor public facilities.
3. Neighborhood parks as defined by the Parks and Recreation Policy
Plan.
(c) Commercial/Retail Uses:
1. Child care centers.
2. Medical and dental clinics, professional offices and personal business
and service shops, provided that no structural additions or exterior
alterations are made to the existing building, or the uses are constructed
on a vacant lot or a parcel which did not contain a structure on October
25, 1991.
3. Bed and breakfast establishments.
4. Adult day/respite care centers.
(d) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings, provided that they contain no habitable space.
2. Accessory uses.
(e) Any use authorized pursuant to a site specific development plan that was
processed and approved either in compliance with the Zoning Code in effect on
March 27, 1997, or in compliance with this Land Use Code (other than a final
subdivision plat, or minor subdivision plat, approved pursuant to Section 29-643
or 29-644 of prior law, for any nonresidential development or any multi-family
dwelling containing more than four [4] dwelling units), provided that such use
shall be subject to all of the use and density requirements and conditions of said
site specific development plan.
(f) Any use which is not hereafter listed as a permitted use in this zone district
but which was permitted for a specific parcel of property pursuant to the zone
district regulations in effect for such parcel on March 27, 1997; and which
physically existed upon such parcel on March 27, 1997; provided, however, that
such existing use shall constitute a permitted use only on such parcel of
property.
(2)The following uses are permitted in the N-C-B District, subject to administrative
review:
17
ky of
Foy art Coif
(a) Residential:
1. Single-family detached dwellings when there is more than one (1)
principal building on the lot and/or when the lot has only alley frontage.
2. Two-family dwellings when there is more than one (1) principal
building on the lot, provided that such two-family dwelling is located
within a street-fronting principal building.
3. Multi-family dwellings up to four (4) units which propose structural
additions or exterior alterations to the existing building, or the dwellings
are to be constructed on a lot or parcel which contained a structure on
October 25, 1991, provided that such multi-family dwelling is located
within a street-fronting principal building.
4. Multi-family dwellings containing more than four (4) dwelling units per
building at a density of up to twenty-four (24) dwelling units per acre,
provided that such multi-family building is located within a street-
fronting principal building.
S. Mixed-use dwellings which are not combined with a use permitted
subject to basic development review or Planning and Zoning Board
review and which propose structural additions or exterior alterations to
the existing building, or the dwellings are to be constructed on a lot or
parcel which contained a structure on October 25, 1991.
6. Group homes.
7. Extra occupancy rental houses with more than five (5) tenants.
(b) Institutional/Civic/Public Uses:
1. Community facilities.
2. Parks, recreation and other open lands, except neighborhood parks as
defined by the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan.
(c) Commercial/Retail Uses:
1. Parking lots and parking garages.
(d) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
18
of
Co
ort_ I
1. Accessory buildings with declared habitable space, or with water
and/or sewer connections.
(3) The following uses are permitted, subject to Planning and Zoning Board review:
(a) Residential Uses:
1. Fraternity and sorority houses, provided that such fraternity or sorority
house is located within a street-fronting principal building.
2. Multi-family dwellings containing more than four (4) dwelling units per
building, provided that such multi-family dwelling is located within a
street-fronting principal building.
3. Mixed-use dwellings which are combined with any other use subject to
Planning and Zoning Board review.
(b) Institutional/Civic/Public Uses:
1. Public and private schools for preschool, elementary, intermediate,
high school, college, university and vocational and technical education.
(c) Commercial/Retail Uses:
1. Medical and dental clinics, professional offices and personal and
business service shops which propose structural additions or exterior
alterations to the existing building, or the uses are to be constructed on a
lot or parcel which contained a structure at the time of adoption on
October 25, 1991, provided that such use is located within a street-
fronting principal building.
2. Funeral homes, provided that such funeral home is located within a
street-fronting principal building.
(d) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Wireless telecommunication equipment.
(C) Prohibited Uses. All uses that are not (1) expressly allowed as permitted uses in this Section
or (2) determined to be permitted by the Director or the Planning and Zoning Board pursuant to
Section 1.3.4 of this Land Use Code shall be prohibited.
19
Forof ollins
(D) Land Use Standards.
(1) Density. Minimum lot area shall be equivalent to the total floor area of the
building(s), but not less than five thousand (5,000) square feet. For the purposes of
calculating density, "total floor area" shall mean the total gross floor area of all principal
buildings as measured along the outside walls of such buildings, including each finished
or unfinished floor level, 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(7%) feet located within any such accessory building located on the lot. (Open
balconies and basements shall not be counted as floor area for purposes of calculating
density).
(2) Residential. 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 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.
(3)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(7%) 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.
(4)Accessory Building 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(7'/) feet.
(5) Floor Area Ratio (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 existed on October 25,
20
CRY of
Fort Collins
1991. The lot area used as the basis for the FAR calculation shall be considered the
minimum lot size within the zone district.
(6) Dimensional Standards.
(a) Minimum lot width shall be forty (40) feet for each single-family and two-
family dwelling and fifty (50) feet for each other use. The minimum lot width for
lands located within the West Central Neighborhood Plan Subarea and south of
University Avenue shall be eighty-five (85) feet. 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.
(b) 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, except
that the minimum front yard setback for lands located within the West Central
Neighborhood Plan Subarea and south of University Avenue shall be sixty (60)
feet, and setbacks from garage doors to the backs of public walks shall not be
less than sixty-five (65) feet.
(c) Minimum rear yard setback shall be five (5) feet from existing alley and
fifteen (15) feet in all other conditions.
(d) 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. 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
school and place of worship uses shall be twenty-five (25) feet (for both interior
and street sides).
(e) Maximum building height shall be three (3) stories, except for carriage houses
and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be limited to one
and one-half(1%) stories.
(E) Development Standards.
(1) Building Design.
21
Farof
t` Co
(a) All exterior walls of a building that are greater than six (6) feet in length shall
be constructed parallel to or at right angles to the side lot lines of the lot
whenever the lot is rectilinear in shape.
(b) The primary entrance to a dwelling shall be located along the front wall of the
building, unless otherwise required for handicap access. Such entrance shall
include an architectural feature such as a porch, landing or portico.
(c) Accessory buildings and attached garages shall have a front yard setback that
is at least ten (10) feet greater than the front setback of the principal building
that is located on the front portion of the lot.
(d) A second floor shall not overhang the lower front or side exterior walls of a
new or existing building.
(e) Front porches shall be limited to one (1) story, and the front facades of all
single- and two-family dwellings shall be no higher than two (2) stories, except
for carriage houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which
shall be limited to one and one-half(1%) stories.
(f) In the event that a new dwelling is proposed to be constructed on the rear
portion of a lot which has frontage on two (2) streets and an alley, the front of
such new dwelling shall face the street.
(g) The minimum pitch of the roof of any building shall be 2:12 and the maximum
pitch of the roof of any building shall be 12:12, except that new, detached
accessory buildings and additions to existing dwelling units may be constructed
with a pitch that matches any roof pitch of the existing dwelling unit.
Additionally, the roof pitch of a dormer, turret or similar architectural feature
may not exceed 24:12 and the roof pitch of a covered porch may be flat
whenever the roof of such a porch is also considered to be the floor of a second-
story deck.
(2) Bulk and Massing.
(a) Building Height.
1. Maximum building height shall be three (3) stories, except for carriage
houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be
limited to one and one-half(1%:) stories.
2. The height of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot or an
accessory building containing habitable space shall not exceed twenty-
four (24) feet.
22
of
Fort Cins
3. The height of an accessory building containing no habitable space shall
not exceed twenty (20) feet.
(b) Eave Height.
1. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not
exceed thirteen (13)feet from grade for a dwelling unit located at the
rear of the lot or an accessory building with habitable space.
2. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not
exceed ten (10) feet from grade for an accessory building containing no
habitable space.
3. If a second story has an exterior wall that is set back from the lower
story's exterior wall, the eave height shall be the point of an imaginary
line at which the upper story's roofline (if extended horizontally) would
intersect with the lower story's exterior wall (if extended vertically).
(See illustration contained in Division 4.7.)
(3) Carriage Houses and Habitable Accessory Buildings.
(a) Carriage Houses.
1. Water and sewer lines may be extended from the principal building on
the lot to the carriage house.
2. A minimum of one (1) off-street parking space must be provided for
every bedroom contained within a carriage house.
(b) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space. An accessory building with water
and/or sewer service shall be considered as containing habitable space.
"Habitable space" does not necessarily mean a dwelling unit, but is space that is
intended to eventually serve as indoor, habitable space for human occupancy.
Accessory building applications must include the applicant's declaration as to
whether or not the space is habitable. If water and/or sewer services are
provided to the building, it shall be considered as containing habitable space. If
an applicant declares that a space is not intended to be habitable, no water
and/or sewer connections will be allowed to the building, and less restrictive
bulk and massing requirements are allowed as provided below.
(c) Additional Review Criteria for Carriage Houses and Accessory Buildings With
Habitable Space.The following additional standards are intended to ensure that
the design and operating characteristics of the carriage house or other accessory
23
rt Co ins
building with habitable space are compatible with the character of the
surrounding neighborhood and shall apply to the review of all applications for
approval of a carriage house or accessory building containing habitable space:
1. The site plan shall provide a separate yard area containing at least one
hundred twenty (120) square feet to serve both the carriage house and
the existing principal dwelling. Such yard area shall be at least ten (10)
feet in its smallest dimension, and must provide privacy and screening for
abutting properties.
2. To the extent reasonably feasible, decks, entry doors, major entry
access stairs or major windows shall face the existing principal building or
the alley (if the lots front the alley). To the extent reasonably feasible,
windows that overlook an abutting side or rear yard shall be minimized.
3. Buildings, structures, open spaces and other features of the site plan
shall be oriented and located such that they maintain natural resources,
including existing significant trees and shrubs, to the extent reasonably
feasible.
(4) Landscape/Hardscape Material. A maximum of forty (40) percent of the front yard of
a lot may be covered with inorganic material such as asphalt or cement concrete, paving
stone, flagstone, rock or gravel.
(5) Site Design. In the N-C-B Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District, permanent
open off-street parking areas shall not be located any closer to a public street right-of-
way than the distance by which the principal building is set back from the street right-
of-way. This provision shall not be construed to preclude temporary parking in
driveways.
(6)Access. Whenever a lot has frontage along an alley, any new off-street parking area
located on such lot must obtain access from such adjoining alley; provided, however,
that such alley access shall not be required when a new detached garage is proposed to
be accessed from an existing driveway that has a curbcut along a public street, or when
alley access is determined by the City Engineer to be a hazard to persons or vehicles.
(7)Subdividing of Existing Lots. No existing lot may be further subdivided in such
manner as to create a new lot in the rear portion of the existing lot.
(Ord. No. 90, 1998, 5/19/98; Ord. No. 228, 1998 §92, 12/15/98; Ord. No. 89, 1999 §2, 6/1/99;
Ord. No. 165, 1999 §38, 11/16/99; Ord. No. 183, 2000 §§29, 30, 12/19/00; Ord. No. 204, 2001
§§1, 33-37, 12/18/01; Ord. No. 090, 2003 §11, 6/17/03; Ord. No. 173, 2003 §24, 12/16/03;
Ord. No. 063, 2004 §4, 4/20/04; Ord. No. 091, 2004 §34, 6/15/04; Ord. No. 198, 2004 §§23, 24,
12/21/04; Ord. No. 015, 2005 §3, 2/15/05; Ord. No. 123, 2005 §§16, 17, 11/15/05; Ord. No.
24
City of
rt` Co ins
161, 2005 §11, 12/20/05; Ord. No. 104, 2006 §§23, 24, 7/18/06; Ord. No. 131, 2006 §3,
9/19/06; Ord. No. 192, 2006 §24, 12/19/06; Ord. No. 081, 2007 §16, 7/17/07; Ord. No. 073,
2008 §§13-17, 24, 7/1/08; Ord. No. 066, 2009 §§24, 25, 7/7/09)
25
ATTACHMENT 4
City of Advance Planning
281 North College Avenue
Fort CollCollinsPOBox 580
Fort Collins,CO 80522
970.221.621.6
970.224.6111 111-fax
fcgov.com/advancep/anning
Single Family Design Standards for the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods
Citizen Advisory Committee(CAC) Meeting
March 22, 2010 5:00-7:00 p.m.
Attendees
CAC Members City Staff
Bud Frick Megan Bolin, City Planner
Sondra Carson Clark Mapes, City Planner
Katy Kohnen
Sam Moes
Chris Ray
Steve Levinger
Dana McBride
Kevin Murray
Summary
After introductions, the CAC was provided with some information about the purpose of the
project. "Pop-ups" and "scrape-offs" have been occurring in the Eastside and Westside
neighborhoods for many years.Although there are design standards in the City's Land Use
Code, some houses being built still create controversy in the neighborhoods. City Council
directed staff to study the issue and return for a second work session in August with the results
and recommendations for future actions.The role of the CAC is to assist staff in defining the
issue and developing alternative solutions for Council to consider.
Next, each person was asked to articulate their perception of the issue. Comments are
summarized as follows:
■ Houses are built too close to property lines—setbacks
■ Variances are often sought regarding the regulation that limits FAR in the rear-half of
the lot
■ Many variances are necessary because of the many existing, non-conforming properties
■ Some new houses do not conform to the perception of the neighborhood
■ Most objections are about the size of the new houses
■ "Good" design vs. "bad" design -depends on how well the house fits with the context of
the neighborhood
■ The street fagade is most important and should match the character of the
neighborhood
• Not every building should be historically preserved
■ People want the amenities of modern houses(size,garages, etc.) but want to live near
Downtown—the original houses don't fit modern lifestyles, so people want to upgrade
of
City
■ Height is an issue
■ Build with the character of the period of the neighborhood in mind
■ Okay to regulate what can be built, but don't regulate how—not in favor of an
architectural review committee
■ The focus shouldn't be on a house, it should be on the neighborhood context as a
whole, and how to get the kind of neighborhood you want
■ Scale is an issue
■ The alley house regulations are good
■ Be careful about regulating the Downtown area too much. If we can't grow out, people
need to move inward, and it shouldn't be too restrictive for such infill
■ Use general guidelines
■ Only 1 out of 10 that look terrible—most"fit"
• Setbacks are an issue
■ Most are designed well
■ The City should reward for good design or provide incentives—use the "carrot" more
and less of the "stick"
o i.e. Chicago Bungalow Project
o Design Assistance Program (previously offered by the City)
• Solar access is an issue—be mindful of how the bigger buildings impact smaller,
adjacent buildings' access to solar
■ Different housing sizes are good for the neighborhood—allows for diverse household
compositions, i.e.singles,families, retirees
■ Houses should fit into the neighborhood
■ It's important to get involved at the very beginning when people want to remodel their
house to foster good design. Use architects, contractors, planners, etc.to develop
options for upgrading the size of a house sensibly and efficiently.
■ Build houses that can follow a household from single-to-family-to-retiree
■ If you want to preserve the character of neighborhoods and ensure changes are
appropriate,the best way is to designate historic districts. They offer flexibility
regarding what can and can't be constructed on a home, but are meant to protect the
character of the neighborhood. Might be the best solution, but must have the
unanimous consent among a group of property owners for a District to be approved
The CAC was then informed of the upcoming public open house, scheduled for April 7 from
4:30-7:30 p.m. at 215 North Mason in the Community Room. Invitations will be sent to all
property owners that reside in the two neighborhoods, and should arrive by April 2 at the
latest.All were encouraged to spread the word about the open house and invite neighbors,
friends, anyone interested in the project.
Finally, the draft survey was briefly discussed. It was suggested that"fill-in" answer options
should be provided for each of the numbered questions so that people can explain themselves.
Also, staff should provide an option for people to voice any other concerns they might have.
Another suggestion is to offer a smaller sample an essay survey where they can write their
City of
Fort Collins
thoughts and opinions about the issue.The survey will be handed out at the open house and
available online at the project website,
http://www.fcaov.com/advanceplanning/eastwestdesignstandards.php
Next Steps
The next CAC will be held on Monday,April 12 from 5:00-7:00 p.m.The agenda will include a
discussion and summary of the issues identified at the public open house.
City of
r Advance Planning
F6rt
T281 North College Avenue
Collins 97 Box 580
21.63
Fort Collins,CO 80522
970.224.6111
970.224.6"I'I'1-fax
fcgov.com/advancep/anning
Single Family Design Standards for the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods
Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting
April 12, 2010 5:00-7:00 p.m.
Attendees Eric Smith
CAC Members Julia Veir
Bud Frick Dennis Sovick
Sondra Carson Stephen Mack
Chris Ray
Steve Levinger City Staff
Dana McBride Megan Bolin, City Planner
Kevin Murray Clark Mapes, City Planner
Randy Shortridge Karen McWilliams, Preservation Planner
Randy Kahle
Jennifer Carpenter
Summary
Staff opened up the meeting with a summary of the open house that was held on April 7.All
property owners located within the study area boundaries(Eastside and Westside
neighborhoods)were invited by a mailed invitation.The event was also announced on the
project's website,fcgov.com/eastwestdesignstandards.com, on the City's Facebook page and
Twitter account, and through a press release.There were approximately 100 citizens that
attended, which was very encouraging. Poster boards of information about the project were
placed throughout the room, and staff was available to answer questions. One of the highlights
of the event was the impromptu discussion that formed between a group of citizens. Staff
stayed out of the discussion as much as possible, and tried to observe the issues that were
being brought up.
The primary method of collecting input at the event was through a survey that was prepared by
staff.Attendees were asked to complete and return the survey; over 70 paper copies were
collected.The same survey was also made available online through the project's website,which
has also collected numerous responses from those that were not able to attend the open
house. Staff is still in the process of recording all of those comments, and will make the results
available to the CAC and general public as soon as possible.
The meeting was then turned over to the CAC as a whole in order to continue the discussion of
"defining the issue".The goal was to begin to narrow down most relevant elements of the issue
according to the CAC, based on the input from the new members present and preliminary
City of
Fort Collins
public comments.After some open discussion,the group went through the task of identifying
objective and subjective elements of the issue.
Objective Subjective
■ Height ■ Aesthetics
■ Floor Area Ratio (FAR) ■ Style
■ Setbacks ■ Compatibility
■ Solar Access ■ Significance of the original building
• Volume/bulk/mass ■ Value of the existing building(both
■ Building Material in monetary terms and social value)
■ Neighborhood character
■ Gentrification
■ Highest and best use
■ Neighborhood diversity
■ Neighborhood input(how much
weight should be given)
■ Neighborhood identity
It was acknowledged that the objective elements of the issue are much less controversial to
address. In fact, many of the elements are already regulated by the City's Land Use Code, i.e.
setbacks.The unanswered question of the meeting was to what degree and how should any of
the subjective elements be addressed as a result of this study?
Next Steps
This study is now transitioning from the "define the issue" phase into the "examine existing
conditions" phase.The CAC will be asked to look at the existing Land Use Code language that
regulates the three zoning districts that are impacted by this study(attached).The goal is to
clarify what can and can't be built according to our existing standards, and identify elements
that are in need of attention based upon the CAC's identification of the issue and public input
received.
The next CAC will be held on Monday,April 26 from 5:00-7:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms B-D at
281 North College Avenue. "Note the room change. Rooms B-D are right next to A.
Cityy or Advance Planning
F6rt
T` TPO North College Avenue
Collins 97 Box 580
21.63
Fort Collins,CO 80522
970.224.6111
970.224.6111-fax
fcgov.com/0dvancep/anning
Single Family Design Standards for the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods
Citizen Advisory Committee(CAC) Meeting
April 26, 2010 5:00-7:00 p.m.
Attendees Dennis Sovick
CAC Members Steve Mack
Bud Frick Dee Amick
Sondra Carson Katy Kohnen
Chris Ray
Steve Levinger City Staff
Dana McBride Megan Bolin, City Planner
Randy Shortridge Clark Mapes, City Planner
Jennifer Carpenter
Eric Smith
Julia Veir
Summary
Staff provided a brief snapshot of the survey results received from the public.The CAC is
welcome to see all of the raw comments, but staff will provide a summary as soon as possible
for both the CAC and the public at large(available on the project's website).
The primary purpose of the meeting was to review the existing Land Use Code standards for the
three zoning districts affected by this study. Staff provided a table that summarized the key
standards for each (attached).The group began to discuss and ask questions, which are
summarized as follows:
■ If one of the goals is to maintain the streetscape and facade of the existing house,the
current rear% FAR limitation forces more square footage to the front, which can alter
the look of the house from the front.
o Consider providing options for additional square feet:
■ Keep rear''/: FAR limit but require additional side setback; or
■ Decrease rear%: FAR limit, but limit height.
o The point is that if you want to preserve the front, let people build in the back.
■ The issue with building height has to do with builders intentionally digging a shallow
basement so there is less cost to haul off the basement fill and at the same time they
can conceal their desire to build a bigger home and "artificially" raise the building
height. By having much of the new foundation above the original grade, by as much
as 3'-5',they can dispose of less fill and skirt the building height and it all results finding
a "Queen Mary" next door. There is code that requires a minimum slope for final grade,
but that really isn't the issue. Where code may require 8" of fill for example to meet the
Fort Collins
grade requirements, builders are dumping 34 of fill to gain a 10' basement at a lower
cost and conceal their desire to beat the height restrictions.
■ Consider awarding and/or incentivizing small houses.
■ Three primary issues that must be addressed:
1. People want to rehab their homes and make them bigger.
2. People want to keep the curb appeal and character of the neighborhood.
3. People do not want big houses looming over smaller, adjacent houses.
■ Look to the existing street/block face to determine what can be built.
o Take the average of the buildings on the block, i.e. height, square footage, etc.
Any new construction could be limited to a %increase from that average.
o The point is to get new houses to fit in with the existing houses.
o This approach prevents the extreme of a huge house next to a small house—
would be more in line with what's existing on the block.
o Potential problem is that it's a moving average and reduces predictability—who
would be responsible for all the measuring?
o Another issue is: if all the houses are bound to be replaced on a block(at the end
of their useful life),why require that new construction match what should or will
be demolished soon anyway?
■ Volume is the issue—we could regulate cubic feet.
■ We should decide what we want these neighborhoods to look like into the future and
develop our standards to achieve that vision.
■ Solar access still needs to be addressed, but how?Staff will look into other communities
that have established regulations, e.g. Boulder.
Next Steps
The next CAC will be held on Monday, May 10 from 5:00-7:00 p.m. in the Venti room at 281
North College Avenue. "Note the room change- Venti is located upstairs on the north side of
the building.
Attachment
Existing Land Use Code standards for the three zones affected by this study:
o Neighborhood Conservation Low Density(NCL)
o Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density(NCM)
o Neighborhood Conservation Buffer(NCB)
2
City of
Fort Collins
Summary of Existing Standards by Zone District
NCL NCM NCB
Minimum lot area 6,000 sf 5,000 sf 5,000 sf
Max.floor area 40%of lot area 50%of lot area 100%of lot area
Max. Floor Area Ratio(FAR)on the rear 50%of 0.25 0.33 0.33
the lot
Max floor area for accessory building 600 sf 600 sf 600 sf
Min. lot width 40' 40' 40'
Min.front setback 15' 15' 15'
Min. rear yard setback 5'from alleys 5 ft from alleys 5 ft from alleys
15'otherwise 15 ft otherwise 15 ft otherwise
Min. side setback 5' 5 ft 5 ft
1'for every 2'above 18' 1'for every 2'above 18' 1'for every 2'above 18'
Max. building height 2 stories 2 stories 3 stories
3
City o[ Advance Planning
T 281 North College Avenue
fort Collins 97 B21.63
Fort Collins,CO 80522
970.224.6111
970.224.6111 -fax
fcgov.corn/advance planning
Single Family Design Standards for the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods
Citizen Advisory Committee(CAC) Meeting
May 10, 2010 5:00-7:00 p.m.
Attendees Dee Amick
CAC Members Randy Kahle
Bud Frick
Chris Ray City Staff
Steve Levinger Megan Bolin, City Planner
Dana McBride Clark Mapes, City Planner
Jennifer Carpenter Karen McWilliams, Preservation Planner
Dennis Sovick
Steve Mack
Summary
Staff prepared a slideshow of examples from the neighborhoods (attached) and asked the
group to look at each and identify the issues present. A large poster was prepared as a way to
record which subjective and objective elements were an issue for each (attached). As the
group looked at each picture, staff recorded how many people thought certain elements were
an issue. For example, if five people thought that"building materials"was an issue,that issue
received five tally marks.The purpose of the exercise was to look at real life examples taken
from the neighborhoods that are affected by this study. In an attempt to narrow the focus of
the issue,the elements that were most often identified as an issue, are those that the group
and staff should be focusing on from here on out.
It was acknowledged, however,that some elements listed couldn't be seen by the picture, e.g.
"total floor area on lot",and the subjective elements were very difficult to pinpoint by the
pictures. Although many objective elements were identified as issues,those that occurred most
often based on the examples were "height difference from adjacent house", "height of highest
point", and "volume/bulk/mass".
The second column on the table was intended to be used after the group looked at all of the
examples.Then, based on the issues that were identified and how often they occurred,the
question was posed as to whether each element is a problem that should be addressed.The
group went through each and thought that each objective element was important and should
be considered a problem.
Next steps
�F`o' of
r�t` Collins
The next CAC meeting will be on Monday, May 24 from 5:00-7:00 p.m. in Conference Room A
at 281 N.College Avenue.The purpose of the next meeting will be to take a thorough look at
the volume issue, and discuss options for how best to address that in the context of this study.
Staff is scheduled to present an update on the study at a joint work session between the
Planning and Zoning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals on Friday,June 11.The meeting occurs
over the lunch hours,and staff will provide more detail when the exact time of the presentation
has been determined.A separate work session with the Landmark Preservation Commission
will occur on June 23.
2
City of 281 North
Planning
281 North College Avenue
ox 580
F6rt
Collins
97 B21.63
Fort Collins,CO 80522
970.224.6111
970.224.6111-fax
fcgov.comMdvanceplanning
Single Family Design Standards for the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods
Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting
May 24,2010 5:00-7:00 p.m.
Attendees Eric Smith
CAC Members Randy Shortridge
Chris Ray
Dana McBride City Staff
Dennis Sovick Megan Bolin, City Planner
Dee Amick Clark Mapes, City Planner
Randy Kahle Karen McWilliams, Preservation Planner
Sondra Carson
Summary
Staff began by showing the proposed problem statement, "New single-family houses in the
Eastside and Westside neighborhoods are out of scale with existing houses". Members agreed
to alter the statement to say, "Some new single-family houses in the Eastside and Westside
neighborhoods are out of scale with existing houses". From there, a discussion began about the
issue of volume. Staff explained how existing standards already define how voluminous a
building can be through floor area ratio(FAR), height, and side wall setback regulations.
The group then had a discussion about how FAR is measured. Staff proposed a change to the
Land Use Code which would count any wall greater than 13'as a second story and count as
floor area in the building's overall FAR.This would eliminate the ability to build a one story
house that meets the FAR requirement but, in actuality, has two-story height. In this case,floor
area would be all habitable space underneath the roof,which would allow for some creativity
and use of extra space under the roof.The group agreed that the "fix" to the code is
appropriate, and felt comfortable with how the floor area will be calculated.
Once everyone understood and felt comfortable with the way that the City regulates volume
(FAR, height, side wall setback),the next step was to take a close look at the existing FAR
requirements. Currently,the NCL allows a FAR of.40, the NCM allows .50, and the NCB allows
1.0. Staff showed pictures of a few examples of blocks from the Eastside and Westside
neighborhoods to point out the fact that the prevailing FAR for these neighborhoods is
estimated to be between .15-.20, respectively.Therefore, the question for the CAC to consider
is whether the City allows for too much expansion?The consensus from the group is that yes, a
1,200 square foot house that can be expanded to 4,750 square feet(based on a 9,500 square
foot lot with an allowable .50 FAR) is too drastic. The fact that such a dramatic increase in
building size can take place based on existing regulations is at the root of the issue.
City of
F6rt Collins
The discussion then turned to a potential solution that the group has been considering, which
would use the concept of averaging to determine appropriate expansion. If the problem is that
there is too large of a gap between existing FAR and allowable FAR,finding an average FAR
based on all the houses on a block face would provide a less dramatic change to the volume of
new construction.
The group discussed the pros and cons of this method.Although it would be limiting compared
to the City's current regulations, it is the better method to ensure houses fit within the context
of the block.There was concern that it may be too restricting and reduce predictability for
development. Concern was also raised about how to accurately measure and take the average.
The County Assessor's information is often behind, but no better source was identified. Using
this technique might prevent some small, high quality houses from being demolished simply
because of their size.Another question came up as to whether an addition of any size would
have to adhere to the averaging regulation.Staff suggested that perhaps a sliding scale or
"trigger" point could be established, e.g. any addition greater than 10%of the total floor area
would require a block face FAR analysis on the part of the property owner.
Staff agreed to conduct a FAR analysis in order to provide an example of how this averaging
method would work in the neighborhoods.The results will be presented at the next CAC
meeting. Greater discussion is needed to fine tune the pros and cons of this particular method.
Next steps
The next CAC meeting will be on Monday,June 7 from 5:00-7:00 p.m. in Conference Room A at
281 N.College Avenue.
Staff is scheduled to present an update on the study at a joint work session between the
Planning and Zoning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals on Friday,June 11. A separate work
session with the Landmark Preservation Commission will occur on June 23.
2
City of
Fort Collins
Single Family Design Standards for the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods
Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting
June 7, 2010 5:00-7:00 p.m.
Attendees Steve Mack
CAC Members Kevin Murray
Chris Ray Steve Levinger
Dana McBride
Dennis Sovick City Staff
Dee Amick Megan Bolin, City Planner
Randy Kahle Clark Mapes, City Planner
Sondra Carson Karen McWilliams, Preservation Planner
Eric Smith
Randy Shortridge
Summary
Staff presented the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) analysis, which looked at the FAR for a sample of
block faces within each zone district.The purpose was to show how the concept of averaging
would play out using real life examples.The discussion that followed is summarized below:
■ Consider the economic impact that the averaging method might have.
o If the regulations are too restrictive, it will drive out investment.
■ How does the Assessor measure the square footage of a house?Should we use gross or
net square footage in the measurement?
o Are we willing to accept a certain degree of inaccuracy from the Assessor data?
■ Consider what the current market is demanding regarding size and style of house. Right
now, people want three bedrooms, two baths, and a garage, and that is not typical in
these older neighborhoods.
■ Allow reasonable expansion.
o Need to define"reasonable".
■ Should there be an architectural review committee established to review development
proposals for houses in these neighborhoods?
■ Instead of using a block face to find the average and allowable amount of expansion,
what about using a radius?
o This method allows for more houses to be considered into the average(some
block faces have only one or two houses).
o Could use the character areas defined in the Design Guidelines (written by the
consultant)to figure the average.
■ Instead of using the FAR as the variable to determine expansion, why not use building
square feet?
■ Do we need to define a ceiling, or maximum allowable expansion, even with the
averaging method?
■ Should there be a minimum allowable expansion?
1
City of
Wit Collins
■ There are five solution options for the size issue:
1. Do nothing and keep the existing FARs as-is.
2. Reduce the FARs for each zone.
3. Reduce the FARs by neighborhood (areas defined in Design Guidelines).
4. Allow each house to increase by a certain percentage.
5. Take the average of a block face plus a certain percentage, and make that the
maximum allowable expansion.
Next steps
Staff will present a project-update to the Planning and Zoning Board and Zoning Board of
Appeals on June 11 and to the Landmark Preservation Commission on June 23.
The next CAC meeting will be on Monday,June 21 from 5:00-7:00 p.m. at 281 N. College
Avenue in Conference Room A. Please remember that if you arrive after 5:00,you must use the
east entrance to the building.The door will be locked but, if you ring the doorbell, someone will
come to let you in.
2
City of
Single Family Design Standards for the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods
Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting
June 21,2010 5:00-7:00 p.m.
Attendees Kevin Murray
CAC Members Katy Kohnen
Dana McBride Jennifer Carpenter
Randy Kahle
Sondra Carson City Staff
Eric Smith Megan Bolin, City Planner
Randy Shortridge Clark Mapes, City Planner
Steve Mack
Summary
Staff provided a summary of the comments heard from the June 11 Planning and Zoning Board
and Zoning Board of Appeals joint work session:
■ Be sure to consider property rights.
■ Size is not the only issue—need more focus on design.
■ Be sure the percent increase, if chosen as a potential solution, is not arbitrary.
■ With regard to the averaging concept, should new, bigger houses be included in the
average calculation (if preserving the original development pattern is the goal)?
■ Don't be too restrictive and keep standards flexible for families that want to live in the
neighborhoods.
■ Some blocks need to be redeveloped.
■ The averaging concept seems confusing and complex.
Comments from the CAC in response are summarized as follows:
■ Property rights vs. community rights—need to consider both in this process.
■ If, in a sense,the City is restricting property rights, is there something that could be
given back to people(is there an acceptable tradeoff)?
■ The City has a goal to eliminate/reduce sprawl,which means that density is encouraged
in the city center to accomplish that goal. Infill and redevelopment will continue to
increase over time, and the pressure to redevelop these neighborhoods will continue.
Staff then explained the idea of adding an "Alternative Compliance"section to the Land Use
Code for these zone districts.The purpose would be to allow for a property owner who could
not meet the City's building size requirements, for example, to increase in size IF they met
certain "alternative compliance" standards.Those standards would likely spell out specific
design elements that the larger building would need to comply with in order to increase above
the city's size standard. Administratively,the decision maker that would decide whether the
standards in the alternative compliance section are met would be the Zoning Administrator.
Staff then asked the group what design elements should be considered for alternative
compliance and are summarized as follows:
1
Cityof
Collins
Wit`„
■ Encourage privacy protection, e.g.window placement, one-story courtyards.
■ Limiting Floor Area Ratio (FAR)will encourage better and more creative design, and
would encourage renovation vs. demolition and replacement.
■ Should the neighbors of a property owner using the hypothetical "alternative
compliance" be required to hold a neighborhood meeting and gain approval from
neighbors?
■ Look to the block face for design elements and character.
■ What about requiring an expansion or new building over a certain size to be designed by
an architect?
o The City used to have a Design Assistance Program that would help property
owners.
■ Provide a notice on the site of a proposed addition or demo/replacement that shows a
graphic model of what the new structure will look like.
o To take this idea a step further, have the property owner to use stakes to model
the proposed height and dimensions of the new structure.
The concept of averaging raised concerns with some because it seems too restrictive.The idea
was to also allow for a percent increase above the average, but the Planning and Zoning Board
and Zoning Board of Appeals warned not to make that percent increase arbitrary. Staff asked
the group for ideas on how to set the "right" percentage to allow for reasonable expansion.
Houses should be allowed to expand and accommodate the following:
■ Family growth.
■ Modern household amenities, e.g. entertainment rooms.
The group did not arrive at a consensus of what"reasonable'expansion should be, but did
think that the average of a block face plus 10% is too small. Perhaps the average plus 20-30%
increase would me more appropriate. Further analysis is needed to understand how these
restrictions would play out in the real world. Are there houses that have already been built that
would not have been allowed under the averaging concept?A 3-D computer model would be of
great use when trying to describe these concepts and help people understand how regulations
translate into an actual building.
Aside from building size, staff and the CAC recognize the need to set design standards and will
be focusing on design elements more intensely in the next meeting.The idea of forming an
architectural review committee was presented and will need further discussion.Solar access
was also identified as an issue that needs to be addressed.The group had a brief discussion
based on a real-life example and concluded that impacts on a neighbor's solar access should be
considered in the design of new buildings. Defining solar access(right to sunlight, right to install
solar panels, right to keep a garden where it has been traditionally, etc.) and how best to
regulate need more attention.
Next steps
2
City of
Staff will present a second project-update to the Planning and Zoning Board and Zoning Board
of Appeals on July 9 and to the Landmark Preservation Commission on July 21.
The next CAC meeting will be on Monday,July 12 from 5:00-7:00 p.m. at 281 N. College Avenue
in the Venti Room (upstairs). Please remember that if you arrive after 5:00,you must use the
east entrance to the building.The door will be locked but, if you ring the doorbell marked
"mediation", someone will come to let you in.
3
Fort Collins
Single Family Design Standards for the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods
Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting
July 12,2010 5:00-7:00 p.m.
Attendees Jennifer Carpenter
CAC Members
Chris Ray City Staff
Dennis Sovick Megan Bolin, City Planner
Sondra Carson Steve Dush, CDNS Director
Katy Kohnen
Summary
Staff began by summarizing the feedback received from the Planning and Zoning Board and
Zoning Board of Appeals at the July 9 joint work session. The boards were asked to comment on
the range of potential solutions that have been identified for size and design,which are
summarized as follows:
■ With regard to the solutions for design:
o Neighborhood review is a good idea to let neighbors see what is going to be built
and provide comments about any potential impacts. Considerations for this
option include:
• Who receives notification?Should it only be adjacent neighbors,the
whole block face, both sides of the block, or a radius surrounding the
development site?
■ Must be clear about expectations regarding how much authority the
neighbors have over what gets built.
■ Neighbors may be too emotional and shouldn't be given too much
power.
o The idea of requiring owners to hire an architect to design their
additions/rebuilds could be cost prohibitive, and doesn't necessarily guarantee
"good" design.
o There are advantages to having an architectural review committee.
Considerations include:
■ This level of review is similar to having a Home Owners Association
(HOA), and many who choose to live in these neighborhoods do so
because there is no HOA.
■ There would still need to be specific criteria by which to evaluate
development—shouldn't be left to the whim of the committee.
o The option that would require a Type 2 review for expansions over a certain size
seems too onerous.
■ General comments:
o The character of these neighborhoods is dynamic, and any regulations should
not be too restrictive.
o Don't take away the right for people to increase their house as needed.
1
City of
1/1 Collins
o The character of these neighborhoods has not changed dramatically over the
years (since the policies and development standards have been in place).
o The character should be preserved.
o Need to minimize exploitation of the development standards.
o Tearing down trees changes character.
o New and old architecture is good—it's good to mix the two and it creates vitality.
The bottom line and concluding recommendation from these boards is that the City's policies
and development standards are working to preserve the character of these neighborhoods. It is
recommended that the "loopholes"staff identified regarding volume and height be remedied,
but otherwise significant changes are not necessary.
Staff then brought up the height "loophole" identified in the code, which is how the code
stipulates how height is measured. Currently, it is measured according to the finished grade of
the new structure.The issue has been that certain houses are either purposefully raised above
ground to accommodate basements with windows, or they are raised because of stormwater
restrictions imposed by the City. In either case, houses are being re-built several feet above
grade, which exacerbates the height difference between it and adjacent houses.The group had
a discussion about how height should be measured. Using the property line is preferable to
finished grade.
The discussion moved on to design, and the level of review needed to ensure compatible
design. Everyone received a copy of the Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines. In
brainstorming ways to encourage "good" design (carrot vs. stick), it was brought up that the
existing guidelines are not seen by anyone, meaning the City is not making the guidelines
available at the appropriate stage in the development process.All agreed that the guidelines
are thorough and contain useful information.
Builders/designers/property owners wishing to expand or scrape and rebuild should have the
opportunity to see the design characteristics that the City prefers before any plans are drawn.A
preferable solution may be to re-introduce and re-educate the public and industry professionals
about the guidelines.The City could use the internet to make the document available, as well as
having copies to hand to people when they first come in with a development idea. It might also
be beneficial to take pictures of certain design elements that are already built, and give an
estimate about how much they cost.As an incentive for builders/designers, their name and
contact information could also be made available next to the preferred design pictures, as a
way to promote those who are doing good work, and as a resource for other builders/property
owners to contact for ideas.
The main idea behind this educational campaign is to reach as many professionals in the
industry as possible and let them know what the community prefers to see in these two
neighborhoods. Give them ideas for how to cost-effectively incorporate preferred design
elements, and praise those that are doing a good job by highlighting their work.
2
City of
Wit` crime
Next steps
The next CAC meeting will be on Monday,July 26 from 5:00-7:00 p.m. in Conference Room A at
281 N. College Ave.
Staff will present the same information that was given to the Planning and Zoning Board and
Zoning Board of Appeals to the Landmark Preservation Commission at a work session on July
28.
A public meeting is scheduled for Thursday,July 29 from 4:30-6:30 p.m. to ask the public for
feedback on the proposed solutions. Staff will give a formal presentation at 4:30 and 5:30, and
allow time after each for citizens to ask questions of staff and share their thoughts.
The City Council work session is Tuesday, August 24.Although the public is not permitted to
speak, this will be an opportunity to hear how the Council views the issue and which, if any,of
the proposed solutions they prefer to see implemented.
3
City of
F6rt Collins
Single Family Design Standards for the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods
Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting
July 26, 2010 5:00-7:00 p.m.
Attendees Dee Amick
CAC Members Sondra Carson
Kevin Murray Jennifer Carpenter
Randy Shortridge
Eric Smith City Staff
Steve Mack Megan Bolin, City Planner
Dana McBride Clark Mapes,City Planner
Summary
The primary purpose of this meeting was to get the CAC's feedback on the comment card that
was prepared for the public meeting on July 29.The questions for the public were phrased 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
The group then shared some thoughts from their perspective on the responses.Although the
original intent of the meeting was to gain a formal recommendation from the CAC, it was
decided that it would be better to send the questions to the entire Committee electronically,
and staff would collect the responses collectively.
Next steps
1
City of
F6rt Collins
Staff is scheduled to present a summary of the study to the Landmark Preservation Commission
(LPC) on July 28, and the Commission will be asked which, if any, of the implementation options
are preferred.
The public meeting is scheduled for July 29, and all from the CAC are encouraged to attend.
Finally, the City Council work session is scheduled for August 24.The CAC will postpone any
further meetings until after the work session.
2
ATTACHMENT 5
East and West Side Neighborhoods
Design Standards Study
City Council Work Session
August 24 , 2010
F�t` o ins
iwu�
Question for Council
1 . 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 ?
City of
�- Fort Collins
1
Overview
• Study purpose
— Respond to concerns that some new single-family
houses and expansions are incompatible with
neighborhood character
— Determine whether current development
standards are adequate , or if changes are
warranted
City of
Fort Collins
—W-VINE-DR j �E VINE-DR
I' Lb
Q
�•
W
r � Y � ���rk* J
L-APQDmoil
ErA�V1E�� p
IMMUNE U
HN:OMEN
1111 w
W-M•U�LBE"NIsl w
J
c7 q`F
�
J J
J 0
= U
Legend
Study Areas
City zoning
_ Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) E PR PEC-T-RD
- Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (NCL)
- Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM)
2
Process
• Phase I : Examine existing conditions ( Feb- Mar)
• Phase II : Identify and analyze issues (Apr- May )
• Phase III : Explore implementation options (Jun -Jul )
F�t` ollins
ba
Outreach
• Outreach
— 9 Citizen Advisory Committee meetings
— 2 public meetings
— 2 Planning and Zoning Board and Zoning Board of
Appeals joint work sessions
— 2 Landmark Preservation Commission work
sessions
City of
Fortis
3
Existing Policies
• the City will follow specific design standards for
infill development and redevelopment with an
emphasis on protecting existing residential
neighborhood character. " ( City Plan)
• " 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 . " ( East Side Neighborhood Plan)
_ Clt to
s
& ,.Forytt`
Existing Standards
NCL NCM NCB
Minimum lot area 6,000 sq ft, or at 5,000 sq ft, or at 5,000 sq ft, or at
least 2 %: times total least 2 times total least equivalent to
floor area floor area total floor area
Maximum Floor Area 25% of rear %: lot 33% of rear ''/: lot 33% of rear % lot
Ratio (FAR) on the rear area area area
50% of the lot
Maximum floor area for 600 sq ft 600 sq ft 600 sq ft
accessory building
Minimum lot width 40' 40' 40'
Minimum front setback 15' 15 ' 15'
Minimum rear yard 5' from alleys 5' from alleys 5' from alleys
setback 15' otherwise 15' otherwise 15' otherwise
Minimum side setback 5 ' plus 1' for every 5' plus 1 ' for every 5' plus 1' for every
2 ' of wall height 2' of wall height 2' of wall height
above 18' above 18' above 18'
Maximum building 2 stories 2 stories 3 stories
height
4
Existing Guidelines
• Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines for the
East Side and West Side Neighborhoods
— Explain and illustrate design concepts
— Offer voluntary suggestions
— Encourage adaptation of existing structures
For
�tf
9WML
Perspectives
• Status quo
• Changes are warranted
Fort Collins
5
Perspectives
Status Quo :
• Larger, new houses are positive improvements
• Older houses need to be renovated/replaced
• Current standards foster reinvestment
• Concern that further regulation may stifle
reinvestment
Fort Collins
6MMW� Ing
Perspectives
Changes are warranted :
• Current standards do not protect existing houses
• Newer houses are excessively large and detract from
neighborhood character
• Value smaller, old houses
• Support reinvestment/improvements that are more
compatible with surroundings
Fort Collins
6
Issue Identification
• Primary issue is building size (volume )
• Secondary issue is design
Fort Collins
6=K�
Issue Analysis : Size
• Building size (volume )
— City indirectly regulates volume
• Floor area
• Height
oIhns
7
Issue Analysis : Size
• Floor area limit
— Ratio of floor area to lot area , or Floor Area Ratio
( FAR )
• Floor area / lot area = FAR
• 5 , 000 sq ft house / 10 , 000 sq ft lot = . 50 FAR
• Current standards
— . 40 FAR in NCL
— . 50 FAR in NCM
— 1 . 0 FAR in NCB
F�t`
Collins
Issue Analysis : Size
1 . 0 FAR
1 story 2 stories 4 stories
100% lot coverage 50 % lot coverage 25% lot coverage
8
Alle
190' lot j
72'
I so
15' NCM
Existing house NCM NCL
with . 25 FAR NCL .Q0 . 50
( house + garage) . 40 . 50
Fundamental Size Issue
• The FAR currently allowed by City standards is not
consistent with the established development pattern
— Most common FARs range from . 15 - . 37
— City standards allow . 40 in NCL and . 50 in NCM
• Results in dramatic size differences
— Controversy mostly concentrated within the NCM
— 1 . 0 FAR in the NCB not an identified issue
City of
Fort�i1s
9
Issue Analysis : Design
• Quality design
• Issue relates to whether and how to regulate
compatible design
F�t` ollins
Implementation Options : Size
• Standardized approach
➢ Lower the floor area limit ( FAR) in the NCL
zone
➢ Lower the floor area limit ( FAR) in the NCM
zone
City of
Fort�i1s
10
Effects
• Continues to apply uniform standard across varying
lot and block patterns
• Reduces allowable building expansion
Fort` Collins
Implementation Options : Size
• Contextual approach
➢ Allow each house to expand by a certain
percentage
➢ Allow each house to expand based on
averaging with the two adjacent houses
➢ 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
City of
Fort Collins
11
Effects
• Amount of allowable expansion is derived from the
established neighborhood pattern
• Allows for long term evolution in building size
• Typically reduce allowable building expansion
• More complex than applying a uniform standard
F�t`
Collins
Implementation Options : Design
➢ Require neighborhood meetings
• Effects
— Increases awareness and understanding
— Needs additional City resources
City of
Fort Collins
12
Implementation Options : Design
➢ Reinstate Design Assistance Program for non -
historic houses
• Effects
— Incentivizes use of design expertise
— Needs additional City resources
F�t`
Collins
Implementation Options : Design
➢ Codify select design guidelines as standards
• Effects
— Requires compatible design elements
City of
Fort Collins
13
Implementation Options : Design
➢ Require review by the Landmark Preservation
Commission or a newly formed Architectural
Review Committee
• Effects
— Requires greater attention to compatible design
— Needs additional City resources
F�t`
Collins
Recommendations
• Staff
— Contextual approach , block face averaging plus
percent increase
— None of design options
— Address minor , technical Land Use Code changes
• Volume " loophole "
• Height measuring
City of
Fort Collins
14
Recommendations
• Landmark Preservation Commission
— Contextual approach , block face averaging plus
an additional percentage
— Design Assistance Program
— Codify guidelines
— Open to Architectural Review
— Address Land Use Code changes
F�t`
Collins
ftw�l
Recommendations
• Planning and Zoning Board
— Address Land Use Code changes
City of
Fort Collins
15
Recommendations
• Zoning Board of Appeals
— Address Land Use Code changes
F�t`
Collins
Recommendations
• Citizen Advisory Committee
— Divided opinions
— Those who support changes prefer :
• Contextual approach , block face averaging plus
an additional percentage
• Design assistance
City of
Fort Collins
im
16
Next Steps
• December 2010 : Address identified Land Use Code
changes
• March 2011 : Complete analysis and implement the
preferred option ( s )
F�t`
Collins
Thank You
City of
Fort�i1s
17