HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 02/01/2011 - ITEMS RELATING TO THE EAST AND WEST SIDE NEIGHBORH 4
DATE: February 1, 2011 ILL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
STAFF: Joe Frank, Steve Dush _
Megan Bolin, Clark Mapes
T COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Items relating to the East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 002, 2011, Increasing the Membership of the Landmark Preservation
Commission and Expanding Its Functions to Include Establishing an Advisory Committee.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 003,2011, Making Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code
Pertaining to East Side and West Side Neighborhood Design Standards. (Option B or Option B Revised)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On January 4, 2011, City Council approved, on First Reading, two Ordinances related to the East and West Side
Neighborhoods Design Standards Study. Ordinance No. 002, 2011, amends City Code to add a function allowing a
committee of the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) to offer voluntary design consultation for interested
property owners, and increase the membership of the LPC from seven to nine members. Ordinance No. 003, 2011,
amends the Land Use Code by lowering the current limits for building floor area in the Neighborhood Conservation
Low Density(NCL)and Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density(NCM)zoning districts, by limiting floor area of
a single-family house to 27%of the lot area. Ordinance No. 003, 2011 also includes a requirement that any variance
request to the floor area limits receive a recommendation from a committee of the LPC to the Zoning Board of Appeals
(ZBA)for its consideration in deciding the variance request. Finally, this Ordinance also requires the City to monitor
the implementation of the Ordinance and report back to the City Council within two years.
i
At First Reading, Ordinance No. 003, 2011,was presented with two options, and the option approved by Council was
called Option B. For the Second Reading, Ordinance No. 003, 2011, is again being presented with two options.
Further investigation and discussion has led to a revised version of Ordinance No.003,2011,Option B,called"Option
B Revised". This revised version is to be considered upon Second Reading along with the original Option B version
approved upon First Reading. Both the original and revised versions of the Ordinance include several minor technical
clarifications to the Ordinance language.
In conjunction with approval of the two Ordinances,.Council acted to postpone the Second Reading until February 1
to allow more time for investigation of issues raised at First Reading. In particular, Council requested that staff explore
questions about the floor area limit standards in Ordinance No. 003, 2011, and seek further input from the Citizen
Advisory Committee and Planning and Zoning Board.
BACKGROUND/ DISCUSSION
The Ordinances being presented for Council consideration are the result of a study that began in January 2010 to
explore concerns about the compatibility of new single family house construction in the area. Particular concerns
involve small, older houses being removed and replaced with larger new construction. The fundamental question is
whether the City's current zoning regulations warrant revision to better reflect adopted polices for protecting
established neighborhood character.
To answer the question,City staff conducted a public planning process to examine concerns, identify issues,and then
identify potential options for changes to zoning standards and/or the design process. Attachment 1 is the Agenda Item
Summary from January 4, which is included to provide additional background on the process.
The process highlighted two closely interrelated aspects of compatibility:design character,and building size. Council
has considered potential options regarding both design character and building size in three work sessions. These
options considered by Council have included the following:
1. Lowering the current limits for allowable building floor area in the Neighborhood Conservation Low Density
(NCL) and Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density(NCM)zoning districts. Several approaches to this
topic have been considered.
February 1, 2011 -2- ITEM 21
2. Developing design standards.
3. Funding a Design Assistance Program.
4. Enabling the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC)to offer voluntary design consultation.
A majority of Council has found that changes to development standards may be warranted, and staff was directed to
proceed in preparing items 1, 3, and 4, above, for Council action.
Item 1, lowering current limits on floor area,emerged as the primary focus of the process. It has received the greatest
amount of attention, discussion, debate, and staff work. It is the subject of Ordinance No. 003, 2011,which is being
considered on Second Reading with two options, and it occupies the bulk of this Agenda Item Summary following the
brief explanation of items 2, 3, and 4 below.
Item 2,design standards,was not supported due to complexity and difficulty of legislating the many variables in house
design, especially given the eclectic variety of design styles found in the area..Additional reasons for lack of support
include the demands of effectively administering design standards,and past history of unsuccessful efforts to establish
such standards.
Item 3, the Design Assistance Program, was approved as part of an Ordinance adopting the 2011-2012 Budget on
December 21,2010. The Budget included$40,000 each year for a Design Assistance Program(DAP). The purpose
of the DAP is to address concerns about compatible design. The program will assist property owners building
additions or new houses with the costs of hiring a design professional.
Item 4, LPC Voluntary Design Consultation, is the subject of Ordinance No. 002, 2011, being considered on Second
Reading. It amends City Code to add a function enabling the Landmark Preservation Commission to offer voluntary
design consultation for interested property owners, and increase the membership of the LPC from seven to nine
members. The LPC is interested and willing to provide this service in order to foster compatibility. A committee of
the LPC would be formed to provide this service. Since some property owners receiving design consultation could
also conceivably become applicants to the LPC at some point,committee members would have to recuse themselves
from LPC decisions on those items. Therefore, LPC membership should be increased in order to avoid problems
meeting a quorum as necessary to take formal action. New policies and procedures for design consultation would
be prepared by City staff in consultation with the LPC.
Ordinance No. 003, 2011 Lowering Current Limits on Floor Area
The Problem
The NCL and NCM zones contain standards for building size that do not effectively implement adopted policies in the
East Side Neighborhood Plan, West Side Neighborhood Plan, and City Plan, which emphasize protection of the
existing established character of these neighborhoods. These current zoning standards emerged as a problem that
may warrant changes to the City's Land Use Code.
The standards limit floor area based on lot area. In the NCL zone, total floor area on a lot is limited to 40% of the lot
area. In the NCM zone, the limit is 50% of the lot area. House basements are not counted against the limit.
One of the few points of wide agreement from the study was that these existing standards do not reflect the
established development pattern prevailing throughout most of the area, in terms of allowable house size. In both
zones, more than nine out of ten lots have floor area less than 35%of lot area; more than seven out of ten lots have
floor area less than 25%of lot area. The difference between the established pattern of development and the current
standards has led to concerns that the standards allow new construction to be too large to be compatible with the
established pattern of development.
Building size as a percentage of lot area is often expressed as a Floor Area Ratio, or FAR,with the floor area divided
by the lot area. Thus, the current standards in the NCL and NCM zones can be stated as FAR limits of.40 and .50,
respectively. FAR is a common and useful term in zoning regulations to deal with the size of buildings. Attachment 2
shows FAR data for existing houses in the two zones.
Ordinance No. 003, 2011 amends the Land Use Code to lower the allowable floor area limits, and thus, the allowable
size of new houses and additions, in order to better align zoning standards with predominant established development
patterns throughout the area.
February 1, 2011 -3- ITEM 21
Ordinance No. 003, 2011 Option B
The version of the Ordinance adopted on January 4 was called Option B, and that term is being carried forward to
Second Reading, because an "Option B Revised" version is also being presented for consideration upon Second
Reading.
Option B, as adopted on First Reading, lowers the current floor area limits in the NCL and NCM zones by limiting the
floor area of a single-family house to 27% of the lot area, also referred to as a .27 house Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
Table 1 below shows house sizes allowed under the proposed .27 house FAR standard.
Table 1: House Floor Area Allowed By .27 House FAR Standard
Lot Size (sq 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000
ft
House Floor
Area 1,080 1,350 1,620 1,890 2,160 2,430 2,700 2,970
Allowed (sq
ft
This approach of stating a maximum allowable floor area for a single-family house is slightly different from the current
approach in the two zones. The current approach states a total allowable floor area for all buildings on a lot, which
may often involve a garage, carriage house, or other accessory buildings in addition to the main house. Thus, under
current standards,the maximum allowable floor area could be allocated completely to a house,or it could be allocated
among multiple buildings on the lot, such as a house and garage.
Under the proposed .27 house FAR, a lot would also be allowed to have a detached garage, up to 600 square feet
(sq ft), in addition to the house allowance. In order to accurately compare existing standards for maximum allowed
total floor area with the proposed standard for maximum allowed house floor area, the additional detached garage
allowance must be added to the .27 FAR house allowance to find the total maximum allowance for comparison.
For example, on an 8,000 sq ft lot, the .27 house FAR allows 2,160 sq ft, and a 600 sq ft detached garage is also
allowed, giving a total potential floor area on the lot of 2,760 sq ft(a .35 total FAR). Therefore, it is the .35 total FAR
that should be compared to the .40 or.50 total FAR currently allowed, to understand the magnitude of the proposed
change.Attachment 4 is a table comparing the total potential floor area under a'.27 house FAR to existing standards.
Clarifications to Option B Since First Reading
To clarify what does and does not count as floor area in the proposed.27 house FAR standard, several changes have
been made to Ordinance No.003,2011 Option B since First Reading. The clarifications described below can be found
in Sections 4.7(D)(2)(c) and 4.8(D)(2)(c).
1. Detached Accessory Buildings. Detached accessory buildings (most commonly detached garages), are
not counted as floor area in the proposed .27 house FAR standard. However, there was nothing in the
proposed standard that specified the extent to which a detached accessory building must be separated from
a house. Presumably, an inch of separation would have qualified a garage as detached. This would be
inconsistent with the intent to break up the appearance of a single larger building mass and encourage a
pattern of separate garages in the rear of lots. Therefore, staff proposes to revise the Ordinance to specify
that in order for a detached accessory building to not be counted as floor area, it must be built behind the main
house and separated by at least ten feet.
2. Attached Garages.As originally proposed, attached garages are not counted as floor area if more than half
of the houses on the block face have attached garages. The purpose of excluding attached garages in these
cases is because there are a few subdivisions in these neighborhoods where most or all of the houses have
attached garages. In order to allow houses in those areas to maintain the prevailing character,staff proposed
to exclude the floor area of their attached garages so that these properties would not be"penalized" in terms
of floor area, for having attached garages.
The consequence of this exclusion, as originally written,was that a property owner on a block of houses with
attached garages could replace or expand their house up to the proposed .27 house FAR and attach a 600
February 1, 2011 -4- ITEM 21
sq ft garage. The areas that are characterized by attached garages do not typically contain houses with 600
sq ft attached garages; most attached garages are smaller. Therefore, allowing these houses to rebuild and
attach a 600 sq ft garage would be out of character. Therefore, the Ordinance has been revised, to exclude
only 450 sq ft of attached garages if more than half of the houses on the block face have attached garages.
If a property owner desires an attached 600 sq ft garage, the allowance for the house size would thus be
reduced by the 150 sq ft difference.
3. Basements.Council also asked for a clarification as to what constitutes a basement.The Ordinance has been
amended to clarify that basements will not count as floor area, provided that no portion of the basement wall
is higher than three feet above the grade at the nearest side lot line perpendicular to the center of the wall.
Ordinance No. 003, 2011 Option B Revised
Option B Revised would apply a formula based on the size of a lot to determine total allowed floor area. As proposed,
the first 3,000 square feet of a lot would be allowed a .45 FAR, and then the remaining square feet would be allowed
a .25 FAR. For example, on a 7,000 sq ft lot, .45 is applied to the first 3,000 sq ft, which would allow 1,350 sq ft. A
FAR of .25 is applied to the remaining 4,000 sq ft of the lot which, when added to the first calculation, would allow
2,350 sq ft of floor area.
Note that this 2,350 sq ft is the total amount of floor area on the lot; if a property owner wanted to build a 600 sq ft
garage, their house would consequently be limited to 1,750 sq ft (2,350 sq ft-600 sq ft). Attachment 5 is a table
comparing this formula for total FAR to existing standards.Table 2 shows examples of floor areas allowed under the
formula.
Table 2: Total Floor Area Allowed By Formula for Total FAR
Lot Size
(sq ft) 4,000 5,000 6,000' 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000
3,000 @ .45 1,350 1,350 1,350 1,350 1,350 1,350 1,350 1,350
Remainder 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000
@ .25
Total Floor
Area 1,600 1,850 2,100 2,350 2,600 2,850 3,100 3,350
Allowed (sq
ft
This formula works to gradually decrease the total FAR as the lot size increases,and a majority of the Citizen Advisory
Committee thought that if this formula is adopted, the decrease in total FAR should stop at.32 rather than continuing
to decrease ad infinitum on larger lots. The formula would be applied to all lot sizes up to 9,000 sq ft,and then for lots
larger than 9,000 sq ft, the FAR would remain at .32.
Comparing the .27 House FAR(Option B)to the Formula for Total FAR (Option B Revised)
Potential house sizes under Option B Revised depend on whetheror not a garage(orother accessory building)is built.
If no garage is built, then potential house sizes are slightly larger than under Option B. If a 600 sq ft garage is built,
then potential house sizes are slightly smaller than under Option B. Thus, the allowances are fairly similar; house
allowances in Option B Revised "bracket' the house allowances in Option B. Despite the range of potential house
sizes under Option B Revised,its formula results in a slightly lowertotal FAR than the equivalent total FAR allowances
under the .27 house FAR standard.
One difference is that a property owner would have more flexibility under Option B Revised to allocate building space
between a house and garage. It also eliminates an potential incentive to build a garage to the 600 sq ft maximum
which may exist under Option B.
Attachment 8 is a table comparing the two options on various lot sizes. Attachment 9 is a graphic comparison of the
two options and current standards.
February 1, 2011 -5- ITEM 21
Other Land Use Code Revisions
Both Options contain two minor, technical clarifications to the Land Use Code in the NCL and NCM zones, along with
some minor text edits. The technical clarifications are related to the relevant zoning standards, and would revise the
way that house size is measured as described below:
1. Close the"volume loophole"that currently allows a single-story house to have twice the volume of a two-story
house. The Ordinance language would count space as a second floor, regardless of whether the floor is built,
where the height of the space exceeds that of a typical one-story house. Staff believes this will be a rarely
invoked, but worthwhile, clarification.
2. Change the point of measurement for side wall height to be at the property line rather than finished grade at
the base of the side wall. There is wide agreement that raising the ground level against a side wall should not
reduce the height measurement of new construction. The reasoning is that the height impacts of a side wall
are the same, whether or not dirt is piled against the wall.
In addition, in order to help ensure that any variance of the new house size standards adopted by Ordinance No. 003,
2011,does not result in new construction oradditions that are incompatible with the neighborhood,the Ordinance also
amends Section 2.10.2 of the Land Use Code,pertaining to variances,to require that any application for such variance
of these newstandards be accompanied bya written recommendation from a committee of the Landmark Preservation
Commission, as authorized under Section 2-278(b)(5) of the City Code.
Two-Year Review
Both Ordinance options also include a provision directing the City Manager to submit an evaluation report to the City
Council no later than January 31, 2013, on the experience with implementation of this Ordinance. The report will
assess whether implementation has achieved the purposes of furthering the compatibility of additions,alterations and
new houses, without hindering needed improvements and reinvestment in property, or creating undue hardships on
affected property owners desiring to expand their houses.
Due to the interplay of multiple implementation actions resulting from this study, i.e., design assistance, house size
limits,house measurement clarifications,etc.,there will not be one single measurement of success. All of the adopted
changes must be evaluated in their totality to determine whether the process results in more compatible structures.
Staff will monitor and compile objective and subjective data including, but not limited to:
• "Before-and-after" photos.
• Variance requests heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals, and outcomes.
• Log of citizen complaints and other comments.
• Size of the"original" structure; size of the finished structure.
• Log of property owners that participate in the Design Assistance Program, the amount they were awarded,
and outcomes.
• Log of property owners who seek design consultation from the LPC, and outcomes.
The evaluation report will be reviewed with the Landmark Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Board,and
Zoning Board of Appeals. Input from these boards and commissions will then be included in a presentation of the
report to City Council for final evaluation and discussion of any further actions that may be warranted.
Other House Size Limit Options Considered Since First Reading
Council requested that staff explore alternative house size limit options prior to Second Reading of the Ordinance.
Options considered include:
1. Increasing the FAR from .27 to a slightly higher allowance.
2. Using a formula for house FAR combined with sliding scale for garages
Increasing the FAR
For those concerned that a.27 house FAR is too limiting,one straightforward solution would be to simply increase the
FAR. The Citizen Advisory Committee(CAC)met on January 10,2011,to discuss the.27 house FAR and alternative
options. Ultimately, the CAC recommended that Council increase the house FAR to .30. The Committee preferred
February 1, 2011 -6- ITEM 21
applying one FAR standard to all lot sizes, and thought that the house size allowed under a .30 house FAR standard
is reasonable. Table 3 shows house sizes under this proposal.
Table 3: House Floor Area Allowed with .30 House FAR Standard
Lot Size (sq 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000
ft
House Floor
Area Allowed 1,200 1,500 1,800 2,100 2,400 2,700 3,000 3,300
(sq ft
Again, in order to accurately compare the magnitude of change that would occur if the house FARs were set at .30,
the allowance fora 600 sq ft detached garage must be factored in. Then,the total floor area allowed can be compared
to the .40 total FAR and .50 total FAR existing standards. Attachment 6 is a table comparing the .30 house FAR to
existing standards.
Using a Formula for House FAR with Sliding Scale for Detached Garages
Another suggested method was to use a similar formula approach as proposed in Option B Revised, but to adjust it
to allow a maximum house FAR, rather than total FAR,and then include allowances for a detached garage depending
on lot size. As proposed, the first 3,000 sq ft of a lot would be allowed a .40 FAR, with a .22 FAR applied to the
remaining lot size, to find the allowance for the house. Garages would then also be allowed, with up to 250 sq ft for
lots up to 6,000 sq ft, 425 sq ft for lots up to 9,500 sq ft, and 600 sq ft for all larger lots. Table 4 shows house and
garage sizes under this proposal.
Table 4: Total Floor Area Allowed By House FAR Formula with a Sliding Scale for Garages.
Lot Size 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000
(sq ft
3,000 @.40 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200
Remainder @ 220 440 660 880 1,100 1,320 1,540 1,760
.22
Allowed 1420 1,640 1,860 2,080 2,300 2,520 2,740 2,960
House Size
Allowed
Detached 250 250 425 425 425 425 600 600
Garage
Total Floor 11670 1,890 2,285 2,505 2,725 2,945 3,340 3,560
Area Allowed
The purpose of this proposal was to limit the size of garages based on lot size to prevent smaller lots from building
a maximum sized 600 sq ft detached garage, which would likely seem out-of-scale, and also to allow the particular
house sizes that would result from the formula.Attachment 7 is a table comparing this formula to existing standards.
Opposition to Reduction in Allowable Floor Area
Throughout the public process, concerns about larger new construction as a compatibility problem have been
countered by strong,widely held concerns that any lower building size limits or additional design review requirements
will hinder needed reinvestment and unduly hinder owners'ability to expand houses to meet their needs and desires.
February 1, 2011 -7- ITEM 21
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Economic&Planning Systems, Inc.was hired to conduct a limited economic impact analysis comparing the.27 house
FAR standard with the previously proposed average-plus 50% concept. With regard to new house construction, all
lots less than 7,400 sq ft would be restricted to homes smaller than 2,000 sq ft using the .27 house FAR. Overall, .27
is more restrictive in terms of allowed house size for smaller lots than for larger lots. Attachment 3 is the complete
Economic Impact Analysis.
Due to the amendments in the Land Use Code with regard to side wall height measurement and basement height
measurement, applicants will be required to hire a surveyor/engineer to prepare an elevation certification to submit
with their plans. This will result in approximately$300-600 of additional cost for the applicants.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Staff finds no direct or definable impact on environmental resources with any of these items. One concern that was
raised in the process was the protection of solar access. After careful analysis, staff determined that there is no
reasonable new standard for defining or controlling property owners' rights to solar access due to the established
pattern of development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council adopt Ordinance No. 002, 2011, on Second Reading.
Staff recommends that Council adopt Option B Revised of Ordinance No. 003, 2011,Making Amendments to the City
of Fort Collins Land Use Code Pertaining to East Side and West Side Neighborhood Design Standards.
Staff further recommends that implementation of both Ordinances be delayed until April 1, 2011, to allow sufficient
time to establish the appropriate systems to monitor the impacts on development, and establish policies and
procedures for the Design Assistance Program and LPC design consultation advisory committee.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its regular meeting on December 9,2010,the Planning and Zoning Board(P&Z)voted unanimously to recommend
Ordinance.No. 002, 2011. Since the Board did not have the opportunity to vote on Ordinance No. 003, 2001 Option
B, the Board met again on January 20, 2011. Both Option B and Option B Revised were presented, and the Board
voted unanimously to not recommend either option. The Board felt that the City's existing regulations are adequate
and that changes to house size limits are not warranted. See Attachment 10, the draft minutes from the January 20
hearing.
ATTACHMENTS
1. January 4, 2011 City Council Agenda Item Summary(w/o attachments)
2. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Data for the NCL and NCM Zoning Districts
3. Economic Impact Analysis
4. Table Comparing the .27 House FAR to Existing Standards
5. Table Comparing the Formula for Total FAR to Existing Standards
6. Table Comparing the .30 House FAR to Existing Standards
7. Table Comparing the Formula for House FAR with Sliding Scale for Garages to Existing Standards
8. Table Comparing Option B and Option B Revised to Existing Standards
9. Graphics Comparing Option B and Option B Revised to Existing Standards
10. January 20, 2011 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
11. PowerPoint Presentation
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: January 4, 2011 _
STAFF: Joe Frank, Steve Dush, _
Megan Bolin, Clark Mapes
Items Relating to the East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 002, 2011, Increasing the Membership of the Landmark Preservation
Commission and Expanding Its Functions to Include Establishing an Advisory Committee.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No; -Making Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code
Pertaining to East Side and West Side Neighborhood Design Standards (Option A or B).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study began in January 2010 to explore concerns that new
houses and additions are not compatible with the established character found in these core, older neighborhoods.
The fundamental question is whether the City's current regulations warrant revision to better reflect adopted policies
of protecting established neighborhood character. City Council confirmed that changes are necessary, and directed
staff to proceed with the implementation of items that would address the size and design of new construction. These
options would:
1. Allow the Landmark Preservation Gommiss of n to offer=voluntary design consultation.
2. Revise house size limits inrthe Neighborhoods Conseryation\Low Density (NCL) and Neighborhood
Conservation Medium Density(. NCM) zoning_ g districs—=� lvr
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Staff, at the direction of City Council, initiated a study in January 2010 to explore concerns related to the compatibility
of new single family houses and additions in Fort Collins' oldest neighborhoods. Some are concerned that a portion
of the new construction is not compatible with established neighborhood character. Of particular concern is that small,
older houses are being removed and replaced with larger new construction. The fundamental question is whether the
City's current zoning regulations warrant revision to better reflect adopted polices of protecting established
neighborhood character.
/ // \\ II 11� //
The Study explored these concerns+and clarified the issues through a public process. In February 2010, staff
presented an initial project scope and schedulelat a Cot<nc'l'woek session. The scope outlined the process and
methodology for the Study, which Counc`iLsupportedand directed staff toLproceed. (See Attachment 1, a summary
of the February 23, 2010 Council work session.) Aft_er numerous meetings with a Citizen Advisory Committee, and
two public meetings with neighborhood residents, a second Council work session was held in August to present the
results of the Study. (See Attachment 2,the Study's final report). Staff asked Council whether changes to regulations
were warranted to address the size and design of new construction, and several potential options were presented.
(See Attachment 3, a summary of the August 24,2010 Council work session.) Council confirmed that changes were
necessary and, at a third work session in November, directed staff to bring forward three options for formal Council
consideration. (See Attachment 4, a summary of the November 23, 2010 Council work session.) The three options
are:
1. Allocate funding for a Design�Assistance Program. .��
2. Allow the Landmark Preservation Commission to offer voI ntary�sign consultation.
)r
3. Revise house size limits. �� l� I �--J�
Staff has worked to take the necessary•steps towards•implern tation of each item.The Design Assistance Program
was submitted as a budget request,and the other options were developed into Ordinances. Each is discussed in detail
below.
January 4, 2011 -2- ITEM 13
Design Assistance Program
The purpose of the Design Assistance Program (DAP) is to address concerns about compatible design, and provide
financial assistance for professional design consultation and drawings. The process would be similar to the previous
DAP that was available to owners of historic landmark structures. The new DAP would be offered annually to
approximately 20 property owners proposing additions to existing structures or construction of new structures,within
the East Side and West Side Neighborhoods, regardless of whether or not they are a historic landmark.
On December 21, 2010, City Council approved, on Second Reading, an Ordinance adopting the Budget for 2011 and
2012, including $40,000 each year for the Design Assistance Program "pending decision about the East Side/West
Side design standards'. Once the Council has enacted Option A or B of Ordinance No. 003, 2011, no further Council
action will be needed to authorize the
funding for
the:DAAP.
ORDINANCE NO. 002, 2011 -Voluntary signiCons'Itat!L
3
Ordinance No.002,2011,amends City Code to add•a.function allowing the Landmark Preservation Commission(LPC)
to offer voluntary design consultation for interested property owners, and to increase the membership of the LPC from
seven to nine members. Currently the City does not review the design of new houses and additions, and the LPC is
interested and willing to provide this service in order to foster compatibility. A sub-committee of the LPC would be
formed to provide this service. Because some property owners receiving design assistance may also conceivably be
applicants to the LPC at some point, members of the sub-committee would have to recuse themselves from such
decision-making. Therefore, LPC membership should be increased in order to avoid problems meeting a quorum as
necessary to take formal action. The policies and procedures for design consultation would be prepared by City staff
in consultation with the LPC.
House Size Limits D
Regulating House Size
The issue that led to potential Land Use Code revisions is the size of Ylarger new houses/additions in the older, core
neighborhoods. The options presented below focus on amendments to the Neighborhood Conservation Low Density
(NCL) and Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM)zoning districts. This topic of regulating house size
received considerable attention throughout the study process,and led to ideas for options to lower existing size limits.
The fundamental question for this Study was whether the City's existing zoning regulations warrant revision to better
implement adopted policy of protecting established neighborhood character. City policy defines character to include
size(i.e.,scale, mass,building separation,building placement,and building height),in addition to design aspects such
as building materials, and architectural style. Therefore, in examining current size regulations, the Study considered
the established development pattern and-the adequacy of existing.zoning regulations to protect the character created
by that pattern. `(-1
Existing Size Limit Regulations cor
�/
The City currently regulates house size in the two zone districts by limiting the ratio of total building floor area to lot
size, commonly referred to as Floor Area Ratio(FAR). In the NCL zone, the ratio is .40, or 40%of lot size, and in the
NCM zone it is.50, or 50%of lot size. The table below illustrates the current size limits using the example of a house
and a 500 square foot garage.
Table 1: Potential House Sizes by Lot Size and FAR
NCL (.40 FAR) NCM (.50 FAR)
4,000 sq ft lot 1,100 sq ft houser+_500 sq,ft ga\age.— �,500 sq ft�house + 500 sq ft garage
V, fY \\ � /�
9,500 sq ft lot 3,300 sq ft house + 5001siq ft garage' 4,250�q�ft house + 500 sq ft garage
u u
January 4, 2011 -3- ITEM 13
Existing Development Pattern
The existing size limits noted above do not reflect prevailing established development patterns in the neighborhoods.
Prevailing FARs most commonly average about.15-.25,and original house sizes most commonly average about 800-
1500 sq.ft. There are larger house size and FAR exceptions,typically involving larger,recent new construction,and/or
small lots such as those created by subdivision of original corner lots, which result in higher FARs.
Difference Between Existing Development Pattern and Existing Size Limit Regulations
The difference between current FAR limits in the zoning regulations(.40 and.50)and the existing development pattern
(about .15-.25 FAR) clearly illustrates the issue that this Study has tried to address.
The difference is clear even where larger, recent construction has now`becorne part of the existing pattern on many
blocks. Although many recent house expansions are significantly-larger than the original housing stock,very few have
approached the upper limits of.40 or� 0 FARs. Very few of the expandedkhouses exceed 3,000 sq.ft., and very few
exceed a FAR of.33. \_ �� �� U U
While there are wide differences in interpretation, there is little or no disagreement that the .40 and .50 FARs allow
new construction that does not reflect existing development patterns in terms of size. In response, two main
approaches were identified and explored to address this issue: (1)take a more tailored, contextual approach using
averages found in existing development; or(2) lower the FARs. Additional details and the merits of each option are
discussed below.
ORDINANCE NO. 003, 2011 - Option A: Average-Plus Concept
This option would limit house size to th ave e\age size•house on-tK-e,same block face plus an additional 50 percent,
or 2,000 sq. ft.,whichever is greater. Basements and detached garages would not be included in these figures. Also,
the current limits of total floor area on a lot (46 land .50)l including garages and other accessory buildings, would
remain in place. Applicants wanting\toexpand/r'ebuild,would use the County Assessor's data to find the average
existing house size and calculate the 50-percent increase.
u u
If the established pattern is one where lot sizes vary considerably, but house sizes remain fairly consistent, it seemed
logical to derive a standard for allowable house size based on the more consistent variable. The average-plus concept
establishes a house size standard based on the context of the block face,and allows for an additional increase in size
in order to accommodate contemporary living(50%).'A 2,000 sq.ft.allowance was added as a compromise to reflect
concerns that the average-plus 50%was overly restrictive for those block faces with small houses.
Pros
• Reflects, to a certain degree,/the existing,development pattern\(at the'block face level)
• Reduces the 9 ost dramaticfpotential increases iinn'hi use_size ��
• Allows for Ion term evolution' in house Isize
• The minimum allowance prowl e_s for new�c=nstruction to accommodate contemporary living
Cons
• New, untested method and may result in undesirable and/or unintended consequences
• "Micro-manages" incremental house sizes in the 2,000-3,200 square foot range (e.g., 2,000 sq. ft. allowed
on one block face, vs. 2,400 on another, vs. 2,600 on another, etc.)
o Contention that these increments of size limits do not address character issues, i.e., the difference
between a 2,000 and 2,500 sq. ft. house may not matter as much as the design; design can completely
mask the size difference, so the result may not be worth the complexity
• Once the 2,000 sq. ft. al Iowa nce_is included_for�small-block faces, the-contextual approach is diminished
r--. i
• The concept is diluted by some blocRzthat'have exists j g size.ranges of double to quadruple from the smallest
to the largest, which weakens the concept of averaging V
• Technical calculation questions, i.e.,vdume, is akey concept of the whole Study, but the existing house size
data from the Assessors office•does not capture the volume of anyone-story houses that may contain space
that would be counted as second floor area in the proposed 'loophole" fix (explained below)
January 4, 2011 -4- ITEM 13
• Concern that the block face is not adequate to represent neighborhood character, because it gives undue
influence to a few houses that happen to be nearby
• Contention that lot size should be taken into account, i.e., larger lots should be allowed to contain larger size
houses
• Penalizes the"first-one-in", because the average-plus increases as more property owners on the block face
expand
• Debate that a different limit on different blocks due to different house sizes is unfair
ORDINANCE NO. 003, 2011 -Option B: Lower the FARs
This option would lower the FAR limits in the NCL and NCM zones for single family detached homes to .27.
Basements and detached garages wouldmot,count•toward the-limit:.-Table 2 provides a comparison of the house sizes
allowed with a .27, .40, or.50 FAR based olva,tying lot sizes I. Attachment 5,provides a more extensive comparison
of FARs ranging from .10-.50. L
� � ( � f
Table 2: Allowed House Size Comparison" U
Lot Size (Sq ft
FAR 10,000 9,500 9,000 1 8,500 8,000 7,500 7,000 6,500 6,000 5,500 5,000
.27 2,700 2,565 2,430 2,295 2,160 2,025 1,890 1,755 1,620 1,485 1,350
.40 4,000 3,800 3,600 3,400 3,200 3,000 2,800 2,600 2,400 2,200 2,000
.50 5,000 4,750 4,500 4,250 4,000 3 750 3 500 3,250 3,000 2,750 2,500
Considering that prevailing FARs in ithese two neighborhoods are between/. /5 .25, lowering the standard to .27 is
better aligned with the existing development.pa�tieern, anWst'llIl-allows for hlIolIuses to reasonably expand to meet the
needs of contemporary households.
Pros
• Reduces the most dramatic potential increases in house size
• Provides a predictable standard
• Limits floor area in relation to lot size
• Lowering FARs comes closer to reflecting the established character of the neighborhoods
Cons
• Smaller lots are more limited i h n argerllots n t e ms off poste al expansion
• District-wide FAR standards do not
tnnecessarily reflect-therunique''character of individual areas within the
neighborhoods
I
Other Land Use Code Revisions �J u
Regardless of which option to limit house size is preferred, staff recommends that two minor, technical clarifications
to the Land Use Code be adopted, along with some minor text edits. The technical clarifications are related to the
relevant zoning standards, and would revise the way that house size is measured as described below:
1. Address the"volume loophole"by counting upper building space as a second floor, regardless of whether the
floor is built, where the volume exceeds the typical volume associated with a one-story house.
2. Change the point of measure/ment:f�side•wall,height:to:be,at the, property line rather than at the base of the
side wall at finished grade. �� 1 \V1
These changes are imbedded in both Land Use C ce options..
In addition, in order to help ensure that any variance of the new standards adopted by Ordinance No.003,2011,does
not result in new construction or additions that are incompatible with existing structures in the City's residential
January 4, 2011 -5- ITEM 13
neighborhoods, the Ordinance also amends Section 2.10.2(H) of the Land Use Code, pertaining to variances, to
require that any application for a variance of these new standards be accompanied by a written recommendation from
a committee of the Landmark Preservation Commission, as authorized under Section 2-278(b)(5) of the City Code.
Two-year review
Both Options A and B include a provision directing the City Manager to submit a report and recommendation to the
City Council no later than January 31, 2013, regarding the implementation of the provisions of this Ordinance and, in
particular,whether such implementation has achieved the stated purposes of ensuring the compatibility of additions,
alterations and new construction with existing structures in residential neighborhoods of the City without working an
undue hardship on affected property owners.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPrCTS n CD
\vim U u
Economic Planning Systems(EPS)has been contracted to analyze the economic impacts of revising house size limits.
The final report will be presented to Council at the meeting on January 4, 2011.
Staff has been asked about the financial/economic impacts with regard to historic value. See Attachment 6 for a
compilation of existing research and data from an architectural-level survey completed for the East and West Side
Neighborhoods.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ,��� �. -� � i�-\
Staff finds no direct or definable impact on environmental' .resources with any of these items. One concern that was
raised in the process was the protection of,,solar.access, After careful analysis, staff determined that there is no
reasonable new standard for defining or control)ng rop perty�owners' rights to solar access due to the established
pattern of development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council adopt Ordinance No.002,2011,which allows the Landmark Preservation Commission
to offer voluntary design consultation.
Staff recommends that Council adopt,0rdmance�No 003, 2011-Opti0B, whi- h revises house size limits for single
family houses in the NCL and NCM zon�es�to�liimit,new single-family houses,to a FAR of.27. See Attachment 7,a table
that compares existing house size stendr the�av ge!plus concept and .27 FAR option.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION LJ LI
At its regular meeting on December 9, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend that
City Council adopt the Ordinance amending the City Code. (See Attachment 8 for the minutes of the meeting).At the
time of the Planning and Zoning Board meeting, only one Ordinance was presented to revise house size limits,which
was to use the average plus 50%concept, presented here as Ordinance No. 003, 2011, Option A. The Board voted
unanimously to recommend that Council not adopt the average-plus 50% house size regulation. With regard to the
two minor Land Use Code clarifications,the.Board recommended that Council only adopt the change that would revise
the point of measurement for side wall'height Afte� he'tPlanning andkZon, ing Board meeting,further analysis led staff
to develop a second option to revise house size limits, which would lower/the FAR to .27 for both relevant zoning
districts. Although Council is asked to consider oth Options�of"Ordinanci( o. 003, 2011, the Planning and Zoning
Board was not able to make a recommendation regarding the FAR change that is presented here as Option B.
January 4, 2011 -6- ITEM 13
At its regular meeting on December 8, 2010, the Landmark Preservation Commission voted unanimously to
recommend the average-plus 50%house size regulation(as described in Ordinance No.003,2011,Option A),to allow
the Commission to offer voluntary design consultation (as described in Ordinance No. 002, 2011), and to fund the
Design Assistance Program. (see Attachment 9 for the LPC minutes)
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Three City Council work sessions were held on February 23, 2010, August 24, 2010, and November 23, 2010.
Four joint work sessions with the Planning and Zoning,Board-(P&Z),and Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA)were held
on June 11, 2010,. July 9, 2010, October 15,2010, and November
r112,2010�
Four Landmark Preservation Commis` lion (,LP/C)I ork ses'si'I In s were held on June 23, 2010, July 28, 2010, October
13, 2010, and November 10, 2010.
Three public meetings with property owners residing in the East and West Side Neighborhoods were held on April 7,
2010, July 29, 2010, and November 15, 2010.
A Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) assisted staff throughout the process in a series of 13 meetings. The CAC
included residents from the East and West Side Neighborhoods, builders, architects, real estate professionals, and
representatives from the LPC, P&Z, and ZBA.
Staff also met twice with the Fort Collins Board of Realtors and the Chamber of Commerce Local Legislative Affairs
Committee.
PY
ATTACHMENTS CO
1. February 23, 2010 City Council Work Session Summary
2. East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study- Final Report
3. August 24, 2010 City Council Work Session Summary
4. November 23, 2010 City Council Work Session Summary
5. Table of House Sizes for Various Floor Area Ratios and Lot Sizes
6. Financial/Economic Impacts of Demolitions/Alterations on Historic Value/Character
7. Comparison of Potential Size Limit Standards
8. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, December 9, 2010
9. Landmark-Preservation CommissCUFY
minutes�Dece
10. PowerPoint Presentation
PCOY
ATTACHMENT 2
Neighborhood Conservation Low Density ( NCL )
Floor Area Ratio ( FAR ) Data
Below are several tables and figures summarizing parcel data for lots in the NCL zoning district .
Table 1 : NCL Parcel Data
# of Average Average Average Average # of Lots with Average Size
Lots Lot Size House Size House FAR Total FAR Garages of Garage
(sq ft) (sq ft) ( sq ft)
11631 81387 11361 . 17 . 21 1 . 320 399
Table 2 : Distribution of Total FAR for NCL Lots
Total FAR Range # of Lots % of Lots
0 . 0- . 09 49 3 . 00%
. 10- . 14 200 12 . 26%
. 15 - . 19 465 28 . 51%
. 20- . 24 445 27 . 28%
. 25 - . 29 256 15 . 70%
. 30- 34 117 7 . 17%
. 35 - 39 57 3 . 49 %
. 40- . 44 29 1 . 78%
. 45 - . 49 6 0 . 37%
. 50- . 54 3 0 . 18%
. 55 - . 59 2 0 . 12 %
. 60 and greater 2 0 . 12 %
Total 11631 100 , 00%
Figure 1 : Distribution of Total FAR for NCL Lots
Distribution of Total FAR for NCL Lots
500 465 445
400
256
300 200
0 200
*� 100 49 57
0
0O K` r `LO `.L�' r O C4'
0
Total FAR
1
ATTACHMENT 2
Table 3 : Distribution of House FAR for NCL Lots
House FAR Range # of Lots % of Lots
0 . 0- . 09 117 7 . 17%
. 10- . 14 453 27 . 77%
. 15- 019 567 34 . 76%
. 20- . 24 282 17 . 29%
. 25- . 29 122 7 . 48%
. 30- 34 51 3 . 13%
. 35- 39 25 1 . 53%
. 40- .44 9 0. 55%
. 45 - .49 2 0. 12%
. 50- . 54 1 0 . 06%
. 55 - . 59 2 0. 12%
. 60 and greater 0 0. 00%
Tota 1 11631 100 . 00
Figure 2 : Distribution of House FAR for NCL Lots
Distribution of House FAR for NCL Lots
600 567
500 453
0 400 282
300
° 200 117 122
100 51 25 9 2 1 2 0
0
e NIL K�, r� �� �4k I t� 0
a
�O
House FAR
2
ATTACHMENT 2
Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density ( NCM )
Floor Area Ratio ( FAR ) Data
Below are several tables and figures summarizing parcel data for lots in the NCM zoning district .
Table 4: NCM Parcel Data
# of Average Average Average Average # of Lots Average Size of
Lots Lot Size House Size House Total FAR with Garage ( sq ft )
( sq ft) (sq ft) FAR Garages
11740 71334 11171 . 17 . 21 11160 296
Table 5 : Distribution of Total FAR for NCM Lots
Total FAR Range # of Lots % of Lots
0. 0- .09 79 4 . 54%
. 10- 014 336 19 . 31%
. 15- . 19 499 28 . 68%
. 20- . 24 344 19 . 77%
. 25- . 29 224 12 . 87%
. 30- 34 141 8 . 10%
. 35- 39 60 3 .45%
.40- .44 25 1 .44%
.45- .49 14 0 . 80%
. 50- . 54 9 0 . 52%
. 55- . 59 3 0 . 17%
. 60 and greater 6 0 . 34%
Total 11740 100 , 00%
Figure 3 : Distribution of Total FAR for NCM Lots
Distribution of Total FAR for NCM Lots
600 499
m 500 344
0 400336
224
00 200 141 60
100 25 14 9 3 6
0
9L r!� n!0 Ike
� O hD
o�
0
Total FAR
3
ATTACHMENT 2
Table 6 : Distribution of House FAR for NCM Lots
House FAR Range # of Lots % of Lots
0 . 0- . 09 172 9 . 89%
. 10- . 14 582 33 .45%
. 15- . 19 482 27 . 70%
. 20- . 24 277 15 . 92%
. 25- . 29 116 6 . 67%
. 30- 34 47 2 . 70%
. 35- 39 38 2 . 18%
. 40- .44 15 0 . 86%
. 45- .49 7 0. 40%
. 50- . 54 0 0 . 00%
. 55- . 59 1 0 . 06%
. 60 and greater 3 0. 17%
Tota 1 11740 100 , 00%
Figure 4 : Distribution of House FAR for NCM Lots
Distribution of House FAR for NCM Lots
700 582
600 482
500
�
400 277
172
0 200
100 47 38 15 7 0 I
0
Og �� NO r� I) �� 00 R� NO �� hO �P,
o�
0
House FAR
4
ATTACHMENT 3
MEMORANDUM
To : Megan Bolin , City of Fort Collins Advance Planning
From : Dan Guimond and Matt Prosser, EPS
Subject : East/West Neighborhoods Economic Impact Analysis ;
EPS # 20903
Date : January 7 , 2011
The Economics of /wind Use
Introduction
The City of Fort Collins Advance Planning Department has proposed
changes to the zoning code regulations on building sizes in the portions
of the Old Town East and West Side Neighborhoods currently zoned
Neighborhood Conservation Low Density ( NCL) and Neighborhood
Conservation Medium Density ( NCM ) . The current zoning code regulates
building area based on the FAR, which is a ratio of the building square
footage to the lot size . As of today , the maximum building area is 0 . 40
FAR in the NCL and 0 . 50 FAR in the NCM . Two alternatives have been
presented to the City Council for consideration as follows :
Option A : Block Average Plus 50 Percent - In the NCL, this option
would limit the maximum home size to the larger of 1 ) 2 , 000 square
feet or 2 ) 150 percent of the average size of an existing home on the
applicable block face, but not to exceed a 0 . 40 floor area ratio ( FAR) in
either case . In the NCM , this option would limit the maximum home size
to 2 , 000 square feet or 150 percent of the average size of an existing
home on the applicable block face but not to exceed a 0 . 50 FAR .
Option B : 0 . 27 FAR — This option would reduce the maximum building
FAR from 0 . 40 to 0 . 27 in the NCL, a 32 percent reduction , and from 0 . 50
to 0 . 27 in the NCM , a 46 percent reduction .
Economic & Planning Systems ( EPS ) has completed a limited scope
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. economic impact analysis of the proposed zoning options as compared to
730 17th Street, Suite 630 current regulations . This analysis quantifies the change in the amount
Denver, co 80202-3511 of building area under the proposed options compared to the current
303 623 3557 tel zoning . EPS also quantified the net change in the number of homes that
303 623 9049 fax
could make a major expansion of their property under different
Berkeley development scenarios determined based on recent development
Sacramento activity and current development costs and supportable sales prices .
Denver
20903M_010711 . doc
www.epsys. com
Memorandum January 7, 2011
E& W Neighborhood Economic Impacts Page 2
The analysis therefore quantifies the maximum change in development potential . It does not
attempt to forecast the number of property owners who would seek to redevelop nor does it
attempt to characterize the estimated impacts as either positive or negative , as that
determination is dependent on individual perspective .
Scope of Work
EPS Team conducted this economic impact analysis of the two zoning change options based on
readily available County Assessor City Planning data . Data on lot and parcel market values is
current through mid - 2010 . Project time constraints precluded the compilation of more recent
data but the relatively limited number of additional sales recorded completed over the last six
months does not affect the study conclusions . The following steps were completed :
• Data Collection and Analysis - EPS met with City Advance Planning staff to tour the study
area , collect available data , and review the proposed regulations and Stakeholder Committee
discussions of issues and options . We also reviewed the spreadsheets prepared by staff on
selected blocks to determine the maximum building size under the existing and proposed
zoning regulations as well as the net change in the maximum square feet of building .
• Existing Conditions - EPS obtained a GIS file of the County Assessor database for all
parcels in the East and West neighborhoods zoned NCL and NCM and tabulated and mapped
the pertinent parcel attributes including lot and building size , age and size of home , and
market values .
• Stakeholder Contacts - EPS met with a number of Fort Collins area real estate brokers and
builders active in the Old Town area to review current market and development activity and
to identify the issues and impacts of the proposed regulations on the affected neighborhoods .
• Existing Conditions - EPS compiled data on existing housing conditions and characteristics
in the portions of the East and West Neighborhoods zoned NCL and NCM including lot home
sizes , market values , and sales and development activity .
• Building Area Impacts - EPS quantified the net change in the maximum amount of building
area that would be allowed under the proposed options compared to current zoning for all
NCL and NCM parcels in the two affected neighborhoods . We then compared the number of
parcels that would be permitted to build additions and new homes at specified sizes .
• Financial Analysis - EPS developed a simplified financial model to illustrate the market and
financial feasibility conditions affecting major renovations and new home construction in the
Old Town neighborhoods under several development scenarios .
• Other Impacts - EPS identified other more quantitative impact related to the two policy
change options identified through the course of our analysis .
20903M_010711 . doc
Memorandum January 7, 2011
E& W Neighborhood Economic Impacts Page 3
Summary of Findings
Existing Conditions
• The East and West Neighborhoods abutting Old Town Fort Collins are stable neighborhoods
with well - maintained homes , strong market values , and relatively high levels of property
reinvestment . Both neighborhoods are also relatively diverse in terms of lot and home sizes,
age of construction , and architectural style and character .
• A total of 1 , 446 lots or 43 percent of the 3 , 371 total NCL and NCM lots are in the 7 , 000 to
10 , 000 square foot range . However, there are an almost equal number smaller than 7 , 000
square feet with a total of 1 , 429 lots . A total of 1 , 061 lots or approximately one -third of the
total is in the 5 , 000 to 7 , 000 square foot range .
• The East and West neighborhoods are dominated by smaller homes ; a total of 2 , 550 existing
homes , or 76 percent of the total , are less than 1 , 500 square feet in size . Only 107 homes
or 3 percent of the total are greater than 2 , 500 square feet in size .
• The average size home has varied over time . The smallest homes were during the City 's
settlement pre - 1880 with an average size of about 750 square feet . The average size grew
significantly to approximately 1 , 400 square feet thereafter before declining again in the
1920s and 1930s . The post- World War II housing boom saw another surge of smaller VA
and FHA housing averaging 1 , 100 to 1 , 200 square feet in size . Housing sizes have grown
steadily since then with housing built since the turn of the century averaging over 1 , 800
square feet .
• The greatest concentration of new housing construction during the 2004 to 2010 time period
was in the 1 , 500 to 2 , 500 square foot range with an average size of approximately 2 , 000
square feet for the 40 permits tallied . For additions, the average size was approximately 600
square feet for the 161 additions completed .
• New home prices ranged from an average of $ 300 , 600 in 2005 to almost $ 500 , 000 in 2010
for an overall average of $ 372 , 480 for the six-year time period . This compares to an
average of $ 261 , 606 for the study area as a whole . On a per square foot basis , the average
sale price for newer homes was $ 237 compared to $ 218 for the neighborhood as a whole ,
which equates to a 9 percent premium .
Maximum Home Size
• By definition , the majority of the lots under Option A would allow a 2 , 000 square foot home,
which is the average home size built over the last decade . Only 147 lots , or 4 percent, of the
lots under Option A would be restricted to a new home size under 2 , 000 square feet by the
existing FAR of 0 . 4 or 0 . 5 . Most of the lots ( 87 percent) would not be allowed to build a home
of 2 , 500 square feet in size ; only 422 parcels or 13 percent of the total could build at this
size level . Under Option B : 0 . 27 FAR, only 50 percent of the 3 , 371 lots would be able to
build a 2 , 000 square foot home ; it is therefore considerably more restrictive than Option A as
applied to smaller lots . Option B is less restrictive on larger lots as 917 parcels ( 27 percent)
could build a 2 , 500 square foot home which is twice as many as under Option A . The 0 . 27
FAR option is therefore more restrictive on smaller lots and less restrictive on larger lots .
20903M_010711 . doc
Memorandum January 7, 2011
E& W Neighborhood Economic Impacts Page 4
• Additions of 600 , 1 , 000 , and 1 , 500 square feet were compared to current regulations ; under
Option A, 2 , 734 lots or 81 percent would qualify for the average 600 square foot addition
compared to 2 , 113 lots or 63 percent under Option B . Under Option A, 46 percent of existing
homes would be allowed to build a 1 , 000 square foot addition compared to 35 percent under
Option B . For the 1 , 500 square foot addition , under Option A only 4 percent of existing
homes would be allowed to build this size addition onto the existing home size . Under Option
B, 15 percent could add 1 , 500 square feet of additional space to an existing home . Option B
is therefore more restrictive for smaller additions and less restrictive for large additions
compared to Option A .
Financial Analysis
• The Old Town market is composed of several submarkets including 1 ) younger singles and
couples trading off house size for location within the limits of their budget, and 2 ) more
mature and affluent couples and families seeking a larger home . Many younger homeowners
buy a smaller home and renovate and expand over time . This has been a significant trend as
evidenced by the number of smaller homes with new additions that have been built . There
are more affluent buyers for larger new homes being built with typically 3 bedrooms , 3
baths , living , dining , and family room and/or office . These larger homes are largely not in
the existing housing stock of the neighborhood but reflect the market for new home
construction . They are generally 2 , 200 square feet or greater .
• Based on current economics , a new home would need to be approximately 2 , 230 square feet
in size to pay for an average lot price of $ 125 , 000 and current construction costs and achieve
a sales price close to the current average of $ 237 per square foot . By contrast, a smaller
1 , 500 square foot home would require a price of $ 268 per square foot and push the land cost
to more than 30 percent of total cost and is therefore less likely to be feasible .
• The area builders surveyed indicated that the lots being acquired for new homes currently
contain small homes priced from $ 80 , 000 to $ 140 , 000 with $ 125 , 000 being the current
average . Based on existing home values from Assessor records , there are only 42 existing
homes with less than $ 125 , 000 in value , which is only 3 percent of the total parcel inventory .
There is therefore a very limited supply of homes that would be vulnerable to scrapeoffs at
current market rates .
20903M_010711 . doc
Memorandum January 7, 2011
E& W Neighborhood Economic Impacts Page 5
Other Impacts
• The allowable house size based on the block face average can create some significant
disparities between the odd and even sides of certain blocks . The addition of the 2 , 000
maximum home size allowance eliminates this potential impact on most blocks . However,
there are approximately 10 to 15 blocks remaining where there is a disparity of more than
1 , 000 square feet .
• In cases where a new large home has been built on an otherwise block of modest homes , the
new house can dramatically alter the size of future homes . This would seem to create a
disparity with other similar blocks nearby .
• Many of the objections to recent new homes and large additions are associated with the
position of a larger 11/2 or 2 -story home next to a small one - story existing home , creating a
shadowing effect . Restricting size alone does not address these impacts ; more attention
would need to be given to building size and massing either through design review or more
restrictive setback, height, and bulk plane regulations to address these concerns .
• The current regulations do not include finished basement square footage as part of the FAR
or block average calculation . Not including finished basement square footage in the
calculation allows for home owners to create more usable space and still be in compliance
with requirements . However, raising the basement may also increase the impact of the new
home on adjacent parcels .
20903M_010711 . doc
Memorandum January 7, 2011
E& W Neighborhood Economic Impacts Page 6
Existing Conditions
The East and West Neighborhoods abutting Old Town Fort Collins are stable neighborhoods with
well - maintained homes , strong market values, and relatively high levels of property
reinvestment . Both neighborhoods are also relatively diverse in terms of lot and home sizes , age
of construction , and architectural style and character. EPS analyzed a total of 3 , 371 lots in the
NCL and NCM zoning categories containing a single family detached , duplex , or triplex home in
the East and West Neighborhoods , as detailed below .
Lot Size
The number of lots by size range is shown in Figure 1 . A total of 1 , 446 lots or 43 percent of the
3 , 371 lots are in the 7 , 000 to 10 , 000 square foot range . However, there are an almost equal
number smaller than 7 , 000 square feet with a total of 1 , 429 lots . A total of 1 , 061 lots or
approximately one -third of the total is in the 5 , 000 to 7 , 000 square foot range .
Figure 1
Number of Lots by Square Footage of Lot
E &W Neighborhood Economic Impacts
800 -
699
700
619
600
500 4
462 66
396
400
361
300 272
200
100 68
28
0
Under 3,000 3,000 to 3,999 4,000 to 4,999 5,000 to 5,999 6,000 to 6,999 7,000 to 7,999 8,000 to 8,999 9,000 to 9,999 Over 10,000
20903M_010711 . doc
Memorandum January 7, 2011
E& W Neighborhood Economic Impacts Page 7
Dwelling Sizes
The neighborhoods are dominated by smaller homes, as shown in Figure 2 . A total of 2 , 550
existing homes , or 76 percent of the total , are less than 1 , 500 square feet in size according to
County Assessor records . Home sizes do not include basements or detached garages . Only 107
homes or 3 percent of the total are greater than 2 , 500 square feet in size .
Figure 2
Number of Homes by Square Footage of Home
E &W Neighborhood Economic Impacts
1 ,600
15400 1 ,340
1 ,210
1 ,200
1 ,000
800
600
481
400
233
200
64
25 15 3
0
Under 1 ,000 1 ,000 to 1 ,499 1 ,500 to 1 ,999 2,000 to 2,499 2,500 to 2,999 3,000 to 3,499 3,600 to 3,999 4,000 and over
20903M_010711 . doc
Memorandum January 7, 2011
E& W Neighborhood Economic Impacts Page 8
The average size home has varied over time . The smallest homes were during the City's
settlement pre - 1880 with an average size of about 750 square feet . The average size grew
significantly to approximately 1 , 400 square feet thereafter before declining again in the 1920s
and 1930s . The post- World War II housing boom saw another surge of smaller VA and FHA
housing averaging 1 , 100 to 1 , 200 square feet in size . Housing sizes have grown steadily since
then with housing built since the turn of the century averaging over 1 , 800 square feet, as shown
in Figure 3 .
Figure 3
Average Home Size by Decade Built
E &W Neighborhood Economic Impacts
21000
1 , 804
11800
19600 1 , 529 1 , 546
11429 11435 1 ,473
1 ,400 1 , 343 11301 11330
1 , 235 1 , 175 11167 11199
1 ,200
19000
800 749
600
400
200
0
Pre 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
1880
20903M_010711 . doc
Memorandum January 7, 2011
E& W Neighborhood Economic Impacts Page 9
New Construction
The greatest concentration of new housing construction during the 2000 to 2009 time period was
in the 1 , 500 to 2 , 500 square foot range , as shown in Table 1 . Of the 53 new homes recorded ,
49 percent were in this range with only 10 homes or 19 percent larger than 2 , 500 square feet,
as shown .
Table 1
New Homes in East and West Neighborhoods, 2000 to 2009
E &W Neighborhood Economic Impacts
Square Feet 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total %
Under 1 ,000 5 1 1 3 1 1 12 23%
1 , 000 to 1 ,499 1 1 1 1 1 5 9%
1 , 500 to 1 ,999 2 2 4 1 9 17%
2, 000 to 2 ,499 1 4 4 2 1 1 3 1 17 32%
2, 500 to 2 ,999 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 13%
3, 000 to 3 ,499 1 1 2 4%
3, 500 to 3 ,999 1 1 2%
Total 3 5 5 2 10 5 6 8 7 2 53 100%
Source: Larimer County Assessor; Economic & Planning Sytems
H:k209O3-Fort Collins Neighborhood Economic Impact StudNData\[20903- Parcel DataAs]New Units
EPS also analyzed selected permit data for the 2004 to 2010 time period . The average size of
new homes was slightly higher in this more recent time period , hovering at approximately 2 , 000
square feet for the 40 permits tallied . For additions, the average size was approximately 600
square feet in both the NCL and NCM areas, as shown in Table 2 .
Table 2
New Home and Addition Permits, 2004 to 2010
E &W Neighborhood Economic Impacts
Average
# of Size
Low Density
Additions 87 614
New Homes 14 11979
Medium Density
Additions 74 600
New Homes 26 29053
Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems
H:\20903-Fort Collins Neighborhood Economic Impact StudyAData\[Permts_in_NCM_and_NCB_and_NCL.)ds]Summary Tables
20903M_010711 . doc
Memorandum January 7, 2011
E& W Neighborhood Economic Impacts Page 10
Housing Prices
EPS analyzed housing sales prices for 2005 through 2010 (YTD ) as shown in Table 3 below .
New home prices ranged from an average of $ 300 , 600 in 2005 to almost $ 500 , 000 in 2010 for
an overall average of $ 372 , 480 for the six -year time period . This compares to an average of
$ 261 , 606 for the study area as a whole . On a per square foot basis , the average sale price for
newer homes was $ 237 compared to $ 218 for the neighborhood as a whole , which equates to a
9 percent premium .
Table 3
Price of Homes Sold in East and West Neighborhoods, 2005 to 2010
E &W Neighborhood Economic Impacts
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Average/Total
Homes Built in 2000's
Average Sale Price $300 ,600 $416, 500 $419 ,000 $2749871 $ 3243082 $499, 871 $3729480
Average Price per Sq . Ft . $306 $263 $201 $192 $201 $257 $237
Number of Sales 4 4 1 5 7 7 28
Square Feet 11130 1 , 770 2 ,081 19405 11596 2, 024 19644
Low Density District
Average Sale Price $2465810 $274, 964 $280 ,489 $2799439 $2639647 $2865122 $2719124
Average Price per Sq . Ft . $207 $211 $212 $216 $206 $224 $212
Number of Sales 67 79 71 63 82 50 412
Square Feet 11224 1 , 356 1 , 361 19319 11308 1 , 317 19316
Medium Density District
Average Sale Price $2355520 $238, 582 $258 ,914 $2489156 $2769237 $2775131 $2529872
Average Price per Sq . Ft . $224 $221 $233 $221 $219 $217 $223
Number of Sales 93 75 78 92 50 61 449
Square Feet 11096 1 , 125 1 , 167 19177 11324 1 , 322 19186
Study Area Total
Average Sale Price $2405248 $257, 245 $269 , 195 $2609871 $2689415 $2815181 $2619606
Average Price per Sq . Ft . $217 $216 $223 $219 $211 $220 $218
Number of Sales 160 154 149 155 132 111 861
Square Feet 15149 1 , 244 19259 11235 15314 1 , 320 19248
Source: Larimer County Assessor; Economic & Planning Systems
H:\20903-Fort Collins Neighborhood Economic Impact Study\Data\[20903-Parcel DataAs]Sales Table
20903M_010711 . doc
Memorandum January 7, 2011
E& W Neighborhood Economic Impacts Page 11
Maximum Home Size
The maximum home sizes under the proposed zoning options are compared to existing zoning
below . Overall , the average size of a new home would be reduced by approximately 40 percent
under both options . The changes , however, are variable by size , location , and option .
New Homes
By definition , the majority of the lots under Option A would allow a 2 , 000 square foot home ,
which is the average home size built over the last decade . Only 147 lots , or 4 percent, of the
lots under Option A would be restricted to a new home size under 2 , 000 square feet by the
existing FAR of 0 . 4 or 0 . 5 . Most of the lots ( 87 percent) would not be allowed to build a home of
2 , 500 square feet in size ; only 422 parcels or 13 percent of the total could build at this size level ,
as shown on Table 4.
Table 4
Impact on New Home Construction by Regulation
E &W Neighborhood Economic Impacts
Existing Block Avg . +50% .27 FAR
New Home of 2 ,000 Sq Ft
Yes 31228 96 % 3, 224 96% 1 ,614 48%
No 143 4 % 147 4% 1 ,757 52%
New Homes of 2 , 500 Sq Ft
Yes 21682 80 % 422 13% 916 27%
No 689 20 % 29949 87% 2 ,455 73%
Average Maximum Size of New Home 3 ,516 2, 157 2 , 118
Source: Larimer County Assessor; Economic & Planning Sytems
H:\20903- Fort Collins Neighborhood Economic Impact Study\Data\[20903- Parcel Data.xls]New 2,500 home
The geographic distribution of home sizes allowed is shown on Figure 4 for the Option A : Block
Average Plus 50 Percent . The effect of adding the 2 , 000 square foot minimum largely undermines
the intent of the block face provision without the 2 , 000 square foot minimum ; 2 , 166 parcels
would be restricted to a house smaller than the 2 , 000 square foot provision , as shown in red .
20903M_010711 . doc
Memorandum January 7, 2011
E& W Neighborhood Economic Impacts Page 12
Figure 4
Home Size Allowed by Block Average plus 50% Regulation
E &W Neighborhood Economic Impacts
1 :�* ■! El
Z 11 ,■ N� �� �� �� CHERRY ST
rc
u 11101 C 2 MAPLE ST
' . • LAPORTEAVE
■ ■■ IL : - • : : a p
W MOUNTAIN AVE
RIM � •
_ i � ■ ■ r= w OAK ar
IN OLIVE ST
a N
HOW W MAGNOLIA ST , _ ' �� 0 O
Ir 4 ■ ice
V S
W MULBERRY ST
W MULBERRY 6T
w
w
a
W MYRTLE ST r w EMYRTLEST E E�
u~i �■ L � —L El ■
■
J
N
W s W LAUREL ST
01 O
¢ t
i w ■ =M
Fo •� =' EPLUM ST
Block Average plus 50% - New Home = = LOCUSTST
IIIIIII� . V
Neighborhood Conservation Low Density EEuzABETNST
Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density OARRIELDST
New Home Size Allowed EOMRDS ST
- 2 , 000 sf (Or Under) EPITION ST g
2 . 001 to 2 , 500 sf rjawI sn
Over 2 . 500 sf 0 25 ELAKE ST ,
' D
Miles N WPROSPECTRD
20903M_010711 . doc
Memorandum January 7, 2011
E& W Neighborhood Economic Impacts Page 13
Under Option B : 0 . 27 FAR, only 50 percent of the 3 , 371 lots would be able to build a 2 , 000
square foot home ; it is therefore considerably more restrictive than Option A as applied to
smaller lots . Based on the application of the proposed FAR, all lots less than 7 , 400 square feet
would be restricted to homes smaller than 2 , 000 square feet . Option B is less restrictive on
larger lots as 917 parcels ( 27 percent) could build a 2 , 500 square foot home which is twice as
many as under Option A ; this is clearly evident on Figure S . The 0 . 27 FAR option is therefore
more restrictive on smaller lots and less restrictive on larger lots .
20903M_010711 . doc
Memorandum January 7, 2011
E& W Neighborhood Economic Impacts Page 14
Figure 5
Home Size Allowed by 0 . 27 FAR Regulation
E &W Neighborhood Economic Impacts
0001ILI
1
1
MIR
i -- �� � ■
J ■�� ■� CHERRY ST
J El d III 1 MAPLE 5T
u _
MI
LAPORTE AVE
1 •• ,. ■ „■ 11 FOIONM16rml n W MOUNTAIN IAVE /
• - ! ■ INS W OAK ST
IMMUNE
" El
I.■
I Min ' ZI 11 WOLIVE ST
= tr r� �� ■ 1 ■ W MAGNOLIA il
p
V
w MULBERRY S7 49 b6)
• e, _ � � WMVLBBIRY ST
Y■ ■ O
3
W MYRTLE ST k ■■ ■■ w EYYRnEar ■
xMENO W LAUREL 5T �■ �� ■ \
Z N ;_ ■,N ■ To
O O ■lo " 7, EPLUM ST
0027 FAR - New Home = = LOCUST ST
c
Neighborhood Conservation Low Density E eLls,LerN ST =
Q Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density GARFlELOST ■ 1 1 ■
� � MINI
New Home Size Allowed EOWARDSST ■ m
■ m m 1
- Under 2 ,000 sf EPITKINST _ _ , to
2, 000 to 2 , 500 sf
®
E LAKE ST • ' ■Over 2 , 500 sf 0 0A ME ,,
Miles N WPROSPECT RO
20903M_010711 . doc
Memorandum January 7, 2011
E& W Neighborhood Economic Impacts Page 15
Additions
The ability to accommodate additions of 600 , 1 , 000 , and 1 , 500 square feet were also compared
to current regulations . Under Option A, 2 , 734 lots or 81 percent would qualify for the average
600 square foot addition compared to 2 , 113 lots or 63 percent under Option B . The 0 . 27 FAR
option is therefore more restrictive on the average size addition with a reduction of 621 lots or
18 percent of the total , as shown in Table 5 .
Table 5
Impact on Additions by Regulation
E &W Neighborhoods Economic Impacts
Existing Block Avg. +50% .27 FAR
Additions # % # % # %
Addition over 600 Sq Ft
Yes 3 ,234 96 % 21734 81 % 2 , 113 63 %
No 137 4 % 637 19 % 1 ,258 37 %
Addition over 1 ,000 Sq Ft
Yes 39060 91 % 11538 46 % 1 , 183 35 %
No 311 9% 11833 54 % 2 , 188 65 %
Addition over 1 ,500 Sq Ft
Yes 21450 73% 148 4 % 506 15 %
No 921 27% 35223 96 % 29865 85 %
Average Maximum Size of Addition 21253 894 855
Source: Larimer County Assessor; Economic & Planning Sytems
H:\20903- Fort Collins Neighborhood Economic Impact Study�Data\[20903-Parcel D ata.xl s]Add iti ons
Larger additions of 1 , 000 and 1 , 500 square feet were also compared . Under Option A,
46 percent of existing homes would be allowed to build a 1 , 000 square foot addition compared to
35 percent under Option B . For the 1 , 500 square foot addition , under Option A only 4 percent of
existing homes would be allowed to build this size addition onto the existing home size . Under
Option B, 15 percent could add 1 , 500 square feet of additional space to an existing home .
Option B is therefore more restrictive for smaller additions and less restrictive for large additions
compared to Option A . The greater variance of addition sizes is evident on Figures 6 and 7 .
20903M_010711 . doc
Memorandum January 7, 2011
E& W Neighborhood Economic Impacts Page 16
Figure 6
Size of Addition Allowed by Block Average plus 50% Regulation
E &W Neighborhood Economic Impacts
■
1
T —
r
J ■ ,— CHERRY ST
O
u — I MAPLE ST
1 �I LAPORTEAVE
. -
■
1 ■ 1 1 1 ■ 1 ■ III I■ r1Fm= 1 ■ ■ I r I ■' 1
W MOUNTAIN AVE
11p 111 111 ■ 1 1 11 I ■ 1 11111 . II I ■ J.j
1W ■ I 1 ■ 1 I I I I ■ I I III . I II I W OAK ST
II 1 • I ■ � I 11 ■ _ �
I LM — , I ■ ■ ■ 7 W OLIVE STt, Z
20 . ■ ■ 71 I • W MAGNOLIA ST I - OU p
U
MIM
W MULBERRY ST -a, _'
y� WMULBERRY ST
w ■ I I O
■ ■ � 0
W MYRTLE ST r ' w EMYRTLE ST p7r: r
. 11L � — �
z _ -
J _
' o WLAUREL ST
Block Average plus 50 % - Addition o 1 ! = _ _ ` , EPLUM ST
Neighborhood Conservation Low Density Z LOCUSTST — — I_ : ■
• 1 1 r ■
Q Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density E ELIZABETH ST
I . ■ � � 1
Size of Addition Allowed GARFIELDST I 1 J 1
— Under600 sf EDWIRDSST ■ I I 1
1 1 1 1 ■ ■
600 to 999 sf EPITgHST 1 I ■
• o
1 , 000 to 1 . 500 sf I H
_ Over 1 . 500 sf a 25 E LAKE ST _ 1eow
' ■� -
11111111
Miles N W PROSPECT RD
20903M_010711 . doc
Memorandum January 7, 2011
E& W Neighborhood Economic Impacts Page 17
Figure 7
Size of Addition Allowed by 0 , 27 FAR Regulation
E &W Neighborhood Economic Impacts
MIN! I _
INS Aw ■■
■ ■ tip
1 A r !— it
E ' — • MIN . ■ - r �L ■ CHERRY ST
.� _ � ■ ■ Ng
0 _ II ■ MAPLE ST
ILI = In
I im IS , F• LAPORTEAVE
■ ■ AMR 10 II
ter •■ Ilrffn
1 1 II■ 1 I - I � - ■ ■ It , W MOUNTAIN AVE
INU 111 ■ I ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ � omimi111F I ■ 1A AN
I I ■ I in I I I I mor ■ IL 10 i 1 1 ._ W OAK ST
1 Ell 1 1 ■ 1 ■ _ _ • M13
-mil■ O■ 9; 1M W OLIVE STM ■ _ .jM IA l 1 ■ W MAGNOLIA ST 0
NJ ` N ■ P o
< 11 ■� _ b
W MULBERRY ST -� � � y WMULBERRY ST
, � ■ 1 11 - 00
W MYRTLE ST r ■ ■ 17 ■ w EMYRttE ST m EM ■
N 1 1 L 1W ` ,L _ L Ham 11111111
_ ® f WLAUREL ST ■_ '. _ � ■
w AALWO
a ■ r9I 1 111'
0 . 27 FAR - Addition 4 _ _ ■ �� _t EPLUM ST
•
Neighborhood Conservation Low Density Z LOCUSTST
Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density E ELIZABETH ST • I MIN I
II ■ 1
Size of Addition Allowed GAREIELDST 1 I ■ 1
j ■ 1 ■ 11 I
_ Under 600 sf EDWI RDSST ■ 1 1 11 I 1 ■
J 11 I I ■ 11 l a
600 to 999 sf EPITKIN ST I 1 1 ■ I I a
1 . 000 to 1 , 500 sf I °
Over 1 . 500 sf 025 ELAKE STmoo.\ SM
I • •
Miles N WPROSPECT RD • ,
20903M_010711 . doc
Memorandum January 7, 2011
E& W Neighborhood Economic Impacts Page 18
Financial Analysis
EPS examined the market and financial factors affecting major renovations and new home
construction in the Old Town neighborhoods . According to area realtors, the Old Town market is
composed of several submarkets including 1 ) younger singles and couples trading off house size
for location within the limits of their budget, and 2 ) more mature and affluent couples and
families seeking a larger home . Many younger homeowners buy a smaller home and renovate
and expand over time . This has been a significant trend as evidenced by the number of smaller
homes with new additions that have been built .
There are more affluent buyers for the larger new homes being built with typically 3 bedrooms , 3
baths , living , dining , and family room and/or office . These larger homes are largely not in the
existing housing stock of the neighborhood but reflect the market for new home construction .
They generally contain 2 , 000 square feet of finished space or greater but can be built in under a
range of configurations .
Based on current economics , a new home would need to be approximately 2 , 230 square feet in
size to pay for an average lot price of $ 125 , 000 and current construction costs and achieve a
sales price close to the current average of $ 237 per square foot, as shown in Table 6 . By
contrast, a smaller 1 , 500 square foot home would require a price of $ 268 per square foot and
push the land cost to more than 30 percent of total cost . According to area builders , these price
points are less likely to be feasible .
Table 6
New Home Feasibility Analysis
E &W Neighborhoods Economic Impacts
15500 Sq Ft 25230 Sq Ft
New Home New Home
Lot
Lot Price ( A ) $ 1259000 $ 125 ,000
Construction Cost
Finished Square Feet (non-basement ) 15500 25229
Construction Cost per Sq Ft. $ 150 $ 150
Total Construction Cost ( B ) $2255000 $334 ,302
Total Construction and Land Costs (A+ B) $3509000 $45%302
Profit and Contingency ( 15 % ) ( C ) $525500 $ 68 ,895
Total Value (A+ B+c) $402, 500 $528 , 197
Value per sq ft $268 $237
Lot as % of Value 31 % 24%
Source: Larimer County Assessor; Economic & Planning Systems
H:\20903-Fort Collins Neighborhood Economic Impact Study\Models\[20903-Pro Formas_12-28.bs]Raised
20903M_010711 . doc
Memorandum January 7, 2011
E& W Neighborhood Economic Impacts Page 19
The area builders interviewed indicated that the lots being acquired for new homes are small
homes priced from $ 80 , 000 to $ 140 , 000 with $ 125 , 000 being the current average . Based on
existing home values from Assessor records, there are only 42 existing homes with less than
$ 125 , 000 in value , as shown in Table 7 . Although the Assessor records may be conservative
compared to MLS market values , it appears there is a very limited supply of homes that would be
vulnerable to scrapeoffs at current market rates .
Table 7
County Assessor Actual Lot Values
E &W Neighborhoods Economic Impacts
Val ue # %
$0 to $125 ,000 42 1 %
$125, 001 to $150,000 80 2%
$150, 001 to $175,000 381 11 %
$175, 001 to $200,000 550 16%
Over $200, 000 21318 69%
Total 3 ,371 100%
Source: Larimer County Assessor; Economic & Planning Sytems
H:\20903- Fort Collins Neighborhood Economic Impact Study\Data\[20903- Parcel Data.xls]Value
20903M_010711 . doc
Memorandum January 7, 2011
E& W Neighborhood Economic Impacts Page 20
Other Impacts
In addition to building size , there are a number of additional impacts ( some intentional and some
not) associated with the options and identified below .
• Block Face Averaging - A number of stakeholders have pointed out that calculation of the
allowable house size based on the block face average would create some disparities between
the odd and even sides of certain blocks as shown in Table 8 . The disparities range in level
of significance as shown . There would be an estimated 10 to 15 blocks with a disparity of
more than 1 , 000 square feet under Option A . The addition of the 2 , 000 maximum home size
allowance mitigates or eliminates this potential impact on most blocks .
Table 8
Disparity between Block Face Averages
E &W Neighborhoods Economic Impacts
Block Allowed Size
700 Block of E Elizabeth St
Even Side 21681
Odd Side 55325
Difference -2, 644
800 Block of E Elizabeth St
Even Side 33239
Odd Side 23408
Difference 831
100 Block of N Loomis St
Even Side 23000
Odd Side 25921
Difference -921
700 Block of Mathews St
Even Side 35082
Odd Side 25346
Difference 736
600 Block of W Mountain Ave
Even Side 33411
Odd Side 23651
Difference 760
600 Block of W Mulberry St
Even Side 35217
Odd Side 25000
Difference 1 , 217
800 Block of E Myrtle St
Even Side 45339
Odd Side 25000
Difference 2, 339
Source: Latimer County Assessor; Economic & Planning Sytems
H:\20903-Fort Collins Neighborhood Economic Impact Study\Data\[20903-Parcel Data.xls]Block Average Disparity
20903M_010711 . doc
Memorandum January 7, 2011
E& W Neighborhood Economic Impacts Page 21
• New Home Impact — In cases where a new large home has been built on an otherwise
block of modest homes , the new house can dramatically alter the size of future homes .
This would also seem to create a disparity with other similar blocks nearby . No specific
estimate of the number of blocks affected has been tabulated .
• Bulk and Massing — Many of the objections to recent new homes and large additions are
associated with the position of a larger 11/2 or 2 - story home next to a small one - story
existing home , creating a shadowing effect . In many cases, restricting size alone does not
address these impacts . Much more attention would need to be given to building size and
massing either through design review or alternately through more restrictive setback, height,
and bulk plane regulations .
• Basements — The current regulations do not include finished basement square footage as
part of the FAR or block average calculation . Some recently built homes have been designed
intentionally to raise the main floor of the home to create finished space on the lower level
and make the basement feel less like a basement . Not including finished basement square
footage in the calculation allows for home owners to create more usable space and still be in
compliance with requirements . However, raising the basement may also increase the impact
of the new home on adjacent parcels .
20903M_010711 . doc
ATTACHMENT 4
Comparison of . 27 House FAR to Existing Standards
Lot Size Allowed House Size Allowed Garage Size
House FAR Total FAR Change from .40 Change from . 50
(sq ft) (sq ft) ( sq ft)
41000 17080 600 0 . 27 0 . 42 0 . 02 -0 . 08
41500 11215 600 0 . 27 0 . 40 0 . 00 -0 . 10
57000 11350 600 0 . 27 0 . 39 -0 . 01 -0 . 11
51500 11485 600 0 . 27 0 . 38 -0 . 02 -0 . 12
67000 11620 600 0 . 27 0 . 37 -0 . 03 -0 . 13
61500 11755 600 0 . 27 0 . 36 -0 . 04 -0 . 14
77000 11890 600 0 . 27 0 . 36 -0 . 04 -0 . 14
71500 21025 600 0 . 27 0 . 35 -0 . 05 -0 . 15
87000 21160 600 0 . 27 0 . 35 -0 . 06 -0 . 16
81500 21295 600 0 . 27 0 . 34 -0 . 06 -0 . 16
97000 21430 600 0 . 27 0 . 34 -0 . 06 -0 . 16
91500 21565 600 0 . 27 0 . 33 -0 . 07 -0 . 17
101000 21700 600 0 . 27 0 . 33 -0 . 07 -0 . 17
11, 000 1 21970 600 0 . 27 0 . 32 -0 . 08 -0 . 18
12, 000 31240 600 0 . 27 0 . 32 -0 . 08 -0 . 18
ATTACHMENT 5
Comparison of Formula for Total FAR * to Existing Standards
Lot Size Allowed House Size Allowed Garage Size
House FAR Total FAR Change from .40 Change from . 50
(sq ft) (sq ft) * * ( sq ft)
41000 11000- 11600 0- 600 . 25 - .40 0 . 40 0 . 00 -0 . 10
41500 11125 - 11725 0- 600 . 25 - 38 0 . 38 -0 . 02 -0 . 12
51000 1 11250- 11850 0- 600 . 25- 37 0 . 37 -0 . 03 -0 . 13
51500 11375 - 11975 0- 600 . 25 - 36 0 . 36 -0 . 04 -0 . 14
61000 11500- 21100 0- 600 . 25- 35 0 . 35 -0 . 05 -0 . 15
61500 11625 - 21225 0- 600 . 25 - 34 0 . 34 -0 . 06 -0 . 16
71000 11750- 21350 0- 600 . 25 - 34 0 . 34 -0 . 06 -0 . 16
71500 11875 - 21475 0- 600 . 25- 33 0 . 33 -0 . 07 -0 . 17
81000 21000- 21600 0- 600 . 25- 33 0 . 33 -0 . 08 -0 . 18
81500 21125 - 21725 0- 600 . 25 - 32 0 . 32 -0 . 08 -0 . 18
91000 21250- 21850 0- 600 . 25- 32 0 . 32 -0 . 08 -0 . 18
91500 21375 - 21975 0- 600 . 25 - 31 0 . 31 -0 . 09 -0 . 19
101000 21500- 31100 0- 600 . 25 - 31 0 . 31 -0 . 09 -0 . 19
11, 000 21750- 31350 0- 600 . 25 - 30 0 . 30 -0 . 10 -0 . 20
12, 000 31000- 31600 0- 600 . 25 - 30 0 . 30 -0 . 10 -0 . 20
* 3, 000 sq ft of lot @ . 45 ; remaining lot size @ . 25
* * House size will depend on the size of the detached garage . A range is shown assuming no detached garage
and a maximum -sized detached garage .
ATTACHMENT 6
Comparison of . 30 House FAR to Existing Standards
Lot Size Allowed House Size Allowed Garage Size
House FAR Total FAR Change from .40 Change from . 50
(sq ft) (sq ft) ( sq ft)
41000 11200 600 0 . 30 0 . 45 0 . 05 -0 . 05
41500 11350 600 0 . 30 0 . 43 0 . 03 -0 . 07
51000 1 11500 600 0 . 30 0 . 42 0 . 02 -0 . 08
51500 11650 600 0 . 30 0 . 41 0 . 01 -0 . 09
61000 11800 600 0 . 30 0 . 40 0 . 00 -0 . 10
61500 11950 600 0 . 30 0 . 39 -0 . 01 -0 . 11
71000 21100 600 0 . 30 0 . 39 -0 . 01 -0 . 11
71500 21250 600 0 . 30 0 . 38 -0 . 02 -0 . 12
81000 21400 600 0 . 30 0 . 38 -0 . 03 -0 . 13
81500 21550 600 0 . 30 0 . 37 -0 . 03 -0 . 13
91000 21700 600 0 . 30 0 . 37 -0 . 03 -0 . 13
91500 21850 600 0 . 30 0 . 36 -0 . 04 -0 . 14
101000 31000 600 0 . 30 0 . 36 -0 . 04 -0 . 14
11, 000 31300 600 0 . 30 0 . 35 -0 . 05 -0 . 15
12, 000 31600 600 0 . 30 0 . 35 -0 . 05 -0 . 15
ATTACHMENT 7
Comparison of Formula for House FAR with Sliding Scale Garage * to Existing Standards
Lot Size Allowed House Size Allowed Garage Size
House FAR Total FAR Change from .40 Change from . 50
(sq ft) (sq ft) ( sq ft)
41000 11420 250 0 . 36 0 . 42 0 . 02 -0 . 08
41500 11530 250 0 . 34 0 . 40 0 . 00 -0 . 10
51000 1 11640 250 0 . 33 1 0 . 38 -0 . 02 -0 . 12
51500 11750 250 0 . 32 0 . 36 -0 . 04 -0 . 14
61000 11860 425 0 . 31 0 . 38 -0 . 02 -0 . 12
61500 11970 425 0 . 30 0 . 37 -0 . 03 -0 . 13
71000 21080 425 0 . 30 0 . 36 -0 . 04 -0 . 14
71500 21190 425 0 . 29 0 . 35 -0 . 05 -0 . 15
81000 21300 425 0 . 29 0 . 34 -0 . 06 -0 . 16
81500 21410 425 0 . 28 0 . 33 -0 . 07 -0 . 17
91000 21520 425 0 . 28 0 . 33 -0 . 07 -0 . 17
91500 21630 600 0 . 28 0 . 34 -0 . 06 -0 . 16
101000 21740 600 0 . 27 0 . 33 -0 . 07 -0 . 17
11, 000 21960 600 0 . 27 0 . 32 -0 . 08 -0 . 18
12, 000 31180 600 0 . 27 0 . 32 -0 . 09 -0 . 19
* 3, 000 sq ft of lot @ . 40; remainder of lot size @ . 22; sliding scale for garages
ATTACHMENT 8
Comparison of Option B and Option B Revised to Existing Standards
4, 000 sq ft Lot
FAR Option Allowed House Size Allowed Garage Size House Total Change from Change from
(sq ft) (sq ft) FAR FAR .40 .50
.27 House FAR 11080 600 0 . 27 0.42 0.02 -0 . 08
Formula for Total FAR 1, 000- 1, 600 0-600 . 25-.40 0.40 0.00 -0 . 10
5,000 sq ft Lot
Allowed House Size Allowed Garage Size House Total Change from Change from
FAR Option (sq ft) (sq ft) FAR FAR .40 .50
.27 House FAR 11350 600 0.27 0.39 -0.01 -0. 11
Formula for Total FAR 11250-11850 0-600 .25-37 0.37 -0.03 -0. 13
6, 000 sq ft Lot
FAR Option Allowed House Size Allowed Garage Size House Total Change from Change from
(sq ft) (sq ft) FAR FAR .40 .50
.27 House FAR 11620 600 0 . 27 0. 37 0.03 -0. 13
Formula for Total FAR 11500-21100 0-600 . 25-. 35 0. 35 -0.05 -0. 15
7,000 sq ft Lot
Allowed House Size Allowed Garage Size House Total Change from Change from
FAR Option
(sq ft) (sq ft) FAR FAR .40 .50
I
House FAR 1,890 600 0 . 27 0. 36 004 0. 14
mula forTotalFAR 1,750-2,350 0-600 . 25-. 34 0. 34 -0 .06 -0. 16
8, 000 sq ft Lot
FAR Option Allowed House Size Allowed Garage Size House Total Change from Change from
(sq ft) (sq ft) FAR FAR .40 .50
.27 House FAR 21160 600 0.27 0.35 -0.05 -0 . 15
Formula for Total FAR 21000-21600 0-600 .25-33 0.33 -0.07 -0 . 17
9, 000 sq ft Lot
Allowed House Size Allowed Garage Size House Total Change from Change from
FAR Option (sq ft) (sq ft) FAR FAR .40 .50
.27 House FAR 21430 600 0.27 0.34 -0.06 0. 16
Formula for Total FAR 21250-21850 0-600 .25-32 0.32 -0.08 -0. 18
10, 000 sq ft Lot
FAR Option Allowed House Size Allowed Garage Size House Total Change from Change from
(sq ft) (sq ft) FAR FAR .40 .50
27 House FAR 2, 700 600 0 . 27 0 . 33 0.07 0. 17
Formula for Total FAR 2,500-31100 0-600 . 25-. 31 0 . 31 -0.09 -0. 19
1
ATTACHMENT 9
City Of Advance Planning
Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221 .6376
970.224.6111 - fax
fcgov. com/advanceplanning
Floor Area Ratio Options , Shown on Common Lot Sizes
February 1 , 2011
The following graphics show how different Floor Area Ratio ( FAR ) concepts scale on some different
lot sizes commonly found in the NCL and NCM zoning districts — 9 , 000 , 7 , 000 , and 5 , 000 square
feet .
ASSUMPTIONS ARE KEY :
The graphics show one-story , plain rectangular floor plans , all extended to minimum setbacks along
lot lines . In real , 3 -dimensional life , there would be much more variety in floor plans , setbacks ,
garage sizes , and other variables . The graphics are intended to aid comparison only .
The graphics compare :
• Current standards for maximum allowable floor area ( . 5 and . 4 FAR for the total floor area on the
lot in the NCM and NCL zones respectively ) y
• The . 27 FAR for the HOUSE , as approved by Ordinance No . 003 , 2011
• A formula - based FAR for the total floor area on a lot , as presented for consideration at Second
Reading of Ordinance No . 003 , 2011 .
Page 1 of 4
Floor Area Ratio Options , Shown on 9 , 000 s . f. lots
Current Current Current Current . 27 House FAR Total FAR Total FAR
Standard : Standard : Standard : Standard : Shows House Formula : Formula :
. 50 Total FAR . 50 Total FAR . 40 Total FAR . 40 Total FAR Size If Max. . 45+ . 25 . 45+ . 25
Shows House Shows House Shows House Shows House Garage Built Shows House Shows House
Size If Size If Max . Size If Size If Max. Size If No Size If Max .
No Garage Garage Built No Garage Garage Built Garage Built Garage Built
r - - _ _ _ . _
I ,
' I i
•i i I i i i i i
i I i I i I it
I i i i i i
i I r i i i
lli;h ,
iia ^ I I I I I
I I j j
� I 1
is
I I
I
I
i
I
I
' I
j
. lu.w ,b
fi
4,485 s.f: 39900 S.f. 3 , 600 s.f. 3 , 000 s.f. ' 2 � 430 s .f. 2 � 850 s .f. 2 + 250 s .f.
i I I I ' , I i
House ; House j House , House , House House House
. 5 House FAR . 43 House FAR . 4 House FAR . 33 House FAR . 27 House FAR . 32 House FAR . 25 House FAR
No garage 600 s .f. garage No garage 600 s . f. garage 600 s . f. garage No garage 600 s .f. garage
. 5 Total FAR . 5 Total FAR . 4 Total FAR . 4 Total FAR . 34 Total FAR . 32 Total FAR . 32 Total FAR
Page 2 of 4
Floor Area Ratio Options , Shown on 7 , 000 s . f. lots
Current Current Current Current . 27 House FAR Total FAR Total FAR
Standard : Standard : Standard : Standard : Shows House Formula : Formula :
. 50 Total FAR . 50 Total FAR . 40 Total FAR . 40 Total FAR Size If Max. . 45+ . 25 . 45+ . 25
Shows House Shows House Shows House Shows House Garage Built Shows House Shows House
Size If Size If Max. Size If Size If Max . Size If No Size If Max .
No Garage Garage Built No Garage Garage Built Garage Built Garage Built
_. .r . ._ . _ .. _ ... , .. _ . . _. ._ , . , . a . . _. . _.,T . .r , . �
i I I i i i i � il
i i i I i i iil
: . . . : : : : :
ll
i i
Ult ,
is
. I I � i I, � . � I7' ,iII I r : i . : ' 1 i i. i i � � i , i : ai: 4i R: �. fi li � I �
3 , 355 s . f. t 2 , 900 s.f. 1 2 , 800 s .f. 2 , 200 s .f. 19890 s.f. 2 , 350 s . f. 1 , 750 s.f.
I
House House House House House j House i House
. 5 House FAR . 41 House FAR . 4 House FAR . 31 House FAR . 27 House FAR . 34 House FAR . 25 House FAR
No garage 600 s . f. garage No garage 600 s .f. garage 600 s . f. garage No garage 600 s .f. garage
. 5 Total FAR . 5 Total FAR . 4 Total FAR . 4 Total FAR . 36 Total FAR . 34 Total FAR . 34 Total FAR
Page 3 of 4
Floor Area Ratio Options , Shown on 5 , 000 s . f. lots
Current Current Current Current . 27 HOUSe FAR Total FAR Total FAR
Standard : Standard : Standard : Standard : Shows House Formula : Formula :
. 50 Total FAR . 50 Total FAR .40 Total FAR . 40 Total FAR Size If Max . . 45+ . 25 . 45+ . 25
Shows House Shows House Shows House Shows House Garage Built Shows House Shows House
Size If Size If Size If Size If Max . Size If No Size If Max .
No Garages No Garages No Garages Garage Built Garage Built Garage Built
- - - - - - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ ..
1
I I
I I �
1
I i
aI : ,
I , I
jk: I
�, • li l3 � ' I I . 1 . : : I ' I IIkII.I 1 . I
2 225 s.f : 1 900 s . f. 1129000 :f. l 1 , 400 s.f. 1 , 350 s.f. 1 , 850 s. f. 1 , 250 s . f.
House House House House House House House
. 5 House FAR . 38 House FAR . 4 House FAR . 28 House FAR . 27 House FAR . 37 House FAR . 25 House FAR
No garage 600 s .f. garage No garage 600 s .f. garage 600 s . f. garage No garage 600 s . f. garage
. 5 Total FAR . 5 Total FAR . 4 Total FAR . 4 Total FAR . 39 Total FAR . 37 Total FAR . 37 Total FAR
Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENT 10
Planning &Zoning Board
January 20, 2011
Page 2 ®RAFT
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes for the November 18 and December gt" Planning & Zoning Board Hearings
2. Three Mile Plan Update
Member Schmidt moved to approve the Consent Agenda including minutes from the November
18 and December 9, 2010 Hearings and the Three Mile Plan Update. Member Campana seconded
the motion. The motion was approved 5:0.
Discussion Agenda:
3. Eastside/Westside Design Standards
4. Plan Fort Collins %
' to
4 W-
Project: Eastside/Westside Design Standards
qquy
Project Description: Staff requests that the Planning and 20 Ong Board make recommendations to City
Council regarding three Ordinances for pot nt6l Code changes related to the East
and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study.
v'y
Recommendation: Staff requests that the Planning and Zoning Board provide a recommendation to
i - � �
City Council regarding Or�'dinan fNo,. 003, 2011, Making Amendments to the City
of Fort Collins Land Use Code Pertaining to the Et�Side and West Side
Neighborhoods Design StandardsP-�` �
Ae i.
Hearing Testimony,�Written_Comments and Other Evidence
City Planner Megan Bolin said staff requests that the Planning and Zoning Board provide a
recommendation to City CouncilI ar"ding Ordnance-No. 003, 2011, Making Amendments to the City of
Fort Collins Land Use=Code Pertaining to the£E41W-de and West Side Neighborhoods Design
Standards., �r
Bolin,sai- Iat the Planning and Zoning BoardI(P&Z) hearing on December 9, 2010, staff presented two
Ordinances related to the East and WestSide Neighborhoods Design Standards Study. One Ordinance
.-,tea,
would amend=the City Code to increase the membership of the LPC from seven to nine members and
add a functio a lowing a sub-co mittee to consult property owners with regard to
appropriate/compatible design and site planning (Ordinance No. 002, 2011). The second Ordinance
would amend the L"andUse Code to revise house size limits using the average-plus 50% concept, or
F✓
allow 2,000 square feet-Whichever is greater (Ordinance No. 003, 2011 - Option A). Also included in this
Y
Ordinance were the two technical clarifications explained above. P&Z voted to recommend adoption of
the first Ordinance to amend City Code, but recommended that Council only amend the Land Use Code
to make the technical change with regard to the point of measurement for side wall height.
Bolin said P&Z had insightful comments and concerns about the average-plus concept. Staff shared
some of those concerns, and grew increasingly uncomfortable recommending the average-plus as the
preferred approach to regulate house size. As an alternative, staff looked more closely at lowering the
FARs and, ultimately, developed a second Ordinance option (Ordinance No. 003, 2011 - Option B) that
was presented to Council on January 4.
Planning &Zoning Board
January 20, 2011
Page 3
Council aligned with P&Z regarding Ordinance No. 002, 2011, and voted to increase the membership of
the LPC and allow the sub-committee to offer voluntary design consultation. With regard to Ordinance
No. 003, 2011, Council approved Option B to amend the Land Use Code and lower the FAR to .27.
Despite their approval, there was considerable discussion regarding the rationale for using .27 as the
standard. The challenge with using a FAR standard is the fact that there is a wide variety of lot sizes
within these neighborhoods. With prevailing FARs ranging from .15-.25, .27 is more consistent with the
existing development pattern as compared to the house size that could be buil_t�-uunder the current .40 and
.50 FARs. A .27 FAR eliminates the potential for egregiously large houses=l?ut, of the same time, has a
significant impact on smaller lots.
Due to time constraints, P&Z was not consulted about the .27 FARAp tot City Council meeting.
Bolin said their materials include Ordinance No. 003, 2011, and-ad- itional data=that was provided to
Council to aid in their decision regarding the FAR option. Also included is an economic impact analysis
that was completed by Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) which provides helpfi.Vdata about existing
conditions and a limited analysis about the impacts of the two Ordinance options (averag11 es and .27
FAR).
4f
Bolin presented Ordinance 003, 2011 Option B revised in which there is a formula restriction for the total
Mn
floor area that can be built on a lot. She said they discussed a similar approach with the Board at their
work session but the formula that is being presented in the revised" innance is a little different. This
formula would apply a .45 FAR (Floor Area Ratio)=to the first 3,000 square feet of a lot and then a .25
FAR to the remaining portion of the lot. She gave an example of the resul&df a 7,000 square foot lot
resulting in a 2,350 square feet allotment for the lot. That allotment could be distributed between the
l%s
house and the garage with a maximum 600 squar{e feet allowedkfor a_detached garage.
Bolin provided other examples of lot/alllowed floor area calculations and reviewed options considered by
the CAC (Citizen Advisory 1.Committee)Jo adopt a .30thouse FAR—it would be calculated the same as
the .27 FAR and only.-applieess to the X1,
use. Another opt on` was similar to something discussed at the
Board's work session—the5first 3,OOOaquare feet of the house would be allowed a .40 FAR and the
remainder a .20 FAR. In thaf% muu1a` s proposed it would only apply to the house. Finally, a third
f
option would build omthe same formula idea i would'have a formula for the house and a sliding scale
for a detached£garage� She used an=example of how .40 FAR was applied to the first 3,000 square feet
of a lot and.22 FAR for the remainder of the lot. Lots less than 6,000 square feet would be allowed a
F
250 squa e�foot detached ga age, lots beyeen 6,000 and 9,500 square feet would be allowed a 425
square foot garage, and lots greater than 9;500 square feet would be allowed a 600 square foot garage.
Staff requests hat>the Planningfand Zoning Board provide a recommendation to City Council regarding
Ordinance No. 003 k2011, Making'Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code Pertaining to
the East Side and V1/est,Side Neighborhoods Design Standards. Bolin said staff is available for
questions.
Board's Questions
Chair Stockover said it seems they've been inundated with a lot of information in a short time frame—
he's sure they'll have a lot of questions.
Member Schmidt asked Bolin to summarize the pros and cons of using .45 and .25 formula versus the
.27 formula. Does it impact the smaller lots more and allow people to have larger homes on smaller lots?
Bolin said yes, that's the primary difference. The formula allows for smaller lots to have a higher FAR
than larger lots. It's a way of compensating for the restriction on small lots and allowing them to have a
Planning &Zoning Board
January 20, 2011
Page 4
decent sized house. She said using the .27 formula the smaller lots are more restricted. Bolin said under
both of the proposals there are no minimums (2,000 square feet as in the previous proposal).
Member Carpenter asked if on Revised Option B the garage sizes are on a sliding scale or is it all 600
square feet. Bolin said all 600 square feet. Carpenter asked if you could choose any combination—
choose a one car garage and place the rest of your FAR into your house. Bolin said yes. Staff member
Clark Mapes said an owner's options are to have no garage whatsoever or up to a 600 square foot
garage. Carpenter asked what happens if it's an attached garage. Bolin said it doesn't matter if the
garage is detached or not. z
Member Smith asked if staff had the tables like those previously provided with a comparison of this new
proposal. Bolin said no.
_AA
005. 'l i
Member Campana asked Bolin to go back to the graphic that shows> he sliding,scsc ale garage sizes
W'. NA
allowed on the different lot sizes. Campana asked if lots have=less.tlian 6,000 square feet and owners
wanted a 600 square foot garage, would they have 350 square feerless available for=`their house. Bolin
said there are no choices in this option—you would be allowed the FAR on the house with.lots.less than
6,000 square feet allowed a 250 square foot garage Mapes said thehouse" FAR addr ses only the
size of the house. A "total" FAR allows a person to allocatevamong multiple buildings on the lot.
Member Campana asked Bolin to review the 2 or 3 ways of measuring heights and the volume loop-hole
considerations. Bolin said one of the changes would change the p t�of measurement for side wall
height. Currently it's at the finished grade at thh all. With this change`�wouulld move that point of
measurement to the mid-point of the side wall at tffijotline. Another change°is to count the space as a
second floor in a one-story house.where the vol me exceeds�tthhat of a typical one-story house. If
there's any point in the interior from the ground floor to thd�roofithat is great than 18.5 feet, that space
would be counted as a second floor. There is alsoanezterior standard which counts as a second floor
any portion that is higher than 13 feet,,from the prope y line to the�feave of a house. Both of the
standards would work to tie the height:--and volume of3a house to make sure that one story houses are
limited in their overall volume
WIN
Member Smith said in revised OptionNB t seemsythat any type of habitable space above the garage
would also count=against your FAR Bolin-said-In the garage is limited to 600 square feet regardless.
Mapes said�the hou"se R is for the house only"Campana asked if you're limited to 600 square feet for
that garage: Mapes said for.the ground floor footprint, yes. Chair Stockover asked if there's a height
limit for g images. Zoning Administrator AN
said this part of the Code is not changing. If you
have a detached accessory building, you can have a footprint that does not exceed 600 square feet.
Barnes said f"you have a seco difloor area above the garage and if you have a ceiling height of at least
7'/z feet that counts as floor area and is applied to the 600 square feet allowed. Barnes said there are
maximum height limits-24 feetthe detached accessory building has habitable space; 20 feet if there is
no habitable space�abgve the garage.
mwa {
Chair Stockover said in thWstaff report it said it would require the applicant to receive a recommendation
from a subcommittee oft the Landmark Preservation .Commission (LPC). Is that in both Option B and
Option B revised? Bolin said it is in both ordinance drafts. She said to see the last paragraph on page 2
of the Option B ordinances. Carpenter asked if that was only in the case of a variance. Bolin said
correct.
Planning &Zoning Board
January 20, 2011
Page 5
Public Input
Andre Mouton lives at 119 N. Loomis Avenue. He asked if the districts being considered are historic
areas. Director Dush said he's aware of the Laurel School Historic District. Dush said he's also aware of
a number of individually designated or eligible homes for local landmark and potentially State or Federal
designation. Mouton said his point is the LPC has a say in whether variances should be allowed. He's
concerned that the Commission (outside the Secretary of the Interior standards), on a whim, can decide
whether something is worthy of a variance or not. He thinks the "whole thing is wrong". He's seeing lots
of young families in a neighborhood in which he's resided for 30 years. It's concerned that it's going to
destroy a lot of incentives for young families to live there. People with youngfamilies need more space.
He thinks the current system is not broken. He said the absolute worst thingli the4vast majority of people
f
he's talked to in old town are totally against this,.their rights and theiyproperty value will be destroyed,
and they have no idea it's going on.
l� •�`%E���3
3e /x
Eric Sutherland lives at 3520 Golden Current but he was a residenf41of the W sf ide neighborhood for 19
years. He thinks sometimes we have a romanticized view of§what.shistory is. Since§the 1800s, he thinks
f; _ x
the people of Fort Collins are doing their best with what th_ey'have. He understands there is such a thing
as too big. He thinks, however, we're nowhere close toIfhat line. He suggests the Boa�d,recommend to
City Council that we just stop this process. What we have now is not horrible. He thinks any lovely,
Vz N
historic homes would not meet the standard. He also:qW ndered�ifEthe LPC members are open to
granting variances—he doesn't think that's it's previously been outli ed in their mission and asked if they
signed up for that. He thinks the process is flawed and it shouldj ost-be shut down.
Jan Kruckt, 128 N. Sherwood, said the two Zoneswnder consideration have experienced organic change
-w...-�, P
for over 130 years. His first observation is thhaffi&ery, time we get',tdgettier there are more options
recommended. It really means there is no specific (:bjective'statement. We are trying to push something
through the political process before the election R)ApriL He-h s one spe ific concern—the LPC/variance
O
process. Limiting FAR will create,a lot of variance requests. Theme#LPC will determine outcomes in a very
subjective and arbitrary fashion ar will give ns o a lot of conflict. Furthermore, the LPC's primary
function is local landmark'designation, of historic buildings and the review and approval of plans for
exterior changes to�thosestructures�� not architectural review, not inflicting their own views on the
variance process. He bell es it sets itself up for failUb for both the LPC and the applicant. It adds
another step in the process of variance wh ch seems nonproductive with no value added. He would ask
that when theBoard,makes a recommendation to�City Council, they outline each element including the
one about LPC-donntroll g v3anance£� no s mmendati .
GlennrC nan lives on She-ood StreetHeRhad a presentation to demonstrate how this new rule will
affect"theneighborhoods. He showed sere al pictures of homes in his neighborhood such as the home
at 707 W. Mountain with a 9,200°square=6t lot with 2,853 square foot home. With the .27 FAR, it would
not be allowed2=496-357 square feet over what's allowed. He said they are all great houses. They are
what make thei eghborhood.Il_He doesn't understand the attached versus detached garage standard—
what difference does`it-it e asked "what's the sense in this?" He asked, "what are we doing, why
Y O
are we stopping theseHe--doesn't understand the 13 foot rule. They can go around the neighborhood
to a home that has 14'6"=fo the eaves and slope to the site is 15' for a vintage looking single story home.
17
Mickey Willis lives at 2969 Spring Harvest Lane. He said he participated on the update to the Comp Plan
with Members Schmidt and Campana. The Comp Plan is a new urbanism model based on communities
that have a vibrant downtown. The vibrancy of a downtown and a walk able town plan is that you pack
as much as you can on a lot so you have a walk able town. He said you have families' downtown so that
you can support the schools that should be in the downtown areas (and as recently seen not moved to
the south to schools with mega-campuses). That's contrary to City Plan. Yet, we're pushing for lot sizes
that make no sense for the largest lots in the city of Fort Collins. He said he lives in an award winning
neighborhood on the south end where the homes are twice the size of the lot. He said we should
Planning &Zoning Board
January 20, 2011
Page 6
embrace the urban model and not get caught up in the fact that owners sometimes plan to over build a
particular lot. We have neighborhood compatibility standards that are in place that have a review
process. We're not building too many houses in downtown. It's not a problem. This would promote
sprawl more than it does good urban planning. He would certainly encourage the Board to emphasize
that in their recommendation to City Council.
Chris Guillan, Government Affairs Chair for the Fort Collins Board of Realtors, said he wants to thank
City staff for their work on this. They have been very diligent in working with their organization. He thinks
re-gentrification of a neighborhood is a natural business cycle of any neighborhood. You can see the
homes built in the 1800s and the 1950s are a good history of how our town has grown. When young
families move into those homes, they're going to want to expand their homes to meet their needs.
Limiting the size home is contradictory to City Plan which has seen,a<lot 6f infill the past 10 years. The
FAR cap rate in the NCL zone was raised from .33 to .4 in 2006<b`ecause4that cap rate was forcing too
many variance requests to occur. On page 6 of the EPS Report, between 2000and 2009 only 53 newly
constructed homes were built in that area—that's roughly 5 new homes per year Of the total built, 81%
were 2500 square feet or less. Only 10 homes were larger�,than 2,500 square feet.` heir membership is
not crazy about this idea but if they're going to recomms�end an option, Option B RevisedJs the direction
their organization is heading. They believe City Council=wilkweigh he oily on any recorn l elation made
by the Planning & Zoning Board and would encourage them jf--they nMd_;more time to take it.
Chris Skutchan, Executive Vice President of the Fort Collins Board1of Realtors, said they've been trying
to work through the best options the past 81 montths. He distributetl'a chart of the allowed square footage
per FAR option with the revised option being-46asidered. He said�theeclectic beauty in the downtown
area is irrefutable. They are here tonight as the Plammng�Board consitlersit=to try and limit the impact to
property rights should that occur. They are in support"of;Option B Revised the formula based scenario.
They do appreciate concern for the smaller lots ensuring? hey are„aable to build the type of usage they
need while capping some of� larger lots. They believe it gets to a-reasonable cap on the top end and
protects some of the lowerlehdwpt ns. The sliding scale option for garages is directly proportional to
the size of the lot. Onc establishii is similar to a FAR cap at a hard (standard) number. It becomes a
very understandable/scalable idea that most peopleNban wrap their minds around. They have heard
some concerns from their meters relative to the volurn�item flattening homes ("squaring them out"). It
gets into the issue of design1anld t is not something they we'd want to try to do. They do support the
process being reviewed in two years.
Laura Olive, 231 S. Grand Avenue,s a�Realtor with ReMax. She is very concerned about how quickly
ii y
this has all,gone. There was a=lot of data at-the last meeting and frankly no ones had a chance to review
it. That's tfe�wrong way to aproachh s She's very concerned about the impact this has on the
smaller Iotskespecially for the more distressed areas of Old Town. The .27 FAR makes it unaffordable to
build. It's not market driven and_it s not what people want. A family wants a bigger home than that and
they don't want"[n�,,,the basement. You're going to create a situation where you're going to have more
and more people coning to th`Zoning Board of Appeals asking for a variance. If owners can't do it,
those homes will justontmue to fall into disrepair because nobody wants to do new window and
insulation ("the expensive`stuff') that needs to be done unless they get the livable house they want. She
encourages the Board not to recommend approval.
John Streit lives at 400 Peterson Street. He's not in favor of these proposals at all. His home, built in
1900, wouldn't even comply with these rules. His house is too large and his garage is too big. He said in
driving around Old Town, it's more important that the house fit into the character of that particular area of
town. It's been his dream to have a four car garage, a carriage house, and a work room above that. It's
going to inhibit reconstruction of downtown. He said his aunt, who lives in Oak Park, IL, has a house that
is easily 50% of the lot and it suits her neighborhood. He thinks so long as the character of the house fits
into a neighborhood, that's more important than having a house size limits.
Planning &Zoning Board
January 20, 2011
Page 7
Susan Crewel Frost lives at 524 Spring Canyon Court. She's an architect that has worked on Old Town
projects for the past 30 years. She said we've put our resources and our talents in the Downtown area.
She believes we've done the same thing in our historically important neighborhoods. It's her firm belief
that you cannot legislate good design. Design is based on more factors, principles, and elements than
you can even imagine. We talk about scale, line composition, balance, massing, form, unity, etc. So to
pick a formula number and apply it across the board is a huge mistake. We are selling ourselves short
and going in the wrong direction
End of Public Input �N Q
Board's Questions y
Chair Stockover asked for staff response to public input.
Director Dush said relative to the recommendations from= to the Zoning Boa of Appeals (ZBA),
that would only be required if there are variance requests.. He read the specific languageJi the
Municipal Code relative to the role of the LPC. He saitl�the LPC has`€ieen briefed on th se'proposals
and they will be having a joint meeting with the ZBA next a That-AN-formation will be c ptured and
routed to City Council
Chair Stockover asked Deputy City AttorneyXckman if there's a ntial legal conflict of one City
advisory board advising another. Eckman said noZCity Council can=- cctt an ordinance that assigns
duties to the various boards. City Council can ame xthe,Code and addUitt.duty to the LPC. Stockover
said his concern is as Board members they relyfon staffivery heavily. They are well trained, full-time
72�employees with a lot of knowledge. The knowledge base,of the Boa d fluctuates based on the political
will of City Council. To have a Board relying on anotherBoard on�which you might have no control of the
make-up concerns him.
� ~
Member Schmidt saidgits`her understanding that mostof the houses—even those considered the most
egregious did meet our current poll y They did not ne d to apply for a variance. She'd like staff to
comment on the homes shown�by both-MrsKruckt and Mr. Streit as being examples of homes which
would not be allowed with the current proposal-Mapes said the calculations look correct. He noted that
Mr. Streit an archite t who's be6h)speaking with staff. Mapes said staff has looked at a number of
houses and their FAR on approximately 20 city blocks. He said you find some, especially along
Mountain=Avenue where the-FAR is between .3 and .4. He said they expect to have a complete list of
FAR's for=those 20 block homeBfor the February 1st City Council meeting. It'll help contrast the .27 with
all the FAR is a particular neighborhood He said, as many people have pointed out, there are a variety.
NN
Member Schmidt asked if the examples (sheet distributed by Clint Skutchen of the Board of Realtors)
would allow for thohomes t Ifall closer to being buildable. Mapes said very much so. He said if you
noticed on a 4,000 squareyfoot lot, the FAR is the same as it is now in the NCL Zone. It's at .4. On the
largest lot shown (12,000)jfit's 25% less or .30.
4
Chair Stockover said lots, especially those on Mountain Avenue, only go to the sidewalks. The parkways
(grass in the public right-of-way) give the impression of a larger lot. Chair Stockover said having served
on the ZBA prior to Planning and Zoning, he believes the appeals process is valid and works. He
believes that Board would be overworked. He asked ZBA Staff Liaison Peter Barnes to comment.
Barnes said he would anticipate there would be more variance requests. Barnes said one of the reasons
the .3 FAR was changed in the NCL Zone to .33 FAR a number of years ago was because they started
seeing a number of variance requests. There were a lot of instances where you had existing houses that
are already over the FAR.
Planning &Zoning Board
January 20, 2011
Page 8
Barnes said with this change, we're ratcheting it back to where it was previously so it's likely they'll see a
spike in variances. He said when a two year review is done; they'll know the hard numbers. Mapes
asked if most of the variances are for smaller lots. Barnes said they're generally in the 5,000-8,000
square foot lot range. Barnes said given the change in where they'd be measuring the height of a wall
along the side lot line (instead of finished grade), they may also see a few variances requests on height
versus setback because the setback from property line is based on the height of the wall—the taller it
gets the further the setback is required. Stockover asked how many items are heard on average each
month. Peter said 4 on average.
r
Member Campana asked the speakers from the Board of Realtors to co, irm their recommendation. He
understands they do not feel there is a need for change but if City;Council elects to go forward, they
would support Option B Revised. They said correct. N&
&
Member Carpenter said she has enough information at this p6int Stie said the G_y>Advisory Committee
(CAC) didn't have the new option. Every time the City Advisory Committee (CAC)- meets, they have a
new option which illustrates that we're shooting in theyd k on this. She said we�`don't have the right
�j� % 3 x
answer yet. She really thinks we're going in the wrong,-direction. She Ndoesn't know why we re doing it.
There doesn't seem to be a public consensus that we h5"e1a,problem much less that W-6 ve found the
answer to that problem. With reference to the gentleman who4spoke about how City Plan has been
y�a
working in the newer parts of our city with smaller lots, she belie.,we're going the opposite direction in
Old Town. Carpenter said she's really pleased vto see families in Old'Town and she doesn't want us to do
anything that will change that. She said Mr. Kruchts slides illustrate�the,wrong road that we're on. She
said her job here is to recommend to City Cou cilwhat.she truly believes;is the right road to take and
right now she believes that we need to just stop and examine what we redoing. She can't support any of
these options. She thinks we can do it in a different way`whe�r�e e not affecting all of Old Town in
such a convoluted way.
Im
Member Campana asked staff if theybelieve theyave a clear objective—why we're even trying to
change the Code. Mapes-said theylt5lked a little earlier about how some of the houses have a higher
FAR than .27. As he said'Zfh'ey'll hay,all the data for City Council, however, in all the examples they've
reviewed which are well repres'entetl of theneighborhoods; the majority of the FARs on the existing
properties is b�etwee �06 and 24FAR. MapessaidGere are limits now-- .4 in the NCL Zone and.5 in
the NCM Zone?�Mapes said he didn t=think you could find a block where the average FAR would be more
than .27 He said it is that gap betty en the existing established character and the current formula on the
books hhat he believes isKt�one aspect-tFiat has emerged as something that appears to warrant
changing He said given thaHthe current standards don't implement adopted policy--which states in
many ways0titjhe existing established-character of these neighborhoods should be protected including
scale, height ass, form, ch acter, design, etc.--that's the root behind all of the proposals being
considered tonight: '�
ON
Member Campana said, oulltl one argue that if those were already in place today (A and .5 FARs)
and no one is abusing that;why are we spending so much energy on trying to fix this. Campana said
frankly he's seen it (this proposal) three times over the past year it's come to the Planning & Zoning
Board. Two of the three times, the majority said they didn't think there was a problem. He's still
uncertain what's he's missing. He still feels the light has not gone on as to why we're trying to make
these changes. Mapes said they've been to City Council and asked that very question and they heard
from the majority of City Council at the August work session that there is a problem that warrants
correction.
Member Campana asked staff to review the volume loop hole. He said he did some calculations on what
impact that could have on your total area using some design assumptions. The assumptions are a 10
Planning &Zoning Board
January 20, 2011
Page 9
foot eave height, an 8/12 pitch, and a 1,800 square foot house that is 40 feet wide. To achieve a 1,800
square foot footprint, you'd need a 40 foot wide and 45 foot deep house. At 8/12 we would exceed the
18.5 foot of height which would then force us to use the area above the 18.5 feet in our total area. In that
particular example, it came out to be about 660 square feet we would lose to the attic. He said our 1,800
square foot house now becomes 1,142 square feet. He's never been in support of the volume loophole.
He understands why it's being considered (for shadowing) but he thinks we accomplish that somewhat
with our other standards for setback and height. He doesn't think we should go to straight volume. He
said as one of the speaker requested (to please speak to each of the points); he thinks that's a great
idea. Clearly City Council has their own objectives here and the Board's recommendation may not carry
as much weight as it sometimes does especially considering the Board does-not have all the data to
formulate a recommendation.
Mapes reviewed a graphic--the design of a proposed two story hig-,. usexwith one half having a second
story and the other half a two story high area as an illustration-as why a height volume standard may be
needed. Member Campana said that's one example of hundreds of designs that have been reviewed
and now we're going to write code around that. Member Carpenter asked, "how could you not be
sympathetic to a neighbor's concern. That design was incompatible in Old Town". She�saidgshe thinks
it's more about design than it is about FAR. She said the biggest proponent of"let's do volume" on CAC
was concerned about the flattening of the roof and she think0hey stilll1didnn't get there. �-
" Kffibky
Member Carpenter said that staff has been fabulous through this`They have had a very difficult job.
She believes they have had a moving tAget_ and she honestly believes this has been really tough.
Under the circumstances, they have done a reallylgreat 'ob. 3
Member Campana said he knows the volume opic is- the minutes of their last meeting so he knows
review/deliberation information has been capturetl tt_ ere. .
Member Schmidt said she"els ,a little bit like the Board. of Realtors. We could make our
recommendation but City-,Council ha already gone jetty far down a path with this so she'd like to have
a backup—this is the:way we feel but=if that's not the sway it's going to go, then do we want Option B or
Vkl
Option B Revised. k
Member Smith-said,.-he thinks imes<the III r�messages are lost in translation to City Council. On
principle, he'd"Iike-to- back to wl at,he said las month and add a couple of things. Let's start with
some new ihformation thaf°the Board has with the EPS Report—an analysis of the economic impacts of
whatbeing proposed `1Nf en they gett-into the existing conditions they say the East and West
Neighborhoods abutting Old T6wn FortC ollins are stable neighborhoods with well maintained homes,
strong market values, and relatively higt levels of property reinvestment. That can't be said for a lot of
neighborhoods in'the country right now. It says that's something working well in Old Town.
Smith said when a-bt to page"7 of the analysis one of the takeaways it says overall the average size of
a new home would be reduced by approximately 40% under both options. That's pretty dramatic—it
doesn't address the Option b Revised, it's just the .27 option. So maybe it's just a shaving off of that a
bit. That's a huge impact. He hasn't been convinced that the problem is of the magnitude that would
require that type of an impact in Old Town residential neighborhoods. He said like he's said before this is
all about balance and we already have an upper limit—you can't build to your lot line, you can't build the
biggest house possible.
Smith said he hasn't been convinced we really have this huge problem. From their purview, the impacts
on the administration of the LUC are very important. He said we know and would agree that it would
have a lot of uncertainty. He knows they will come back and revisit it in two years. In the meantime, he
said these are real lives, real families, real properties, and real neighborhoods that are going to be
Planning & Zoning Board
January 20, 2011
Page 10
affected by this beta model. When you have this much uncertainty, that's not a predictable or a
transparent LUC and that's tough for everybody to deal with whether it's staff, an appointed Board, or the
people who have their lives affected by owning the real estate. That's pretty serious and goes against
the grain the neighborhood character. Smith said staff has done a great job—this is not directed to them
at all. It has been a moving target handed to them by another body of decision makers.
Smith said a lot of times when the Board has to make a decision, sometimes that have to make a finding
about whether the public good was harmed. He thinks we haven't heard anybody say this is a big
problem—he finds that striking. What he has heard are people who say t�iistheir neighborhood and
this is bad. We're going in the wrong direction. We are going in a direction`th5t7would harm the public
good. We have some Codes that would address the egregious problems already in place. He'd like to
keep Old Town funky (eclectic)—it's what makes it vibrant. That social fab icc that would allow families to
;X el
grow in place is still a very important aspect of any downtown reuitalizatio`n'effort. He doesn't think we
�;
can ignore that when so many downtowns are craving to have families to move,back into them. EPS
said it's apparently working. He can't support recommending teCitty Council thatMe:take any action.
Smith said we have a tool out there that he thinks is4 iablea the historic dis t�option where it
would be a burden placed on the neighborhood if they want to rally together. They can make a case
when there's enough of them that would like to be self-reg tong ands elf-limiting in a way. That option
is still out there. It is a very successful model. It's a higher buriiewfor them but, in fact;ymaybe it should
z r:r
be. The implication of the administration of the LUC being predictable and transparent and also the
economics of revitalization there is no wayhe'll be able to support any motion that would change what
we already have.
Chairman Stockover said it does surprise him that wedori"'thave more people in support of this--people
with specific instances of abuse. He's very com�rtable wth t notion of predictability—the variance
process that gives neighborsa ry clear procession how to proceed with protections. At this point he
has a hard time supporting,th6 proposal.
"`N
Member Schmidt said
her'concerns are still the samelas those noted at the December 9�h meeting. She
a -A�
said where she thinks we,�lost),a lot diVing up the block ace aspect. As staff has mentioned, Mountain
Avenue is very different from�some,o'"ther neighborhoods`"where the houses are very tiny. Maybe this still
isn't ready to go£the ful[,route
Membe ,Qampana said last t me we made some recommendations to modify some codes. Will those
still holtl true? Can we tustzsppeeak to thelne�w4evisions? Director Dush said those recommendations will
stand. What—.we're considering tonight is"Option B Revised.
oo
Member Smith%oved to not r ommend Ordinance No. 003, 2011. Member Carpenter seconded
the motion. Them_'otion was approved 5:0.
ATTACHMENT
East and West Side Neighborhoods
Design Standards Study
City Council
February 1, 2011
otyor _s
cil Acti 0
1. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 002, 2011
• Enable a committee of the Landmark Preservation
Commission ( LPC) to offer voluntary design consultation
• Increase membership from 7 to 9 members
2 . Second Reading of Ordinance No. 003, 2011
• Lower limits for building floor area
• Option B
• Option B Revised
ory or
2
Background
Problem Statement: Some think a portion of new construction
is not compatible with existing neighborhood character.
• Study initiated in January 2010
• Small, older houses replaced with larger new construction
• Do current regulations adequately implement policies or
are changes warranted?
• Aspects of compatibility
— Building size
— Design character
City of
rt Collins
Background
Building Size
• Existing floor area limit standards
— 40% of lot area in Neighborhood Conservation Low
Density (NCL), or .40 TOTAL Floor Area Ratio ( FAR)
Example: 10,000 sq ft lot x .40 = 4,000 sq ft
— 50% of lot area in Neighborhood Conservation
Medium Density (NCM), or .50 TOTAL FAR
• Existing development pattern
— Almost equal number of small and large lots
— 76% of houses < 1,500 sq ft
— Average TOTAL FAR = .21
Design Character
• Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines
• Design Assistance Program
Ordinance No . 002, 2011
Purpose: Assist property owners in designing context sensitive
additions/new houses to foster compatibility.
• Enable a committee of the Landmark Preservation
Commission (LPC) to offer voluntary design consultation
• Increase membership of LPC from 7 to 9 members
FFort Collins
5
11
Purpose: Align development standards with the established
development pattern.
• Revise single-family house size limits
— Option B 4 .27 HOUSE FAR
— Option B Revised 4 Formula for TOTAL FAR
• Technical clarifications for how house size is measured
• Applicants seeking a variance for house size limits must
receive a recommendation from a committee of the LPC
• Monitor development and report back in two years
Ordinance No . 003, 2011
• Count space as a second floor where the height of the
space EN that of a typical one-story house
Exterior Intern
Side
'�tfs
• Change point of measurement for side wall height
Midpoint
Of Height
Side Wall - Measurement
For Setback
Purposes
oryor
Fort Collins
Ordinance No . 003, 2011 Option B
• .27 HOUSE FAR
• The following are NOT counted as floor area:
— Basements, if no portion of the basement wall is
higher than 3 feet above the side property line
— Open balconies
— 450 sq ft of attached garages (if more than % of the
houses on the block face have attached garages)
— Detached accessory buildings, i.e. detached garages,
if located behind the house and separated by at least
ten feet
House Lot Size (sq ft)
FAR4,000 5,000 - 9� 000 30,000 11,000
9 '`Ltrs
, .
Plan View
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Shown with Max. Garages
I Gar
: 0
House
[H ou ses
square foot lot square foot lot square foot
.27 House FAR .27 House FAR .27 House FAR
10 00 s.f. garage 600 s.f. garage 600
FormulaOrdinance No. 003,, 2011 Option B Revised
• TOTAL
The following are NOT • • as floor
— Basements, if no portion of basement
abovehigher than 3 feet • property line
Open balconies
Formula Lot Size (sq ft)
rii irr iir 1 SY000 qP000 rrr rr
0 r r 1,350 1,350 1,350 1,350 1,350 1,350 1,350 1,350
• 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000
• - • • 1,600 1,850 2,100 2,350 2,600 2,850 3,100 3,350
Area
Allowed
Fort Collins
!
Formula for FAR
3,000 @ .45; remainder @ .25
Shows House Size If
'. No Garages Built
i
Plan View
� f
I
I
I
! I i
! I i
! I i
! I i
! I i
i I �
I i
I i
I i
I i
I
I I
j I
i
I
I
2,850 s.f. I
2,350 s.f. 11850 s.f.
House House House
I
' I
- - - - - -
- - - - - - -
_ _ _ _ _L. _.._.._ _ ._.._I
9,000 � � 7,000 %,000
square foot lot square foot lot square foot lot
12 .32 House FAR .34 House FAR .37 House FAR
No garage No garage No garage
.32 Total FAR .34 Total FAR .37 Total FAR
6
Formula for FAR
600 s.f. 3,000 @ .45; remainder @ .25
Gar Shows House Size If
7
Max. Garaees Built
Plan View
i
j 600 s.f.
Gar
i I
i I �
j 600 s.
Gar
! I I
! I I
I I
I I
I
I ,
2,250 s.f.
j 1,750 s.f.
use
House
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
i _ L
9,000 17,000 %J000
square foot lot square foot lot square foot lot
3 .25 House FAR .25 House FAR .25 House FAR
600 s.f. garage 600 s.f. garage 600 s.f. garage
.32 Total FAR .34 Total FAR .37 Total FAR
Comparing Options
OptionHOUSE
Includes • • of • ONLY
Applies one • .
• to a . 11 scl ft detached garage is not • - •
IncludesOption B Revised : Formula for TOTAL FAR
• •
Detached— Smaller lots are allowed a higher FAR than larger lots
7
Problem Statement
Some think a portion of new construction is not compatible
with existing neighborhood character.
Purpose of Ordinances:
• Align development standards with the existing
development pattern
• Assist property owners in designing context-sensitive
additions and new houses
City Cf
Fort Collins
Recommendations
• Citizen Advisory Committee
— Ordinance No. 002, 2011
— .30 HOUSE FAR
• Planning and Zoning Board
— Ordinance No. 002, 2011
— Not recommend Ordinance No. 003, 2011
• Staff
— Ordinance No. 002, 2011
— Ordinance No. 003, 2011, Option B Revised
— Delay implementation until April 1, 2011
Council Action
1. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 002, 2011
• Enable a committee of the Landmark Preservation
Commission ( LPC) to offer voluntary design
consultation
• Increase membership from 7 to 9 members
2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 003, 2011
• Lower limits for building floor area
• Option B
• Option B Revised
Cf ft5
17
ORDINANCE NO . 002, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
INCREASING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE LANDMARK PRESERVATION
COMMISSION AND EXPANDING ITS FUNCTIONS TO INCLUDE
ESTABLISHING AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
WHEREAS , Policy HSG-3 . 1 of the City' s Comprehensive Plan provides that the character
of stable residential neighborhoods should be preserved through neighborhood planning, assistance
to neighborhood organizations, and supportive regulatory techniques ; and
WHEREAS , the City Council has adopted the East Side Neighborhood Plan and the West
Side Neighborhood Plan, which plans establish a vision and policies for their respective areas; and
WHEREAS , City staff has been directed to prepare for the City Council ' s consideration
revisions to the City Code or Land Use Code that would help protect existing neighborhoods in the
City from the construction of new dwelling units, or additions to existing dwelling units , that are
incompatible in size or design with the character of neighboring structures and in particular, those
structures that are, or may be, historically significant; and
WHEREAS , pursuant to Section 2-276 of the City Code, the City Council has established
a Landmark Preservation Commission (the "Commission") , the duties of which include promoting
an awareness and understanding of, and an appreciation for, the value of historic resource
preservation in contributing to the quality of life in the City, and actively encouraging property
owners to voluntarily designate their properties as historic landmarks ; and
WHEREAS , in response to the foregoing direction, City staff has recommended that the
duties of the Commission be expanded to include the establishment of a committee to provide
"voluntary design review" of alterations, additions, and new construction affecting eligible historic
properties and properties located near eligible historic properties ; and
WHEREAS , in order for the Commission to adequately provide this service, the membership
of the Commission needs to be expanded from seven to nine members ; and
WHEREAS , the City Council has determined that the proposed revisions to Section 2-277
and 2 -278 of the City Code are in the best interests of the City and its citizens .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows :
Section 1 . That Section 2-277 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows :
Sec . 2 -277. Membership ; term.
(a) The Commission shall consist of nine (9) members appointed by the City
Council. In making appointments to the Commission, the City Council shall give due
consideration to maintaining a balance of interests and skills in the composition of
the Commission and to the individual qualifications of the candidates including but
not limited to their training, experience, knowledge or interest in any one ( 1 ) or more
of the fields of architecture, landscape architecture, architectural history, structural
engineering, general contracting, urban planning, mortgage lending and commerce .
Section 2 . That Section 2-278(b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows :
Sec. 2 -278. Functions.
(b) The Commission shall also perform the following additional functions :
( 1 ) To Ppromote awareness and understanding of, and appreciation for, the value
of historic resource preservation in contributing to the quality of life in the
City, and actively encourage property owners to voluntarily designate their
properties as historic landmarks ;
(2) To Aadvise the City Council and City staff with regard to the identification
and evaluation of historic resources within the Growth Management Area
and provide information regarding the significance of the resources, the
nature and degree of threat to their preservation, and methods for their
protection;
(3 ) To Aadvise the City Council and City staff with regard to appropriate
policies, incentives and regulations for encouraging and/or requiring
preservation and rehabilitation of historic resources;
(4) To Ecoordinate with the various other City boards, commissions and City
staff members whose actions may affect the preservation of historic resources
in the community; and
(5 ) To Eestablish a committee of its members to provide advice and, if required
under Section 2 . 10 . 2(H) of the Land Use Code, written recommendations to
the owners of eligible historic properties, and of properties located near
eligible historic properties, regarding historically appropriate design and site
planning for additions, alterations, and new construction in the City;
provided, however, that any members of such committee who provide such
advice or recommendations to property owners under this provision shall
refrain from participating in any subsequent decisions of the Commission
related to such properties; and
-2-
(6) To Performingperform such other duties and functions as may be provided
by the City Council by ordinance or resolution.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of
January, A.D . 2011 , and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of February, A.D . 2011 ,
Mayor
ATTEST :
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of February, A.D . 2011 .
Mayor
ATTEST :
City Clerk
-3 -
OPTION B
ORDINANCE NO , 0039 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING AMENDMENTS
TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE
PERTAINING TO EAST SIDE AND WEST SIDE NEIGHBORHOOD
DESIGN STANDARDS
WHEREAS , on March 18 , 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 051 , 1997 , the
City Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code") ; and
WHEREAS, Policy HSG-3 . 1 of the City ' s Comprehensive Plan provides that the
character of stable, residential neighborhoods should be preserved through neighborhood
planning, assistance to neighborhood organizations, and supportive regulatory
techniques; and
WHEREAS , Policy EXN- 1 .4 of the City ' s Comprehensive Plan provides that the
City will follow specific design standards for infill development and redevelopment with
an emphasis on protecting existing residential neighborhood character; and
WHEREAS , the City Council has also adopted the East Side Neighborhood Plan
and the West Side Neighborhood Plan, which plans establish a vision and policies for
their respective areas ; and
WHEREAS , at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the
understanding of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be
subject to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of
errors, but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic
document capable of responding to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals
and citizens of the City; and
WHEREAS , City staff has been requested to prepare and present to the City
Council certain changes to the Land Use Code to address issues of concern regarding the
compatibility of the size of new single-family houses and additions to existing single-
family houses in the East Side and West Side Neighborhoods, particularly in the
Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density Zone District and the Neighborhood
Conservation, Medium Density Zone District, as compared to the size of existing
principal structures in those zone districts; and
WHEREAS , the City Council has received and considered the recommendation of
the Planning and Zoning Board; and
WHEREAS , the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use
Code amendments comport with the City' s Comprehensive Plan and the East Side
1
Neighborhood Plan and West Side Neighborhood Plan, and are in the best interest of the
City and its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF FORT COLLINS that the Land Use Code is hereby amended as follows :
Section 1 . That Section 2 . 10 .2(H) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
as follows :
(H) Step 8 (Standards) : Applicable, and the Zoning Board of Appeals may
grant a variance from the standards of Articles 3 and 4 only if it finds that
the granting of the variance would neither be detrimental to the public
good nor authorize any change in use other than to a use that is allowed
subject to basic development review; and that:
( 1 ) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary
and exceptional situations unique to such property, including, but
not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness,
shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder
the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict
application of the standard sought to be varied would result in
unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or
undue hardship upon the occupant of such property, or upon the
applicant, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused
by the act or omission of the occupant or applicant;
(2) the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the
standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better
than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which
the variance is requested; or
(3 ) the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of
the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be varied
except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the
context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the
purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1 .2 .2 .
Any finding made under subparagraph ( 1 ), (2) or (3 ) above shall be
supported by specific findings showing how the proposal, as submitted,
meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph ( 1 ), (2) or (3 ) .
If a variance is sought from the standards contained in Division
4. 7, Section (D)(2) or subparagraphs 4-0r 5—of Seotiefi (E), or
Division 4 . 8 , Section (D)(2)or s��gr-aphs -4 or- 5 of geetien
(E), the application for such variance shall be accompanied by a
written recommendation from a committee of the Landmark
2
Preservation Commission, as authorized under Section 2-278(b)(5)
of the City Code.
Section 2 . That Sections 4 .7(D) and (E) of the Land Use Code are hereby
amended to read as follows :
Division 4 .7 Neighborhood Conservation , Low Density District (N-C-L)
(D) Land Use Standards.
( 1 ) Required Lot Area. Lot area shall be at least two and one-half (21/2)
times the aggregate floor area of the building(s) situated on the lot, as
further provided below, and not less than six thousand (6,000) square
feet per principal building. "Aggregate floor area" shall mean the
total gross floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the
outside walls of each finished or unfinished floor level of such
buildings, plus the total gross floor area of the ground floor of any
accessory building larger than one hundred twenty ( 120) square feet,
plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling
height of at least seven and one-half (71/2) feet located within any such
accessory building located on the lot.
(2) Allowable Floor Area of Street-Fronting Single-Family Dwellings.
The allowable floor area of a street-fronting single-family dwelling
shall not exceed twenty-seven (27) percent of the area of the lot upon
which the dwelling is situated. For the purposes of this provision,
"allowable floor area " shall mean the total gross floor area of the
street-fronting single-family dwelling, including each finished and
unfinished floor level, as measured along the outside walls of such
building. Additionally, the following shall apply :
(a) If any horizontal eave along a side lot line is more than
thirteen ( 13 ) feet above grade-the surface of the lot (without
retaining walls) as measured from the nearest side lot line
perpendicular to the center of the cave, the floor area shall
be calculated as if the building includes a second floor
regardless of whether a second floor is physically built.
!S 1.1 eh h�nt�A 1. e-ave� sh "�nP��'�the grade at.
the
nearest
side lob line perpendicularly
erven icul rly to the OeMler of thv
e-mreo
(b) If any one story portion of a street-fronting single-family
dwelling contains space that exceeds eighteen and one-half
( 18 1 /2) feet in height from the ground floor to the top of
the roof, such portion shall be counted as both a first and
second floor even if such second floor is not physically
3
built, or if such portion consists partly or wholly of attic
space .
Figure XX Volume that Counts as Floor Area
Horizontal Eave
rCountecond Floor" On9deWall
or Over 13' Height
ea Lim its
13'
Front View
Property
Line @:
Midpoint of I
Side Wall
Count as
" Second Floor" For
Floor Area Limits
18 '/z 18 W
Ground Floor
(c) The following shall not be included in the computation of
the allowable floor area:
1 , basements, provided that no portion of the basement
wall is higher than three (3 ) feet above the surface
of the lot (without retaining walls) as measured
from the nearest side lot line perpendicular to the
center of the wall;
2 , open balconies ;
4
3 . four hundred fifty (450) square feet of attached
garages (if more than one-half ( 1 /2) of the dwellings
on the same block face have attached garages) ;
4. detached accessory buildings, but only if located
behind the street-fronting principal building and
separated from such principal building by at least
ten ( 10) feet.
(3) Allowable Floor Area of Carriage Houses. Any new single-family
dwelling that is proposed to be located behind a street-fronting
principal building shall contain a maximum of eight hundred (800)
square feet of floor area unless such new single-family dwelling
contains a two-car garage, in which case it shall contain a maximum
of one thousand ( 1 ,000) square feet of floor area, including the
garage . Floor area shall include all floor space within the basement
and first floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story
having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (71/2) feet. A
new single-family dwelling may be located in any area of the rear
portion of such lot, provided that it complies with the setback
requirements of this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation
between structures . The building footprint for such single-family
dwelling shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet.
(4) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future
Habitable Space). Any accessory building with water and/or sewer
service shall be considered to have habitable space . An applicant may
also declare an intent for an accessory building to contain habitable
space . Any such structure containing habitable space that is located
behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of
six hundred (600) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include
all floor space within the basement and ground floor plus that portion
of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least
seven and one-half (71/2) feet. Such accessory building may be
located in any area of the rear portion of a lot, provided that it
complies with the setback requirements of this District and there is at
least a ten-foot separation between structures.
(5) Accessory Buildings Without Habitable Space. Any accessory
building without water and/or sewer service, which has not been
declared to contain habitable space by the applicant, shall not exceed
a total floor area of six hundred (600) square feet. Floor area shall
include all floor space (including basement space) within the building
having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (71/2) feet.
(6) Floor Area Ratio of Rear Half of Lot (FAR). Lots are subject to a
maximum FAR of twenty-five hundredths (0 .25) on the rear fifty (50)
percent of the lot. All principal buildings and detached accessory
5
buildings that exceed one hundred twenty ( 120) square feet of floor
area shall be included in the calculation of FAR.
(E) Dimensional Standards.
( 1 ) Minimum lot width shall be forty (40) feet.
(2) Minimum front yard setback shall be fifteen ( 15) feet. Setbacks from
garage doors to the backs of public walks shall not be less than twenty
(20) feet.
(3 ) Minimum rear yard setback shall be five (5) feet from existing alleys
and fifteen ( 15) feet in all other conditions .
(4) Minimum side yard width shall be five (5 ) feet for all interior side
yards . Whenever any portion of a wall or building exceeds eighteen
( 18) feet in height, such portion of the wall or building shall be set
back from the interior side lot line an additional one ( 1 ) foot, beyond
the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of wall
or building height that exceeds eighteen ( 18) feet in height (as
measured from the gm&surface of the lot (without retaining walls) at
the nearest side lot line perpendicularly to the center of the wall).
Minimum side yard width shall be fifteen ( 15 ) feet on the street side
of any corner lot. Notwithstanding the foregoing, minimum side yard
width for schools and places of worship shall be twenty-five (25) feet
(for both interior and street sides) .
Figure XX Measurement of Side Wall Height
Side
Midpoint Wall
Of Height
Side Wall Measurement
For Setback
Purposes
eVo�� . .
SV . eve
(5 ) Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case
of carriage houses, and accessory buildings containing habitable
space, which shall be a maximum of one and one-half ( 11/2) stories.
Section 3 . That Sections 4 . 8 (D) and (E) of the Land Use Code are hereby
amended to read as follows :
6
Division 4.8 Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District (N-C-M)
(D) Land Use Standards.
( 1 ) Required Lot Area. Lot area shall be at least two times the aggregate
floor area of the building(s) situated on the lot, as further provided
below, and not less than the following : five thousand (5 ,000) square
feet per principal building for a single-family or two-family dwelling,
and six thousand (6,000) square feet for all other uses . "Aggregate
floor area" shall mean the total gross floor area of all principal
buildings as measured along the outside walls of each finished or
unfinished floor level of such buildings, plus the total gross floor area
of the ground floor of any accessory building larger than one hundred
twenty ( 120) square feet, plus that portion of the floor area of any
second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half
(71/2) feet located within any such accessory building located on the
lot.
(2) Allowable Floor Area of Street-Fronting Single-Family Dwellings.
The allowable floor area of a street-fronting single-family dwelling
shall not exceed twenty-seven (27) percent of the area of the lot upon
which the dwelling is situated. For the purposes of this provision,
"allowable floor area " shall mean the total gross floor area of the
street-fronting single-family dwelling, including each finished and
unfinished floor level, as measured along the outside walls of such
building. Additionally, the following shall apply :
(a) If any horizontal eave along a side lot line is more than
thirteen ( 13) feet above gfadothe surface of the lot (without
retaining walls) as measured from the nearest side lot line
perpendicular to the center of the eave, the floor area shall
be calculated as if the building includes a second floor
regardless of side
a second floor is physically built.
the nearest
side of line
per
-p ll1lflendie Nl ly to the center- of
the
(b) If any one story portion of a street-fronting single-family
dwelling contains space that exceeds eighteen and one-half
( 18 1 /2) feet in height from the ground floor to the top of
the roof, such portion shall be counted as both a first and
second floor even if such second floor is not physically
built, or if such portion consists partly or wholly of attic
space .
Figure XX Volume that Counts as Floor Area
7
Horizontal Eave
,[000000Count as " Second Roor" On Side Wall
For Over 13' Height
Floor Area Lim its
13'
Front View Low
Property 1
Line @:
Midpoint of I
Side Wall
Count as
" Second Floor" For
R oo r Area Lim its
18 '/z 18 '/z
Ground Floor
(c) The following shall not be included in the computation of
the allowable floor area:
1 , basements, provided that no portion of the basement
wall is higher than three (3 ) feet above the surface
of the lot (without retaining walls) as measured
from the nearest side lot line perpendicular to the
center of the wall;
2 . open balconies ;
3 . four hundred fifty (450) square feet of attached
garages (if more than one-half ( 1 /2) of the dwellings
on the same block face have attached garages) ;
8
4. detached accessory buildings, but only if located
behind the street-fronting principal building and
separated from such principal building by at least
ten ( 10) feet.
(3 ) Allowable Floor Area of Carriage Houses. Any new single-family
dwelling that is proposed to be located behind a street-fronting principal
building shall contain a maximum of one thousand ( 1 ,000) square feet
of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space within the
basement and first floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second
story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (71/2) feet. A
new single-family dwelling may be located in any area of the rear
portion of such lot, provided that it complies with setback requirements
of this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation between
structures. The building footprint for such single-family dwelling shall
not exceed six hundred (600) square feet.
(4) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future
Habitable Space). Any accessory building with water and/or sewer
service shall be considered to have habitable space. An applicant may
also declare an intent for an accessory building to contain habitable
space. Any such structure containing habitable space that is located
behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum six
hundred (600) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor
space within the basement and ground floor plus that portion of the floor
area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and
one-half (71/2) feet. Such accessory building may be located in any area
of the rear portion of a lot, provided that it complies with the setback
requirements of this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation
between structures.
(5) Accessory Buildings Without Habitable Space. Any accessory building
without water and/or sewer service, which has not been declared to
contain habitable space by the applicant, shall not exceed a total floor
area of six hundred (600) square feet. Floor area shall include all floor
space (including basement space) within the building having a ceiling
height of at least seven and one-half (71/2) feet.
(6) Floor Area Ratio of Rear Half of Lot (FAR). Lots are subject to a
maximum FAR of thirty-three hundredths (0 . 33 ) on the rear fifty (50)
percent of the lot. All principal buildings and detached accessory
buildings that exceed one hundred twenty ( 120) square feet of floor
area shall be included in the calculation of FAR.
(E) Dimensional Standards.
9
( 1 ) Minimum lot width shall be forty (40) feet for each single-family and
two-family dwelling and fifty (50) feet for each other use. If more
than one ( 1 ) principal building is proposed to be constructed side-by-
side on the same lot, then each such principal building must have at
least forty (40) feet of street frontage for single-family and two-family
dwellings, and at least fifty (50) feet of street frontage for each other
use.
(2) Minimum front yard setback shall be fifteen ( 15) feet. Setbacks from
garage doors to the backs of public walks shall not be less than twenty
(20) feet.
(3) Minimum rear yard setback shall be five (5) feet from existing alleys
and fifteen (15 ) feet in all other conditions .
(4) Minimum side yard width shall be five (5) feet for all interior side
yards . Whenever any portion of a wall or building exceeds eighteen
( 18) feet in height, such portion of the wall or building shall be set
back from the interior side lot line an additional one ( 1 ) foot, beyond
the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of wall
or building height that exceeds eighteen ( 18) feet in height (as
measured from the gra&surface of the lot (without retaining walls) at
the nearest side lot line perpendicularly to the center of the wall).
Minimum side yard width shall be fifteen ( 15) feet on the street side
of any corner lot. Notwithstanding the foregoing, minimum side yard
width for schools and places of worship shall be twenty-five (25) feet
(for both interior and street sides) .
Figure XX Measurement of Side Wall Height
Side
Midpoint Wall
Of Height
Side Wall Measurement
For Setback
Purposes
� V
(5 ) Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except for carriage
houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which
shall be limited to one and one-half ( 1 t/2) stories .
10
Section 4 . That the definition "Block face" contained in Section 5 .2 . 1 of the
Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows :
Block face shall mean one ( 1 ) side of a City block that abuts a street
between two (2) intersections .
Section 5 . That Section 5 .2 . 1 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new definition "Principal building" which reads in its entirety as follows :
Principal building shall mean any building except a detached accessory
building.
Section 6 . That the City Manager is hereby directed to prepare and submit to
the City Council, on or before January 31 , 2013 , a written report and recommendation
regarding the implementation of the provisions of this Ordinance and, in particular,
whether such implementation has, in his or her opinion, achieved the stated purposes of
ensuring the compatibility of additions, alterations and new construction with existing
structures in residential neighborhoods of the City without working an undue hardship on
affected property owners .
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th
day of January, A.D . 2011 , and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of
February, A.D . 2011 .
Mayor
ATTEST :
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1 st day of February, A.D . 2011 .
Mayor
ATTEST :
City Clerk
11
OPTION B (REVISED)
ORDINANCE NO , 0039 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING AMENDMENTS
TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE
PERTAINING TO EAST SIDE AND WEST SIDE NEIGHBORHOOD
DESIGN STANDARDS
WHEREAS , on March 18 , 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 051 , 1997 , the
City Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code") ; and
WHEREAS, Policy HSG-3 . 1 of the City ' s Comprehensive Plan provides that the
character of stable, residential neighborhoods should be preserved through neighborhood
planning, assistance to neighborhood organizations, and supportive regulatory
techniques; and
WHEREAS , Policy EXN- 1 .4 of the City ' s Comprehensive Plan provides that the
City will follow specific design standards for infill development and redevelopment with
an emphasis on protecting existing residential neighborhood character; and
WHEREAS , the City Council has also adopted the East Side Neighborhood Plan
and the West Side Neighborhood Plan, which plans establish a vision and policies for
their respective areas ; and
WHEREAS , at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the
understanding of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be
subject to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of
errors, but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic
document capable of responding to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals
and citizens of the City; and
WHEREAS , City staff has been requested to prepare and present to the City
Council certain changes to the Land Use Code to address issues of concern regarding the
compatibility of the size of new single-family houses and additions to existing single-
family houses in the East Side and West Side Neighborhoods, particularly in the
Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density Zone District and the Neighborhood
Conservation, Medium Density Zone District, as compared to the size of existing
principal structures in those zone districts; and
WHEREAS , the City Council has received and considered the recommendation of
the Planning and Zoning Board; and
WHEREAS , the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use
Code amendments comport with the City' s Comprehensive Plan and the East Side
1
Neighborhood Plan and West Side Neighborhood Plan, and are in the best interest of the
City and its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF FORT COLLINS that the Land Use Code is hereby amended as follows :
Section 1 . That Section 2 . 10 .2(H) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
as follows :
(H) Step 8 (Standards) : Applicable, and the Zoning Board of Appeals may
grant a variance from the standards of Articles 3 and 4 only if it finds that
the granting of the variance would neither be detrimental to the public
good nor authorize any change in use other than to a use that is allowed
subject to basic development review; and that:
( 1 ) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary
and exceptional situations unique to such property, including, but
not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness,
shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder
the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict
application of the standard sought to be varied would result in
unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or
undue hardship upon the occupant of such property, or upon the
applicant, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused
by the act or omission of the occupant or applicant;
(2) the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the
standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better
than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which
the variance is requested; or
(3 ) the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of
the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be varied
except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the
context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the
purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1 .2 .2 .
Any finding made under subparagraph ( 1 ), (2) or (3 ) above shall be
supported by specific findings showing how the proposal, as submitted,
meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph ( 1 ), (2) or (3 ) .
If a variance is sought from the standards contained in Division
4. 7, Section (D)(2) or subpar-agraphs 4 or 5—of Seetiofi (E), or
Division 4 . 8 , Section (D)(2)or s��gr-aphs -4 or- 5 of geetien
(E), the application for such variance shall be accompanied by a
written recommendation from a committee of the Landmark
2
Preservation Commission, as authorized under Section 2-278(b)(5)
of the City Code.
Section 2 . That Sections 4 .7(D) and (E) of the Land Use Code are hereby
amended to read as follows :
Division 4 .7 Neighborhood Conservation , Low Density District (N-C-L)
(D) Land Use Standards.
( 1 ) Required Lot Area. Lot area shall be at least two and one-half (21/2)
times the aggregate floor area of the building(s) situated on the lot, as
further provided below, and not less than six thousand (6,000) square
feet per principal building. "Aggregate floor area" shall mean the
total gross floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the
outside walls of each finished or unfinished floor level of such
buildings, plus the total gross floor area of the ground floor of any
accessory building larger than one hundred twenty ( 120) square feet,
plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling
height of at least seven and one-half (71/2) feet located within any such
accessory building located on the lot.
(2) Allowable Floor Area of Street-Fronting Single-Family Dwellings.
The allowable floor area of a street-fronting single-family dwelling
shall not exceed twenty seye (2 "forty-five (45) percent of the first
three thousand (3 ,000) square feet of lot area, plus twenty-five (25 )
percent of the remaining lot area percent fthe are of the lot upo
* rhie.h ghee. a.ATealli g is situate For the purposes of this provision,
"allowable floor area " shall mean the total gross floor area of the
street-fronting single-family dwelling, including each finished and
unfinished floor level, as measured along the outside walls of such
building. Additionally, the following shall apply :
(a) If any horizontal eave along a side lot line is more than
thirteen ( 13 ) feet above gra&the surface of the lot (without
retaining walls) as measured from the nearest side lot line
perpendicular to the center of the cave, the floor area shall
be calculated as if the building includes a second floor
regardless of whether a second floor is physically built.
Sued h�nta.e-ave�-sk neu pa�'�the gmEle—at
the
nearest
side lob line perpendicularly
er. en icul rly to the
eeMler of rho
e-a�
(b) If any one story portion of a street-fronting single-family
dwelling contains space that exceeds eighteen and one-half
( 18 1 /2) feet in height from the ground floor to the top of
3
the roof, such portion shall be counted as both a first and
second floor even if such second floor is not physically
built, or if such portion consists partly or wholly of attic
space .
Figure XX Volume that Counts as Floor Area
Horizontal Eave
rCountecond Floor" On9deWall
or Over 13' Height
ea Lim its
13'
Front View
Property
Line @:
Midpoint of I
Side Wall
Count as
" Second Floor" For
Floor Area Limits
18 '/z 18 W
Ground Floor Ni
(c) The following shall not be included in the computation of
the allowable floor area:
1 , basements, provided that no portion of the basement
wall is higher than three (3 ) feet above the surface of the lot
(without retaining walls) as measured from the nearest side
lot line perpendicular to the center of the wall, unless a
4
greater height is required by the City to accommodate safe
and satisfactory drainage;
2 , open balconies .;
2 . attached
tt the gar-ages
(i f more than
one half ( 1 /2) of
the
7 1 11 }�
d��� of the n � `��LCT P., CAt CCt�GCd ga vagnyn a
(3 ) Allowable Floor Area of Carriage Houses. Any new
single-family dwelling that is proposed to be located behind a street-
fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of eight hundred
(800) square feet of floor area unless such new single-family dwelling
contains a two-car garage, in which case it shall contain a maximum
of one thousand ( 1 ,000) square feet of floor area, including the
garage . Floor area shall include all floor space within the basement
and first floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story
having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (71/2) feet. A
new single-family dwelling may be located in any area of the rear
portion of such lot, provided that it complies with the setback
requirements of this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation
between structures . The building footprint for such single-family
dwelling shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet.
(4) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future
Habitable Space). Any accessory building with water and/or sewer
service shall be considered to have habitable space . An applicant may
also declare an intent for an accessory building to contain habitable
space . Any such structure containing habitable space that is located
behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of
six hundred (600) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include
all floor space within the basement and ground floor plus that portion
of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least
seven and one-half (71/2) feet. Such accessory building may be
located in any area of the rear portion of a lot, provided that it
complies with the setback requirements of this District and there is at
least a ten-foot separation between structures.
(5) Accessory Buildings Without Habitable Space. Any accessory
building without water and/or sewer service, which has not been
declared to contain habitable space by the applicant, shall not exceed
a total floor area of six hundred (600) square feet. Floor area shall
include all floor space (including basement space) within the building
having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (71/2) feet.
5
(6) Floor Area Ratio of Rear Half of Lot (FAR). Lots are subject to a
maximum FAR of twenty-five hundredths (0 .25) on the rear fifty (50)
percent of the lot. All principal buildings and detached accessory
buildings that exceed one hundred twenty ( 120) square feet of floor
area shall be included in the calculation of FAR.
(E) Dimensional Standards.
( 1 ) Minimum lot width shall be forty (40) feet.
(2) Minimum front yard setback shall be fifteen ( 15) feet. Setbacks from
garage doors to the backs of public walks shall not be less than twenty
(20) feet.
(3) Minimum rear yard setback shall be five (5) feet from existing alleys
and fifteen (15 ) feet in all other conditions .
(4) Minimum side yard width shall be five (5) feet for all interior side
yards . Whenever any portion of a wall or building exceeds eighteen
( 18) feet in height, such portion of the wall or building shall be set
back from the interior side lot line an additional one ( 1 ) foot, beyond
the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of wall
or building height that exceeds eighteen ( 18) feet in height (as
measured from the gsurface of the lot (without retaining walls) at
the nearest side lot line perpendicularly to the center of the wall).
Minimum side yard width shall be fifteen ( 15) feet on the street side
of any corner lot. Notwithstanding the foregoing, minimum side yard
width for schools and places of worship shall be twenty-five (25) feet
(for both interior and street sides) .
Figure XX Measurement of Side Wall Height
Side
Midpoint Wall
Of Height
Side Wall Measurement
For Setback
Purposes
(5 ) Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case
of carriage houses, and accessory buildings containing habitable
space, which shall be a maximum of one and one-half ( 11/z) stories .
6
Section 3 . That Sections 4 . 8 (D) and (E) of the Land Use Code are hereby
amended to read as follows :
Division 4.8 Neiahborhood Conservation, Medium Density District (NmGM)
(D) Land Use Standards.
( 1 ) Required Lot Area. Lot area shall be at least two times the aggregate
floor area of the building(s) situated on the lot, as further provided
below, and not less than the following : five thousand (5 ,000) square
feet per principal building for a single-family or two-family dwelling,
and six thousand (6,000) square feet for all other uses . "Aggregate
floor area" shall mean the total gross floor area of all principal
buildings as measured along the outside walls of each finished or
unfinished floor level of such buildings, plus the total gross floor area
of the ground floor of any accessory building larger than one hundred
twenty ( 120) square feet, plus that portion of the floor area of any
second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half
(71/2) feet located within any such accessory building located on the
lot.
(2) Allowable Floor Area of Street-Fronting Single-Family Dwellings.
The allowable floor area of a street-fronting single-family dwelling
shall not exceed t3vventy- seve-n (27) per-ce-nt of the—areaforty-five (45)
percent of the first three thousand (3 ,000) square feet of lot area, plus
twenty-five (25) percent of the remaining lot are of the lot upon
For the purposes of this provision,
"allowable floor area " shall mean the total gross floor area of the
street-fronting single-family dwelling, including each finished and
unfinished floor level, as measured along the outside walls of such
building. Additionally, the following shall apply:
(a) If any horizontal eave along a side lot line is more than
thirteen ( 13) feet above gm&the surface of the lot (without
retaining walls) as measured from the nearest side lot line
perpendicular to the center of the eave, the floor area shall
be calculated as if the building includes a second floor
regardless of whether a second floor is physically built.
Sueh her-izontal eaves shall be measufed from the gr-ade at
the nearest
side lot line Perpendicularly
to the ee tar of
the
eave .
(b) If any one story portion of a street-fronting single-family
dwelling contains space that exceeds eighteen and one-half
( 18 1 /2) feet in height from the ground floor to the top of
the roof, such portion shall be counted as both a first and
7
second floor even if such second floor is not physically
built, or if such portion consists partly or wholly of attic
space.
Figure XX Volume that Counts as Floor Area
*40
Eave
rCountecond Floor" OnrSdetWallor Over 13' Height
ea Limits
13'
Front View
Property I
Line @:
Midpoint of I
side Wall
Count as
" Second Floor" For
Roor Area Limits
18 '/2' 18 '/2
Ground Floor
(c) The following shall not be included in the computation of
the allowable floor area:
1 . basements, provided that no portion of the basement
wall is higher than three (3 ) feet above the surface of the lot
(without retaining walls) as measured from the nearest side
lot line perpendicular to the center of the wall unless a
8
greater height is required by the city to accommodate safe
and satisfactory drainage;
2 , open balconies .;
Z . attached
tt the gar-ages
(i f more than
one half ( 1 /2) of
the
7
EII ellifl rn 0r t . o nnmo blee'k fnl.o have aftae e gar-ages) ;
4 . detaehed aeeessefy Ibuildiiigs .
(3) Allowable Floor Area of Carriage Houses. Any new single-family
dwelling that is proposed to be located behind a street-fronting principal
building shall contain a maximum of one thousand ( 1 ,000) square feet
of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space within the
basement and first floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second
story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7'/2) feet. A
new single-family dwelling may be located in any area of the rear
portion of such lot, provided that it complies with setback requirements
of this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation between
structures. The building footprint for such single-family dwelling shall
not exceed six hundred (600) square feet.
(4) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future
Habitable Space). Any accessory building with water and/or sewer
service shall be considered to have habitable space. An applicant may
also declare an intent for an accessory building to contain habitable
space. Any such structure containing habitable space that is located
behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum six
hundred (600) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor
space within the basement and ground floor plus that portion of the floor
area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and
one-half (7'/2) feet. Such accessory building may be located in any area
of the rear portion of a lot, provided that it complies with the setback
requirements of this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation
between structures.
(5) 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 (7'/2) feet.
(6) Floor Area Ratio of Rear Half of Lot (FAR). Lots are subject to a
maximum FAR of thirty-three hundredths (0 . 33) on the rear fifty (50)
percent of the lot. All principal buildings and detached accessory
9
buildings that exceed one hundred twenty ( 120) square feet of floor
area shall be included in the calculation of FAR.
(E) Dimensional Standards.
( 1 ) Minimum lot width shall be forty (40) feet for each single-family and
two-family dwelling and fifty (50) feet for each other use. If more
than one ( 1 ) principal building is proposed to be constructed side-by-
side on the same lot, then each such principal building must have at
least forty (40) feet of street frontage for single-family and two-family
dwellings, and at least fifty (50) feet of street frontage for each other
use.
(2) Minimum front yard setback shall be fifteen ( 15) feet. Setbacks from
garage doors to the backs of public walks shall not be less than twenty
(20) feet.
(3 ) Minimum rear yard setback shall be five (5) feet from existing alleys
and fifteen ( 15) feet in all other conditions .
(4) Minimum side yard width shall be five (5 ) feet for all interior side
yards . Whenever any portion of a wall or building exceeds eighteen
( 18) feet in height, such portion of the wall or building shall be set
back from the interior side lot line an additional one ( 1 ) foot, beyond
the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of wall
or building height that exceeds eighteen ( 18) feet in height (as
measured from the gsurface of the lot (without retaining walls) at
the nearest side lot line perpendicularly to the center of the wall) .
Minimum side yard width shall be fifteen ( 15 ) feet on the street side
of any corner lot. Notwithstanding the foregoing, minimum side yard
width for schools and places of worship shall be twenty-five (25) feet
(for both interior and street sides) .
Figure XX Measurement of Side Wall Height
AL
Side
Midpoint Wall
Of Height
Side Wall Measurement
[:fFor Setback
Purposes
10
(5 ) Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except for carriage
houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which
shall be limited to one and one-half ( 1 '/2) stories.
Section 4 . That the definition "Block face" contained in Section 5 .2 . 1 of the
Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows :
Block face shall mean one ( 1 ) side of a City block that abuts a street
between two (2) intersections .
Section 5 . That Section 5 .2 . 1 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new definition "Principal building" which reads in its entirety as follows :
Principal building shall mean any building except a detached accessory
building.
Section 6 . That the City Manager is hereby directed to prepare and submit to
the City Council, on or before January 31 , 2013 , a written report and recommendation
regarding the implementation of the provisions of this Ordinance and, in particular,
whether such implementation has, in his or her opinion, achieved the stated purposes of
ensuring the compatibility of additions, alterations and new construction with existing
structures in residential neighborhoods of the City without working an undue hardship on
affected property owners .
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th
day of January, A.D . 2011 , and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of
February, A.D . 2011 .
Mayor
ATTEST :
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1 st day of February, A.D . 2011 .
Mayor
ATTEST :
City Clerk
11