HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 05/24/2011 - RESETTING THE EAST SIDE AND WEST SIDE STUDY DATE: May 24, 2011
STAFF: Karen Cumbo, Joe Frank WORK SESSION ITEM
Steve Dush FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/c/erk/agendas.php
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Resetting the East Side and West Side Study.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In January 2010, at the direction of City Council, staff initiated a study to examine whether changes
to existing regulations were warranted to address the compatibility of new houses and additions in
the East and West Side Neighborhoods. Several options were discussed by City Council, and staff
was directed to bring forward the Design Assistance Program, Voluntary Design Assistance, and
house size standards options. These approaches were considered in extensive public outreach efforts
and with City Council throughout the year. On February 1,2011,City Council approved,on Second
Reading, Ordinances No. 002 and 003, 2011, related to the East and West Side Neighborhoods
Design Standards Study.
On April 19, 2011, the City Council was presented with a referendum petition, seeking to repeal
Ordinance No.003,2011. At that meeting,City Council voted to repeal the Ordinance,and directed
staff to schedule a work session to discuss a new approach.The City Code amendments and process
adopted in Ordinance No. 002,2011, (Landmark Preservation Commission [LPC] voluntary design
consultation and increase the membership of the LPC to nine members) remain in place. Funding
for the Design Assistance Program was approved as part of the 2011-2012 Budget ($40,000 each
year).
This Agenda Item Summary describes potential problems, concerns and issues for"resetting" the
East Side and West Side study. Based upon Council's feedback and direction,,staff will follow-up
by June 10 with a detailed work plan, including any new process, public outreach, schedule and
budget.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
What problems,concerns and issues does Council want staff to examine regarding the East Side and
West Side neighborhoods?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In January 2010,at the direction of City Council, staff initiated a study to examine whether changes
to existing regulations were warranted to address the compatibility of new single family houses and
additions in the East Side and West Side neighborhoods (adjacent to downtown). Some residents
May 24, 2011 Page 2
of these neighborhoods expressed concern that some of the new houses and additions being built
were not compatible with existing neighborhood character, particularly in the case of expanded
houses that were much larger than existing houses in the vicinity. Potential implementation options
were developed and presented to City Council. On February 1,2011, Council approved,on Second
Reading, two ordinances related to the East Side and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards
Study. Funding for the Design Assistance Program was approved as part of the 2011-2012 Budget.
The following implementation items were approved:
1. Design Assistance Program, providing financial assistance to assist property owners with
the costs of hiring a design professional.
2. Voluntary Design Assistance, allowing a committee of the Landmark Preservation
Commission (LPC) to offer voluntary design consultation for interested property owners,
and increase the membership of the LPC from seven to nine members.
3. House size standards, lowering limits for building floor area in the Neighborhood
Conservation Low Density(NCL)and Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density(NCM)
zone districts; and, any variance request to the new floor area ratio limits receive a
recommendation from a committee of the LPC to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
4. Monitoring, requiring City staff to monitor the implementation of the Ordinance and report
back to the City Council within two years.
On April 19, 2011, the City Council was presented with a referendum petition seeking to repeal
Ordinance No. 003,2011. At that meeting,City Council voted to repeal the Ordinance,and directed
staff to schedule a work session to discuss a new approach that better addresses neighborhood
resident, property owner, and building and real estate industry concerns.
1
NEXT STEPS .
Actions in Progress
The first step is implementation of the Design Assistance Program and LPC voluntary design
consultation;and,monitoring the compatibility of new construction with existing structures. A more
detailed description of these actions is provided below.
• Design Assistance Program f
The Design Assistance Program (DAP) provides interested property owners up to $2,000 to
supplement the costs of hiring a pre-qualified architect/design professional. Compatibility is
typically enhanced when houses are designed by experienced professionals that have had success
with context-sensitive design in historic neighborhoods. Funding for the DAP was approved as part
of the 2011-2012 Budget. The Budget included $40,000 each year for the program. A
subcommittee of the LPC has met to develop program policies and procedures, which are currently
being finalized. It is expected that the program will be implemented in late June.
• Voluntary Design Assistance
Ordinance No. 002, 2011, amended the City Code to add a function allowing a committee of the
Landmark Preservation Commission(LPC)to offer voluntary,non-binding design consultation for
interested property owners. Compatibility can be enhanced when property owners use the
May 24, 2011 Page 3
professional advice of LPC members who are familiar with context-sensitive design in historic
neighborhoods. Careful design with an emphasis on compatibility can mitigate the impacts of larger,
new construction.
• Monitoring
City staff will monitor and report to Council on a biennial basis;beginning at the end of 2012, on
compatibility of additions, alterations and new construction with existing structures, to answer the
following questions:
1. Were additions, alterations and new construction compatible with existing structures?
2. Was the Design Assistance Program and Voluntary Design Assistance useful in influencing
compatibility?
3. How many, what was the nature of, and outcome of requests for variances to the size and
scale standards described in the Land Use Code?
Proposed Minor Land Use Code Changes
Two technical Land Use Code changes were included in Ordinance No. 003, 2011, that clarified
current zoning regulations in the NCL and NCM zone districts. The amendments would revise the
way that house size is measured to better link the actual size, or volume, of a house, as follows:
1. Close the "volume loophole" that currently allows a single-story house to have twice the
volume of a two-story house. The code amendment would count space as a second floor,
regardless of whether the floor is built, where the height of the space exceeds that of a
typical one-story house.
2. Change the point of measurement for side wall height to be at the property line rather than
at the finished grade at the side wall.
These amendments were also repealed by City Council as part of its final action on Ordinance No.
003, 2011. Staff believes these amendments have merit and should be reexamined as part of the
annual Land Use Code maintenance process. All Code amendments are reviewed by the Planning
and Zoning Board and then adopted by the City Council.
Potential Areas of Further Study/Examination
In preparation for this work session, the City Council Leadership Team asked staff to prepare a list
of specific neighborhood problems, concerns and issues that have arisen over the course of this
project to provide a foundation for Council discussion and direction on which problems, concerns
and issues, if any, need additional study or examination.
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 to quantify,
such as neighborhood gentrification. 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.
May 24, 2011 Page 4
Through the process of sifting through the issues and examining how well recent construction"fits
in"with its surroundings,the East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study concluded
that the primary issue related to building size and the concern that new houses are"too big". A
secondary issue related to the design of new construction is the concern that poorly designed houses
can be nearly as detrimental to neighborhood character as those that are "too big". The Study also
highlighted the need for more community consensus on the basic vision and policies for the
neighborhood, such as impacts of downtown and infill redevelopment, loss of neighborhood
character, historic preservation, close-in student housing, Code enforcement, ease of walking and
bicycling,affordable and workforce housing,healthier environments,early childhood education and
care, enhanced streetscapes and parks, and parking. Further study and examination of these
problems,concerns, and issues will include an intensive planning process, neighborhood outreach,
and boards and commissions involvement.
It is important to note that, while many citizens have said that a "problem" exists in the
neighborhood, there is a wide range of concerns and opinions among residents about what the
problem is, their depth of concern, and what, if any, actions are needed. The following list
summarizes the problems,concerns and issues that were raised during the public outreach process:
Land Use and Dimensional Issues
• Building size (volume). The most fundamental measure of a building's size is its volume;
e.g., floor area in combination with its height. There are currently limits on building size in
existing City standards. The question is whether the limits are appropriate. Some believe
that current Code allowances are excessive and detract from established neighborhood
character.
• Height difference between adjacent houses. 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.
• Building setbacks.
• Grade differences at the building foundation. In some new construction, the finished grade
has been raised above the original grade of the area, in order to accommodate stormwater
requirements or basements for new houses. This has sometimes exacerbated the height
difference with existing adjacent houses.
• Solar access impacts (shading other properties). 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, 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.
Design Issues
While broad agreement exists about the general importance of design,there was little consensus in
regard to ensuring compatible design through additional City standards and review. All of the
following design issues would likely need to be studied and tailored to the different sub-districts that
exist in the neighborhood; a "one size fits all" approach to design may not work. Examples of
building characteristics that could be addressed by any additional standards or review process
include the following:
May 24, 2011 Page 5
• Building proportions and articulation such as facade modulation,corner treatments,building
entries, patios, and other architectural details.
• Roof forms.
• Building materials.
• Building character (e.g., windows and doors compatible in size, shape, and pattern; height
of ground floor; and eave heights).
• Sustainable design features appropriate to old-house character.
• Architectural review of building applications.
Neighborhood-wide Issues
There were a variety of issues that are beyond the scope of an individual house or block,that apply
to the entire neighborhood, including:
• Role of existing houses in the social fabric of the neighborhood (gentrification).
• Loss of affordable and work force housing.
• Lack of neighborhood information and discussion on major expansions/replacements.
• Preservation of historic structures. Some believe that historic houses have value and
contribute to the established character of these neighborhoods as a unique and limited
resource.
• Enforcement of City Codes.
• There is not a"one size fits all" neighborhood character; rather, it should be defined at the
sub-district level.
• Need for community consensus on the vision for the neighborhood. The East Side
Neighborhood Plan (1986) and the West Side Neighborhood Plan (1989) were the City's
first neighborhood plans, and have not been updated since their adoption over twenty years
ago. Some believe that the Plans need to be updated to better deal with all of the above
issues and more.
Other 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).
• Preservation of personal property rights.
Staff is seeking direction as to which problems,concerns and issues Council wants staff to examine
regarding the East Side and West Side neighborhoods. Based upon Council's feedback and
direction, staff will follow-up by June 10 with a detailed work plan including any new process,
public outreach, schedule and budget.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Map of East Side and West Side Study Area
2. Powerpoint presentation
ATTACHMENT 1
City of Fort Collins
Eastside Westside Study Area
—�. HI\KORYE�T --
.,� I CONIFER ST ---
� •-
�O� L PINE DR /
- -------. - 1J HEMLOCK ST W
rCal =� om y Q
O
LU
Z � I 3 T� '------- E VINE DR
w w Irl
Q
z
¢ `~A till— p ij N ELM ST F<M 3T *%
, F-
z m h o z z w F ¢ w
z o' o Z fn
m m J p p ¢ z w w SYCAMORE ST • :� ;' _
-� I ! RRY ST w a F Y O ¢ ¢ s �l BUCKINGHAM ST
t-
n w = m z cHERR sr Cach Lapou River
z z¢ —MA—o °N 'o JUPiZr) Z oQ o E�M
.LINCOLN AVE
� ZLL 0 PORTE AVEo0 z rD-G J D
z r
z of IC ARDS PL Z Oj w C� BUNGALOW CT z
W O TAIN AVE N
N Y nn
¢O ¢ < a E T ~ "�
q _ w 2 z F re W OAK S1 z tr
v< `.y PARKDR O k AKIN AVE z E LI E T
O O W 0 x N N W ES
1 'r ¢ 'o z dF' M IA ST
Cdy Park Lake ¢ w m W MAGNOLIA S y0 0
3 0
LU
ST m oP N IMYRTLES
° mO O O . � . _Iiiiiiiiiiii7E MYRTLE T ¢zTZPL OFF i W w O p
¢ p rr RAVE w J > w
TORCHRD
MOREa L > BIRCH ST rr . N J O5 m ¢ w _ _ _ _ N O ELAURELSTOZ 10
AD`i\ ¢ L) � a
o a 3p . - W EPLUM ST OJ m ILL
O O o WPLUMST OV¢ FNNOCK L
O > OCUST ST N _. _ o
Zy M o 0 - w 0
M - E IZABETH ST
w w
Q
¢ z
w J > o RFIELD ST 00
p O ¢ UNNERSITY AVE W z N AR
F ¢ p SOUTH DR o o z EDWARDS ST q y 9� m
-�) N of (A m m z a
w � } m WES WARD DR w w o[
rn w p F EPITKIN ST � p y
7��=u
LAK WOO DR W PITKIN ST m - W PITKIN S g 0�
RI F ELD R BUCKEYE STzJ MES CTwFAIRIBENNETT RD ELAKE ST 0
O
WL KESTA z LA. FST SU MER ST E PROS ECT RD
- o 0 W PRO PECT RD APE DR
Qr w a--r 1 x N S
Z k, 0 �� ,\ ti J w Y
p w HOBg \q`� JUNIPER LN m BAY DR o� A K RS O O
w� 9` SHEELY DR O ALPE TAVE
�FNBERG DR 2 \ ESTUART ST
W STUART ST y� l Ozp - l � H �z `
p
z �O
O NS N ONE N N W
w
s'1NDe� "FIELD DR �OPOND ,4¢-�; G��� ARTH UR DR ¢ N a
GLENWOOD R S/�`� ` D RT OU HT L
CITY OF FORT COLLINS Railroad Lines O Bests id Plan Boundary
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS streets F-7 Water Features
These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, Westside Plan Boundary _—� City Limits
and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or
warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling er displaying
dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR
PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TOTHESE MAP PRODUCTS ORTHE City Of
UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL Fort Collins
FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City her mines
from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having Scale 1:24,000
made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of GIS "-
these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or
liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof Miles
by any person or entity. 0 0.050.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Printed: May 02, 2011
ATTACHMENT 2
Resetting the East Side • W"M
• - Study
Cfty of,
Generalrection Sought
What problems , doesCouncil want staff
examine regarding
East Side and West Side neighborhoods ?
FP:City of
i
• January 2010 - Council initiated a study to
address compatibility of new construction in
the East Side and West Side neighborhoods .
+ r
I
�Y
3
Study Area
_ - I- : : �G I �is • 1�1
■ �� .�
.. 4p4p 1 � ►
IIIl1��!
�[i1111�
MKTE AVE
`� WST
Iliilll� I L 9 .rya
�# � ■�IIIl��a.11]�
1111���'rCT �:,
T.��e�c �
��tf�
Study Process
• Summer/Fall 2010 - Final Report outlined
potential approaches , and planning and public
outreach process
• Fall 2010 - Three options were selected by City
Council :
— Design Assistance Program
— LPC Voluntary Design Assistance
— Land Use Code amendments ( house size )
c or
5
�:ry
. :j
New Programs and Regulations
■ February 2011 — Approved two (2) ordinances :
• Ordinance No. 002 — LPC Voluntary Design
Consultation ; increased LPC to 9 members
• Ordinance No . 003 — Lowered current limits for building
floor area (FAR) ; variances reviewed by LPC ; two-year
monitoring
■ 2011 /2012 Budget — funded Design
Assistance Program for two years
s
try
Council Repealed Ordinance No . 003
• April , 2011 .
- Citizen referendum petition submitted to
seek repeal of Ordinance No . 003
- Council repealed Ordinance No . 003
- Directed staff to schedule a work session to
discuss a new approach
C or
F�
7 tr
Actions in Progress
• Design Assistance Program - offsets the
costs of hiring a design professional
• LPC Voluntary Design Assistance
• Monitoring
�trh
Potential Future Action
• Technical Land Use Code amendment,
clarifying the way house size is measured to
better link the actual size , or volume , of a
house .
otY ol
ollins
F�t
General Direction Sought
• What problems , concerns and issues does
Council want staff to examine regarding the
East Side and West Side neighborhoods ?
Such as ,
• Land Use and Dimensional Issues?
• Design Issues?
• Neighborhood Issues?
• Other?
10
rtfl
City of
r o- rt
11
12
`rlfl