HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 02/19/2013 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 033, 2013, MAKING ADATE: February 19, 2013
STAFF: Sherry Albertson-Clark
Pete Wray
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 27
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 033, 2013, Making Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code Pertaining
to Implementation of the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study (Option A or Option B).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study represents an assessment of neighborhood compatibility
issues related to impacts of larger new construction projects. In comparison to the previous 2010/2011 Study, which
focused on building size impacts, this Study takes a broader look at the character and context of the neighborhoods
including building size and design compatibility.
Staff has prepared two options for Council to consider for the proposed package of potential Land Use Code (LUC)
amendments to be included in the Ordinance at First Reading.
• Option A reflects a package of Land Use Code amendments implementing five recommended strategy options
as well as a revision of existing FAR standards using a new formula.
• Option B reflects a package of Land Use Code amendments implementing five recommended strategy
options, but does not include a revision to existing FAR standards.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Staff initiated the Study in June 2011, after receiving direction from City Council to take a new and broader look at
neighborhood compatibility and character issues in the core area neighborhoods near downtown. The Study is in
response to continued concerns with potential impacts of larger additions and new construction in the city’s oldest
neighborhoods.
A similar study was conducted in 2010 for the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods with a resulting Ordinance
approved by City Council that was later repealed in response to a citizen petition. While the previous effort led to a
primary focus on building size aspects, the current study emphasizes a broader perspective to understand the
character, larger context of compatibility, and threshold for change in these neighborhoods.
The initial direction for the new study began with a goal developed by a Council Ad Hoc Committee to:
Retain and enhance the unique character and context of the neighborhoods as they continue
to change with renovations, additions, and new housing construction, with a well-supported and
effective public process resulting in appropriate and mutually agreeable solutions.
The Study is summarized in a highly illustrated Strategy Report with information on the character and context of the
neighborhoods, community engagement, issues, and strategy options for City Council consideration
(www.fcgov.com/eastwestneighborhoods).
The Study identified and clarified a number of key issues with ongoing changes that affect existing residents and the
unique character and context of the neighborhoods. These issues led to the strategy options. Key issues include:
• New construction that appears to be overly large in relation to its context
• Building walls that appear to loom over neighbors
• Reduced solar access/shading issues
• Incompatible design features
• Loss of older/more affordable houses that make the neighborhoods unique
• Loss of green space and mature trees
February 19, 2013 -2- ITEM 27
The Study process included extensive public outreach that included identification of neighborhood objectives and
issues, and defining. The Study process and findings are summarized in a final Strategy Report. This report also
includes staff recommendations to implement five strategy options that were presented to City Council at the Work
Session on November 27, 2012. The staff recommendations at that time did not include revising existing Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) standards, because the team concluded the proposed design standard sufficiently addressed
neighborhood compatibility issues, and revising the FAR did not reflect a mutually agreeable solution from the public.
City Council subsequently directed staff to proceed with implementation of those strategy options, including
development of the formula to revise the existing maximum FAR standard.
Some of these strategies involve Land Use Code changes that are the subject of the Ordinance, and others are
administrative or involve future actions as follows:
• Promote the City's existing Design Assistance Program. This involves ongoing administrative actions,
including such measures as a marketing brochure, newsletter, neighborhood mailings, and posting program
information online.
• Expand neighborhood notification of variance requests.
• Create voluntary design handbooks/guidelines to provide specialized information for interested owners and
builders on compatible development in unique character areas throughout the neighborhoods. These products would
be developed as part of future planning efforts that will need to be budgeted and incorporated into the staff
work program. Staff is recommending implementation of this action concurrent with neighborhood plan
updates for the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods in 2014.
• Adjust existing height-at-setback and floor area ratio (FAR) measurement methods in the Land Use Code for
the N-C-L and N-C-M zoning districts
• Address building mass and solar access, including revisions to existing FAR standards, and new design
standards to address mass and solar impacts.
• Illustrate the effect of potential standards on new construction.
A series of public meetings were held in January 2013 to present a draft potential package of Land Use Code
amendments to implement the strategy options. Staff received a mix of opinions from the public on the proposed
standards, especially relating to revisions to the Far standards. An additional Council work session was held on
February 12, 2013 to discuss options for FAR standards, which included direction for staff to describe these options
for Council to consider on First Reading.
I. DESCRIPTION OF ORDINANCE OPTION A (WITH NEW FAR FORMULA)
This option reflects a package of Land Use Code (LUC) amendments that implements the five recommended strategy
options, as well as a revision to existing FAR standards using a new formula. More specifically, it includes clarifying
Code terminology and formatting, expanded notice for variance requests, revising the existing FAR standard using
a new formula, adding new adjustments to the FAR measurement method for calculating building square footage, and
incorporating new design and solar access standards. Following is a brief summary of potential Land Use Code
changes contained in the proposed Ordinance (Option A).
1. Expand notification area for variance requests.
This LUC change would add a new standard regarding neighborhood notification for Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA)
variance requests exceeding a certain project size threshold. Staff recommends that the notice area for ZBA hearings
be extended from 150 feet to 500 feet for variance requests for certain size construction and other thresholds
(Attachment 3).
2. Address building massing and scale (Revised FAR Standard).
The staff recommendation outlined in the strategy report did not include a revision to the existing FAR standards
because other recommended tools were seen to sufficiently address the identified objectives and issues, and because
many residents and other stakeholders feel that FAR is an overly restrictive tool that limits flexibility for expansion.
However, FAR reductions were presented as a possible alternative tool for addressing identified issues with overly
large new construction and loss of green space.
February 19, 2013 -3- ITEM 27
Based on Council direction, the staff and consultant team evaluated potential revisions to the maximum permitted
FAR, including modeling of a variety of reduced FARs on projects that have been identified as appearing overly large
in relation to their context. The proposed FAR formula was selected because it:
• Addresses projects identified as appearing overly large in relation to their context while allowing flexibility for
new construction and home expansion;
• Promotes the scale of new construction that was most often identified as compatible in community workshops
and the online visual survey;
• Works in concert with other recommended tools such as reduced wall heights for solar access and additional
building design standards to address front and side façade character; and
• ,More directly targets identified issues than the FAR revisions included in the repealed 2011 ordinance.
Overall, the new formula provides greater flexibility through less substantial FAR reductions because it works in
combination with other tools that also address identified issues with new construction that appears to be overly large
in relation to its context, building walls that appear to loom over neighbors and reduced solar access.
New FAR Formula
The first proposed FAR change revises the minimum lot area standards that currently relate lot area to the total floor
area of buildings on the lot in the N-C-L and N-C-M zoning districts. This would apply new or adjusted design
standards to address the scale and solar access impacts of larger new construction and additions. The potential
revised standard would reduce the maximum FAR from the currently permitted 0.40 in the N-C-L district and 0.50 in
the N-C-M district according to a sliding scale as summarized in the table below.
For example, the formula above would limit floor area on a 7,000 square foot lot in the N-C-M district to 2,750 square
feet ((7,000x0.25)+1,000=2,750) with an additional allowance for 250 square feet in a detached rear accessory (acc.)
structure on a lot of 6,000 square feet or more, for a total of 3,000 square feet. The sliding scale would generally result
in reductions of allowed floor area for larger lots in both districts.
New FAR Measurement Method
This change incorporates adjusted measurement methods for calculating floor area, as recommended in the Strategy
Report. These proposed measurement method adjustments address the issues of high volume spaces not being
counted as floor area (which created the potential for single-story homes being twice as large as a two-story home).
This includes basement floor area in calculation where the new construction raises the finish floor elevation above a
certain threshold, and provides some allowance for accessory structures to promote separate building masses.
Option A further addresses building mass and scale impacts by combining a reduction in overall building size (reduced
FAR), with new design standards to shape building facade features.
3. Adjust measurement method for building wall height and reduced height for solar access.
The first part of this Code change adjusts the method for measuring building height at the minimum side yard setback
to better account for the impact of tall walls on raised grade. Staff recommends implementation of a revised
measurement method for maximum height (18 feet) at the minimum side yard to better account for potential looming
impacts related to grade changes on a property. The building side wall height is proposed to be measured from the
existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, rather than at the improved grade.
A second new standard is proposed to reduce the potential solar access impacts of large new houses or additions on
neighboring property to the north. The staff and consultant team decided not to develop a complicated “solar
February 19, 2013 -4- ITEM 27
ordinance” limiting shading on neighboring lots. Instead a simple solar standard is proposed for building wall height
to promote solar access. The side wall height would be reduced to 14 feet from the currently allowed 18 feet and the
side wall height could increase by one foot for each foot of additional setback.
4. Add new standards for building facades over certain size thresholds.
Facade design standards are proposed to provide a menu of options to shape the character of front and side building
facades for compatibility. At least one facade feature from a design menu would be required to promote pedestrian
orientation and compatibility with the character of the structures on the block face.
The front facade options would promote pedestrian orientation and the appearance of compatible mass and scale as
viewed from the street by using one-story elements, front porches, etc. The proposed options for side building facades
are intended to reduce potential looming and privacy impacts on adjacent lots.
II. DESCRIPTION OF ORDINANCE OPTION B (RETAIN EXISTING FAR FORMULA)
Option B reflects a package of Land Use Code amendments that implements the five recommended strategy options
but does not include a revision to existing FAR standards. It includes clarifying Code terminology and formatting,
expanded notice for variance requests, retaining the existing FAR standard formula, adding new adjustments to FAR
measurement method for calculating building square footage, and incorporating new design and solar access
standards. Ordinance Option B contains the same standards as Option A, except for the FAR formula.
Option B reflects the staff recommendation described in the Strategy Report, and presented to Council at the
November 27, 2012 Work Session. The staff and consultant team concluded in the report that the proposed package
of new design standards, without a reduction in FAR, would address most identified mass and scale issues with larger
new construction while allowing flexibility for home expansion.
New construction that appears to be overly large in relation to its context was often cited by residents as a key issue
in the neighborhoods. Many residents also felt that FAR reductions would be the most effective tool for addressing
this issue. However, when presented with alternative design scenarios in community workshops and surveys, many
participants selected alternatives that incorporate design elements other than floor area reductions. This indicates
that design elements apart from overall size contribute significantly to neighborhood compatibility. The recommended
design standards within Ordinance Option B address these key design elements while allowing flexibility for home
expansion.
• Comparison of 2011 Ordinance and proposed 2013 Ordinance
At the November 27, 2012 work session, Council directed staff to develop the proposed 2013 Ordinance. Staff
provided a comparison of the previous 2011 Ordinance that was repealed, with the proposed 2013 Ordinance
(Attachment 4). Staff believes the proposed 2013 Ordinance, as a package of proposed changes, is noticeably
different from the previous 2011 Ordinance. The key changes include:
• No requirement for Landmark Preservation Commission recommendations on variance requests
• New expanded notification area for some variance requests
• New thresholds for applying all new standards in both districts
• Different formula for calculating maximum Floor Area Ratios (FARs)
• FARs applied separately to the N-C-L and N-C-M districts
• FARs applied on a sliding scale, based on lot size
• More generous FAR allowance in the N-C-M district; and
• New standards for solar access and building front and side façade design.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Urban Advisors was contracted as a sub-consultant to analyze the economic impacts of revising the existing FAR
standards as described in Option A. The analysis and findings are included in a report (Attachment 6). The
summarized conclusions from the report include:
February 19, 2013 -5- ITEM 27
• While overall values increase with house size, the value per square foot tends to decline, especially for houses
with more than 2,000 square feet of floor area or FARs above 0.30.
• Based on existing property values, and the potential sales prices of new or expanded homes, most
redevelopment is likely to occur on small to average sized lots (4,000 to 10,000 square feet) in the N-C-M
zone district (115 to 125 such properties present prime redevelopment opportunities under current market
conditions).
• The proposed reduction in maximum permitted FAR (Ordinance Option A) would not significantly affect
redevelopment opportunities in the neighborhoods because the most profitable opportunities tend to be at
FARs lower than the proposed limits.
• The proposed reduction in the maximum permitted FAR (Ordinance Option A) is not likely to have a
significantly positive or negative impact on the affordability of housing in the neighborhoods.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Staff finds no direct or definable impact on environmental resources with any of these implementation items.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
Staff also recommends that new voluntary design guidelines be developed concurrent with the neighborhood plan
updates for the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods in 2014. This action is not budgeted and/or included in the
current work program.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its regular meeting on February 7, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 4-1 to recommend adoption of
Ordinance No. 33, 2013, Option B.
The Landmark Preservation Commission is scheduled for a regular meeting on February 13, 2013. Minutes from this
meeting will be forwarded to Council prior to Second Reading on March 5.
The Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for a regular meeting on February 14, 2013. Minutes from this meeting
will be forwarded to Council prior to Second Reading on March 5.
The Building Review Board is scheduled for a regular meeting on February 28, 2013. Minutes from this meeting will
be forwarded to Council prior to Second Reading on March 5.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The following activities were included in the public process used for this study:
Phase 1 – Understand the character and context of the neighborhoods (May – July 2012)
• Email notice for meetings, post card mailing for work shops
• Posted project information on web page
• Initial working group meetings (June)
• 2 public work shop meetings (July 10/12)
• Online questionnaire
• Updates to boards and commissions
• City Council work session (July 24)
February 19, 2013 -6- ITEM 27
Phase 2 – Develop a Strategy (August – November 2012)
• Series of working group meetings (August/September)
• On-line survey
• Public work shop meeting (November 5)
• Updates to boards and commissions
• City Council work session (November 27)
Phase 3 – Implementation of Strategy Options (December 2012 – February 2013)
• Series of working group meetings (January 16, 2013)
• Public Open House meeting (January 30)
• Updates to boards and commissions
• Planning and Zoning Board Hearing – Recommendation (February 7)
• City Council Work Session (February 12)
• Landmark Preservation Commission Hearing – Recommendation (February 13)
• Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing - Recommendation (February 14)
• City Council First Reading of Ordinance (February 19)
• Building Review Board Hearing – Recommendation (February 28)
• City Council Second Reading of Ordinance (March 5)
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council Work Session Summary, November 27, 2012
2. February 12, 2013 City Council Work Session Summary
3. Tables 1 and 2, comparing 2011 FAR formula with proposed 2013 FAR formula
4. Table 3, comparing the 2011 and proposed 2013 Ordinances
5. Summary of public comments
6. Economic Analysis Report
7. Eastside and Westside Zoning Districts Map
8. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, February 7, 2013
9. PowerPoint Presentation
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
Long Range Planning
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.221.6376
970.224.6111- fax
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 30, 2012
To: Mayor Weitkunat and City Councilmembers
Thru: Darin A. Atteberry, City Manager
Karen Cumbo, Planning, Development and Transportation Director
From: Laurie Kadrich, Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director
Sherry Albertson-Clark, Interim Planning Manager
Pete Wray, Senior City Planner
Re: November 27, 2012 Work Session Summary – Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study
Councilmembers present: Mayor Weitkunat, and Councilmembers Manvel, Troxell, Poppaw, and Ohlson. Staff
present: Karen Cumbo, Laurie Kadrich, Mark Jackson, Sherry Albertson-Clark, Pete Wray, Peter Barnes, Karen
McWilliams.
Consultants present: Nore Winter, Abe Barge.
Staff presented an overview of Phase 2 activities that are summarized in the draft strategy report, and highlighted
recommended strategy options for Council feedback.
Specific questions considered by Council were:
1. What comments or feedback does Council have on the recommended strategy options, or any others not
recommended?
Main points of discussion:
Council acknowledged the information summarized in the Phase 2 Strategy Report and the level of work
it represents.
Council noted that most neighbors expressed issues and concerns with large building size impacts and
asked why the FAR strategy option was not recommended by staff.
Council provided feedback to staff to make sure what we are trying to solve is addressed in recommended
options to ensure we fix the problem for the most recognized project examples that negatively affect
compatibility.
Council directed staff to proceed with five recommended strategy options including 1-4, and 5c.
Council also directed staff to include strategy option 5a, and 5b in some form, other than what was
originally suggested in 2011, to further address issues associated with building massing/scale, and solar
access.
2. What comments or direction does Council have for staff on proceeding to implementation in the third
phase of the study?
Council directed staff to proceed with Phase 3 of the study to implement recommended strategy options.
Council suggested staff coordinate future Council Hearing dates with the Leadership Team.
ATTACHMENT 1
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
Long Range Planning
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.221.6376
970.224.6111- fax
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 13, 2013
To: Mayor Weitkunat and City Councilmembers
Thru: Darin A. Atteberry, City Manager
Karen Cumbo, Planning, Development and Transportation Director
From: Laurie Kadrich, Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director
Sherry Albertson-Clark, Interim Planning Manager
Pete Wray, Senior City Planner
Re: February 12, 2013 Work Session Summary – Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study
Councilmembers present: Mayor Weitkunat, and Councilmembers Manvel, Troxell, Poppaw, Horak, and Ohlson.
Staff present: Karen Cumbo, Laurie Kadrich, Sherry Albertson-Clark, Pete Wray, Peter Barnes, and Karen
McWilliams.
Staff presented an overview of the purpose of the study, public process over the past two months to develop
potential Land Use Code amendments to implement the recommended strategy options, and FAR options to assist
in the discussion for Council feedback.
Specific questions considered by Council were:
1. What comments or direction does Council have on options for revising existing Floor Area Ratio
standards?
Main points of discussion:
Whether the inclusion of FARs addresses the issue of large new home construction and additions
How the solar access standard would affect new home construction (tree shading impacts, sun angle
analysis, amount of shade on neighboring properties)
Public process
2. What additional comments or feedback does Council have on other proposed implementation
actions prior to Hearing?
Request for additional information on case studies to show how the proposed new FAR and design
standards (Options A and B) will impact example large construction projects.
Staff will include the two options (Options A and B) for potential Land Use Code amendments to
be included in the Ordinance in agenda summary.
ATTACHMENT 2
)
Lot Size Lot Size
Max.
FAR
Additional
Accessory
Structure
Floor Area
Allowance
Total
Allowed
Floor
Area
Max.
FAR
Allowed
Floor
Area
Additional
1,000 sf Floor
Area Lots ≥
5,000 sf & <
10,000 sf
Additional
Accessory
Structure
Floor Area
Allowance
Total Floor
Area
Actual
FAR
Max.
FAR
Additional
Accessory
Structure
Floor Area
Allowance
Total
Floor
Area
Max.
FAR
Allowed
Floor
Area
Additional
1,000 sf Floor
Area Lots ≥
5,000 sf & <
10,000 sf
Additional
Accessory
Structure
Floor Area
Allowance
Total Floor
Area
Actual
Lot Size Lot Size
Max.
FAR
Additional
Accessory
Structure
Floor Area
Allowance
Total
Allowed
Floor
Area
Max.
FAR
Additional
Accessory
Structure
Floor Area
Allowance
Total
Allowed
Floor
Area
Max.
FAR
Additional
Accessory
Structure
Floor Area
Allowance
Total
Allowed
Floor
Area
Max.
FAR
Additional
Accessory
Structure
Floor Area
Allowance
Total
Floor
Area
Max.
FAR
Additional
Accessory
Structure
Floor Area
Allowance
Total
Allowed
Floor
Area
Max.
FAR
Additional
Accessory
Structure
Table 3. Comparison of 2011 Ordinance with Proposed 2013 Ordinance
2011 Action Description 2013 Action Description Comparison
Ordinance 0003, 2011 Proposed 2013
Ordinance
Lowering current
limits for Building
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Option B Revised (Adopted Version)
Applies the same to both the NCL and NCM Zoning
Allowable floor area of street fronting single‐family
dwelling shall not exceed forty‐five (45) percent of the
first 3,000 sq. ft. of lot area, plus twenty‐five (25)
percent of the remaining lot area.
Lowering current
limits for Building
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR)
NCL –Maximum permitted total floor areas:
Lots less than 5,000 SF= 0.40 FAR (Existing)
Lots equal/greater than 5,000 SF, and less than 10,000 = 0.2 + 1,000 SF
(+ 250 SF detached accessory structure)
Lots equal/greater than 10,000 SF = 0.3
(+ 250 SF detached accessory structure)
NCM – Maximum permitted total floor areas:
Lots less than 4,000 SF= 0.50 FAR (Existing)
Lots equal/greater than 4,000 SF and less than 10,000 SF = 0.25 + 1,000
SF(+ 250 SF detached accessory structure)
Lots equal/greater than 10,000 SF= 0.35
(+ 250 SF detached accessory structure)
Amendment to reduce total FAR has the
following differences:
Method of calculation is different
Application based on lot size
Application different for NCL and NCM
Zoning
More allowance for total square
footage in NCM than 2011 FAR
Expand Notification
Area for Variance
Requests
Not considered with 2011 Ordinance Expand Notification
Area for Variance
Requests
Expanded notice applies for single‐family houses in the N‐C‐L and N‐C‐M
districts changes from “150 feet” to “500 feet”
For building construction over a certain size threshold
New standard for expanded notice for
variances
Landmark
Preservation
Commission Variance
Recommendation
Variance requests to floor area limits must have a
recommendation from a LPC committee to the Zoning Board
of Appeals.
NA NA No requirement for Landmark
Preservation Commission
recommendations on variance requests
Adjust Measurement
Method for Maximum
Two
for th
impl
Stud
Sum
1. &
3. D
(F
o neighborho
he meetings
lementation
dy.
mmary of all w
& 2. Where d
Of the 23
residents
Do you have
FAR) standa
Allow ho
mother-in
Overall,
some of t
Look for
and build
Like the
Like mea
character
Moving i
lots over
When fig
considera
What is t
How is ir
How muc
Clarify h
How is th
no time f
What abo
for adjac
How man
You’ve r
Page 2
The two hits for implementing less FAR based on .25 + 1000 sf AND counting ceiling over 14' is
excessive. I suggest adopting one or the other. For example on a 10,000 sq ft lot w/ a cathedral ceiling
over 14' for a 400sq ft home, the allowable FAR is roughly 60% of current standards. 10,000 (.25) +
1000 = 3500 -400 (cathedral greater than 14') = 3100 sq ft. Current standard (NCM) is 5000sq
ft. 3100/5000 = roughly 60%
4. Do you have comments and feedback on the potential standards for solar access?
Suggest a lower front home and put more sq.ft. in a back unit/addition or detached carriage house.
For the most part, I like this one as well. Case study four freaks me out a little because the folks to the
north keep their sunshine, but the folks to the south lose privacy and have a big wall along their yard. I
also don’t want a bunch of awkward, slanty houses in the neighborhood.
Looks good – like the setback/height adjustment plan.
Great ideas! There should be a standard for lots under 40 ft. wide such as 15 ft. max height at min. side
yard setback and 12 ft. at 40 ft. and over. Keep 1 ft. to 1 ft. increase in max height for each additional
setback. Not 2 ft. for 1 ft. setback. Second story additions that result in over 2,500 sq.ft. should fall
under the new façade standards for solar access, not 3,000 sq.ft.
Access to light/sun is a key criteria for a livable space for me.
I like access rules but don’t want lots of asymmetrical roof lines or asymmetrical side lot setbacks.
Do solar access requirements apply to major remodels as well as new construction? Will this create
asymmetrical buildings (rooflines)?
Does solar access address or include trees (evergreens)? They also shade adjacent buildings; should also
look at evergreen placement in new landscaping
Does solar access address or require solar panels or collectors?
Would solar apply to narrow lots? Would apply only those lots less than 40’ wide?
Concerned about solar with corner lots because they have wider setbacks so lot is more difficult to build
on, especially when lot is also narrow...
What is side wall height limit for solar access?
Solar access will push houses to the south side – this is one solution, but there may be other ways to
address on lots
Could a variance be requested to solar access?
Keep the exception to the offset standards for the lot's w/ 40' or less of street frontage, only measure the
40' as "build able lot area" - The portion of the lot remaining after subtracting required offsets. For an
interior lot, this would be 30' in this example: 40 - 2(5 (side setbacks)) = 30' For a corner lot: 40 - 15
(street side setback) - 5 (interior side setback). Also, does a house w/ street frontage on a northern road
have to comply w/ this standard. If so, why? Are we trying to ensure the street has sufficient solar
access? An exception should be made to corner lots or alley lots w/ streets and alleys on their northern
side. Lastly, neighbors should be able to come to consensus on when to apply these standards. This is an
agreement between two individual property owners. The City's blanket approach to solar protection will
not consider the intricacies of each situation. Two interested parties are much better at realizing an
appropriate solution than cookie cutter standards.
5. Do you have comments and feedback on the potential additional façade standards?
This all looks good to me.
Looks good.
Generally these standards are an improvement.
How about apply in relation to the specific buildings on adjacent lots – be sure to apply to major
remodels.
Can a façade/porch encroach into the setback?
This seems like good regulation. Changing the facade every 40' is adequate.
Page 3
6. What additional evaluation do you feel is necessary?
A second story deck is a different animal from a first floor deck. I think it should be counted somehow.
Open decks need to be counted in FAR and /or the impacts on neighbor’s privacy.
To reiterate the 40' lot frontage exception to solar access. A 50' corner lot is just as prohibitive as a 40'
interior lot regarding buildable area. 40 - two 5' side setbacks = 30 buildable dimension and 50 (corner
lot) - 15' setback on street and 5' setback on interior lot = 30 buildable dimension.
7. Do you have other comments and feedback?
There should be notification for neighbors for new building and demolition even when it doesn’t require
a variance. These can be “big deals” even when they follow the current rules. Neighbors shouldn’t be
taken by surprise. I think you all have done a great job. You seem to be thorough, considerate and fair.
I really appreciate all you’ve done.
Expand notification in a timely manner for variance requests and especially for
demolition/deconstructions.
Please don’t use flat roof houses for examples in your case studies – they aren’t realistic. Can you
provide photos of Boulder or other places where solar access standards apply? Also, what Boulder is
doing to respond to solar access problems that result in asymmetrical roof lines? We’ll have some
problems – might as well address it now.
How to get information out about requirements like these – maybe through REALTORS – so people
know before they buy.
Suggest city modify requirements for elevations to be submitted on projects to require elevations that
show context (block face where house is and opposite block face) – would be more useful.
Suggest looking at building permits from past 5 years to see how many would/would not meet these
standards (like what Ben Manvel did before).
How were houses on Wood Street allowed? Variances?
Compare previous proposal to current proposal and show how they are different and similar or the same.
Standards only apply to single-family not multi-family. Why does NCM have greater allowance?
Does City Council attend these meetings (open house, etc.) on this project?
Suggest a comparison table be made to show what was passed before and what is proposed now.
These standards don’t completely address compatibility – the future design guidelines/standards will
also help with compatibility.
Suggest that input with your neighbors can help reduce surprises and result in better design (mentioned
variance for the turret on Whitcomb Street).
Like the use of “privacy” as a term for what we’re trying to protect.
If you want to retain the "neighborhood character" provisions should be made to consider adjoining
properties in all directions that border a house. For example maximum height should be based on the
highest adjoining property. Provisions should be in place for many of these variables, i.e. setbacks,
FAR, maximum building height.
The
form
prov
new
Wes
Sum
1. &
3. W
W
I
P
p
E
C
A
A
O
4. D
st
J
final public
mat of the me
vide written a
Code chang
tside Neighb
mmary of all w
& 2. Where d
Of the 52
two neigh
Which action
Westside ne
Implementa
Promote the
program
Expand notif
Create volun
Adjust side w
Adjust floor
Other Potent
Count ba
No furthe
Promote
Big impr
Caveat; s
lean-to a
FAR alre
Do you have
tandards?
Clever w
Maybe ch
Page 2
fine. But to say the garage does not count towards the floor area ration is just not appropriate. The
biggest issue to the neighborhood is the move to the densely populated, fully built out, suburban to
urban, change, that will profoundly change the character of old town. To a large degree, the rights of
homeowners, and the nature of the real estate market will move in that direction, without regard to any
changes government can make. But floor area ratio is the best, most objective, least subject to
discrimination, easiest to administer tool.
I support the new, proposed FAR standards. Regarding balconies needing to be counted as part of FAR
standards, please reference house at 122 S Whitcomb with its second story balcony which extends
beyond neighbor’s garages, uses majority of lot and reduces/diminishes neighbor’s privacy.
I think the changes (if approved) will help resolve some of the concerns presented by citizens in the
workshops. Will definitely be an improvement.
Not sure they go far enough to meet objectives.
I like what I hear. It sounds like it has the potential to close loopholes.
I am sure the potential revisions will upset larger lot owners.
It is a thinly veiled attempt to reinstate the FAR standards that were repealed by the public in ’11. It
should not be passed and it has been a gross waste of City time and resources and Council is out of line
in trying to push it through on short notice before an election.
Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes!!! The projects that are maxing out the standards or getting “variance” in (is
that a word?), are obtrusive, greedy, obsessive, completely against the character of the neighborhoods of
Old Town.
I like these suggestions. I think you’ve creatively allowed for growth without allowing for obscenity in
terms of size.
Please do not make additional restrictions on building standards. We are right back to what was
repealed before. This will damage the development of our growing neighborhood. People will leave or
decide to go elsewhere. This will financially impact our neighborhood and home values.
FAR!! 003 repealed this issue.
No adjustment to floor area ration (FAR) measurement. Petition in 2011 was successful and 003 was
repealed and City Council stated that if this issue came back, it would not be based on “FAR” . The
people of Fort Collins spoke via that petition in 2011.
Looks intelligent, fair, forward-looking.
Differentiation of NCL & NCM seems arbitrary. Use the NCL standard for both zones. Sliding scale by
lot size is good, but the FAR is still too high. It should be .30 for a 10,000 sq.ft. lot in both zones and
without the 250 sq. ft. accessory building exception.
New plan looks very positive in being able to place some limits without prohibiting reasonable
expansion of house sizes in the neighborhood.
Good idea to include elevated basements in the FAR. Should point out in presentations and to City
Council that non-elevated basements do not count in FAR thus possible to have more finished square
feet than what is listed in the tables presented.
If the new unit fits the lot it should be ok. Each lot design is different.
Using a sliding scale by lot size makes sense now. Yes, differentiate between the NCL and NCM zone
districts. OK – provide a 250 sq.ft. exception for detached rear accessory structures. Yes, work with a
revised floor area measurement method that considers high volume spaces.
Too restricted, limits creating decent sized family homes with garages. Prohibits diversity and value of
property.
I like them, particularly adding 3’ above ground basements and high ceiling rooms to the FAR.
Yes, differentiate between the NCL and NCM zone districts. Yes, provide a 250 sq.ft. exception for
detached rear accessory structures. No to: Work with a revised floor area measurement method that
considers high volume spaces.
Page 3
Check to see what Boulder is going to do about slanting roofs. Concerned about odd setbacks different
on north and south side.
Include balcony measurements into accounting the FAR requirements/calculations. I think the proposed
FAR standards are overly restrictive. Should have existing FAR the same. Limits to side wall height.
Should be on a case by case basis. One size does not fit all . . . especially in Old Town. The example
used for the NCL zone of a lot of 7,000 sq.ft. seemed like an extreme result. What good is a 250 sq.ft.
accessory building.
There is NO current problem.
5. Do you have comments on the potential side wall height standards for solar access?
Will this result in homes that do not fit into the overall character of the neighborhood?
Protecting neighbor’s light & sun is one of the most important requirements. Measurements taken at
12:00 noon, winter solstice. No loss of sun to neighbor needs to be the standard.
Not really – I think it’s a great idea to make the proposed changes.
Good idea
It’s only fair, for both solar & gardening.
Solar access is important so 18’ is generous.
At this time, I believe the proposal is too vague and should be studied further before a final proposal is
put forth for adoption.
The value of these Old Town lots and yards is greatly reduced as these extreme projects get taller and
closer to lot boundaries.
My only concern here is that we might end up with funky, lop-sided houses.
No more standards! Solar access can be blocked by planting a tree and everyone supports tree planting.
Standards do not address this without negatively effecting home values.
For our property it’s not a large impact but larger lots are greatly impacted. Large houses are not out of
place in Old Town, just need to be done in character.
What about landscaping – trees grow – is that an issue? Old Town has big trees – do you want them cut
down!?
Limit wall height at the minimum side setback on the north side of the lot to preserve solar access.
I am strongly in favor of the standards as defined
Applying only to large additions or new construction is a huge loophole. Somebody could build a 250
sq.ft addition on a roof and significantly shade a neighbor to the north. Is there a sliding scale so
houses/additions built at a 5’6” setback can’t move up to 18’? Also, the 1:1 height increase for lots
narrower than 40’ seems overly generous. A tall house on a narrow lot has a greater potential to impact
neighbors, so maybe buying a narrow lot should limit what you can do. A height increase of 6” for each
foot narrower than 40’ with a maximum of 16’ would be better.
North-south impact is addressed well without being overly prohibitive. East-west impacts may need to
be considered as well.
Good idea for north facing wall heights restrictions.
Doesn’t apply to my lot, but it is an important issue. Yes, apply only to large additions and new
construction adjacent to a neighbor to the north. Yes, limit wall height at the minimum side setback on
the north side of the lot to preserve solar access.
Properties are in flux. A single story home may become a two story in the future. South properties are
always subject to a northern neighbor . . . which may also change height in the future.
I like the concept although I’m concerned about asymmetrical roofs.
OK, apply only to large additions and new construction adjacent to a neighbor to the north. Yes, limit
wall height at the minimum side setback on the north side of the lot to preserve solar access.
Solar access protection needs to be set at winter solstice rather than spring equinox.
Needs to have a variance for homes that are forced to raise their base elevations due to flood plains.
Page 4
6. Do you have comments on the potential additional building design standards to address front and side
façade character?
The illustrations I saw on the poster do not reflect the character of homes in the area. I think it’s a good
idea but designs need to be tweaked.
I am in favor!
This should be approached with caution. Jackson Hole did it and now it looks like a Disney theme park.
Variety is good.
Compatibility with other buildings important.
Tightening up the standards will ensure that the character of a neighborhood will evolve gracefully.
I love that you’re not only looking at FAR but you’re considering design as well. Thank you.
No more standards! This will negatively impact our neighborhoods.
This design standard alone could address many of the out of place renovations.
Provide a menu of options to address the character of front and side facades.
Positive
Can’t legislate accounting for task. It is a diverse neighborhood. That’s part of the flavor of Eastside.
Save the cookie-cutter mindset for the “burbs”.
New plan offers good options. Design assistance will help achieve better outcomes.
Good ideas
An important issue to maintain the character of the neighborhoods. I enjoyed judging the various
facades at the Lopez Elementary workshop. OK, apply only to large additions and new construction – it
saves time and effort spent on small projects. OK, provide a menu of options to address the character of
front and side facades.
They are ok
No to: Apply only to large additions and new construction. Yes, provide a menu of options to address
the character of front and side facades. Develop standards for front setback to align with others on the
block. Address porches, trim, etc. to mimic nearby older homes.
Are porches the only way to create a more friendly façade in character? I think the standards are narrow
and will create a cookie cutter effect and most likely unintended consequences.
Why should the City get involved in how people design their homes? It’s all subjective.
7. Do you have other comments and feedback?
These neighborhoods are the jewels of Fort Collins, and their character needs to be preserved. It’s what
makes them so popular.
Please do not make the building process (permits, notifications, etc.) expensive. Voluntary design
guidelines and example designs – Great!
“Neighborhood Contexts??” On one hand they do seem to assign a label to neighborhoods. But so
what! I see this as a first step in an unannounced hidden agenda towards mandating HOA. Folks can
see the context of the neighborhoods without a government definition.
Consultation with neighbors before building may reduce disharmony and help create a neighborly
feeling. In the case of a builder/developer building a spec house to be sold in near future, hold these
houses to the standards & insist on neighborhood meeting for guidance. City needs to be proactive in
designating historic home protection recognizing the desirability of living in these neighborhoods and
the fact that some people have so much money they can buy, scrape & build anything.
Keep doing this. I hope City Council will enforce these changes. Keep our neighborhood’s historic
character.
Pleased that you have a significantly involved those of us living in the areas. Hope City council has
same approach vs. only interests of developers.
Page 5
I don’t believe there is enough evidence of a problem caused by the current FAR standards that will be
solved by the proposed new standards. Furthermore, I feel that Council is attempting to railroad through
new standards that the community has shown they do not support (i.e. the 2011 repeal of an extremely
similar FAR standard to the one now being proposed). Additionally, the graphs and presentation is
misleading (i.e. the 250 sq.ft. exemption for detached structures).
The market does an excellent job of monitoring the developing and maintaining the market. This
tinkering isn’t going to do anything except screw up the market and leave some properties that should be
address without a suitor. Your building size is ratcheted down so that no one will buy the old houses
and fix them up – not profitable. You are seriously messing with the market which is the best control.
Thanks for all your hard work in this lengthy and difficult process. Even if we pretend not to like you!!
We still appreciate your time.
Great job so far, we need change for the better!
I really appreciate how well you all have listened to the community. I feel like you’ve done a good job
at considering all sides of these issues. I also think you’ve come up with some creative solutions that
have the potential to work well. I especially liked being able to see how a newly built house might look
different under your new proposals. This really helped to solidify in my mind what exactly the
proposals would mean. Thanks for all your hard work.
The redevelopment and growth of our neighborhood will be stunted with these standards being
implemented again. These changes were repealed once before but the agenda of the Council is being
pushed. Not the voice of the community. These last minute explanations and last minute finalization of
suggestions leading to meetings where decisions will be made is exactly what happened last time. This
is not ok. No more standards.
I worry if we get too prescriptive, young families will not look to move/reinvest in Old Town. Without
flexibility, many people will get priced out of the Old Town market. The neighborhood will eventually
grow stagnant and start to decline.
I believe the new construction is good for the neighborhood. Keep the current standards. I thought this
was sealed a couple of years ago. The people of Fort Collins have spoken by repealing 003.
Grade is required to be raised in some of the area because of a high water table, so home owners are
being penalized with height restrictions, based on existing City imposed restrictions. In considering
financial impacts, both positive and negative impacts should be considered. Improvement of
neighboring properties improves the neighborhood as a whole . . . property values go up, and this is what
causes taxes to go up. Property value increase only benefits the community.
Great job. Wonderful outreach. Cooperative approach. Nicely phased. Good communication. Kudos
to City, Winter, other support staff.
Case by case – some projects are more disappointing in their choices than others. Don’t punish the
many for the disappointments of the few. Happy that due to additions, new builds, etc. that families are
able to thrive in Old Town.
1. Thank you for finally listening to citizens and council by addressing solar access. It’s a good start,
but it needs to directly protect solar access (e.g. regardless of lot size or width, or building size, additions
or new houses would not be allowed to cast a shadow higher than 5’ on a house to the north built at the
5’ setback, at noon on Dec. 21). This would allow maximum flexibility for construction without
allowing a negative environmental or economic impact (by shading windows) on neighbors to the north.
2. Why do the standards kick in at 2,500 sq. ft. for new construction, but 3,000 total sq.ft. for additions?
2,000 sq. ft. would be a good threshold for both. Remember, it’s not saying a house can’t be bigger – it
just says you have to consider your neighbors.
Thanks for the good work.
Didn’t we go through this two years ago? Things are working ok now – no action is needed.
It appears from this information and my discussion with Abe that converting my one-car garage to a
two-car garage will not exceed the potential FAR standard.
Page 6
It always seems to go back to the City Council’s agenda of changing the FAR and creating restrictive
standards that were vetoed last year!!! I feel that these changes affect the property values and
desirability of Old Town. WATCH OUT!! Is this even legal? Put it to a vote, not a Council that
determines citizen’s outcome! Washed A LOT of resources $$ to get this FAR changed again. Outrage.
Provide for neighbors consultation on new building and in some cases remodels. Work toward
neighborhood harmony.
It might be helpful to make a table that shows total FAR by lot size with an assumed addition of a full
basement to estimate total possible finished square footage. For example, a NCL lot of 7,000 sq.ft.
could allow a 2,650 sq.ft. FAR. If that 2,650 is two floors of 1,200 sq.ft. each plus a detached garage,
then a full basement could be 1,200 sq.ft. and usable space would really be closer to 3,600 sq.ft.
City Council is once again creating a mountain out of a mole hill. Fort Collins is land locked and in one
breath the “City” promotes infill projects and building up not out, and in the other breath they restrict
future building and improvements by making regulations over restrictive. Fort Collins (City Council)
needs to figure out what they really want and they need to listen to all the people – not just the loud few.
Regarding high volume space being counted as two floors – why would that matter? This will
financially impact the home.
Can we please finally allow the FAR conversation to die? The citizens spoke in 2011, and they don’t
want it. Just because there are two City Council members who are so arrogant as to believe that their
opinions are more important than the thousands of citizens who signed on to repeal the last FAR
proposal doesn’t make it right.
Fort Collins Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Study
u r b a n a d v I s o r s l t d
urban advisory services
Economic Evaluation of Redevelopment Trends and Proposed Floor Area Ratio
Revisions in The Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods
February 12, 2013
To inform the Eastside and Westside Neighborhood Character study, Urban Advisors evaluated
existing conditions, the economics of redevelopment and proposed floor area ratio (FAR) revisions
in the neighborhoods. To accomplish this, we used data from the county’s geographic information
system (GIS) containing parcel data and assessor’s data for all of the parcels in both
neighborhoods as well as for the city as a whole.
The questions we sought to answer were:
Does greater square footage confer value by itself or are there other factors that change
value?
How do lot size and unit size independently affect value?
Does limiting size, by reducing FAR change the dynamics of the real estate market for units in
these neighborhoods?
Does an FAR limitation change current neighborhood affordability or are other factors leading
to change?
This report presents data regarding neighborhood housing and discusses its meaning in relation to
the questions asked.
Overall Conclusions
The evaluation of economic factors led to the following overall conclusions:
While overall values increase with house size, the value per square foot tends to decline,
especially for houses with more than 2,000 square feet of floor area or FARs above 0.30.
Based on existing property values, and the potential sales prices of new or expanded homes,
most redevelopment is likely to occur on small to average sized lots (4,000 to 10,000 square
feet) in the N‐C‐M zone district (115 to 125 such properties present prime redevelopment
opportunities under current market conditions).
The proposed reduction in maximum permitted FAR (Ordinance Option A) would not
significantly affect redevelopment opportunities in the neighborhoods because the most
profitable opportunities tend to be at FARs that are lower than the proposed limits.
The proposed reduction in the maximum permitted FAR (Ordinance Option A) is not likely to
have a significantly positive or negative impact on the affordability of housing in the
neighborhoods.
The evaluation process and conclusions are described in greater detail in the following pages.
ATTACHMENT 6
Fort Collins Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Study Economic Evaluation
u r b a n a d v I s o r s l t d
urban advisory services 2
General Lot and Building Characteristics of the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods
To understand the neighborhoods, we first assembled basic data regarding parcels and units. This
data is shown in the following tables for each neighborhood.
Eastside Neighborhood
Characteristics Median Average
Lot Size 7,810 10,199
Unit Size 1,126 1,307
Unit Age 82 79
Stories 1.0 1.2
Bedrooms 3.0 3.0
Baths 1.75 1.77
Basement Size 408 475
Garage Size 286 293
Porch Size 296 371
Total Value per Building Square Foot $204 $204
Total Value per Land Square Foot $33 $34
Floor Area Ratio 0.158 0.166
Fort Collins Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Study Economic Evaluation
u r b a n a d v I s o r s l t d
urban advisory services 3
Westside Neighborhood Characteristics Median Average
Lot Size 6,982 7,629
Unit Size 1,104 1,260
Unit Age 83 78
Stories 1.0 1.2
Bedrooms 3.0 2.8
Baths 1.50 1.58
Basement Size 168 406
Garage Size 280 292
Porch Size 336 406
Total Value per Building Square Foot $208 $213
Total Value per Land Square Foot $32 $36
Floor Area Ratio 0.161 0.174
The tables above illustrate a number of differences in the neighborhoods, including:
Lot sizes on average are larger in the Eastside neighborhood
Units in the Eastside neighborhood are slightly larger on average
Unit age is slightly greater in the Westside neighborhood
The prevalence of multi‐story houses is not significantly different
The number of bedrooms per unit is not significantly different
The number of baths per unit is slightly higher in the Eastside neighborhood
The Eastside neighborhood has larger basements and garages on average
The Westside neighborhood has larger porches on average
Total value per building square foot is higher on average in the Westside neighborhood
Land values and development intensity (FAR) appear to be similar, but have a greater range in
the Westside neighborhood
The foregoing indicates that both neighborhoods were historically built with small houses at low
FARs on typical lot sizes around 9,000 square feet. This combination of unit size and lot size yields
a character that differs from newer suburban development and that many find charming. It may
also relate to the neighborhood’s higher home values on a per square foot basis than the citywide
median of ±$139.
Fort Collins Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Study Economic Evaluation
u r b a n a d v I s o r s l t d
urban advisory services 4
Relationship of Development Characteristics to Value in the Eastside and Westside
Neighborhoods
To gain a more finely detailed understanding, we prepared charts for each neighborhood showing
the distribution of total value divided by building square feet, total value divided by square feet of
land, and absolute value by FAR.
The chart above shows total value divided by building square feet for most of the residential
parcels in the Eastside neighborhood. It illustrates that, as building size increases, the value per
square foot tends to decline.
This is an important consideration in redevelopment, because as house size increases, value does
not increase as much per square foot built. This change in value is a market limitation that means
the largest new houses would not necessarily generate the greatest profit if resold.
The same plot for the Westside neighborhood is shown on the next page.
$0&
$100&
$200&
$300&
$400&
$500&
0& 1000& 2000& 3000& 4000& 5000& 6000&
Eastside(Neighborhood(Total(Value(per(Building((Square(Foot(
Fort Collins Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Study Economic Evaluation
u r b a n a d v I s o r s l t d
urban advisory services 5
As in the plot for the Eastside neighborhood, the trend here is for value per square foot to decline
as house size rises.
In both the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods, the cloud of higher value per square foot
appears to be concentrated below 2,000 square feet per unit and highest in the range between
around 800 to 1,500 square feet.
To understand the dynamics of lot size, we performed the same operation to create the charts
below, plotting total value divided by parcel square feet.
Westside'Neighborhood'Total'Value'per'Building'Square'Foot'
Fort Collins Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Study Economic Evaluation
u r b a n a d v I s o r s l t d
urban advisory services 6
The plot of value by land square feet for the Eastside neighborhood shows highest value on lots of
around 5,000 square feet or smaller, followed by lots between ±5,000 to ±8,000 square feet, with
larger lots showing the lowest value per square foot. This is primarily because an average house
on a small lot will confer a higher value per square foot of land than the same house on a very
large lot. However, the plot of value by built square foot shows that, as house size increases, value
decreases. This may indicate that as larger lots are built upon with larger houses, they do not
create the same value per square foot.
Eastside(Neighborhood(Total(Value(per(Land(Square(Foot(
Fort Collins Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Study Economic Evaluation
u r b a n a d v I s o r s l t d
urban advisory services 7
The plot for the Westside neighborhood is similar to that of the Eastside neighborhood in showing
declining square foot values for increasing lot sizes. However, it shows higher values per square
foot of land and a wider range for those higher values, with lots at 10,000 square feet having the
same total value per square foot at up to ±$80 per square foot compared to ±$60 in the Eastside
neighborhood. It shows the same falloff in value, but at a slower rate than in the Eastside
neighborhood. It is possible that the slightly higher FAR intensity in the Westside neighborhood is
offsetting the market tendency to pay less per square foot for land and buildings as size increases.
This naturally brings up the question of the effect of larger houses on smaller lots. Does increasing
FAR confer more value? To examine this question we created plots of FAR and value. These plots
are shown below.
Westside'Neighborhood'Total'Value'per'Building'Square'Foot'
Fort Collins Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Study Economic Evaluation
u r b a n a d v I s o r s l t d
urban advisory services 8
The two plots above show that as FAR rises, value rises. The trend line (with an r‐squared over .9
in each case) shows the rather steep rate of change. At the same time, the trend line is misleading
0.00&
0.10&
0.20&
0.30&
0.40&
0.50&
0.60&
$0& $200,000& $400,000& $600,000& $800,000& $1,000,000& $1,200,000& $1,400,000&
Eastside(Neighborhood(Total(Value(by(FAR(
0.0000)
0.1000)
0.2000)
0.3000)
0.4000)
0.5000)
0.6000)
$0) $200,000) $400,000) $600,000) $800,000) $1,000,000) $1,200,000)
Westside'Neighborhood'Total'Value'by''FAR'
Fort Collins Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Study Economic Evaluation
u r b a n a d v I s o r s l t d
urban advisory services 9
because it is trending based on the very dense cloud of properties at the low end of both FAR
intensity and value. As value rises above $300,000 in each neighborhood, the relationship fails to
cohere and a more realistic trend line would show a flattening, and in the case of the Westside
neighborhood would trend almost sideways. Note that in virtually all cases, even high value
parcels are below an FAR of 0.3 (the equivalent of a 1,500 square foot unit on a 5,000 square foot
lot).
It becomes clear that increasing FAR can confer a value benefit, but only to a point. The dynamic
that is shown in both plots indicates that rising over 0.3 is far less likely to result in a continued
positive value change than the change from 0.1 to 0.3.
Redevelopment Opportunity in the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods
To investigate further, we looked at the redevelopment opportunities in the N‐C‐L and N‐C‐M
zone districts and examined whether currently proposed revisions to the maximum FAR standard
(Ordinance Option A) would be likely to have a specific economic impact. A parcel is considered to
be a prime redevelopment opportunity when current market conditions would allow it be
acquired, the house demolished and rebuilt or significantly expanded, and then resold at a
sufficient profit. Because redevelopment opportunity appears to be much greater on lots between
4,000 and 10,000 square feet in the N‐C‐M district, the evaluation is concentrated on those
parcels.
Current real estate sales information and City of Fort Collins GIS data indicate that homes in the
Eastside and Westside neighborhoods typically do not sell for more than about $800,000 with the
exception of some homes designed and built for specific clients. Using this criterion, about 124
lots between 4,000 and 10,000 square feet currently represent prime redevelopment
opportunities in the N‐C‐M district. If the maximum FAR standard were reduced (per Ordinance
Option A), about 115 prime redevelopment opportunities would remain. The result of this
evaluation confirms that changing FAR standards as proposed (Ordinance Option A) would put
only limited constraints on market‐driven redevelopment opportunities in the Eastside and
Westside neighborhoods.
Because the proposed reduction to maximum permitted FAR is unlikely to significantly affect
redevelopment opportunities, it is also unlikely to have a major impact on home prices in the
neighborhoods, or affordability to buyers. Although FAR reductions may be viewed as a resource
limitation that could push prices upward, real estate differs from commodities in that it is limited
by the income of those who need it, and by the ability of the developer to profit from the
purchase of the land. Redevelopment of existing parcels in the Eastside and Westside is self‐
limiting. Development will stop when the cost does not provide profit. Combined with the fact
that the market does have a limited upper pricing, analysis shows that there is virtually no
difference between proposed and existing regulations in the yielding of opportunities.
ATTACHMENT 7
_______
Project: Eastside/Westside Character Study
Project Description: This is a request for recommendation to City Council of a package
of Land Use Code changes to address the impacts of large new
single-family house construction and house additions occurring in
the Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (N-C-L) and
Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (N-C-M) zoning
districts, which occur in the Eastside and Westside
neighborhoods near Downtown.
Recommendation: Staff requests that the Planning and Zoning Board make a
recommendation to City Council regarding an Ordinance for
proposed Land Use Code changes related to implementation of
the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study.
Members Kirkpatrick (Conflict of interest) and Hatfield left the meeting.
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Ms. Sanchez-Sprague reported the only information received since the work session has
been a read-before memo from staff, and Ordinance with two options, and a floor area
ratio table.
Senior City Planner Pete Wray stated this item consists of a package of Land Use Code
changes to address the impacts of large new single-family house construction and
house additions occurring in the Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (N-C-L) and
Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (N-C-M) zoning districts, which occur in the
Eastside and Westside neighborhoods near Downtown.
This package was developed largely by the consulting firm of Winter and Company, with
review and assistance by staff and was based on a wide range of public input by
residents and other interested citizens, keeping the original project goal in mind.
Wray stated this item would amend the Land Use Code to implement the
Eastside/Westside Character Study. He stated staff provided five recommendations at
the City Council work session which included: promoting the existing design assistance
program, expanding notification for variance requests, creating a new design handbook
or guidelines, adjusting measurement methods, and addressing building massing and
solar impacts with new design tools. Council directed staff to proceed with
implementation of those five strategy options, including assessing potential changes to
the floor area ratio standard.
Wray stated the public process for this phase three implementation included a series of
public meetings in January and will include a series of Boards and Commissions
recommendations, with the Planning and Zoning Board being the first. Council will be
considering the item, for First Reading, on February 19, 2013.
He reviewed the two Ordinance options as presented by staff. Option A reflects a
package of revised standards, including a revision to the existing floor area ratio
Planning & Zoning Board
February 7, 2013
ATTACHMENT 8
East Side & Westside Neighborhoods Character Study
Planning and Zoning Board February 7, 2013 Minutes
Page 2
standard formula. Option B retains the existing floor area ratio standard. The standards
included in both options are: expansion of the notification distance for zoning requests
from 150 feet to 500 feet, a slight reduction to the existing maximum floor area ratio
standards and an adjustment to the measurement method for calculating the maximum
permitted floor area, an adjusted measurement method for the height of a new wall
along a side lot line, an adjustment to the side wall height standards for solar access,
and new design standards for front and side facades for larger new homes. Wray
reviewed case studies in which the proposed and existing standards were applied.
Option B would retain the existing floor area ratio formula.
Public Input
Clint Skutchan, Fort Collins Board of Realtors, commended staff for work on the item
and stated the Board of Realtors is opposed to changes to the floor area ratio standards.
He stated the floodplain issue needs to be addressed regarding height standards so as
to avoid a doubly punitive situation. He suggested an exemption or separate process for
those who are required to raise their homes due to floodplain location. He requested
consideration that the pattern book not be put off until 2014.
Ray Martinez, 4121 Stoneridge Court, opposed the proposed changes.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, stated residents who live in these neighborhoods
generally support the trend of these proposed changes. She stated zoning request
notifications need to be expanded and sent earlier. She stated large homes should be
built in other areas of the city and these neighborhoods should be protected.
Kathy Konen, 121 North Sherwood Street, supported the ability of families to build
homes as they wish and stated the neighborhoods need to keep growing in order to stay
viable. She opposed the proposed changes.
Susan Froseth, 524 Spring Canyon Court, noted the previous package of Code changes
for this area, from 2010, was repealed by City Council. She questioned whether the
current study used a broader perspective to understand character, larger context and
compatibility, and threshold for change in these neighborhoods. She expressed concern
that the proposed floor area ratio standards have not been thoroughly discussed. Ms.
Froseth stated that the exact issues that led to the citizen’s initiative in 2011 to overturn
the original guidelines are part of this proposal. She suggested standards should be
developed to promote existing neighborhood character while still allowing for beneficial
change. She stated the new proposed floor area standards are against the citizen
initiative.
Glen Konen, 121 North Sherwood Street, stated floor area ratios do not define a
neighborhood and opposed the proposed changes.
Gina Jannett, 730 West Oak, stated a strong majority of residents and land owners in
these neighborhoods believe there are problems due to scrape-offs and expansions that
result in large, tall houses that loom over neighbors. She stated the proposed floor area
East Side & Westside Neighborhoods Character Study
Planning and Zoning Board February 7, 2013 Minutes
Page 3
ratio changes have been in response to citizen concerns. She supported Option A of the
Ordinance in order to retain the character of these neighborhoods.
End of Public Input
Wray stated Council directed staff, in the spring of 2011, to examine the issues
associated with the largest new construction and additions within the two
neighborhoods. A key part of the process was identifying strategy options that will best
address the issues associated with the largest construction examples. Wray stated staff
determined the application needed to be applied on a limited basis within the
neighborhoods and the two zoning districts based on established thresholds. He stated
the original staff recommendation was to not include the floor area ratio changes as the
team felt the package of other design standards sufficiently addresses the issues.
However, it is included on the list of viable tools to limit house size, as per Council’s
request.
Sherry Albertson-Clark, Interim Planning Manager, stated stormwater staff has collected
data since October 1, 2007 for the Old Town 100-year floodplain, which predominately
covers portions of the Westside neighborhood and a small portion of the Eastside. In
that time period, there have been four new homes that were built in that floodplain.
Those four were required to elevate their finished floor a minimum of eighteen inches
above the 100-year flood elevation. There were a total of fourteen structures within the
floodplain that had additions. Those additions are typically required to elevate a
minimum of six inches above the 100-year flood elevation.
Board Questions
Member Hart stated all parties seem to want to protect the neighborhoods with the only
issue being the floor area ratio. He questioned why the floor area ratios need to be
amended. Abe Barge, Winter and Company, replied participants throughout this
process have expressed a desire for basically the same thing. The issue of the floor
area ratio tool comes down to a choice about how far it’s appropriate to go in terms of
addressing the objectives and issues that were identified as part of the public process to
promote compatibility. Option A most thoroughly addresses the issues and objectives
with the change in floor area ratio; Option B may be seen as not going far enough in
terms of addressing the issue of overly large homes.
Board Discussion
Member Hart stated the solar access regulation would shift the burden from the property
on one side of a home to the property on the other side, and the floor area ratio
reduction would not have aided that property owner at all.
Member Campana stated not everyone agrees that preserving the character of the
neighborhood is what the argument is about. The main part of the problem is a lack of
basic, considerate architecture. He opposed the floor area ratio changes. He expressed
concern that the late start time of the meeting diminished citizen input and noted two
Members left as well.
East Side & Westside Neighborhoods Character Study
Planning and Zoning Board February 7, 2013 Minutes
Page 4
Member Carpenter expressed appreciation for Option B. She stated good design has
nothing to do with square footage; however, there are some problematic large
construction examples. She suggested recommending adoption of Option B and noted
residents in Old Town have often selected that area because they do not want HOA
restrictions. She supported moving forward with design guidelines rather than standards
more quickly than perhaps originally planned.
Member Campana stated he could support Option B with revisions, but could not
support Option A.
Member Carpenter stated the Board should continue the item, but that is not an option
given it will go to Council either way.
Chairman Smith supported the changes brought forth to the work session, other than the
floor area ratio change. He stated a well-designed large house is preferable to a poorly-
designed small house. The proposed Code changes, other than the floor area ratio
issue, go far in accomplishing good design. He stated he would support recommending
Option B, but would not have supported Option A.
Member Carpenter noted the importance of sending a recommendation to Council and
stated, though not ideal, Option B offers changes that are close to being complete.
Chairman Smith stated compatibility does not necessarily equal uniformity. Diversity of
the housing stock in Old Town is what makes it resilient and attractive.
Member Carpenter noted diversity in housing has historically been part of Old Town.
Member Elmore expressed appreciation for the solar access regulations. She supported
Option A, stating it would not preclude or prevent people from desiring Old Town.
Member Carpenter made a motion to recommend to City Council the adoption of
Option B. Member Hart seconded the motion.
Member Campana supported the increased notice area change and asked about the
point of reference for determining a floor. Barge replied, in theory it is to the ceiling or
rafter. Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator, replied the seven and a half foot
measurement, only applies to the second story in a detached accessory building. In the
main house, the seven and a half foot measurement isn’t mentioned; it is the total
square footage of the floor area, regardless of the ceiling height. In a detached building,
you only count that portion of the second floor that has a ceiling height of seven and half
feet or greater. Barnes stated that one current problem is that if someone builds a one-
story house with a tall vaulted ceiling, it may appear like a two-story house; however, it is
currently considered one story. The proposed change would count floor area when the
distance between the floor and the rafter directly above it is greater than fourteen feet.
Member Campana asked how massing and articulation would be reviewed. Barnes
replied the Zoning Department reviews plans against the Land Use Code. Submittal
East Side & Westside Neighborhoods Character Study
Planning and Zoning Board February 7, 2013 Minutes
Page 5
requirements will need to include additional information regarding surrounding
properties.
The motion passed 4:1 with Member Elmore dissenting.
1
City Council Hearing
February 19, 2013
First Reading of Ordinance No. 33, 2013, Making
Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use
Code Pertaining to Implementation of the Eastside
and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study.
ATTACHMENT 9
2
Eastside & Westside Neighborhoods
Character Study
Three Phases to Planning Process:
Phase 1 Understand character/context and
neighborhood compatibility issues
Phase 2 Develop Strategies for addressing issues and
impacts of larger new construction
Phase 3 Develop tools, systems, and actions to
implement strategies
3
Public Process for Implementation - 2013
• Working Group Meetings (January 16)
• Public Open House Meeting (January 30)
• Boards/Commissions Recommendation to
Council (February)
• City Council Hearing (1st Reading – February 19)
• City Council Hearing (2nd
Reading – March 5)
4
Staff Recommended Strategy Options
1.Promote Ex. Design Assistance Program
2.Expand Notification for Variances
3.Create Design Handbooks/Guidelines
4.Adjust Measurement Methods
5.Address Building Massing/Solar Access
a. Address Building Scale/Size Directly
b. Address Solar Access Directly
c. Address Building Massing/Solar Impacts
with Design Tools (Indirectly)
6.No Action/Limited Action
5
Direction from City Council (11/27/12)
1. Develop a strategy to promote design assistance
2. Expand notification of variances
3. Create voluntary design guidelines
4. Adjust measurement methods
5. Address building massing/solar access:
5a. Address building scale/size - Revise (FAR)
5b. Address Solar Access Impacts - directly
5c. Address building massing/solar impacts
indirectly with new design standards
6
Study Area
7
Study Area
8
Proposed Options for Potential Land Use
Code Amendments
Option A
• Reflects package of revised and new standards - including
revision of the existing FAR standard formula
Option B
• Same as Option A - except retains existing FAR standard
formula
9
Option A
Proposed Land Use Code Amendments
• Expand existing notification distance for variance
requests
• Revise Ex. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards
• Adjust Ex. Standard for measuring height of new
building wall along side lot line
• New solar access standard
• New standards for building front/side façade
design
10
Expand the notification distance for some Zoning
Board of Appeals (ZBA) variance requests (New
Land Use Code Amendment)
11
Revise Existing Maximum Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) Standards
Clarifying Code terminology and
formatting
Reduces maximum FAR according
to a sliding scale by lot size
FARs differ for the N-C-L and
N-C-M districts
12
Revise Existing Maximum Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) Standards
Adjust measurement method
for calculating maximum
permitted FAR
Count large volume
spaces as two floors
Count square footage
of elevated
basements
Not count up to 250
square feet of
detached rear
accessory structure
13
Revise Existing Maximum Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) Standards
Potential FAR Formula
Additional allowance for 250 square feet in detached
accessory structure on lots 6,000 SF or larger
14
15
16
Eastside Neighborhood Data
Existing Floor Area Ratio (Average = 0.17)
17
Westside Neighborhood Data
Existing Floor Area Ratio (Average = 0.18)
18
Eastside/Westside Neighborhood Data
FAR by Zoning District
Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (N-C-L)
• Average Lot Size = 8,387 (sq. ft.)
• Average House Size = 1,361 (sq. ft.)
• Average Total FAR = 0.21
Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (N-C-M)
• Average Lot Size = 7,334 (sq. ft.)
• Average House Size = 1,171 (sq. ft.)
• Average Total FAR = 0.21
19
Adjust measurement method for height of a new
wall along a side lot line
Proposed System –
Existing Grade at Property Line
Current System –
Finished Grade at Wall
20
Façade Standard for Solar Access
Lower maximum wall height facing a one-story neighbor to the
north
Would only apply to large new houses or new two-story
houses
21
Additional Building Design Standards
Provides a menu of design options for the building
front façade of large new homes
22
Additional Building Design Standards
Provides a menu of design options for the building
side façade of large new homes
23
Standards Comparison
Existing: All Standards Combined
Potential: All Standards Combined
24
Case Study 1 (existing conditions)
25
Page 11: Case Study 1 (before/after)
26
Case Study 1 (solar access)
27
Case Study 2 (existing condition)
28
Case Study 2 (before/after)
29
Case Study 3 (existing condition)
30
Case Study 3 (before/after)
31
Case Study 3 (solar access)
32
Option A
Main Issues Addressed
• Expands notification for variance requests , increasing
awareness for affected neighbors
• Reduces FAR to limit largest house sizes
• Adjusts side wall height measurement to account for raised
grading relative to neighboring properties
• Addresses compatibility issues and solar impacts of some
larger new construction
33
Option B
Proposed Land Use Code Amendments
• Expand existing notification distance for variance
requests
• Retain Ex. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards
• Adjust Ex. Standard for measuring height of new
building wall along side lot line
• New solar access standard
• New standards for building front/side façade
design
34
Option B
Main Issues Addressed
• Expands notification for variance requests , increasing
awareness for affected neighbors
• Adjusts side wall height measurement to account for raised
grading
• Addresses compatibility issues and solar impacts of some
larger new construction
35
Comparison of Ordinances
2011 Ordinance (Repealed):
• Lowering current limit for building FAR applied the
same for all lots in both NCL/NCM districts
• Require recommendation from Landmark
Preservation Commission to Zoning Board of
Appeals on variance requests for FAR
• Adjust measurement method for maximum side
wall height
36
Comparison of Ordinances
Proposed 2013 Ordinance – Option A:
• New standard for expanded notice for variance
requests
• Lowering current limit for building FAR applied
differently for both NCL/NCM districts based on lot
size (Option B does not include this standard)
• Adjust measurement method for maximum side
wall height (similar)
• New solar access standard
• New building façade design standards
37
City Council Hearing
February 19, 2013
First Reading of Ordinance No. 33, 2013, Making
Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use
Code Pertaining to Implementation of the Eastside
and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study.
1
OPTION A
ORDINANCE NO. 033, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
LAND USE CODE PERTAINING TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
EASTSIDE AND WESTSIDE NEIGHBORHOODS CHARACTER STUDY
WHEREAS, in 2010, City staff conducted an Eastside/Westside Neighborhood Study
which resulted in an ordinance being approved by the City Council which was later repealed in
response to a citizen petition; and
WHEREAS, in June 2011, City staff initiated a new Eastside/Westside Neighborhood
Character Study (the “Study”) after receiving direction from City Council to take a fresh look at
neighborhood compatibility and character issues in the neighborhoods near downtown; and
WHEREAS, the basis of the Study is to respond to continued concerns with respect to
potential impacts of building additions and new construction in the City’s oldest neighborhoods;
and
WHEREAS, the Study process included extensive public outreach and the consideration
of the proposed Code changes arising from the Study by the Planning and Zoning Board, the
Landmark Preservation Commission, the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Building Review
Board; and
WHEREAS, the direction from the Study is to amend the Land Use Code in the
following particulars:
1. Expand the existing notification distance for some Zoning Board of Appeals
variance requests;
2. Revise the existing Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards using a new formula to
lower the largest allowable house sizes, and adjust the method for calculating allowable floor
area;
3. Adjust the method for measuring the height of a new wall along a side lot line;
4. Incorporate a new solar access standard; and
5. Incorporate new design standards with a menu of options for front and side
building façade features; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed changes to the Land Use
Code are in the best interests of the City.
2
NOW, THERFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 2.10.2(F) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(F) Step 6 (Notice): Section 2.2.6(A) only applies, except that “5800 feet” shall be
changed to “150 feet”, and for single-family houses in the NCL and NCM zone
districts, eight hundred (800) feet shall be changed to five hundred (500) feet for
variance requests for:
(a) Construction that results in a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house
previously existed and where there is at least one (1) lot abutting the side of
the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story; or
(b) Construction of a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred
(2,500) square feet; or
(c) Construction of an addition that results in a total square footage of more than
three thousand (3,000) square feet;
and "14 days" shall be changed to "7 days," everywhere they occur in Section
2.2.6.(A). Section 2.2.6(B)-(D) shall not apply.
Section 2. That Section 4.7(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(D) Land Use Standards.
(1) Density Required Lot Area. Minimum lot area shall be equivalent to at least two
and one-half (21/2) times the total floor area of the building(s), but not be 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 (71/2) 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) Allowable Floor Area on Lots.
(a) The allowable floor area shall be as follows:
3
(1) On a lot of less than five thousand (5,000) square feet, the
allowable floor area for single-family dwellings and buildings
accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed forty (40)
percent of the lot area.
(2) On a lot that is between five thousand (5,000) square feet and ten
thousand (10,000) square feet, the allowable floor area for single-
family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family
dwellings shall not exceed twenty (20) percent of the lot area plus,
one thousand (1,000) square feet. On a lot that is between six
thousand (6,000) square feet and ten thousand (10,000) square feet,
an additional two hundred-fifty (250) square feet shall be added for
a detached accessory structure.
(3) On a lot that is more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, the
allowable floor area for single-family dwellings and buildings
accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed thirty (30)
percent, plus two hundred-fifty (250) square feet for a detached
accessory structure.
(4) The allowable floor area for buildings containing permitted uses
other than single-family dwellings and buildings accessory to
single-family dwellings shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the
lot area.
(b) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, one hundred (100)
percent of the floor area of the following spaces and building elements
shall be included:
(1) The total 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 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 (7-1/2) feet
located within such accessory building on the lot.
(2) Basement floor areas where the exterior basement walls are
exposed by more than three (3) feet above adjacent finished grade.
(3) Roofed porches, balconies and breezeways that are enclosed on
more than two sides.
(c) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the
following spaces and building elements shall be counted at two hundred
(200) percent:
4
High volume spaces on the first or second floor where the distance
between the floor and the ceiling or roof rafters directly above is greater
than fourteen (14) feet.
(d) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the
following spaces and building elements shall not be included:
The first two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of a detached accessory
building, provided that it is located behind a street-fronting principal
building and is separated from such principal building by at least ten (10)
feet.
(3) Allowable Floor Area on Rear Half of Lots. The allowable floor area on the rear
half of a lot shall not exceed twenty five (25) percent of the area of the rear fifty
(50) percent of the lot.
(24) 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 (7½) 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.
(35) 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. Any person applying for a building permit for such a
building shall sign and record with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder an
affidavit stating that such accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit.
All applicable building permits issued for such buildings shall be conditioned
upon this prohibition. 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 (7½) 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.
(46) 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)
5
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 (7½)
feet.
(5) Floor Area 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.
Section 3. That Section 4.7(E) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(E) Dimensional Standards.
. . .
(4) Minimum Side Yard and Maximum Wall Height. Minimum side yard width shall
be five (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a building wall
or building along a side lot line exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, as measured
from the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, such
portion of the building 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 building wall or building height that exceeds eighteen
(18) feet in height, except as provided in “a” below. 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).
(a) Solar Access Setbacks. For building construction that results in:
1. a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously
existed, or
2. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
3. an addition that results in a total square footage of more than three
thousand (3,000) square feet, and
4. construction on a lot where there is a lot abutting the north side of
the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story,
building height shall be reduced to preserve solar access on adjacent lots such that
whenever any portion of a north-facing side building wall that adjoins a lot to the
north exceeds fourteen (14) feet in height, as measured from the existing grade at
the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, such portion of the building wall
shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot beyond
the minimum required, for each one (1) foot, or fraction thereof, of building wall
that exceeds fourteen (14) feet in height. For lots that are forty (40) feet or less in
6
width, the fourteen (14) foot starting height may be increased by one (1) foot for
each one (1) foot of decreased lot width up to a maximum starting height of
eighteen (18) feet.
Figure XX: Minimum Side Yard Width and Maximum Building Wall Height
*Applies only to north-facing building walls adjoining a property to the north for
building construction that results in a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house
previously existed, or when the construction is for a new house that is greater than two
thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, or for an addition that results in a total square
footage of more than three thousand (3,000) square feet, and where there is a lot abutting
the north side of the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story.
(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 (1-1/2) stories.
Section 4. That Section 4.7(F) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(F) Development Standards.
(1) Building Design.
7
. . .
(h) Front Façade Character. When building construction results in:
1. a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously
existed and where there is at least one (1) lot abutting the side of
the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story,
or
2. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
3. a second-story addition that results in a total square footage of
more than three thousand (3,000) square feet
at least one (1) front façade feature from the menu below shall be included
to promote pedestrian orientation and compatibility with the character of
the structures on the block face:
Figure XX: Menu of Design Options for Front Façade Character
Limited Two Story Façade
Two-story front-façade width is no more than 40’,
with any remaining two-story front façade set back
an additional six (6) feet from the street.
One Story Element
The portion of the façade closest to the street is
one-story, with any two-story façade set back an
additional six (6) feet from the street.
Covered Entry Feature
8
A covered entry feature such as a front porch or
stoop is located on the front façade. The feature
shall have a minimum depth of at least six (6) feet.
(as measured from the building façade to the posts
and railings) and a minimum length of eight (8) feet.
(i) Side Façade Character. When building construction results in:
1. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
2. a second-story addition that results in a total square footage of
more than three thousand (3,000) square feet
at least one (1) side façade feature from the menu below shall be included to
address potential looming and privacy impacts on neighbors:
9
Figure XX: Menu of Design Options for Side Façade Character
Wall Offset
Two-story façade width at the minimum side yard is no
more than forty (40) feet, with any remaining two-story
façade set back an additional six (6) feet beyond the
minimum required side yard.
Step Down in Height
Two-story façade width at the minimum side
yard is no more than forty (40) feet, with any
remaining façade width at the minimum side
yard reduced to one-story.
One Story Element
A one-story building element with a minimum depth of
six (6) feet is located at the minimum side yard.
Additional Setback
Any two-story façade is set back an additional
six (6) feet beyond the minimum required side
yard.
. . .
Section 5. That Section 4.8(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(D) Land Use Standards.
(1) Density/Intensity of Development Required Lot Area. Minimum lot area shall be
equivalent to at least two (2) times the total floor area of the building(s), but not
be less than the following: five thousand (5,000) square feet for a single-family or
10
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 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 (71/2) 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) Allowable Floor Area on Lots.
(a) The allowable floor area shall be as follows:
(1) On a lot of less than four thousand (4,000) square feet, the
allowable floor area for single-family dwellings and buildings
accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed fifty (50)
percent of the lot area.
(2) On a lot that is between four thousand (4,000) square feet and ten
thousand (10,000) square feet, the allowable floor area for single-
family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family
dwellings shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the lot area
plus one thousand (1,000) square feet. On a lot that is between six
thousand (6,000) square feet and ten thousand (10,000) square feet,
an additional two hundred-fifty (250) square feet shall be added for
a detached accessory structure.
(3) On a lot that is more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, the
allowable floor area for single-family dwellings and buildings
accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed thirty-five
(35) percent of the lot area, plus two hundred-fifty (250) square
feet for a detached accessory structure.
(4) The allowable floor area for buildings containing permitted uses
other than single-family dwellings and buildings accessory to
single-family dwellings shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the
lot area.
(b) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, one hundred (100)
percent of the floor area of the following spaces and building elements
shall be included:
(1) The total 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 floor area of the ground floor
11
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 (7-1/2) feet
located within such accessory building located on the lot.
(2) Basement floor areas where the exterior basement walls are
exposed by more than three (3) feet above adjacent finished grade.
(3) Roofed porches, balconies and breezeways that are enclosed on
more than two (2) sides.
(c) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the
following spaces and building elements shall be counted at two hundred
(200) percent:
High volume spaces on the first or second floor where the distance
between the floor and the ceiling or roof rafters directly above is greater
than fourteen (14) feet.
(d) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the
following spaces and building elements shall not be included:
The first two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of a detached accessory
building, provided that it is located behind a street-fronting principal
building and is separated from such principal building by at least ten (10)
feet
(3) Allowable Floor Area on Rear Half of Lots. The allowable floor area on the rear
half of a lot shall not exceed thirty-three (33) percent of the area of the rear fifty
(50) percent of the lot.
(24) 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 (7½) 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.
(35) 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. Any person applying for a building permit for such a
12
building shall sign and record with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder an
affidavit stating that such accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit.
All applicable building permits issued for such buildings shall be conditioned
upon this prohibition. 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 (7½) 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.
(46) 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 (7½)
feet.
(5) Floor Area 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.
Section 6. That Section 4.8(E) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(E) Dimensional Standards
. . .
(4) Minimum Side Yard and Maximum Wall Height. Minimum side yard width shall
be five (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a building wall
or building along a side lot line exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, as measured
from the natural grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, such portion
of the building 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 building wall or building height that exceeds eighteen (18) feet
in height, except as provided for in “a” below. 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).
(a) Solar Access Setbacks. For building construction that results in:
13
1. a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously
existed, or
2. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
3. an addition that results in a total square footage of more than three
thousand (3,000) square feet, and
4. construction on a lot where there is a lot abutting the north side of
the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story
building height shall be reduced to preserve solar access on adjacent lots
such that whenever any portion of a north-facing side building wall that
adjoins a lot to the north exceeds fourteen (14) feet in height, as measured
from the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall,
such portion of the building wall shall be set back from the interior side lot
line an additional one (1) foot beyond the minimum required, for each one
(1) foot, or fraction thereof, of building wall that exceeds fourteen (14)
feet in height. For lots that are forty (40) feet or less in width, the fourteen
(14) foot starting height may be increased by one (1) foot for each one (1)
foot of decreased lot width up to a maximum starting height of eighteen
(18) feet.
Figure XX: Minimum Side Yard Width and Maximum Building Wall Height
14
*Applies only to north-facing building walls adjoining a property to the north for
building construction that results in a two (2) story where a one (1) story previously
existed, or when the construction is for a new house that is greater than two thousand five
hundred (2,500) square feet, or for an addition that results in a total square footage of
more than three thousand (3,000) square feet, and where there is a lot abutting the north
side of the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story.
(5) Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case of
carriage houses, and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which
shall be a maximum of one and one-half (11/2) stories.
Section 7. That Section 4.8(F) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
(F) Development Standards
(1) Building Design.
. . .
(h) Front Façade Character. When building construction results in:
1. a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously
existed and where there is an abutting house on either side that is
one (1) story, or
2. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
3. a second-story addition that results in a total square footage of
more than three thousand (3,000) square feet
at least one (1) front façade feature from the menu below shall be included
to promote pedestrian orientation and compatibility with the character of
structures on the block face:
15
Figure XX: Menu of Design Options for Front Façade Character
Limited Two Story Façade
Two-story front-façade width is no more than 40’,
with any remaining two-story front façade set back
an additional six (6) feet from the street.
One Story Element
The portion of the façade closest to the street is
one-story, with any two-story façade set back an
additional six (6) feet from the street.
lCovered Entry Feature
A covered entry feature such as a front porch or
stoop is located on the front façade. The feature
shall have a minimum depth of at least six (6) feet
(as measured from the building façade to the posts
and railings) and a minimum length of eight (8) feet.
(i) Side Façade Character. When building construction results in:
1. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
16
2. a second-story addition that results in a total square footage of
more than three thousand (3,000) square feet
at least one (1) side façade feature from the menu below shall be included to
address potential looming and privacy impacts on neighbors:
Figure XX: Menu of Design Options for Side Façade Character
Wall Offset
Two-story façade width at the minimum side yard is no
more than forty (40) feet, with any remaining two-story
façade set back an additional six (6) feet beyond the
minimum required side yard.
Step Down in Height
Two-story façade width at the minimum side
yard is no more than forty (40) feet, with any
remaining façade width at the minimum side
yard reduced to one-story.
One Story Element
A one-story building element with a minimum depth of
six (6) feet is located at the minimum side yard.
Additional Setback
Any two-story façade is set back an additional
six (6) feet beyond the minimum required side
yard.
17
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of
February, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 5th day of March, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 5th day of March, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
1
OPTION “B”
ORDINANCE NO. 033, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
LAND USE CODE PERTAINING TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
EASTSIDE AND WESTSIDE NEIGHBORHOODS CHARACTER STUDY
WHEREAS, in 2010, City staff conducted an Eastside/Westside Neighborhood Study
which resulted in an ordinance being approved by the City Council which was later repealed in
response to a citizen petition; and
WHEREAS, in June 2011, City staff initiated a new Eastside/Westside Neighborhood
Character Study (the “Study”) after receiving direction from City Council to take a fresh look at
neighborhood compatibility and character issues in the neighborhoods near downtown; and
WHEREAS, the basis of the Study is to respond to continued concerns with respect to
potential impacts of building additions and new construction in the City’s oldest neighborhoods;
and
WHEREAS, the Study process included extensive public outreach and the consideration
of the proposed Code changes arising from the Study by the Planning and Zoning Board, the
Landmark Preservation Commission, the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Building Review
Board; and
WHEREAS, the direction from the Study is to amend the Land Use Code in the
following particulars:
1. Expand the existing notification distance for some Zoning Board of Appeals
variance requests;
2. Adjust the method for calculating allowable floor area;
3. Adjust the method for measuring the height of a new wall along a side lot line;
4. Incorporate a new solar access standard; and
5. Incorporate new design standards with a menu of options for front and side
building façade features; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed changes to the Land Use
Code are in the best interests of the City.
2
NOW, THERFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 2.10.2(F) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(F) Step 6 (Notice): Section 2.2.6(A) only applies, except that “5800 feet” shall be
changed to “150 feet”, and for single-family houses in the NCL and NCM zone
districts, eight hundred (800) feet shall be changed to five hundred (500) feet for
variance requests for:
(a) Construction that results in a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house
previously existed and where there is at least one (1) lot abutting the side of
the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story; or
(b) Construction of a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred
(2,500) square feet; or
(c) Construction of an addition that results in a total square footage of more than
three thousand (3,000) square feet;
and "14 days" shall be changed to "7 days," everywhere they occur in Section
2.2.6.(A). Section 2.2.6(B)-(D) shall not apply.
Section 2. That Section 4.7(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(D) Land Use Standards.
(1) Density Required Lot Area. Minimum lot area shall be equivalent to at least two
and one-half (21/2) times the total floor area of the building(s), but not be 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 (71/2) 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) Allowable Floor Area on Lots.
(a) The allowable floor area shall be as follows:
3
(1) The allowable floor area for all buildings shall not exceed forty
(40) percent of the lot area.
(b) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, one hundred (100)
percent of the floor area of the following spaces and building
elements shall be included:
(1) The total 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 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 (7-1/2) feet
located within such accessory building on the lot.
(2) Basement floor areas where the exterior basement walls are
exposed by more than three (3) feet above adjacent finished grade.
(3) Roofed porches, balconies and breezeways that are enclosed on
more than two sides.
(c) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the
following spaces and building elements shall be counted at two hundred
(200) percent:
High volume spaces on the first or second floor where the distance
between the floor and the ceiling or roof rafters directly above is greater
than fourteen (14) feet.
(d) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the
following spaces and building elements shall not be included:
The first two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of a detached accessory
building, provided that it is located behind a street-fronting principal
building and is separated from such principal building by at least ten (10)
feet.
(3) Allowable Floor Area on Rear Half of Lots. The allowable floor area on the rear
half of a lot shall not exceed twenty five (25) percent of the area of the rear fifty
(50) percent of the lot.
(24) 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
4
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 (7½) 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.
(35) 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. Any person applying for a building permit for such a
building shall sign and record with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder an
affidavit stating that such accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit.
All applicable building permits issued for such buildings shall be conditioned
upon this prohibition. 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 (7½) 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.
(46) 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 (7½)
feet.
(5) Floor Area 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.
Section 3. That Section 4.7(E) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(E) Dimensional Standards.
. . .
(4) Minimum Side Yard and Maximum Wall Height. Minimum side yard width
shall be five (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a building wall or
building along a side lot line exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, as measured from the existing
grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, such portion of the building wall or
building shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot, beyond the
5
minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of building wall or building height
that exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, except as provided in “a” below. 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).
(a) Solar Access Setbacks. For building construction that results in:
1. a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously
existed, or
2. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
3. an addition that results in a total square footage of more than three
thousand (3,000) square feet, and
4. construction on a lot where there is a lot abutting the north side of
the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story,
building height shall be reduced to preserve solar access on adjacent lots such that
whenever any portion of a north-facing side building wall that adjoins a lot to the
north exceeds fourteen (14) feet in height, as measured from the existing grade at
the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, such portion of the building wall
shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot beyond
the minimum required, for each one (1) foot, or fraction thereof, of building wall
that exceeds fourteen (14) feet in height. For lots that are forty (40) feet or less in
width, the fourteen (14) foot starting height may be increased by one (1) foot for
each one (1) foot of decreased lot width up to a maximum starting height of
eighteen (18) feet.
Figure XX: Minimum Side Yard Width and Maximum Building Wall Height
6
*Applies only to north-facing building walls adjoining a property to the north for
building construction that results in a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house
previously existed, or when the construction is for a new house that is greater than two
thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, or for an addition that results in a total square
footage of more than three thousand (3,000) square feet, and where there is a lot abutting
the north side of the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story.
(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 (1-1/2) stories.
Section 4. That Section 4.7(F) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(F) Development Standards.
(1) Building Design.
. . .
(h) Front Façade Character. When building construction results in:
1. a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously
existed and where there is at least one (1) lot abutting the side of
the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story,
or
7
2. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
3. a second-story addition that results in a total square footage of
more than three thousand (3,000) square feet
at least one (1) front façade feature from the menu below shall be included
to promote pedestrian orientation and compatibility with the character of
the structures on the block face:
Figure XX: Menu of Design Options for Front Façade Character
Limited Two Story Façade
Two-story front-façade width is no more than 40’,
with any remaining two-story front façade set back
an additional six (6) feet from the street.
One Story Element
The portion of the façade closest to the street is
one-story, with any two-story façade set back an
additional six (6) feet from the street.
Covered Entry Feature
8
A covered entry feature such as a front porch or
stoop is located on the front façade. The feature
shall have a minimum depth of at least six (6) feet.
(as measured from the building façade to the posts
and railings) and a minimum length of eight (8) feet.
(i) Side Façade Character. When building construction results in:
1. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
2. a second-story addition that results in a total square footage of
more than three thousand (3,000) square feet
at least one (1) side façade feature from the menu below shall be included to
address potential looming and privacy impacts on neighbors:
9
Figure XX: Menu of Design Options for Side Façade Character
Wall Offset
Two-story façade width at the minimum side yard is no
more than forty (40) feet, with any remaining two-story
façade set back an additional six (6) feet beyond the
minimum required side yard.
Step Down in Height
Two-story façade width at the minimum side
yard is no more than forty (40) feet, with any
remaining façade width at the minimum side
yard reduced to one-story.
One Story Element
A one-story building element with a minimum depth of
six (6) feet is located at the minimum side yard.
Additional Setback
Any two-story façade is set back an additional
six (6) feet beyond the minimum required side
yard.
. . .
Section 5. That Section 4.8(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(D) Land Use Standards.
(1) Density/Intensity of Development Required Lot Area. Minimum lot area shall be
equivalent to at least two (2) times the total floor area of the building(s), but not
be less than the following: five thousand (5,000) square feet for a single-family or
10
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 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 (71/2) 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) Allowable Floor Area on Lots.
(a) The allowable floor area shall be as follows:
(1) The allowable floor area for all buildings shall not exceed fifty
(50) percent of the lot area.
(b) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, one hundred (100)
percent of the floor area of the following spaces and building elements
shall be included:
(1) The total 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 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 (7-1/2) feet
located within such accessory building located on the lot.
(2) Basement floor areas where the exterior basement walls are
exposed by more than three (3) feet above adjacent finished grade.
(3) Roofed porches, balconies and breezeways that are enclosed on
more than two (2) sides.
(c) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the
following spaces and building elements shall be counted at two hundred
(200) percent:
High volume spaces on the first or second floor where the distance
between the floor and the ceiling or roof rafters directly above is greater
than fourteen (14) feet.
(d) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the
following spaces and building elements shall not be included:
11
The first two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of a detached accessory
building, provided that it is located behind a street-fronting principal
building and is separated from such principal building by at least ten (10)
feet
(3) Allowable Floor Area on Rear Half of Lots. The allowable floor area on the rear
half of a lot shall not exceed thirty-three (33) percent of the area of the rear fifty
(50) percent of the lot.
(24) 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 (7½) 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.
(35) 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. Any person applying for a building permit for such a
building shall sign and record with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder an
affidavit stating that such accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit.
All applicable building permits issued for such buildings shall be conditioned
upon this prohibition. 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 (7½) 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.
(46) 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 (7½)
feet.
(5) Floor Area 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
12
25, 1991. The lot area used as the basis for the FAR calculation shall be
considered the minimum lot size within the zone district.
Section 6. That Section 4.8(E) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(E) Dimensional Standards
. . .
(4) Minimum Side Yard and Maximum Wall Height. Minimum side yard width shall
be five (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a building wall
or building along a side lot line exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, as measured
from the natural grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, such portion
of the building 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 building wall or building height that exceeds eighteen (18) feet
in height, except as provided for in “a” below. 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).
(a) Solar Access Setbacks. For building construction that results in:
1. a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously
existed, or
2. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
3. an addition that results in a total square footage of more than three
thousand (3,000) square feet, and
4. construction on a lot where there is a lot abutting the north side of
the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story
building height shall be reduced to preserve solar access on adjacent lots
such that whenever any portion of a north-facing side building wall that
adjoins a lot to the north exceeds fourteen (14) feet in height, as measured
from the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall,
such portion of the building wall shall be set back from the interior side lot
line an additional one (1) foot beyond the minimum required, for each one
(1) foot, or fraction thereof, of building wall that exceeds fourteen (14)
feet in height. For lots that are forty (40) feet or less in width, the fourteen
(14) foot starting height may be increased by one (1) foot for each one (1)
13
foot of decreased lot width up to a maximum starting height of eighteen
(18) feet.
Figure XX: Minimum Side Yard Width and Maximum Building Wall Height
*Applies only to north-facing building walls adjoining a property to the north for
building construction that results in a two (2) story where a one (1) story previously
existed, or when the construction is for a new house that is greater than two thousand five
hundred (2,500) square feet, or for an addition that results in a total square footage of
more than three thousand (3,000) square feet, and where there is a lot abutting the north
side of the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story.
(5) Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case of
carriage houses, and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which
shall be a maximum of one and one-half (11/2) stories.
Section 7. That Section 4.8(F) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
(F) Development Standards
(1) Building Design.
. . .
(h) Front Façade Character. When building construction results in:
14
1. a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously
existed and where there is an abutting house on either side that is
one (1) story, or
2. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
3. a second-story addition that results in a total square footage of
more than three thousand (3,000) square feet
at least one (1) front façade feature from the menu below shall be included
to promote pedestrian orientation and compatibility with the character of
structures on the block face:
15
Figure XX: Menu of Design Options for Front Façade Character
Limited Two Story Façade
Two-story front-façade width is no more than 40’,
with any remaining two-story front façade set back
an additional six (6) feet from the street.
One Story Element
The portion of the façade closest to the street is
one-story, with any two-story façade set back an
additional six (6) feet from the street.
lCovered Entry Feature
A covered entry feature such as a front porch or
stoop is located on the front façade. The feature
shall have a minimum depth of at least six (6) feet
(as measured from the building façade to the posts
and railings) and a minimum length of eight (8) feet.
(i) Side Façade Character. When building construction results in:
1. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
16
2. a second-story addition that results in a total square footage of
more than three thousand (3,000) square feet
at least one (1) side façade feature from the menu below shall be included to
address potential looming and privacy impacts on neighbors:
Figure XX: Menu of Design Options for Side Façade Character
Wall Offset
Two-story façade width at the minimum side yard is no
more than forty (40) feet, with any remaining two-story
façade set back an additional six (6) feet beyond the
minimum required side yard.
Step Down in Height
Two-story façade width at the minimum side
yard is no more than forty (40) feet, with any
remaining façade width at the minimum side
yard reduced to one-story.
One Story Element
A one-story building element with a minimum depth of
six (6) feet is located at the minimum side yard.
Additional Setback
Any two-story façade is set back an additional
six (6) feet beyond the minimum required side
yard.
17
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of
February, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 5th day of March, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 5th day of March, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
A change
fill dirt h
than plen
logic beh
Easts
Januar
open house
eeting reflect
and verbal c
ges relating t
borhoods Ch
written and v
do you live?
2 people who
hborhoods a
ns should be
eighborhood
ation Action
existing des
fication of va
ntary design
wall height m
area ratio (F
tial Actions:
alconies as p
er action on
discussions
rovements fr
see if you ca
symmetrical
eady remove
comments
with the new
hange 250 sq
e to the floor
hauled in to i
nty. GARAG
hind the addi
side and We
y 30, 20
Summ
meeting wa
ted an inform
omments. S
to implemen
haracter Stud
verbal comm
Do you ow
o signed our
and 28 are re
e adopted to
ds? (Numbe
n
sign assistanc
ariances
guidelines
measurement
FAR) measur
art of FAR
any non-vol
among neig
rom previous
an tweak lim
l roofs. Ask
ed by commu
on the pote
ways of mea
q.ft. to 500 s
r area ratio c
ncrease grad
GES SHOUL
itional 600 s
stside Neigh
013 Pub
mary of
s held on Jan
mal “drop in
Staff also pro
tation of the
dy.
ments receive
wn or rent?
r roster, 33 c
esidents or ow
o address th
ers in Table
ce
t
rement
luntary issue
ghbors prior t
s (2010?) pro
ited side wa
k Boulder how
unity. Help
ntial revisio
asuring FAR
sq.ft.
calculation, t
de, inappropr
LD COUNT
q.ft. garage!
hborhoods C
blic Op
Public
nuary 30, 20
n” style for ci
ovided two b
e recommend
ed by staff:
ompleted a c
wners within
he identified
represent #
Imple
19
Revis
standa
19 Limit
21 Addre
19 Addre
17 Take n
es
to large prop
oposal
ll height to p
w they will f
folks with d
ons to existi
R & sliding s
to count high
riate. I feel
T TOWARD
If someone
Character St
pen Hou
Comm
013 with an e
itizens to rev
brief overvie
ded strategy
comment sh
n the two ne
d objectives
# of people r
ementation
e maximum
ards
side wall he
ess front faça
ess side faça
no action
posed chang
promote sola
fix this prob
design!!
ing maximu
scale by lot s
h ceilings, is
that 40% an
S THE PER
e wants a sm
tudy
use Me
ments
estimated 60
view the pro
ew presentati
options from
heet. Five di
ighborhoods
and issues
responding
Action
m floor area ra
eight to prom
ade characte
ade character
ges
ar access so
blem.
um floor are
size
s appropriate
nd 50% floor
RCENTAGE
maller house
eeting
0-70 in atten
oject informa
ions of the p
m the Eastsid
d not own or
s.
for the East
to question
atio (FAR)
mote solar ac
er
r
we don’t ge
ea ratio (FA
e. The chang
r area ratios
. I never un
and a larger
ndance. The
ation and
proposed
de &
r live in the
tside and
)
16
ccess 19
17
13
8
t a bunch of
AR)
ge to address
are more
nderstood the
r garage,
6
9
7
3
8
f
s
e
impact on
Overall F
Should th
Do large
Easts
Janua
ood working
included a s
of the recom
written and v
do you live?
3 people atte
or owners w
comments
ards?
ome owner to
n-law unit fo
I really like
the crazy wi
ward to calc
d a two car g
proposed fo
asurements f
r of adjacent
in right direc
5,000 sq.ft.
guring ratios
ation?
the height of
rregular lot s
ch flexibility
how the garag
his different
for review.
out shifting m
ent propertie
ny lots woul
reduced FAR
n smaller lot
FARs are low
he FAR of 0
patios and d
side and We
ary 16,
Summ
group meeti
staff overvie
mmended stra
verbal comm
Do you ow
ending the m
within the tw
and feedba
o distribute m
or lots under
this change.
illy nilly stuf
culating how
garage.
r std’s
from ground
t homes.
ction – looks
to table.
, is preserva
f a basement
sizes/lot con
y is allowabl
ge is counted
from the pre
more square
es than havin
ld fit into the
R, which is p
ts, especially
wer, but con
.33 for the b
decks count t
stside Neigh
2013 W
mary of
ings were he
ew presentati
ategy option
ments receive
wn or rent?
meeting, two
wo neighborh
ck on the po
more of the
r 10,000 sq.f
It seems to
ff that’s been
w new standa
d level vs. rai
s good to me
ation of solar
t that is inclu
nfigurations h
le?
d – would ge
evious FAR
e footage to t
ng a larger h
e under 40’ w
probably ok o
y when you a
struction stil
back half of t
toward FAR
hborhoods C
Working
Public
eld on Janua
ion of potent
ns from the E
ed by staff:
did not own
hoods.
otential rev
sq.ft. to the
ft.
o be still very
n going on.
ards would af
ised. Apprec
e but photo e
r access of ad
uded in FAR
handled?
et a 250 SF e
? Concerne
the back of th
house or addi
width except
on larger lot
add in the im
ll tends to fa
the lot be ret
R?
Character St
g Grou
Comm
ary 16, 2013
tial new Lan
Eastside & W
n or live in th
visions to exi
back of the
y gracious to
ffect my pla
ciate the rev
examples wo
djacent prop
R measureme
exception fo
d about proc
the lot (i.e. in
ition near th
tion?
ts of 9,000 sf
mpacts of the
all within thi
tained or rem
tudy
up Meet
ments
with 22 in a
nd Use Code
Westside Nei
he two neigh
isting maxim
lot such as a
o new builde
ans to demoli
vision to FAR
ould be nice.
perties (rear y
ent?
or a detached
cess and this
nto carriage
he front of th
f or 10,000 s
e solar acces
is formula.
moved – give
ting
attendance. T
e changes rel
ighborhoods
hborhoods an
mum floor a
a carriage ho
ers while reig
ish my one c
R in keeping
. Add actual
yards) taken
d garage.
s being done
house) – ma
he lot
sf but concer
ss requireme
en these low
The agenda
lating to
s Character
nd 21 are
area ratio
ouse or
gning in
car garage
g with the
l FAR for
n into
too quickly
ay be better
rned about
ents.
wer FARs?
,
ATTACHMENT 5
Building Side Wall
Height
Maximum building height at the minimum side yard setback
(five feet) to be measured from the lot’s natural grade rather
than improved finished grade shall not exceed eighteen (18)
feet in height.
Building wall height above 18 feet in height, shall be set back
one foot, for each two feet of building wall exceeding 18
feet.
Minimum side yard width shall be fifteen feet on the street
side of a corner lot.
Adjust
Measurement
Method for Building
Side Wall Height
New Solar Access
Standard
Maximum building height at the minimum side yard setback (five feet) to be
measured from the lot’s existing grade rather than improved finished grade
shall not exceed eighteen (18) feet in height.
Building wall height above 18 feet in height, shall be set back one foot, for
each two feet of building wall exceeding 18 feet.
Minimum side yard width shall be fifteen feet on the street side of a corner
lot
For building construction that results in a new house that is greater than
two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, or for an addition that
results in a total square footage of more than three thousand (3,000)
square feet, height shall be reduced to preserve solar access on adjacent
lots as follows:
Whenever any portion of a north‐facing building wall that adjoins a lot to
the north exceeds twelve (14) feet in height, as measured from the natural
grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, such portion of the
building wall shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional
one (1) foot beyond the minimum required, for each one (1) foot, or
fraction thereof, of building wall that exceeds twelve (14) feet in height.
Measurement method for maximum
building side wall height is the same for
both Ordinances
New solar access standard
Develop New Design
Standards
Design standards not supported due to the complexity of
legislating the many variables of design in neighborhoods with a
variety of housing styles.
Incorporate
Additional Building
Front and Side
Façade Standards
Menu of design options for front and side façade character in the N‐C‐L and
N‐C‐M zoning districts.
Applied to building construction that results in a new two‐story house
larger than 2,500 SF, or second story addition that results in more than
3,000 SF.
New building façade design standards
ATTACHMENT 4
Floor Area
Allowance
Total
Allowed
Floor
Area
3,000 0.40 0 1200 0.40 0 1,200 0.45 0 1,350 3,000 0.50 0 1,500 0.50 0 1,500 0.45 0 1,350
4,000 0.40 0 1600 0.40 0 1,600 0.40 0 1,600 4,000 0.50 0 2,000 0.50 0 2,000 0.40 0 1,600
5,000 0.40 0 2000 0.40 0 2,000 0.37 0 1,850 5,000 0.50 0 2,500 0.45 0 2,250 0.37 0 1,850
6,000 0.40 0 2400 0.41 250 2,450 0.39 250 2,350 6,000 0.50 0 3,000 0.46 250 2,750 0.39 250 2,350
7,000 0.40 0 2800 0.38 250 2,650 0.37 250 2,600 7,000 0.50 0 3,500 0.43 250 3,000 0.37 250 2,600
8,000 0.40 0 3200 0.36 250 2,850 0.36 250 2,850 8,000 0.50 0 4,000 0.41 250 3,250 0.36 250 2,850
9,000 0.40 0 3600 0.34 250 3,050 0.34 250 3,100 9,000 0.50 0 4,500 0.39 250 3,500 0.34 250 3,100
10,000 0.40 0 4000 0.33 250 3,250 0.34 250 3,350 10,000 0.50 0 5,000 0.38 250 3,750 0.34 250 3,350
11,000 0.40 0 4400 0.32 250 3,550 0.33 250 3,600 11,000 0.50 0 5,500 0.37 250 4,100 0.33 250 3,600
12,000 0.40 0 4800 0.32 250 3,850 0.32 250 3,850 12,000 0.50 0 6,000 0.37 250 4,450 0.32 250 3,850
13,000 0.40 0 5200 0.32 250 4,150 0.32 250 4,100 13,000 0.50 0 6,500 0.37 250 4,800 0.32 250 4,100
14,000 0.40 0 5600 0.32 250 4,450 0.31 250 4,350 14,000 0.50 0 7,000 0.37 250 5,150 0.31 250 4,350
15,000 0.40 0 6000 0.32 250 4,750 0.31 250 4,600 15,000 0.50 0 7,500 0.37 250 5,500 0.31 250 4,600
All Lots: All Lots:
Lot < 5,000 sf: Lot < 4,000 sf:
2011 Standard
Comparison of Existing and Potential Floor Area Standards
2011 Standard Existing Standard 2013 Standard
N‐C‐L N‐C‐M
Existing Standard 2013 Standard
Lot Size * 0.50 = Max. Floor Area
Lot ≥ 4,000 and
< 10,000 sf
Lot Size * 0.25 + 1,000 (+250 sf in detached rear accessory
structure on lots ≥ 5,000 sf) = Max. Floor Area
Lot ≥ 10,000 sf
Lot Size * 0.35 (+250 sf in detached rear accessory structure) =
Max. Floor Area
Lot ≥ 5,000 and
< 10,000 sf
Lot ≥ 10,000 sf
Lot Size * 0.20 + 1,000 (+250 sf in detached rear accessory
structure on lots ≥ 5,000 sf) = Max. Floor Area
Lot Size * 0.30 (+250 sf in detached rear accessory structure) =
Max. Floor Area
Lot Size * 0.40 = Max. Floor Area
2013 FAR Option for N‐C‐L
Existing FAR Standard for N‐C‐L Existing FAR Standard for N‐C‐M
Lot Size * 0.40 = Max Floor Area Lot Size * 0.50 = Max Floor Area
2013 FAR Option for N‐C‐M
ATTACHMENT 3
FAR
3,000 0.40 0 1200 0.40 1,200 0 0 1,200 0.40 3,000 0.50 0 1,500 0.50 1,500 0 0 1,500 0.50
4,000 0.40 0 1600 0.40 1,600 0 0 1,600 0.40 4,000 0.50 0 2,000 0.25 1,000 1,000 0 2,000 0.50
5,000 0.40 0 2000 0.20 1,000 1,000 0 2,000 0.40 5,000 0.50 0 2,500 0.25 1,250 1,000 0 2,250 0.45
6,000 0.40 0 2400 0.20 1,200 1,000 250 2,450 0.41 6,000 0.50 0 3,000 0.25 1,500 1,000 250 2,750 0.46
7,000 0.40 0 2800 0.20 1,400 1,000 250 2,650 0.38 7,000 0.50 0 3,500 0.25 1,750 1,000 250 3,000 0.43
8,000 0.40 0 3200 0.20 1,600 1,000 250 2,850 0.36 8,000 0.50 0 4,000 0.25 2,000 1,000 250 3,250 0.41
9,000 0.40 0 3600 0.20 1,800 1,000 250 3,050 0.34 9,000 0.50 0 4,500 0.25 2,250 1,000 250 3,500 0.39
10,000 0.40 0 4000 0.30 3,000 0 250 3,250 0.33 10,000 0.50 0 5,000 0.35 3,500 0 250 3,750 0.38
11,000 0.40 0 4400 0.30 3,300 0 250 3,550 0.32 11,000 0.50 0 5,500 0.35 3,850 0 250 4,100 0.37
12,000 0.40 0 4800 0.30 3,600 0 250 3,850 0.32 12,000 0.50 0 6,000 0.35 4,200 0 250 4,450 0.37
13,000 0.40 0 5200 0.30 3,900 0 250 4,150 0.32 13,000 0.50 0 6,500 0.35 4,550 0 250 4,800 0.37
14,000 0.40 0 5600 0.30 4,200 0 250 4,450 0.32 14,000 0.50 0 7,000 0.35 4,900 0 250 5,150 0.37
15,000 0.40 0 6000 0.30 4,500 0 250 4,750 0.32 15,000 0.50 0 7,500 0.35 5,250 0 250 5,500 0.37
All Lots: All Lots:
Lot < 5,000 sf: Lot < 4,000 sf:
Table 1 - Comparison of Existing and Potential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Standards
Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density Zone District (N-C-L)
Existing Standard Existing Standard
Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density Zone District (N-C-M)
2013 Standard 2013 Standard
Lot ≥ 4,000 and
< 10,000 sf
Lot ≥ 10,000 sf
Lot Size * 0.50 = Max. Floor Area
Lot Size * 0.25 + 1,000 (+250 sf in detached rear accessory structure on
lots ≥ 6,000 sf) = Max. Floor Area
Lot Size * 0.35 (+250 sf in detached rear accessory structure) = Max. Floor
Area
Lot ≥ 5,000 and
< 10,000 sf
Lot ≥ 10,000 sf
Lot Size * 0.20 + 1,000 (+250 sf in detached rear accessory structure on
lots ≥ 6,000 sf) = Max. Floor Area
Lot Size * 0.30 (+250 sf in detached rear accessory structure) = Max. Floor
Area
Lot Size * 0.40 = Max. Floor Area
2013 FAR Option for N-C-L
Existing FAR Standard for N-C-L
Lot Size * 0.40 = Max Floor Area
Existing FAR Standard for N-C-M
Lot Size * 0.50 = Max Floor Area
2013 FAR Option for N-C-M