Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 04/24/2018 - COMPATIBILITY AND CHARACTER CODE UPDATEDATE: STAFF: April 24, 2018 Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Compatibility and Character Code Update. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to provide Council with a progress report on two interrelated Land Use Code update projects that together address design standards for development in downtown and in transition areas at the interface between downtown and the Old Town Neighborhoods. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Does Council agree with the proposed regulatory concepts? 2. Are there specific metrics that should be refined? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Purpose and objectives Since the December 12, 2017 City Council Work Session, staff has been working closely with area property owners, businesses, design professionals, and other interested citizens to develop Land Use Code revision concepts necessary to implement policies within the recently adopted Downtown Plan and the Old Town Neighborhoods Plan. The project objective is to provide greater predictability in the Land Use Code regulations by clarifying standards that apply to new infill and redevelopment projects. These concepts for Code changes add form- and performance-based metrics that update and augment existing design standards. The new standards need to add clarity, yet allow for creative architecture and site design. This joint code improvement effort aligns with urban design goals of the Historic Preservation code review project, as well as the Downtown Plan and Old Town Neighborhoods Plan. A New Downtown Zoning District The recent Downtown Plan process redefined and expanded the area known as “Downtown”’. This area currently comprises 11 zoning districts. A part of proposed code revisions will be to consolidate these into a single Downtown zone. Standards in the new revised Downtown zone will support differing character in unique subdistricts described in the Downtown Plan. The subdistricts roughly correspond to the different current zoning districts. Code revisions will include language to help guide the evolving character in these areas similar to the current River Downtown Redevelopment zoning district. Examples of components to be addressed are historical context, types of street frontages, contextual building form, predominant building materials, and landscape setting. April 24, 2018 Page 2 Street Character as a Defining Element Three types of street frontages have evolved downtown, shaping the public realm. The Downtown Plan and this code project have illuminated needs and opportunities to protect and enhance these three frontage types. This is a key component of code revision concepts. The three frontage types are: • Storefront - Found primarily along College Avenue and Linden Street, buildings adjoin a wide sidewalk extending from street curb to building. Retail and commercial uses dominate the ground floor with a high degree of visual interest and transparency into shops and restaurants. • Mixed Use - Found outside the Historic Core on streets such as Mason, this condition is a hybrid between the Storefront and Green Edge frontage types. Building are set a little farther back from the sidewalk, typically with small landscape areas separating the building from the walk. • Green Edge - Found primarily in the west portions of downtown and northeast of the Poudre River near New Belgium Brewing, this frontage type is recognized for landscaped setbacks between the sidewalk and the building. Ground floor uses comprise more office, residential, and other non-retail uses. Building Placement Proposed building placement standards correspond to the street frontage types with setbacks ranging from 0-10+ feet from the back of the sidewalk. Specific setback distances help shape the look and feel of the different parts of downtown, especially for pedestrians. Building Height and Form Current code standards provide for a height range from 2.5 stories to 12 stories throughout the 11 current zoning districts in the Downtown Plan area. At the work session, staff will present a proposed building heights map to regulate building heights in a more cohesive whole approach to downtown. The map is intended to address subdistrict character, transitions to neighborhoods, and a logical urban design pattern. Along with the height limits map, proposed code revisions clarify requirements for stepbacks of upper stories in taller buildings, and slender form of any future tower buildings (over 7 stories) similar to the existing tower buildings found downtown. Participants in the Downtown Plan process and the most recent Land Use Code draft revisions have differed in their opinions about the proposed building height limits. This is consistent with past discussions of the current code standards and is probably universal in cities similar to Fort Collins. Some participants have remained neutral on the issue; others have called for a reduction in the maximum allowable heights, particularly above the 6-story level on one end of the spectrum; while others (see Attachment 2-letter from the Downtown Development Authority) have expressed concern over any reduction in potential height capacity from current standards. Proposed height limits are similar to current limits, but with some adjustments that will be explained at the work session. Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) Zoning District The NCB zone provides a transition between the commercial intensity of downtown and the residential character of the Old Town Neighborhoods. It allows for office and multi-family buildings up to four-plexes, up to three stories. The recent Old Town Neighborhoods Plan and Downtown Plan both recommend revisiting NCB code standards to clarify how such larger buildings should be compatible with adjacent houses. Concepts for code revisions involve more detailed attention and responsiveness to the context of neighboring properties. Tapering back building mass to address shading impacts on adjoining neighbors is a key concept, along with modulating any large building walls to aid in compatible new development. April 24, 2018 Page 3 Clarification on setback requirements, as well as strengthening mass mitigation standards are primary methods to aid in compatible new development. Community Engagement Most recently, the staff has held multiple one-on-one and small group meetings with property owners and designers, and presented draft code concepts to the Downtown Development Authority, Downtown Business Association, Board of Realtors, members of the Old Town Neighborhoods Plan efforts, and several advisory boards and commissions. Staff will have held two open house events by the time of the Work Session. The first of these, held on February 28 at The Elizabeth Hotel, was well-attended by members of the design and development community. The second is scheduled for April 18. These events have helped to inform staff on the level of support for the proposed code concepts. NEXT STEPS Community Engagement activities will continue beyond the April 18 public open house and includes the following key dates and timeframes: • May 2018 - One-on-One and Small Group Stakeholder Meetings • June-Planning and Zoning Board and Landmark Preservation Commission consideration and recommendation • July 17, 2018 - City Council consideration of Code Revisions ATTACHMENTS 1. Work Session Summary, December 12, 2017 (PDF) 2. DDA Comments on Proposed Downtown Land Use Code Amendments, April 4, 2018 (PDF) 3. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.221.6376 970.224.6134 - fax 1 Planning, Development & Transportation MEMORANDUM DATE: December 15, 2017 TO: Mayor Troxell and City Councilmembers THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager Laurie Kadrich, Director of Planning, Development & Transportation Tom Leeson, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director FROM: Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Manager RE: Work Session Summary – December 12, 2017 re: Compatibility and Character Code Updates Attendees: Cameron Gloss and Karen McWilliams presented an update on on-going efforts to development new compatibility and character Land Use Code standards and responded to questions from Council. All City Council members were present. Specific Questions to be Answered by City Council: Is it appropriate to create an expanded Downtown zone district? Is Council comfortable with staff’s intention to integrate compatibility requirements in the Land Use Code to improve overall clarity and predictability? Discussion Summary • The Code changes should focus on clarity, predictability, and simplification • More specificity is requested with the revised standards with respect to terminology: o “Sensitivity to development” is ambiguous. o Terms other than “compatible” should be considered (no alternatives were suggested) • Predictability is good, but we also want creativity in design. The standards need to find the right balance between the two. • Need to allow the funky old with the new--prescription vs allowance for designs to have some unusual elements. • The ability to have greater predictability for developers and the community is a good goal. • More visual graphical representations are helpful in explaining the design concepts. ATTACHMENT 1 December 12, 2017 Council Work Session Summary Page 2 Compatibility and Character Code updates • Ginger and Baker was mentioned as a great combination of preserving the old and integrating a complementary addition. • The quality of staff processes shows in the projects that are being built. • We need to be careful not to overprocess. Sometimes less is more when it comes to process. • The impact of the design standards on construction costs and affordable housing needs to be considered. Housing should be affordable to different income levels with the Downtown and Old Town Neighborhoods. • Expectation that there is design sensitivity at the interface between neighborhoods and surrounding districts. • Need specific metrics for the ramp-down of buildings; this transition should happen within the Downtown District and not within the surrounding neighborhoods. • Commercial pressures from Downtown are such that we need to protect residential areas. • Building Height standards should consider the following: o Number of stories is not a very useful metric. Use feet rather than stories. o Lower building heights are better next to neighborhood districts. o Reference the height of individual buildings, but not the overall character of zones. o May want to consider how other communities have created system of an air rights market, where if you want to construct a building of a certain height, you must buy air space. o Varied building heights adds positively to Downtown; look at higher densities where they make sense (along the MAX corridor was mentioned). o Clustering tall buildings Downtown makes sense. o View corridor protection is important. o Pedestrian experience is paramount; however, property owners and building tenants should be important considerations, as well. • Would be interesting to explore overall character and the kinds of tools that can be placed to make sure that the overall Downtown zone doesn’t get changed based on specific projects. • Historic Preservation compatibility standards should consider the following: o The current adjacency standard makes compatibility hard to judge; prescribing a radius of historical influence would be helpful. o Site line metrics to historic resources should be more specific. o Defining relevant historic resources that would be impacted, rather than those that fall within a specific area, was suggested. o Suggested that staff be more proactive about identifying landmarks versus evaluating every building over 50 years old. • Council is supportive of the integration of the historic preservation standards with other development standards found in the Code. • Staff shared the on-going partnership with CSU to create a virtual reality model for Downtown which will become a future tool for evaluating proposed changes. December 12, 2017 Council Work Session Summary Page 3 Compatibility and Character Code updates Follow-up Items: Council requested that staff: • Include the Affordable Housing Board and other relevant boards and interest ground in development of the standards. • Need to carefully craft citizen engagement so we ensure feedback that clearly defines what the community desires. • Need to spend more time educating the community on the Code objectives and the options being pursued. ATTACHMENT 2 1 Compatibility Code Updates Cameron Gloss 04-24-2018 ATTACHMENT 3 (D) And (NCB) Zones 2 Recent Outreach 3 Main Questions 4 Subdistrict Regulation 5 Street Frontage Types 6 Street Frontage Types 7 Street Frontage Types 8 Build‐To Range 9 Building Base Materials 10 Building Base Materials 11 Window Transparency 12 Window Transparency 13 Window Transparency 14 Height Limits 15 Height Limits 16 Building Form 17 Stepbacks 18 Design Details 19 (NCB) Standards 20 Main Questions 21 Next Steps 22 Next Steps May – Additional Stakeholder Meetings and Interviews June –P&Z and LPC Recommendations July 17 –City Council Consideration