Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 02/26/2013 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 033, 2013, MAKING ADATE: February 26, 2013 STAFF: Sherry Albertson-Clark Pete Wray AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 3 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 033, 2013, Making Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code Pertaining to Implementation of the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study (Option A or Option B). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study represents an assessment of neighborhood compatibility issues related to impacts of larger new construction projects. In comparison to the previous 2010/2011 Study, which focused on building size impacts, this Study takes a broader look at the character and context of the neighborhoods including building size and design compatibility. Staff has prepared two options for Council to consider for the proposed package of potential Land Use Code (LUC) amendments to be included in the Ordinance at First Reading. • Option A reflects a package of Land Use Code amendments implementing five recommended strategy options as well as a revision of existing FAR standards using a new formula. • Option B reflects a package of Land Use Code amendments implementing five recommended strategy options, but does not include a revision to existing FAR standards. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Staff initiated the Study in June 2011, after receiving direction from City Council to take a new and broader look at neighborhood compatibility and character issues in the core area neighborhoods near downtown. The Study is in response to continued concerns with potential impacts of larger additions and new construction in the city’s oldest neighborhoods. A similar study was conducted in 2010 for the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods with a resulting Ordinance approved by City Council that was later repealed in response to a citizen petition. While the previous effort led to a primary focus on building size aspects, the current study emphasizes a broader perspective to understand the character, larger context of compatibility, and threshold for change in these neighborhoods. The initial direction for the new study began with a goal developed by a Council Ad Hoc Committee to: Retain and enhance the unique character and context of the neighborhoods as they continue to change with renovations, additions, and new housing construction, with a well-supported and effective public process resulting in appropriate and mutually agreeable solutions. The Study is summarized in a highly illustrated Strategy Report with information on the character and context of the neighborhoods, community engagement, issues, and strategy options for City Council consideration (www.fcgov.com/eastwestneighborhoods). The Study identified and clarified a number of key issues with ongoing changes that affect existing residents and the unique character and context of the neighborhoods. These issues led to the strategy options. Key issues include: • New construction that appears to be overly large in relation to its context • Building walls that appear to loom over neighbors • Reduced solar access/shading issues • Incompatible design features • Loss of older/more affordable houses that make the neighborhoods unique • Loss of green space and mature trees February 26, 2013 -2- ITEM 3 The Study process included extensive public outreach that included identification of neighborhood objectives and issues, and defining. The Study process and findings are summarized in a final Strategy Report. This report also includes staff recommendations to implement five strategy options that were presented to City Council at the Work Session on November 27, 2012. The staff recommendations at that time did not include revising existing Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards, because the team concluded the proposed design standard sufficiently addressed neighborhood compatibility issues, and revising the FAR did not reflect a mutually agreeable solution from the public. City Council subsequently directed staff to proceed with implementation of those strategy options, including development of the formula to revise the existing maximum FAR standard. Some of these strategies involve Land Use Code changes that are the subject of the Ordinance, and others are administrative or involve future actions as follows: • Promote the City's existing Design Assistance Program. This involves ongoing administrative actions, including such measures as a marketing brochure, newsletter, neighborhood mailings, and posting program information online. • Expand neighborhood notification of variance requests. • Create voluntary design handbooks/guidelines to provide specialized information for interested owners and builders on compatible development in unique character areas throughout the neighborhoods. These products would be developed as part of future planning efforts that will need to be budgeted and incorporated into the staff work program. Staff is recommending implementation of this action concurrent with neighborhood plan updates for the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods in 2014. • Adjust existing height-at-setback and floor area ratio (FAR) measurement methods in the Land Use Code for the N-C-L and N-C-M zoning districts • Address building mass and solar access, including revisions to existing FAR standards, and new design standards to address mass and solar impacts. • Illustrate the effect of potential standards on new construction. A series of public meetings were held in January 2013 to present a draft potential package of Land Use Code amendments to implement the strategy options. Staff received a mix of opinions from the public on the proposed standards, especially relating to revisions to the Far standards. An additional Council work session was held on February 12, 2013 to discuss options for FAR standards, which included direction for staff to describe these options for Council to consider on First Reading. I. DESCRIPTION OF ORDINANCE OPTION A (WITH NEW FAR FORMULA) This option reflects a package of Land Use Code (LUC) amendments that implements the five recommended strategy options, as well as a revision to existing FAR standards using a new formula. More specifically, it includes clarifying Code terminology and formatting, expanded notice for variance requests, revising the existing FAR standard using a new formula, adding new adjustments to the FAR measurement method for calculating building square footage, and incorporating new design and solar access standards. Following is a brief summary of potential Land Use Code changes contained in the proposed Ordinance (Option A). 1. Expand notification area for variance requests. This LUC change would add a new standard regarding neighborhood notification for Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) variance requests exceeding a certain project size threshold. Staff recommends that the notice area for ZBA hearings be extended from 150 feet to 500 feet for variance requests for certain size construction and other thresholds (Attachment 3). 2. Address building massing and scale (Revised FAR Standard). The staff recommendation outlined in the strategy report did not include a revision to the existing FAR standards because other recommended tools were seen to sufficiently address the identified objectives and issues, and because many residents and other stakeholders feel that FAR is an overly restrictive tool that limits flexibility for expansion. However, FAR reductions were presented as a possible alternative tool for addressing identified issues with overly large new construction and loss of green space. February 26, 2013 -3- ITEM 3 Based on Council direction, the staff and consultant team evaluated potential revisions to the maximum permitted FAR, including modeling of a variety of reduced FARs on projects that have been identified as appearing overly large in relation to their context. The proposed FAR formula was selected because it: • Addresses projects identified as appearing overly large in relation to their context while allowing flexibility for new construction and home expansion; • Promotes the scale of new construction that was most often identified as compatible in community workshops and the online visual survey; • Works in concert with other recommended tools such as reduced wall heights for solar access and additional building design standards to address front and side façade character; and • ,More directly targets identified issues than the FAR revisions included in the repealed 2011 ordinance. Overall, the new formula provides greater flexibility through less substantial FAR reductions because it works in combination with other tools that also address identified issues with new construction that appears to be overly large in relation to its context, building walls that appear to loom over neighbors and reduced solar access. New FAR Formula The first proposed FAR change revises the minimum lot area standards that currently relate lot area to the total floor area of buildings on the lot in the N-C-L and N-C-M zoning districts. This would apply new or adjusted design standards to address the scale and solar access impacts of larger new construction and additions. The potential revised standard would reduce the maximum FAR from the currently permitted 0.40 in the N-C-L district and 0.50 in the N-C-M district according to a sliding scale as summarized in the table below. For example, the formula above would limit floor area on a 7,000 square foot lot in the N-C-M district to 2,750 square feet ((7,000x0.25)+1,000=2,750) with an additional allowance for 250 square feet in a detached rear accessory (acc.) structure on a lot of 6,000 square feet or more, for a total of 3,000 square feet. The sliding scale would generally result in reductions of allowed floor area for larger lots in both districts. New FAR Measurement Method This change incorporates adjusted measurement methods for calculating floor area, as recommended in the Strategy Report. These proposed measurement method adjustments address the issues of high volume spaces not being counted as floor area (which created the potential for single-story homes being twice as large as a two-story home). This includes basement floor area in calculation where the new construction raises the finish floor elevation above a certain threshold, and provides some allowance for accessory structures to promote separate building masses. Option A further addresses building mass and scale impacts by combining a reduction in overall building size (reduced FAR), with new design standards to shape building facade features. 3. Adjust measurement method for building wall height and reduced height for solar access. The first part of this Code change adjusts the method for measuring building height at the minimum side yard setback to better account for the impact of tall walls on raised grade. Staff recommends implementation of a revised measurement method for maximum height (18 feet) at the minimum side yard to better account for potential looming impacts related to grade changes on a property. The building side wall height is proposed to be measured from the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, rather than at the improved grade. A second new standard is proposed to reduce the potential solar access impacts of large new houses or additions on neighboring property to the north. The staff and consultant team decided not to develop a complicated “solar February 26, 2013 -4- ITEM 3 ordinance” limiting shading on neighboring lots. Instead a simple solar standard is proposed for building wall height to promote solar access. The side wall height would be reduced to 14 feet from the currently allowed 18 feet and the side wall height could increase by one foot for each foot of additional setback. 4. Add new standards for building facades over certain size thresholds. Facade design standards are proposed to provide a menu of options to shape the character of front and side building facades for compatibility. At least one facade feature from a design menu would be required to promote pedestrian orientation and compatibility with the character of the structures on the block face. The front facade options would promote pedestrian orientation and the appearance of compatible mass and scale as viewed from the street by using one-story elements, front porches, etc. The proposed options for side building facades are intended to reduce potential looming and privacy impacts on adjacent lots. II. DESCRIPTION OF ORDINANCE OPTION B (RETAIN EXISTING FAR FORMULA) Option B reflects a package of Land Use Code amendments that implements the five recommended strategy options but does not include a revision to existing FAR standards. It includes clarifying Code terminology and formatting, expanded notice for variance requests, retaining the existing FAR standard formula, adding new adjustments to FAR measurement method for calculating building square footage, and incorporating new design and solar access standards. Ordinance Option B contains the same standards as Option A, except for the FAR formula. Option B reflects the staff recommendation described in the Strategy Report, and presented to Council at the November 27, 2012 Work Session. The staff and consultant team concluded in the report that the proposed package of new design standards, without a reduction in FAR, would address most identified mass and scale issues with larger new construction while allowing flexibility for home expansion. New construction that appears to be overly large in relation to its context was often cited by residents as a key issue in the neighborhoods. Many residents also felt that FAR reductions would be the most effective tool for addressing this issue. However, when presented with alternative design scenarios in community workshops and surveys, many participants selected alternatives that incorporate design elements other than floor area reductions. This indicates that design elements apart from overall size contribute significantly to neighborhood compatibility. The recommended design standards within Ordinance Option B address these key design elements while allowing flexibility for home expansion. • Comparison of 2011 Ordinance and proposed 2013 Ordinance At the November 27, 2012 work session, Council directed staff to develop the proposed 2013 Ordinance. Staff provided a comparison of the previous 2011 Ordinance that was repealed, with the proposed 2013 Ordinance (Attachment 4). Staff believes the proposed 2013 Ordinance, as a package of proposed changes, is noticeably different from the previous 2011 Ordinance. The key changes include: • No requirement for Landmark Preservation Commission recommendations on variance requests • New expanded notification area for some variance requests • New thresholds for applying all new standards in both districts • Different formula for calculating maximum Floor Area Ratios (FARs) • FARs applied separately to the N-C-L and N-C-M districts • FARs applied on a sliding scale, based on lot size • More generous FAR allowance in the N-C-M district; and • New standards for solar access and building front and side façade design. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Urban Advisors was contracted as a sub-consultant to analyze the economic impacts of revising the existing FAR standards as described in Option A. The analysis and findings are included in a report (Attachment 6). The summarized conclusions from the report include: February 26, 2013 -5- ITEM 3 • While overall values increase with house size, the value per square foot tends to decline, especially for houses with more than 2,000 square feet of floor area or FARs above 0.30. • Based on existing property values, and the potential sales prices of new or expanded homes, most redevelopment is likely to occur on small to average sized lots (4,000 to 10,000 square feet) in the N-C-M zone district (115 to 125 such properties present prime redevelopment opportunities under current market conditions). • The proposed reduction in maximum permitted FAR (Ordinance Option A) would not significantly affect redevelopment opportunities in the neighborhoods because the most profitable opportunities tend to be at FARs lower than the proposed limits. • The proposed reduction in the maximum permitted FAR (Ordinance Option A) is not likely to have a significantly positive or negative impact on the affordability of housing in the neighborhoods. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Staff finds no direct or definable impact on environmental resources with any of these implementation items. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. Staff also recommends that new voluntary design guidelines be developed concurrent with the neighborhood plan updates for the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods in 2014. This action is not budgeted and/or included in the current work program. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its regular meeting on February 7, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 4-1 to recommend adoption of Ordinance No. 33, 2013, Option B. The Landmark Preservation Commission is scheduled for a regular meeting on February 13, 2013. Minutes from this meeting will be forwarded to Council prior to Second Reading on March 5. The Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for a regular meeting on February 14, 2013. Minutes from this meeting will be forwarded to Council prior to Second Reading on March 5. The Building Review Board is scheduled for a regular meeting on February 28, 2013. Minutes from this meeting will be forwarded to Council prior to Second Reading on March 5. PUBLIC OUTREACH The following activities were included in the public process used for this study: Phase 1 – Understand the character and context of the neighborhoods (May – July 2012) • Email notice for meetings, post card mailing for work shops • Posted project information on web page • Initial working group meetings (June) • 2 public work shop meetings (July 10/12) • Online questionnaire • Updates to boards and commissions • City Council work session (July 24) February 26, 2013 -6- ITEM 3 Phase 2 – Develop a Strategy (August – November 2012) • Series of working group meetings (August/September) • On-line survey • Public work shop meeting (November 5) • Updates to boards and commissions • City Council work session (November 27) Phase 3 – Implementation of Strategy Options (December 2012 – February 2013) • Series of working group meetings (January 16, 2013) • Public Open House meeting (January 30) • Updates to boards and commissions • Planning and Zoning Board Hearing – Recommendation (February 7) • City Council Work Session (February 12) • Landmark Preservation Commission Hearing – Recommendation (February 13) • Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing - Recommendation (February 14) • City Council First Reading of Ordinance (February 19) • Building Review Board Hearing – Recommendation (February 28) • City Council Second Reading of Ordinance (March 5) ATTACHMENTS 1. City Council Work Session Summary, November 27, 2012 2. February 12, 2013 City Council Work Session Summary 3. Tables 1 and 2, comparing 2011 FAR formula with proposed 2013 FAR formula 4. Table 3, comparing the 2011 and proposed 2013 Ordinances 5. Summary of public comments 6. Economic Analysis Report 7. Eastside and Westside Zoning Districts Map 8. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, February 7, 2013 Community Development & Neighborhood Services Long Range Planning 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.221.6376 970.224.6111- fax MEMORANDUM Date: November 30, 2012 To: Mayor Weitkunat and City Councilmembers Thru: Darin A. Atteberry, City Manager Karen Cumbo, Planning, Development and Transportation Director From: Laurie Kadrich, Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director Sherry Albertson-Clark, Interim Planning Manager Pete Wray, Senior City Planner Re: November 27, 2012 Work Session Summary – Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Councilmembers present: Mayor Weitkunat, and Councilmembers Manvel, Troxell, Poppaw, and Ohlson. Staff present: Karen Cumbo, Laurie Kadrich, Mark Jackson, Sherry Albertson-Clark, Pete Wray, Peter Barnes, Karen McWilliams. Consultants present: Nore Winter, Abe Barge. Staff presented an overview of Phase 2 activities that are summarized in the draft strategy report, and highlighted recommended strategy options for Council feedback. Specific questions considered by Council were: 1. What comments or feedback does Council have on the recommended strategy options, or any others not recommended? Main points of discussion:  Council acknowledged the information summarized in the Phase 2 Strategy Report and the level of work it represents.  Council noted that most neighbors expressed issues and concerns with large building size impacts and asked why the FAR strategy option was not recommended by staff.  Council provided feedback to staff to make sure what we are trying to solve is addressed in recommended options to ensure we fix the problem for the most recognized project examples that negatively affect compatibility.  Council directed staff to proceed with five recommended strategy options including 1-4, and 5c.  Council also directed staff to include strategy option 5a, and 5b in some form, other than what was originally suggested in 2011, to further address issues associated with building massing/scale, and solar access. 2. What comments or direction does Council have for staff on proceeding to implementation in the third phase of the study?  Council directed staff to proceed with Phase 3 of the study to implement recommended strategy options.  Council suggested staff coordinate future Council Hearing dates with the Leadership Team. ATTACHMENT 1 Community Development & Neighborhood Services Long Range Planning 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.221.6376 970.224.6111- fax MEMORANDUM Date: February 13, 2013 To: Mayor Weitkunat and City Councilmembers Thru: Darin A. Atteberry, City Manager Karen Cumbo, Planning, Development and Transportation Director From: Laurie Kadrich, Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director Sherry Albertson-Clark, Interim Planning Manager Pete Wray, Senior City Planner Re: February 12, 2013 Work Session Summary – Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Councilmembers present: Mayor Weitkunat, and Councilmembers Manvel, Troxell, Poppaw, Horak, and Ohlson. Staff present: Karen Cumbo, Laurie Kadrich, Sherry Albertson-Clark, Pete Wray, Peter Barnes, and Karen McWilliams. Staff presented an overview of the purpose of the study, public process over the past two months to develop potential Land Use Code amendments to implement the recommended strategy options, and FAR options to assist in the discussion for Council feedback. Specific questions considered by Council were: 1. What comments or direction does Council have on options for revising existing Floor Area Ratio standards? Main points of discussion:  Whether the inclusion of FARs addresses the issue of large new home construction and additions  How the solar access standard would affect new home construction (tree shading impacts, sun angle analysis, amount of shade on neighboring properties)  Public process 2. What additional comments or feedback does Council have on other proposed implementation actions prior to Hearing?  Request for additional information on case studies to show how the proposed new FAR and design standards (Options A and B) will impact example large construction projects.  Staff will include the two options (Options A and B) for potential Land Use Code amendments to be included in the Ordinance in agenda summary. ATTACHMENT 2 Lot Size Lot Size Max. FAR Additional Accessory Structure Floor Area Allowance Total Allowed Floor Area Max. FAR Additional Accessory Structure Floor Area Allowance Total Allowed Floor Area Max. FAR Additional Accessory Structure Floor Area Allowance Total Allowed Floor Area Max. FAR Additional Accessory Structure Floor Area Allowance Total Floor Area Max. FAR Additional Accessory Structure Floor Area Allowance Total Allowed Floor Area Max. FAR Additional Accessory Structure ) Lot Size Lot Size Max. FAR Additional Accessory Structure Floor Area Allowance Total Allowed Floor Area Max. FAR Allowed Floor Area Additional 1,000 sf Floor Area Lots ≥ 5,000 sf & < 10,000 sf Additional Accessory Structure Floor Area Allowance Total Floor Area Actual FAR Max. FAR Additional Accessory Structure Floor Area Allowance Total Floor Area Max. FAR Allowed Floor Area Additional 1,000 sf Floor Area Lots ≥ 5,000 sf & < 10,000 sf Additional Accessory Structure Floor Area Allowance Total Floor Area Actual Table 3. Comparison of 2011 Ordinance with Proposed 2013 Ordinance 2011 Action Description 2013 Action Description Comparison Ordinance 0003, 2011 Proposed 2013 Ordinance Lowering current limits for Building Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Option B Revised (Adopted Version)  Applies the same to both the NCL and NCM Zoning  Allowable floor area of street fronting single‐family dwelling shall not exceed forty‐five (45) percent of the first 3,000 sq. ft. of lot area, plus twenty‐five (25) percent of the remaining lot area. Lowering current limits for Building Floor Area Ratio (FAR) NCL –Maximum permitted total floor areas:  Lots less than 5,000 SF= 0.40 FAR (Existing)  Lots equal/greater than 5,000 SF, and less than 10,000 = 0.2 + 1,000 SF (+ 250 SF detached accessory structure)  Lots equal/greater than 10,000 SF = 0.3  (+ 250 SF detached accessory structure) NCM – Maximum permitted total floor areas:  Lots less than 4,000 SF= 0.50 FAR (Existing)  Lots equal/greater than 4,000 SF and less than 10,000 SF = 0.25 + 1,000 SF(+ 250 SF detached accessory structure)  Lots equal/greater than 10,000 SF= 0.35  (+ 250 SF detached accessory structure) Amendment to reduce total FAR has the following differences:  Method of calculation is different  Application based on lot size  Application different for NCL and NCM Zoning  More allowance for total square footage in NCM than 2011 FAR Expand Notification Area for Variance Requests Not considered with 2011 Ordinance Expand Notification Area for Variance Requests  Expanded notice applies for single‐family houses in the N‐C‐L and N‐C‐M districts changes from “150 feet” to “500 feet”  For building construction over a certain size threshold New standard for expanded notice for variances Landmark Preservation Commission Variance Recommendation  Variance requests to floor area limits must have a recommendation from a LPC committee to the Zoning Board of Appeals. NA NA No requirement for Landmark Preservation Commission recommendations on variance requests Adjust Measurement Method for Maximum Two for th impl Stud Sum 1. &  3. D (F                   o neighborho he meetings lementation dy. mmary of all w & 2. Where d  Of the 23 residents Do you have FAR) standa  Allow ho mother-in  Overall, some of t  Look for and build  Like the  Like mea character  Moving i lots over  When fig considera  What is t  How is ir  How muc  Clarify h  How is th no time f  What abo for adjac  How man  You’ve r Page 2  The two hits for implementing less FAR based on .25 + 1000 sf AND counting ceiling over 14' is excessive. I suggest adopting one or the other. For example on a 10,000 sq ft lot w/ a cathedral ceiling over 14' for a 400sq ft home, the allowable FAR is roughly 60% of current standards. 10,000 (.25) + 1000 = 3500 -400 (cathedral greater than 14') = 3100 sq ft. Current standard (NCM) is 5000sq ft. 3100/5000 = roughly 60% 4. Do you have comments and feedback on the potential standards for solar access?  Suggest a lower front home and put more sq.ft. in a back unit/addition or detached carriage house.  For the most part, I like this one as well. Case study four freaks me out a little because the folks to the north keep their sunshine, but the folks to the south lose privacy and have a big wall along their yard. I also don’t want a bunch of awkward, slanty houses in the neighborhood.  Looks good – like the setback/height adjustment plan.  Great ideas! There should be a standard for lots under 40 ft. wide such as 15 ft. max height at min. side yard setback and 12 ft. at 40 ft. and over. Keep 1 ft. to 1 ft. increase in max height for each additional setback. Not 2 ft. for 1 ft. setback. Second story additions that result in over 2,500 sq.ft. should fall under the new façade standards for solar access, not 3,000 sq.ft.  Access to light/sun is a key criteria for a livable space for me.  I like access rules but don’t want lots of asymmetrical roof lines or asymmetrical side lot setbacks.  Do solar access requirements apply to major remodels as well as new construction? Will this create asymmetrical buildings (rooflines)?  Does solar access address or include trees (evergreens)? They also shade adjacent buildings; should also look at evergreen placement in new landscaping  Does solar access address or require solar panels or collectors?  Would solar apply to narrow lots? Would apply only those lots less than 40’ wide?  Concerned about solar with corner lots because they have wider setbacks so lot is more difficult to build on, especially when lot is also narrow...  What is side wall height limit for solar access?  Solar access will push houses to the south side – this is one solution, but there may be other ways to address on lots  Could a variance be requested to solar access?  Keep the exception to the offset standards for the lot's w/ 40' or less of street frontage, only measure the 40' as "build able lot area" - The portion of the lot remaining after subtracting required offsets. For an interior lot, this would be 30' in this example: 40 - 2(5 (side setbacks)) = 30' For a corner lot: 40 - 15 (street side setback) - 5 (interior side setback). Also, does a house w/ street frontage on a northern road have to comply w/ this standard. If so, why? Are we trying to ensure the street has sufficient solar access? An exception should be made to corner lots or alley lots w/ streets and alleys on their northern side. Lastly, neighbors should be able to come to consensus on when to apply these standards. This is an agreement between two individual property owners. The City's blanket approach to solar protection will not consider the intricacies of each situation. Two interested parties are much better at realizing an appropriate solution than cookie cutter standards. 5. Do you have comments and feedback on the potential additional façade standards?  This all looks good to me.  Looks good.  Generally these standards are an improvement.  How about apply in relation to the specific buildings on adjacent lots – be sure to apply to major remodels.  Can a façade/porch encroach into the setback?  This seems like good regulation. Changing the facade every 40' is adequate. Page 3 6. What additional evaluation do you feel is necessary?  A second story deck is a different animal from a first floor deck. I think it should be counted somehow.  Open decks need to be counted in FAR and /or the impacts on neighbor’s privacy.  To reiterate the 40' lot frontage exception to solar access. A 50' corner lot is just as prohibitive as a 40' interior lot regarding buildable area. 40 - two 5' side setbacks = 30 buildable dimension and 50 (corner lot) - 15' setback on street and 5' setback on interior lot = 30 buildable dimension. 7. Do you have other comments and feedback?  There should be notification for neighbors for new building and demolition even when it doesn’t require a variance. These can be “big deals” even when they follow the current rules. Neighbors shouldn’t be taken by surprise. I think you all have done a great job. You seem to be thorough, considerate and fair. I really appreciate all you’ve done.  Expand notification in a timely manner for variance requests and especially for demolition/deconstructions.  Please don’t use flat roof houses for examples in your case studies – they aren’t realistic. Can you provide photos of Boulder or other places where solar access standards apply? Also, what Boulder is doing to respond to solar access problems that result in asymmetrical roof lines? We’ll have some problems – might as well address it now.  How to get information out about requirements like these – maybe through REALTORS – so people know before they buy.  Suggest city modify requirements for elevations to be submitted on projects to require elevations that show context (block face where house is and opposite block face) – would be more useful.  Suggest looking at building permits from past 5 years to see how many would/would not meet these standards (like what Ben Manvel did before).  How were houses on Wood Street allowed? Variances?  Compare previous proposal to current proposal and show how they are different and similar or the same.  Standards only apply to single-family not multi-family. Why does NCM have greater allowance?  Does City Council attend these meetings (open house, etc.) on this project?  Suggest a comparison table be made to show what was passed before and what is proposed now.  These standards don’t completely address compatibility – the future design guidelines/standards will also help with compatibility.  Suggest that input with your neighbors can help reduce surprises and result in better design (mentioned variance for the turret on Whitcomb Street).  Like the use of “privacy” as a term for what we’re trying to protect.  If you want to retain the "neighborhood character" provisions should be made to consider adjoining properties in all directions that border a house. For example maximum height should be based on the highest adjoining property. Provisions should be in place for many of these variables, i.e. setbacks, FAR, maximum building height. The form prov new Wes Sum 1. &  3. W W I P p E C A A O       4. D st    J final public mat of the me vide written a Code chang tside Neighb mmary of all w & 2. Where d  Of the 52 two neigh Which action Westside ne Implementa Promote the program Expand notif Create volun Adjust side w Adjust floor Other Potent  Count ba  No furthe  Promote  Big impr  Caveat; s lean-to a  FAR alre Do you have tandards?  Clever w  Maybe ch Page 2 fine. But to say the garage does not count towards the floor area ration is just not appropriate. The biggest issue to the neighborhood is the move to the densely populated, fully built out, suburban to urban, change, that will profoundly change the character of old town. To a large degree, the rights of homeowners, and the nature of the real estate market will move in that direction, without regard to any changes government can make. But floor area ratio is the best, most objective, least subject to discrimination, easiest to administer tool.  I support the new, proposed FAR standards. Regarding balconies needing to be counted as part of FAR standards, please reference house at 122 S Whitcomb with its second story balcony which extends beyond neighbor’s garages, uses majority of lot and reduces/diminishes neighbor’s privacy.  I think the changes (if approved) will help resolve some of the concerns presented by citizens in the workshops. Will definitely be an improvement.  Not sure they go far enough to meet objectives.  I like what I hear. It sounds like it has the potential to close loopholes.  I am sure the potential revisions will upset larger lot owners.  It is a thinly veiled attempt to reinstate the FAR standards that were repealed by the public in ’11. It should not be passed and it has been a gross waste of City time and resources and Council is out of line in trying to push it through on short notice before an election.  Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes!!! The projects that are maxing out the standards or getting “variance” in (is that a word?), are obtrusive, greedy, obsessive, completely against the character of the neighborhoods of Old Town.  I like these suggestions. I think you’ve creatively allowed for growth without allowing for obscenity in terms of size.  Please do not make additional restrictions on building standards. We are right back to what was repealed before. This will damage the development of our growing neighborhood. People will leave or decide to go elsewhere. This will financially impact our neighborhood and home values.  FAR!! 003 repealed this issue.  No adjustment to floor area ration (FAR) measurement. Petition in 2011 was successful and 003 was repealed and City Council stated that if this issue came back, it would not be based on “FAR” . The people of Fort Collins spoke via that petition in 2011.  Looks intelligent, fair, forward-looking.  Differentiation of NCL & NCM seems arbitrary. Use the NCL standard for both zones. Sliding scale by lot size is good, but the FAR is still too high. It should be .30 for a 10,000 sq.ft. lot in both zones and without the 250 sq. ft. accessory building exception.  New plan looks very positive in being able to place some limits without prohibiting reasonable expansion of house sizes in the neighborhood.  Good idea to include elevated basements in the FAR. Should point out in presentations and to City Council that non-elevated basements do not count in FAR thus possible to have more finished square feet than what is listed in the tables presented.  If the new unit fits the lot it should be ok. Each lot design is different.  Using a sliding scale by lot size makes sense now. Yes, differentiate between the NCL and NCM zone districts. OK – provide a 250 sq.ft. exception for detached rear accessory structures. Yes, work with a revised floor area measurement method that considers high volume spaces.  Too restricted, limits creating decent sized family homes with garages. Prohibits diversity and value of property.  I like them, particularly adding 3’ above ground basements and high ceiling rooms to the FAR.  Yes, differentiate between the NCL and NCM zone districts. Yes, provide a 250 sq.ft. exception for detached rear accessory structures. No to: Work with a revised floor area measurement method that considers high volume spaces. Page 3  Check to see what Boulder is going to do about slanting roofs. Concerned about odd setbacks different on north and south side.  Include balcony measurements into accounting the FAR requirements/calculations. I think the proposed FAR standards are overly restrictive. Should have existing FAR the same. Limits to side wall height. Should be on a case by case basis. One size does not fit all . . . especially in Old Town. The example used for the NCL zone of a lot of 7,000 sq.ft. seemed like an extreme result. What good is a 250 sq.ft. accessory building.  There is NO current problem. 5. Do you have comments on the potential side wall height standards for solar access?  Will this result in homes that do not fit into the overall character of the neighborhood?  Protecting neighbor’s light & sun is one of the most important requirements. Measurements taken at 12:00 noon, winter solstice. No loss of sun to neighbor needs to be the standard.  Not really – I think it’s a great idea to make the proposed changes.  Good idea  It’s only fair, for both solar & gardening.  Solar access is important so 18’ is generous.  At this time, I believe the proposal is too vague and should be studied further before a final proposal is put forth for adoption.  The value of these Old Town lots and yards is greatly reduced as these extreme projects get taller and closer to lot boundaries.  My only concern here is that we might end up with funky, lop-sided houses.  No more standards! Solar access can be blocked by planting a tree and everyone supports tree planting. Standards do not address this without negatively effecting home values.  For our property it’s not a large impact but larger lots are greatly impacted. Large houses are not out of place in Old Town, just need to be done in character.  What about landscaping – trees grow – is that an issue? Old Town has big trees – do you want them cut down!?  Limit wall height at the minimum side setback on the north side of the lot to preserve solar access.  I am strongly in favor of the standards as defined  Applying only to large additions or new construction is a huge loophole. Somebody could build a 250 sq.ft addition on a roof and significantly shade a neighbor to the north. Is there a sliding scale so houses/additions built at a 5’6” setback can’t move up to 18’? Also, the 1:1 height increase for lots narrower than 40’ seems overly generous. A tall house on a narrow lot has a greater potential to impact neighbors, so maybe buying a narrow lot should limit what you can do. A height increase of 6” for each foot narrower than 40’ with a maximum of 16’ would be better.  North-south impact is addressed well without being overly prohibitive. East-west impacts may need to be considered as well.  Good idea for north facing wall heights restrictions.  Doesn’t apply to my lot, but it is an important issue. Yes, apply only to large additions and new construction adjacent to a neighbor to the north. Yes, limit wall height at the minimum side setback on the north side of the lot to preserve solar access.  Properties are in flux. A single story home may become a two story in the future. South properties are always subject to a northern neighbor . . . which may also change height in the future.  I like the concept although I’m concerned about asymmetrical roofs.  OK, apply only to large additions and new construction adjacent to a neighbor to the north. Yes, limit wall height at the minimum side setback on the north side of the lot to preserve solar access.  Solar access protection needs to be set at winter solstice rather than spring equinox.  Needs to have a variance for homes that are forced to raise their base elevations due to flood plains. Page 4 6. Do you have comments on the potential additional building design standards to address front and side façade character?  The illustrations I saw on the poster do not reflect the character of homes in the area. I think it’s a good idea but designs need to be tweaked.  I am in favor!  This should be approached with caution. Jackson Hole did it and now it looks like a Disney theme park. Variety is good.  Compatibility with other buildings important.  Tightening up the standards will ensure that the character of a neighborhood will evolve gracefully.  I love that you’re not only looking at FAR but you’re considering design as well. Thank you.  No more standards! This will negatively impact our neighborhoods.  This design standard alone could address many of the out of place renovations.  Provide a menu of options to address the character of front and side facades.  Positive  Can’t legislate accounting for task. It is a diverse neighborhood. That’s part of the flavor of Eastside. Save the cookie-cutter mindset for the “burbs”.  New plan offers good options. Design assistance will help achieve better outcomes.  Good ideas  An important issue to maintain the character of the neighborhoods. I enjoyed judging the various facades at the Lopez Elementary workshop. OK, apply only to large additions and new construction – it saves time and effort spent on small projects. OK, provide a menu of options to address the character of front and side facades.  They are ok  No to: Apply only to large additions and new construction. Yes, provide a menu of options to address the character of front and side facades. Develop standards for front setback to align with others on the block. Address porches, trim, etc. to mimic nearby older homes.  Are porches the only way to create a more friendly façade in character? I think the standards are narrow and will create a cookie cutter effect and most likely unintended consequences.  Why should the City get involved in how people design their homes? It’s all subjective. 7. Do you have other comments and feedback?  These neighborhoods are the jewels of Fort Collins, and their character needs to be preserved. It’s what makes them so popular.  Please do not make the building process (permits, notifications, etc.) expensive. Voluntary design guidelines and example designs – Great!  “Neighborhood Contexts??” On one hand they do seem to assign a label to neighborhoods. But so what! I see this as a first step in an unannounced hidden agenda towards mandating HOA. Folks can see the context of the neighborhoods without a government definition.  Consultation with neighbors before building may reduce disharmony and help create a neighborly feeling. In the case of a builder/developer building a spec house to be sold in near future, hold these houses to the standards & insist on neighborhood meeting for guidance. City needs to be proactive in designating historic home protection recognizing the desirability of living in these neighborhoods and the fact that some people have so much money they can buy, scrape & build anything.  Keep doing this. I hope City Council will enforce these changes. Keep our neighborhood’s historic character.  Pleased that you have a significantly involved those of us living in the areas. Hope City council has same approach vs. only interests of developers. Page 5  I don’t believe there is enough evidence of a problem caused by the current FAR standards that will be solved by the proposed new standards. Furthermore, I feel that Council is attempting to railroad through new standards that the community has shown they do not support (i.e. the 2011 repeal of an extremely similar FAR standard to the one now being proposed). Additionally, the graphs and presentation is misleading (i.e. the 250 sq.ft. exemption for detached structures).  The market does an excellent job of monitoring the developing and maintaining the market. This tinkering isn’t going to do anything except screw up the market and leave some properties that should be address without a suitor. Your building size is ratcheted down so that no one will buy the old houses and fix them up – not profitable. You are seriously messing with the market which is the best control.  Thanks for all your hard work in this lengthy and difficult process. Even if we pretend not to like you!!  We still appreciate your time.  Great job so far, we need change for the better!  I really appreciate how well you all have listened to the community. I feel like you’ve done a good job at considering all sides of these issues. I also think you’ve come up with some creative solutions that have the potential to work well. I especially liked being able to see how a newly built house might look different under your new proposals. This really helped to solidify in my mind what exactly the proposals would mean. Thanks for all your hard work.  The redevelopment and growth of our neighborhood will be stunted with these standards being implemented again. These changes were repealed once before but the agenda of the Council is being pushed. Not the voice of the community. These last minute explanations and last minute finalization of suggestions leading to meetings where decisions will be made is exactly what happened last time. This is not ok. No more standards.  I worry if we get too prescriptive, young families will not look to move/reinvest in Old Town. Without flexibility, many people will get priced out of the Old Town market. The neighborhood will eventually grow stagnant and start to decline.  I believe the new construction is good for the neighborhood. Keep the current standards. I thought this was sealed a couple of years ago. The people of Fort Collins have spoken by repealing 003.  Grade is required to be raised in some of the area because of a high water table, so home owners are being penalized with height restrictions, based on existing City imposed restrictions. In considering financial impacts, both positive and negative impacts should be considered. Improvement of neighboring properties improves the neighborhood as a whole . . . property values go up, and this is what causes taxes to go up. Property value increase only benefits the community.  Great job. Wonderful outreach. Cooperative approach. Nicely phased. Good communication. Kudos to City, Winter, other support staff.  Case by case – some projects are more disappointing in their choices than others. Don’t punish the many for the disappointments of the few. Happy that due to additions, new builds, etc. that families are able to thrive in Old Town.  1. Thank you for finally listening to citizens and council by addressing solar access. It’s a good start, but it needs to directly protect solar access (e.g. regardless of lot size or width, or building size, additions or new houses would not be allowed to cast a shadow higher than 5’ on a house to the north built at the 5’ setback, at noon on Dec. 21). This would allow maximum flexibility for construction without allowing a negative environmental or economic impact (by shading windows) on neighbors to the north. 2. Why do the standards kick in at 2,500 sq. ft. for new construction, but 3,000 total sq.ft. for additions? 2,000 sq. ft. would be a good threshold for both. Remember, it’s not saying a house can’t be bigger – it just says you have to consider your neighbors.  Thanks for the good work.  Didn’t we go through this two years ago? Things are working ok now – no action is needed.  It appears from this information and my discussion with Abe that converting my one-car garage to a two-car garage will not exceed the potential FAR standard. Page 6  It always seems to go back to the City Council’s agenda of changing the FAR and creating restrictive standards that were vetoed last year!!! I feel that these changes affect the property values and desirability of Old Town. WATCH OUT!! Is this even legal? Put it to a vote, not a Council that determines citizen’s outcome! Washed A LOT of resources $$ to get this FAR changed again. Outrage.  Provide for neighbors consultation on new building and in some cases remodels. Work toward neighborhood harmony.  It might be helpful to make a table that shows total FAR by lot size with an assumed addition of a full basement to estimate total possible finished square footage. For example, a NCL lot of 7,000 sq.ft. could allow a 2,650 sq.ft. FAR. If that 2,650 is two floors of 1,200 sq.ft. each plus a detached garage, then a full basement could be 1,200 sq.ft. and usable space would really be closer to 3,600 sq.ft.  City Council is once again creating a mountain out of a mole hill. Fort Collins is land locked and in one breath the “City” promotes infill projects and building up not out, and in the other breath they restrict future building and improvements by making regulations over restrictive. Fort Collins (City Council) needs to figure out what they really want and they need to listen to all the people – not just the loud few. Regarding high volume space being counted as two floors – why would that matter? This will financially impact the home.  Can we please finally allow the FAR conversation to die? The citizens spoke in 2011, and they don’t want it. Just because there are two City Council members who are so arrogant as to believe that their opinions are more important than the thousands of citizens who signed on to repeal the last FAR proposal doesn’t make it right. Fort Collins Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Study u r b a n a d v I s o r s l t d urban advisory services Economic Evaluation of Redevelopment Trends and Proposed Floor Area Ratio Revisions in The Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods February 12, 2013 To inform the Eastside and Westside Neighborhood Character study, Urban Advisors evaluated existing conditions, the economics of redevelopment and proposed floor area ratio (FAR) revisions in the neighborhoods. To accomplish this, we used data from the county’s geographic information system (GIS) containing parcel data and assessor’s data for all of the parcels in both neighborhoods as well as for the city as a whole. The questions we sought to answer were:  Does greater square footage confer value by itself or are there other factors that change value?  How do lot size and unit size independently affect value?  Does limiting size, by reducing FAR change the dynamics of the real estate market for units in these neighborhoods?  Does an FAR limitation change current neighborhood affordability or are other factors leading to change? This report presents data regarding neighborhood housing and discusses its meaning in relation to the questions asked. Overall Conclusions The evaluation of economic factors led to the following overall conclusions:  While overall values increase with house size, the value per square foot tends to decline, especially for houses with more than 2,000 square feet of floor area or FARs above 0.30.  Based on existing property values, and the potential sales prices of new or expanded homes, most redevelopment is likely to occur on small to average sized lots (4,000 to 10,000 square feet) in the N‐C‐M zone district (115 to 125 such properties present prime redevelopment opportunities under current market conditions).  The proposed reduction in maximum permitted FAR (Ordinance Option A) would not significantly affect redevelopment opportunities in the neighborhoods because the most profitable opportunities tend to be at FARs that are lower than the proposed limits.  The proposed reduction in the maximum permitted FAR (Ordinance Option A) is not likely to have a significantly positive or negative impact on the affordability of housing in the neighborhoods. The evaluation process and conclusions are described in greater detail in the following pages. ATTACHMENT 6 Fort Collins Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Study Economic Evaluation u r b a n a d v I s o r s l t d urban advisory services 2 General Lot and Building Characteristics of the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods To understand the neighborhoods, we first assembled basic data regarding parcels and units. This data is shown in the following tables for each neighborhood. Eastside Neighborhood Characteristics Median Average Lot Size 7,810 10,199 Unit Size 1,126 1,307 Unit Age 82 79 Stories 1.0 1.2 Bedrooms 3.0 3.0 Baths 1.75 1.77 Basement Size 408 475 Garage Size 286 293 Porch Size 296 371 Total Value per Building Square Foot $204 $204 Total Value per Land Square Foot $33 $34 Floor Area Ratio 0.158 0.166 Fort Collins Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Study Economic Evaluation u r b a n a d v I s o r s l t d urban advisory services 3 Westside Neighborhood Characteristics Median Average Lot Size 6,982 7,629 Unit Size 1,104 1,260 Unit Age 83 78 Stories 1.0 1.2 Bedrooms 3.0 2.8 Baths 1.50 1.58 Basement Size 168 406 Garage Size 280 292 Porch Size 336 406 Total Value per Building Square Foot $208 $213 Total Value per Land Square Foot $32 $36 Floor Area Ratio 0.161 0.174 The tables above illustrate a number of differences in the neighborhoods, including:  Lot sizes on average are larger in the Eastside neighborhood  Units in the Eastside neighborhood are slightly larger on average  Unit age is slightly greater in the Westside neighborhood  The prevalence of multi‐story houses is not significantly different  The number of bedrooms per unit is not significantly different  The number of baths per unit is slightly higher in the Eastside neighborhood  The Eastside neighborhood has larger basements and garages on average  The Westside neighborhood has larger porches on average  Total value per building square foot is higher on average in the Westside neighborhood  Land values and development intensity (FAR) appear to be similar, but have a greater range in the Westside neighborhood The foregoing indicates that both neighborhoods were historically built with small houses at low FARs on typical lot sizes around 9,000 square feet. This combination of unit size and lot size yields a character that differs from newer suburban development and that many find charming. It may also relate to the neighborhood’s higher home values on a per square foot basis than the citywide median of ±$139. Fort Collins Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Study Economic Evaluation u r b a n a d v I s o r s l t d urban advisory services 4 Relationship of Development Characteristics to Value in the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods To gain a more finely detailed understanding, we prepared charts for each neighborhood showing the distribution of total value divided by building square feet, total value divided by square feet of land, and absolute value by FAR. The chart above shows total value divided by building square feet for most of the residential parcels in the Eastside neighborhood. It illustrates that, as building size increases, the value per square foot tends to decline. This is an important consideration in redevelopment, because as house size increases, value does not increase as much per square foot built. This change in value is a market limitation that means the largest new houses would not necessarily generate the greatest profit if resold. The same plot for the Westside neighborhood is shown on the next page. $0& $100& $200& $300& $400& $500& 0& 1000& 2000& 3000& 4000& 5000& 6000& Eastside(Neighborhood(Total(Value(per(Building((Square(Foot( Fort Collins Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Study Economic Evaluation u r b a n a d v I s o r s l t d urban advisory services 5 As in the plot for the Eastside neighborhood, the trend here is for value per square foot to decline as house size rises. In both the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods, the cloud of higher value per square foot appears to be concentrated below 2,000 square feet per unit and highest in the range between around 800 to 1,500 square feet. To understand the dynamics of lot size, we performed the same operation to create the charts below, plotting total value divided by parcel square feet. Westside'Neighborhood'Total'Value'per'Building'Square'Foot' Fort Collins Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Study Economic Evaluation u r b a n a d v I s o r s l t d urban advisory services 6 The plot of value by land square feet for the Eastside neighborhood shows highest value on lots of around 5,000 square feet or smaller, followed by lots between ±5,000 to ±8,000 square feet, with larger lots showing the lowest value per square foot. This is primarily because an average house on a small lot will confer a higher value per square foot of land than the same house on a very large lot. However, the plot of value by built square foot shows that, as house size increases, value decreases. This may indicate that as larger lots are built upon with larger houses, they do not create the same value per square foot. Eastside(Neighborhood(Total(Value(per(Land(Square(Foot( Fort Collins Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Study Economic Evaluation u r b a n a d v I s o r s l t d urban advisory services 7 The plot for the Westside neighborhood is similar to that of the Eastside neighborhood in showing declining square foot values for increasing lot sizes. However, it shows higher values per square foot of land and a wider range for those higher values, with lots at 10,000 square feet having the same total value per square foot at up to ±$80 per square foot compared to ±$60 in the Eastside neighborhood. It shows the same falloff in value, but at a slower rate than in the Eastside neighborhood. It is possible that the slightly higher FAR intensity in the Westside neighborhood is offsetting the market tendency to pay less per square foot for land and buildings as size increases. This naturally brings up the question of the effect of larger houses on smaller lots. Does increasing FAR confer more value? To examine this question we created plots of FAR and value. These plots are shown below. Westside'Neighborhood'Total'Value'per'Building'Square'Foot' Fort Collins Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Study Economic Evaluation u r b a n a d v I s o r s l t d urban advisory services 8 The two plots above show that as FAR rises, value rises. The trend line (with an r‐squared over .9 in each case) shows the rather steep rate of change. At the same time, the trend line is misleading 0.00& 0.10& 0.20& 0.30& 0.40& 0.50& 0.60& $0& $200,000& $400,000& $600,000& $800,000& $1,000,000& $1,200,000& $1,400,000& Eastside(Neighborhood(Total(Value(by(FAR( 0.0000) 0.1000) 0.2000) 0.3000) 0.4000) 0.5000) 0.6000) $0) $200,000) $400,000) $600,000) $800,000) $1,000,000) $1,200,000) Westside'Neighborhood'Total'Value'by''FAR' Fort Collins Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Study Economic Evaluation u r b a n a d v I s o r s l t d urban advisory services 9 because it is trending based on the very dense cloud of properties at the low end of both FAR intensity and value. As value rises above $300,000 in each neighborhood, the relationship fails to cohere and a more realistic trend line would show a flattening, and in the case of the Westside neighborhood would trend almost sideways. Note that in virtually all cases, even high value parcels are below an FAR of 0.3 (the equivalent of a 1,500 square foot unit on a 5,000 square foot lot). It becomes clear that increasing FAR can confer a value benefit, but only to a point. The dynamic that is shown in both plots indicates that rising over 0.3 is far less likely to result in a continued positive value change than the change from 0.1 to 0.3. Redevelopment Opportunity in the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods To investigate further, we looked at the redevelopment opportunities in the N‐C‐L and N‐C‐M zone districts and examined whether currently proposed revisions to the maximum FAR standard (Ordinance Option A) would be likely to have a specific economic impact. A parcel is considered to be a prime redevelopment opportunity when current market conditions would allow it be acquired, the house demolished and rebuilt or significantly expanded, and then resold at a sufficient profit. Because redevelopment opportunity appears to be much greater on lots between 4,000 and 10,000 square feet in the N‐C‐M district, the evaluation is concentrated on those parcels. Current real estate sales information and City of Fort Collins GIS data indicate that homes in the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods typically do not sell for more than about $800,000 with the exception of some homes designed and built for specific clients. Using this criterion, about 124 lots between 4,000 and 10,000 square feet currently represent prime redevelopment opportunities in the N‐C‐M district. If the maximum FAR standard were reduced (per Ordinance Option A), about 115 prime redevelopment opportunities would remain. The result of this evaluation confirms that changing FAR standards as proposed (Ordinance Option A) would put only limited constraints on market‐driven redevelopment opportunities in the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods. Because the proposed reduction to maximum permitted FAR is unlikely to significantly affect redevelopment opportunities, it is also unlikely to have a major impact on home prices in the neighborhoods, or affordability to buyers. Although FAR reductions may be viewed as a resource limitation that could push prices upward, real estate differs from commodities in that it is limited by the income of those who need it, and by the ability of the developer to profit from the purchase of the land. Redevelopment of existing parcels in the Eastside and Westside is self‐ limiting. Development will stop when the cost does not provide profit. Combined with the fact that the market does have a limited upper pricing, analysis shows that there is virtually no difference between proposed and existing regulations in the yielding of opportunities. ATTACHMENT 7 _______ Project: Eastside/Westside Character Study Project Description: This is a request for recommendation to City Council of a package of Land Use Code changes to address the impacts of large new single-family house construction and house additions occurring in the Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (N-C-L) and Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (N-C-M) zoning districts, which occur in the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods near Downtown. Recommendation: Staff requests that the Planning and Zoning Board make a recommendation to City Council regarding an Ordinance for proposed Land Use Code changes related to implementation of the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study. Members Kirkpatrick (Conflict of interest) and Hatfield left the meeting. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Ms. Sanchez-Sprague reported the only information received since the work session has been a read-before memo from staff, and Ordinance with two options, and a floor area ratio table. Senior City Planner Pete Wray stated this item consists of a package of Land Use Code changes to address the impacts of large new single-family house construction and house additions occurring in the Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (N-C-L) and Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (N-C-M) zoning districts, which occur in the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods near Downtown. This package was developed largely by the consulting firm of Winter and Company, with review and assistance by staff and was based on a wide range of public input by residents and other interested citizens, keeping the original project goal in mind. Wray stated this item would amend the Land Use Code to implement the Eastside/Westside Character Study. He stated staff provided five recommendations at the City Council work session which included: promoting the existing design assistance program, expanding notification for variance requests, creating a new design handbook or guidelines, adjusting measurement methods, and addressing building massing and solar impacts with new design tools. Council directed staff to proceed with implementation of those five strategy options, including assessing potential changes to the floor area ratio standard. Wray stated the public process for this phase three implementation included a series of public meetings in January and will include a series of Boards and Commissions recommendations, with the Planning and Zoning Board being the first. Council will be considering the item, for First Reading, on February 19, 2013. He reviewed the two Ordinance options as presented by staff. Option A reflects a package of revised standards, including a revision to the existing floor area ratio Planning & Zoning Board February 7, 2013 ATTACHMENT 8 East Side & Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Planning and Zoning Board February 7, 2013 Minutes Page 2 standard formula. Option B retains the existing floor area ratio standard. The standards included in both options are: expansion of the notification distance for zoning requests from 150 feet to 500 feet, a slight reduction to the existing maximum floor area ratio standards and an adjustment to the measurement method for calculating the maximum permitted floor area, an adjusted measurement method for the height of a new wall along a side lot line, an adjustment to the side wall height standards for solar access, and new design standards for front and side facades for larger new homes. Wray reviewed case studies in which the proposed and existing standards were applied. Option B would retain the existing floor area ratio formula. Public Input Clint Skutchan, Fort Collins Board of Realtors, commended staff for work on the item and stated the Board of Realtors is opposed to changes to the floor area ratio standards. He stated the floodplain issue needs to be addressed regarding height standards so as to avoid a doubly punitive situation. He suggested an exemption or separate process for those who are required to raise their homes due to floodplain location. He requested consideration that the pattern book not be put off until 2014. Ray Martinez, 4121 Stoneridge Court, opposed the proposed changes. Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, stated residents who live in these neighborhoods generally support the trend of these proposed changes. She stated zoning request notifications need to be expanded and sent earlier. She stated large homes should be built in other areas of the city and these neighborhoods should be protected. Kathy Konen, 121 North Sherwood Street, supported the ability of families to build homes as they wish and stated the neighborhoods need to keep growing in order to stay viable. She opposed the proposed changes. Susan Froseth, 524 Spring Canyon Court, noted the previous package of Code changes for this area, from 2010, was repealed by City Council. She questioned whether the current study used a broader perspective to understand character, larger context and compatibility, and threshold for change in these neighborhoods. She expressed concern that the proposed floor area ratio standards have not been thoroughly discussed. Ms. Froseth stated that the exact issues that led to the citizen’s initiative in 2011 to overturn the original guidelines are part of this proposal. She suggested standards should be developed to promote existing neighborhood character while still allowing for beneficial change. She stated the new proposed floor area standards are against the citizen initiative. Glen Konen, 121 North Sherwood Street, stated floor area ratios do not define a neighborhood and opposed the proposed changes. Gina Jannett, 730 West Oak, stated a strong majority of residents and land owners in these neighborhoods believe there are problems due to scrape-offs and expansions that result in large, tall houses that loom over neighbors. She stated the proposed floor area East Side & Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Planning and Zoning Board February 7, 2013 Minutes Page 3 ratio changes have been in response to citizen concerns. She supported Option A of the Ordinance in order to retain the character of these neighborhoods. End of Public Input Wray stated Council directed staff, in the spring of 2011, to examine the issues associated with the largest new construction and additions within the two neighborhoods. A key part of the process was identifying strategy options that will best address the issues associated with the largest construction examples. Wray stated staff determined the application needed to be applied on a limited basis within the neighborhoods and the two zoning districts based on established thresholds. He stated the original staff recommendation was to not include the floor area ratio changes as the team felt the package of other design standards sufficiently addresses the issues. However, it is included on the list of viable tools to limit house size, as per Council’s request. Sherry Albertson-Clark, Interim Planning Manager, stated stormwater staff has collected data since October 1, 2007 for the Old Town 100-year floodplain, which predominately covers portions of the Westside neighborhood and a small portion of the Eastside. In that time period, there have been four new homes that were built in that floodplain. Those four were required to elevate their finished floor a minimum of eighteen inches above the 100-year flood elevation. There were a total of fourteen structures within the floodplain that had additions. Those additions are typically required to elevate a minimum of six inches above the 100-year flood elevation. Board Questions Member Hart stated all parties seem to want to protect the neighborhoods with the only issue being the floor area ratio. He questioned why the floor area ratios need to be amended. Abe Barge, Winter and Company, replied participants throughout this process have expressed a desire for basically the same thing. The issue of the floor area ratio tool comes down to a choice about how far it’s appropriate to go in terms of addressing the objectives and issues that were identified as part of the public process to promote compatibility. Option A most thoroughly addresses the issues and objectives with the change in floor area ratio; Option B may be seen as not going far enough in terms of addressing the issue of overly large homes. Board Discussion Member Hart stated the solar access regulation would shift the burden from the property on one side of a home to the property on the other side, and the floor area ratio reduction would not have aided that property owner at all. Member Campana stated not everyone agrees that preserving the character of the neighborhood is what the argument is about. The main part of the problem is a lack of basic, considerate architecture. He opposed the floor area ratio changes. He expressed concern that the late start time of the meeting diminished citizen input and noted two Members left as well. East Side & Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Planning and Zoning Board February 7, 2013 Minutes Page 4 Member Carpenter expressed appreciation for Option B. She stated good design has nothing to do with square footage; however, there are some problematic large construction examples. She suggested recommending adoption of Option B and noted residents in Old Town have often selected that area because they do not want HOA restrictions. She supported moving forward with design guidelines rather than standards more quickly than perhaps originally planned. Member Campana stated he could support Option B with revisions, but could not support Option A. Member Carpenter stated the Board should continue the item, but that is not an option given it will go to Council either way. Chairman Smith supported the changes brought forth to the work session, other than the floor area ratio change. He stated a well-designed large house is preferable to a poorly- designed small house. The proposed Code changes, other than the floor area ratio issue, go far in accomplishing good design. He stated he would support recommending Option B, but would not have supported Option A. Member Carpenter noted the importance of sending a recommendation to Council and stated, though not ideal, Option B offers changes that are close to being complete. Chairman Smith stated compatibility does not necessarily equal uniformity. Diversity of the housing stock in Old Town is what makes it resilient and attractive. Member Carpenter noted diversity in housing has historically been part of Old Town. Member Elmore expressed appreciation for the solar access regulations. She supported Option A, stating it would not preclude or prevent people from desiring Old Town. Member Carpenter made a motion to recommend to City Council the adoption of Option B. Member Hart seconded the motion. Member Campana supported the increased notice area change and asked about the point of reference for determining a floor. Barge replied, in theory it is to the ceiling or rafter. Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator, replied the seven and a half foot measurement, only applies to the second story in a detached accessory building. In the main house, the seven and a half foot measurement isn’t mentioned; it is the total square footage of the floor area, regardless of the ceiling height. In a detached building, you only count that portion of the second floor that has a ceiling height of seven and half feet or greater. Barnes stated that one current problem is that if someone builds a one- story house with a tall vaulted ceiling, it may appear like a two-story house; however, it is currently considered one story. The proposed change would count floor area when the distance between the floor and the rafter directly above it is greater than fourteen feet. Member Campana asked how massing and articulation would be reviewed. Barnes replied the Zoning Department reviews plans against the Land Use Code. Submittal East Side & Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Planning and Zoning Board February 7, 2013 Minutes Page 5 requirements will need to include additional information regarding surrounding properties. The motion passed 4:1 with Member Elmore dissenting. 1 OPTION A ORDINANCE NO. 033, 2013 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE PERTAINING TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EASTSIDE AND WESTSIDE NEIGHBORHOODS CHARACTER STUDY WHEREAS, in 2010, City staff conducted an Eastside/Westside Neighborhood Study which resulted in an ordinance being approved by the City Council which was later repealed in response to a citizen petition; and WHEREAS, in June 2011, City staff initiated a new Eastside/Westside Neighborhood Character Study (the “Study”) after receiving direction from City Council to take a fresh look at neighborhood compatibility and character issues in the neighborhoods near downtown; and WHEREAS, the basis of the Study is to respond to continued concerns with respect to potential impacts of building additions and new construction in the City’s oldest neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the Study process included extensive public outreach and the consideration of the proposed Code changes arising from the Study by the Planning and Zoning Board, the Landmark Preservation Commission, the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Building Review Board; and WHEREAS, the direction from the Study is to amend the Land Use Code in the following particulars: 1. Expand the existing notification distance for some Zoning Board of Appeals variance requests; 2. Revise the existing Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards using a new formula to lower the largest allowable house sizes, and adjust the method for calculating allowable floor area; 3. Adjust the method for measuring the height of a new wall along a side lot line; 4. Incorporate a new solar access standard; and 5. Incorporate new design standards with a menu of options for front and side building façade features; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed changes to the Land Use Code are in the best interests of the City. 2 NOW, THERFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 2.10.2(F) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (F) Step 6 (Notice): Section 2.2.6(A) only applies, except that “5800 feet” shall be changed to “150 feet”, and for single-family houses in the NCL and NCM zone districts, eight hundred (800) feet shall be changed to five hundred (500) feet for variance requests for: (a) Construction that results in a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously existed and where there is at least one (1) lot abutting the side of the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story; or (b) Construction of a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet; or (c) Construction of an addition that results in a total square footage of more than three thousand (3,000) square feet; and "14 days" shall be changed to "7 days," everywhere they occur in Section 2.2.6.(A). Section 2.2.6(B)-(D) shall not apply. Section 2. That Section 4.7(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (D) Land Use Standards. (1) Density Required Lot Area. Minimum lot area shall be equivalent to at least two and one-half (21/2) times the total floor area of the building(s), but not be less than six thousand (6,000) square feet. For the purposes of calculating density, "total floor area" shall mean the total gross floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the outside walls of such buildings and including each finished or unfinished floor level plus the total gross floor area of the ground floor of any accessory building larger than one hundred twenty (120) square feet, plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (71/2) feet located within any such accessory building located on the lot. (Open balconies and basements shall not be counted as floor area for purposes of calculating density). (2) Allowable Floor Area on Lots. (a) The allowable floor area shall be as follows: 3 (1) On a lot of less than five thousand (5,000) square feet, the allowable floor area for single-family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the lot area. (2) On a lot that is between five thousand (5,000) square feet and ten thousand (10,000) square feet, the allowable floor area for single- family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed twenty (20) percent of the lot area plus, one thousand (1,000) square feet. On a lot that is between six thousand (6,000) square feet and ten thousand (10,000) square feet, an additional two hundred-fifty (250) square feet shall be added for a detached accessory structure. (3) On a lot that is more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, the allowable floor area for single-family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed thirty (30) percent, plus two hundred-fifty (250) square feet for a detached accessory structure. (4) The allowable floor area for buildings containing permitted uses other than single-family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the lot area. (b) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, one hundred (100) percent of the floor area of the following spaces and building elements shall be included: (1) The total floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the outside walls of such buildings and including each finished or unfinished floor level plus the total floor area of the ground floor of any accessory building larger than one hundred twenty (120) square feet, plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7-1/2) feet located within such accessory building on the lot. (2) Basement floor areas where the exterior basement walls areany exterior basement wall is exposed by more than three (3) feet above adjacent finished gradethe existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall. (3) Roofed porches, balconies and breezeways that are enclosed on more than two sides. 4 (c) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the following spaces and building elements shall be counted at two hundred (200) percent: High volume spaces on the first or second floor where the distance between the floor and the ceiling or roof rafters directly above is greater than fourteen (14) feet. (d) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the following spaces and building elements shall not be included: The first two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of a detached accessory building, provided that it is located behind a street-fronting principal building and is separated from such principal building by at least ten (10) feet. (3) Allowable Floor Area on Rear Half of Lots. The allowable floor area on the rear half of a lot shall not exceed twenty five (25) percent of the area of the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot. (24) Residential. Any new single-family dwelling that is proposed to be located behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of eight hundred (800) square feet of floor area unless such new single-family dwelling contains a two-car garage, in which case it shall contain a maximum of one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor area, including the garage. Floor area shall include all floor space within the basement and first floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet. A new single-family dwelling may be located in any area of the rear portion of such lot, provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation between structures. The building footprint for such single-family dwelling shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet. (35) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future Habitable Space). Any accessory building with water and/or sewer service shall be considered to have habitable space. Any person applying for a building permit for such a building shall sign and record with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder an affidavit stating that such accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit. All applicable building permits issued for such buildings shall be conditioned upon this prohibition. Any such structure containing habitable space that is located behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of six hundred (600) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space within the basement and ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet. Such accessory building may be located in any area of the rear portion of a lot, provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation between structures. 5 (46) Accessory Buildings Without Habitable Space. Any accessory building without water and/or sewer service, which has not been declared to contain habitable space by the applicant, shall not exceed a total floor area of six hundred (600) square feet. Floor area shall include all floor space (including basement space) within the building having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet. (5) Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Lots are subject to a maximum FAR of twenty-five hundredths (0.25) on the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot as it existed on October 25, 1991. The lot area used as the basis for the FAR calculation shall be considered the minimum lot size within the zone district. Section 3. That Section 4.7(E) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (E) Dimensional Standards. . . . (4) Minimum Side Yard and Maximum Wall Height. Minimum side yard width shall be five (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a building wall or building along a side lot line exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, as measured from the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, such portion of the building wall or building shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot, beyond the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of building wall or building height that exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, except as provided in “a” below. Minimum side yard width shall be fifteen (15) feet on the street side of any corner lot. Notwithstanding the foregoing, minimum side yard width for schools and places of worship shall be twenty-five (25) feet (for both interior and street sides). (a) Solar Access Setbacks. For building construction that results in: 1. a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously existed, or 2. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, or 3. an addition that results in a total square footage of more than three thousand (3,000) square feet, and 4. construction on a lot where there is a lot abutting the north side of the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story, building height shall be reduced to preserve solar access on adjacent lots such that whenever any portion of a north-facing side building wall that adjoins a lot to the north exceeds fourteen (14) feet in height, as measured from the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, such portion of the building wall 6 shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot beyond the minimum required, for each one (1) foot, or fraction thereof, of building wall that exceeds fourteen (14) feet in height. For lots that are forty (40) feet or less in width, the fourteen (14) foot starting height may be increased by one (1) foot for each one (1) foot of decreased lot width up to a maximum starting height of eighteen (18) feet. Figure XX: Minimum Side Yard Width and Maximum Building Wall Height *Applies only to north-facing building walls adjoining a property to the north for building construction that results in a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously existed, or when the construction is for a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, or for an addition that results in a total square footage of more than three thousand (3,000) square feet, and where there is a lot abutting the north side of the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story. (5) Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case of carriage houses, and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be a maximum of one and one-half (1-1/2) stories. Section 4. That Section 4.7(F) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (F) Development Standards. 7 (1) Building Design. . . . (h) Front Façade Character. When building construction results in: 1. a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously existed and where there is at least one (1) lot abutting the side of the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story, or 2. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, or 3. a second-story addition that results in a total square footage of more than three thousand (3,000) square feet at least one (1) front façade feature from the menu below shall be included to promote pedestrian orientation and compatibility with the character of the structures on the block face: Figure XX: Menu of Design Options for Front Façade Character Limited Two Story Façade Two-story front-façade width is no more than 40’, with any remaining two-story front façade set back an additional six (6) feet from the street. One Story Element The portion of the façade closest to the street is one-story, with any two-story façade set back an additional six (6) feet from the street. Covered Entry Feature 8 A covered entry feature such as a front porch or stoop is located on the front façade. The feature shall have a minimum depth of at least six (6) feet. (as measured from the building façade to the posts and railings) and a minimum length of eight (8) feet. (i) Side Façade Character. When building construction results in: 1. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, or 2. a second-story addition that results in a total square footage of more than three thousand (3,000) square feet at least one (1) side façade feature from the menu below shall be included to address potential looming and privacy impacts on neighbors: 9 Figure XX: Menu of Design Options for Side Façade Character Wall Offset Two-story façade width at the minimum side yard is no more than forty (40) feet, with any remaining two-story façade set back an additional six (6) feet beyond the minimum required side yard. Step Down in Height Two-story façade width at the minimum side yard is no more than forty (40) feet, with any remaining façade width at the minimum side yard reduced to one-story. One Story Element A one-story building element with a minimum depth of six (6) feet is located at the minimum side yard. Additional Setback Any two-story façade is set back an additional six (6) feet beyond the minimum required side yard. . . . Section 5. That Section 4.8(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (D) Land Use Standards. (1) Density/Intensity of Development Required Lot Area. Minimum lot area shall be equivalent to at least two (2) times the total floor area of the building(s), but not be less than the following: five thousand (5,000) square feet for a single-family or 10 two-family dwelling and six thousand (6,000) square feet for all other uses. For the purposes of calculating density, "total floor area" shall mean the total gross floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the outside walls of such buildings and including each finished or unfinished floor level plus the total gross floor area of the ground floor of any accessory building larger than one hundred twenty (120) square feet, plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (71/2) feet located within any such accessory building located on the lot. (Open balconies and basements shall not be counted as floor area for purposes of calculating density). (2) Allowable Floor Area on Lots. (a) The allowable floor area shall be as follows: (1) On a lot of less than four thousand (4,000) square feet, the allowable floor area for single-family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the lot area. (2) On a lot that is between four thousand (4,000) square feet and ten thousand (10,000) square feet, the allowable floor area for single- family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the lot area plus one thousand (1,000) square feet. On a lot that is between six thousand (6,000) square feet and ten thousand (10,000) square feet, an additional two hundred-fifty (250) square feet shall be added for a detached accessory structure. (3) On a lot that is more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, the allowable floor area for single-family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed thirty-five (35) percent of the lot area, plus two hundred-fifty (250) square feet for a detached accessory structure. (4) The allowable floor area for buildings containing permitted uses other than single-family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the lot area. (b) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, one hundred (100) percent of the floor area of the following spaces and building elements shall be included: (1) The total floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the outside walls of such buildings and including each finished or unfinished floor level plus the total floor area of the ground floor 11 of any accessory building larger than one hundred twenty (120) square feet, plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7-1/2) feet located within such accessory building located on the lot. (2) Basement floor areas where the exterior basement walls areany exterior basement wall is exposed by more than three (3) feet above adjacent finished gradethe existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall. (3) Roofed porches, balconies and breezeways that are enclosed on more than two (2) sides. (c) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the following spaces and building elements shall be counted at two hundred (200) percent: High volume spaces on the first or second floor where the distance between the floor and the ceiling or roof rafters directly above is greater than fourteen (14) feet. (d) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the following spaces and building elements shall not be included: The first two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of a detached accessory building, provided that it is located behind a street-fronting principal building and is separated from such principal building by at least ten (10) feet (3) Allowable Floor Area on Rear Half of Lots. The allowable floor area on the rear half of a lot shall not exceed thirty-three (33) percent of the area of the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot. (24) Residential. Any new single-family dwelling that is proposed to be located behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of eight hundred (800) square feet of floor area unless such new single-family dwelling contains a two-car garage, in which case it shall contain a maximum of one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor area, including the garage. Floor area shall include all floor space within the basement and first floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet. A new single-family dwelling may be located in any area of the rear portion of such lot, provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation between structures. The building footprint for such single-family dwelling shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet. 12 (35) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future Habitable Space). Any accessory building with water and/or sewer service shall be considered to have habitable space. Any person applying for a building permit for such a building shall sign and record with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder an affidavit stating that such accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit. All applicable building permits issued for such buildings shall be conditioned upon this prohibition. Any such structure containing habitable space that is located behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of six hundred (600) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space within the basement and ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet. Such accessory building may be located in any area of the rear portion of a lot, provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation between structures. (46) Accessory Buildings Without Habitable Space. Any accessory building without water and/or sewer service, which has not been declared to contain habitable space by the applicant, shall not exceed a total floor area of six hundred (600) square feet. Floor area shall include all floor space (including basement space) within the building having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet. (5) Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Lots are subject to a maximum FAR of twenty-five hundredths (0.25) on the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot as it existed on October 25, 1991. The lot area used as the basis for the FAR calculation shall be considered the minimum lot size within the zone district. Section 6. That Section 4.8(E) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (E) Dimensional Standards . . . (4) Minimum Side Yard and Maximum Wall Height. Minimum side yard width shall be five (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a building wall or building along a side lot line exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, as measured from the natural grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, such portion of the building wall or building shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot, beyond the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of building wall or building height that exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, except as provided for in “a” below. Minimum side yard width shall be fifteen (15) feet on the street side of any corner lot. Notwithstanding the foregoing, minimum side yard width for schools and places of worship shall be twenty-five (25) feet (for both interior and street sides). 13 (a) Solar Access Setbacks. For building construction that results in: 1. a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously existed, or 2. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, or 3. an addition that results in a total square footage of more than three thousand (3,000) square feet, and 4. construction on a lot where there is a lot abutting the north side of the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story building height shall be reduced to preserve solar access on adjacent lots such that whenever any portion of a north-facing side building wall that adjoins a lot to the north exceeds fourteen (14) feet in height, as measured from the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, such portion of the building wall shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot beyond the minimum required, for each one (1) foot, or fraction thereof, of building wall that exceeds fourteen (14) feet in height. For lots that are forty (40) feet or less in width, the fourteen (14) foot starting height may be increased by one (1) foot for each one (1) foot of decreased lot width up to a maximum starting height of eighteen (18) feet. Figure XX: Minimum Side Yard Width and Maximum Building Wall Height 14 *Applies only to north-facing building walls adjoining a property to the north for building construction that results in a two (2) story where a one (1) story previously existed, or when the construction is for a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, or for an addition that results in a total square footage of more than three thousand (3,000) square feet, and where there is a lot abutting the north side of the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story. (5) Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case of carriage houses, and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be a maximum of one and one-half (11/2) stories. Section 7. That Section 4.8(F) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (F) Development Standards (1) Building Design. . . . (h) Front Façade Character. When building construction results in: 1. a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously existed and where there is an abutting house on either side that is one (1) story, or 15 2. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, or 3. a second-story addition that results in a total square footage of more than three thousand (3,000) square feet at least one (1) front façade feature from the menu below shall be included to promote pedestrian orientation and compatibility with the character of structures on the block face: 16 Figure XX: Menu of Design Options for Front Façade Character Limited Two Story Façade Two-story front-façade width is no more than 40’, with any remaining two-story front façade set back an additional six (6) feet from the street. One Story Element The portion of the façade closest to the street is one-story, with any two-story façade set back an additional six (6) feet from the street. lCovered Entry Feature A covered entry feature such as a front porch or stoop is located on the front façade. The feature shall have a minimum depth of at least six (6) feet (as measured from the building façade to the posts and railings) and a minimum length of eight (8) feet. (i) Side Façade Character. When building construction results in: 1. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, or 17 2. a second-story addition that results in a total square footage of more than three thousand (3,000) square feet at least one (1) side façade feature from the menu below shall be included to address potential looming and privacy impacts on neighbors: Figure XX: Menu of Design Options for Side Façade Character Wall Offset Two-story façade width at the minimum side yard is no more than forty (40) feet, with any remaining two-story façade set back an additional six (6) feet beyond the minimum required side yard. Step Down in Height Two-story façade width at the minimum side yard is no more than forty (40) feet, with any remaining façade width at the minimum side yard reduced to one-story. One Story Element A one-story building element with a minimum depth of six (6) feet is located at the minimum side yard. Additional Setback Any two-story façade is set back an additional six (6) feet beyond the minimum required side yard. 18 Section 8. That the amendments provided for in this Ordinance shall apply to complete applications for development approval or for building permits that are properly filed with the City on or after May 15, 2013. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 26th day of February, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 5th day of March, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 5th day of March, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk 1 OPTION “B” ORDINANCE NO. 033, 2013 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE PERTAINING TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EASTSIDE AND WESTSIDE NEIGHBORHOODS CHARACTER STUDY WHEREAS, in 2010, City staff conducted an Eastside/Westside Neighborhood Study which resulted in an ordinance being approved by the City Council which was later repealed in response to a citizen petition; and WHEREAS, in June 2011, City staff initiated a new Eastside/Westside Neighborhood Character Study (the “Study”) after receiving direction from City Council to take a fresh look at neighborhood compatibility and character issues in the neighborhoods near downtown; and WHEREAS, the basis of the Study is to respond to continued concerns with respect to potential impacts of building additions and new construction in the City’s oldest neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the Study process included extensive public outreach and the consideration of the proposed Code changes arising from the Study by the Planning and Zoning Board, the Landmark Preservation Commission, the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Building Review Board; and WHEREAS, the direction from the Study is to amend the Land Use Code in the following particulars: 1. Expand the existing notification distance for some Zoning Board of Appeals variance requests; 2. Adjust the method for calculating allowable floor area; 3. Adjust the method for measuring the height of a new wall along a side lot line; 4. Incorporate a new solar access standard; and 5. Incorporate new design standards with a menu of options for front and side building façade features; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed changes to the Land Use Code are in the best interests of the City. 2 NOW, THERFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 2.10.2(F) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (F) Step 6 (Notice): Section 2.2.6(A) only applies, except that “5800 feet” shall be changed to “150 feet”, and for single-family houses in the NCL and NCM zone districts, eight hundred (800) feet shall be changed to five hundred (500) feet for variance requests for: (a) Construction that results in a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously existed and where there is at least one (1) lot abutting the side of the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story; or (b) Construction of a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet; or (c) Construction of an addition that results in a total square footage of more than three thousand (3,000) square feet; and "14 days" shall be changed to "7 days," everywhere they occur in Section 2.2.6.(A). Section 2.2.6(B)-(D) shall not apply. Section 2. That Section 4.7(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (D) Land Use Standards. (1) Density Required Lot Area. Minimum lot area shall be equivalent to at least two and one-half (21/2) times the total floor area of the building(s), but not be less than six thousand (6,000) square feet. For the purposes of calculating density, "total floor area" shall mean the total gross floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the outside walls of such buildings and including each finished or unfinished floor level plus the total gross floor area of the ground floor of any accessory building larger than one hundred twenty (120) square feet, plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (71/2) feet located within any such accessory building located on the lot. (Open balconies and basements shall not be counted as floor area for purposes of calculating density). (2) Allowable Floor Area on Lots. (a) The allowable floor area shall be as follows: 3 (1) The allowable floor area for all buildings shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the lot area. (b) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, one hundred (100) percent of the floor area of the following spaces and building elements shall be included: (1) The total floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the outside walls of such buildings and including each finished or unfinished floor level plus the total floor area of the ground floor of any accessory building larger than one hundred twenty (120) square feet, plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7-1/2) feet located within such accessory building on the lot. (2) Basement floor areas where the exterior basement walls areany exterior basement wall is exposed by more than three (3) feet above adjacent finished gradethe existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall. (3) Roofed porches, balconies and breezeways that are enclosed on more than two sides. (c) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the following spaces and building elements shall be counted at two hundred (200) percent: High volume spaces on the first or second floor where the distance between the floor and the ceiling or roof rafters directly above is greater than fourteen (14) feet. (d) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the following spaces and building elements shall not be included: The first two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of a detached accessory building, provided that it is located behind a street-fronting principal building and is separated from such principal building by at least ten (10) feet. (3) Allowable Floor Area on Rear Half of Lots. The allowable floor area on the rear half of a lot shall not exceed twenty five (25) percent of the area of the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot. (24) Residential. Any new single-family dwelling that is proposed to be located behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of eight hundred (800) square feet of floor area unless such new single-family dwelling contains a 4 two-car garage, in which case it shall contain a maximum of one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor area, including the garage. Floor area shall include all floor space within the basement and first floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet. A new single-family dwelling may be located in any area of the rear portion of such lot, provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation between structures. The building footprint for such single-family dwelling shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet. (35) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future Habitable Space). Any accessory building with water and/or sewer service shall be considered to have habitable space. Any person applying for a building permit for such a building shall sign and record with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder an affidavit stating that such accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit. All applicable building permits issued for such buildings shall be conditioned upon this prohibition. Any such structure containing habitable space that is located behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of six hundred (600) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space within the basement and ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet. Such accessory building may be located in any area of the rear portion of a lot, provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation between structures. (46) Accessory Buildings Without Habitable Space. Any accessory building without water and/or sewer service, which has not been declared to contain habitable space by the applicant, shall not exceed a total floor area of six hundred (600) square feet. Floor area shall include all floor space (including basement space) within the building having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet. (5) Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Lots are subject to a maximum FAR of twenty-five hundredths (0.25) on the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot as it existed on October 25, 1991. The lot area used as the basis for the FAR calculation shall be considered the minimum lot size within the zone district. Section 3. That Section 4.7(E) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (E) Dimensional Standards. . . . (4) Minimum Side Yard and Maximum Wall Height. Minimum side yard width shall be five (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a building wall or building along a side lot line exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, as measured from the existing 5 grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, such portion of the building wall or building shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot, beyond the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of building wall or building height that exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, except as provided in “a” below. Minimum side yard width shall be fifteen (15) feet on the street side of any corner lot. Notwithstanding the foregoing, minimum side yard width for schools and places of worship shall be twenty-five (25) feet (for both interior and street sides). (a) Solar Access Setbacks. For building construction that results in: 1. a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously existed, or 2. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, or 3. an addition that results in a total square footage of more than three thousand (3,000) square feet, and 4. construction on a lot where there is a lot abutting the north side of the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story, building height shall be reduced to preserve solar access on adjacent lots such that whenever any portion of a north-facing side building wall that adjoins a lot to the north exceeds fourteen (14) feet in height, as measured from the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, such portion of the building wall shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot beyond the minimum required, for each one (1) foot, or fraction thereof, of building wall that exceeds fourteen (14) feet in height. For lots that are forty (40) feet or less in width, the fourteen (14) foot starting height may be increased by one (1) foot for each one (1) foot of decreased lot width up to a maximum starting height of eighteen (18) feet. Figure XX: Minimum Side Yard Width and Maximum Building Wall Height 6 *Applies only to north-facing building walls adjoining a property to the north for building construction that results in a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously existed, or when the construction is for a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, or for an addition that results in a total square footage of more than three thousand (3,000) square feet, and where there is a lot abutting the north side of the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story. (5) Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case of carriage houses, and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be a maximum of one and one-half (1-1/2) stories. Section 4. That Section 4.7(F) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (F) Development Standards. (1) Building Design. . . . (h) Front Façade Character. When building construction results in: 1. a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously existed and where there is at least one (1) lot abutting the side of the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story, or 7 2. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, or 3. a second-story addition that results in a total square footage of more than three thousand (3,000) square feet at least one (1) front façade feature from the menu below shall be included to promote pedestrian orientation and compatibility with the character of the structures on the block face: Figure XX: Menu of Design Options for Front Façade Character Limited Two Story Façade Two-story front-façade width is no more than 40’, with any remaining two-story front façade set back an additional six (6) feet from the street. One Story Element The portion of the façade closest to the street is one-story, with any two-story façade set back an additional six (6) feet from the street. Covered Entry Feature 8 A covered entry feature such as a front porch or stoop is located on the front façade. The feature shall have a minimum depth of at least six (6) feet. (as measured from the building façade to the posts and railings) and a minimum length of eight (8) feet. (i) Side Façade Character. When building construction results in: 1. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, or 2. a second-story addition that results in a total square footage of more than three thousand (3,000) square feet at least one (1) side façade feature from the menu below shall be included to address potential looming and privacy impacts on neighbors: 9 Figure XX: Menu of Design Options for Side Façade Character Wall Offset Two-story façade width at the minimum side yard is no more than forty (40) feet, with any remaining two-story façade set back an additional six (6) feet beyond the minimum required side yard. Step Down in Height Two-story façade width at the minimum side yard is no more than forty (40) feet, with any remaining façade width at the minimum side yard reduced to one-story. One Story Element A one-story building element with a minimum depth of six (6) feet is located at the minimum side yard. Additional Setback Any two-story façade is set back an additional six (6) feet beyond the minimum required side yard. . . . Section 5. That Section 4.8(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (D) Land Use Standards. (1) Density/Intensity of Development Required Lot Area. Minimum lot area shall be equivalent to at least two (2) times the total floor area of the building(s), but not be less than the following: five thousand (5,000) square feet for a single-family or 10 two-family dwelling and six thousand (6,000) square feet for all other uses. For the purposes of calculating density, "total floor area" shall mean the total gross floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the outside walls of such buildings and including each finished or unfinished floor level plus the total gross floor area of the ground floor of any accessory building larger than one hundred twenty (120) square feet, plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (71/2) feet located within any such accessory building located on the lot. (Open balconies and basements shall not be counted as floor area for purposes of calculating density). (2) Allowable Floor Area on Lots. (a) The allowable floor area shall be as follows: (1) The allowable floor area for all buildings shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the lot area. (b) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, one hundred (100) percent of the floor area of the following spaces and building elements shall be included: (1) The total floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the outside walls of such buildings and including each finished or unfinished floor level plus the total floor area of the ground floor of any accessory building larger than one hundred twenty (120) square feet, plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7-1/2) feet located within such accessory building located on the lot. (2) Basement floor areas where the exterior basement walls areany exterior basement wall is exposed by more than three (3) feet above adjacent finished gradethe existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall. (3) Roofed porches, balconies and breezeways that are enclosed on more than two (2) sides. (c) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the following spaces and building elements shall be counted at two hundred (200) percent: High volume spaces on the first or second floor where the distance between the floor and the ceiling or roof rafters directly above is greater than fourteen (14) feet. 11 (d) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the following spaces and building elements shall not be included: The first two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of a detached accessory building, provided that it is located behind a street-fronting principal building and is separated from such principal building by at least ten (10) feet (3) Allowable Floor Area on Rear Half of Lots. The allowable floor area on the rear half of a lot shall not exceed thirty-three (33) percent of the area of the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot. (24) Residential. Any new single-family dwelling that is proposed to be located behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of eight hundred (800) square feet of floor area unless such new single-family dwelling contains a two-car garage, in which case it shall contain a maximum of one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor area, including the garage. Floor area shall include all floor space within the basement and first floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet. A new single-family dwelling may be located in any area of the rear portion of such lot, provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation between structures. The building footprint for such single-family dwelling shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet. (35) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future Habitable Space). Any accessory building with water and/or sewer service shall be considered to have habitable space. Any person applying for a building permit for such a building shall sign and record with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder an affidavit stating that such accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit. All applicable building permits issued for such buildings shall be conditioned upon this prohibition. Any such structure containing habitable space that is located behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of six hundred (600) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space within the basement and ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet. Such accessory building may be located in any area of the rear portion of a lot, provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation between structures. (46) Accessory Buildings Without Habitable Space. Any accessory building without water and/or sewer service, which has not been declared to contain habitable space by the applicant, shall not exceed a total floor area of six hundred (600) square feet. Floor area shall include all floor space (including basement space) within the building having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet. 12 (5) Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Lots are subject to a maximum FAR of twenty-five hundredths (0.25) on the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot as it existed on October 25, 1991. The lot area used as the basis for the FAR calculation shall be considered the minimum lot size within the zone district. Section 6. That Section 4.8(E) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (E) Dimensional Standards . . . (4) Minimum Side Yard and Maximum Wall Height. Minimum side yard width shall be five (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a building wall or building along a side lot line exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, as measured from the natural grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, such portion of the building wall or building shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot, beyond the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of building wall or building height that exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, except as provided for in “a” below. Minimum side yard width shall be fifteen (15) feet on the street side of any corner lot. Notwithstanding the foregoing, minimum side yard width for schools and places of worship shall be twenty-five (25) feet (for both interior and street sides). (a) Solar Access Setbacks. For building construction that results in: 1. a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously existed, or 2. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, or 3. an addition that results in a total square footage of more than three thousand (3,000) square feet, and 4. construction on a lot where there is a lot abutting the north side of the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story building height shall be reduced to preserve solar access on adjacent lots such that whenever any portion of a north-facing side building wall that adjoins a lot to the north exceeds fourteen (14) feet in height, as measured from the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, such portion of the building wall shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot beyond the minimum required, for each one (1) foot, or fraction thereof, of building wall that exceeds fourteen (14) feet in height. For lots that are forty (40) feet or less in width, the fourteen 13 (14) foot starting height may be increased by one (1) foot for each one (1) foot of decreased lot width up to a maximum starting height of eighteen (18) feet. Figure XX: Minimum Side Yard Width and Maximum Building Wall Height *Applies only to north-facing building walls adjoining a property to the north for building construction that results in a two (2) story where a one (1) story previously existed, or when the construction is for a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, or for an addition that results in a total square footage of more than three thousand (3,000) square feet, and where there is a lot abutting the north side of the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story. (5) Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case of carriage houses, and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be a maximum of one and one-half (11/2) stories. Section 7. That Section 4.8(F) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (F) Development Standards (1) Building Design. . . . 14 (h) Front Façade Character. When building construction results in: 1. a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously existed and where there is an abutting house on either side that is one (1) story, or 2. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, or 3. a second-story addition that results in a total square footage of more than three thousand (3,000) square feet at least one (1) front façade feature from the menu below shall be included to promote pedestrian orientation and compatibility with the character of structures on the block face: 15 Figure XX: Menu of Design Options for Front Façade Character Limited Two Story Façade Two-story front-façade width is no more than 40’, with any remaining two-story front façade set back an additional six (6) feet from the street. One Story Element The portion of the façade closest to the street is one-story, with any two-story façade set back an additional six (6) feet from the street. lCovered Entry Feature A covered entry feature such as a front porch or stoop is located on the front façade. The feature shall have a minimum depth of at least six (6) feet (as measured from the building façade to the posts and railings) and a minimum length of eight (8) feet. (i) Side Façade Character. When building construction results in: 1. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, or 16 2. a second-story addition that results in a total square footage of more than three thousand (3,000) square feet at least one (1) side façade feature from the menu below shall be included to address potential looming and privacy impacts on neighbors: Figure XX: Menu of Design Options for Side Façade Character Wall Offset Two-story façade width at the minimum side yard is no more than forty (40) feet, with any remaining two-story façade set back an additional six (6) feet beyond the minimum required side yard. Step Down in Height Two-story façade width at the minimum side yard is no more than forty (40) feet, with any remaining façade width at the minimum side yard reduced to one-story. One Story Element A one-story building element with a minimum depth of six (6) feet is located at the minimum side yard. Additional Setback Any two-story façade is set back an additional six (6) feet beyond the minimum required side yard. 17 Section 8. That the amendments provided for in this Ordinance shall apply to complete applications for development approval or for building permits that are properly filed with the City on or after May 15, 2013. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 26th day of February, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 5th day of March, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 5th day of March, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk  A change fill dirt h than plen logic beh Easts Januar open house eeting reflect and verbal c ges relating t borhoods Ch written and v do you live? 2 people who hborhoods a ns should be eighborhood ation Action existing des fication of va ntary design wall height m area ratio (F tial Actions: alconies as p er action on discussions rovements fr see if you ca symmetrical eady remove comments with the new hange 250 sq e to the floor hauled in to i nty. GARAG hind the addi side and We y 30, 20 Summ meeting wa ted an inform omments. S to implemen haracter Stud verbal comm Do you ow o signed our and 28 are re e adopted to ds? (Numbe n sign assistanc ariances guidelines measurement FAR) measur art of FAR any non-vol among neig rom previous an tweak lim l roofs. Ask ed by commu on the pote ways of mea q.ft. to 500 s r area ratio c ncrease grad GES SHOUL itional 600 s stside Neigh 013 Pub mary of s held on Jan mal “drop in Staff also pro tation of the dy. ments receive wn or rent? r roster, 33 c esidents or ow o address th ers in Table ce t rement luntary issue ghbors prior t s (2010?) pro ited side wa k Boulder how unity. Help ntial revisio asuring FAR sq.ft. calculation, t de, inappropr LD COUNT q.ft. garage! hborhoods C blic Op Public nuary 30, 20 n” style for ci ovided two b e recommend ed by staff: ompleted a c wners within he identified represent # Imple 19 Revis standa 19 Limit 21 Addre 19 Addre 17 Take n es to large prop oposal ll height to p w they will f folks with d ons to existi R & sliding s to count high riate. I feel T TOWARD If someone Character St pen Hou Comm 013 with an e itizens to rev brief overvie ded strategy comment sh n the two ne d objectives # of people r ementation e maximum ards side wall he ess front faça ess side faça no action posed chang promote sola fix this prob design!! ing maximu scale by lot s h ceilings, is that 40% an S THE PER e wants a sm tudy use Me ments estimated 60 view the pro ew presentati options from heet. Five di ighborhoods and issues responding Action m floor area ra eight to prom ade characte ade character ges ar access so blem. um floor are size s appropriate nd 50% floor RCENTAGE maller house eeting 0-70 in atten oject informa ions of the p m the Eastsid d not own or s. for the East to question atio (FAR) mote solar ac er r we don’t ge ea ratio (FA e. The chang r area ratios . I never un and a larger ndance. The ation and proposed de & r live in the tside and ) 16 ccess 19 17 13 8 t a bunch of AR) ge to address are more nderstood the r garage, 6 9 7 3 8 f s e impact on  Overall F  Should th  Do large Easts Janua ood working included a s of the recom written and v do you live? 3 people atte or owners w comments ards? ome owner to n-law unit fo I really like the crazy wi ward to calc d a two car g proposed fo asurements f r of adjacent in right direc 5,000 sq.ft. guring ratios ation? the height of rregular lot s ch flexibility how the garag his different for review. out shifting m ent propertie ny lots woul reduced FAR n smaller lot FARs are low he FAR of 0 patios and d side and We ary 16, Summ group meeti staff overvie mmended stra verbal comm Do you ow ending the m within the tw and feedba o distribute m or lots under this change. illy nilly stuf culating how garage. r std’s from ground t homes. ction – looks to table. , is preserva f a basement sizes/lot con y is allowabl ge is counted from the pre more square es than havin ld fit into the R, which is p ts, especially wer, but con .33 for the b decks count t stside Neigh 2013 W mary of ings were he ew presentati ategy option ments receive wn or rent? meeting, two wo neighborh ck on the po more of the r 10,000 sq.f It seems to ff that’s been w new standa d level vs. rai s good to me ation of solar t that is inclu nfigurations h le? d – would ge evious FAR e footage to t ng a larger h e under 40’ w probably ok o y when you a struction stil back half of t toward FAR hborhoods C Working Public eld on Janua ion of potent ns from the E ed by staff: did not own hoods. otential rev sq.ft. to the ft. o be still very n going on. ards would af ised. Apprec e but photo e r access of ad uded in FAR handled? et a 250 SF e ? Concerne the back of th house or addi width except on larger lot add in the im ll tends to fa the lot be ret R? Character St g Grou Comm ary 16, 2013 tial new Lan Eastside & W n or live in th visions to exi back of the y gracious to ffect my pla ciate the rev examples wo djacent prop R measureme exception fo d about proc the lot (i.e. in ition near th tion? ts of 9,000 sf mpacts of the all within thi tained or rem tudy up Meet ments with 22 in a nd Use Code Westside Nei he two neigh isting maxim lot such as a o new builde ans to demoli vision to FAR ould be nice. perties (rear y ent? or a detached cess and this nto carriage he front of th f or 10,000 s e solar acces is formula. moved – give ting attendance. T e changes rel ighborhoods hborhoods an mum floor a a carriage ho ers while reig ish my one c R in keeping . Add actual yards) taken d garage. s being done house) – ma he lot sf but concer ss requireme en these low The agenda lating to s Character nd 21 are area ratio ouse or gning in car garage g with the l FAR for n into too quickly ay be better rned about ents. wer FARs? , ATTACHMENT 5 Building Side Wall Height  Maximum building height at the minimum side yard setback (five feet) to be measured from the lot’s natural grade rather than improved finished grade shall not exceed eighteen (18) feet in height.  Building wall height above 18 feet in height, shall be set back one foot, for each two feet of building wall exceeding 18 feet.  Minimum side yard width shall be fifteen feet on the street side of a corner lot. Adjust Measurement Method for Building Side Wall Height New Solar Access Standard  Maximum building height at the minimum side yard setback (five feet) to be measured from the lot’s existing grade rather than improved finished grade shall not exceed eighteen (18) feet in height.  Building wall height above 18 feet in height, shall be set back one foot, for each two feet of building wall exceeding 18 feet.  Minimum side yard width shall be fifteen feet on the street side of a corner lot  For building construction that results in a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, or for an addition that results in a total square footage of more than three thousand (3,000) square feet, height shall be reduced to preserve solar access on adjacent lots as follows:  Whenever any portion of a north‐facing building wall that adjoins a lot to the north exceeds twelve (14) feet in height, as measured from the natural grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, such portion of the building wall shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot beyond the minimum required, for each one (1) foot, or fraction thereof, of building wall that exceeds twelve (14) feet in height. Measurement method for maximum building side wall height is the same for both Ordinances New solar access standard Develop New Design Standards Design standards not supported due to the complexity of legislating the many variables of design in neighborhoods with a variety of housing styles. Incorporate Additional Building Front and Side Façade Standards  Menu of design options for front and side façade character in the N‐C‐L and N‐C‐M zoning districts.  Applied to building construction that results in a new two‐story house larger than 2,500 SF, or second story addition that results in more than 3,000 SF. New building façade design standards ATTACHMENT 4 FAR 3,000 0.40 0 1200 0.40 1,200 0 0 1,200 0.40 3,000 0.50 0 1,500 0.50 1,500 0 0 1,500 0.50 4,000 0.40 0 1600 0.40 1,600 0 0 1,600 0.40 4,000 0.50 0 2,000 0.25 1,000 1,000 0 2,000 0.50 5,000 0.40 0 2000 0.20 1,000 1,000 0 2,000 0.40 5,000 0.50 0 2,500 0.25 1,250 1,000 0 2,250 0.45 6,000 0.40 0 2400 0.20 1,200 1,000 250 2,450 0.41 6,000 0.50 0 3,000 0.25 1,500 1,000 250 2,750 0.46 7,000 0.40 0 2800 0.20 1,400 1,000 250 2,650 0.38 7,000 0.50 0 3,500 0.25 1,750 1,000 250 3,000 0.43 8,000 0.40 0 3200 0.20 1,600 1,000 250 2,850 0.36 8,000 0.50 0 4,000 0.25 2,000 1,000 250 3,250 0.41 9,000 0.40 0 3600 0.20 1,800 1,000 250 3,050 0.34 9,000 0.50 0 4,500 0.25 2,250 1,000 250 3,500 0.39 10,000 0.40 0 4000 0.30 3,000 0 250 3,250 0.33 10,000 0.50 0 5,000 0.35 3,500 0 250 3,750 0.38 11,000 0.40 0 4400 0.30 3,300 0 250 3,550 0.32 11,000 0.50 0 5,500 0.35 3,850 0 250 4,100 0.37 12,000 0.40 0 4800 0.30 3,600 0 250 3,850 0.32 12,000 0.50 0 6,000 0.35 4,200 0 250 4,450 0.37 13,000 0.40 0 5200 0.30 3,900 0 250 4,150 0.32 13,000 0.50 0 6,500 0.35 4,550 0 250 4,800 0.37 14,000 0.40 0 5600 0.30 4,200 0 250 4,450 0.32 14,000 0.50 0 7,000 0.35 4,900 0 250 5,150 0.37 15,000 0.40 0 6000 0.30 4,500 0 250 4,750 0.32 15,000 0.50 0 7,500 0.35 5,250 0 250 5,500 0.37 All Lots: All Lots: Lot < 5,000 sf: Lot < 4,000 sf: Table 1 - Comparison of Existing and Potential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Standards Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density Zone District (N-C-L) Existing Standard Existing Standard Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density Zone District (N-C-M) 2013 Standard 2013 Standard Lot ≥ 4,000 and < 10,000 sf Lot ≥ 10,000 sf Lot Size * 0.50 = Max. Floor Area Lot Size * 0.25 + 1,000 (+250 sf in detached rear accessory structure on lots ≥ 6,000 sf) = Max. Floor Area Lot Size * 0.35 (+250 sf in detached rear accessory structure) = Max. Floor Area Lot ≥ 5,000 and < 10,000 sf Lot ≥ 10,000 sf Lot Size * 0.20 + 1,000 (+250 sf in detached rear accessory structure on lots ≥ 6,000 sf) = Max. Floor Area Lot Size * 0.30 (+250 sf in detached rear accessory structure) = Max. Floor Area Lot Size * 0.40 = Max. Floor Area 2013 FAR Option for N-C-L Existing FAR Standard for N-C-L Lot Size * 0.40 = Max Floor Area Existing FAR Standard for N-C-M Lot Size * 0.50 = Max Floor Area 2013 FAR Option for N-C-M Floor Area Allowance Total Allowed Floor Area 3,000 0.40 0 1200 0.40 0 1,200 0.45 0 1,350 3,000 0.50 0 1,500 0.50 0 1,500 0.45 0 1,350 4,000 0.40 0 1600 0.40 0 1,600 0.40 0 1,600 4,000 0.50 0 2,000 0.50 0 2,000 0.40 0 1,600 5,000 0.40 0 2000 0.40 0 2,000 0.37 0 1,850 5,000 0.50 0 2,500 0.45 0 2,250 0.37 0 1,850 6,000 0.40 0 2400 0.41 250 2,450 0.39 250 2,350 6,000 0.50 0 3,000 0.46 250 2,750 0.39 250 2,350 7,000 0.40 0 2800 0.38 250 2,650 0.37 250 2,600 7,000 0.50 0 3,500 0.43 250 3,000 0.37 250 2,600 8,000 0.40 0 3200 0.36 250 2,850 0.36 250 2,850 8,000 0.50 0 4,000 0.41 250 3,250 0.36 250 2,850 9,000 0.40 0 3600 0.34 250 3,050 0.34 250 3,100 9,000 0.50 0 4,500 0.39 250 3,500 0.34 250 3,100 10,000 0.40 0 4000 0.33 250 3,250 0.34 250 3,350 10,000 0.50 0 5,000 0.38 250 3,750 0.34 250 3,350 11,000 0.40 0 4400 0.32 250 3,550 0.33 250 3,600 11,000 0.50 0 5,500 0.37 250 4,100 0.33 250 3,600 12,000 0.40 0 4800 0.32 250 3,850 0.32 250 3,850 12,000 0.50 0 6,000 0.37 250 4,450 0.32 250 3,850 13,000 0.40 0 5200 0.32 250 4,150 0.32 250 4,100 13,000 0.50 0 6,500 0.37 250 4,800 0.32 250 4,100 14,000 0.40 0 5600 0.32 250 4,450 0.31 250 4,350 14,000 0.50 0 7,000 0.37 250 5,150 0.31 250 4,350 15,000 0.40 0 6000 0.32 250 4,750 0.31 250 4,600 15,000 0.50 0 7,500 0.37 250 5,500 0.31 250 4,600 All Lots: All Lots: Lot < 5,000 sf: Lot < 4,000 sf: 2011 Standard Comparison of Existing and Potential Floor Area Standards 2011 Standard Existing Standard 2013 Standard N‐C‐L N‐C‐M Existing Standard 2013 Standard Lot Size * 0.50 = Max. Floor Area Lot ≥ 4,000 and < 10,000 sf Lot Size * 0.25 + 1,000 (+250 sf in detached rear accessory structure on lots ≥ 5,000 sf) = Max. Floor Area Lot ≥ 10,000 sf Lot Size * 0.35 (+250 sf in detached rear accessory structure) = Max. Floor Area Lot ≥ 5,000 and < 10,000 sf Lot ≥ 10,000 sf Lot Size * 0.20 + 1,000 (+250 sf in detached rear accessory structure on lots ≥ 5,000 sf) = Max. Floor Area Lot Size * 0.30 (+250 sf in detached rear accessory structure) = Max. Floor Area Lot Size * 0.40 = Max. Floor Area 2013 FAR Option for N‐C‐L Existing FAR Standard for N‐C‐L Existing FAR Standard for N‐C‐M Lot Size * 0.40 = Max Floor Area Lot Size * 0.50 = Max Floor Area 2013 FAR Option for N‐C‐M ATTACHMENT 3