1. East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study City Council Work Session August 24, 2010

2. Question for Council 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?

3. Overview Study purpose Respond to concerns that some new single-family houses and expansions are incompatible with neighborhood character Determine whether current development standards are adequate, or if changes are warranted

4. Overview

5. Process Phase I: Examine existing conditions (Feb-Mar) Phase II: Identify and analyze issues (Apr-May) Phase III: Explore implementation options (Jun-Jul)

6. Outreach Outreach 9 Citizen Advisory Committee meetings 2 public meetings 2 Planning and Zoning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals joint work sessions 2 Landmark Preservation Commission work sessions

7. Existing Policies “…the City will follow specific design standards for infill development and redevelopment with an emphasis on protecting existing residential neighborhood character.” (City Plan) “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)

8. Existing Standards

9. Existing Guidelines Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines for the East Side and West Side Neighborhoods Explain and illustrate design concepts Offer voluntary suggestions Encourage adaptation of existing structures

10. Perspectives Status quo Changes are warranted

11. Perspectives Status Quo: Larger, new houses are positive improvements Older houses need to be renovated/replaced Current standards foster reinvestment Concern that further regulation may stifle reinvestment

12. Perspectives Changes are warranted: Current standards do not protect existing houses Newer houses are excessively large and detract from neighborhood character Value smaller, old houses Support reinvestment/improvements that are more compatible with surroundings

13. Issue Identification Primary issue is building size (volume) Secondary issue is design

14. Issue Analysis: Size Building size (volume) City indirectly regulates volume Floor area Height

15. Issue Analysis: Size Floor area limit Ratio of floor area to lot area, or Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Floor area / lot area = FAR 5,000 sq ft house / 10,000 sq ft lot = .50 FAR Current standards .40 FAR in NCL .50 FAR in NCM 1.0 FAR in NCB

16. Issue Analysis: Size 1.0 FAR 2 stories 50% lot coverage 1 story 100% lot coverage 4 stories 25% lot coverage

17. Alley 5 3 4 2 1 NCM .50 NCL .40 Existing house with .25 FAR (house + garage) NCM .50 NCL .40

18. Fundamental Size Issue The FAR currently allowed by City standards is not consistent with the established development pattern Most common FARs range from .15 - .37 City standards allow .40 in NCL and .50 in NCM Results in dramatic size differences Controversy mostly concentrated within the NCM 1.0 FAR in the NCB not an identified issue

19. Issue Analysis: Design Quality design Issue relates to whether and how to regulate compatible design

23. Allow each house to expand based on averaging with the two adjacent houses

24. Allow each house to expand based on the average size house on the block face

30. Recommendations Staff Contextual approach, block face averaging plus percent increase None of design options Address minor, technical Land Use Code changes Volume “loophole” Height measuring

31. Recommendations Landmark Preservation Commission Contextual approach, block face averaging plus an additional percentage Design Assistance Program Codify guidelines Open to Architectural Review Address Land Use Code changes

32. Recommendations Planning and Zoning Board Address Land Use Code changes

33. Recommendations Zoning Board of Appeals Address Land Use Code changes

34. Recommendations Citizen Advisory Committee Divided opinions Those who support changes prefer: Contextual approach, block face averaging plus an additional percentage Design assistance

35. Thank You