HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/09/2020 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Work Session
* Work session times are approximate and are subject to change without notice.
Jeff Hansen, Chair Virtual Meeting
Michelle Haefele, Vice Chair Zoom Webinar
Per Hogestad
David Katz
Jeff Schneider
Ted Shepard
William Whitley
Planning and Zoning Hearing will be held on Thursday, October 15, 2020, in City Hall Chambers.
Regular Work Session
October 9, 2020
Virtual Meeting
Noon – 4:45 p.m.
Planning and Zoning Board
Work Session Agenda
Participation for this remote Planning and Zoning Board work session will be available online or by phone. No one
will be allowed to attend in person.
Public Attendance (Online): Individuals who wish to attend the Planning and Zoning work session via remote
public participation can do so through Zoom at https://zoom.us/j/96217629926 Individuals participating in the
Zoom session should also watch the meeting through that site.
The meeting will be available to join beginning at 11:45 a.m. on October 9, 2020. Attendees should try to sign in
prior to 12:00 p.m. if possible.
In order to attend:
Use a laptop, computer, or internet-enabled smartphone. (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly
improve your audio).
You need to have access to the internet.
Keep yourself on muted status.
If you have any technical difficulties during the work session, please email kscheidenhelm@fcgov.com.
Public Attendance (Phone): If you do not have access to the internet, you can call into the work session via phone.
Please dial: 1-253-215-8782 or 1-346-248-7799, with Webinar ID: 962 1762 9926.
(Continued on next page)
Packet pg. 1
City of Fort Collins Page 2
TOPICS: PROJECTED TIMES:
Consent:
1. September Hearing Draft Minutes
2. September 3 Special Hearing Draft Minutes
3. CSU Raw Water Site Plan Advisory Review (Smith)
4. Affordable Housing Fee Waiver Process Update (Currell)
5. Maple Hill Park Minor Amendment (Kimberlin)
12:00 – 1:00
Discussion:
6. Sun Communities Modifications of Standard (Overton)
7. Block 23 (Holland)
8. Manufactured Housing (Mounce/Gloss)
9. Annual Land Use Code Update (Beals)
1:00 – 3:15
Policy and Legislation:
• Housing Strategic Plan (Overton/Ex)
3:15 – 4:15
Board Topics:
• P&Z Annual Work Plan (Sizemore)
• Upcoming Hearing Calendar (Sizemore)
• Board Updates (Sizemore)
• Transportation Board Liaison Update (York)
4:15 – 4:45
The meeting will be available beginning at 11:45 a.m. Please call in to the meeting prior to 12:00 p.m., if
possible. Once you join the meeting: keep yourself on muted status. If you have any technical difficulties during
the meeting, please email kscheidenhelm@fcgov.com.
The October 9 Planning and Zoning Board regular meeting will be held remotely and not in-person. Information
on remotely participating in the October 9 Planning and Zoning regular meeting is contained in the agenda for
the October 9 meeting available at https://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/planning-zoning.php. Members of the
public wishing to submit documents, visual presentations, or written comments for the Board to consider
regarding any item on the agenda must be emailed to kclaypool@fcgov.com or kscheidenhelm@fcgov.com at
least 24 hours prior to the October 9 meeting.
As required by City Council Ordinance 079, 2020, a determination has been made by the chair after
consultation with the City staff liaison that conducting the hearing using remote technology would be
prudent.
Packet pg. 2
FORT COLLINS
LAND USE
CODE AUDIT
jANUARY 2020
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 3
Land Use Code Audit
Contents
Part 1: Introduction and Overview ................................................................................................................................. 3
About the Project .......................................................................................................................................................... 3
About this Document ................................................................................................................................................... 4
Part 2: Land Use Code Audit................................................................................................................................................... 4
Part 3: Priority Actions .............................................................................................................................................................. 4
Part 4: Annotated Outline ........................................................................................................................................................ 4
Part 2: Land Use Code Audit ........................................................................................................................................... 5
1. Align Zoning Districts and Uses with Structure Plan Place Types ................................................................ 5
Carry forward residential districts with targeted updates ........................................................................................... 6
Establish a clearer hierarchy of mixed-use districts ....................................................................................................... 7
Streamline zoning district lineup where feasible............................................................................................................. 7
Evaluate potential expansion of the PUD Overlay subject to objective standards .......................................... 14
Develop a rezoning strategy ................................................................................................................................................ 15
2. Create More Opportunities for a Range of Housing Options ....................................................................... 16
Define a range of options between two-family and multi-family housing .......................................................... 16
Table 3: Recommended Updates to Defined Housing Terms ................................................................................... 17
Clarify definition of and opportunities for accessory dwelling units ...................................................................... 18
Remove barriers to allowed densities ............................................................................................................................... 19
Incentivize affordable housing projects ........................................................................................................................... 19
3. Clarify and Simplify Development Standards ................................................................................................. 20
Consolidate like standards and definitions and make them more broadly applicable ................................... 20
Increase flexibility ..................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Recalibrate incentives to reflect current market conditions .................................................................................... 22
Align Design Manual with updated development standards ................................................................................... 22
4. Enhance the Development Review Procedures .............................................................................................. 22
Clarify the Amendment Procedures .................................................................................................................................. 22
Consider standardizing the Alternative Compliance Procedures ........................................................................... 24
Improve the PUD Procedures .............................................................................................................................................. 24
Review appeal parameters ................................................................................................................................................... 24
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 4
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 2
Enhance transparency ............................................................................................................................................................ 24
6. Create a More User-Friendly Document ........................................................................................................... 26
Reorganize the Land Use Code .......................................................................................................................................... 26
Enhance use regulations ........................................................................................................................................................27
Reconcile duplications and inconsistencies ................................................................................................................... 29
Simplify language .................................................................................................................................................................... 29
Establish a more intuitive page layout ............................................................................................................................. 29
Add more graphics to the Land Use Code ..................................................................................................................... 30
Part 3: Priority Actions ................................................................................................................................................... 32
Option 1 – Reorganize existing Land Use Code ................................................................................................... 32
Option 2 – Reorganize the Land Use Code, and include targeted updates ................................................. 32
Step 1 - Update procedures .................................................................................................................................................. 33
Step 2 – Update districts and uses .................................................................................................................................... 33
Step 3 - Update development standards ........................................................................................................................ 33
Part 4: Annotated Outline ............................................................................................................................................. 35
Article 1 – General Provisions ................................................................................................................................... 35
Article 2 – Zoning Districts ....................................................................................................................................... 35
Article 3 – Use Regulations ....................................................................................................................................... 36
Article 4 – Development Standards ....................................................................................................................... 37
Article 5 – Historic Preservation .............................................................................................................................. 37
Article 6 – Subdivision Standards ........................................................................................................................... 38
Article 7 – Signs ........................................................................................................................................................... 38
Article 8 – Administration and Procedures........................................................................................................... 38
Article 9 – Terms and Definitions ............................................................................................................................ 38
Appendix: Best Practices .............................................................................................................................................. 40
Expanding Housing Options .................................................................................................................................... 40
Additional Resources ............................................................................................................................................................... 41
Incentivizing Accessory Dwelling Units ................................................................................................................. 41
Recalibrating Mixed-Use Districts ........................................................................................................................... 41
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 5
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 3
Part 1: Introduction and Overview
About the Project
The City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC) establishes
the parameters for all new development and
infill/redevelopment and is one of the primary tools used
to support the implementation of the City’s
comprehensive plan—City Plan. While Fort Collins
regularly updates Land Use Code standards, most
changes are minor or relate to process and procedural
considerations. A thorough audit of standards to ensure
that local development standards are advancing the
community’s goals and adequately responding to shifting
priorities and changes in social and market conditions has
not been completed since the Land Use Code was first
adopted in 1997.
The 2019 version of City Plan places new emphasis on
community priorities and emerging issues to incentivize
and maintain more affordable and attainable housing,
diversify the types of housing available, promote mixed-
use and transit-supportive development along key
corridors, and address the changing dynamics of
employment and industrial land. The Plan identifies
implementation strategies to help achieve these goals and priorities, many of which may result in changes to
Fort Collins’ development standards and processes.
In the fall of 2019, the City initiated a Land Use Code Audit process to identify the strengths, weaknesses,
and opportunities in the Land Use Code as they relate to City Plan policy direction. Specific objectives for
the process were to:
•Identify targeted updates to the Land Use Code that support the implementation of City Plan
strategies;
•Explore and document how the City Plan goals and priorities outlined above are being addressed by
peer communities within their development codes; and
•Identify characteristics of contemporary development codes that could be applied to improve the
usability and functionality of the Land Use Code.
This Land Use Code Audit reflects the results of discussions with City staff and stakeholders who use the
Land Use Code on a regular basis—e.g., local architects, planners, and landscape architects, builders, and
housing organizations—as well as Clarion’s review of the current Land Use Code, understanding of code-
related City Plan strategies, and experience drafting development codes for similar communities across the
country.
The City does not intend to complete a major rewrite of the Land Use Code at this time. Rather, this
document will serve as a guide for City staff and decision-makers as they work to implement incremental
changes to the Land Use Code as resources allow.
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 6
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 4
About this Document
Following this introduction and overview, the remainder of this document is organized into three parts as
follows:
Part 2: Land Use Code Audit
The Land Use Code Audit summarizes key themes that emerged from discussions with City staff and
stakeholders. A brief explanation of each theme is provided along with recommended organizational and
substantive updates to the Land Use Code in response. Key themes highlight the need to:
•Align Zoning Districts and Uses with Structure Plan Place Types
•Create More Opportunities for a Range of Housing Options
•Clarify and Simplify Development Standards
•Enhance the Development Review Procedures
•Create a More User-Friendly Document
Additional detail on the applicability of these recommendations to different parts of the Land Use Code are
provided in Part 4.
Part 3: Priority Actions
Part 3 provides a summary of major recommendations contained in the Land Use Code Audit and identifies
near-term priorities to help guide next steps.
Part 4: Annotated Outline
The Annotated Outline illustrates how the updated Land Use Code could be organized if the
recommendations in the Land Use Code Audit are implemented. The Annotated Outline provides specific
recommendations on how existing articles and divisions within the Land Use Code could be integrated into
the proposed structure.
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 7
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 5
Part 2: Land Use Code Audit
1.Align Zoning Districts and Uses with Structure Plan Place Types
Underlying zoning was reviewed and considered as part
of the City Plan update to ensure that consistency
between planned land uses and zoning could be
maintained to the maximum extent feasible. However,
some changes to the Structure Plan map and the
accompanying place type descriptions were needed to
reinforce community priorities and meet the broader
objectives of the Plan. These changes included updated
naming conventions, numerous boundary adjustments,
the consolidation of several place types and the
addition of a new place type (R&D/Flex), among others.
Table 1 illustrates the general alignment between
current zoning districts and the Structure Plan place
types. In some instances, there is a one-to-one
relationship between the current zoning districts and
the corresponding Structure Plan place types (i.e., the
Downtown zoning district and the Downtown place
type). In other instances, there are multiple zoning
districts that correspond with the purpose and intent of
a particular Structure Plan place type (i.e., there are
four zoning districts that correspond to the Mixed-
Neighborhood place type), or multiple place types that
correspond with a zoning district.
Table 1: Current Zoning Districts and Corresponding Structure Plan Place Types
Current Zoning Districts Corresponding Structure Plan Place Types
Residential
Rural Lands District (RUL) Rural Neighborhood
Residential Foothills District (RF)
Urban Estate District (UE) Rural Neighborhood or Suburban Neighborhood depending
on development context
Low Density Residential District (RL) Suburban Neighborhood
Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (LMN) Suburban Neighborhood or Mixed-Neighborhood
depending on development context
Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (NCL) Suburban Neighborhood
Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District
(MMN)
Mixed-Neighborhood
Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District
(NCM)
Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (NCB)
Figure 1- Structure Plan Map (City Plan, 2019)
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 8
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 6
Table 1: Current Zoning Districts and Corresponding Structure Plan Place Types
Current Zoning Districts Corresponding Structure Plan Place Types
High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (HMN)
Commercial and Mixed-Use
Downtown District (D) Downtown
Community Commercial District (CC) Suburban Mixed-Use
Community Commercial District – North College District
(CCN)
Community Commercial District – Poudre River District
(CCR)
Service Commercial District (CS)
General Commercial District (CG) Urban Mixed-Use
Neighborhood Commercial District (NC) Neighborhood Mixed-Use
Limited Commercial District (CL) Downtown; Suburban Mixed-Use
Employment and Industrial
Harmony Corridor District (HC) Mixed-Employment
Employment District (E)
Industrial District (I) Industrial
R&D Flex
Recommended updates to improve alignment between the zoning districts and the Structure Plan place
types—and to improve the zoning districts generally—are outlined in Table 2 and discussed in more detail in
the cross-referenced sections that follow. Broadly, our recommendations are to:
Carry forward residential districts with targeted updates
The basic parameters of the residential place types are consistent with prior iterations of the Structure Plan,
although targeted adjustments were made as part of the 2019 City Plan update to reinforce community
priorities. Notable adjustments included: updated nomenclature to better reflect the character and intent of
each place type; adjusted density ranges for the Suburban and Mixed-Neighborhood designations to
support the expansion of housing options citywide; and expanded discussion of housing types for each
place type.
Despite these changes, purpose statements for the City’s current lineup of residential zoning districts by and
large support the policy directions established by City Plan. However, City staff and stakeholders noted that
many of the standards within certain districts are not clear or are overly complex, making it challenging to
implement the types of development contemplated in the purpose statements. Targeted updates to the
residential districts are recommended as follows:
•Review purpose statements for clarity and consistency with relevant City Plan place types and
update as needed;
•Remove repetitive and conflicting land use and development standards and distinguish district-
specific from citywide standards—particularly within the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood
(LMN) and Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (MMN) Districts; and
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 9
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 7
•Consider potential consolidation of the three Neighborhood Conservation Districts into a single
district with subdistricts.
While it was noted that there is a large ‘gap’ in the densities allowed in the Urban Estate District and the
Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District, there is limited developable land that remains on the lower
end of the density spectrum and the overall policy direction established by City Plan is to encourage higher-
density development. As a result, the addition of another residential district to fill this ‘gap’ seems
unnecessary.
Establish a clearer hierarchy of mixed-use districts
Aside from the Downtown District, the current
Land Use Code includes seven commercial
districts and three employment districts. Although
seven of the commercial districts and two of the
employment districts allow for mixed-use
development, based on the nomenclature used
(i.e., General Commercial, Community
Commercial), it is not clear where mixed-use
development is allowed (or not), and what the
intended hierarchy of districts is. City staff and
stakeholders also noted that achieving the pattern
and intensity of development, and mix of uses,
specified in individual districts has been
challenging under the current Land Use Code. At
a broad level, recommended updates to the
mixed-use districts are intended to:
•Consider consolidation of several districts
and nomenclature changes to establish a
clearer hierarchy of mixed-use districts
that correlates to corresponding
Structure Plan place types;
•Clarify and simplify development standards;
•Remove known barriers to higher density
mixed-use development and housing; and
•Increase flexibility.
Specific examples and recommendations are provided Table 2 and discussed in detail in Section 2 and 3 of
this document.
Streamline zoning district lineup where feasible
It is not uncommon for a community’s lineup of zoning districts to grow (and grow) over time. As “quick
fixes” to a code are needed, it is often perceived as simpler to create new, single-purpose base or overlay
districts rather than trying to integrate a series of targeted amendments throughout the code. While the list
of zoning districts in Fort Collins’ Land Use Code is relatively short when compared to other similarly sized
communities, there are opportunities to consolidate and potentially eliminate existing districts.
Figure 2—A clearer hierarchy of mixed-use zoning districts
will assist with the implementation of the Priority Place
Types outlined in City Plan.
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 10
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 8
To help identify similarities and differences between districts and evaluate potential opportunities for
consolidation or elimination, we assembled a comparison of current dimensional standards and other
district-specific requirements.
Table 2 identifies districts that could potentially be consolidated or eliminated and provides recommended
updates to further streamline individual districts and address key themes in subsequent sections. The
specifics of consolidating two or more districts would vary by situation. In some instances (i.e., if E and HC
were to be consolidated) subdistricts could be created to house the use- or location-specific standards or
exceptions being “folded in” (similar to the new Downtown District). In other instances (i.e., where unique
standards, such as the Prospect Road Streetscape Program apply), a cross-reference would suffice.
The potential benefit and feasibility of any district consolidation or elimination will need to be evaluated on
a case-by-case basis. Some districts—such as the Commercial Limited (CL) or Community Commercial-
Poudre River District (CCR)—are used sparingly today, meaning that the potential rezoning implications of
consolidating them with another district would be minimal. Other districts, such as the Commercial General
District (CG) and TOD Overlay are used more broadly and therefore consolidation or elimination would have
more substantial impacts.
Table 2: Summary of Zoning District Recommendations
Current Zoning
Districts
Proposed Zoning
Districts
Recommended Updates
Residential Districts
Rural Lands
District (RUL)
Rural Lands
District (RUL)
•Permitted uses. Add ADUs, subject to administrative review, consistent
with Rural Neighborhood place type
•Development standards. Relocate Site Design Standards for Cluster
Development, as well as those for Street Connectivity and Design, to
Article 3-General Development Standards (consolidating basic cluster
development standards for RUL, UE, and RF while maintaining variations
in percentage that must be maintained under private ownership)
Urban Estate
District (UE)
Urban Estate
District (UE)
Residential
Foothills District
(RF)
Residential
Foothills District
(RF)
Low Density
Residential
District (RL)1
Low Density
Residential
District (RL)
Permitted uses. Add ADUs, subject to administrative review, consistent with
Rural Neighborhood place type
Low Density
Mixed-Use
Neighborhood
District (LMN)
Low Density
Mixed-Use
Neighborhood
District (LMN)
•Purpose statement.
-Update to align with place type narrative (i.e., emphasize the
importance of access to Neighborhood Centers and mixed-use districts,
rather than integration within an individual neighborhood)
-Remove specific size parameters for LMN in relation to MMN and
Neighborhood Commercial Centers
•Permitted uses.
-Update list of residential uses to reflect expansion of housing
definitions
-Explore potential to add ADUs, consistent with Suburban
Neighborhood and Mixed Neighborhood place types
•Land use standards.
-Increase minimum density to 5 du/ac to align with Mixed
Neighborhood place type. Revisit current exception to minimum for
projects of less than 20 acres to determine whether this threshold
11 RL is no longer used for new development but applies to many established neighborhoods.
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 11
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 9
Table 2: Summary of Zoning District Recommendations
Current Zoning
Districts
Proposed Zoning
Districts
Recommended Updates
should be lowered, and/or modified to address projects of less than a
certain number of units. Potential updates to existing exception
parameters should be evaluated with the goal of encouraging higher
densities in LMN areas while still accounting for unique circumstances
and sites that exist in older infill locations, most of which are currently
in the county.
-Rework maximum density and phase limitations to align with 20 du/ac
max, as appropriate. Currently difficult to achieve maximum densities
due to site planning challenges such as utility separation.
-Incorporate reference to affordable housing density bonus in new table
of dimensional standards; simplify/relocate definition of what qualifies
as an affordable housing project and apply citywide
-Relocate mix of housing type requirements to citywide residential
standards (and tailor applicability by district); include expanded list of
housing types and a provide a more flexible approach (as discussed in
Section 2)
•Neighborhood centers.
-Emphasize importance of multimodal access and connections more
generally over rigid spacing requirements
-Remove specific location and spacing requirements
-Reframe standards (b) through (e) to generally acknowledge the more
limited instances where this would apply; consider unit threshold vs.
acreage
•Development standards.
-Relocate street and block requirements to citywide standards
Medium Density
Mixed-Use
Neighborhood
District (MMN)
Medium Density
Mixed-Use
Neighborhood
District (MMN)
•Purpose statement.
-Update to align with place type narrative (i.e., emphasize importance of
access to Neighborhood Centers, mixed-use districts, and transit rather
than a commercial district or central commercial core
-Eliminate LMN linkage; not functioning that way in practice
•Permitted uses.
-Update list of residential uses to reflect expansion of housing
definitions
-Explore potential to add ADUs consistent with Mixed Neighborhood
place type
-Replace 15% maximum on secondary uses with more robust use-
specific standards for secondary uses in a neighborhood context based
on intensity, scale, and other compatibility considerations.
•Land use standards.
-Remove exception to minimum density for projects of less than 20
acres
-Simplify height incentive to allow an additional story for buildings
located at major intersections or along arterials provided the portion of
the building that shares a lot line or street frontage with the rest of the
MMN neighborhood meets the 3-story maximum
High Density
Mixed-Use
Neighborhood
District (HMN)
High Density
Mixed-Use
Neighborhood
District (HMN)
•Land use and development standards. Relocate step back, building and
site design standards to Article 3 and apply to multifamily citywide; none
appear to be unique considerations that you wouldn’t expect to apply in
other contexts
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 12
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 10
Table 2: Summary of Zoning District Recommendations
Current Zoning
Districts
Proposed Zoning
Districts
Recommended Updates
Neighborhood
Conservation,
Low Density
District (NCL)
Neighborhood
Conservation
District (NC)
•General.
-Consider consolidating into a single Neighborhood Conservation
District with three sub-districts to help streamline district line up
-Would require future rezoning
•Permitted uses. Add carriage houses to list. Standards in all three districts
address carriage houses, but they are not listed as permitted uses
(although accessory buildings with habitable space are).
•Development standards.
-Regardless of whether the districts are consolidated, relocate and
consolidate residential infill standards to Article 3 as district-specific
standards
-Explore potential to apply some of the bulk and mass standards for
infill/redevelopment and additions citywide, particularly as
opportunities to expand ADUs are considered
Neighborhood
Conservation,
Medium Density
District (NCM)
Neighborhood
Conservation,
Buffer District
(NCB)
Mobile Home
Park District
(MHP) (NEW
DISTRICT)
•General.
-Potential addition of a new district to support the retention of existing
mobile home parks is currently being considered by policymakers
-Proposed district is not intended for new mobile home parks; mobile
homes allowed in other residential districts
Mixed-Use Districts
Downtown
District (D)
Downtown
District (D)
No change. Extensive updates in 2019 to address building design, massing
and scale, transitions, and other considerations.
Community
Commercial
District (CC)
Community
Mixed-Use (CMU)
•General.
-Use as a base district to consolidate with CCN and CCR
-May or may not need to define subdistricts for CCN and CCR; general
parameters and uses are very similar
-Would require future rezoning
•Purpose statement.
-Update to align with Suburban-Mixed Use place type
-Emphasize transitional nature of these districts; likely to remain auto-
oriented in near-term, but high-density, mixed-use development is
encouraged to support long-term expansion of high-frequency transit
routes
-Emphasize housing as a critical component (primary, not secondary
use)
•Land use standards.
-Establish criteria to guide and evaluate land use mix in lieu of 30%
maximum (See discussion in Section 3)
•Development standards.
-Where applicable, carry forward references to location-specific
standards and guidelines
Community
Commercial
District – North
College District
(CCN)
Community
Commercial
District – Poudre
River District
(CCR)
Service
Commercial
District (CS)
Service
Commercial
District (CS)
Carry forward as is to support existing subarea plan linkages
Limited
Commercial
District (CL)
Limited
Commercial
District (CL)
Carry forward as is
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 13
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 11
Table 2: Summary of Zoning District Recommendations
Current Zoning
Districts
Proposed Zoning
Districts
Recommended Updates
General
Commercial
District (CG)
Mixed-Use
Corridor (MUC)2
•General.
-Update to function as a base district version of the current TOD overlay
-Would require future rezoning
-Should be applied to all areas designated in City Plan as priority
locations for infill and redevelopment (except areas covered by the
Downtown and Employment Districts)
•Purpose statement.
-Update to align with Urban Mixed-Use place type
-Emphasize role of high-density, mixed-use development in supporting
high-frequency transit routes
-Emphasize housing as a critical component (primary, not secondary
use)
•Permitted uses.
-Update list of residential uses to reflect expansion of housing
definitions
-Expand allowed housing types to include different types of multifamily
(not just mixed-use dwellings)
-Ensure childcare centers are allowed where appropriate
-Relocate use limitations for I-25/SH 392 CAC to proposed Mixed-Use
Suburban district
•Land use standards.
-Footnote maximum height to tie to updated incentives (i.e., clearly
state what actual maximum is if all incentives were applied)
-Include minimum height of 3-stories within ¼ mile of existing or
planned BRT stations and a minimum height of 2-stories in other areas
within the district
-Retool height incentives for mixed-use and housing to simplify and
remove known conflicts (i.e., increased height is not achievable due to
required step backs) and align with updated minimum heights
-Consider tailoring stepback requirements to different contexts to
provide greater flexibility (i.e., along College or Mason, could be
increased to 3 or 4-stories; adjacent to neighborhoods, 2-story should
be maintained)
•Development standards.
-Relocate cross-references to Development Standards for the I-25
Corridor and the I-25/SH 392 Corridor Activity Standards to the
proposed Community Mixed-Use district (not applicable to areas
designated as Urban Mixed-Use on the Structure Plan)
-Incorporate site planning, streetscape, and building standards from
TOD overlay (applying citywide where applicable)
Neighborhood
Commercial
District (NC)
Mixed-Use
Neighborhood
(MUN)
•Purpose statement. Update to align with Neighborhood Mixed-Use place
type; emphasize stand-alone nature of NC district – generally surrounded
by neighborhoods
•Permitted uses.
-Update list of residential uses to reflect expansion of housing
definitions
2 Other possible alternatives for names to more clearly convey intent: Corridor Mixed-Use, Transit-Oriented Development (since it is
replacing TOD overlay) or Transit-Oriented Mixed-Use.
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 14
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 12
Table 2: Summary of Zoning District Recommendations
Current Zoning
Districts
Proposed Zoning
Districts
Recommended Updates
-Ensure childcare centers are allowed where appropriate
-Consider allowing smaller multi-family options (i.e., townhomes or
fourplexes) through administrative review, or potentially as permitted
uses
•Land use standards.
-Provide more flexibility for secondary residential uses to encourage
mixed-use (i.e., consider raising size threshold for % residential limit to
10 acres to align w/typical size noted in City Plan, and/or allow single-
use residential structures along corridor frontages)
-Incentivize the adaptive reuse of existing centers by providing
exceptions to certain development standards (i.e., reduce required
landscaping or limit new required landscaping to areas along major
corridor to reduce the need for expensive retrofits of existing parking
areas), expand list of uses permitted in an adaptive reuse context
•Development standards. Consider applying block requirements, canopy
and drive-in restaurant standards citywide
Harmony Corridor
District (HC)
Employment
District (E)
•General.
-Consider consolidating HC with E; the majority of land designated as
Mixed-Employment on Structure Plan is located along the Harmony
Corridor and the intent of the two districts is essentially the same
-Rezoning would be required
-Whether or not HC and E are consolidated, consider rezoning defined
nodes along Harmony (depicted on the Structure Plan as Urban Mixed-
Use) to the proposed Community Mixed-Use district to reinforce
planned BRT nodes
•Purpose statement.
-Update to align with Employment place type
•Permitted uses.
-Update list of residential uses to reflect expansion of housing
definitions
-Consider allowing some additional types of housing—beyond mixed-
use dwellings—administratively, provided proposed development
meets certain locational criteria (e.g., not located on key intersections
or adjacent to future BRT stations, used as a transition to adjacent
neighborhoods)
-Consider excluding single-family detached dwellings (and possibly
duplexes) from allowed uses to support a transition to the more
transit-oriented densities supported by City Plan. For example,
Townhomes can provide an effective transition in scale where the
Employment District abuts a residential district.
-Ensure childcare centers are allowed where appropriate
-Consider eliminating specific types of shopping centers
defined/described in the Harmony Corridor Plan; retail trends and
favored terms like “lifestyle center” are continuously evolving –
definitions in the Harmony Corridor Plan are very rigid.
•Land use standards.
-Apply 6-story limit along Harmony Corridor to both residential and
mixed-use/non-residential buildings (currently capped at 3-stories for
residential) with required transition to adjacent neighborhoods
(through citywide standards) if density and housing mix are achieved
-Maintain 4-story limit in other parts of the city
Employment
District (E)
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 15
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 13
Table 2: Summary of Zoning District Recommendations
Current Zoning
Districts
Proposed Zoning
Districts
Recommended Updates
-Relocate mix of housing type requirements to citywide standards (and
tailor applicability by district); include expanded list of housing types
and provide a more flexible approach for secondary uses (as discussed
in Section 2)
-Rework access to park, central feature or gathering place requirements
to align with Nature in the City recommendations and apply citywide
w/variations by district
-Harmony Corridor Site Design –incorporate residential transition
standards as part of more robust use-specific standards that would
apply citywide
Nonresidential Districts
Industrial District
(I)
Industrial District
(I)
•Purpose statement. Update to align with Industrial place type narrative
(i.e., remove references to housing and other uses as appropriate based
on updates to permitted uses)
•Permitted uses.
-Remove residential uses (including long-term care facilities) from list of
allowed primary and accessory uses to support City Plan policy of
protecting remaining industrial land for industrial uses
-Consider removing golf courses bed and breakfast establishments, and
potentially schools and adult day/respite care centers for the same
reason, taking into account the proximity of affected Industrial Districts
to districts that allow these uses and potential conflicts that could
impede the operations of industrial uses
-Consider reducing 25K maximum size threshold for commercial/retail
uses to reinforce goal of retaining the City’s stock of smaller, existing
industrial buildings
•Development standards.
-Move to Article 3 as district-specific standards
-Convert landscaped yard requirements to use-specific standards
-- Flex-Industrial
District (FID)
(NEW DISTRICT)
•Purpose. Align with R&D/Flex place type narrative (i.e., blends
characteristics of Employment and Industrial place types)
•Permitted uses.
-Similar to Industrial (with updates noted above)
-No residential
•Development standards.
-Apply standards similar to Employment District
-Allow for outdoor storage with screening
Special Purpose Districts
Transition District
(T)
Transition District
(T)
No change
Public Open
Lands (POL)
Public Open
Lands (POL)
No change
River
Conservation
(RC)
River
Conservation
(RC)
No change
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 16
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 14
Table 2: Summary of Zoning District Recommendations
Current Zoning
Districts
Proposed Zoning
Districts
Recommended Updates
Overlay Districts
Transit-Oriented
Development
(TOD) Overlay
Mixed-Use
Corridor (MUC)
Replace with updated version of CG; see discussion above
Planned Unit
Development
Overlay
Carry forward
with potential
updates
See discussion below
Evaluate potential expansion of the PUD Overlay subject to objective standards
Fort Collins is unique in that—contrary to the many communities in Colorado and across the West that have
relied almost exclusively on Planned Unit Development (PUD) or Planned Development (PD) tools—the City
only recently adopted a Planned Unit Development Overlay to provide a more flexible alternative to the
base districts contained in the Land Use Code. Adopted in 2018, the PUD Overlay exists as an option for
properties larger than 50 acres in size and allows greater flexibility in the mix and distribution of land uses,
densities, and applicable development and zone district standards. City staff and stakeholders expressed
interest in exploring whether the use of this tool should be expanded to include options for smaller projects,
or as an incentive for affordable housing projects.
Fort Collins is wise to tread cautiously in this area, because over-use of PUDs can have many adverse
consequences. Not only are PUDs time-consuming to negotiate before approval, but they often become
dated very quickly. Because local governments worry that the PUD will be “too flexible” and allow unwanted
types of development, they often include too much design detail, and as tastes change those details no
longer align with City values or market tastes. As a result, PUDs often require many rounds of amendments
during the life of the project. The larger the area covered, the more amendments are likely to be needed,
and each amendment requires investments of time by developers, staff, and elected and appointed officials.
An additional downside of PUDs is that each one is unique, so each inquiry about what is permitted on your
property, or your neighbor’s property, requires staff to look up an answer that is unique to that phase,
neighborhood, or area. The disproportionate amount of staff time required to administer PUDs in the years
and decades after they are approved and built is one of the chief complaints among communities that have
over-relied on this tool. A final disadvantage is that, unless the City is very focused on what amenities or
extra levels of quality it wants to achieve through PUDs, they can become a vehicle for simply “packaging
variances” – i.e., a convenient way to avoid meeting basic City standards that does not in return result in a
clear advantage to the City.
Of course, PUDs would not be so heavily used if there were not offsetting benefits – or at least benefits that
appear to offset these disadvantages at the time of project approval. The chief advantage is almost
unlimited flexibility. The availability of PUDs opens up the potential for mixes of uses, mixes of lot sizes, and
the imposition of quality standards and requirements for amenities that are not available in standard zone
districts. There are two basic ways to reap the benefits of all this flexibility without facing the disadvantages
listed above. The first is to narrow the eligibility for consideration of a PUD application, and the second is to
strengthen the criteria that must be met for the Planning and Zoning Board to recommend, and for City
Council, to approve a PUD.
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 17
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 15
Examples of “narrowing the gate” to PUDs include:
•Imposing a minimum size limit (such as Fort Collins’ current 50-acre minimum);
•Requiring that the project could not be accomplished through other available zoning districts and
tools;
•Requiring that the PUD only include combinations of land uses listed in the approved table of
permitted uses in the zoning ordinances (rather than serving as a vehicle for a new and
unanticipated land use that City Council has not determined belongs somewhere in the city);
•Prohibiting the PUD from including particular types of development that are disfavored by the City
(such as Aurora’s prohibition on inclusion of three-story walkup apartments);
•Requiring that the PUD include one or more from a list of specific amenities of value to the City
(such as solar orientation of a minimum percentage of buildings, including a minimum percentage
of ‘solar-ready’ buildings, or including Low Impact Development stormwater systems); and/or
•Requiring that the PUD including a minimum amount of deed-restricted affordable or workforce
housing tied to specific levels of Area Median Income (such as the 15% minimum requirement in
Bloomington, IN).
Criteria for approval of a PUD are often tied to the inclusion of “non-negotiable” items or particularly valued
benefits or amenities at levels beyond those that would be required if the project were developed under a
standard zone district. Examples include:
•Requiring that the PUD include a greater level of open space, street, trail, and bicycle connectivity
than would be required by standard zone districts;
•Requiring that included open space and recreational amenities be open and available to the public;
•Requiring that a greater percentage of included housing be affordable at a particular level of Area
Median Income, or that the required affordable housing be affordable to a lower level of Area
Median Income than would otherwise be required by the zoning ordinance;
•Requiring that areas with very small residential lots or innovative housing types (such as Tiny
Homes) be limited in size and dispersed throughout the development; and/or
•Requiring that residential blocks be no larger than a maximum length, width, or perimeter length, to
encourage walkable neighborhoods.
Develop a rezoning strategy
Rezoning may be required to fully achieve City Plan objectives in some areas. This includes instances where
the land uses, density, and development characteristics supported by the place type designation differs
from underlying zoning. In some cases, differences between the Plan and underlying zoning are significant—
e.g., in transitional areas like the Mountain Vista subarea that are zoned Employment but are planned for
Mixed-Residential (and intend to use the Planned Unit Development Overlay). In other cases, differences are
more subtle—e.g., in areas designated with the R&D Flex place type, where the underlying Industrial zoning
may be generally aligned with the employment uses envisioned, but do not fully support the more limited
intensity envisioned for employment in these locations.
While some cities opt to address these issues through a legislative rezoning process—where large areas of
the city are rezoned at one time—the process is time and resource intensive and can be politically
challenging. Because Fort Collins intends to complete planned Land Use Code updates incrementally over
the next one to three years, a legislative rezoning process is likely not feasible. As an alternative, we
recommend that the City continue to work with property owners to complete the necessary rezoning
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 18
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 16
process as properties develop or redevelop over time and continue to proactively rezone or expedite the
rezoning approval process for areas that can help advance citywide goals (e.g., by expanding housing
options or implementing transit supportive development). The latter strategy—recently used for the former
Hughes Stadium site—should be employed for areas identified as priority locations for infill and
redevelopment in City Plan (See Policy LIV 2.2), or that are planned for future annexation (e.g., portions of
the East Mulberry Corridor and the Mountain Vista Subarea).
2.Create More Opportunities for a Range of Housing Options
The need to expand housing options
was identified as a key priority for Fort
Collins as part of the 2019 City Plan
update. Although the Land Use Code
contains a number of requirements
that are intended to support City Plan
goals—e.g., requiring a mix of housing
types in some districts, incentivizing
affordable housing projects,
concentrating highest densities
adjacent to transit, and ensuring most
housing units have access to services
and amenities—both City staff and
stakeholders noted that under Fort
Collins’ current requirements projects
are simply not able to achieve the
diversity of housing options and
density called for by the Plan. In most
of the examples cited, current standards
were described as overly restrictive and
out of touch with market demands. While the intent behind these requirements is sound, a variety of
changes are recommended to increase clarity and build in additional flexibility:
Define a range of options between two-family and multi-family housing
One of the primary opportunities for moderate density
housing options is within the Mixed-Neighborhood
place type. In these locations, the Structure Plan
supports duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, and attached
and detached accessory dwelling units, in addition to
detached single-family and small-scale multi-family.
While the construction of multi-family units has
increased in recent years, Fort Collins—along with many
other communities—continues to see a very limited
number of dwelling units constructed in the “middle range” of the spectrum. Although the Land Use Code
does define a range of attached and detached dwelling unit types and support a mix of housing options in
this range, they are not explicitly defined. Existing definitions should be updated, and new definitions added
to more clearly emphasize the full spectrum of housing types desired. We recommend reframing defined
terms as indicated in Table 3.
Figure 3-In order to meet housing goals established by City Plan,
expanded tools for a diverse array of housing options will be required.
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 19
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 17
Table 3: Recommended Updates to Defined Housing Terms
Defined Housing Terms Notes
Current Proposed
-- Accessory dwelling unit New definition to address broader range of accessory
dwelling unit configurations and locations (beyond “carriage
house”). See discussion below.
Carriage House Carriage House Limited to detached dwelling units located behind the
primary dwelling.
-- Co-housing New definition to address multiple (often smaller) single-
family detached dwellings on a single lot, usually sharing
common facilities such as a community kitchen or child-care
facility.
Dwelling Dwelling No change
Dwelling, mixed-use -- Consider eliminating. Most codes do not define “dwelling
units in a mixed-use building” as a separate use. Instead,
multi-family is listed as an allowed use in mixed-use districts
and addressed through use-specific standards that
encourage a mix of uses. The current definition for mixed-
use already addresses residential as one of several uses that
may be included as part of a mixed-use building or
development.
Dwelling, multi-family Dwelling, triplex Currently, multi-family is defined as a dwelling containing
three or more dwelling units. Most codes define multi-family
as five or more units to more clearly define smaller multi-
family building forms like the triplex and fourplex.
Dwelling, fourplex
Dwelling, multi-family
Dwelling, single-family Dwelling, single-family
detached
Combine current definitions
Dwelling, single-family
detached
Dwelling, single-family
attached
Dwelling, single-family
attached
No change
-- Dwelling, cottage
development
Some codes include a definition for cottage developments to
provide opportunities for groups of five or more attached or
detached single-family dwellings with shared access,
parking, and common spaces. While not exclusively used for
this purpose, this definition often includes a reference to
factory built small single-family detached dwellings
containing less than 500 square feet (often referred to as
Tiny Homes). Where Tiny Homes are addressed, references
to required compliance with building/manufactured housing
construction codes, installation standards, and utility
connections are also included. This definition would be
distinct from “Mobile Home Park.”
Dwelling, two-family Dwelling, duplex Combine current definitions
Dwelling, two-family
detached
Dwelling, unit Dwelling, unit No change
-- Dwelling, live-work Term is not currently defined. Staff noted the need for
specifications on the amount of non-residential uses allowed,
for example:
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 20
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 18
Defined Housing Terms Notes
Current Proposed
“A dwelling unit designed to accommodate both residential
and non-residential uses in different areas of the unit, and in
which the portion of the unit designed for non-residential
use does not exceed 50% of the gross floor area of the unit.
(Youngstown, OH)” or
“A residential dwelling unit that includes working space
accessible from the living area, reserved for and regularly
used by one or more residents of the dwelling unit, but does
not include “home based businesses.” Working space may
exceed 25% of gross floor area…” (Winnepeg, MB)
Group home Group home No change to definition. However, it appears that group
homes currently require Planning and Zoning Board review
in some districts (e.g., the MMN district), while multi-family
dwellings of 50 du or 75 or less bedrooms can be approved
administratively. To avoid challenges under the federal Fair
Housing Act, small group living facilities (8 or fewer) must
generally be permitted where single-family homes are
allowed (and should generally be by-right if single family
homes are by-right). Similarly, large group living facilities
(over 8) must generally be allowed where multi-family
dwellings with similar or larger occupancy are allowed (and
by-right if the multi-family is by-right). All districts should be
reviewed and updated as necessary.
Mobile home Mobile home No change
Mobile home park Mobile home park No change
Student housing complex Term not currently defined. Stakeholders noted the need to
distinguish from other multi-family, for example: “A multi-
family dwelling designed primarily as housing for
undergraduate or post-graduate students, including all
multi-family dwellings that include units with more than
three bedrooms and more than two bathrooms.” (Columbia,
MO)
Clarify definition of and opportunities for accessory dwelling units
City Plan provides policy support for the expansion of
accessory dwelling units in all three residential place
types and illustrates opportunities for the integration of
both attached and detached accessory dwelling units.
While the Land Use Code does not specifically define
accessory dwelling units—and specifically states that
accessory buildings are not dwelling units—they are
permitted under the carriage house definition:
“a single-family detached dwelling unit, typically
without street frontage, that is located behind a
separate, principal dwelling on the same lot, which
fronts on the street. A carriage house is accessed
from an alley, side street or the existing driveway.”
Figure 4—Accessory dwelling units are currently
allowed in Fort Collins on a very limited basis through
the ‘carriage house’ definition.
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 21
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 19
Accessory buildings containing habitable space are listed as a permitted use only in the Neighborhood
Conservation Low Density (NCL), Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM), and Neighborhood
Conservation Buffer (NCB) zone districts. As a result, opportunities for carriage houses are limited to the Old
Town Neighborhoods west and east of Downtown Fort Collins and north of Prospect Avenue. However,
based on field observation and permit trends for accessory structures with habitable space, City staff noted
that there are likely many illegal carriage houses (in the form of accessory buildings with undeclared
habitable floor space) across the city.
To support the legal expansion of this housing option, we recommend that a new definition for accessory
dwelling units be added to achieve the following:
•Opportunities for both detached (i.e., carriage house) and attached (i.e., basement apartment) units
(for example, Arvada, CO, adopted an ADU ordinance in 2007 that defines three separate
categories of ADUs);
•Provide more flexibility on the location of and access to accessory dwelling units (for example, on
larger lots with no alley, it may be viable to have an accessory dwelling unit (attached or detached)
that is located in the side yard versus the rear yard); and
•Opportunities for dwelling units that are accessory to uses other than single-family detached
dwellings (for example, the Steamboat Springs, CO, incentivizes accessory dwelling units above
common, detached garages for multifamily developments by allowing more lot coverage).
Although it is an option (as described above) to carry forward the carriage house definition as-is as a
specific type of accessory dwelling unit, we recommend that Fort Collins also consider the option of
incorporating carriage house characteristics as part of the accessory dwelling unit definition and eliminating
carriage house as a defined use altogether. A broader discussion with the community will help inform the
City about where accessory dwelling units are feasible and would be supported by residents, as well as
possible strategies to compel owners of existing illegal units to legalize them.
Remove barriers to allowed densities
City staff and stakeholders both noted that development standards in some districts (e.g., LMN, TOD
Overlay) make efforts to achieve minimum densities—and in some cases maximum densities—challenging.
Some of the specific examples cited included: limits on the number of units per multifamily building, square
footage thresholds for secondary or non-residential buildings, and height limitations that restrict the ability
to maximize compact sites using tuck-under parking. As districts and development standards are
recalibrated, known and perceived barriers should be removed. Many communities include a “testing” phase
as part of their code update specifically for this reason. While a proposed standard or incentive may make
sense in concept as it is being drafted, it is often difficult to know whether it is properly calibrated until an
actual project comes forward. This step typically involves conducting a “mock” review of previously
approved projects that fit the intent of a particular district, but that may have required exceptions or other
variations from current standards. If calibrated properly, the district is ready for further review. If not,
additional refinements may be needed.
Incentivize affordable housing projects
The current Land Use Code includes regulatory incentives designed to encourage the construction of
affordable housing projects in several districts. For example, in the LMN District, the maximum density is 12
du/ac for affordable housing projects that meet certain criteria and 9 du/ac for all other development.
Another example is within the TOD Overlay Zone, where mixed-use developments that dedicate a
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 22
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 20
percentage of their overall residential units to affordable units are eligible for three additional stories above
the base height. While the concept of incentivizing affordable housing is broadly supported, several
stakeholders noted that in their current form they are difficult—if not impossible—to achieve.
Recommendations to address this issue and further incentivize affordable housing include:
•Removing known barriers where possible, such as limitations on the total number of units or square
footage per multi-family building (potentially in conjunction with minimum/maximum bedroom
standards to address student considerations);
•Clarifying and simplifying development standards—as discussed in Section 3, below—and build in
more flexibility for affordable housing projects where possible;
•Recalibrating density and height incentives with updated development standards and expanding
the number of districts where they are offered;
•Exploring further reductions to parking requirements in mixed-use districts;
•Consider establishing baseline lot coverage maximums 3 where they do not exist today (using
current setbacks as a starting point) and offering increased lot coverage above those maximums for
affordable housing projects;
•Consider eliminating maximum densities in certain districts (likely in conjunction with adding more
detailed dimensional standards, at least in residential districts); and
•Simplifying and consistently applying a net density as the standard rule for measuring density (i.e.,
eliminating the numerous variations on gross density, net density, and average density that exist
today).
In conjunction with the recommendations outlined above, and ongoing discussions regarding the City’s
affordable housing strategy, all definitions for affordable housing in the current Land Use Code should be
reviewed for consistency and updated as needed. While the terms ‘affordable housing project,’ ‘affordable
housing unit for rent,’ and ‘affordable housing unit for sale’ are defined in Article 5, different variations on
the median income parameters are used in different parts of the Land Use Code. For example, in the LMN
District, an affordable housing project is defined as having units affordable to households earning 60
percent or less of the median income, while in Article 5, an affordable housing project is defined as having
units affordable to households earning 80 percent or less of the median income.
3.Clarify and Simplify Development Standards
Consolidate like standards and definitions and make them more broadly applicable
Article 3, General Development Standards, incorporates a variety of citywide and location-specific
development standards. However, development standards are also included in Article 4, addressing topics
such as: height, setbacks, density, use transitions, mix of housing types, neighborhood parks, neighborhood
centers, and a host of other land use, site, and building design considerations. As discussed in prior sections,
City staff and stakeholders noted that the scattered and inconsistent structure of these standards makes
them challenging to use and has led to inconsistencies over time. To help address these issues, we
recommend that into these, or similar, categories:
3 Most communities have lot coverage maximums or impervious surface coverage maximums in their zoning districts—typically in the
range of 35 to 50% for residential districts. Currently, Fort Collins does not specify a maximum in any district, but rather limits overall
density through required setbacks.
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 23
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 21
•Building regulations/dimensional standards. Regulations governing the size, shape, and location
of lots and the buildings on them (e.g., all height, setback, density, and other dimensional standards
for each district) should be consolidated in a simple table or in two or three tables corresponding to
residential, mixed-use, and non-residential zone districts for ease of use; and
•Development standards. Standards currently located within individual districts in Article 4 should
generally be relocated to Article 3 and applied citywide. Divisions within Article 3 should be
evaluated and updated, using the Annotated Outline in Part 4 as a general guide. Although each
community approaches it a bit differently, the development standards article is typically broken into
numerous sub-topics based on need and staff preference. While divisions or sections for topics like
site and building design, landscaping, and connectivity are typical, it’s not uncommon for
communities to break out development standards by specific the type of development—residential,
mixed-use, non-residential—rather than the type of standard, or to come up with a hybrid approach.
Regardless of the approach selected, the overarching goal should be to balance the need to create
a structure that is intuitive and that minimizes the need for repetition.
This recommendation also applies to use-specific standards, discussed in Section 6, as well as
measurements and exceptions—or standards that pertain to the measurement of height, allowable floor
area, and other generally applicable language—discussed as part of the Annotated Outline in Part 4.
Increase flexibility
City staff and stakeholders expressed a general desire to maintain the overall intent behind the current
standards in the Land Use Code, but to make them more flexible, and to ensure they reflect distinctions
between infill/redevelopment and greenfield development contexts. Examples of standards that were
perceived as being overly rigid and adding to the cost and complexity of projects included: specific
percentage limitations on secondary uses found in the E and LLM districts, connecting walkway standards,
and required façade details, among others. The desire for more flexibility is a common complaint when it
comes to development standards and can reasonably be addressed. However, any effort to introduce more
flexibility should be balanced with the need to maintain some degree of predictability as to what the
outcome of a given standard will be. If standards are too flexible, the administration of those standards will
be subject to the interpretation of the person reviewing an application on any given day. This can put undue
pressure on City staff and lead to potential frustration from applicants and residents about the inconsistent
application of the standards.
We recommend a combination of strategies to try to strike a balance between flexibility and predictability:
•Allow broader flexibility for permitted secondary uses rather than precise minimum or
maximums where possible. While limitations on secondary uses (e.g., residential or retail) in certain
mixed-use districts were established by Fort Collins—and many other communities—with good
intentions, they have proven to be problematic in practice due to market fluctuations, phasing, and
increasing fragmentation of ownership or changes in ownership over time. Establishing a more
flexible range, with the option to go outside of that range if certain criteria are met is one approach
that may be used in combination with the use of incentives (e.g., additional height or density) in
exchange for providing the desired mix of uses in certain districts. Other communities have opted to
eliminate the use of percentages altogether, and instead address the integration of secondary uses
in different contexts through to the expansion of use-specific standards and locational criteria.
•Retool design standards where needed. Fort Collins’ building and site design standards are on par
with the types of expectations set by similar communities and have generally yielded the level of
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 24
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 22
quality that the community expects. However, City staff and stakeholders noted that, in some cases,
they may be working in conflict with other community goals (e.g., affordable housing, density).
Targeted updates should be considered, with a primary focus on standards that have resulted in
frequent requests for amendments. In addition, while some existing standards are already
structured to include menus of options as a way to provide flexibility, the use of this tool could be
expanded. The City may also wish to explore potential exemptions on some building design
standards for affordable housing projects with enforceable restrictions on the income of occupants.
•Standardize and potentially expand alternative compliance procedures. The Land Use Code
includes a variety of exceptions or modifications to certain standards but lacks a standardized
approach and process. Alternative compliance procedures should be clarified and consolidated in
conjunction with updates to the design and development standards. This topic is discussed in more
detail in Section 5.
Recalibrate incentives to reflect current market conditions
Many communities, including Fort Collins, use incentives (e.g., additional density or height, reduced parking,
reduced landscaping, or other types of bonus incentives) to encourage desired development patterns in
certain locations. Typically, the most effective incentives are those that offer the potential to reduce
development costs and/or increase the development yield of a site in terms of the number of dwelling units
or total square footage that may be built. In the current Land Use Code, these types of incentives are used
specifically to encourage affordable housing and higher-density and mixed-use development in the LMN
District and TOD Overlay Zone. However, as noted in the affordable housing discussion above, several
stakeholders remarked that in their current form the incentives are not providing the intended benefit and,
in some cases, can’t be achieved when combined with other requirements. The use of incentives needs to
be reviewed in the context of other updates to the code that may serve as incentives in and of themselves
(e.g., retooling parking requirements) and tested against actual real estate market costs to ensure they
provide the intended benefit and a true financial incentive for the developer. In general, updated incentives
should be aligned with the priority locations for infill and redevelopment (as defined in Policy LIV 2.2).
Align Design Manual with updated development standards
As a supplement to the Land Use Code, the City maintains a separate, non-regulatory design manual that
includes examples and explanations of selected standards. As updates to the Land Use Code are made,
corresponding updates to the design manual should also be made.
4.Enhance the Development Review Procedures
Article 2, Administration, includes the standards for evaluating and approving various development
applications within the city. Division 2.1 summarizes the overall general development procedures. Division
2.2 provides a set of standardized common development review procedures that may or may not apply to
specific application types. The remaining divisions in Article 2 describe the specific application review
procedures, ranging from overall development plans to permitting procedures to appeals and variances. We
heard generally from staff and stakeholders that the procedures are working well; however, there are
several areas that could be improved, as described below.
Clarify the Amendment Procedures
Clarify Distinctions between Minor and Major
The common review procedures in Division 2.2 make fairly clear the common 11 steps that may apply to a
particular application prior to submitting an application, during the evaluation process, and post decision.
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 25
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 23
Step 10 addresses amendments and changes of use. This step makes the distinction between minor
amendments and major amendments by establishing criteria for eligibility of a “minor amendment.”
Anything not meeting the criteria for a “minor amendment” are deemed to be “major amendments.” This
type of distinction is common among communities. Minor amendments may be approved administratively,
provided such amendments would result in a plan or specific permit that still complies with the code “to the
extent reasonably feasible.” It is that qualifier that should be further clarified. The term “extent reasonably
feasible” is currently defined as:
“Under the circumstances, reasonable efforts have been undertaken to comply with the regulation, that
the costs of compliance clearly outweigh the potential benefits to the public or would unreasonably
burden the proposed project, and reasonable steps have been undertaken to minimize any potential
harm or adverse impacts resulting from noncompliance with the regulation.”
This criterion leaves the Director with a lot of discretion for what may qualify as minor versus major. There
are more specific thresholds for eligibility for minor amendments, including limits on the number of dwelling
units increased, adjustments of square footage, and changes to the use mix ratios. Many of the criteria
thresholds for minor amendments are tied to changes that would not “change the character of the project or
development.” These again are highly subjective, perhaps resulting in justification for unnecessary appeals.
We recommend including examples where possible of how such amendments would result in a change of
character. For example, include the percentage increase or decrease in square footage that would be
considered a major amendment (e.g., more than 10-15%). There are also several other scenarios that should
be clarified for when a change might warrant a major amendment, including but not limited to:
•What level of shifting land uses (e.g., residential dwelling units or commercial square footage)
among phases or parcels would be appropriate?
•How much parking can be increased or decreased?
•How much landscaping or open space could be reduced or increased?
•Can overall building design be amended?
•Can internal circulation be amended?
Cross-Reference other Amendment Provisions
Although most of the amendment procedures are addressed in Step 10 of the common review procedures,
there are additional amendment-related provisions in Step 11, Lapse. For example, amendments to PUD
Master Plans are addressed in 2.2.11(C)(5), and for Final Plans, Plats, and other Site Specific Development
Plans in 2.2.11(E)(5) and (6). These sections should be cross-referenced in the current Section 2.2.10, Step 10.
Micro Amendments
We understand that staff also processes amendments administratively that do not rise to the level of even a
minor amendment. Examples may include changing the location of a door on a specific elevation or
changing a tree species for another acceptable replacement. These types of “micro-amendments” are also
common in other communities but are rarely codified. Often the need for a micro-amendment would come
to light during construction, when changes in the field warrant alternative approaches. Codifying a
procedure to allow field changes and other minor revisions should be approached cautiously, with narrow
gates of entry. It is important that staff use such a tool judiciously, and not establish precedent of on-the-fly
amendments.
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 26
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 24
Consider standardizing the Alternative Compliance Procedures
Article 3, General Development Standards, provides the site development quality standards required for
most development projects including landscaping, parking, access, lighting, building design, and fencing and
walls. Several, but not all, of these development standards include provisions for “alternative compliance”
that allow applicants to propose alternative plans that still meet the intent of the regulations.
In some cases, such as landscaping, bicycle facilities, parking, solar access, lighting, and air quality, the
alternative compliance procedures follow a similar structure with a procedure, review criteria, and
considerations for the decision makers. Other sections, such as those addressing lot widths, garage doors,
and build-to line standards include different organization and structure and approval authority. For example,
alternatives are allowed for build-to line standards, but are identified as “exceptions to the build-to line
standards.” Staff should consider a standardized alternative compliance procedure that clearly identifies
each of the standards within the code that are eligible, and the criteria to which they are subject to. Such
standardized procedure could be located in Article 2, Administration, or at the beginning of Article 3,
General Development Standards. As an example, the City of Glenwood Springs Development Code (Section
070.040.080(c)(1)) includes a separate procedure for Alternative Equivalent Compliance that clearly states
which standards are eligible for alternatives and the procedure and criteria for approval.
Improve the PUD Procedures
As discussed earlier in this document, both the standards for PUDs and the procedures for evaluating and
approving PUDs should be revisited as part of the City’s targeted code updates. Additionally, the process for
amending existing PUDs should be clarified as mentioned in the prior section.
Review appeal parameters
We heard from stakeholders that the current appeals procedures could be clarified and tightened. We also
heard that the fees for an appeal application are relatively low, which should be considered with future fee
updates.
Enhance transparency
Include a Summary of Review Procedures
The land use regulations should clearly describe the procedures by which applications for development
projects are accepted, considered, and acted upon by local officials. Although the City has provided clear
common review procedures in Division 2.2, it is not immediately clear how the various application types
relate to each other. We recommend including a summary table of review procedures near the beginning of
Article 3 that indicates how the various applications are processes in For Collins, including whether
preliminary design meetings or neighborhood meetings are required, who reviews and provides
recommendations, and who is the final decision-making authority on the application. This summary table is
an example of a non-substantive code edit that provides a lot of value in terms of clarity and transparency in
the process. An example from another community is provided below.
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 27
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 25
Figure 5- Sample summary of procedures table from another community.
Strengthen Review Criteria
Throughout the development review procedures in Article 2, the City should redraft and strengthen the
approval criteria to be more objective and clearer. More objective criteria will result in an improved level of
predictability in the process for neighborhoods and developers and will also lead to more efficient decision
making and public hearings. For example, one of the criteria for rezoning applications is to consider
“whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly
development pattern.” In that example, one may ask “what is logical and orderly, or conversely, what
constitutes illogical and disorderly development patterns?” We recommend developing clear and objective
criteria for all development application types by providing examples of compliance where possible. A
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 28
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 26
refined version of that criterion might be “the extent to which proposed development patterns are
consistent with the comprehensive plan and master streets plan” or something similar.
6.Create a More User-Friendly Document
City staff and stakeholders expressed frustration with the organization and bulk of the Land Use Code.
Primary complaints were that the Land Use Code contains redundant—and often conflicting—language, is
poorly organized, and is generally challenging to use. This section provides recommendations to improve
the overall organization, format, and user-friendliness of the Land Use Code.
Reorganize the Land Use Code
In order to fully assess what’s in the current Land Use Code it must be “pulled apart” and put back together
in a more intuitive way. City staff will initiate a process to reorganize the Land Use Code later this year. The
reorganization process will make it easier to identify overlaps between related sections, determine what
content should be retained and carried forward (or is no longer relevant), and where gaps exist. Completing
this step up-front will make future amendments to the Land Use Code easier and more consistent. We
typically recommend that substantive changes not be made as part of a code reorganization effort to keep
the need for stakeholder and community input, and potential controversy, to a minimum. However, some
communities do choose to make targeted amendments at the same time.
In general, effective land use regulations should be organized to place frequently used information where it
can be easily referenced and to remove repetition by consolidating related information. While most older
development codes contain too many freestanding chapters and articles and must be collapsed into a more
compact organization, the opposite is true of Fort Collins’ Land Use Code. The current Land Use Code is
organized into only five articles. Within each article there are anywhere from ten to 30 divisions. Because
similar content is scattered throughout the code—it is impossible for a user to ensure they have identified all
of the relevant provisions without searching for terms or scanning through the entire code. For example, it is
generally assumed that all dimensional standards (i.e., setbacks, height, lot standards) will be included as
part of individual zoning districts. While this is generally true in the Fort Collins’ Land Use Code, there are
additional dimensional standards included in Article 3: General Development Standards.
While the organization of the core components of the code is generally fairly similar in modern codes, there
is no single “right” approach. Some communities may have a single article containing development
standards and others may have several (e.g., one each for residential, non-residential, and mixed-use). This
decision is typically driven in part by preference and in part by the amount of material contained in each
article. For example, Fort Collins’ sign standards are currently located as a subsection of Division 3.8 –
Supplementary Regulations. Because the sign regulations are such an important (and bulky) section, we
recommend pulling it into a standalone article. Alternatively, signs could be included within development
standards; the same is true for other bulky sections, such as wireless regulations and oil and gas. Table X
below outlines a possible reorganization strategy as a starting point for discussion. More detailed
recommendations for how the current Land Use Code would be reorganized is provided in Part 4:
Annotated Outline.
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 29
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 27
Table 4: Possible Reorganization of Land Use Code Articles
Current Organization Possible Reorganization
Article 1: General Provisions
Article 2: Administration
Article 3: General Development Standards
Article 4: Districts
Article 5: Terms and Definitions
Article 1: General Provisions
Article 2: Zoning Districts
Article 3: Use Regulations
Article 4: Development Standards
Article 5: Historic Preservation
Article 6: Subdivision Standards
Article 7: Signs
Article 8: Administration and Procedures
Article 9: Terms and Definitions
Enhance use regulations
The current Land Use Code itemizes each allowable use in numbered lists for every district in Article 4 –
Districts. Uses are frequently duplicated between districts stretching the article to 140 pages in length. For
example, the C-C Community Commercial District lists 60 individual allowed uses, with an additional 20
allowed subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. The uses are not listed alphabetically but are
grouped by type. This approach adds unnecessary repetition and length and makes it extremely
cumbersome to compare allowable uses across zoning districts.
Modern zoning ordinances typically include a table of allowed uses, with rows representing land use
categories and specific use types, and columns representing the zoning districts. This format allows quick
comparison of the allowable uses in each zoning district and eliminates the potential for inconsistencies over
time as uses are updated. An excerpt from a use table from another community is shown below.
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 30
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 28
Figure 6- Sample consolidated use table excerpt from another community.
Fort Collins has an “unofficial” version of a consolidated use table available on City’s website as a reference
tool. While has not been updated since 2014, this table will serve as a helpful jumping off point for City staff
as part of the Land Use Code reorganization process. The table and associated use regulations should be
updated to:
•Establish a hierarchy of uses. We recommend categorizing individual use types within a logical
system of larger use categories. In the example table above, the specific use type of “assisted living
facility” falls within the category of “residential” and the subcategory of “group living.” Standards in
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 31
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 29
the Land Use Code can then simply refer to a category of uses and, by definition, include all of the
uses within that category rather than listing them individually. Uses within the same category
typically have similar land use impacts, and thus creating well-defined categories allows the
elimination of many specific use types, as well as accommodating potential future uses not in
existence today. As part of this process, any unnecessary or antiquated use types should be
removed.
•Consolidate use-specific standards. Use-specific standards typically address how certain uses must
operate (e.g., size limitations, specific parking requirements, separation requirements, additional
buffering standards). Currently, there are use-specific standards scattered throughout the Land Use
Code. Some appear within individual districts, while many are located within Article 3- Division 3.8 –
Supplemental Standards. As a general rule, use-specific standards should be referenced in the
consolidated use table and located immediately following the use table.
•Define all uses. Both use categories and specific use types should be defined. Definitions should be
updated and supplemented to address new uses, and existing definitions should be reviewed to
ensure they are appropriate, used consistently, and avoid conflict with other documents. For
example, the LLM district offers a density bonus for affordable housing projects as defined within
that district. However, Article 5 includes a different definition for “affordable housing project.”
Likewise, any regulatory standards embedded in the definitions (other than minimum or maximum
size limits that are inherent in the definition and do not vary by district or area – such as a maximum
size for Tiny Homes) should be relocated into the main body of the Land Use Code.
Reconcile duplications and inconsistencies
As noted previously, there are numerous examples of slightly different versions of standards and other
provisions are scattered throughout the code. For example, the UE, RF, and RUL districts all contain site
design standards for residential cluster development. As existing content is reorganized to group like
material, duplicative information should be eliminated, and inconsistencies addressed.
Simplify language
In updating the Land Use Code, City staff should look for every opportunity to provide greater clarity,
including removal of legal and planning jargon in favor of plain language. For example, simply eliminating
the current practice of including both the spelled out and numerical version of each number (e.g., fifteen (15)
feet) as part of the code reorganization process would greatly improve clarity.
Establish a more intuitive page layout
The current page layout of the Land Use Code is inconsistent. In some instances, the first item in a list is
indented from the introductory paragraph, and in others, it is left justified. Additionally, the numbering
system is applied inconsistently, with some instances using parentheses and others not. For example,
Section 1.2.2, Purpose, has an introductory paragraph, followed by a numbered list (A) through (O).
Conversely, Section 1.5.1, Continuation of Use, has an introductory paragraph, and then a numbered list with
(1) through (5). Both lists are at the same hierarchy but are numbered differently. It is also challenging to
discern where some provisions live within the larger Land Use Code hierarchy. Improving the page layout
and document styles can enhance the reader’s ability to intuitively understand the context in which a
particular provision is located. An improved page layout may include more dynamic headers and footers,
showing articles, divisions, and sections on each page; consistent formatting and numbering system; clearer
hierarchy of titles and subtitles and headings; and consistent nesting of text.
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 32
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 30
Figure 7- Sample page layout from another community. The headings clearly define a hierarchy, and the headers include
the article, section, and subsection in which these standards are located. Graphics help convey the applicability of the
development standards.
Add more graphics to the Land Use Code
Modern zoning codes include more graphics, tables, flowcharts, and illustrations than older codes. Visual
aids help guide the reader’s understanding of otherwise complex provisions and make the document more
interesting and aesthetically pleasing. Although this is a lower priority than addressing the current structural
challenges within the Land Use Code, the City should consider programming for graphic updates in the
future. Examples of how graphics and other visual aids are particularly helpful include:
•Zoning districts. Include a visual depiction of the basic lot and building dimensional standards.
•Use regulations. As discussed, include a table of allowed uses for quick comparison among zoning
districts.
•Development standards. Depict complex measurements and examples of site design and layout or
building design, and tables for parking and landscaping requirements.
•Procedures. Include flowcharts for common review procedures and for each application type.
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 33
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 31
Figure 8- Sample graphics from other codes include, clockwise from left: a flowchart for a minor site plan procedure;
building orientation standards (keyed to standards i through iv); and a directional sign.
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 34
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 32
Part 3: Priority Actions
This section describes our recommendations for how the City might approach targeted Land Use Code
updates to maximize resources. In addition to the specific recommendations provided in earlier sections of
this report, this section offers guidance for next steps. These options are provided for discussion purposes;
any combination of approaches may be appropriate depending on timing and available resources.
Option 1 – Reorganize existing Land Use Code
Under this first option, we recommend reorganizing the Land Use Code as outlined in Part 4: Annotated
Outline. Reorganizing the existing content of the Land Use Code will highlight inconsistencies and
overlapping standards and will offer a clearer look at what is working well and what needs improving. This
approach should include updates to and codification of the City’s table of allowed uses. Because this
approach would not likely involve many substantive edits to the content, these improvements should be
without controversy and will not require substantial public outreach. The City should develop a clear
message and protocols for what are considered substantive edits versus non-substantive edits. Edits that
would typically qualify as non-substantive, and therefore would not require significant programmed
outreach may include:
•Clarification of existing language – replace legalese with common terminology
•Inclusion of new tables summarizing existing standards and/or procedures (e.g., new table of
allowed uses, or required parking ratios)
•Relocation of text to more intuitive location within the ordinance
•Corrections of known errors within the ordinance
•Consolidation or removal of repetition or conflicting standards
•Renumbering or reformatting existing text
•Adding graphics or illustrations to accompany and support text
Although a code reorganization effort is often viewed as a fairly routine technical exercise, the process of
reorganizing the Land Use Code will be a major effort that will require significant coordination among City
staff, additional research, and potentially policy-level discussions with the City’s key decision-makers. While
most communities do not establish a formal committee for a code reorganization project, seemingly simple
word changes made for internal consistency can have substantive impacts on possible development. As a
result, we would recommend having a small group of four or five reviewers, including at least one citizen
and one business interest, available to review proposed changes and help make judgment calls about
whether a specific ‘clean up’ change should be included in the reorganization.
Option 2 – Reorganize the Land Use Code, and include targeted updates
Under this second option, we recommend completing the reorganization as outlined in Option 1 but include
targeted updates during the reorganization process. This approach would include both non-substantive
edits and substantive edits to existing content and any new content as recommended earlier in this report.
During the reorganization of the Land Use Code, the City should prioritize substantive edits depending on
complexity, level of outreach required, and available resources. Below we provide an initial list of priority
updates to consider, in an order that would maximize staff resources on an efficient timeline.
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 35
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 33
Step 1 - Update procedures
The updates to the procedures recommended earlier in this report are relatively minor yet would go a long
way in enhancing the overall transparency of doing business in Fort Collins. Edits would include
improvements to the development application requirements and clarifying approaches toward approvals of
amendments and modifications. Because these changes would mostly involve tweaking existing standards,
we believe this could be a “quick win” with the development community, the appointed and elected officials,
and the community at large.
Step 2 – Update districts and uses
We recommend updating both zoning districts and uses concurrently because of their intuitive relationship,
i.e., “what can you do on your property, and where can you do it?” Changes to uses and districts are often
most relevant to the general public and garner the most feedback. Many of the concepts addressed during
this batch of edits may require more substantial vetting than others. The current lineup of zoning districts
should be revised as recommended earlier in this report to more closely align with the Structure Plan and to
eliminate or consolidate unnecessary districts. The remaining standards within each zoning district (after
reorganizing based on recommendations in Part 4) should be minimal – a purpose statement, lot and
building standards (currently “land use standards”), and perhaps a new graphic depicting the overall
character of that district and applicable lot and building standards. This step would also include drafting new
districts, which would upon adoption be available for future rezoning efforts. The City may incentivize
rezoning to available districts or may elect to rezone properties legislatively, or a combination of strategies
as presented outlined in Part 2.
As districts are revised, the City should also revisit the use-specific standards applicable to the new lineup of
districts and revise the table of allowed uses. When the table of allowed uses is codified, we recommend
revisiting each use and each zoning district, considering the following:
•Could uses that are currently prohibited be allowed either by right or with advisory review if
additional use-specific standards were established?
•Could uses that currently require advisory review be allowed by right if additional use-specific
standards were established?
•Should any uses that are currently permitted by right be prohibited or require additional scrutiny?
As part of this second step, the City should remove or loosen barriers to housing variety as described earlier.
Additional housing use types should be introduced and defined, and any use-specific standards established
as necessary. For example, if the term “accessory dwelling unit” is added as a permitted use type, the
standards related to that use will also need to be vetted concurrently with the discussion about where and
to what degree they are appropriate (although there is good policy guidance in the City Plan as a jumping
off point).
Step 3 - Update development standards
Following discussions on the procedures and the districts and uses, the City should revisit the current
development standards as recommended earlier in this report to provide more flexibility, to standardize the
approach to evaluating alternatives, to recalibrate available incentives, and to align the design manual (and
other engineering standards) more closely with the Land Use Code. This step will require substantial
coordination with other City departments and external stakeholders, and therefore additional time should be
built into the process. Some of the issues related to development standards might be addressed as the City
revises the districts and uses (such as development standards applicable to various housing types);
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 36
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 34
however, others could be treated as a standalone effort because they can be updated without impacting
other sections of the Land Use Code (e.g., parking ratios, sign amendments, stormwater improvements,
street design).
Under either approach (option 1 or 2), the City can determine the specific content, and order by which to
edit the content, to take full advantage of other City efforts to maximize available resources.
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 37
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 35
Part 4: Annotated Outline
As discussed earlier in this document, we recommend substantial reorganization of the current Land Use
Code, moving from the current five articles to nine articles. A high-level summary is provided below, with
additional details for each article following.
Table X: Possible Reorganization of Land Use Code Articles
Current Organization Possible Reorganization
Article 1: General Provisions
Article 2: Administration
Article 3: General Development Standards
Article 4: Districts
Article 5: Terms and Definitions
Article 1: General Provisions
Article 2: Zoning Districts
Article 3: Use Regulations
Article 4: Development Standards
Article 5: Historic Preservation
Article 6: Subdivision Standards
Article 7: Signs
Article 8: Administration and Procedures
Article 9: Terms and Definitions
Article 1 – General Provisions
This article will consolidate the general information materials related to the overall establishment of the LUC,
including legal authority, purpose, and applicability. It will also include the provisions for nonconformities
and enforcement of the LUC.
Integrating Current LUC Provisions
Article 1 – General Provisions
Division 1.1 – Organization of the Land Use Code
Division 1.2 – Title, Purpose, and Authority
Division 1.4 – Interpretations (except 1.4.9)
Division 1.5 – Nonconforming Uses and Structures
Division 1.6 – Existing Limited Permitted Uses
Division 1.7 – Legal
Article 2 – Zoning Districts
The zoning districts article will establish the base zoning districts, overlay districts, and will include the
revised standards for PDs. Each district should be structured similarly, containing the purpose and the land
use standards and applicable development standards. The permitted use regulations will be relocated to the
new Article 3. Following the districts, a section for measurements and exceptions should be included to
describe how district dimensional requirements are measured for various scenarios. The following table
indicates which sections of the current Land Use Code would be incorporated into different parts of this new
article.
Integrating Current LUC Provisions
Article 1 – General Provisions
Division 1.3 – Zoning Map and Zone Districts
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 38
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 36
Integrating Current LUC Provisions
Article 2 – General Development Standards (Division 3.8, Supplementary
Regulations)
3.8.8 – Lots
3.8.9 – Yards
3.8.17 – Building Height
3.8.18 – Residential Density Calculations
3.8.19 – Setback Regulations
Article 3 – General Development Standards (other divisions)
Division 3.10 – Development Standards for the Transit-Oriented Development
Overlay
Article 4 – Districts
Entire article, except that permitted uses will be relocated to Article 3
Article 3 – Use Regulations
This new article will include the new proposed table of allowed uses as described earlier in this document,
and then followed by use-specific standards (standards that apply to some uses, but not all – and
sometimes depending on the district). This article will also include the standards for accessory and
temporary uses.
Integrating Current LUC Provisions
Article 3 – General Development Standards (Division 3.8, Supplementary
Regulations)
3.8.1 – Accessory Buildings, Structures, and Uses
3.8.2 – Family-Care Homes
3.8.3 – Home Occupations
3.8.4 – Child Care Center Regulations
3.8.5 – Small Animal Veterinary Clinic and Hospital Regulations
3.8.6 – Group Home Regulations and Shelters for Victims of Domestic Violence
3.8.12 – Adult-Oriented Uses
3.8.13 – Wireless Telecommunication
3.8.14 – Preemption Uses
3.8.16 – Occupancy Limits; Increasing the Number of Persons Allowed
3.8.20 – Expansions and Enlargements of Existing Buildings
3.8.22 – Dog Day-Care Facility Regulations
3.8.23 – Mobile Home Park Regulations
3.8.25 – Permitted Uses: Abandonment Period/Reconstruction of Permitted Uses
3.8.28 – Extra Occupancy Rental House Regulations
3.8.29 – Outdoor Vendor Regulations
3.8.31 – Urban Agriculture
3.8.33 – Seasonal Overflow Shelters
3.8.34 – Short-Term Rentals
Article 4 - Districts
Permitted uses from each zoning district
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 39
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 37
Article 4 – Development Standards
The development standards article will likely be one of the lengthier articles given that it will include most of
the development quality standards for the City. We recommend organizing this article from the “ground
up,” addressing overall site design requirements (e.g., grading and access and connectivity), followed by
specific site improvements (e.g., parking and landscaping) and building design, then followed by operational
and maintenance provisions.
Integrating Current LUC Provisions
Article 3 – General Development Standards (except Division 3.8)
Division 3.1 – General Provisions
Division 3.2 – Site Planning and Design Standards (except for 3.6.2 and 3.6.3
which will be relocated to subdivisions)
Division 3.3 – Engineering Standards (except for 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 which will be
relocated to subdivisions)
Division 3.4 – Environmental, Natural Area, Recreational, and Cultural Resources
(except that 3.4.7 may be relocated to standalone Historic Preservation Article)
Division 3.5 – Building Standards
Division 3.6 – Transportation and Circulation
Division 3.7 – Compact Urban Growth Standards
Division 3.8 – Supplementary Regulations (partial - see below)
Division 3.9 – Development Standards for the I-25 Corridor
Division 3.11 – Development Standards for the South College Gateway Area
Division 3.8 – Supplementary Regulations
3.8.10 – Single-Family and Two-Family Parking Requirements
3.8.11 – Fences and Walls
3.8.15 – Housing Model Variety
3.8.21 – Soil Amendments
3.8.24 – Composting
3.8.26 – Buffering for Residential and High Occupancy Building Units
3.8.30 – Multi-Family and Single-Family Attached Dwelling Development
Standards
3.8.35 – Off-Site Construction Staging
Article 4 – Districts
Development standards from individual districts, as identified in Table 2
Article 5 – Historic Preservation
This article will include the standards for preserving the City’s historic and cultural resources and can include
standards from the City Code Chapter 14, Landmark Preservation. Alternatively, this article can be folded
into a section within Article 4 – Development Standards. Procedures related to historic and landmark
preservation can be included in this standalone article, or for consistency can be relocated to Article 8 –
Administration and Procedures. In general, consolidation of all procedures into Article 8 will make the Land
Use Code more intuitive for users and promote continued internal consistency over time.
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 40
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 38
Integrating Current LUC Provisions
Article 3 – General Development Standards
Section 3.4.7 – Historic and Cultural Resources
Article 6 – Subdivision Standards
This article will include the standards for designing and providing public improvement for new subdivisions
in Fort Collins. Standards that would apply to both subdivisions and redevelopment would be located in
Article 4 – Development Standards. The subdivision procedures will be located with other procedures in the
new Article 8 – Administration and Procedures.
Integrating Current LUC Provisions
Article 3 – General Development Standards
3.3.1 – Plat and Development Plan Standards
3.3.2 – Development Improvements
3.6.2 – Streets, Streetscapes, Alleys, and Easements
3.6.3 – Streep Pattern and Connectivity Standards
Article 7 – Signs
This article will include the sign standards currently located in the supplemental regulations, Section 3.8.7.
The procedures for sign permits should be relocated to the new Article 8 – Administration and Procedures if
possible, for the reasons stated above.
Integrating Current LUC Provisions
Article 3 – General Development Standards
Section 3.8.7 - Signs
Article 8 – Administration and Procedures
This article will describe the review and approval procedures for development applications in Fort Collins
and will reflect the proposed revisions earlier in this document. This new article will be more user-friendly,
will establish more objective criteria, and should result in a more predictable process. Flowcharts for each
set of procedures will make the City’s administration of the Land Use Code much more understandable to
citizens, existing businesses, and potential investors in Fort Collins’ future development and redevelopment.
Integrating Current LUC Provisions
Article 2 – Administration
Entire article
Article 9 – Terms and Definitions
This article will carry forward the current definitions from Article 5. This article may also include general
rules of language construction currently located within Article 1, and definitions that are currently scattered
throughout Article 4. As noted earlier, each use listed in the new allowed use table should be defined, and
the revisions to current definitions discussed above should be incorporated.
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 41
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 39
Integrating Current LUC Provisions
Article 1 – General Provisions
1.4.9 – Rules of construction for text
Article 3 – General Development Standards
3.8.16 – Occupancy limits, increasing the number of persons allowed
Article 5 – Terms and Definitions
Entire article
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 42
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 40
Appendix: Best Practices
This appendix provides an overview of best practices and example codes in three areas: expanding housing
options, incentivizing accessory dwelling units, and recalibrating mixed-use districts.
Expanding Housing Options
Communities across the country are taking steps to expand opportunities for what is commonly referred to
as “missing middle housing”—or in simple terms, housing types between duplexes on one end and
multifamily apartments on the other. Allowing the construction of these new types of housing in the zoning
code is a critical piece of the housing diversity and affordability puzzle. However, because many
communities, like Fort Collins, are quickly approaching buildout, it is equally—if not more important—to
allow the conversion of existing buildings to include both missing middle housing and accessory dwelling
units. Ensuring that a community’s zoning code supports the expansion of housing options through new
construction, infill and redevelopment, and adaptive reuse—ensures that incremental progress in expanding
the housing supply can be made on all fronts, even as land supply, market demand, and community
preferences change over time. While the mechanics of allowing a broader range of housing types in a code
is straight-forward, the political and neighborhood dynamics associated with this process can be extremely
challenging. As such, each community’s approach varies. Some recently updated codes that have addressed
these issues include:
•Aurora, Colorado, decided to add three new defined land uses – cottage houses, co-housing, and
live-work structures. While the first two are likely to be accomplished through new construction,
live-work uses can be achieved through building conversions in some zone districts. (Adopted,
August 2019)
•Bloomington, Indiana, is also considering adding duplex and triplex dwellings to its list of
Conditional land uses in some existing single-family zoning districts. Because of intense pressures
for student housing and fears that duplexes and triplexes may have several bedrooms filled with
lots students, these new uses would be subject to maximum bedroom and occupancy limits
designed to preserve most new or converted units for workforce housing. (Currently under review,
anticipated to be adopted in December 2019)
•Henrico County, Virginia, is considering a wide variety of housing alternatives, including pocket
neighborhoods, mansion apartments, live-work units, ECHO (Elder Cottage Housing Opportunity)
units, accessory dwelling units, and reductions in minimum lot sizes and/or setbacks for single-
family homes in some zone districts.
•Longmont, Colorado, has adopted zoning regulations that add duplex, triplex, and fourplex housing
structures to the list of available housing options in some existing zone districts. (2018)
•Reno, Nevada, is considering adding duplex, fourplex, and live-work to the list of available housing
options in some existing zoning districts. (Currently under review, anticipated to be adopted in
Summer 2020)
Other communities are going —or may soon be required to—go even further. Last year, the City of
Minneapolis approved a 2040 Plan that recommended the elimination of single-family zoning citywide.
Updates to the zoning code to implement that plan are currently under consideration and are expected to
go into effect next year. In July, Oregon became the first state to pass a bill that requires cities with more
than 10,000 people to allow duplexes in areas zoned for single-family houses. In the Portland metropolitan
area, cities and counties will be required to allow missing middle housing options. These updates are
required to be implemented over the next two years.
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 43
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 41
Additional Resources
Earlier this year, the National Association of Home Builders released a report titled Diversifying Housing
Options with Smaller Lots and Smaller Homes. This report provides insights on specific dimensional
considerations for different types of housing and highlights sample codes and projects. However, many of
the examples are project-specific and would not be applicable citywide.
Incentivizing Accessory Dwelling Units
While expanding allowances for ADUs is one of many ways a community can encourage the expansion of
housing options, ADUs typically make up a very small percentage of the overall housing supply. Some of the
types of incentives used to encourage the construction of ADUs include:
•Allowing water meters between the primary structure and ADU to be shared (Thornton, Longmont,
Golden, Boulder, and Arvada, CO; Portland, OR)
•Offering a reduced monthly rate for water and sewer for ADUs (Ridgway, CO)
•Reducing or eliminating on-site parking requirements (Denver, CO; Portland, OR)
•Allowances to build an ADU before the primary structure has been built (Ridgway, CO)
•ADU up to 20% larger than otherwise allowed may be approved if located within the principal
structure (Golden, CO)
•Allowing additional lot coverage and/or square footage (in a finished basement) above district
maximum for ADUs that are one-story in height (Lafayette, CO)
Some communities have also pursued non-regulatory strategies, such as establishing partnerships with local
banks to establish a supportive lending environment for property owners. This strategy is playing out in
communities as diverse as Los Angeles, CA, Portland, OR, and Ridgway, CO.
Recalibrating Mixed-Use Districts
The table below provides a comparison of mixed-use districts in communities with Bus Rapid Transit
corridors or other high-frequency bus corridors similar to the College Avenue, Mason Street, and Harmony
Road corridors in Fort Collins. While there are many examples of high-frequency bus corridors in the United
States, most are located in cities that are much larger than Fort Collins (e.g. Los Angeles, Las Vegas). While
every effort was made to include examples from cities with a population size and market similar to Fort
Collins (e.g., Eugene, OR and Reno, NV), other examples were selected to reflect the range of approaches
being taken in mixed-use districts around the country to support high-frequency bus service. Districts were
reviewed with a focus on specifications related to density and height, mixed-use requirements or limitations
on secondary uses, and incentives or other unique parameters.
City/District(s) Density Height Mixed-Use
Requirements
Incentives/Other Notes
Min. Max. Min. Max.
Cleveland, OH
Midtown
Mixed-Use
District
(MMUD)
None None None 60’ •Use
permissions
vary by
subdistrict
•MMUD-1 standards
may be used
depending on frontage
and providing parking
internally
•Exceptions to
minimum height
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 44
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 42
City/District(s) Density Height Mixed-Use
Requirements
Incentives/Other Notes
Min. Max. Min. Max.
allowed for existing
buildings
•Maximum parking is
120% of minimum
Euclid Corridor
Development
Sub-Area
(MMUD-1)
None None 3
occupiabl
e stories
115’ •Residential
projects must
have 60% of
ground floor as
retail, daycare,
or similar use
•Additional
uses permitted
when part of a
mixed-use
project (at
least 50%
other uses)
•Minimum parking
reduced 50%
•Maximum parking is
original minimum
Portland, OR 4
Commercial
Mixed Use 2
(CM2)
1 unit
per
1,450 sf
of site
area
2.5 to 1
base
4:1 FAR
with
bonus
None 45’ base
55’ to 75’
w/bonus for
inclusionary
housing,
affordable
commercial
space, or PD
with other
requirements
(varies based
on location)
•Generally
addressed
through intent
and incentives,
although
industrial uses
are limited to
15K sf in CM2
and CM3
•Allows for transfer of
FAR from sites that
contain a historic
resource to another
site within the same
neighborhood or two
miles of the transfer
site
•Require step-down in
height w/in 25’ of
residential zone (based
on height of adjacent
district); don’t apply
w/in 100’ of a transit
street
•Bonus, base, and step-
down heights may be
increased by 5’ when %
of ground floor has
high ceilings
Commercial
Mixed Use 3
(CM3)
1 unit
per
1,000 sf
of site
area
3:1
base
4:1 FAR
with
bonus
None 75’ base
120’ with
bonus (same
as noted
under CM2) –
requires
additional
review
4 Minimum density applies to new development when at least one dwelling unit is proposed.
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 45
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 43
City/District(s) Density Height Mixed-Use
Requirements
Incentives/Other Notes
Min. Max. Min. Max.
Commercial
Employment
(CE)
None 2.5: 1
base
4:1 FAR
with
bonus
None 45’
Reno, NV
Mixed-Use
Urban (MU)
0.75:1
FAR and
18
du/acre
(abuttin
g)
0.25:1
FAR
(support
ing)
None None Discretionary
review for
more than 85’
Addressed
through intent
only
•Minimum density
exception to support
adaptive reuse or
historic preservation
•Reduced parking rates
in MU, MU-MC, and
MU-RES districts
•Parking reduced when
provided on-street or
in shared facility
•Parking reduced for
affordable housingMixed-Use
Midtown
Commercial
(MU-MC)
0.5:1
FAR
None None Site plan
review for
more than 75’
/5 stories
within block
of corridor
35’ /2 stories
elsewhere
Addressed
through intent
only
Mixed
Employment
(ME)
None None None 55’ / 4 stories None None
Rochester, MN
Transit-
Oriented
Development
Interim Overlay
District
None 2:1 FAR
(only
non-
residen
tial
3:1 FAR
(only
residen
tial)
4:1 FAR
(mixed
-use)
None 60’ •Mixed-use not
required
•Walkability
protected by
prohibiting
parking,
storage, utility
uses on
ground floor
•Increased density for
residential (50%) and
mixed-use (100%)
•Minimum parking
reduced 30% in
overlay; maximum
parking is original
minimum
Eugene, OR
Transit
Oriented
Development
Overlay Zone
0.65
FAR
(outside
of
Downto
wn
Core)
2.0 FAR
(within
None Base
district
determin
es
Base district
determines
50% of street-
facing ground
floor street
frontage
developed for
office
•Several parking
exempt areas (not all
overlap with TOD
Overlay)
•At or below grade
parking within the
building footprint may
be credited to satisfy
minimum floor area
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 46
Fort Collins Land Use Code Audit 44
City/District(s) Density Height Mixed-Use
Requirements
Incentives/Other Notes
Min. Max. Min. Max.
Downto
wn
Core)
C-1 Based
on
overlay
None None 35’ Commercial uses
required along
80% of the street
frontage and 80%
of the ground
floor area must
be dedicated to
commercial uses
for mixed-use
residential
developments.
Height within 50’ of a
residential zone may not
exceed the maximum
permitted in the abutting
district.
C-2 Based
on
overlay
None None 120’ Commercial uses
required along
60% of the street
frontage and 20%
of the ground
floor area must
be dedicated to
commercial uses
for mixed-use
residential
developments.
Height within 50’ of a
residential zone may not
exceed the maximum
permitted in the abutting
district.
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg. 47
1
1Housing Strategic Plan & Existing Conditions Assessment
Planning and Zoning Board
October 9, 2020
What We Heard & Who We’ve
Engaged with Since Last Time
2
• Need for agility
• Appreciation for full housing spectrum
• Balance between keeping costs down
for developers and achieving goals
• Missing middle housing
• Tension with students and student
housing and demands / neighborhood
character / ability of residents to live
here
• Specific feedback on data points for
the Existing Conditions Document
• Quantifying the problem
• Cost of development
• Density & affordability
• Vacancy and cost of rentals
• Income and housing prices
Affordable Housing Board
Banking and Finance
Community Members
BIPOC Alliance
Board of Realtors Government
Affairs Committee
Builders and Developers
CARE Housing, Inc.
Chamber LLAC
City Staff
CSU Classes & OneHealth
Economic Advisory
Commission
Habitat for Humanity
Home2Health Core Team
Homeward 2020
Housing Catalyst
Larimer County
Major employers
Mi Voz
Neighbor 2 Neighbor
NoCo Housing Now
North Fort Collins Business
Association
Our Climate Future –
Affordable Housing Workshops
Peer cities
Planning and Zoning Board
Conversations with individual
realtors
Many community members
Much more being scheduled…
1
2
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg. 48
2
Housing Plan Outline
Summer 2020 – February 2021: Housing Plan
Vision
Existing conditions (quantify problem/need)
Goals and Strategies
Targeted policies for all housing levels
Framework to evaluate impact
Align with community goals, e.g.,
affordable housing, climate action, & more
Guiding Principles & Prioritization
Spring 2021: Implementation Plan
Timelines, roles, indicators, costs, etc.
3
Source: Authorstech
Here
Draft Vision
4
Everyone has healthy, stable housing they
can afford
3
4
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg. 49
3
What is the Existing
Conditions Assessment?
5
• Status of housing market in Fort Collins
• Starts the conversation
• Sets foundation for Housing Strategic Plan
• Equity and Inclusion
•Data
• Our Biggest Challenges
• Remaining Questions
• Living document
http://digital.denverlibrary.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p16079coll39/i
d/902/rec/2
https://www.historycolorado.org/story/colorado-
voices/2019/01/29/seeing-red-unethical-practice-redlining-pueblo
Historic Obstacles: Redlining
5
6
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg. 50
4
Historic Obstacles: Restrictive Covenants
7Slade Acres, 1948 (south of Mulberry at Sheldon Lake) - Restrictive Covenants
Historic Obstacles: Land Use Decisions
8Hang Your Wagon to a Star (2003 Advance Planning report, City of Fort Collins), Page 9
7
8
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg. 51
5
There are still health and equity
disparities in Fort Collins, and the
places where inequities are most
pronounced are also places that are
likely to change dramatically over the
next 20 years.
Some of these changes could
improve access to housing, jobs,
transportation, and services but could
also contribute to higher housing
costs and/or displacement.
But that was decades ago…right?
City Plan, City of Fort Collins (2019)
$0.00
$200.00
$400.00
$600.00
$800.00
$1,000.00
$1,200.00
$1,400.00
$1,600.00
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
$450,000
$500,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Median Price Single‐Family Homes Median Price Townhome / Condo Median Income Median Rent
Challenge 1: Price escalation impacts everyone & disproportionately impacts BIPOC households
9
10
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg. 52
6
$67,732
$58,459
$52,078 $51,233
$‐
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
White alone, not Hispanic
or Latino
Asian Hispanic or Latino Black or African American
Challenge 1: Price escalation impacts everyone & disproportionately impacts BIPOC households
Current # of Housing Units 70,962
Current inventory of affordable units 3,534
% of housing units affordable 5%
2020 Goal –6% of housing stock affordable 4,242 housing units
Unit deficit 708
Challenge 2: Current incentives and financial resources are insufficient for meeting our affordable housing goals
Annual City funding for affordable housing $2,000,000 ‐$3,000,000
Median average direct subsidy per unit $38,970
Yield per year 51 –77 units
Annual production goal 228 units
Unit deficit per year 151
Amount of investment needed to catch up $27,590,760
Investment needed per year to meet goals $8,885,160
11
12
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg. 53
7
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Housing Units Jobs
Challenge 3: Job growth continues to outpace housing growth
28% Increase
16% Increase
Challenge 4: The cost of development continues to rise
13
14
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg. 54
8
Challenge 5
15
Addressing the entire housing spectrum will require new tools and
processes
• Existing Affordable Housing Strategic Plan (2015-2019) focuses on
households at or below 80% Area Median Income (AMI) only
• Existing financial tools target households 80% AMI and below
• CDBG/HOME funds
•LIHTC
• City policies are not targeted to address households above 80% AMI
• Middle income households increasingly cost burdened
Remaining Questions
16
• What will the lasting
effects of COVID-19 be?
• How will housing
policies evolve to
address health and
stability - particularly for
renters - in addition to
affordability?
Average of 33 households assisted prior to the pandemic; post pandemic has ranged
from 138 to 192 households per month; Source: Neighbor to Neighbor
Source: 2020 Social Sustainability Gaps Analysis
15
16
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg. 55
9
Our Biggest Challenges
1. Price escalation disproportionately
impacts BIPOC households
2. Current incentives and financial
resources are insufficient for meeting our
affordable housing goals
3. Job growth continues to outpace
housing growth
4. The cost of development continues to
rise
5. Addressing the entire housing spectrum
will require new tools and processes
Remaining Questions
1. What will the lasting effects of COVID-19
be?
2. How will housing policies evolve to
address health and stability - particularly
for renters - in addition to affordability?
17
Our Biggest Challenges
& Remaining Questions
Fall Community Engagement
Focus: Key Plan
Milestones
Vision (Sept/Oct)
Goals, Strategies, &
Guiding Principles
(Nov/Dec)
18
How: Remove Barriers & Build Relationships
Language Justice, Spanish/English
Policy 101
Partner-led conversations and events
Connect policy & plan to lived experience
Click to add text
Updates and Newsletters: https://ourcity.fcgov.com/home2health
17
18
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg. 56
10
Community Questions
19
Question #1:Based on your experience, do these challenges [from existing
conditions] reflect what you know about housing in Fort Collins?
Question #3: What needs to change to address these challenges?
Question #4:Who can help make the change needed?
Question #2:How do these challenges affect you and our community more broadly?
Follow up: What resources have helped you or people you know address these
challenges?
Question #5:What do you wish decision makers understood about
your experience with housing?
Question #6: How would you like to engage in the future?
Ad Hoc Committee
Balance: Overall housing efforts &
Housing Strategic Plan
Meeting monthly thru April 2021
August: Overall Focus & Prioritization
September: Challenges & Existing
Conditions
Oct: Housing Types & Zoning
Noting tensions and opportunities
throughout
20
Grounding
Exploring
Strategy
Identification
Next Steps
19
20
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg. 57
11
Land Use Code Audit
21
Types of Code Changes
• Regular Cleanup Items (1-2 times/year)
• Targeted Policy Amendments (as needed)
• City Plan Alignment/Land Use Code Audit
Recommendations
Land Use Code adopted in 1997
• Audit in 2019 upon City Plan adoption
LUC Audit Purpose: City Plan Alignment
22
• Reflect and align with community values
• Incentivize and maintain more affordable
and attainable housing
• Diversify the types of housing available
• Promote mixed-use and transit-supportive
development along key corridors
• Respond to changing social and market
conditions
• Address the changing dynamics of
employment and industrial land
21
22
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg. 58
12
LUC Audit Recommendations
23
• Align Zoning Districts and Uses with
Structure Plan Place Types
• Create More Opportunities for a
Range of Housing Options
• Clarify and Simplify Development
Standards
• Enhance the Development Review
Procedures
• Create a More User-Friendly
Document
Deep Dive: Housing Recommendations
24
1. Define a range of housing options between two-family and multi-
family housing (e.g. cohousing, cottage development, ADU)
2. Clarify definitions of and opportunities for accessory dwelling units
3. Remove barriers to allowed densities
4. Incentivize affordable housing projects
Related: Update districts, uses, and review types (i.e. “what can I do,
where, and who decides?”)
23
24
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg. 59
13
Questions
25
Source: Aubrey Davis Park Master Plan
•Reactions to overall recommendations in LUC Audit?
•Reactions to housing-specific recommendations?
•Brainstorm: What is our “best first step”?
26
BACKUP
25
26
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg. 60
14
Expanding to the entire housing spectrum
27
Consider strategies across
every income level
Consider right way to
“bucket” strategies
Universal outcome, targeted
strategies
Some strategies will support all
housing solutions
Some will be targeted
Example Graphic: Bozeman, Montana
Ongoing Council Engagement
Draft Vision
& Existing
Conditions
Housing Strategic Plan Roadmap
28
Implementation
Q3 2020 Q4 2020 Q1 2021 Q2 2021+
Housing Strategic Plan
Existing
Conditions
Vision, Goals, Strategy ID
and Evaluation Plan
Community
Summit
Prioritized
Strategies
Council Ad Hoc Committee
Implementation
Plan
Act,
Evaluate*
February
Adoption
Plan &
Council
Review
Draft
Plan
Engagement OpportunitiesGoals &
Strategy
ID, Guiding
Principles
Here27
28
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg. 61
15
Draft Vision
& Existing
Conditions
Engagement Roadmap
29
Q3 2020 Q4 2020 Q1 2021 Q2 2021+
Community
Summit
Prioritized
Strategies
February
Adoption
Plan &
Council
Review
Draft
Plan
Engagement OpportunitiesGoals &
Strategy
ID, Guiding
Principles
HereA M JJASONDJFM
Prioritize Strategies:
Collaborate
Education, Policy 101:
Inform, Involve
Community Questions:
Collaborate
Summarize:
Inform
Recap:
Inform
Existing
Conditions
Vision, Goals, Strategy ID and
Evaluation Plan Implementation Plan Act,
Evaluate*Approach29
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg. 62
2021
Planning & Zoning
Work Plan
DRAFT
Packet pg. 63
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.416.2740
970.224.6134- fax
fcgov.com
Planning, Development & Transportation
TO: Delynn Coldiron, City Clerk
FROM: Jeff Hansen, Chair
Planning & Zoning Board
DATE: November XX, 2020
SUBJECT: Planning and Zoning Board 2020 Summary & 2021 Work Plan
Planning & Zoning Board at a Glance
• The Planning and Zoning Board's responsibilities include making recommendations to the City
Council regarding zoning, annexations, land use code amendments, major public and private
projects and any long-range planning activities (such as City Plan or subarea plans) that require
Council approval.
• The Board is also the final decision-making authority regarding land use proposals, including
overall development plans, project development plans, major amendments and planned unit
development master plans for projects under 640 acres in size. In addition, the Board coordinates
with the Poudre and Thompson school districts, the Larimer County Planning Commission, and
other City boards and commissions.
• The Board is composed of seven volunteer members, with expertise in land use planning,
architecture, engineering, construction, historic preservation, real estate, and related fields.
2020 in Review
To-date in 2020, the Planning & Zoning Board has continued to review a significant caseload of
development applications. The March and April regular meetings of the Board were cancelled in response
to public health concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Once City Council authorized the use of
remote technology for board and commission meetings, the Board resumed meetings in May 2020. The
Board met entirely virtually in May and June. Hybrid hearings, which allowed for in-person participation,
were held in August, September, and October.
The following projects have been reviewed by the Board between November 2019 and October 2020:
• Fort Collins Montessori School – Site Plan Advisory Review
• Poudre School District Prospect School Site – Site Plan Advisory Review
• The Odell Wine Project – Major Amendment
• Larimer County Jail Expansion (Midpoint Campus) – Site Plan Advisory Review
• Trailhead Neighborhood Park – Basic Development Review (City Project)
• Funshine Early Childhood Project – Project Development Plan
• Mulberry Connection – Project Development Plan
• Apex-Haven Apartments – Project Development Plan
• Spring Canyon Park Equipment Shed – Minor Amendment (City Project)
• Mosaic Condos – Project Development Plan
• Waterglen Solar Array – Project Development Plan
Packet pg. 64
• Wells Fargo Parking Lot and Automatic Teller Machines – Major Amendment and Addition of
Permitted Use
• Oak 140 Affordable Housing – Project Development Plan
• Mountain View Community Church – Project Development Plan
• Brothers BBQ
• Ridgewood Hills Fifth Filing
• XXXX add October items
There have been no appeals of Planning & Zoning Board decisions to City Council to-date in 2020.
In addition to project reviews within the Board’s decision-making authority, the Board also
made recommendations to City Council on the following projects:
• Soldier Canyon Pump Station Annexation and Zoning
• Timberline-International Annexations No. 1, 2, and 3, and Zoning
• 128 Racquette Drive Annexation and Zoning
• Harmony Gateway Plan and Standards and Guidelines
• Land Use Code Changes to Establish a Manufactured Housing Zone District
• Spring Creek Rezone Correction of Map Errors
• Fischer Rezoning
• Timberline Church Rezone
• Routine Annual Land Use Code Changes
• XXXX add October items
There was an effort to continue refining elements of the Land Use Code where there is
misalignment with City land use policy direction or to address unforeseen circumstances.
The Board recommended to City Council changes to several code requirements as part of
the package of routine annual Land Use Code changes.
At the August 20 meeting, the Board adopted updates to the Planning & Zoning Board bylaws to clarify
specific terms, roles and procedures and to specific address rules related to potential conflicts of interest.
2021 Initiatives and Ongoing Projects
In addition to reviewing and evaluating development proposals, the Board will address important
land use policy issues during 2021, including:
• Housing Strategic Plan – The board will discuss and provide input on the development of the
City’s Housing Strategic Plan, currently scheduled for Council adoption in February 2021. The
focus of input for the board will be primarily on the intersection of housing policy and land use
regulations across the entire housing spectrum, including deed-restricted affordable housing,
manufactured housing, “missing middle” housing types, etc.
• City Plan Implementation: Land Use Code Amendments – The board will discuss and provide
input on potential Land Use Code amendments, with the goal of implementing policy direction
from City Plan, the Housing Plan, Midtown Plan, and other plans and policies. Priorities may
include promoting attainable housing, improving the community’s jobs-to-housing balance,
strategically accommodating density in neighborhoods, access to nature, continued emphasis on
open space protection, and other topics.
• Mulberry Corridor Plan Update and Annexation – The board will discuss and provide input on the
analysis of existing conditions and land use along the Mulberry Corridor, in anticipation of long-
term annexation. This is a multi-year effort that began in 2019.
Commented [RE1]: The only appeal so far this year was for a
Type 1 hearing (613 Meldrum)
Packet pg. 65
• Exterior Lighting Code Update – The board will consider a recommendation to Council to update
code requirements for outdoor building and site lighting on development projects. The intent of
this code update is to better address new and changing technology, limit unnecessary lighting,
and minimize impacts to adjacent properties, natural features, and the night sky. The code is
tentatively scheduled for Council adoption in early 2021.
• Oil and Gas Code Update – The board will discuss and provide input on potential Land Use
Code regulations for oil and gas development within city limits. The purpose of the code is to
regulate where oil and gas development should occur within the community, and surface
impacts from oil and gas development, in a manner that protects public health, safety, welfare,
the environment and wildlife resources. The code is scheduled for Council adoption in spring
2021.
• Wireless Master Plan – The board will discuss and provide input on the development of the
City’s Wireless Master Plan which is currently scheduled for Council adoption in May 2021,
followed by the review and adoption of relevant Land Use Code updates in Summer 2021.
Project priorities include developing an inventory of all existing wireless facilities, mapping
current cellular coverage, and developing design ideas and land use strategies to fill identified
gaps in cellular service capacity.
cc: Planning and Zoning Board Members
Ross Cunniff, Council Liaison
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Kelly DiMartino, Deputy City Manager
Caryn Champine, Planning, Development and Transportation Director
Paul Sizemore, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Interim Director
Cameron Gloss, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Rebecca Everette, Development Review Manager
Packet pg. 66