Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 11/23/2010 - EAST SIDE AND WEST SIDE NEIGHBORHOODS DESIGN STAND DATE: November 23, 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. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In January of this year, at the direction of City Council, staff initiated a study to examine whether changes to existing regulations are warranted to address the compatibility of new houses and additions in the East and West Side Neighborhoods (adjacent to downtown). Some residents are concerned a portion of the new houses and additions being built are not compatible with existing neighborhood character, particularly in the case of expanded houses that are much larger than existing houses in the vicinity. Potential implementation options have been developed, and staff is seeking feedback regarding which, if any, should be prepared for Council action. The options include the following: 1. No change 2. Design Assistance Program 3. Voluntary design review 4. Average-plus concept 5. Design standards GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Which, if any, options to address.the compatibility of new houses and additions in the East and West Side Neighborhoods should staff prepare for Council consideration? 2. Does Council support the proposed schedule? BACKGROUND I DISCUSSION Problem Statement Some residents are concerned a portion of the new houses and additions being built in the East and West Side Neighborhoods (adjacent to downtown) are not compatible with existing neighborhood character, particularly in the case of expanded houses that are much larger than existing houses in the vicinity. November 23, 2010 Page 2 The size and the design of a new house and/or addition are factors that contribute to its overall compatibility with the neighborhood character. Development standards currently allow some houses to double, triple, or quadruple in size, and the City has limited regulations for design. Although there have not been many houses that maximized their allowed size, and most agree the new houses have been well designed, the potential exists to create incompatible structures, which could create additional concerns over time. Therefore, the fundamental question is whether the City's current regulations warrant revision to better reflect adopted policies of protecting established neighborhood character. There appears to be consensus that most new construction is positive and beneficial for the neighborhoods. Even among those who feel there are compatibility problems, there is broad agreement that only a small minority of projects are leading to complaints or concerns. Any concerns about compatibility are countered by concerns that more restrictive standards would hinder the kinds of improvement projects that have been built. Background In January of this year, at the direction of City Council, staff initiated a study to examine the concerns regarding compatibility. Staff presented a project scope and schedule to Council at a work session on February 23. After thorough analysis and a public process, the study's findings and recommendations were presented at a Council work session on August 24 (see Attachments 1 and 2). Since 2004,the City has approved permits for 43 demolitions,40 new single-family houses,and 161 additions within the Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (NCL) and Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) zoning districts that comprise the East and West Side Neighborhoods.' Table 1 reports the number and average size of each by zoning district. Concerns over compatibility are concentrated in the NCL and NCM zones,and staff is not presenting changes for the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer(NCB)zone. November 23, 2010 Page 3 Table 1: Building Permit Data by Zone, 2004-20102 Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (NCL) Average Size Number % of Total Additions 614 87 76% New Single-Family Houses 1979 14 12% Demolitions n/a 14 12% TOTAL 115 100% Variances 22 19% Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) Average Size Number % of Total Additions 600 74 57% New Single-Family Houses 2053 26 20% Demolitions n/a 29 22% TOTAL 129 100% Variances 19 15% Staff was asked about data quantifying the problem; specifically,to identify how many complaints have been recorded for this recent construction. There is no tracking of such complaints,other than anecdotal information from the City's Building Department and Historic Preservation Program, which identified several controversial cases. Staff was also asked about the number of"problem" houses. Attachment 4 provides photos of homes that have been discussed in the process for demonstrating compatibility issues; however, there is no clear consensus that any particular homes are indeed "problems" or that existing regulations warrant revision. Public discussion regarding compatibility dates back to the 1980s when the first Neighborhood Plans were adopted for these areas. Since that time,the City has undertaken a continuum of community planning efforts to craft appropriate regulations to protect the established neighborhood character. Past efforts to develop policies and regulations include the following: • In the early 1990s, three new zoning districts with development standards were created to implement the policies established by the East Side Neighborhood Plan(1986)and the West Side Neighborhood Plan (1989). • 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. Z City of Fort Collins Building Department. November 23, 2010 Page 4 • Through the 1990s and 2000s,zoning district standards have been adjusted periodically,for example: 0 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 '/z times the floor area in the NCL zone. Despite these past efforts,new houses and additions continue to raise compatibility concerns among some. Existing Regulations The City has adopted policies that support the protection of established neighborhood character,and development regulations in the Land Use Code (LUC) intended to implement those policies. Current regulations include: • A metric/numerical limit on house size based on the size of a lot, also known as Floor Area Ratio (FAR). A FAR of.40 is the standard in the NCL zone, which allows 40% of the lot to be covered by floor area; .50 is the standard in the NCM zone, which allows 50% of the lot to be covered by floor area. • Development standards that establish setbacks and height limits. • A few, basic design standards. • Voluntary, unenforceable design guidelines. Potential Approaches With assistance from a Citizen Advisory Committee(CAC)', staff has a series of actions to address and increase the prospect that new and renovated residential structures will be more compatible with the neighborhoods where they are located. The actions are presented in"progressive steps"as ways to achieve a higher degree of compatibility among the residential structures that make up the neighborhood. These actions apply to two relevant zoning districts,the Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (NCL) and Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density(NCM) zones. The actions described below are listed in order of their degree of regulation, meaning Option 1 represents no regulation and Option 5 represents significant regulation. Option 1 —No Change This option would retain the regulations outlined above. Support for this option is based on the following premises: • There is not a significant problem that warrants changes to zoning regulations. • New construction, as it has been happening, is a positive change. • Ideas for changes to regulations are not fully vetted for their potential economic effects or unforeseen consequences. 'The CAC includes both industry professionals(architects,builders,real estate professionals)and residents from both the East and West Side Neighborhoods. November 23, 2010 Page 5 • Tighter regulations may hinder needed reinvestment. • Some small,older houses were built quickly and cheaply, and should not set a precedent for the size and design of new construction. This option is not meant to preclude minor, non-controversial housekeeping changes to the Land Use Code to clarify current zoning regulations, nor is it meant to prevent City Council from implementing either of the voluntary design assistance options described below. Option 2 —Design Assistance Issue: Compatibility is typically enhanced when houses are designed by experienced professionals that have had success with context-sensitive design in historic neighborhoods. The City previously administered a Design Assistance Program for Historic Landmark structures that offered property owners financial assistance to supplement the costs of hiring a pre-qualified design professional. The program's funding (General Fund source) was eliminated from recent budgets. Potential Change: Allocate funding for a Design Assistance Program (DAP) that would provide interested property owners money to supplement the costs of hiring a pre-qualified architect/design professional. This program would be similar in purpose and process as the previous DAP,but would be extended to any new house or addition regardless of whether or not it is a historic landmark. Due to recent budget conditions, allocating $20,000 would be sufficient to seed the Program; however, the Landmark Preservation Commission suggested that $40,000 would be ideal. The Community Development and Neighborhood Services department would be responsible for administering the DAP. Pros: • Incentivizes the use of design expertise. • Compatibility is enhanced when property owners use the assistance of people that have had success with context-sensitive design in historic neighborhoods. • Careful design with an emphasis on compatibility can mitigate the impacts of larger new construction. Cons: • Requires additional City General Fund funding. Option 3—Voluntary Design Assistance by the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Issue: Unless a house is eligible for historic designation, the City does not review the exterior design of single-family houses. The LPC is interested in providing this service to improve compatibility. Potential Change: Allow the LPC to offer voluntary, non-binding design review for interested property owners. The LPC is considered to be the most qualified of existing City advisory groups to perform this function. Institutionalizing the practice would require a revision to Chapter 2 of the City Code, adding the function as an optional role of the Commission. November 23, 2010 Page 6 Pros: • Compatibility is enhanced when property owners use the assistance of people familiar with context-sensitive design in historic neighborhoods. • Careful design with an emphasis on compatibility can mitigate the impacts of larger new construction. Cons: • Requires an extra time commitment by LPC members, which could become significant. Option 4—Average-Plus Concept Issue: The current standard that limits how much floor area can be built on a lot (FAR) does not effectively implement adopted policy to protect the established character in these two neighborhoods. The FARs are not based on the established pattern of house size and,to some,allow for too large of a house that does not fit in with the neighborhood. Potential Change: In the NCL and NCM zones, determine the amount of house floor area that can be built on a lot by finding the average floor area of the houses on the same block face, plus an additional 50%, or 2,000 square feet, whichever is greater. Details of this change are described below: • Property owners/applicants wanting to expandibuild new would collect the relevant data from the County Assessor's records to determine the average-plus allowance for their block face. • Basements would not be limited,nor would detached garages be included in the average-plus calculation. • The current FAR limits(.40 in NCL and .50 in NCM)would be maintained as the maximum amount of total floor area allowed on a lot. (Detached garages would count toward that total limit, the same as they currently do, but basements would not.) The reason for taking the greater of the average-plus 50% or 2,000 square feet is to allow those blocks with small houses to expand a reasonable amount. During discussions with the Citizen Advisory Committee, the building/design professionals recommended that 2,000 square feet is an appropriate amount of space to accommodate the needs of modern households,i.e.,three bedrooms, two baths, a family room, etc. 2,000 square feet is also the approximate average of the new houses that have been built in these zoning districts since 2004", which indicates that the market is supporting this size of a house. Although a 2,000 square foot house might still seem like a big impact on a block face with houses in the 900-1,000 square foot range, it is considerably less than what could potentially be built under existing standards (depending on the lot size). Example: Tables 2 and 3 below compare the building size allowed by the City's existing standards with what would be allowed under the average-plus 50% concept for each zone. °City of Fort Collins Building Department November 23, 2010 Page 7 The columns under"Existing Conditions" report the floor area of the existing house, the lot area, and corresponding FAR. Columns under "Existing Standard" report how much floor area is currently allowed by City standards with the corresponding FAR. Finally,'the "Average Plus 50% Standard" shows how much floor area would be allowed if the City changed its method for regulating house size. Table 2: Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (NCL) Comparison Table Existing Conditions Existing Standard Average-Plus 50% Standard Floor Allowed Avera Floor Lot Area of Lot Area FAR Floor FAR plus Area of FAR House Area 50% House 1 1,680 6,254 .27 2,502 .40 2,012 .32 2 976 6,962 .14 2,785 .40 2,012 .29 3 2,143 9,530 .22 3,812 .40 2,143 .22 4 1,427 9,500 .15 3,800 .40 2,012 .21 5 1,355 9,635 .14 3,854 .40 2,012 .21 6 707 9,500 .07 3,800 .40 2,012 .21 7 1,172 5,114 .23 2,046 .40 2,012 .39 8 1,270 5,044 .25 2,018 .40 2,012 .40 Average 1,341 7,692 .18 3,007 .40 2,012 2,012 .28 Table 3: Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) Comparison Table Existing Conditions Existing Average-Plus 50% Standard Standard Avera Floor Area Lot Allowed ge Floor F Lot to House Area FAR Floor FAR plus Area of FAR Area 50% House 1 1,020 7,255 .14 3,628 .50 2,000 .28 2 1,128 5,282 .21 2,641 .50 2,000 .38 3 11658 12,431 .13 6,216 .50 2,000 .16 4 1,603 12,417 .13 6,209 .50 2,000 .16 5 884 8,300 .11 4,150 .50 2,000 .24 6 1,239 6,261 .20 3,131 .50 2,000 .32 Average 11255 8,658 .15 4,329 .50 1,883 2,000 .26 Table 3 is an example block face where of the average-plus 50% is less than 2,000 square feet; therefore each property on that block would be allowed to increase up to 2,000 square feet. Note: 2,000 square feet only applies to living space in the house, and does not include a detached garage or basement space. Attachment 3 is a matrix of multiple block faces in the NCL and NCM for both the East and West sides that compares the City's existing standards to the average-plus concept. If Council supports November 23, 2010 Page 8 this option, staff recommends using the average-plus 50%; however, the matrix also compares existing standards to the average-plus 60%, average-plus 75%, and average-plus 100%. Pros: • Allowable house size is more clearly derived from the existing established pattern of house sizes. • Allows for long term evolution in house sizes, but limits dramatic increases. • Lower size limits would tend to increase the incentive to retain and adapt existing houses rather than demolishing them, because replacing a house with a similar-size house is less likely to be worthwhile. Cons: • Has raised questions about the fairness of different allowable house sizes from block face to block face. o Some question the justification for using a block face,vs. both sides of a street block, vs. a whole block, vs. a subdivision, vs. a certain radius, etc. • Has raised concerns about existing small houses in some areas that might not be worth setting a lasting precedent, and should not be used as a basis for house size in new construction. (For example, in areas where the original houses were built cheaply with outdated and energy inefficient design,or were built low in a flood flow path.) Note that the 2,000 square foot allowance for small block faces would mitigate these concerns. • Has raised questions about known inaccuracies in the County Assessor's house size measurements, therefore the baseline data could be challenged. • More complex than applying a uniform standard. • Lower size limits may increase the incentive to remove and replace existing houses,because outdated and inefficient floor plans cannot be adequately improved with the limited additional square footage allowance; it would be necessary to use the entire square footage allocation for that house in a new house with a modern, efficient floor plan. Option 5—Add Design Standards to the Land Use Code (LUC) Issue: Relevant zoning districts contain very few significant regulations addressing compatible house design. Potential Change: Add additional design standards into the LUC such as: • New houses and additions shall be compatible with the established architectural character of the surrounding neighborhood. Compatibility shall be achieved through the following techniques: repetition of roof lines, patterns of door and window placement, window proportions, and the use of characteristic entry features. • New houses and additions shall be articulated into massing that is proportional to the prevailing mass and scale of other structures on the same block face. • Building materials shall be similar to the materials already being used in the neighborhood. • New houses shall have a horizontal eave along at least fifty percent of the front fagade at a height similar to the predominant eave height found on the block face, or the eave height of an adjacent house. November 23, 2010 Page 9 Pros: • Compatibility standards would require a property owner to consider neighborhood character in the design process. • Careful design with an emphasis on compatibility can mitigate the impacts of larger new construction and improve compatibility. • Standards would be mandatory and enforceable. Cons: • Appropriate design is difficult tddetermine and legislate given the lack of a single,defining architectural style. • The standards identified in this process are descriptive rather than numerical, and thus are subjective, which raises concerns about contentiousness in interpretation by staff. • Standards could limit creativity and variety. • Standards limiting building materials may preclude homeowners from using new energy efficient materials. • Additional non-budgeted staff would be required to review the design of houses under the new standards. • Staff finds limited support for design standards at this time. Other Minor Code Changes The process has highlighted a few minor, technical clarifications to the LUC regarding the way building size is measured, along with some wording clarifications. Regardless of whether any option is preferred by Council, staff recommends these technical clarifications be adopted. Next Steps Based on Council's direction,staff will develop necessary documentation(Budgeting For Outcomes Offer and/or Ordinances) to implement any options. Note that if option 4 is preferred, it will be brought forward with limited analysis and outreach. The Planning and Zoning Board will provide a formal recommendation in December, and Council will consider adoption in January. December December 3 Planning and Zoning Board work session December 9 Planning and Zoning Board hearing January January 4 Council consideration of First Reading of proposed Ordinances January 18 Council consideration of Second Reading of proposed Ordinances November 23, 2010 Page 10 ATTACHMENTS 1. February 23, 2010 Work Session Summary 2, August 24, 2010 Work Session Summary 3. Building Size Standards Comparison Matrix 4. Example Photos 5. PowerPoint Presentation r-- ATTACHMENT 1 City of Advance Planning 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 F6rt Collins Fort Collins,C080522 970.2211221.6376 970.224.6111 -fax kgov.com/advanceplanning MEMORANDUM DT: February 26, 2010 TO: Mayor and City Council members TH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager Joe Frank,Advance Planning Directo FM: Megan Bolin, City Planner��' RE: February 23, 2010 Work Session Summary—Single Family Design Standards for the East and West Side Neighborhoods Staff presented an overview of the issue regarding the compatibility of new single family construction,or"pop-ups" and "scrape-offs"occurring in Fort Collins' East and West Side Neighborhoods. Advance Planning will manage the project to study the issue with neighborhood outreach, and determine if additional design standards are necessary. Specific questions asked of Council included: 1. Does Council support staff proceeding with the project at this time? 2. Does Council support the proposed project scope and process as outlined? 3. Are there other issues not identified that Council would like staff to address? There was a consensus of support with regard to the first question, and staff will proceed with the project and return for a second work session in August.The following suggestions were made to improve the process, including: ■ Increase the number of owner-occupied property owners serving on the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) from two to six(three from the East and three from the West). ■ The real estate/design members of the CAC, to the extent practical, should also be residents of the East and West Side Neighborhoods. • Address how historic preservation interacts with compatibility issues. Council also asked,that specific data be developed as part of the study, including: ■ What was the condition or historic significance of the buildings that have been recently lost to demolition? ■ How many buildings remain which-could-be threatened by demolition? City Of 6r!Collins ■ Compare the square footage of the recently demolished buildings with those that have replaced them. ■ Try to give a "grade"to the buildings that have been recently constructed as a result of demolition in the neighborhoods—how compatible are they? o How does the new construction compare to proposed regulations? Council also asked for an update regarding the City's previously adopted Solar Access Plan. Staff will assemble the information and respond with a follow-up memo. J ATTACHMENT 2 Cityof Advance Planning `r 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins 9Fort 0 221!6376C0 80522 970.224.6111 -fax fcgov.com/advanceplanning MEMORANDUM DT: August 27, 2010 TO: Mayor and City Council members TH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager • — Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager Karen Cumbo, Interim PDT Director FM: Joe Frank, Advance Planning Direc Megan Bolin, City Plannern-e7 RE: August 24 City Council Work Session: East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study Council members present: Mayor Hutchinson, Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson, Ben Manvel, Aislinn Kottwitz, Wade Troxell, and David Roy. Staff present: Diane Jones, Megan Bolin,Joe Frank, Clark Mapes, Steve Dush, and Karen McWilliams. Question for Council: Which, if any, of the implementation options does Council prefer to change development standards and/or review processes to address the compatibility of single- family expansions and new construction in the East and West Side Neighborhoods? Summary of discussion: ■ Most Council members agreed that there is a problem to solve, meaning changes to our current standards and/or processes are warranted. ■ Most of the improvements and new additions that have been built are well designed and contribute positively to the character of the neighborhood. There are likely only a few "bad" examples. ■ Do not want to hinder further improvements with too much regulation. ■ The issue is not only about size and should consider the historical significance of structures, as well as design. ■ More public outreach is needed including public meetings and perhaps an additional work session with staff recommended solution to consider. ■ Requiring neighborhood meetings is not a preferred implementation option. ■ More research is needed regarding solar access regulations. • Council would like to see actual examples of recent construction that has been built. ' I Fort of ■ Staff must clarify whether any new regulations would only apply to single-family dwellings, and consider how duplex,triplex, and four-plexes would be addressed. ■ Support for the Design Assistance Program. ■ Council would like clear data on the number of demolitions, how many are considered problematic, how many had historical significance, and then how would staff's proposed regulations compare to what has already been built. Would the new regulation have prevented the "bad" examples? ATTACHMENT East and West Side Neighborhoods Building Size Standards Comparison Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (NCL) - West Side Neighborhood Existing Conditions Existin��� Average + i . t tr% Address Floor Area of House Lot Area FAR Allowed Floor Area FAR Average + 50% Floor Area of House FAR Average + 60% Floor Area of House FAR Average + 75% Floor Area of House FAR Average + 100% Floor Area of House FAR 713 W OakSt 1,008 6,300 0.16 2,520 0.40 1,476 0.23 1,574 025 1,722 0.27 1,968 0.31 719 W Oak St 960 3,570 0.27 1,429 0.40 1,476 0.41 1,574 0." 1,722 OAS 1,968 0.55 Average 964 s,231 0.21 1,974 OAS 1fJ6 1,476 0.32 1,574 2,574 0.35 1,]22 1,J22 0.38 1,968 1,968 0.43 2015 Loomis Ave 1,680 6,254 0.27 2,502 0.40 2,012 0.32 2,146 0.34 2,347 0.38 2,683 0.43 2055 Loomis Ave 976 6,962 0.14 2,785 0.40 2,012 0.29 2,146 0.31 2,347 0.34 2,683 0.39 2095 Loomis Ave 2,143 9,530 0.22 3,812 LAO 2,143 0.22 2,146 0.23 2,347 0.25 2,683 0.28 2155 Loomis Ave 1,427 9,5w 0.15 3," OAW 2,012 0.21 2,146 0.23 2,347 0.25 2,683 0.28 2195 Loomis Ave 1,355 9,635 0.14 3,854 0.40 2,012 0.21 2,146 0.22 2,347 0.24 2,683 0.28 2215 Loomis Ave ]W 9,5w 0.07 3," 0.40 2,012 0.21 2,146 0.23 2,347 0.25 2,683 0.28 2255 Loomis Ave 1,172 5,114 0.23 2046 0.40 2,012 0.39 2,146 0.42 2,347 OAS 2,693 0.52 2295 Loomis Ave 1,270 5,044 0.25 2,018 0.40 1 2,012 1 0.40 1 1 2,146 1 OAS 2,347 0.47 1 2,693 0.53 1,3/1 J,692 0.18 0.40 2,012 2,012 0.28 2,146 4auva U.S9 111111111111111111111347 2,347 0.33 2,603 2, 1404 W Mountain Ave 1,536 8,519 0.18 3,408 0.40 3,251 0.38 3,468 0.41 3,793 0.45 4,335 0.51 1408 W Mountain Ave 2264 8,506 0.27 3A02 0.40 3,251 0.38 3,468 0.41 3,793 0.45 4,335 0.51 1412 W Mountain Ave 2,395 8,406 0.28 3,362 0.40 3,251 0.39 3,468 0.41 3,793 0.45 4,335 0.52 1416 W Mountain Ave 2,090 9AZI6 0.22 3,a78 RAO 3,251 0.34 3,4 8 0.37 3,N3 am 4,335 OAS 1420 W Mountain Ave 2,456 9'" 0.27 3,E00 0.40 3,251 0.36 3,4 8 0.39 3,N3 OA2 4,335 OAS 1426 W Mountain Ave 2,2W 8,078 0.28 3,231 0.40 3,251 am 3,468 0.0 3,N3 0.47 4,335 0.54 Average :000168 8,659 0.25 0.40 3j51 104 N Roosevelt Ave 2,366 5,670 0.42 2,2E8 LAO 2,31% 0A2 231% 0.42 2366 OA2 2,576 OAS 116 N Roosevelt Ave 990 8,275 0.12 3,310 0.40 L932 0.23 2,%l 0.25 2.254 0.27 2,576 0.31 120 N Roosevelt Ave 936 8,275 0.11 3,310 LAO 1,932 0.23 2,061 0.25 Z. mal 0.27 2,576 0.31 124 N Roosevelt Ave Lovul 8,486 012 3,394 LAO 1,932 0.23 2,061 2 Z. mal 0.27 2,576 0.30 128 IN Roosevelt Ave 952 8,275 O.0 3,310 LAO 1,932 0.23 2.o61 625 2254 0.27 2,576 0.31 134 IN Roosevelt Ave 2,472 8,469 0.29 3,38.4 0.40 Z472 0.29 2472 1 0.291 2472 0.29 2,576 0.30 140 N Roosevelt Ave 919 1 5,765 0.14 2,306 0.40 1,932 0.34 2,061 1 0.361 2254 0.39 2,576 0.45 150 N Roosevelt Ave 720 1 6,417 0.11 2,567 OAR 1,932 0.30 1 2,061 1 0.32 1 2,254 0.35 2,576 0.40 Average 1,288 1 7,04 0.18 2,982 0.40 1,932 2,04 1 0.28 2,061 1 2,150 1 0.S0 1 2,254 2,295 0.32 MEMO= 2,576 0.36 700 W Mountain Ave (house + office) 3,492 8,375 0.42 3,350 0.40 3,492 0.42 3,686 a." 4,031 0.48 4,607 0.55 704 W Mountain Ave 2,389 8,282 0.29 3,313 OAR 3,455 OA2 3,686 0.45 4,031 OAS 4,607 O36 708 W Mountain Ave 1,996 8,2W 0.24 3,300 0.40 3,455 0.42 3,686 0.45 4,031 OAS 4,607 0.56 714 W Mountain Ave 2268 8,366 0.27 3,346 0.40 3,455 0.41 3,686 0." 4,031 OAS 4,607 0.55 719 W Mountain Ave 1,134 8,155 0.14 3,262 LAO 3,455 0A2 3,686 0.0 4,031 0.49 4,607 0.56 722 W Mountain Ave 2,451 8,503 0.29 3,401 LAO 3,455 OAl 3,686 OAS 4,031 0.47 4,607 0.54 726 W Mountain Ave 1,738 5,997 0.29 2,399 LAO 3,455 0.58 3,686 0.61 4,031 0.67 4,607 0.77 730 W Mountain Ave 2,9W 5,878 0.50 2,351 LAO 3,455 0.59 3,686 0.63 4,031 0.69 4,607 O.78 Average 2,304 7,R6 0.30 SIM M 3/455 3,460 0.46 3,686 3,686 0.0 4,IXi] 4,607 4,07 0.61 1101 W Oak St 1,316 9,500 0.14 3,800 LAO 2,949 0.31 3,144 0.33 3,439 0.36 3,931 0.41 1105 W Oak St 1,016 9,500 0.11 3,800 LAO 2,948 0.31 3,144 0.33 3,439 0.36 3,931 0.41 1109 W Oak 5t 2,293 9,500 0.24 3,800 LAO 2,948 0.31 3,144 0.33 3,439 0.36 3,931 0.41 1115 W Oak St 1,854 9,500 0.20 3,300 LAO 2,948 0.31 3,144 0.33 3,439 0.36 3,931 0.41 1117 W Oak St 2,591 9,500 0.27 3,300 LAO 2948 0.31 3,144 0.33 3,439 0.36 3,931 0.41 1121 W Oak 5t 1,857 9,500 0.20 3,800 LAO 2,948 0.31 3,144 0.33 3,439 0.36 3,931 0.41 1125 W Oak St 2,"1 9,500 0.28 3,300 LAO 2,948 0.31 3,144 0.33 3,439 0.36 3,931 0.41 1129 W Oak St 2,154 9,500 0.23 3,300 0.40 2,948 0.31 3,144 0.33 3,439 0.36 3,931 0.41 Average 9,500 0.2 0.40 2,940 2,948 0.31 3,144 3 N 3,439 3, 0.36 3,931 3,931 0.41 221 Lyons St 965 6,000 0.16 2403 0.40 1 1,292 0.22 1,379 0.23 1,507 0.25 1,722 0.29 223 Lyons St 8% 5,941 0.15 2,376 0.40 1,292 0.22 1,378 0.23 LEs07 0.25 1,722 0.29 225 Lyons St 6]2 5,912 0.11 2,365 LAO 1,292 0.22 1,378 0.23 1,507 0.25 1,722 0.29 227 Lyons St 864 5,973 0.14 2,388 LAO 1,292 0.22 1,378 0.23 1,507 0.25 1,722 0.29 229 Lyons St 864 6,003 0.14 2400 LAO 1,292 0.22 1,378 0.23 1,507 0.25 1,722 0.29 231 Lyons St 8r-0 5,953 0.15 2,381 LAO 1,292 0.22 1,3]8 0.23 1,507 0.25 1,722 0.29 233 Lyons S[ 8r-0 5,896 0.15 2,358 LAO 1,292 0.22 1,3]8 0.23 1,507 0.26 1,722 0.29 235 Lyons St 8W 6,025 0.14 2,410 Ow 1,292 1 0.21 1 1 0.231 1,507 0.25 1,722 0.29 237 Lyons St 896 5,822 0.15 2,329 0.40 1,292 1 0.22 1 1 1 0.241 1,507 0.26 1,722 0.30 Average 861 5,M 0.14 0.40 1,292 1,292 1 0.22 1 1,378 1,3 1,507 1,50J 1,J22 1 East and West Side Neighborhoods Building Size Standards Comparison Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) - West Side Neighborhood Existing Conditions Existing Standards Average plus 50% Average + 60% Average + 75% Average plus 100% Address Fl our Area of House mires FAR Allowed Floor Area FAR Average plus 50% Floor Area of House FAR Average + 60% Floor Area of House Average + 75% Floor Area of House Average plus 100% Floor Area of House FAR 302 wart St 456 1 4,049 Os0 1,665 0.21 S,n6 azz 1,943 Oz4 2,220 02] 308 Wert 5[ 1,200 0.14 4,289 0.50 1,665 0.19 1,]]6 0.21 1,943 0.23 2,220 026 312 Wert 5t 1,596 0.19 4,2M 0.50 1,665 0.20 1,]]6 0.21 1,943 0.23 2,220 0.26 316 West 5t 1,216 0.14 4,250 0.50 1,665 0.20 1,A6 021 1,943 0.23 2,220 0.26 318West5t 902 0.10 4,32] 0.50 1,655 0.19 1,A6 0.21 1,943 0.22 2,220 0.26 320West5t 1,092 0.12 4,141 0.50 1,655 0.20 1,A6 0.21 1,943 0.23 2,220 0.2] 326West5t Wax 0.15 4,250 0.50 1,655 0.20 1,A6 0.21 1,943 0.23 2,220 0.26 328 Wert 5t 1,241 0.15 4,250 0.50 1,665 0.20 1,]]6 0.21 1,943 0.23 2,220 0.26 330 Wert st 1,320 0.15 4,2]8 0.50 1,665 0.19 1,]]6 0.21 1,943 0.23 2,220 0.26 Average 1,110 0.13 0.50 1,665 1,665 0.20 1,]]6 1,]]6 0.21 1,943 1,943 0.23 2,220 2,220 of s005 Gren[Ave 1,020 0.14 3,628 0.50 1,883 026 2,009 0.28 2,197 030 2,511 0.35 5045 Grant Ave 1,128 5,282 0.21 2,r-01 0.50 1,883 036 2,009 0.38 2,197 OA2 2,511 0.48 5125Gant Ave 1,658 12,431 0.13 6,216 0.50 1,883 0.15 2,009 0.16 2,197 0.18 2,511 0.20 5205 Grant Ave 1,603 12,417 0.13 6,209 0.50 1,883 0.15 2,009 0.16 2,19] 0.18 2,511 020 s245 Grant Ave 884 8,3W 0.11 g150 0.50 1,883 0.23 2,009 0.24 2,19] 0.26 2,511 0.30 s2B5Garrt Ave 1,239 6,261 0.20 3,131 0.50 1,883 0.30 2,009 0.32 219] 035 2,511 0.40 A 1,255 8,658 0.15 /,329 0.50 1,8ii ],88i 0.20 2,009 2,009 0.262,197 0.28 2¢1 2,511 0.32 705 W ISulbenySt 931 6,236 0.15 3,118 0.10 1,47 o.24 1,571 0.25 1,718 0.28 1,913 0.31 ]09 W MulberrySt 1,0]8 6,206 0.1] 3,103 0.50 1,471 o.24 1,91 0.25 1,]18 0.28 1,963 0.32 713 W MulberrySt 936 1 6,780 1 0.14 3,390 0.50 1 1,473 1 0.22 1 11,91 0.231 1 1,718 1 0.25 1 1 1,963 0.29 Average 962 6,40] 0.15 3,21M 0.50 1rl73 1,473 0.23 1,571 1,571 0.25 1,718 1,70 0.27 11963 1,90 0.31 400 Park St 954 10,200 0.09 5,IW 0.50 1,871 0.18 1,995 0.20 2,182 0.21 2,494 0.24 404 Park St 2,187 6,800 0.32 3,400 0.50 2,187 0.32 2,187 0.32 2,197 0.32 2494 0.37 408 Park 5t W2 8,392 0.12 4,196 0.50 1,873 0.22 1,995 0.24 2,192 0.26 2,494 0.30 412 Park 5t 840 8,702 0.10 4,351 0.50 1,871 0.21 1,995 0.23 Z182 0.25 2,194 0.29 418 Park 5t 694 8,515 0.08 4,258 0.50 1,873 0.22 1,995 0.23 Z182 0.26 2,194 0.29 420 Park St(duplex) 1,]20 8,5W 0.20 4,250 0.50 1,873 0.22 1,995 0.23 2,182 0.26 2,194 0.29 424Park5t Sin 8,5W 0.11 4,250 0.50 1,873 0.22 1,995 0.23 Z182 0.26 2,194 0.29 428 Park 5t Loost 8,562 0.12 4,281 0.50 1,871 0.22 1,995 0.23 Z192 0.25 2,194 0.29 432 Park St L876 8,5W 0.22 4,250 0.50 1,876 0.22 1,995 0.23 Z192 0.26 2,194 0.29 Average 8,539 0.15 1,8]1 2,017 0.24 0.26 2f94 401 Park St 7M 5,696 0.12 2,848 0.50 1,489 0.26 1,588 0.28 1,]3] 0.30 1,985 0.35 405 Park St 960 5,750 0.17 2,875 0.50 1,489 0.26 1,588 0.28 1,]3] 0.30 1,985 0.35 407Park St 1,152 5,766 0.20 2,883 0.50 1,489 0.26 1,588 0.29 1,]3] 0.30 1,985 0.34 411 Park 5t 1,248 5,789 0.22 2,895 0.50 1,489 0.26 1,S88 0.27 1,]3] 0.30 1,985 0.34 413 Park 5t 622 5,871 0.11 2,936 0.50 1,489 0.25 1,S88 0.27 1,]3] 0.30 1,985 0.34 417Park St 6]2 5,]95 0.12 2,898 0.50 1,489 0.26 1,584 0.27 1,]3] 0.30 1,985 0.34 421 Park 5t 1,465 5,r% 0.26 2,848 0.50 1,489 0.26 1,S88 0.28 1,]3] 0.30 1,985 0.35 425 Park St 1,068 5,798 0.18 2,899 0.50 1,489 0.26 1,S88 0.27 1,]3] 0.30 1,985 0.34 Average 5,]]0 0.1 1A89 0.26 0. 00@]3] 3015Sherwood 5t 2,188 4,250 0.46 2,375 0.50 3,330 0.70 3,552 0.75 3,885 0.82 4,440 0.93 307 SSherwood 5t 1,280 9,5W 0.13 4,750 0.50 3,330 0.35 3,552 0.37 3,895 0.41 4,440 0.47 309 S Sherwood 5t 3,653 9,5W 0.38 4,750 0.50 3,653 0.38 3,653 0.38 3,895 0.41 4,440 0.47 315 S Sherwood 5t 1,148 9, W S 0.12 4,750 0.50 3,330 0.35 3,552 0.37 3,895 0.41 4,440 0.47 3255Sherwood 5t 1,963 6,250 0.31 3,125 0.50 3,330 0.53 3,552 0.57 3,885 0.62 4,440 0.73 3295Sherwood St (triplex) 3,088 6,250 0.49 3,125 0.50 3,330 0.53 3,552 0.57 3,885 0.62 4,440 0.73 Average 2,220 7,625 0.32 3,Bt3 0.50 3,330 3,384 all 3,552 3, 3,885 3, 4,440 4AW 215 Park St 1,455 7,054 0.21 3527 0.50 1,889 0.54 2,015 0.29 2,204 0.31 2,519 0.36 217Park St 800 8'" 0.09 42,00 0.50 1,889 0.43 2,015 0.23 2,2011 0.25 2,519 0.29 219 Park St 840 8]83 0.10 4392 0.50 1,889 0.43 2,o15 0.23 2,204 0.25 2,519 0.29 221 Park St 856 8,5W 0.10 4250 0.50 1,889 0." 2,o15 0.24 2,204 0.26 2,519 0.30 223 Park 5t 2,597 8,5W 0.31 4250 0.50 2597 0.61 2597 0.31 2597 0.31 2,597 0.31 225 Park 5t 852 8,5W 0.10 4250 0.50 1,889 0." 2,015 0.24 2,204 0.26 2,519 0.30 227Park St 960 8,473 0.11 4237 0.50 1,889 0.45 2,015 0.24 2,204 0.26 2,519 0.30 229 Park St 1,716 8,500 0.20 4250 0.50 1,889 0.44 2,015 0.24 2,204 0.26 2,519 030 Average 8,389 0.15 4194 = 1889 OA7 2,253 0.2] 2519 2,529 0.30 316 Wood St 2,725 8,640 0.32 4320 0.50 2,725 0.63 2725 0.32 2,473 0.29 2,927 0.33 320 Wood 5t 1,127 ],1]6 0.16 35M 0.50 2120 0.59 2,261 0.32 2,473 0.34 2,927 0.39 326 WoN 5t 1,260 7,253 0.17 3627 0.50 2,120 0.58 2,261 0.31 2,473 0.34 2,821 0.39 330 Wood 5t 1,853 10,392 0.18 51% 0.50 2,120 0.41 2,261 0.22 2,473 0.24 2,827 0.27 Average 1,423 8,365 021 2120 0.55 2,261 2,3]] 0.29 24]3 0.30 2827 2,827 0.35 612 W oak 5t 1,855 5,036 0.37 25M 0.50 2,391 0.95 2,550 0.511 2,789 0.55 3,188 0.63 616 W Oak S[ 992 9,436 0.11 4738 0.50 2,391 0.51 2,550 0.27 2,789 0.30 3,188 0.34 620 W Oak St 2,226 8,986 0.31 M93 0.50 2G`6 0.62 2226 0.31 2,789 0.31 3,188 0.35 626 W Oak 5t (2 houses) 2,266 8,]8] 0.26 4394 0.50 2,391 0.54 2,550 0.29 2,789 0.32 3,188 0.36 630W Oak 5t 1,262 5,205 0.24 2603 0.50 2,391 0.92 2,550 0.49 2,789 0.54 3,199 0.61 Avenel 1,5% 7,490 026 3 0.50 2391 0.71 2,550 21 2,]89 2,]89 am 3180 3,183 OUR 804 Maple St 888 4,531 0.20 2266 0.50 1,481 0.65 1,579 0.35 1 1,727 0.38 1,974 0.44 810 Maple St 1,116 9,086 0.12 4543 0.50 1,481 0.33 1,579 0.17 1,727 0.19 1,974 0.22 814 Maple St 1,016 4,713 0.22 2357 0.50 1,481 0.63 1,5A 0.34 1,]2] 0.37 1,974 0.42 816 Maple St 882 4,833 0.18 2417 0.50 1,481 0.61 1,5N 0.33 1,]2] 0.36 1,974 0.41 818 Maple St 1,2W ],195 0.18 3598 0.50 11481 0.41 1,5A 0.22 1,]2] 0.24 1,974 0.21 824 Maple St 756 ],ll2 0.11 3586 0.50 1,481 0.41 1,579 0.22 1,]2] 0.24 1,974 1 0.28 828 Maple St 2,078 4,90K) 0.42 2450 0.50 2078 0.85 2078 0.42 2078 0.42 2078 1 0.42 830 Maple St 2,153 4,865 0.44 2433 0.50 2153 0.89 2153 0." 2153 a." 2153 0." 5,912 0.23 1481 2 East and West Side Neighborhoods Building Size StandardsComparison Neighborhood Conservation Low Density ( NCL) - East Side Neighborhood Existing Conditions + Mgmmmmmmmmlllll� Average + 75% Average plus 100% Address Floor Area of House Lot Area FAR Allowed Floor Area IFAR Average plus 50% Floor Area of House FAR Average + 60% Floor Area of House FAR Average + 75% Floor Area of House FAR Average plus 100% Floor Area of House ;FAR409 Buckeye St 1,003 8,346 0.12 3,338 040 1,887 0.23 2,013 0.24 2,202 0.26 2,516 415 Buckeye St 1,338 11,756 0.11 4,702 040 1,887 0.16 2,013 0.17 2,202 0.19 2,516 423 Buckeye St 1,706 9,480 0.18 3,792 040 1,887 0.20 2,013 0.21 2,202 0.23 2,516 427 Buckeye St 985 9,750 0.10 3,900 0.40 1,887 0.19 2,013 0.21 2,202 0.23 2,516 Average 1,258 9,833 0.13 3,933 0.40 1,887 1,887 0.19 2,013 2,013 0.21 2,202 2,202 0.23 2,516 2,516 1401 Whedbee St 2,425 7,648 0.32 3,059 040 2,782 0.36 2,967 0.39 3,246 0.42 3,709 1415 Whedbee St 1,606 7,319 0.22 2,928 0.40 2,782 0.38 2,96] 0.41 3,246 0.44 3,709 1445 Whedbee St 1,533 7,893 0.19 3,157 0.40 2,782 0.35 2,967 0.38 3,246 0.41 3,709 Average 1,855 7,620 0.24 3,048 0.40 2,782 2,782 0.37 2,967 2,967 0.39 3,246 3,246 0.43 3,709 3,709 0.49 406 Buckeye St 901 9,750 0.09 3,900 0.40 1,920 0.20 2,048 0.21 2,240 0.23 2,560 0.26 410 Buckeye St 1,238 8,346 0.15 3,338 0.40 1,920 0.23 2,048 0.25 2,240 0.27 2,560 0.31 414 Buckeye St 1,519 11,756 0.13 4,702 0.40 1,920 0.16 2,048 0.17 2,240 0.19 2,560 0.22 418 Buckeye St 1,462 9,480 0.15 3,792 0.40 1,920 0.20 2,048 0.22 2,240 0.24 2,560 0.27 Average 1,280 9,833 0.13 3,933 0.40 1,920 1,920 0.20 2,048 2,048 0.21 2,240 2,240 0.23 2,560 2,560 0.26 1501 Peterson St 2,307 8,454 0.27 3,382 0.40 2,309 0.27 2,463 0.29 2,694 0.32 3,079 0.36 1507 Peterson St 1,368 8,424 0.16 3,370 0.40 2,309 0.27 2,463 0.29 2,694 0.32 3,079 0.37 1511 Peterson St 832 8,712 0.10 3,485 0.40 2,309 0.27 2,463 0.28 2,694 0.31 3,079 0.35 1515 Peterson St 846 8,558 0.10 3,423 0.40 2,309 0.27 2,463 0.29 2,694 0.31 3,079 0.36 1519 Peterson St 11068 8,587 0.12 3,435 0.40 2,309 0.27 2,463 0.29 2,694 0.31 3,079 0.36 1523 Peterson St 1,796 8,500 0.21 3,400 0.40 2,309 0.27 2,463 0.29 2,694 0.32 3,079 0.36 1527 Peterson St 1,355 8,365 0.16 3,346 0.40 2,309 0.28 2,463 0.29 2,694 0.32 3,079 0.37 1531 Peterson St 1,169 8,591 0.14 3,436 0.40 2,309 0.27 2,463 0.29 2,694 0.31 3,079 0.36 1535 Peterson St 2,779 9,087 0.31 3,635 0.40 2,779 0.31 2,779 0.31 2,779 0.31 3,079 0.34 1539 Peterson St 1,875 9,690 0.19 3,876 0.40 2,309 0.24 2,463 0.25 2,694 0.28 3,079 0.32 Average 1,540 8,07 0.18 2,309 2,463 2A95 0.29 2,694 0.31 3,079 3,079 0.35 726 Eastdale Dr 1,181 5,796 0.20 2,319 0.40 1,655 0.29 1,765 0.30 1,931 0.33 2,206 0.38 728 Eastdale Dr 939 8,125 0.12 3,250 0.40 1,655 0.20 1,765 0.22 1,931 0.24 2,206 0.27 730 Eastdale Dr 1,429 7,618 0.19 3,047 0.40 1,655 0.22 1,765 0.23 1,931 0.25 2,206 0.29 732 Eastdale Dr 1,224 7,503 0.16 3,001 0.40 1,655 0.22 1,765 0.24 1,931 0.26 2,206 0.29 736 Eastdale Dr 1,198 7,392 0.16 2,957 0.40 1,655 0.22 1,765 0.24 1,931 0.26 2,206 0.30 740 Eastdale Dr 791 5,284 0.15 2,114 0.40 1,655 0.31 1,765 0.33 1,931 0.37 2,206 0.42 744 Eastdale Dr 960 12,110 0.08 4,872 0.40 1,655 0.14 1,765 0.14 1,931 0.16 2,206 0.18 Average 1,303 7,700 0.15 3 1,655 1,655 1,765 1,931 1 0.27 2,206 2,206 0.30 3 East and West Side Neighborhoods Building Size StandardsComparison Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density ( NCM) - East Side Neighborhood Existing Conditions """111����Mllerage p��MMMMMMOMMIXerage + 60% 'MMMMMMI� Average + 75% Average plus [ r Address Floor Area of House Lot Area FAR Allowed Floor Area FAR Average plus 50% Floor Area of House FAR Average + 60% Floor Area of House FAR Average + 75% Floor Area of House FAR Average plus 100% Floor Area of House FAR 416 E Magnolia St 1,096 4,500 0.24 2,250 0.50 1,369 0.30 1,460 0.32 1,597 1 0.35 1 1,825 0.41 420 E Magnolia St 729 4,500 1 0.16 1 2,250 0.50 1 1,369 0.30 1,460 1 0.32 1 11,597 1 0.35 1 1,825 0.41 Average 913 1 6,167 1 0.201 3,083 1 0.50 1 1,369 1,369 0.30 1 1,460 1 1A60 1 0.321 1,597 1 1,597 1 0.351 1,825 1 1,825 0.41 509 E Plum St 970 4,750 0.20 2,375 0.50 1,059 0.22 1,130 0.24 1,236 0.26 1,412 0.30 519 E Plum St 464 2,500 0.19 1,250 0.50 1,059 0.42 1,130 0.45 1,236 0.49 1,412 0.56 521 E Plum St 666 2,500 0.27 1,250 0.50 1,059 0.42 1,130 0.45 1,236 0.49 1,412 0.56 525 E Plum St 724 2,250 0.32 1,125 0.50 1,059 0.47 1,130 0.50 1,236 0.55 1,412 0.63 Average 0.24 1 1,059 1,059 0.39 1,130 0.41 1,236 1,236 12 1,412 0.51 801 Smith St 589 2,000 0.29 1,000 0.50 1,684 0.84 1,796 0.90 1,965 0.98 2,246 1.12 805 Smith St 2,210 9,500 0.23 4,750 0.50 2,210 0.23 2,210 0.23 2,210 0.23 2,246 0.24 807 Smith St 949 9,500 0.10 4,750 0.50 1,684 0.18 1,796 0.19 1,965 0.21 2,246 0.24 809 Smith St 833 9,500 0.09 4,750 0.50 1,684 0.18 1,796 0.19 1,965 0.21 2,246 0.24 817 Smith St 660 9,500 0.07 4,750 0.50 1,684 0.18 1,796 0.19 1,965 0.21 2,246 0.24 821 Smith St 1,044 9,272 0.11 4,636 0.50 1,684 0.18 1,796 0.19 1,965 0.21 2,246 0.24 825 Smith St 1,766 9,728 0.18 4,864 0.50 1,766 0.18 1,796 0.18 1,965 0.20 2,246 0.23 829 Smith St 932 5,000 0.19 2,500 0.50 1,684 0.34 1,796 0.36 1,965 0.39 2,246 0.45 Average 1,123 6,a00 0.16 4,000 0.50 1,689 1,]60 0.29 1,796 1,648 0.30 1,965 1,995 0.33 2,246 0.3] 500 Locust St 1,277 8,500 0.15 4,250 0.50 1,728 0.20 1,843 0.22 2,016 0.24 2,304 0.27 512 Locust St 1,123 5,250 0.21 2,625 0.50 1,728 0.33 1,843 0.35 2,016 0.38 2,304 0.44 516 Locust St 1,056 4,500 0.23 2,250 0.50 1,728 0.38 1,843 0.41 2,016 0.45 2,304 0.51 Average M 6 1,152 6,083 0.20 3,042 0.50 1,728 1,728 i.2-AL 1,843 1,643 0.33 2,016 Z016 036 2,304 0.41 509 Garfield St 860 7,308 0.12 3,654 0.50 1,393 0.19 1,486 0.20 1,625 0.22 1,858 0.25 511 Garfield St (duplex) 998 7,000 0.14 3,500 0.50 1,393 0.20 1,496 0.21 1,625 0.23 1,858 0.27 513 Garfield St 906 8,400 0.11 4,200 0.50 1,393 0.17 1,496 0.18 1,625 0.19 1,858 0.22 517 Garfield St 1,170 5,600 0.21 2,800 0.50 1,393 0.25 1,496 0.27 1,625 0.2 11,858 0.33 521 Garfield St 720 5,435 0.13 2,719 0.50 1,393 0.26 1,496 0.27 1,625 0.30 1,858 0.34 Average 0.14 3,374 0.50 1,393 ,393 ,486 0.23 1,625 ,856 .28 1100 Whedbee St (duplex) 1,130 5,609 020 2,805 0.50 1,604 0.29 1,710 0.30 1,871 0.33 2,138 0.38 1104 Whedbee St 1,008 5,425 0.19 2,713 0.50 1,604 0.30 1,710 0.32 1,871 0.34 2,138 0.39 Average 1,069 5,517 0.191 2,759 1 0.50 1,fiO4 1,604 1,710 1 1,8 1,871 0.39 2,138 2,138 0.39 304 E Myrtle St 1,472 9,500 0.15 4,750 0.50 2,078 0.22 2,216 0.23 2,424 0.26 2,770 0.29 308 E Myrtle St 1,374 9,500 0.14 4,750 0.50 2,078 0.22 2,216 0.23 2,424 0.26 2,770 0.29 312 E Myrtle St 21360 9,500 0.25 4,750 0.50 2,360 0.25 2,360 0.25 2,424 0.261 2,770 0.29 318 E Myrtle St (2 houses) 1,736 9,500 0.18 4,750 0.50 2,078 0.22 2,216 0.23 2,424 0.26 2,770 0.29 322 E Myrtle St 800 9,500 0.08 4,750 0.50 2,078 0.22 2,216 0.23 2,424 0.26 2,770 0.29 326 E Myrtle St 1,473 9,500 0.16 4,750 0.50 2,078 0.22 2,216 0.23 2,424 0.26 2,770 0.29 330 E Myrtle St 480 9,500 0.05 4,750 0.50 2,078 0.22 2,216 0.23 2,424 0.26 2,770 0.29 Average 1,385 9.049 0.15 4,524 0.50 2078 2,118 M M 0.26 2,770 2,770 0.29 305 E Myrtle St 1,356 5,998 0.23 2,999 0.50 1,619 0.27 1,727 0.29 1,889 0.31 2,159 0.36 309 E Myrtle St (duplex) 1,248 6,000 0.21 3,000 0.50 1,619 0.27 1,727 0.29 1,889 0.31 2,159 0.36 325 E Myrtle St 956 5,000 0.19 2,500 0.50 1,619 0.32 1,727 0.35 1,889 0.38 2,159 0.43 327 E Myrtle St 758 7,000 0.11 3,500 0.50 1,619 0.23 1,727 0.25 1,889 0.27 2,159 0.31 Average 1,080 6,000 0.18 3,000 0.50 1,619 M 1 1,727 1,727 0.29 1,889 1,889 0 ML 2,159 2,159 0.37 502 Edwards St 957 5,201 0.18 2,601 0.50 1,717 0.33 1,831 0.35 2,003 0.39 2,289 0.44 504 Edwards St (duplex) 1,480 5,600 0.26 2,800 0.50 1,717 0.31 1,831 0.33 2,003 0.36 2,299 0.41 508 Edwards St 783 5,821 0.13 2,911 0.50 1,717 0.29 1,831 0.31 2,003 0.34 2,299 0.39 512 Edwards St 651 5,728 0.11 2,864 0.50 1,717 0.30 1,831 0.32 2,003 0.35 2,299 0.40 516 Edwards St 1,110 5,600 0.20 2,800 0.50 1,717 0.31 1,831 0.33 2,003 0.36 2,299 0.41 518 Edwards St 980 5,630 0.17 2,815 0.50 1,717 0.30 1,831 0.33 2,003 0.36 2,289 0.41 520 Edwards St 2,298 5,663 0.41 2,832 0.50 2,298 0.41 2,299 0.41 2,298 0.41 2,289 0.40 522 Edwards S[ 1,650 5,663 0.29 2,832 0.50 1,7ll 0.30 1,831 0.32 2,003 0.35 2,289 0.40 524 Edwards St 624 5,600 0.11 2,800 0.50 1,717 0.31 1,831 0.33 2,003 0.36 2:22 0.41 526 Edwards St 912 5,783 0.16 2,892 0.50 1,717 0.30 1,831 0.32 2,003 0.35 2,289 0.40 Average M 1,145 1 5,629 1 0.201 2,814 1 8 1 0.331 2,003 1 2,289 1 2,289 1 0.41 4 ATTACHMENT 4 Example Photographs East and West Side Neighborhoods The following photos are examples of new houses and additions that have been discussed in the process as demonstrating compatibility issues . There is no consensus that any particular house is a " problem " or negatively impacts the neighborhood . Compatibility issues include : Height of side wall Height difference from adjacent house — Height of first floor — Size (volume ) — Shading — Design and building materials 1 730 Mountain Avenue ( front ) [ ,� lrO .•.•� _ _5, T - 1 /1 ! � • �> (, ! � 1 . I �r 1� '1 � rrr ' �' . I l ' 1 � J'r �� l .�. � � � � •` ' � � , • •11 � 1 � {. r , • J 1 1 . I • .. / H ♦' t - _ " 40 r , ,�i4 , 1 ' 1 00 at � ' t t '•. ' r wr• • ' '� / r y - 1 'k it 4it . it 1 ' 10 Not OF 11041 71001 Mountain730 - - ( side ) �.� � , aa_`yy�'���1�q`RC\ ��• J,.Tl�, .�7�� ��. y ya� c �j� • :; ` . . / - I�ru� 11'i�� �i�J�ijjj, 1� �• .ri'ii-t3"� . • . ; . . :5'L _-. . a - , '-�'}� :. � •�� _ , .� �,- •,�.�-�,,.�� --•'lily i1L�ulllw .�1: �. ' � ;- �# � f u - • -`' _ • v I ;A . . r r� � �• ` `i � -• ti , t . . 6 :�� ..0 1 J , •.i ,' , � •yF•.' Y b . r � ; �!k •y *• . ^ } : 1 . �1t f I . � It \ 11 I`T. I`F . ' r . I '. / ; ~ (�,/ r • � d/ 'Cy - ; _ iw ` � J i •. - Ili e' . J � � • I 1 '•♦ ^,1 - . or Ly�r �• t rt ' t• } ~• F If s r, if OF or 4 • k • :1 jai . ,. AtI 40 1 5 � All �!� ::4 'L i Lit � . , IS IV �{ * ' • . �. :.t .jam 1 ..� 7�/�I 1 f [ '• ' . .8• y� 'a. A9 ic ^• � � � C J�iia *'��i Cis f y�.. .I{M 309 Sherwood Street ( front ) pp 1 - w� ria. — — . s` / *ON 4P I 6 • • • All Ask Albtoll Ask It to .. . do toILI. Ilk it ol - • � � _ INto I% to Millot v It ' o Ito osof djj dddddd A$ two lots,Im r IIs I 1 ' fillItsIV go o Rrj 111 4 ro 'i: o ' ' -- '71e `S�. I�� S. . r .}F� , v ' !•'97 JI till, 0 Is. PIZ ANN it �t . M . . . � gild_ �• �7 r -.441 n. i 1 N 1 It WIkL � . door �.�.. kk so �� ,� ' . , • 05 Smith Street /- y ♦ .i`. d AN - . . . •�y � � r , .�- `� � ' jf -j- t �,r � . � .. + �_ �r n r� 4 . tt,/ �lt �� T� f l r�a.r . 3 aye . r, � L .y. � . l�s, ��11. n ¢•< � r r t \ � v � l ..� L• ! ; i� t 6 '" 5r,� •,y�y7.i�',iJ'�.'t f - - 1 —• _ _._.ter _ _ _� 515 • • Street r ! J � I II I - I 1 t 1 . . � • ,� � , ,, ill I, u� j ' I ') + i i;;� _ • � �� � , • , _ - i � .� J coo r WOO �...� .. d. � 6' �" pp J1 (((( • In • , rf • . ,., ! ���rrr + �Ti ; �'+yFL{ ems` ` 1 Its oil Jim Is N it,41;,!v 1 14 . � � 1 •♦ �t � 1 mil . a 1C�r•.�]'i '�ri.�f� '� - 1.; - , i't 'C . , �� .`1_ . fit 1 • mat r •`� !, �•.. �. ... - _. , k� . . � t • t .-w�7`>. it • - . _ 1C. _ _ - _ _ - - ZI NI vII IV vI ^IV s VIC //a ofto fit lo , to iflP of 1 ry `a qt. s rIV Vp — Ilk looto *00 to / a 1604 — \ s Wool I's of rfi or fill. lot of .ot NP of APO Of to Jl- 1 - l. • . lost- LE 410* to VAMP lot 'fr 4. 1 . � r. �• , . . or. •!� Jet ' a - .; �`• • a . ��y1�., fI '+ ~Yv ` �jT, • jl�y r_ t � `t:y;,• - '. � . i'- _ - / _ �• 'v r 'v /• . - . lV too— . . / {�flow olV to of It IV VI . ~ •. . • r - ~ . r`; � . , . • - i`2' :` err^" YI r_ F• • � + • `' ,1f4 , ' ' `v . . /^ of flol foil fill 0 < �7 yJ'Vj •� w i -i � .I Alt. ' 1 . i�� :1!1 ,f'' �i••_-. _ . �� ~ . ! !.•y • .� � r . .r.- t �• •�. 1 -X �} �.�.. w r r• \ • ' J /rim ♦ j Vor 1A"0 i'F. .'. -. . _ "� •"Af . r, 4V lj� �t '^ �� •t�,:" � A. • t t �A�' / �! ,.op . a' :..- � •Alloram . ' �. . h ,, `�1r - ' *� L � . •, : � a• :1Y 1.�k - '• ) lr - ! J,J; r f• ; y TWO .t.. lA% '♦ T• � � _ Ito for XA Oil 11 f ��• 0 + v - T � r Q6 � ,.�• ' ��^�• �:�tmar ..I tt,�••N• 'yt • � '-„•,� < , ram _of ' - . 4. 1 v f ' ' •� '+�WINK lop of 1p f1 • �` { .. t • ��' y.,{ <` 1-y �_ -: - ••tom . �' !• Al- 1 tt. !gipp,, r Ololl 't I p . \• � .. • •• �' , < P. So Jo o. polo fill 0 nbfo law • �,•y� - + M ` w` M . ,ai}• r ` ` YI ,, , POW ,If E r � t PIP �1. •bp — � • i . : it • � �• 1 tt • sk� s. • • and • Maple y ' t Ave Or so 15 *, f T J � • and 732 Maple + d + A N Po lot I ? ,�.: ljr : .• h % ` 1 ., T ,� . I .� 77��"'VJ�� 9� ` l� C$� yam ^ , �lti . 16 • �. Y 1 ��•i 1 � •f• ' � �.�qr r•. .; •� � •� � t ,i � •+JAG'. j . �.r'T I � - J. i� � - -- _ . �i � �i .• ^ / 'mac_ - _:, :: r •� 312 East Myrtle Street 'b rT t .a • _ `!� . ' � - 4z 44FF . Volof Fo x '` n , Not %mill `�� � .�� ""��.?•.+i� • `.••✓ � .. - . " may.--^'' K. wom mr - � � � , - . - / ^ � ,tom �,�, ....y.r� .- . _ . . • - jr p \1� 17 East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study City Council Work Session November 23, 2010 Questions for Council 1 . Which , if any, options to address the compatibility of new houses and additions in the East and West Side Neighborhoods should staff prepare for Council action ? 2 . Does Council support the schedule ? 2 �tr� Problem Statement • Some are concerned that a portion of new houses and additions being built in the East and West Side Neighborhoods are not compatible with established neighborhood character. otY o� i-F�t�l`ns 3 Background • Study initiated in January 2010 • Small, older houses being removed and replaced with larger new construction • Do current zoning regulations adequately implement City policy to protect established neighborhood character? 4 Olt Public Process • Council work sessions in February and August • Work sessions with the Landmark Preservation Commission ( LPC ) , Planning and Zoning Board ( P&Z) , and Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) • Citizen Advisory Committee — Residents from both neighborhoods, builders, architects, real estate professionals, representatives from LPC, P &Z, and ZBA C o� 5 �F�t Public Process • 3 Public Meetings • Meetings with the Board of Realtors and Chamber of Commerce Local Legislative Affairs Committee • Project website • E - newsletter, phone calls and a- mails 6 �trh Perspectives 1 . Big impact if a small house next door is demolished and replaced with one that is twice or three times as big . — Concern that there is not enough protection 2 . Big impact if a house can no longer be expanded as much as planned . — Concern of becoming too restrictive C o� 7 �F�t Perspectives • No consensus that existing regulations warrant revision • Agreement that most new construction is positive • Compatibility problems are limited s City 223 Park Street Before After ' ilC < - - tJins 730 West Mountain Avenue Before After Ail r�l� ► � t UIns 10 Existin a Regulations • Metric limit on house size — Floor Area Ratio ( FAR) — .40 FAR (40% of lot) in Neighborhood Conservation Low Density ( NCL) — . 50 FAR ( 50% of lot) in Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density ( NCM ) Example : 8, 000 sq ft lot X . 50 FAR = 4, 000 sq ft allowed floor area otY or � 1 190' lot width40' lot Existing Design Regulations • Primary entrance along front of building • Second floor shall not overhang first floor walls • Minimum roof pitch is 2 : 12, maximum roof pitch is 12 : 12 . • Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines - voluntary 14 ,, r"tfl ■ Option 1 — No Change Main Ideas: ➢ There is not a significant compatibility problem ➢ Recent, new construction is a positive change ➢ Concern that ideas to change regulations have not been fully analyzed ➢ Concern that tighter regulations may hinder reinvestment C o� ��t 15 Option 2 - Design Assistance Program Potential change: Allocate funding for a Design Assistance Program ( DAP ) to assist property owners with the cost of hiring a pre-qualified architect/design professional . 16 try Option 2 - Design Assistance Program Pros: — Incentivizes use of design expertise — Compatibility is enhanced — Careful design can mitigate impacts of larger houses Cons: — Requires additional City General Fund funding L 7 Wit.f� Option 3 - Voluntary Design Review Potential Change: Allow the Landmark Preservation Commission ( LPC) to offer voluntary, complimentary design review for interested property owners . 18 trhh Option 3 ntary Desi n w Pros: — Compatibility is enhanced — Careful design can mitigate impacts of larger houses Cons: — Requires extra time commitment by LPC F�t otY or 19 f� Option 4 — Average- Plus Concept Potential Change: Use a contextual approach to regulate size . Average- plus concept - determine building size by finding the average house size on a block face, plus an additional 50%, or 2, 000 square feet, whichever is greater . 20 rtfh O — Avera a- PI Details: • Detached garages and basements would not be included in average- plus calculation • Data from County Assessor • Current FAR limits maintained as maximum ctY of 21 Option 4 — Average- Plus Concept Example 1 : Lot Floor . use (square feet) Average = 993 0 , 0 Average + 50% = 1, 489 © • . 4 0 672 7 Average 993 22 Option 4 — Avera a- PI t Example 2: � Floor(square feet) - -House Average = 1, 965 0 Average + 50% = 2, 948 0 , 0 cit , Fort�oll ns 23 1 Option 4 — Average- Plus Concept Pros: — House size more clearly derived from existing pattern — Limits dramatic size increases — Increases likelihood existing houses will be retained and adapted 24 `r"tfh Option 4 — Average- Plus Concept Cons: — Concern over lack of fairness having different allowable house sizes from block face to block face — Concern over known inaccuracies in County Assessor' s data — Concern that some small, old houses should not set precedent for the size and design of new construction — More complex than applying a uniform standard C o� ��t 25 Option 5 — Design Standards Potential Change: Add additional design standards into the Land Use Code . 26 try Option 5 - Design Standards Example : New houses and additions shall . . . — Be compatible with the established architectural character of the surrounding neighborhood . — Be articulated with massing that is proportional to the prevailing mass and scale of other structures on the block face . — Use building materials similar to those already being used in the neighborhood . — Have an eave height along at least 50% of the front fagade at a height similar to the predominant eave height found on the block face . Fr ctY lollinsa 27 � Option 5 - Design Standards Pros: — Require property owners to consider neighborhood character in design process — Design can mitigate impacts of larger houses Cons: — Difficult to legislate given the lack of a single, defining architectural style — Could limit variety and creativity — Require additional time by staff to review — Limited support 28 try Next Steps December 3 — Planning and Zoning Board work session 9 — Planning and Zoning Board hearing 4 — City Council meeting ( First reading) 18 — City Council meeting ( Second reading) City of F�t�` 29 Thank You -�tr�=