Eastside & Westside Design Standards Council Work Session 08-24-10

835 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
835
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
155
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Eastside & Westside Design Standards Council Work Session 08-24-10

  1. 1. East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study<br />City Council Work Session <br />August 24, 2010<br />
  2. 2. Question for Council<br />Which, if any, of the implementation options does Council prefer to change development standards and/or review processes to address the compatibility of single-family expansions and new construction in the East and West Side Neighborhoods?<br />
  3. 3. Overview<br />Study purpose<br />Respond to concerns that some new single-family houses and expansions are incompatible with neighborhood character<br />Determine whether current development standards are adequate, or if changes are warranted<br />
  4. 4. Overview<br />
  5. 5. Process<br />Phase I: Examine existing conditions (Feb-Mar)<br />Phase II: Identify and analyze issues (Apr-May)<br />Phase III: Explore implementation options (Jun-Jul)<br />
  6. 6. Outreach<br />Outreach<br />9 Citizen Advisory Committee meetings<br />2 public meetings<br />2 Planning and Zoning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals joint work sessions<br />2 Landmark Preservation Commission work sessions<br />
  7. 7. Existing Policies<br />“…the City will follow specific design standards for infill development and redevelopment with an emphasis on protecting existing residential neighborhood character.” (City Plan)<br />“Property owners doing major additions, remodeling, or new construction should be encouraged to take care that the resulting exterior treatment (scale, mass, building height, and materials) and architectural style is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.” (East Side Neighborhood Plan)<br />
  8. 8. Existing Standards<br />
  9. 9. Existing Guidelines<br />Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines for the East Side and West Side Neighborhoods<br />Explain and illustrate design concepts<br />Offer voluntary suggestions<br />Encourage adaptation of existing structures<br />
  10. 10. Perspectives<br />Status quo<br />Changes are warranted<br />
  11. 11. Perspectives<br />Status Quo:<br />Larger, new houses are positive improvements<br />Older houses need to be renovated/replaced<br />Current standards foster reinvestment<br />Concern that further regulation may stifle reinvestment<br />
  12. 12. Perspectives<br />Changes are warranted:<br />Current standards do not protect existing houses<br />Newer houses are excessively large and detract from neighborhood character<br />Value smaller, old houses<br />Support reinvestment/improvements that are more compatible with surroundings<br />
  13. 13. Issue Identification<br />Primary issue is building size (volume)<br />Secondary issue is design<br />
  14. 14. Issue Analysis: Size<br />Building size (volume)<br />City indirectly regulates volume<br />Floor area<br />Height<br />
  15. 15. Issue Analysis: Size<br />Floor area limit<br />Ratio of floor area to lot area, or Floor Area Ratio (FAR)<br />Floor area / lot area = FAR<br />5,000 sq ft house / 10,000 sq ft lot = .50 FAR<br />Current standards<br />.40 FAR in NCL<br />.50 FAR in NCM<br />1.0 FAR in NCB<br />
  16. 16. Issue Analysis: Size<br />1.0 FAR<br />2 stories<br />50% lot coverage<br />1 story<br />100% lot coverage<br />4 stories<br />25% lot coverage<br />
  17. 17. Alley<br />5<br />3<br />4<br />2<br />1<br />NCM<br />.50<br />NCL<br />.40<br />Existing house with .25 FAR (house + garage)<br />NCM<br />.50<br />NCL<br />.40<br />
  18. 18. Fundamental Size Issue<br />The FAR currently allowed by City standards is not consistent with the established development pattern<br />Most common FARs range from .15 - .37<br />City standards allow .40 in NCL and .50 in NCM<br />Results in dramatic size differences<br />Controversy mostly concentrated within the NCM<br />1.0 FAR in the NCB not an identified issue<br />
  19. 19. Issue Analysis: Design<br />Quality design<br />Issue relates to whether and how to regulate compatible design<br />
  20. 20. Implementation Options: Size<br />Standardized approach<br /><ul><li>Lower the floor area limit (FAR) in the NCL zone
  21. 21. Lower the floor area limit (FAR) in the NCM zone</li></li></ul><li>Effects<br />Continues to apply uniform standard across varying lot and block patterns<br />Reduces allowable building expansion<br />
  22. 22. Implementation Options: Size<br />Contextual approach<br /><ul><li>Allow each house to expand by a certain percentage
  23. 23. Allow each house to expand based on averaging with the two adjacent houses
  24. 24. Allow each house to expand based on the average size house on the block face
  25. 25. Allow each house to expand based on the average size house on the block face, plus an additional percentage</li></li></ul><li>Effects<br />Amount of allowable expansion is derived from the established neighborhood pattern<br />Allows for long term evolution in building size<br />Typically reduce allowable building expansion<br />More complex than applying a uniform standard<br />
  26. 26. Implementation Options: Design<br /><ul><li>Require neighborhood meetings</li></ul>Effects<br />Increases awareness and understanding<br />Needs additional City resources <br />
  27. 27. Implementation Options: Design<br /><ul><li>Reinstate Design Assistance Program for non-historic houses</li></ul>Effects<br />Incentivizes use of design expertise<br />Needs additional City resources<br />
  28. 28. Implementation Options: Design<br /><ul><li>Codify select design guidelines as standards</li></ul>Effects<br />Requires compatible design elements<br />
  29. 29. Implementation Options: Design<br /><ul><li>Require review by the Landmark Preservation Commission or a newly formed Architectural Review Committee</li></ul>Effects<br />Requires greater attention to compatible design<br />Needs additional City resources<br />
  30. 30. Recommendations<br />Staff<br />Contextual approach, block face averaging plus percent increase<br />None of design options<br />Address minor, technical Land Use Code changes<br />Volume “loophole”<br />Height measuring<br />
  31. 31. Recommendations <br />Landmark Preservation Commission<br />Contextual approach, block face averaging plus an additional percentage<br />Design Assistance Program<br />Codify guidelines<br />Open to Architectural Review<br />Address Land Use Code changes<br />
  32. 32. Recommendations<br />Planning and Zoning Board<br />Address Land Use Code changes<br />
  33. 33. Recommendations<br />Zoning Board of Appeals<br />Address Land Use Code changes<br />
  34. 34. Recommendations<br />Citizen Advisory Committee <br />Divided opinions<br />Those who support changes prefer:<br />Contextual approach, block face averaging plus an additional percentage<br />Design assistance<br />
  35. 35. Thank You<br />

×