Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 02/18/2021 Michelle Haefele, Chair Virtual Hearing Ted Shepard, Vice Chair City Council Chambers Jeff Hansen 300 Laporte Avenue Per Hogestad Fort Collins, Colorado David Katz Jeff Schneider Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 on Connexion & William Whitley Channels 14 & 881 on Comcast The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing February 18, 2021 Chair Hansen called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Haefele, Hansen, Hogestad, Katz, Schneider, Shepard, Whitley Absent: None Staff Present: Everette, Sizemore, Yatabe, Stephens, Claypool, Gloss, McHaffey, Smith, Overton, Smith, Ex, Virata, and Manno Election of New Officers Member Katz nominated Michelle Haefele for Chair and Ted Shepard for Vice Chair. Member Whitley seconded. Member Schneider feels this is a great choice. Chair Haefele provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. She described the following procedures: • While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input is valued and appreciated. • The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for each item. • Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land Use Code. • Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed for that as well. • This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes Planning & Zoning Board February 18, 2021 Page 2 of 10 Vote: 7:0 Agenda Review CDNS Interim Director Sizemore reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, stating that all items will be heard as originally advertised. Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: Bill Becker, the item is related to the Metro District item, he will wait until that time. Consent Agenda: No items for the month Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted Chair Haefele did a final review of the items that are on consent and reiterated that those items will not have a separate presentation unless pulled from the consent agenda. Discussion Agenda: 2. Residential Metro District Evaluation Process Project Description: This is a request to amend the City of Fort Collins Metropolitan (Metro) District policy by adopting a Residential Metro District Evaluation system. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported that no citizen emails or letters had been received for this item. Member Katz disclosed that he is a member of a residential metro district that is not in the City of Fort Collins. Member Hansen disclosed that he has had some high-level conversations with groups around the community. He does not feel that this affects his ability to sit in on this item. Member Schneider disclosed that he is the State Chair for the Colorado Association of Home Builders which monitors and tracks what is going on with metro districts. He does not feel this will affect his ability to sit in on this item. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Gloss gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this item. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Bill Becker, Chairperson of the Fort Collins Energy Board – The Energy Board supports the proposed metro district energy standards as presented by Planning Manager Gloss in the previous week. Susan McFaddin, North Fort Collins Developer, serves on Energy Board. Montava and the Waterfield developments have the DOE0 in their metro district plans. The idea was to create an even playing field so that all metro districts would be building to the same quality and standard. Northfield metro district is building to Leed Gold instead of DOE0, this is very similar and very good as far as energy efficiency. Affordable housing and energy Planning & Zoning Board February 18, 2021 Page 3 of 10 efficiency and climate change are big issues for our City. The Metro District Policy is one way we can go after policies and address the needs of our community. Please support this. Bill Swalling, developer of Waters Edge. He wishes that the innovation sections were left in under each of categories. Not every item is a requirement. This is because some are more able to provide the outcomes in particular areas where they have the expertise and others are able to provide their expertise in other areas. He appreciates the effort everyone is putting into this. Landon Hoover, owner of Hartford Homes, he is concerned that if the hurdle is set too high, no public benefit will be achieved. He would like to make sure that flexibility remains, in that not every item is a requirement. Staff Response Planning Manager Gloss responded to Mr. Hoover regarding distribution over three points. Staff did consider during the creation of the grading system it was a tough decision. Staff concluded that you may cut one item that is very important, short, therefore, reducing the public benefit. What has been created is some degree of flexibility, but that in the end if you meet the points, you will achieve the outcome. Staff does not want to set the bar too high. There is a polarity of tensions, the desire to have greater amenities vs affordability. Board Questions / Deliberation Member Hansen asked if when increasing energy and water efficiency standards above code, if it above the model code or above the codes as amended and adopted by the City of Fort Collins? Planning Manager Gloss responded that it is above and beyond the present codes. Although there are some areas that we are trending toward already. These are changes that are not on the books today. Every two years we will be evaluating this system and adjusting. This is the reason for the point system. It is easier to evaluate these metrics to see if we are on target. Member Katz asked if affordable was under 60 AMI or if this was just rental. Planning Manager Gloss responded that the notion that 80-120 is homeownership and under 60 is rental. Member Katz asked who regulates the energy efficiency codes or is this a deed restriction? Planning Manager Gloss responded that it would be regulated at the time of building permits. A performance standard would have to be identified when the plan set comes in. Vice Chair Shepard asked if there was any conversation about using a non-potable water source for irrigation? Planning Manager Gloss responded, yes, and that it was extensive. The issue is that most of the metro districts will be outside of the Fort Collins water district. They will be in Elco or North Fort Collins, these two districts are not comfortable with the provision in the draft, so they were struck. Vice Chair Shepard asked if Montava had already received their metro district approval or if they will be subject to the system? Planning Manager Gloss responded, yes, they have been approved. Chair Haefele questioned if a failure to follow through with or maintain or continue to meet the attributes for which they get their points, would constitute a failure to meet their obligations? Planning Manager Gloss responded that he would look at most of the physical improvements as elements that the City can enforce. Chair Haefele asked why the zero-energy ready home was not under the energy conservation category but rather the housing affordability? Planning Manager Gloss commented that it is in both. You get extra points if you co-join an affordable housing unit with energy efficiency. Member Hogestad asked if the district criteria would be revisited at some point. Planning Manager Gloss responded that it will be reevaluated every two years. Member Hogestad questioned the utilities cost savings; are they great enough to offset the cost for the metro district? Planning Manger Gloss provided a slide and the data of cost recovery. The cost of the metro district will be equal or less. Member Haefele feels there is a cost to add the zero-energy ready or other energy conservation measures at up-front cost to the building which is different than the cost of the metro district to the homeowner. Does this analysis include both that extra cost of energy efficiency and the taxes the metro district homeowner is going to pay? Planning Manager Gloss responded, no, there is not a complete offset. There is clearly a cost that will be applied as a result of being in a metro district. Member Katz is confused with the district approval process. The process is going to be approved or not approved long before the structure goes vertical. Planning Manager Gloss responded that the entitlement phase which Planning & Zoning Board February 18, 2021 Page 4 of 10 included the public benefits agreement, this is going to be the metro districts agreement to making the improvements. Then you go into the customary process of the building permit and certificate of occupancy. Member Katz, so the City if approving, Council is approving the metro district somewhere in or after step one. Member Schneider asked if CO’s would be held up on until the affordable housing was built and completed. Planning Manager Gloss drew a comparison between this process and what we might typically get with an overall development plan. On overall development plan is like a bubble diagram that approves development in stages, and you may not have a certain element come until a later stage of the project. This does not hold up the first phases. We will not be holding up any aspect. Member Schneider asked if staff would require bonding. Planning Manager Gloss responded that it would be very similar. Member Schneider feels that additional aspects are being required. He has reservation with Step 3. Member Schneider asked about the joint metering, the size and increase in fees. Planning Manager Gloss responded that he did not receive confirmation from PFA. Member Schneider asked if someone wants to donate a section of their property, do they get points? Planning Manager Gloss responded that there has been follow up conversations. If you donate raw land that might work, the problem is when you go to improve conditions. You use the metro district funding for infrastructure (developer) then you have to donate areas and have lost the leverage you have created with the metro district. Staff did not feel that this was something they could bring forward. They also looked at land bank. This too is not necessarily the best tool for a metro district. There is a lot of hidden cost. Vice Chair Shepard if there is a negotiation between a developer and city staff, there might be a different way to approach getting to the objective that does not meet the strict point system. This issue might come back to the Board. Planning Manager Gloss commented that ultimately it is at the discretion of City Council. Vice Chair Shepard asked how it would go to Council, as a resolution instead of an ordinance? Planning Manager Gloss responded that was correct. Chair Haefele understands that the point earning attributes could be presented as part of an application at a board hearing. It would not be just staff and require a hearing. Planning Manager Gloss understood Mr. Swalling’s comment that neighborhood livability outcome area would be added back in. It would be reviewed by staff and then go to Council for final decision. Member Hansen asked about the timing of the implementation of the metro district. It has been compared to an ODP. If the affordable housing is to take place 15 – 20 years into the ODP, would the 40-year maximum dept term start when they get all the pieces in place, or would it start from the date City Council approves the metro district. Planning Manager Gloss responded that it is from when the bonds are issued. Member Hansen feels this may be to the benefit to some of the affordable housing components when the total length of their impact to the metro district to be a little less. Member Katz feels there are so many variables in getting approval and then potential selling lots to a different builder. That builder does not know where the points are going to come from. Innovation, uniqueness, etc. He feels it is too siloed. The aspirations are wonderful, but he is struggling with this plan becoming a reality at this moment. Member Schneider commented that he was not metro district support, due to his roles and education, he feels this is part of what needs to be done. He appreciates the work, but we do not need to push so hard so fast. We need to be careful how we do this. There needs to be balance. Member Hansen understands the value of metro districts. He has concerns with the aspiration goals being wrapped in with this. He does not see an advantage to adding the climate action goals to the metro district plan. This would be more effective on a city-wide basis. This is an additional burden for a metro district. Vice Chair Shepard early in the process the developer must make plans that get carried out be the builders. This is kept track of and seems as though it would be in the contract with the developer and the builder should not be surprised by it. As the PUD system was implemented with absolute points and variable point, many aspirational goals were being implemented, as time went on, other developers saw the market benefit to providing the amenities and started implementing them voluntarily. As time went on, the guidance system was criticized for Planning & Zoning Board February 18, 2021 Page 5 of 10 awarding points for things that the market was providing already. It was the guidance system that was the catalyst for this. As time goes on this to will become accepted. Member Hansen agrees with Vice Chair Shepard. Member Schneider asked where does the metro district policy stand right now, the moratorium ended the end of January? Planning Manager Gloss responded that it could be brought with general criteria and at the discretion of Council to determine whether it has extraordinary public benefit. Member Katz agrees with the catalyst, this process is invaluable. This is too disjointed, there are boundaries and silos to fit in which the development process already has a lot of. He will not be supporting the recommendation at this time. Member Shepard asked if the development agreement encapsulates all the metro district attributes? Planning Manager Gloss responded that this has been discussed and the concept is to have Planning and Development administer the residential metro district system. This would help with coordination and less siloing. Member Hansen asked if there was a minimum project size, acreage, or number of units. Planning Manager Gloss responded that there is no minimum. Metro districts must be predominantly residential. Chair Haefele asked if there was any way to re-work so that it could assign points or enable financing explicitly to add residential to a commercial development? Member Hansen sees this going toward the Montava-type projects and a lot is addressing climate issues as well. A big part is promoting development that is more in the core of the city, so the people are not driving cars from home to work. This is not something that can be necessarily put into this language. Member Shepard asked if there was a point or two added for mixed-use development? Planning Manager Gloss responded yes, there is. Chair Haefele something that has been missing is some estimate of what that non-market value is. Because climate change and energy use affect the whole city and we do write a check or pull out our credit card for them? It would be great if the city could take or hire an economist. Vice Chair Shepard feels that it would be interesting the final building permit issuance for a single-family home on a peripheral subdivision. An itemized list. This is new territory for the Board, we need to see what it looks like after a couple of years. Vice Chair Shepard appreciates the comments by Mr. Hoover and Mr. Swalling. Member Schneider agrees with Vice Chair Shepard, you must get in and turn the development to make money. He also commended staff, but we need to slow down and and create a great product. Wait a couple of years. Member Hansen commented that there is a desire to incorporate the innovations, if understood correctly, this is not included in the proposal, we need to encourage outside the box thinking. Do not push too hard or too fast. Member Katz agrees with Member Schneider and Member Hansen. Vice Chair Shepard asked if Planning Manager Gloss would be willing to put in a flexibility attribute back into the system, written broadly and assigned the appropriate number of points. Would this give the Board members more comfort. Member Katz feels that we are still a bit too far away. Planning Manager Gloss stated that it is easy enough to add the innovation portions back. Member Haefele commented that if the innovations are added back in, that there is also some sort of staff review or deliberative public presentation. Member Schneider asked how much of a push or deadline you are on? Planning Manager Gloss responded that it goes before Council on March 2nd. Member Katz made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board recommend that City Council not adopt the Residential Metro District Evaluation System. This recommendation is based on the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session, this hearing, and the Board discussion. Member Hansen does not feel that this is ready for adoption and is concerned that the wording of the current motion is going to stop the effort. He would like the discussion to continue with City staff. Member Katz does not want this project to die, he feels it is not ready, but he does not feel adding a condition here and there works in this situation. Member Shepard acknowledges that this is very creative work by staff. Member Schneider is concerned with the innovation portion being pulled out, there should be deeper conversations as to why it got pulled out. This is just not ready yet. Member Hogestad agrees but is concerned that the motion as is will stop Planning & Zoning Board February 18, 2021 Page 6 of 10 further work. He likes the idea of the innovation component. There needs to be clear direction as to the direction staff needs to take. He will support the motion. Member Hansen would like to add to the amendment that Council sends this back to staff for further vetting, community involvement and development. Member Katz and Member Schneider accepted the amendment. Member Whitley will now support this motion. Chair Haefele was inclined to recommend to Council adoption. Member Schneider seconded. Vote: 5:2. 3. Housing Plan Recommendation Project Description: This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding the adoption of the Housing Strategic Plan and the off-cycle appropriation to advance Phase 1 of the Land Use Code (LUC) Update. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported that no citizen emails or letters were received. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Overton and Lindsey Ex, Interim Housing Manager, gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this recommendation. Public Input (3 minutes per person) None noted. Staff Response Staff response was completed during Board questions and deliberation. Board Questions / Deliberation Member Hansen questioned what is being recommended and that it was not code changes. Planner Overton responded that he was correct and that the Board would make the recommendation to Council for adoption of the plan and adoption of the appropriation that would fund the Land Use Code changes, but not recommending and specific changes at this point. Vice Chair Shepard is intrigued by the community summit that is coming up. Are all the partners showing be participating in the summit? Planner Overton responded yes, that is the plan and others will join in if they would like. Member Katz questioned where the funding from the appropriations were coming from. Planner Overton responded that the funding is coming from the general fund. Member Schneider commended the team for how well they listened to citizens and the analysis completed. He is behind phase I, 100%. With everything else, he is a bit concerned due to the details and funding not being dug into. Fort Collins needs this, but there are many details that need to be worked out. This is appreciated, great job. Chair Haefele agrees. Housing affordability is one issue that ticks all the boxes. Member Katz thanked the team for their work. Member Hansen echoed the sentiment. This is complex. Is there is list of the quicker wins? Priority twenty-one (21) looks at occupancy limits, this should be looked at early on. This takes the existing stock and redistributes it among income levels. What is going to take longer than a year to dive into this? Lindsey Ex responded there is similar and wide perspective in regard to occupancy. Time needs to be taken to have the conversation with the community. The community is interested in the aspects of what can be moved forward more quickly. The extra occupancy process and is there a safe haven. If you are in violation of those occupancy rules could you raise your hand and get those concerns addressed without being held in violation. Planning & Zoning Board February 18, 2021 Page 7 of 10 Vice Chair Shepard commented that he could see how from a lay person’s perspective it could be daunting. But the discussions have been happening and all are up to speed. Chair Haefele asked if the City has done an analysis on how many unused bedrooms for rent there are. Is there anything that shows that there is an excess of bedrooms? Member Katz has the same questions and does not feel it is possible to find this data. Member Hogestad questioned the Land Use Code audit. Is this audit based on the twenty-six (26) strategies and that the Land Use Code would be tailored to support all 26 of the strategies? Planner Overton clarified that it was done after the adoption of City Plan in 2019 and includes a specific focus on house, and affordable housing in particular, because housing was such a key topic in City Plan. The 26 strategies and the Housing Strategic Plan are looking at the audit and saying, “yes we should continue to move that forward and consider changes to the Land Use Code”. Member Hogestad, within the audit, is there consideration to the stability of the existing neighborhoods and how this might affect the existing neighborhoods? Single family neighborhoods should be protected as well as their quality of life. Planner Overton responded that the Land Use Code audit was done int he context of City Plan which includes policy language about the delicate balance of neighborhood livability and stability and change. The guiding principles in the Housing Strategic Plan, these are meant to be a tool for decision making for staff. In the principles there is talk about being more strategic about where things are happening, direct language like Member Hogestad is not in there. There is flexibility. Member Hogestad talked about the occupancy limits. He feels that people will start buying up single-family homes as an investment. This will cut out single-family ownership. Lindsey Ex responded that according to the graphs, single-family home ownership is already out of reach for the majority of our community. We need to lean into this conversation. Member Hogestad does not agree based on what he is seeing in the papers. He feels the intent is to provide more housing. Member Hansen feels that priority twenty-one (21) should be a higher priority on the list. Most to look at realistic view of the data regarding the rental stock. U+2 was implemented as a way to protect neighborhoods; it does not make sense to apply the same rules to all homes. Michelle and David touched on something that is skewing the data. There is a likelihood 4-bedroom homes that has 3 people on the list likely has 4 people renting it. This is a task for an implementation of the plan. How are these homes actually being used for rental and does the housing stock on the graph need to be redistributed so we know how it is really being used and how it is affecting incomes and we have a better understanding of where we truly have a housing shortage. Deregulation is going to help a little bit here. U+2 and the application process have a stick feel to so people avoid using it. So, we have people using houses that are out of compliance and we have no way to track it, no idea how it is impacting our housing stock. Otherwise, we may be misinformed when making strategies to improve. Member Katz feels two potential issues may be run into; 1. It would become more attractive to investors and 2. It may actually increase the rent and be a negative impact. Please consider with item 21 and chart, maybe do an overlay map like short-term rentals. Planner Overton clarified that the timeframe of the strategies does not mean they are waiting two years to start, more, how long do we think a process would take to come to a conclusion. Staff are currently pooling notes about who is responsible, have the same data and get on the same page. Whatever the solution, staff think that this could be done within a year. Chair Haefele commented that a majority of the zone districts already allow extra occupancy. It is underutilized and maybe the first phase of strategy 21, look at what are the barriers of applying for it. The City has a tendency to reward or not punish those who ask for forgiveness rather than permission. So, it is suspected that many landlords who could get it do not do it because it is cheaper and easier to do it until they get caught. This needs to be addressed. Member Hogestad feels it is important to have adequate community outreach and would like to make sure that it happens. Planning & Zoning Board February 18, 2021 Page 8 of 10 Member Hansen wants to make sure that this does not move at a leisurely pace and that we need to do what we can to close the gap. Implement what we can within the next 12 months. Member Hogestad asked how the price of housing has escalated, is it a spike or a curve? Lindsey Ex shared that rents have increased by 68%, median price for a single-family detached home has increased by 124%, the price of townhomes and condos has increased by 164% while wages have only increased by 25%. Planner Overton responded that they would have to do some research to get data back to him and will follow up. This would be on historical housing costs. Member Schneider took a holistic look at where we are at these days. Costs are outrageous and we have had a housing issue for 100 years. Member Hansen would like to see how a housing bubble pop relates to the timing of the current trend we are seeing in housing. To the difficulty of this problem, the salary range does not work for employees to live where they work. This needs to be corrected. Chair Haefele pulled up some internet sites that are for vibrant cities and they are showing the expense in living in a city such as that. The only way affordability happens is if prices come down or if housing is subsidized. People need a way to have or reach equity. Member Shepard feels this is a very comprehensive piece of work by staff and he would like to move to recommend to Council. Member Shepard made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board recommend approval to the City Council of the Housing Strategic Plan and the Phase 1 Land Use Code Updates based on the findings of fact and the information presented. Member Hansen requested an amendment. Member Schneider asked if Phase I Land Use Code Updates should be included and made a friendly amendment to have it added to the motion. Both Shepard and Hansen accepted amendment. Member Hansen seconded. Vote: 7:0. 4. Lighting Code Update and Recommendation Project Description: This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding changes to the Exterior Lighting Standards in the Land Use Code. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported that a letter was received from Kathleen Kilkelly in support of the Lighting Code Update. Kilkelly expresses that lighting from within the City has impacted the night sky as observed from her residence within Larimer County. They feel that a more long-term solution should be considered not only for commercial and multi-family developments but also already existing developments. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Smith gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project. Public Input (3 minutes per person) None noted. Staff Response None noted. Board Questions / Deliberation Planning & Zoning Board February 18, 2021 Page 9 of 10 Member Schneider asked where the photo was taken from. Planner Smith responded that it was taken from Soap Stone Prairie Natural Area. There are five monitors throughout the City to create some baseline data for skyglow. Where we are at now and where we want to be. Metrics are in development. Chair Haefele commented that there was an application for Soap Stone or Soap Stone, Red Mountain to be dark skies designated place which did not go through. Based on the picture, maybe that is why. Planner Smith responded that there a number of reasons why it did not go through, but it was mostly due to public access access. Vice Chair Shepard asked if of Planner Smith was able to work in the tables the institutional places and places of worship so that they do not get ignored. Planner Smith responded no, and that staff’s position is that the code is flexible and intended to encourage or require specific lighting levels based on context. This is how institutional uses would be regulated. Staff did reach out to Titan & Associates, but the position has been that the flexibility and way the code is structured allows. Vice Chair Shepard asked if Planner Smith was part of the design charette for the Civic Center Master Plan. Planner Smith responded that she is not but would put on her radar. She recommended visiting the Lincoln Center as it is a great example of an LC2. Chair Haefele asked if there was any data on crime and safety and lighting that was used to come up with any of this stuff. Planner Smith responded that Chair Haefele is touching on this tension point. Personal safety and the desire for less light pollution and intrusive lighting. The Illuminating Engineer Society grounds all of their standards in safety. Staff is judicious about adding additional lighting when requested. Additional lighting does not always mean more lighting. Vice Chair Shepard cautioned about the lighting design industry and assumes that staff has been working with them. One of the issues is that they were not coordinated with landscape architects. As you work with the design community, please coordinate, and pay attention. Member Schneider thanked Planner Smith for reaching out and her work on this project. Member Hansen thanked Planner Smith and the team. Member Schneider asked legal how edits to this plan should go into the motion. Attorney Yatabe responded that it depends. It is fine if you will be making a general recommendation for approval motion. A generalized statement including changes not needing to come back to the P&Z Board is ok. Member Schneider made a motion motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board recommend approval to the City Council of the Lighting Code Standards and Update as presented. This is based on the findings of fact, the information presented to us from our work session, this hearing and further conversations. Member Katz seconded. Vote: 7:0. For more complete details on this hearing, please view our video recording located here: https://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php?search=PLANNING%20ZONING Other Business Member Shepard asked Interim Director Sizemore if for the April work session if he could walk through the staffing for the Spring, Summer and Fall for landscape inspections. Interim Director Sizemore responded that he would talk to staff and see if a work session item or a memo can be completed. Member Shepard was thinking a memo. He just feels that in the past there have been inconsistent inspections and is curious what this year might look like. Member Hogestad request a few minutes of the next work session to share thoughts on the Saving Places seminar that he attended. Member Haefele would like that as well. Interim Director Sizemore responded that a place holder will be made. Adjournment Chair Haefele moved to adjourn the P&Z Board hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 10:39 pm. Planning & Zoning Board February 18, 2021 Page 10 of 10 Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Manno. Minutes approved by a vote of the Board on: March 11, 2021. Paul Sizemore, Interim CDNS Director Michelle Haefele, Chair