Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11/05/2020 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Special Hearing
Planning and Zoning Board Page 1 November 5, 2020 Jeff Hansen, Chair City Council Chambers - City Hall West Michelle Haefele, Vice Chair 300 Laporte Avenue Per Hogestad Fort Collins, Colorado David Katz Jeff Schneider Virtual (Zoom or Telephone) Ted Shepard Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & Channel 881 William Whitley on the Comcast cable system The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221 -6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Special Hearing November 5, 2020 6:00 PM Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Agenda Participation for this remote Planning and Zoning Board meeting will be available online, by phone, or in person. Public Participation (Online): Individuals who wish to address the Planning & Zoning Board via remote public participation can do so through Zoom at https://zoom.us/j/98632024072. Individuals participating in the Zoom session should also watch the meeting through that site. The meeting will be available to join beginning at 5:45 p.m. on November 5, 2020. Participants should try to sign in prior to 6:00 p.m. if possible. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Board. In order to participate: 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 hearing, please email astephens@fcgov.com. Public Participation (Phone): If you do not have access to the internet, you can call into the hearing via phone. Please dial: 253-215-8782 or 346-248-7799, with Webinar ID: 986 3202 4072. (Continued on next page) Packet pg. 1 Planning and Zoning Board Page 2 November 5, 2020 ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Individuals may comment on items not specifically scheduled on the hearing agenda, as follows: • Those who wish to speak are asked to sign in at the podium if they are in person, or use the raise hand function if they are on Zoom or on the phone. • The presiding officer will determine and announce the length of time allowed for each speaker. • Each speaker should state their name and address and keep their comments to the allotted time. • Any written materials should be provided to the Secretary for record -keeping purposes. • In person participates will hear a timer beep once and the time light will turn to yellow to indicate that 30 seconds of speaking time remains and will beep again and turn red when a speaker’s time to speak has ended. Phone and Zoom participants will be told verbally when their allotted time has ended. • CONSENT AGENDA The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Planning and Zoning Board to quickly resolve items that are non-controversial. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request that an item on this agenda be “pulled” for consideration within the Disc ussion Agenda, which will provide a full presentation of the item being considered. Items remaining on the Consent Agenda will be approved by the Planning and Zoning Board with one vote. The Consent Agenda generally consists of Board Minutes for approval, items with no perceived controversy, and routine administrative actions. The meeting will be available beginning at 5:45 p.m. Please call in to the meeting prior to 6:00 p.m., if possible. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time – phone participants will need to hit *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Committee. Once you join the meeting: keep yourself on muted status. If you have any technical difficulties during the hearing, please email astephens@fcgov.com. Public Participation (In Person): To participate in person, individuals should come to City Hall and be prepared to follow strict social distancing, sanitizer and facial covering guidelines. Staff will be present to provide guidance. Documents to Share: If residents wish to share a document or presentation, City Staff needs to receive those materials via email by 24 hours before the meeting. Please email any documents to astephens@fcgov.com. Individuals uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or unable to participate by phone are encouraged to participate by emailing general public comments you may have to astephens@fcgov.com . Staff will ensure the Board or Commission receives your comments. If you have specific comments on any of the discussion items scheduled, please make that clear in the subject line of the email and send 24 hours prior to the 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 Planning and Zoning Board Page 3 November 5, 2020 • DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. Rezoning to Manufactured Housing Zone District PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a City-initiated request to rezone six properties containing manufactured housing communities from the Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone district to the Manufactured Housing (MH) zone district. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 STAFF ASSIGNED: Ryan Mounce, City Planner Cameron Gloss, Long Range Planning Manager 2. Annual Land Use Code Update PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding an update to the Land Use Code. There are proposed revisions, clarifications and organization to the Code that address specific subject areas that have arisen since the last update in the Fall of 2019. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 STAFF ASSIGNED: Noah Beals, Interim Development Review Manager • OTHER BUSINESS O Additional P&Z Meeting Dates for November/December. • ADJOURNMENT Packet pg. 3 PUBLIC NOTICE FOR SPECIAL P&Z MEETING Date of Posting: 10/20/20 Name of Board/Commission or Subcommittee: Planning & Zoning Board Date of Meeting: November 5, 2020 Time of Meeting: 6:00pm Location of Meeting: City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave., Council Chambers or Accessible Online (Zoom) or by Phone. For details on joining the meeting, please visit www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/planning-zoning.php Reason for meeting: Continuing the last two items from the October 15, 2020 P&Z Hearing agenda: • Rezoning to Manufactured Housing Zone District • Land Use Code Updates For additional information call: Paul Sizemore, Interim CDNS Director 970-224-6140 or psizemore@fcgov.com Packet pg. 4 Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 1 Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com Planning and Zoning Board: November 5, 2020 Manufactured Housing (M-H) Rezonings, #REZ200003 Summary of Request This is a City-initiated request to rezone six properties containing manufactured housing communities from the Low Density Mixed- Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone district to the Manufactured Housing (MH) zone district. The area to be rezoned is approximately 143.9 acres. The rezoning is proposed as part of the City’s efforts to preserve and protect manufactured and affordable housing options in the community. Next Steps At the Planning and Zoning Board hearing, the Board will make a recommendation to City Council. City Council would then consider a rezoning Ordinance. Site Location The six properties included in the rezoning request include: 1. ‘Cottonwood’ – 1336 Laporte Ave 2. ‘Harmony Village’ – 2500 E Harmony Rd 3. ‘Hickory Village’ – 400 Hickory St 4. ‘North Star’ – 1700 Laporte Ave 5. ‘Pleasant Grove’ – 517 E Trilby Rd 6. ‘Skyline’ – 2211 W Mulberry St Applicant City of Fort Collins PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Staff Ryan Mounce, City Planner Cameron Gloss, Long Range Planning Manager Contents 1. Project Introduction .................................... 2 2. Public Outreach ......................................... 6 3. Land Use Code Article 2 Procedural Standards .......................................................... 7 4. Article 2 – Rezoning Standards ................. 8 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion .................... 15 6. Recommendation ..................................... 15 7. Attachments ............................................. 15 Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Board forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council to amend the Zoning Map and rezone the properties to the Manufactured Housing (MH) zone district. Packet pg. 5 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 1 #REZ200003 | Manufactured Housing Rezonings Thursday, November 5, 2020 | Page 2 of 15 Back to Top 1. Project Introduction This is a request to adjust the zoning map and rezone six properties containing manufactured housing communities (MHCs) to the recently-adopted Manufactured Housing (MH) zone district. This rezoning request is being initiated by the City of Fort Collins as part of the City’s efforts to preserve and protect manufactured and affordable housing options. This staff report presents collective information and analysis for the rezoning of all properties, however; because the areas of rezoning are noncontiguous, staff is requesting separate recommendations for each property. The six properties included in this rezoning request are described in the table below. All properties are currently located in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone district, and each of properties are proposed to be rezoned in whole or in part to the Manufactured Housing (MH) zone district. Zoning context maps for each property can be found in Attachment 1. Property / MHC General Location Size (acres) Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Cottonwood Laporte Avenue between Roosevelt Avenue & McKinley Avenue .77 Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Manufactured Housing (MH) Harmony Village Harmony Road & Snow Mesa Drive 68.78 Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Manufactured Housing (MH) Hickory Village Hickory Street east of Soft Gold Park 32.11 Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Manufactured Housing (MH) North Star Laporte Avenue & Bryan Avenue 3.27 Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Manufactured Housing (MH) & Low Density Mixed- Use Neighborhood (LMN) Pleasant Grove Trilby Avenue east of Lynn Drive 12.57 Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Manufactured Housing (MH) Skyline Mulberry Street west of Taft Hill Road 25.42 Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Manufactured Housing (MH) & Low Density Mixed- Use Neighborhood (LMN) Packet pg. 6 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 1 #REZ200003 | Manufactured Housing Rezonings Thursday, November 5, 2020 | Page 3 of 15 Back to Top A. PROPERTY HISTORY & CONTEXT Information on the annexation and zoning history for each site, as well as its adjacent development context is summarized below: Manufactured Housing Community: Cottonwood Annexation Prior Zoning Designations Adjacent Zoning & Development Northwest Consolidated Annexation, 1954 “A” Residence Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (current) [North] - NCL; single family detached [East] - NCL; single family detached [South] - NCL; single family detached [West] - LMN & NCL; single family detached & two- family dwellings Manufactured Housing Community: Harmony Village Annexation Prior Zoning Designations Adjacent Zoning & Development Harmony Third Annexation, 1977 Medium Density Mobile Home Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (current) [North] - RL; single family detached [East] - HC; retail, multifamily [South] – HC; retail, office, restaurant [West] – HC & RL; retail, single family detached Manufactured Housing Community: Hickory Village Annexation Prior Zoning Designations Adjacent Zoning & Development Ginley Annexation, 1969 Medium Density Mobile Home Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (current) [North] - LMN; manufactured housing [East] - LMN & CS; manufactured housing; custom small industry [South] - CS; workshop/custom industry [West] - POL & UE; park, vacant land, urban agriculture Manufactured Housing Community: North Star Annexation Prior Zoning Designations Adjacent Zoning & Development Radio City Annexation, 1957 “D” Commercial Medium Density Mobile Home Limited Business & Neighborhood Conservation Low Density Transition & Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (current) [North] – T (City) and Industrial (Larimer County); vacant [East] - NCL; single family detached [South] - NCL; single family detached [West] - CL & T; commercial uses, brewpub Packet pg. 7 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 1 #REZ200003 | Manufactured Housing Rezonings Thursday, November 5, 2020 | Page 4 of 15 Back to Top Manufactured Housing Community: Pleasant Grove Annexation Prior Zoning Designations Adjacent Zoning & Development Southwest Enclave Annexation Phase Three, 2010 Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (current) [North] - UE; single family detached (large lot) [East] - LMN; vacant & multifamily [South] - LMN; vacant [West] - RL; single family detached Manufactured Housing Community: Skyline Annexation Prior Zoning Designations Adjacent Zoning & Development Maxwell’s Second Annexation, 1963 & West Fort Collins Annexation, 1967 Low Density Mobile Home District & Low Density Residential Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (current) [North] - LMN & RL; single family detached [East] - LMN & RL; single family detached vacant & multifamily [South] - MMN; multifamily [West] - LMN & RL; single family detached B. MANUFACTURED HOUSING PRESERVATION & POLICY GOALS Manufactured housing preservation is a Council priority and preventing the displacement of residents is emphasized as a policy goal in the City’s comprehensive plan. Over the past year, the City has initiated a number of new programs, tools, and policy goals to further these efforts, including the recent creation of the Manufactured Housing zone district to help preserve and protect manufactured homes. These local efforts are taking place at the same time the State of Colorado is reviewing manufactured housing issues, including recent state legislation to create additional resident protections and updates to the Colorado Mobile Home Park Act which encourages local jurisdictions to enact and enforce their own regulations related to manufactured housing. Manufactured housing preservation is growing in importance amidst the City’s growing need for affordable housing and long-term trends of manufactured housing redevelopment. Manufactured housing is an important source of naturally occurring affordable housing for those earning below the area median income. Many of the City’s manufactured housing communities feature housing costs which are similar to or below other forms of subsidized and deed-restricted affordable housing. In addition to its affordability, manufactured housing also offers similar benefits to ‘stick-built’ single-family dwellings, including greater privacy and personal space, semi-private garden areas, and a strong sense of community. While a unique form of housing, it is also limited in Fort Collins, representing less than 2% of all housing units. Over the past 20 years, five manufactured housing communities have closed in Fort Collins, mostly due to redevelopment, which resulted in the loss of hundreds of units and the displacement of residents. After the closing of several manufactured housing communities between 2008-2012, the City adopted the Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy Report in 2013 (Attachment 2), which included a recommendation to create a new manufactured housing zone district to support manufactured housing preservation. This summer, the City created a new Manufactured Housing zone district to support preservation efforts. The MH district was approved by City Council on August 18, 2020 and went into effect on August 28, 2020. The proposed rezoning of properties containing manufactured housing to the MH district is the next part of the City’s efforts to promote the preservation of the City’s existing manufactured housing communities. Packet pg. 8 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 1 #REZ200003 | Manufactured Housing Rezonings Thursday, November 5, 2020 | Page 5 of 15 Back to Top C. MANUFACTURED HOUSING DISTRICT OVERVIEW The Manufactured Housing zone district was recently adopted by City Council, and the Land Use Code’s online and physical copies are still in the process of being updated. An overview of the MH district’s goals, permitted uses, and standards are provided below while the Code updates are being processed: The MH zone district was designed to promote manufactured housing as the primary land use. In comparison to other mixed-use zone districts in Fort Collins, the MH zone features fewer types of permitted land uses in an effort to limit and reduce the likelihood of redevelopment and the closure of a manufactured housing community. The MH district is similar in permitted land uses and zone district standards to the City’s Low and Medium Density Mobile Home Districts which existed between the 1960s and 1990s. In addition to limitations on the number and type of land uses permitted in the MH district, it also features several zone district specific standards related to density, setbacks, unit separation, building height, and parking. The ordinance creating the MH district and the zone district’s complete list of requirements and standards can be found in Attachment 3. Permitted Land Uses Review Process Shelters for victims of domestic violence Basic Development Review Accessory buildings Basic Development Review Accessory uses Basic Development Review Urban agriculture Basic Development Review Wireless telecommunications equipment Basic Development Review Neighborhood parks as defined by the Parks and Recreation Policy Basic Development Review Manufactured housing community Administrative Review Group homes for up to eight (8) developmentally disabled or elderly Administrative Review Extra occupancy rental houses with four (4) or more tenants Administrative Review Places of worship or assembly Administrative Review Minor public facilities Administrative Review Parks, recreation and other open lands, except neighborhood parks as defined by the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan Administrative Review Community facilities Planning & Zoning Board Review Neighborhood support/recreational facilities Planning & Zoning Board Review Seasonal overflow shelters Planning & Zoning Board Review MH zone districts standards include: A minimum density of 6 dwelling units per gross acre; A maximum density of 12 dwelling units per gross acre; A minimum 15-ft required front setback for buildings in a manufactured housing community; A minimum 10-ft required side and rear setback for buildings in a manufactured housing community; A minimum 10-ft separation distance between manufactured homes and other buildings; A maximum building height of 3-stories; A maximum building footprint size of 5,000 square feet for nonresidential uses; A minimum of one off-street parking space for each manufactured housing unit in a manufactured housing community. Packet pg. 9 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 1 #REZ200003 | Manufactured Housing Rezonings Thursday, November 5, 2020 | Page 6 of 15 Back to Top D. OVERVIEW OF MAIN CONSIDERATIONS Property rezonings and amendments to the zoning map are governed by Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code and include specific criteria for rezonings of land less than 640 acres in size (quasi-judicial rezonings). Quasi-judicial rezoning requests shall be recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board and approved by City Council only if the proposal is consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan and/or warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. In addition, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council can also consider additional criteria which can be paraphrased as ‘compatible with surrounding uses’; ‘having limited impact to the natural environment’; and ‘facilitating a logical and orderly development pattern’. While many rezoning requests are initiated by property owners, this proposal has been initiated by the City to advance Council priorities and policy goals found in City Plan and the City’s Strategic Plan related to manufactured housing. As such, this request relies primarily on compliance with the comprehensive plan’s policy and land use guidance, rather than specific factors related to changes in the surrounding neighborhood for each property. While the goal of many rezoning requests is typically to facilitate additional development, this rezoning proposal seeks to change the zoning for properties to a designation that would limit redevelopment potential and promote the ongoing operation of existing manufactured housing communities. While the policy goals supporting the change in zoning are well articulated in the comprehensive plan, the change in zoning represents a large impact on development potential for these properties and a restriction for property owners. The balance between community priorities to protect and important source of housing and property owner rights has been a consistent theme heard during the public process for both the development of the new MH district and the rezoning process. 2. Public Outreach A. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING Neighborhood meetings are not required for amendments to the zoning map but can be held for rezoning proposals of known controversy and/or significant neighborhood impacts. Given the potential impact of the rezonings on both property owners and residents, two neighborhood meetings were held to discuss the proposed rezonings on September 2nd and September 12th, as well as a virtual meeting with the Mi Voz residents’ group on September 9th. Due to current pandemic conditions, all meetings were held in a remote format with online and telephone participation. Attendance included City staff, residents, and several owners of properties included in the rezoning request. A summary of the neighborhood meeting is included in Attachment 4. B. PUBLIC COMMENTS The project has been posted as under review on the City’s Development Review webpage and letters have been sent out to both residents and property owners. Public comments received regarding the proposed rezonings are included in Attachment 7. C. PROPERTY OWNER COMMUNICATION Staff has also been in communication with a majority of owners of property subject to the rezoning this summer and fall regarding the amendments to the Land Use Code to create the Manufactured Housing zone district and this proposed rezonings. Staff has not had any direct communications with the owner of the Cottonwood manufactured housing community using contact information listed with the Larimer County Assessor, Colorado Secretary of State and the Colorado Department of Local Affairs Mobile Home Park Registry. In addition to mailed notices required by the Land Use Code, staff has also sent this property owner a certified letter in September indicating the intent to initiate rezoning of the property and did not receive a response. Packet pg. 10 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 1 #REZ200003 | Manufactured Housing Rezonings Thursday, November 5, 2020 | Page 7 of 15 Back to Top 3. Land Use Code Article 2 Procedural Standards 1. Conceptual Review A conceptual review meeting is not required for the rezoning and no conceptual review meeting was held. 2. Petition No rezoning petition as submitted as this request was initiated by the City rather than a property owner. 3. Neighborhood Meeting Neighborhood meetings are not applicable for amendments to the zoning map, except that, with respect to a quasi-judicial map amendments only (rezonings under 640 acres), the Director may convene a neighborhood meeting to present and discuss a proposal of known controversy and/or significant neighborhood impacts. Two neighborhood meetings were held to discuss the proposed rezoning on September 2nd and September 12th. 4. Notice (Posted, Written and Published) Posted Notice: October 1, 2020 using specially-marked ‘City Initiated Rezoning Under Review’ signs meeting Land Use Code size requirements. Written Hearing Notice: Mailed October 1, 2020. 4681 addresses mailed. Published Hearing Notice: Sunday, October 4, 2020 in the Coloradoan Newspaper. Coloradoan Confirmation #0004405382 Packet pg. 11 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 1 #REZ200003 | Manufactured Housing Rezonings Thursday, November 5, 2020 | Page 8 of 15 Back to Top 4. Article 2 – Rezoning Standards A. DIVISION 2.9 – AMENDMENT TO ZONING MAP Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 2.9.2 – Applicability Only the Council may, after recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board, adopt an ordinance amending the Zoning Map in accordance with the provisions of Division 2.9. Complies 2.9.3 – Initiation An amendment to the Zoning Map may be proposed by the Council, the Planning and Zoning Board, the Director or the owners of the property to be rezoned. Complies 2.9.4 – Text and Map Amendment Review Procedures In order to approve a proposed rezoning of 640 acres of land or less (quasi-judicial) the decision maker must find that it satisfies the following criteria: The proposed amendment is: Criterion 1: consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan (City Plan); and/or Criterion 2: warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. The Planning and Zoning Board and City Council may consider the following additional factors: Criterion 3: whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the land; Criterion 4: whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and natural functioning of the environment; Criterion 5: whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. Complies B. CRITERION 1: CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED REZONING WITH THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (CITY PLAN) City staff has evaluated the proposed changes for consistency with the comprehensive plan based on City Plan policy guidance and land use direction provided by the Structure Plan map. City Plan Policies Housing affordability and attainability is a top community issue which was reflected in the recent City Plan update through a number of new policy goals to encourage a greater mix of housing types, protect and develop new types of attainable and affordable housing options, and to prevent the displacement of manufactured housing residents. The preservation of manufactured housing communities, including the development of the new Manufactured Housing zone district and the proposed rezoning of properties containing manufactured housing directly support the following City Plan policies: Packet pg. 12 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 1 #REZ200003 | Manufactured Housing Rezonings Thursday, November 5, 2020 | Page 9 of 15 Back to Top LIV 5.2 – Supply of Attainable Housing Encourage public and private sectors to maintain and develop a diverse range of housing options, including housing that is attainable (30% or less of monthly income) to residents earning the median income. Options could include ADUs, duplexes, townhomes, mobile homes, manufactured housing and other “missing middle” housing types. Manufactured housing represents one of the most affordable types of housing in Fort Collins, comparable to subsidized and deed-restricted housing for those earning between 30-60% area median income. As a naturally-occurring source of affordable housing, manufactured housing communities in the City limits and Growth Management Area represent a comparable number of dwelling units to Fort Collins’ entire deed- restricted affordable housing. Preserving manufactured housing helps protect and maintain an important supply of affordable housing in Fort Collins. In addition to its affordability aspects, manufactured housing is a unique and limited type of housing that has been in decline over the past several decades due to community closures and redevelopment. The goal of preservation through rezoning to the MH district is designed to protect and promote the ongoing operation of this limited housing resource which has proven to be difficult to expand via new manufactured housing development. LIV 5.5 – Integrate and Distribute Affordable Housing Integrate the distribution of affordable housing as part of individual neighborhoods and the larger community. Manufactured housing communities can currently be found throughout the City and Growth Management Area, providing options for this type of housing close to t jobs, services, and transportation opportunities located throughout the community. Goals to preserve manufactured housing by rezoning to the MH district support City Plan policies to preserve affordable housing throughout the City. The closure of a few parks, particularly in the southern portion of the community, would concentrate this limited type of housing primarily in the northern half of Fort Collins. LIV 6.4 – Permanent Supply of Affordable Housing Create and maintain an up-to-date inventory of affordable housing in the community. Pursue policy and regulatory changes that will encourage the rehabilitation and retention of affordable housing in perpetuity. The preservation of manufactured housing through rezoning represents a similar effect to the regulatory changes envisioned by City Plan for the City’s subsidized and deed-restricted affordable housing. While most units in manufactured housing communities are private and not publicly subsidized, they have consistently provided an important source of housing at similar pricing levels. While rezoning does not guarantee affordability alone, it promotes the long-term operation of these communities and reduces the likelihood of redevelopment and the loss of some of the community’s most affordable housing options. LIV 6.9 – Prevent Displacement Build the capacity of homeowner groups, affordable housing providers and support organizations to enable the purchase, rehabilitation and long-term management of affordable housing. Particular emphasis should be given to mobile home parks located in infill and redevelopment areas. Many of the community’s manufactured housing communities are located adjacent to commercial areas, or along corridors with existing or planned transit service which are encouraged to redevelop and at higher intensities. Rezoning properties containing manufactured housing to the MH district provides an important regulatory and policy signal that manufactured housing is encouraged and its continued operation is desired amongst areas anticipated to experience (re)development changes in the future. Packet pg. 13 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 1 #REZ200003 | Manufactured Housing Rezonings Thursday, November 5, 2020 | Page 10 of 15 Back to Top This policy signal may also bolster the efforts of residents, local organizations, and the City to support and reinvest in these communities, including the potential for future acquisition of the underlying property by residents through a resident-owned community (ROC) if a property owner sells a property in the future. Structure Plan Land Use Guidance The Structure Plan map provides a framework for development in Fort Collins and provides guidance for land-use decisions. As detailed in the Structure Plan in City Plan: The Structure Plan Map serves as a blueprint for the desired future development pattern of the community, setting forth a basic framework for future land use and transportation decisions. Upon annexation or a request for rezoning, the Structure Plan map and City Plan principles and policies provide guidance for decision-makers to identify specific zoning boundaries and zone districts during the development review process. The Structure Plan is an illustrated map made up of broad categories called ‘place types,’ which provide general characteristics for development patterns that can be used to determine more specific zoning classifications and boundaries. Place types typically describe principal and supporting land uses, density ranges, and the presence of certain types of services which means a place type may correspond with multiple zone districts. Of the six properties proposed for rezoning to the MH district, five are located in the ‘Mixed Neighborhood’ place type on the Structure Plan, and the remaining property is located in the ‘Suburban Neighborhood’ place type. Structure Plan context maps for each property are included in Attachment 6. Mixed Neighborhood The Mixed Neighborhood place type is one of the predominant residential place types illustrated on the Structure Plan and is commonly found in areas of the community with a mix of housing types at low to moderate intensity. Its location on the Structure Plan commonly overlaps with the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood and Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone districts. The Mixed Neighborhood place type indicates a general intensity range of between 5 and 20 units per acre which supports its designation for a wide range of housing types, including different attached and multifamily products. The Structure Plan also makes a distinction within the place type for existing development and new or future neighborhoods planned for vacant and undeveloped land. The proposed rezoning of properties to the MH district is consistent with the land use types and density ranges of the Mixed Neighborhood place type. The MH district is primarily residential and encourages manufactured housing as the primary land use within a density range of 6-to-12 units per acre. Both the types of permitted uses and the density range of the MH district are within the characteristics described by the Mixed Neighborhood’s place type. The Mixed Neighborhood also specifically references manufactured housing within existing neighborhoods, indicating, “while reinvestment in existing mobile home parks is encouraged, redevelopment of existing parks is not.” The MH district is designed to discourage redevelopment and further addresses the Mixed Neighborhood place type description. As part of the rezoning of properties included under the Mixed Neighborhood place type, staff is recommending a small portion of the ‘Skyline’ manufactured housing community remain under the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood designation. This LMN remnant, approximately 330-ft by 110-ft in dimension as illustrated in Exhibit A below contains three single-family dwellings and one two-family dwelling rented out separately from the remainder of the manufactured homes. As these housing types are also not permitted in the MH district and would become nonconforming uses, staff believes it is appropriate to exclude this area of the property from the MH designation. Packet pg. 14 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 1 #REZ200003 | Manufactured Housing Rezonings Thursday, November 5, 2020 | Page 11 of 15 Back to Top Exhibit A – Skyline Rezoning Map Suburban Neighborhood One of the properties proposed to be rezoned (North Star) is designated as part of the Suburban Neighborhood place type on the Structure Plan map. This place type commonly overlaps with zone districts that are lower intensity or are more limiting in the types of residential land uses permitted, such as the Low Density Residential or Neighborhood Conservation Low Density zone districts. The Suburban Neighborhood place type is described in City Plan as areas where existing development is comprised primarily of single family detached dwellings at low to moderate density (two to five units per acre). As part of this series of rezonings, staff is recommending the frontage of the North Star property remain as Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Zoning while rezoning the rear portion of the property to the MH district, as depicted in the image below: Packet pg. 15 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 1 #REZ200003 | Manufactured Housing Rezonings Thursday, November 5, 2020 | Page 12 of 15 Back to Top Exhibit B – North Star Rezoning Map The North Star property is unique from the other proposed rezonings as it contains several existing commercial land uses along Laporte Avenue in front of the manufactured housing community. The property has often functioned as a transition point between more consistent low and moderate residential development to the east, and commercial and mixed-use development to the west. It sits upon the edge of both the Northwest Subarea Plan and the Old Town Neighborhoods plan boundary and has a previous history of both commercial, residential, or split (residential/commercial) zoning. While included as part of the Suburban Neighborhood place type on the Structure Plan due to the broader area of lower density single family housing development to the east, the site’s particular development also shares characteristics with the Mixed Neighborhood place type due to its much higher density (approximately 12 dwelling units per acre) and its commercial land uses along Laporte Avenue. City Plan describes place both the generalized nature of place type designations for broad areas of the community and flexibility in the boundaries of place types when considering changes to zoning: Future zone changes should generally adhere to the place-type boundaries depicted on the Structure Plan, but flexibility in interpretation of the boundary may be granted provided the proposed change is consistent with the principles, goals and policies contained in this Plan. Density ranges outlined for each Packet pg. 16 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 1 #REZ200003 | Manufactured Housing Rezonings Thursday, November 5, 2020 | Page 13 of 15 Back to Top place-type category are based on gross acreage and are intended to address overall densities for a particular area rather than for individual parcels. The recommended split zoning designation of the property not only supports City Plan policies and goals to support the preservation of manufactured housing and an important source of naturally occurring affordable housing, but it also supports neighborhood serving commercial uses, another policy goal of City Plan: LIV 4.3 – Neighborhood Services and Amenities Encourage the addition of new services, conveniences and/or gathering places in existing neighborhoods that lack such facilities, provided they meet applicable performance and design standards. Consider additional tools such as a conditional-use permit process and expanding home occupation provisions. In addition to policies, both the Suburban and Mixed Neighborhood place type characteristics describe neighborhood centers serving as focal points for adjacent residential development and providing nearby amenities and services. The split in zoning designation (LMN & MH) helps fulfill these policy objectives to preserve an existing source of naturally occurring affordable housing and promote the viability and potential for change and evolution of neighborhood services along the Laporte Avenue frontage for adjacent residential development. Although the commercial frontage along Laporte predates the concept of a Neighborhood Center within LMN zoning, the City has previously identified and classified it as a neighborhood center serving a similar function (Attachment 5). Summary – City Plan Guidance The rezoning of properties containing manufactured housing communities helps preserve naturally occurring affordable housing, protects a limited and unique type of housing, and seeks to prevent the displacement of residents, all policy goals supported by City Plan. The proposed MH rezoning is also consistent with the Mixed Neighborhood place type designation found delineated for five of the six properties proposed for rezoning. The Mixed Neighborhood place type describes residential land uses, including manufactured housing, of 5-20 units per acre which is consistent with the MH district. This place type also specifically encourages reinvestment but not redevelopment of manufactured housing communities, which is the primary goal of the MH district. The remaining property included in this rezoning proposal, North Star, is designated as a Suburban Neighborhood place type, which is typically associated with zone districts for low and moderate single family detached housing. While the MH zone district shares fewer characteristics with this Suburban Neighborhood place type, it is similar in supporting primarily a form of single family detached housing and limited commercial land uses. The North Star property is a transitional property located between areas of consistent single-family development to the east from which the Suburban Neighborhood designation is derived, and commercial/mixed-use development to the west. The property sits along the boundary of two separate neighborhoods plans and has a history of hosting commercial, residential or mixed zoning. In seeking to preserve both the existing commercial frontage of the property as LMN zoning and the manufactured housing community with MH zoning the change in zoning designation supports many of the goals and policies found in City Plan. City Plan and the Structure Plan map allows flexibility in interpretation for decision-makers so long as broader City Plan policy goals are advanced. The North Star property advances both the broader goals of manufactured housing preservation as well as flexibility to continue to support neighborhood-service commercial uses along the Laporte frontage by keeping the existing LMN zoning. Packet pg. 17 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 1 #REZ200003 | Manufactured Housing Rezonings Thursday, November 5, 2020 | Page 14 of 15 Back to Top C. CRITERION 2: AND/OR WARRANTED BY CHANGED CONDITIONS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SURROUNDING AND INCLUDING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. Staff is recommending the proposed change in zoning based primarily on consistency with the comprehensive plan, rather than specific changes which have occurred in the neighborhoods surrounding each property. The majority of properties subject to the rezoning are located in established neighborhoods that have experienced typical neighborhood changes and evolution. D. CRITERION 3: WHETHER AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING AND PROPOSED USES SURROUNDING THE SUBJECT LAND AND IS THE APPROPRIATE ZONE DISTRICT FOR THE LAND. Properties containing manufactured housing communities are primarily surrounded by residential development. Several properties also abut commercial development and retail centers. Most MHCs were constructed between the 1960s and 1980s and existing development patterns have already been established and compatibility is less of a concern given the goals of preserving their existing uses rather than anticipating new (re)development. Given the location of most MHCs, they function in a similar capacity to attached and multifamily housing being located adjacent to single family development or acting as a buffer or transition in intensity to adjacent commercial development. The MH district also provides similar compatibility measures as surrounding residential development by limiting building height, the size of any non-commercial structures, and matching other residential building setbacks. E. CRITERION 4: WHETHER AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN SIGNIFICANTLY ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. MH rezoning is not anticipated to result in additional negative or positive impacts on the natural environment, as it seeks to preserve existing development. To the extent redevelopment of a property could positively benefit the natural environment through the application of more recent Land Use Code standards (habitat buffers, mitigation measures, etc.) the rezoning may have some long-term impacts from a reduction in their redevelopment potential. F. CRITERION 5: WHETHER AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN A LOGICAL AND ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. The proposed rezoning is designed and not anticipated to result in changes to development patterns in their immediate context given the existing development that is already in place. Within the subject properties, development predates many of the individual standards of the Land Use Code for orderly development (e.g. street connectivity and spacing requirements); however, the properties fulfill other growth framework and logical development goals, including providing for a variety of housing options and prices in the community that would otherwise result in additional demand for regional commuting and a decrease in the City’s housing opportunities and social connectivity. Packet pg. 18 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 1 #REZ200003 | Manufactured Housing Rezonings Thursday, November 5, 2020 | Page 15 of 15 Back to Top 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the proposed Manufactured Housing Rezonings, #REZ200003, staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The rezonings comply with the process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration and Division 2.9.4 – Quasi-Judicial Rezonings. B. The rezonings comply with the applicable review criteria for quasi-judicial requests in that: 1. The amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (City Plan) 2. The amendments are compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and provides an appropriate zone district for the land; 3. The amendments would not result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and natural functioning of the environment, and 4. The amendments would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. 6. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board approve a motion to recommend that City Council approve the Manufactured Housing Rezonings, #REZ200003, based on the Findings of Fact in the Staff Report. 7. Attachments 1. Zoning Context Maps 2. Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy Report 3. Manufactured Housing (MH) Zone District Land Use Code Ordinance (August 2020) 4. Neighborhood Meetings Summary 5. North Star Property: LMN Neighborhood Center Memo 6. Structure Plan Context Maps 7. Public Comments 8. Manufactured Housing Property Owners Outreach & Notifications Summary (10/14/20) 9. Inquiry from Boardmember Ted Shepard Packet pg. 19 Putnam Elementary NCL RL LMN LMN NCL LMN LMN LMN POL Maple St Cherry St Pearl StN Roosevelt AveSylvan CtClover LnLyons StColumbine CtBishop StFishback AveLeland Ave S Bryan AveJuniper CtJackson AveN Mckinley AveRichards Pl S Mckinley AveFranklin StS Roosevelt AveCollins Ct Layland Ct Lyons StCherry StLyons StFishback AveN Roosevelt AveClover LnN Mckinley AveN Mckinley AveW Mountain Ave Laporte Ave ©Cottonwood 1 inch = 300 feet Site ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 20 Preston Middle SchoolTraut Core Knowledge Linton Elementary Kruse Elementary Fort Collins Sr High Fossil Ridge High School Colorado Early Colleges High School Primrose School Of Fort Collins HC RL E RL LMN LMN LMN POL RL UE RL NC LMN UE LMN MMN LMN Harmony Park English Ranch Park Collindale Golf Course Golden Meadows Park Ant e l o p e R d Corbett DrStoney Cre e k D r Stonehaven Dr W apitiR d Stockbury Dr WilmingtonD r Bison R d Delany DrA n g eloDrKentfordRdSunstoneDr Bighorn Dr K o diakR dArcti cFox Dr BromleyDrCouncil T r e eAveAshmountDrHarvest Park Ln CarringtonRdLowe St CarrickRdMill Stone WayIndigoCirSRochdaleDrSawhill DrIn d i go Cir NGifford CtRuff Way Stonegate Dr Caribou Dr Country Squire WayAmber Waves LnStoneridgeDrMilestoneDrSunburstDr Blackstone Dr Whitworth Dr A p p le t on Ct StillwaterCreekD r Sunstone WayRedburn Dr Pad d i n g to n R d GemstoneLnSma llwoodDrMadisonCreek D rTimberline Ln Rosem a r y C t RidgeCreekRdSumterSq Stratford CtThyme Ct Shorebird Dr Unity CtClayton CtSnow Mesa DrRose CtCapstone CtAngelo Ct Stoneway CtAntero Ct Sunr a y C tBobcat P l Caribou Dr Corbett DrKingsl e y Dr SnowMesaDrS u n s tone Dr Ti mb erw o o d DrTimber Creek Dr StetsonCre e k D rPaddingtonRd Battlecre e k D rR ockCre e k D r Keenland D r Timberwood Dr Timberwood Dr Ziegler RdS Timberline RdE Horsetooth Rd E Harmony Rd ©Harmony Village 1 inch = 1,000 feet Site ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 21 CS I POL LMN UE E UE CCN CCN POL RC LMN DCL POL CCR RL Soft Gold Park Lee Martinez Community Park Legacy Park Terry Lake McMurry Pond Cache la Poudre River Sunfish Pond Wood Duck Pond ¬«287 ¬«14 WXYZÉ PineElmB i r c h Hemlock StWood LnN Whitcomb StWood StAspenRed Cedar CirOak WoodlawnDr Bristlecone Dr Grape St Lupine Dr Spaulding Ln Willox CtGreen Leaf St N Mason StCajetan St H a rts GardensLn Westwood Dr OsianderSt Tree Line P lHibdon Ct Alpine St Eaton St N Mason StHickory St JeromeStConifer St N College AveW Willox Ln E Willox Ln E Suniga Rd ©Hickory Village 1 inch = 800 feet Site ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 22 Putnam Elementary T POL NCL RL LMN LMNLMN CL City Park Grandview Cemetery City Park Nine Golf Course Maple St W Oak StS B r y a n A v e N Roosevelt AveFrey AveClover LnCherry St Lyons StN Bryan AveS heldonDr City Park Dr Bishop StFishback AveGrandview AveB eechCt Richards Pl S Roosevelt AveSycamore St Collins Ct Leland AveLayland CtNFreyAveN Bryan AveClover LnCherry StNRo o s e v el t AveW Mountain Ave Laporte Ave ©North Star 1 inch = 400 feet Site ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 23 Discovery Montessori LMN E CG UE POL MMN RL RL CL POL LMN CL RL UE NC Water's Way Park Robert Benson Lake ¬«287 Vivian St Kyle AveLynn DrSan Jua n D r Stoney Br o o k R d Rick Dr Kevin DrLorien Ln Debra DrGary Dr Parliament Ct PortnerRdVivian CtPitner DrMars DrShadyBendDrH e atherGlen L n BellewoodLnRose m o nt Ct CoyoteTrailDr SparrowPlRohan Rise RdBenson L n Quaking AspenDr BowCre e k Ln R o s e CreekWayStrader LnDebra DrTriangle D r Province RdS College AveE Trilby RdW Trilby Rd ©Pleasant Grove 1 inch = 600 feet Site ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 24 Poudre Sr High Lab - Polaris Psd Support Services Psd Administration Colorado State University Poudre Community Academy RL LMN POL RL MMN NC RL T NCL MMN CSU LMN LMN CLUE City Park Nine Golf Course Grandview Cemetery Rogers Park City Park Skyline DrTyler StPear StTimber LnW Plum StRocky RdOrchard Pl Gallup RdW Laurel St Crestmore PlS Impala DrAzuro DrBriarwood RdN Sunset StCypress DrPoplar Dr Hillcrest DrW Oak St Tamarac Dr Crabtree Dr Ponderosa DrArgento DrGlenmoor DrCragmore DrCastlerock DrM ontviewR d Home r Dr Arancia DrS Sunset StGrandview AveMeadowbrook DrBroadview PlPennsylvania StMyrtle Ct Timber Ct W Olive St Mcallister Ct Im p alaCirC l e a r v i e wCtStephensStRook StBartlett Dr W Olive Ct W Magnolia Ct W P l u m S t Orchard Pl S Impala DrOrchard Pl Hillcrest DrG lenm oor D rPonderosa DrW Mountain Ave S Taft Hill RdLaporte Ave W Mulberry St W Elizabeth St ©Skyline 1 inch = 700 feet Site ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 25 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 26 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 27 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 28 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 29 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 30 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 31 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 32 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 33 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 34 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 35 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 36 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 37 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 38 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 39 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 40 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 41 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 42 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 43 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 44 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 45 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 46 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 47 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 48 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 49 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 50 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 51 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 52 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 53 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 54 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 55 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 56 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 57 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 58 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 59 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 60 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 61 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 62 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 63 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 64 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 65 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 66 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 67 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 68 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 69 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 70 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 71 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 72 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 73 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 74 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 75 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 76 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 77 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 78 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 79 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 80 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 81 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 82 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 83 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 84 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 85 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 86 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 87 Manufactured Housing Rezonings & Code Changes Neighborhood Meeting Summary – 9.2.2020 & 9.12.2020 On September 2nd and September 12th the City of Fort Collins hosted two meetings to discuss the upcoming City-initiated proposal to rezone six manufactured housing communities to the Manufactured Housing (MH) zone district, as well as provide updates on recent State and local legislation and ordinances impacting manufactured housing. Both meetings took place remotely with online (Zoom) and telephone participants. Documents & Resources: The presentation slides from the neighborhood meeting may be downloaded at: https://ourcity.fcgov.com/7246/widgets/21689/documents/14040 The map of City and Growth Management Area manufactured housing communities may be downloaded at: https://ourcity.fcgov.com/7246/widgets/21689/documents/14038 Standards and permitted land uses for the recently-adopted Manufactured Housing (MH) zone district may be downloaded at: https://ourcity.fcgov.com/7246/widgets/21689/documents/13271 A flyer of recent local and state-level code changes related to manufactured housing may be downloaded at: https://ourcity.fcgov.com/7246/widgets/21689/documents/14039 Questions, Comments & Responses The following Q&A summary has been compiled from questions at both neighborhood meetings: Question: Will the rezoning require residents to move or relocate their homes? Will there be restrictions on the type or age of home that can be sold? Response: The change in zoning does not require any units to be sold or relocated. The goal of the rezoning is to help keep existing manufactured housing communities to continue operating for current residents. The zoning also does not impact the age or place any restrictions on what units can be moved or sold within an existing park. Question: What is the current moratorium that is in place? Is this related to the rezoning? Response: The City currently has a moratorium in place that prohibits redevelopment applications that would result in a loss of units in manufactured housing communities. The moratorium was put in place to protect residents and the parks while the City studies and implements manufactured housing ordinances – including the possibility of rezoning. Question: Will the rezoning impact parks and communities that are not within City limits? Response: The proposed rezoning currently only impacts six parks within the City limits. Zoning for parks in the Growth Management Area (GMA) will remain the same. The City could ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 88 decide to zone a property in the GMA to the MH district if/when it is annexed into the City in the future. Question: Are managers required to have certain qualifications or requirements. Can residents request a new manager? Response: The hiring of a manager/operator is a decision made by manufactured housing community owners. The City does not enforce any requirements for managers. In the past there was a proposal at the State legislature to create a licensing system for mobile home park managers, but it was not passed. Question: What are the six parks that will be rezoned? Response: The City is planning to initiate rezoning for the following parks: Cottonwood, Harmony Village, Hickory Village, Pleasant Grove, North Star, and Skyline. Follow-up: What about Poudre Valley and North College? Response: Poudre Valley is currently located outside City limits and would not be included as part of any City rezoning effort. The other communities in Fort Collins such as North College may be considered for their own rezoning in the near future as well. The City is only proceeding with these first six communities first as they all share residential, LMN zoning. Comment: The people in Poudre Valley feel like they are forgotten and don’t feel represented. Question: After rezoning occurs, does a park have to meet all of the new standards? Response: The MH standards would primarily only be triggered if any changes or redevelopment is proposed. The standards for the zone district were set to match existing development patterns for manufactured housing, however, if a site doesn’t meet the new standards it is grandfathered in. Question: I’m an owner of the North Star property and it contains other uses than manufactured housing. Will those uses and anything that’s approved before the rezoning be grandfathered in? Response: Yes – already approved uses can continue to operate even if they are not a permitted use in the MH district. These would become legal nonconforming uses and they can be somewhat common when zoning changes occur. Question: What are the formulas for how water utilities are billed? Are residents allowed to ask the office for that information? Are they required to provide that information? Response: Yes – based on new state legislation, certain information is required to be provided about how water is billed. Information is now required about how much the entire mobile home park’s monthly water bill is, the amount owed to the utility provider and the amount paid by park management to the utility provide. Property managers must also provide the formula used to calculate the amount each mobile home resident owes for water. No additional administrative fees for water utility billing are allowed. Question: Is there the possibility to get water services outside of the home contract? Could the utility submeter themselves rather than through the park? Response: There may be a possibility for this but conversations would need to occur with individual park owners, managers, and utility providers. Some parks also use private submetering ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 89 systems, however, there have been reports from some managers and residents of misidentified or tampered readings. Question: Utility billing used to be per home but now it is a base rate – is this related to some of the state level changes? Response: Some properties have had sub-meters in the past. FC Utilities prefers parks use sub- meters so each unit knows how much they are using. Some parks are discontinuing submeters and going to a blanket meter and rebill based on a formula. There were some concerns submeters could be misleading or that people were disabling their submeters. There were also some issues getting meter-reading into parks. Question: If someone has a concern about the formula being used, who would be a good person to contact regarding the issue? Response: Talk with Neighborhood Services about the issue, or you can speak with the State if there is an inconsistent or unreasonable formula being used. There have also been problems with people not getting the full disclosure for the park. You should have received one for July and August to disclose the formula on August 1st. Question: What is the method used if parks are not using submetering? Response: This is a master meter for all the water usage for the entire park, and then a formula is used to divide that usage and cost up amongst all of the parks’ unit. The City is trying to come up with formulas to share with owners/managers on how best to divide up the entire usage for a community. Question: What are the legal clinics that will start in October? Response: The City is exploring the potential for legal clinics or representation for manufactured and residents through CARES act funding this fall. The program may provide opportunities for “know your rights” trainings, clinics, or to receive advisement for legal issues related to manufactured housing. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 90 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 91 31Structure Plan Context - CottonwoodITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 6Packet pg. 92 32Structure Plan Context – Harmony VillageITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 6Packet pg. 93 33Structure Plan Context – Hickory VillageITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 6Packet pg. 94 34Structure Plan Context – North StarITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 6Packet pg. 95 35Structure Plan Context – Pleasant GroveITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 6Packet pg. 96 36Structure Plan Context – SkylineITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 6Packet pg. 97 1 Ryan Mounce From:Lisa Felix <lfelix@suncommunities.com> Sent:Thursday, October 1, 2020 11:09 AM To:Ryan Mounce Subject:[EXTERNAL] Proposed MH Rezoning Testimony Dear Ryan, I am not in favor of the proposed rezoning plan and it’s affect on the Stakeholders at our MHC Skyline. It further restricts the owner’s ability on a future sale (limits the number of buyers/developers), etc. Because our Skyline property also comprises of a Single Family Home and a Duplex, it’s imperative that these two structures NOT be lumped in with the new rezoning proposal rather remain in the current LMN zoning. Ideally, I would like to see the entire property remain in the current zoning. But if it is to pass, consideration of the above two structures to remain is respectfully requested at this time. Thank you, Be Well… #BeCoolMaintainPressOn Lisa M. Felix Regional Vice President O/S Sun Communities, Inc. 27777 Franklin Road, Suite 200 Southfield, MI 48034 C: 408.590.3145 | O: 248.327.8104 lfelix@suncommunities.com | NYSE (SUI) Commitment Intensity Empowerment Accountability Service ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 98 1 Katharine Claypool From:Katharine Claypool Sent:Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:49 AM To:Katharine Claypool Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Regarding Agenda Item: Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy Categories:P&Z From: Lisa Butler <medicinewoman_lrb@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 8:53 AM To: Development Review Comments <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Regarding Agenda Item: Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy October 14, 2020 Regarding Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board Agenda Item: Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy While the plan makes an effort to protect affordable housing availability in the City of Fort Collins, it does little to address the need for affordable housing since these parks already exist with nearly maximum occupancy. These Mobile Home Parks may continue to exist under current mixed-use zoning making rezoning unnecessary. Restricting zoning to maintain these areas as Mobile Home Parks does not guarantee their preservation. Parks can be closed with proper notice and relocation of the residents. However, with restricted zoning, this land cannot be sold for other uses including affordable housing of other types. At least one of the parks designated for rezoning, Cottonwood, contains mobile homes that are very old, in significant disrepair, or abandoned. This park is extremely small and would be unlikely to be updated with new mobile homes if the owners attempted the sale of the land. Restricting zoning would put an undue burden on the owners of small parks which are unlikely to attract potential new owners or developers to update them. It is also unlikely that buyers will put new mobile homes in small parks with existing homes in such disrepair. Increasing the likelihood of eventual closure of the park. While Mobile Home Parks can provide low-income, single family housing they present significant challenges to those who own them. They have a lower rate of occupancy turnover largely because it is cost prohibitive to move or sell them. Owning a mobile home restricts the mobility of the occupants even when employment opportunities are not available in the local area. Most mobile homes are owned by the occupants but they do not appreciate in value over time. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 99 2 Mobile homes actually serve to increase the generational wealth gap and restrict the mobility of their occupants. The City of Fort Collins is dedicated to sustainable development policies. There are numerous economic benefits to adopting planning strategies, land use practices, and regulations that foster mixed-use development. Mixed-use zoning permits a complementary mix of residential, commercial, and/or industrial uses in a single district. Studies show a clear connection between walkable environments and the economic viability of a town. The area around the mobile home parks are seeing an increase in businesses that promote a walkable environment for shopping, dining, and entertainment. To continue this type of development, mixed-use zoning is necessary. In summary, rezoning the mobile home parks is neither necessary nor a guarantee of preservation of this land for low-income housing. Parks that are large enough to remain economically viable will continue to exist. Parks that are not may still be closed but are not likely to attract redevelopment as updated mobile home parks creating hardships for the land owners and the city alike. Furthermore, mixed-use zoning is consistent with sustainable development policies. Restricted zoning may prevent the development of businesses in the area which could provide local employment opportunities to low income residents of the very parks in question. Lisa R Butler Fort Collins, CO ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 100 Planning and Zoning Board, As staff at The Family Center/La Familia who work closely with Mobile Home Park residents we would like to strongly urge you to recommend to City Council the new Mobile Home Park Zoning District for all qualifiable Mobile Home Parks. We are particularly involved with residents of Hickory Village and they have played a crucial role in bringing Mobile Home Park issues to light and asking for change. Below is a quote from a recent letter that we sent out to Council when they were originally considering the creation of the Mobile Home Park Zoning District.... “On behalf of mobile home park residents from Poudre Valley Mobile Home Park, Hickory Village Mobile Home Park, and Park Lane Mobile Home park who are involved with The Family Center/La Familia’s program Mi Voz, we are writing to ask you to support protective inclusionary zoning for mobile home parks in Fort Collins. Mi Voz focuses on mobile home park preservation and leadership development among mobile home park residents in the Fort Collins area, ensuring this option to meet the housing needs of Fort Collins’s diverse community. Historically and in other cities, having mobile home park specific zoning has been noted to help preserve mobile home parks through ensuring land availability for this specific use, and extending the timeline of redevelopment proposals, which notifies and increases resident engagement in the cities’ processes. In addition to strong mobile home park protective policy language, mobile home park-specific zoning districts play a key role in the preservation of existing mobile home parks and a path towards resident- owned communities. Mobile home parks play a unique role in the affordable housing market, given that they provide an option where people can own their home, have space for large families, access to small and private yards, and autonomy to their space. Lot rent in mobile home parks ranges between $500-$700, and mobile home parks provide access to housing regardless of proof of residency. Mobile home owners are proud of their homes, love their communities, and find a sense of deep belonging and neighborhood support in their mainly Spanish-speaking neighborhoods. Many families have resided in the same mobile home parks for generations in our town, and they provide a sense of place for a population that does not always feel welcome or included in this community. As Fort Collins strives to be an inclusive and welcoming city to a diverse array of residents, protecting mobile home parks is a critical piece to housing diversity that responds to cultural preferences of the Latinx immigrant community. We believe that mobile home park communities serve a different population than other forms of affordable housing, and if any other type of affordable housing were to replace it, then current mobile home park residents would be displaced and most likely unable to qualify, afford, or have adequate space in any other form of affordable unit.” We thank you for your consideration of recommending this protective zoning for all qualifiable mobile home parks, as we believe it strongly aligns with The City’s commitment to and prioritization of the preservation of Mobile Home Parks in Fort Collins. Sincerely, The Family Center/La Familia Mi Voz Program Directors ISAAC Fuerza Latina Alianza NORCO ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 101 Mi nombre es Zulema Vega yo he vivido en Hickory Village Mobile Home park por 10 años quiero decir que yo quiero preservar mi parqueadero por muchos años en el futuro y pienso que el nuevo distrito de zonificación para los parques móviles v... My name is Zulema Vega. I have lived in Hickory Village Mobile Home Park for 10 years. I want to say that I want to preserve my park for many years in the future and I think that the new zone district for the mobile home parks… ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 102 RE: Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board Agenda Item (Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy) Dear City Council Members, I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed rezoning of multiple sites to be limited to manufactured housing only. While I understand the need and desire for the city to promote cost effective housing I oppose this rezoning on multiple issues: -I do not believe that manufactured homes are in the best long-term interest of those who utilize them. While they have lower cost to purchase, they do not appreciate as other properties do, but rather lose value (relatively quickly) putting those who purchase them further behind over time. I would rather see programs put in place that work to help elevate those in need as opposed to programs that are short term gains. -I do not believe it is fair to the landowners to restrict the use of the property in a way that could adversely affect them. I do not know if the landowners would be compensated by the city for any loss in value, but if so as a taxpayer I would rather see that money be used for better, longer range solutions. -I believe the city of Fort Collins does a great job on sustainability, but believe that promoting manufactured homes is incongruent with that mission. While the quality of manufactured homes has improved they are not nearly as efficient as the building codes now in effect for the rest of the city and with much shorter life are not as sustainable. The City of Fort Collins has been a leader in many areas such as how we address energy efficiency, land use, sustainability, small business, innovation, etc. and have created multiple demonstration projects that shatter the norms on what is possible. I believe this is a perfect opportunity for the city to do this again put together a high efficiency, sustainable complex that owners can buy into and see appreciate. By making these buildings more efficient the utility expenses can be lower further benefitting the residents. Thank you, Guy Babbitt Fort Collins, CO 80521 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 103 Buenas noches Les pedimos que ustedes cómo autoridades y miembros de nuestra ciudad nos ayuden a realizar una ley u ordenanza para la preservación de nuestros parques moviles. En estos lugares vivimos con personas con las que nos sentimos en familia y con mucha calidez emocional. Por favor les rogamos que actúen a favor de la zonificación y nos garanticen una vivienda digna por muchos años más. Agradeciendo su alto grado de compromiso me despido de ustedes. Sr. Jorge Mejía Residente de Hickory Village Good evening, We ask you, as authorities and members of our city, to help us make a law or ordinance for our mobile home park preservation. We live in these places with people who are like our family and with whom we share a lot of emotional warmth. Please take action in favor of zoning to ensure that we have decent housing for many years to come. Thank you for your strong commitment. Sincerely, Mr. Jorge Mejia A resident of Hickory Village ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 104 Hola mi nombre es Eva Perez Villalobos y yo vivo en Hickory Village Mobile Home Park. Yo he vivido aquí por 6 años.Quiero decir que yo quiero preservar mi parqueadero por muchos años en el futuro y pienso que el nuevo distrito de zonificación para los parques móviles va estar muy bien por mi parque.Ya que puedo darles un hogar a mis hijos y prosperar en el futuro con una buena educación y agradable vecindario. Muchas gracias de antemano por su consideración,tiempo y tomar en cuenta mi carta. Hello, my name is Eva Perez Villalobos and I live in Hickory Village Mobile Home Park. I've been living here for 6 years. I'd like to inform you I want to preserve my home park for many years to come. I think the new zoning district for mobile parks will be a good thing for my home park. After all, I can give my children a home and they can thrive in the future with a good education and a friendly neighborhood. Thank you in advance for your consideration and time, and for taking my letter into account. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 105 Buenas tardes!! A quien corresponda. Por medió del presente les envío un cordial saludo esperando gocen de buena salud. Mi correo es para pedirles su valiosa y muy apropiada intervención para que las zonificaciones se sigan haciendo a favor que nuestros parques de casas móviles y estos se preserven por muchísimos años más. Saben en nuestros vecindarios,nos sentimos cómodos y muy agusto son casitas muy pequeñas pero dentro de ellas hay mucho amor y sacrificio para poder tenerlas. Sin dudar de ustedes ponemos en sus manos nuestro futuro y un lugar seguro para seguir viviendo cómoda y dignamente de acuerdo a nuestro alcance. Les damos las sinceras gracias por tomarse el tiempo de leernos. Quedamos a sus ordenes la Familia Mejia. Que residimos en Hickory Village. Elaine Escor Good afternoon! To whom it may concern, I hope this letter finds you well. I'm writing to ask for your valuable and pertinent intervention to ensure that the zoning continues to be done in favor of our mobile home parks so we can preserve them for many more years. We feel very comfortable living in our neighborhoods, even if our houses are tiny, because there's a lot of love within them and they represent the sacrifice we made to have them. Undoubtedly, we're placing our future in your hands and we hope we still have a safe place to live comfortably and decently, and within our reach. Thank you for taking the time to read our messages. The Mejia family is at your service. We reside in Hickory Village. Elaine Escor ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 106 Buenas noches estimadas autoridades de Fort collins. Por este medio me gustaria dar a conocer que yo soy residente de un parque de casas moviles (hickory village). En esta ocacion es mi compromiso hacerles saber a ustedes que gracias a las zonificaciones que se hacen en la ciudad se han mantenido nuestros vecindarios y esperamos por parte de ustedes nos ayuden a que estos duren muchos anos mas, en ellos tenemos un lugar seguro, digno y dentro de nuestras posibilidades economicas para que nuestras familias siguan creciendo y dando buenos frutos para nuestra ciudad. De ante mano les agradesco su tiempo y su buena voluntad de escuchar nuestra cituacion. Atentamente: Misdrain Perez Dear authorities of Fort Collins, I'm writing to let you know that I'm a resident of a mobile home park (Hickory Village). My purpose this time is to inform you that the zoning in the city has helped to maintain our neighborhoods and we hope that you can help us make them last for many years. There we have a safe, decent, and affordable place where our families can continue to grow and deliver good results for our city. Thank you in advance for your time and for listening to our situation. Sincerely, Misdrain Perez ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 107 A quien le corresponda, mi nombre es Yenni Rodríguez y el de mi esposo es Jesus Corona, yo vivo en Hickory Village Mobile home park, tengo 19 años viviendo en este lugar. Quiero dejar saber que quiero preservar mi parqueadero por muchos años en el futuro y pienzo que el Nuevo distrito de Zonificacacion para los parque móviles va estar muy bien por mi parqueadero Yo estoy muy contenta viviendo en esta área con mi familia tengo 3 hijos y son felices en este lugar, tengo el parque soft gold park cerca, las tienda y servicios que necesitamos somos felices aquí, no es posible para todos las personas comprar casa entre ellas, nosotros donde vivo estoy a gusto y esta dentro de mis posibilidades muchas gracias por considerar y tomar en cuenta mi carta To whom it may concern, my name is Yenni Rodríguez and my husband's name is Jesus Corona. I've been living in Hickory Village Mobile Home Park for 19 years. I'd like to let you know that I want to preserve my home park for many years to come. I think the new zoning district for mobile home parks will be a good thing for my home park. I've been living very happily in this area with my family, I have 3 children and they're happy in this place. Also, the Soft Gold Park, stores, and other services we need are close by, so we're happy here. Not every family can buy a house, and we're one of them. I feel comfortable living here and I can afford it. Thank you for considering and taking my letter into account. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 108 1 Katharine Claypool From:Katharine Claypool Sent:Thursday, October 15, 2020 3:14 PM To:Katharine Claypool Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Public comment on City-initiated request to rezone six properties containing manufactured housing communities Categories:P&Z From: Jones,David <David.Jones@ColoState.EDU> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 3:27:54 PM To: Development Review Comments <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com>; Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com>; Ryan Mounce <RMounce@fcgov.com> Cc: Jones,David <David.Jones@ColoState.EDU> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public comment on City‐initiated request to rezone six properties containing manufactured housing communities Hello I would like to comment on this proposed action by the City. As it is described, I am against this blanket rezoning of all six properties to the proposed new MH zone. I have read the staff report and the attachments contained in the agenda for this meeting, and I appreciate that MH can be part of a comprehensive solution to affordable housing needs in our community. I live at 115 North Roosevelt Avenue, about 1 block from the Cottonwood parcel and about 3 blocks from the North Star Parcel. I prepared these comments after walking the public streets surrounding these 2 parcels, reading over the agenda materials, speaking with neighbors, considering my past experience and observations regarding zoning by the City, and reading about response of Fort Collins residents to recently proposed MH developments (e.g., Sun Communities) in Fort Collins. I disagree that MH zone as proposed is “compatible with surrounding uses”. Cottonwood has NCL on 3 sides and North Star NCL on 2 sides. NCL is the most restrictive zoning in the city. A buffer is needed between the MH and the NCL, the most restrictive zoning in the city. This is proposed for North Star but there is no room on any sides for a buffer for the tiny Cottonwood parcel. According to Recommendation #3, p. 32, 2013 City of Fort Collins Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Strategy: Cottonwood is by far the smallest at .77 ac and does not represent a significant source of affordable housing for the long term. The 2013 Strategy document also says that if a MH park contains less than 50 spaces, they would be voluntary rezoned. The 2013 report shows Cottonwood as having 13 units, 12 of them owner units. The area is not targeted for redevelopment, according to the 2013 City report. Preserving substandard housing is not equivalent to preserving affordable housing. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 109 2 Apparent violation of building code and setbacks. City enforcement of existing code at Cottonwood is not evident. For Cottonwood, the front, side and back setbacks are not met. Zoning and building codes not met at all on some units – porches, railings, steps. Back of the lot being treated as front. City does not appear to enforce existing code at the parks. For Cottonwood, I seriously doubt that the standards that existed prior to 2017 (when the parcel was rezoned from Med Density Residential to LMN were ever observed or enforced. This place looks like something I might expect out in the County somewhere, but not in Fort Collins as a small parcel surrounded predominantly by NCL. WRT compatibility with the surrounding area, all the other proposed MH parcels are surrounded by LMN, some type of commercial, or a little RL. NCL up against the proposed land use in the long run is not compatible. Neither the property owner nor the city appear to be investing at all in the properties as part of the neighborhood and city infrastructure. Street trees have been cut down years ago and never replanted, sidewalks substandard or don’t exist. Frankly Cottonwood is an eyesore. It seems the City is trying to meet its goals for low income housing but what I see in the case of Cottonwood is that the proposed change would preserve substandard housing. Many of the units appear abandoned or unoccupied, with numerous boarded up windows or broken windows. This makes me think that the use of % units owned is a very poor and misleading metric. The City’s documents show Cottonwood as 12 out of 13 units owned and only 1 rented. The city says they are very interested in “reinvestment in existing mobile home parks” (language from staff report) but I see no investment at all in this property by anyone. No wonder it appears to have a number of unoccupied and unmaintained trailers. Of the 2 parcels in my neighborhood I think the North Star rezone may make more sense as it already abuts commercial on one side, and would have an LMN buffer on the south side along LaPorte Ave. However, I think incompatibility with NCL is still a concern. These comments are not NIMBY, as I have never been bothered by the MH parks, and have been at my current address for over 20 years. However, I’ve always figured that in the long run, they would be redeveloped to modern standards. Also, I guess I never realized how run down Cottonwood is. As evidenced by the lack of attention to past and current codes and setbacks, and negligence by both the landowners and the City, I have no reason to believe that the picture would improve or not simply continue to deteriorate under the proposed rezoning My comments do reflect on significant differences related to the locations of these nearby parcels proposed for rezoning and implications for longer‐ term redevelopment of them and the neighborhood. The city prevents responsible homeowners in our neighborhood from renting out basements, even if they were historically zoned as multi‐family, ignoring the potential of rental basements that are already a big part of our neighborhoods to be a significant source of infill and affordable housing. Yet, at the same time, the city is enabling substandard and nonconforming uses without enforcement within the current LMN at Cottonwood. This situation and proposal erodes trust in the ability of City staff to both adhere to the spirit or established plans or enforce existing zoning/codes. I appreciate the sincere effort and good work being done by the City and the opportunity to comment on this issue. Regards Dave ‐ David S. Jones RA IV, Ecologist/Project Manager Warner College of Natural Resources Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Office/mobile: 970‐556‐9871 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 110 3 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 111 Hola, mi nombre es Maria Paramo y yo vivo en HARMONY VILLAGE MOBILE HOME PARK. yo eh vivido aqui por 12 años. Quiero decir que yo quiero preservar mi parqueadero por muchos años mas en el futuro y pienso que el nuevo distrito de zonificación para los parques móviles va estar muy bien por mi parque y el lugar donde yo vivo quiero quedarme aquí por que es el hogar de mis hijos tengo la clinica de cercas y el hospital de emergencia y esta mi trabajo muy cercas de aqui yo soy madre soltera y tener mi trabajo cercas es un beneficio para mi la escuela para mis hijos me funciona muy bien para mi todo esta al alcance de mis posibilidades para mi y mi familia. Agradezco mucho su consideración y tomar en cuenta mi carta y mis razones Hi, my name is Maria Paramo and I live in HARMONY VILLAGE MOBILE HOME PARK. I have lived here for 12 years. I want to preserve my park for many years to come and I think that the new zoning district for the mobile parks will be very good for my park and the place where I live I want to stay here because it is my children's home, I have the fence clinic and the emergency hospital and my job is very close to here. I thank you very much for your consideration and for taking my letter and my reasons into consideration ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 112 Hola mi nombre es Olivia Flores vivo en Hickory park e vivido en este lugar por 24 años mis hijos crecieron en este lugar recientemente emos escuchando sobre cambios en este lugar como residente de este lugar me gustaría que continuara cómo un lugar de casas mobiles. Gracias por tomar mi opinión. Olivia Flores Hello my name is Olivia Flores I live in Hickory park and have lived here for 24 years my children grew up here recently we have been hearing about changes in this place. As a resident of this place I would like it to continue as a mobile home place. Thank you for your consideration to my opinion. Olivia Flores ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 113 Autoridades correspondientes! Les envío un saludo. Esta ocasión me dirijo a ustedes para pedir su ayuda e intervención en las zonificaciones donde se ven involucrados los parques de casas móviles,para que nos ayuden a que no sean removidos por muchos años más. Esas casitas móviles son nuestro único patrimonio de años de trabajo y sacrificio. Pero es un lugar seguro para nuestras familias. Hemos vivido ahí por más de 20 años y si esto desaparece no tendremos a donde ir,ni un lugar que pagar. Gracias por leer nuestras preocupaciones,ojalá y nos ayuden a la conservación de estos espacios. Soy Santos Hernandez de Hickory Village Corresponding authorities! I send you a greeting. This time I am asking for your help and intervention in the zoning where the mobile home parks are involved, so that you can help us not to remove them for many years to come. These mobile homes are our only heritage of years of work and sacrifice. But it is a safe place for our families. We've lived there for over 20 years and if this goes away we'll have nowhere to go, nowhere to pay. Thanks for reading our concerns, hopefully they will help us to preserve these spaces. I am Santos Hernandez from Hickory Village ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 114 Hola mi soy la señora Chavez, yo vivo en Hickory village por varios años me gusta vivir en este tipo de vivienda por que es lo que ajusta a nuestros presupuestos y mis hijos les gusta el area donde se encuentra ubicado nuestro hogar y la escuela a la que asisten por que asisten a escuelas que hablan su primer idioma el español que para nosotros es muy importante que preserven su idioma primario por eso para nosotros es de mucha importancia zonificacion de este distrito de casas mobiles por que el simple echo de pensar que estas casas desaparecieran sería un cambio que nos afectaría drásticamente en todos los niveles!! agradezco la atención que preste a la misma y tomen en cuenta lo importante que es para nosotros nuestros parques móviles!! Hello my name is Mrs. Chavez, I live in Hickory village for several years. I like to live in this type of housing because it is what fits our budgets and my children like the area where our home is located and the school they attend because they attend schools that speak their first language, Spanish. That for us is very important to preserve their primary language. The zoning of this district of mobile homes is very important for us because of the simple fact of thinking that these houses disappear would be a change that would affect us dramatically at all levels!! I appreciate your attention to it and consider how important our mobile home parks are to us!! ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 115 Hello, My name is Claudia and I live in Hickory Village Mobile Home Park. I have lived here for 16 years. I would like to say that I would like for my mobile home park to be preserved for many years. And I think the new zoning district for mobile home parks will be very beneficial for my park. Because my family will be better protected. We have lived here for 16 years and it has been great. The mobile home park is very peaceful and nice, and we would love to be here for many more years. I appreciate your consideration and thank you so much for taking our comments into consideration. Thank you ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 116 Manufactured Housing Property Owners Outreach & Notifications Summary 10/14/20 Manufactured Housing Community (Owner/Company) Outreach & Notifications (Dates) Cottonwood (Greg Scamehorn) ▪Informational mailed letters -- (2/4/20; 5/20/20; 7/2/20) ▪Hearing & meeting notices -- (7/16/20; 8/20/20; 10/1/20) ▪Certified letter re: rezoning – (mailed 9/18/20 – receipt confirmed) No direct contact received for this property Harmony Village & Pleasant Grove (RHP Properties) ▪Meeting w/ offsite Pleasant Grove manager Fernando – 2/13/20 ▪Informational mailed letters -- (2/4/20; 5/20/20; 7/2/20) ▪Hearing & meeting notices -- (7/16/20; 8/20/20; 10/1/20) ▪Certified letter re: rezoning – (mailed 9/18/20 – receipt confirmed) ▪Email & phone correspondence with Colby Wilson (May-July) ▪Unreturned email & phone correspondence with Mack Gembis (Sept- Oct) Correspondence with Colby Wilson indicated the new MH district and rezoning were similar to mobile home park zoning the company operates within other jurisdictions. Hickory Village (Keith Cowan) ▪MHC owner/manager meeting – 1/15/20 ▪Meeting w/ manager Derald – 2/11/20 ▪Informational mailed letters -- (2/4/20; 5/20/20; 7/2/20) ▪Hearing & meeting notices -- (7/16/20; 8/20/20; 10/1/20) ▪Certified letter rezoning – (mailed 9/18/20 – receipt confirmed) ▪Email & phone correspondence with Keith Cowan (May-Sept) Property owner recognizes changes in zoning and is very familiar with prior mobile home park zoning on this property. North Star (Peter Goldstein) ▪Informational mailed letters -- (2/4/20; 5/20/20; 7/2/20) ▪Hearing & meeting notices -- (7/16/20; 8/20/20; 10/1/20) ▪Email & phone correspondence with Peter Goldstein (May-Oct) ▪Zoom meeting re: rezoning – 9/15/20 Property owner indicated concern about rezoning, especially for the commercial frontage along Laporte Avenue which houses non-residential uses. Skyline (Sun Communities) ▪Informational mailed letters -- (2/4/20; 5/20/20; 7/2/20) ▪Hearing & meeting notices -- (7/16/20; 8/20/20; 10/1/20) ▪Email & phone correspondence with Lisa Felix (May-Oct) ▪Zoom meetings re: MH zone district & rezoning – 5/15/20; 9/17/20 Property owner provided letter in opposition to rezoning and indicated a preference to keep the frontage of single family detached dwellings and duplex as LMN zoning. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet pg. 117 1 Katharine Claypool From:Ted Shepard <tshepard533@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, October 15, 2020 10:39 AM To:Katharine Claypool Subject:[EXTERNAL] RE: Land Use Code Revision - Question for Noah Categories:P&Z Katie – thanks. And now I have another question for either Cameron or Ryan regarding MH zoning. Question: I’m not seeing where the mobile home park at 1301 N. College is on the list. This is the M.H. park that has a security gate and I think its geared more to older adults. Would this property also be eligible? Thanks, Ted Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Katharine Claypool Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 9:10 AM To: Ted Shepard Subject: RE: Land Use Code Revision ‐ Question for Noah I’ll pass this along Ted! ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Katharine (Katie) Claypool Customer Service Rep II Community Development & Neighborhood Services City of Fort Collins kclaypool@fcgov.com 970‐416‐4350 Tell us about our service, we want to know! From: Ted Shepard <tshepard533@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 8:37 AM To: Katharine Claypool <kclaypool@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Land Use Code Revision ‐ Question for Noah Good morning Katie – could you pass along this question to Noah: Regarding proposed Land Use Code revision number 11, Section 3.5.2(D)(1)(a), which would require a connecting walkway, not exceeding 200 feet, out to the front of the lot to the public street for a carriage house that is located at the rear of the lot: My question has to do with lots located in the NCL, NCM zones where lots are also served by alleys. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet pg. 118 2 Am I correct is assuming that this requirement would not apply to Accessory Buildings with Habitable Space? These would be the structures that are typically built on lots less than 10,000 square feet where there are no cooking facilities, and thus not considered to be dwelling units? (And where the applicant has signed and recorded the affidavit stating that there will be no cooking facilities.) Thanks, Ted Shepard (970) 219‐1101 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 ITEM 8, INQUIRY 1 Packet pg. 119 1 November 5, 2020 Ryan Mounce – City Planner Cameron Gloss - Long Range Planning Manager Planning and Zoning Board Manufactured Housing Rezonings, #REZ200003 Overview Request for recommendation to City Council to rezone six properties containing manufactured housing communities (MHC) Rezoning initiated by the City Quasi-judicial rezonings Rezonings are proposed as part of a series of City and State actions to preserve manufactured housing and improve resident protections and livability. 2 1 2 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 120 2 Rezoning Locations 3 Property / MHC General Location Size (acres) Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Cottonwood Laporte Avenue between Roosevelt Avenue & McKinley Avenue .77 Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Manufactured Housing (MH) Harmony Village Harmony Road & Snow Mesa Drive 68.78 Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Manufactured Housing (MH) Hickory Village Hickory Street east of Soft Gold Park 32.11 Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Manufactured Housing (MH) North Star Laporte Avenue & Forney Street 3.27 Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Manufactured Housing (MH) & Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Pleasant Grove Trilby Avenue east of Lynn Drive 12.57 Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Manufactured Housing (MH) Skyline Mulberry Street west of Taft Hill Road 25.42 Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Manufactured Housing (MH) & Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) 4 Skyline – 2211 W Mulberry St • Annexed 1963, 1967 • Prior Zoning Designations: Low Density Mobile Home & LMN LMN (current) Aerial Context Zoning Map Context 3 4 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 121 3 5 Pleasant Grove – 517 E Trilby Rd • Annexed 2010 • Prior Zoning Designations: LMN (current) Aerial Context Zoning Map Context 6 North Star – 1700 Laporte Ave • Annexed 1957 • Prior Zoning Designations: “D” Commercial Medium Density Mobile Home Limited Business & Neighborhood Conservation Low Density Transition & LMN LMN (current) Aerial Context Zoning Map Context 5 6 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 122 4 7 Hickory Village – 400 Hickory St • Annexed 1969 • Prior Zoning Designations: Medium Density Mobile Home LMN (current) Aerial Context Zoning Map Context 8 Harmony Village – 2500 E Harmony Rd • Annexed 1977 • Prior Zoning Designations: Medium Density Mobile Home LMN (current) Aerial Context Zoning Map Context 7 8 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 123 5 9 Cottonwood – 1336 Laporte Ave • Annexed 1954 • Prior Zoning Designations: “A” Residence Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential LMN (current) Aerial Context Zoning Map Context Rezoning Proposal Rezone all portions of four properties from Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) to Manufactured Housing (MH) district: Cottonwood Harmony Village Hickory Village Pleasant Grove Rezone the majority of two properties from Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) to Manufactured Housing (MH) district: North Star Skyline 10 9 10 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 124 6 Proposed Rezoning – North Star North Star frontage proposed to remain LMN: Existing commercial uses Previously designated as an LMN neighborhood center Any proposed redevelopment would not result in loss of manufactured housing units 11 Proposed Rezoning – Skyline 12 Skyline frontage proposed to remain LMN Existing single-family detached dwellings & two-family dwellings Any proposed redevelopment would not result in loss of manufactured housing units 11 12 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 125 7 Monthly Housing Costs Spectrum 13 $400 $600 $800 $1000 $1200 $1400 $1600 $1800 $2000 $2200 $2400 $2600 Manufactured Homes $450 - $1200 Affordable (30% - 80% AMI) $650 - $1700 Attainable (80% - 120% AMI) $1700 - $2300 Market-Rate $1900 + Median Home Price: $450,000 (June 2020) Avg. Apartment Rent: $1,400 (2019) Notes: General ranges, does not distinguish between rental/ownership, unit size, age, etc. AMI – Area Median Income (Housing & Urban Development, 3-person household) 14 Rezoning Criteria Quasi-judicial rezoning requests governed by LUC 2.9.4. Proposed rezonings must be: 1. Consistent with the comprehensive plan; and/or 2. Warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood Additional factors which may be considered: 3. Rezoning is compatible with existing and proposed uses; appropriate zone district for the land 4. Adverse impacts on the natural environment 5. Results in a logical and orderly development pattern 13 14 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 126 8 15 Rezoning Analysis Criteria 1 – Consistency with comprehensive plan (policies) LIV 5.2 – Supply of Attainable Housing Encourage public and private sectors to maintain and develop a diverse range of housing options, including housing that is attainable (30% or less of monthly income) to residents earning the median income. Options could include ADUs, duplexes, townhomes, mobile homes, manufactured housing and other “missing middle” housing types. Rezoning encourages preservation of some of the most affordable housing options in the community Manufactured housing is limited and diminishing in Fort Collins. Represents fewer than 2% of the community’s housing stock 16 Rezoning Analysis Criteria 1 – Consistency with comprehensive plan (policies) LIV 5.5 – Integrate and Distribute Affordable Housing Integrate the distribution of affordable housing as part of individual neighborhoods and the larger community. Rezoning for preservation helps protect limited options for manufactured home living in different areas of the community If a park closes it can create geographic gaps for this type of housing and price point in Fort Collins (especially south/southeast Fort Collins) 15 16 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 127 9 17 Rezoning Analysis Criteria 1 – Consistency with comprehensive plan (policies) LIV 6.4 – Permanent Supply of Affordable Housing Create and maintain an up-to-date inventory of affordable housing in the community. Pursue policy and regulatory changes that will encourage the rehabilitation and retention of affordable housing in perpetuity. New MH zone district and rezonings encourage the retention of manufactured housing, an important source for private affordable housing 18 Rezoning Analysis Criteria 1 – Consistency with comprehensive plan (policies) LIV 6.9 – Prevent Displacement Build the capacity of homeowner groups, affordable housing providers and support organizations to enable the purchase, rehabilitation and long-term management of affordable housing. Particular emphasis should be given to mobile home parks located in infill and redevelopment areas. Five MHCs have closed in Fort Collins in recent decades primarily to redevelopment. Lead to loss of hundreds of units and resident displacement. Rezoning provides an important policy signal that manufactured housing is supported and encouraged in the community. Rezoning may also encourage or facilitate future options, such as Resident Owned Communities (ROC). 17 18 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 128 10 19 Rezoning Analysis Criteria 1 – Consistency with comprehensive plan (Structure Plan) Land Use guidance provided by Structure Plan map ‘place types’ Place types provide general development characteristics for different areas of the community and are used to inform zoning decisions. Examples of guidance provided: Principal and supporting land uses Density/intensity Access to services / transportation options 20 Rezoning Analysis Criteria 1 – Consistency with comprehensive plan (Structure Plan) Structure Plan place types for proposed rezonings: Mixed Neighborhood Place Type: Cottonwood Harmony Village Hickory Village Pleasant Grove Skyline Suburban Neighborhood Place Type North Star 19 20 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 129 11 21 Rezoning Analysis Criteria 1 – Consistency with comprehensive plan (Structure Plan) Mixed Neighborhood place type characteristics: Primarily residential; encourages variety of housing types Some neighborhoods have direct access to retail and services Moderate intensity (5-20 dwelling units/acre) Explicitly discourages redevelopment of existing manufactured housing communities “While reinvestment in existing mobile home parks is encouraged, redevelopment of existing parks is not” Commonly overlaps with LMN district on the Zoning Map 22 Rezoning Analysis Criteria 1 – Consistency with comprehensive plan (Structure Plan) Proposed MH rezoning closely matches key characteristics of the Mixed Neighborhood place type: Mixed Neighborhood place type land uses are inclusive of MH land uses MH intensity (6-12 units/acre) sits within the lower range of the Mixed Neighborhood density range Mixed Neighborhood discourages MHC redevelopment – intent and goal of the MH zone district 21 22 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 130 12 23 Rezoning Analysis Criteria 1 – Consistency with comprehensive plan (Structure Plan) Suburban Neighborhood place type characteristics: Primarily residential; mostly detached single family housing Neighborhood centers may be located nearby or serve as focal points Density of 2-5 dwelling units/acre Commonly overlaps with NCL and RL districts on the Zoning Map 24 Rezoning Analysis Criteria 1 – Consistency with comprehensive plan (Structure Plan) Proposed MH rezoning match several characteristics of the Suburban Neighborhood place type: Suburban Neighborhood place type land uses are inclusive of MH land uses Suburban Neighborhood intensity (2-5 units/acre) is lower than the MH district (6-12 units/acre); however, existing development already exceeds this place type designation Suburban Neighborhood may have access to services/retail as part of neighborhood centers. Existing site includes small-scale commercial uses and was previously designated an LMN neighborhood center. 23 24 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 131 13 25 Rezoning Analysis Criteria 1 – Consistency with comprehensive plan (Structure Plan) Additional factors from City Plan Future zone changes should generally adhere to the place-type boundaries depicted on the Structure Plan, but flexibility in interpretation of the boundary may be granted provided the proposed change is consistent with the principles, goals and policies contained in this Plan. Density ranges outlined for each place-type category are based on gross acreage and are intended to address overall densities for a particular area rather than for individual parcels. Strong consistency with City Plan principles and policies North Star represents a transitional property between mixed-use/commercial development to the west and more single family detached development to east which influenced its place type designation 26 Rezoning Analysis Criteria 2 – Changed conditions within neighborhood Rezoning proposed based on compliance with comprehensive plan and not any changed conditions within specific neighborhoods 25 26 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 132 14 27 Rezoning Analysis Criteria 3 – Compatible with existing / proposed uses Rezoning encourages continuation of existing development patterns: Sites surrounded primarily by other low and moderate density residential development MH district features similar or stricter standards for building height, nonresidential building size, and setbacks MH encourages the continuation of established land uses 28 Rezoning Analysis Criteria 4 – Impact on natural environment Rezoning is not anticipated to have a significant impact on natural environment; additional redevelopment is not encouraged 27 28 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 133 15 29 Rezoning Analysis Criteria 5 – Logical and orderly development patterns Rezoning does not have a significant impact on development patterns Sites and their immediate context are generally already developed Preserving manufactured housing and affordable housing options supports elements of Fort Collins growth framework to: Prevent displacement & strengthen neighborhood and social ties Provides affordable housing opportunities for a range of incomes Balance opportunities jobs/housing and reduce and mitigate regional commuting due to housing costs 30 Rezoning Process Develop MH Zone District – Land Use Code Updates Resident, owner/manager & Board and Commission meetings (Spring/Summer) MH district adopted by Council (August) Rezoning Process Neighborhood meetings & notices – September Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation – October City Council – first & second reading First reading (November 4 – tentative) Second reading (November 18 – tentative) 29 30 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 134 16 31 Rezoning Outreach Land Use Code Updates – MH District (Spring/Summer) Spring/Summer virtual meetings, Board & Commission meetings, hearings Ongoing email/phone conversations with most property owners Rezoning Outreach Ourcity webpage – rezoning resources & notices Ongoing email/phone conversations with most property owners First property owner/resident mailing – August 20 th Neighborhood Meetings - September 2 nd & September 12th Mi Voz Resident Group – September 9 th Certified mail notices (select properties w/o direct communication) – September 18th NFCBA presentation – September 23 rd Second property owner/resident mailing – October 1 st 32 In evaluating the proposed Manufactured Housing Rezonings, #REZ200003, staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The Rezonings comply with the process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration and Division 2.9.4 – Quasi- Judicial Rezonings B. The Rezoning complies with the applicable review criteria for quasi-judicial requests in that: 1) The amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (City Plan) 2) The amendments are compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and provides an appropriate zone district for the land; 3) The amendments would not result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and natural functioning of the environment, and 4) The amendments would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. Staff Findings 31 32 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 135 17 33 Resource Slides 34 Structure Plan Context – Skyline 33 34 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 136 18 35 Structure Plan Context – Pleasant Grove 36 Structure Plan Context – North Star 35 36 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 137 19 37 Structure Plan Context – Hickory Village 38 Structure Plan Context – Harmony Village 37 38 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 138 20 39 Structure Plan Context - Cottonwood 40 City & GMA Manufactured Housing Communities Proposed rezonings (red circles) 39 40 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 139 21 41 Cottonwood MHC 42 Cottonwood MHC 41 42 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 140 22 43 M-H Zone District Permitted Land Uses RESIDENTIAL Mfr. Housing Community Group Homes Domestic violence shelter Extra occupancy rentals INSTITUTIONAL / MISC. Places of worship Childcare Adult day/respite center Community facilities Parks / Nbhd. Recreation Seasonal shelters OTHER Accessory buildings Accessory uses Urban agriculture Wireless telecom. equipment 44 M-H Zone District Zone Standards Set base levels for intensity, compatibility, safety Designed to reduce nonconformities (match existing development) General Development Standards (Article 3) also apply Density: 6 – 12 dwelling units per acre Setbacks: 15’ front, 10’ side/rear, 10’ between units Height: 3-stories max. Footprint: 5,000 sf max. (nonresidential) Parking: 1-space per unit in manufactured housing community 43 44 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 141 23 45 Permitted Uses Comparison M-H District Option A – 17 land uses; Option B – 20 land uses identified Density: 6 – 12 units/acre 3-story height limit CS LMN 95 permitted uses; mostly commercial No density maximum 3-story height limit 43 permitted uses; mostly residential Maximum density of 9 dwelling units/acre (12 if affordable) 3-story height limit 45 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 142 Development Review Staff Report Item 2 Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com 1. Updates The list of updates are summarized into 27 topics, see attached summary. These include changes to the following areas: • Article 1 Section 1.4.9 • Article 2 Sections: 2.1.1, 2.2.10, 2.2.12, 2.11 and 2.18.3, • Article 3 Sections: 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.2, 3.4.1. 3.5.2, 3.5.4, 3.6.2, 3.8.3, 3.8.7.1, 3.8.7.2, 3.8.16, 3.8.17 and 3.8.28 • Article 4 Sections: 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.16, 4.18, 4.19, 4.21, 4.22, 4.23, 4.24, 4.27, 4.28 and 4.29 • Article Section 5.1.2 2. Public Outreach A webpage was launched in September dedicated to Land Use Code updates. This page allows a reader to view the updates and provide feedback on any of the changes. This page was published in the Development Review newsletter and linked from other city webpages. At the time of this report, we have not received feedback. Additionally, an overview of the proposed changes have been shared with the Planning and Zoning Board during the July, August and September work sessions. 3. Attachments 1. Summary of 2020 Annual Land Use Code updates 2. Draft Ordinance LEGAL REVIEW PENDING 3. PFA response regarding alleys Planning and Zoning Board: November 5, 2020 Annual 2020, Revisions, Clarification and Organization to the Land Use Code Summary of Request This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding an update to the Land Use Code. There are proposed revisions, clarifications and organization to the Code that address specific subject areas that have arisen since the last update in the Fall of 2019. Next Steps July Planning and Zoning Board Work Session August Planning and Zoning Board Work Session September Planning and Zoning Board Work Session Launched Webpage • October Planning and Zoning Board Work Session • October Planning and Zoning Board Regular Meeting • Council Regular Hearing to be scheduled Applicant City of Fort Collins PO BOX 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Staff Noah Beals, Interim Development Review Manager Contents 1. Introduction 2. Public Outreach 3. Attachments Packet pg. 143 P&Z - Agenda Item 2 Land Use Code Changes Thursday, November 5, 2020 | Page 2 of 2 Back to Top 4. Public comment 5. Inquiry from Boardmember Ted Shepard Packet pg. 144 ϭDelegation of authority by the Director1.4.9(E)The change to the Land Use Code of defining Director as the CDNS Director instead of the PDT Director has brought up the concern of duties that the PDT Director has delegated authority to staff outside of CDNS (such as the City Engineer) is now problematic as the CDNS Director can only delegate to sub-ordinate staff under this code section.The proposed solution provides the CDNS Director the authority to delegate outside of CDNS.ϮDirector clarification -Obsolete references 2.1.1The current title of “Community Planning and Environmental Services Director” no longer exists within the City organization and needs to be updated.The proposed solution is to delete the obsolete Director title.ϯMinimal standards or appeals of Minor Amendment and Basic Development Reviews2.2.10(A)(5)The basis of an appeal for a Type 1 or Type 2 decision are clear in the Municipal Code. The Land Use Code does not have minimum appeal standards for Minor Amendments and Basic Development Reviews. This would provide guidance for an appellant and the decision maker.Provide a clear process for an appeal of a Basic Development Review and Minor AmendmentϰLandscaping-Artificial Turf3.2.1(E)(2)Staff has had inquiries and proposals about using artificial turf. One recent example was The Exchange, which has a central plaza space that was originally a lawn area. The Land Use Code does not recognize special use outdoor areas where artificial turf would be appropriate.Edit Section 3.2.1(E)(2) with minor wordsmithing to recognize such special use outdoor areas, without any change to the intent of the landscaping section./ƚĞŵEƵŵďĞƌdŽƉŝĐ>h^ĞĐƚŝŽŶƐWƌŽďůĞŵ^ƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ^ŽůƵƚŝŽŶŶŶƵĂů>ĂŶĚhƐĞŽĚĞhƉĚĂƚĞϮϬϮϬ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 145 ϱLandscape-Foundation Planting3.2.1(E)(2)(d)A numerical standard requires foundation planting strips along building walls: Exposed sections of building walls that are in high-use or high-visibility areas of the building exterior shall have planting beds at least five (5) feet wide placed directly along at least fifty (50) percent of such walls. Often, this is not the most appropriate treatment around commercial buildings, where walkways or plazas abutting the building are more appropriate. - Where space is limited between buildings and parking lots, it is often a better solution for walkway paving extend to the building, and use any landscape space for trees and any other landscaping in walkway cutouts to define the walkway as shaded pedestrian space alongside the building separate from the vehicle use area, rather than having the walkway framed by car bumpers on one side and shrubs on the other. As an example of this point, much of Downtown is characterized by this arrangement.Acknowledge commercial walkway situations where a walkway abutting the building is a more a appropriate relationship.ϲLandscape Alternative Compliance3.2.1(N)Alternative compliance is an important part of Section 3.2.1 - Landscaping and Tree Protection. The criteria listed for a decision maker to consider are not the most important criteria that should be considered and are not pertinent in many situations where alternative compliance is appropriate. More important criteria are available in other subsections of 3.2.1. Update the alternative compliance criteria with more applicable and important criteria, by referencing language in pertinent subsections.ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 146 ϳParking Lot Surfacing and Trail connections parking3.2.2(D)(3)(c)The LUC Parking Standards requires that parking lots be surfaced with asphalt, concrete or other material in conformance with city specifications. This requirement can be unecessary for park and trail connection parking lots where a crushed gravel or similar surfacing material would be more than sufficient for the use and capacity of the parking area. Add specific language specifying that city-owned or other off-street parking lots which are use for parks or trail connections points may be paved withϴGarage door setback from alley/private street based on additional vistor parking being provided (if no street-parking available)3.2.2(K)(1)(a)Residential developments that front onto open space instead of a street, do not provide near-by on-street parking. Eccessive parking then occurs in the private alleys, which are usually emergency access easements. Indicate the number of required parking spaces that can be in garages, when the project does not front onto a public street.ϵArchival format of approved plans3.3.2(A)(2)This Section requires reproducible prints be provided to the City in physical (Mylar) format. The City is transitioning to these drawings being provided for approval in electronic format only.The proposed solution removes the words “Mylar” and “prints” to not explicitly require a physical reproducible copy.ϭϬWetlands3.4.1(D)(2)LUC Section 3.4.D.2 regarding Wetland Boundary Delineation references four different sets of standards and guidelines that may be used to establish wetland boundaries. However, the section goes on to state that all wetland boundary delineations shall be established in accordance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wetland classification system while The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers standards and guidelines shall be used to identify the boundaries of any "jurisdictional wetland." Clarity is needed for both developers and plan reviewers regarding which set of standards should be used for any and all projects in the future.Removal of references to uncommonly used standard and guidelines and a consolidation of the language related to processes which would utilize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ standard and guidelines.ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 147 ϭϭConnecting Walkways for Carriage House Access3.5.2(D)(1)(a)Connecting walkways are required for all developments except detached single-family dwellings. This has allowed carriage houses to be built that are difficult to find and has created limited access to the public sidewalk for residents. Additionally, this is a concern for first responders, delivery personnel and other visitors. Amend the exception for only one single-family detached dwellings and require addresses to be visible from the public right of way.ϭϮSetbacks for Alley Accessed garages3.5.2(E)(3)Residential developments that front onto open space instead of a street, do not provide near-by on-street parking. Eccessive parking then occurs in the private alleys, which are usually emergency access easements. Clarify that the rear setback applies for developments that do front on a public street.ϭϯSecond Kitchens 3.5.2(H)The Land Use Code does not currently provide any guidance on when it is acceptable allow for more than one kitchen in a dwelling unit and there is a lack of clarity for pre-existing second kitchens. At times a second kitchen is allowed with an affidavit.Create standards to clarify how a second kitchen may be integrated into a dwelling without creating a second dwelling unitϭϰLarge Retail Establishments3.5.4A plan graphic in this Section predates the vision and standards for incorporating large retail establishments into a more walkable town pattern, which have been developed since the original big box retail study and standards in 1995. A later plan graphic better illustrates the intended integration into a street and block pattern as opposed to a self-contained shopping center surrounded by large parking lots.Replace the graphic.ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 148 ϭϱDelete lot depth dimension in Section 3.6.2 - Streets, Streetscapes, Alleys and Easements3.6.2(G)Section 3.6.2 is an engineering-oriented section with requirements for street facilities. However it contains one standard requiring lots abutting arterial streets to be at least 150 feet in depth. This Section is an obscure location for a lot dimension standard. It is inconsistent with other standards that allow residential buildings to be as close as 15 feet from arterials. It could create complications and confusion with other building and site planning standards that address plan layouts, lot sizes, densities, and setbacks (e.g. residential building standards; supplementary regulations for setbacks and multi-family and single-family attached development; some zoning districts.) It could invite a subdivider to create a tract, presumably of any size, separating lots from the arterial right-of-way. Finally, it would intuitively involve single family residential lots with rear yards along arterials, but does not state that. It appears to be a vestige of past zoning codes. Delete 3.6.2(G).ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 149 ϭϲUpdate the term "Street Like Private Drive" to Private Streets3.6.2(M)(2) and (N)The code contains two terms for private streets serve the purpose of forming building sites. The distinction between the two terms is not useful and can lead to misunderstanding or create confusion. - The term ‘Private Streets’ is a longstanding term with standards in Section 3.6.2(M). It refers to streets built to City standards for public streets but retained in private ownership. It has been used extremely rarely, and appears virtually irrelevant and unlikely to be used going forward because it entails all of the cost of public streets without the benefit of City maintenance. - The term ‘Street-Like Private Drives’ is a more recent term with standards in subsection 3.6.2(N)(1)(c). It refers to street facilities that serve the public purposes of streets but with more flexibility to tailor design to the urban design context of development. This provision is used fairly often and is highly relevant in the City’s development process. Refer to all private streets as such -- eliminate the term ‘Street-Like Private Drives’ and incorporate those provisions under the term ‘Private Streets’. This would be consistent with the whole intent for these facilities, which is to serve as streets for purposes of building orientation, multi-modal connectivity, and all other purposes of streets.ϭϳHome Occupations, signage3.8.3(4)The Home Occupation is prohibited exterior advertising, with the exception of the identification of the home occupation. The recent sign code update deleted the term Home Occupation identification sign and replaced it with residential sign. It has left the Home Occupation section of the code unclear as to what type of sign is allowed.Replace the sign type in the Home Occupation section of the code.ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 150 ϭϴObsolete Sign reference3.8.7.1(G)(2)(f)In the prohibited signs and elements of the sign section, it includes an exception to certain type of sign. This type of sign was referenced by the code section. The sign type was not approved and the code section is not necessary.Delete reference ϭϵSign Code, Applied Wall-Still 75% Width of Tenant (max sign width)3.8.7.2(B) Table (B)In the sign section there are different types of signs that may attach to a building. Most of these sign types do not have a maximum width. In the Applied or Painted Wall sign table there is a maximum width. This restriction was left in place in error, as it was found that the maximum width for most signs was not necessary. The width of the sign is usually self-regulated based on other standards such as the allowed sign square footage and design of the building facade. Delete the maximum sign width for the Applied or Painted Wall signITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 151 ϮϬSign Section, Clarity on Primary and Secondary Freestanding Signs3.8.7.2(G) Table (G)(1)In the residential sign district there are two different types of freestanding permanent signs. The first type is a Primary that is allowed to be 32sf in size and 5ft in height. The other type is a Secondary and the code states it be 32sf in size and 6ft in height. The purpose of most sign standards is to reduce sign clutter. In this case it was recognized that a second freestanding sign was necessary. However, the intent of a primary and secondary sign was to have one be subordinate to the other. In error the secondary sign dimensions were equal size and greater in height. Additional clean up to the table is necessary to bring the freestanding signs in alignment with the lighting type in the Residential Neighborhood Sign district. The proximity of this district to residential uses would direct lighting sources to be less impactful, the current code allowed any lighting type.Amend the Land Use standards to indicate that the secondary sign is smaller in both size and height to the primary sign and change the allowable lighting type in the residential sign districtϮϭMeasuring Building Height.3.8.17The measurement of building height for purposes of height limits has involved some confusion, interpretation, and the need to refer to Article 5 Definitions for information that would be appropriate in this Section.Add more-detailed information on determining height in stories and feet.ϮϮExtra Occupancy"Rental House" clarification3.8.28The Extra Occupancy Rental House regulations do not specify that the dwelling has to be used as a rental. The Land Use Code also does not define “house” and that term is not applicable to the use. The Extra Occupancy Rental House uses tenant and owner language in multiple sections of the code. However, we do not regulate whether it is occupied by owners or renters. The LMN zone district also has a contradiction as to what level of review four occupants would go through.Remove “Rental” and “House” from the title of the Land Use Code designation and replace all “tenant” and “owner” language with “occupant”. A definition of occupant has also been proposed to be added to align the with existing definition of occupancyITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 152 ϮϯPossibly R-L review of single family detached4.4(B)(1)(a)14.4(B)(2)(a)1Currently, there is confusion regarding what type of review is required when constructing Single-family detached dwellings in the Residential Low zone district. This is due to the fact that the use is included in the approved use list under both basic development review and administrative (Type 1) review processes.Provide language under LUC 4.4. (B) (1) (a) which clarifies under what circumstances a basic development review is required Single-family detached dwellings. The proposed language more accurately reflects the instances under which basic development review would be necessary in the zone district (i.e. creation of a new lot that was not part of the originally approved site-specific development plan).ϮϰRL Accessory Building height 4.4(D)(2)(e)LUC 4.4 (D) (e) states the following regarding maximum permitted building height in the Low Density Residential Zone District: “Maximum building height shall be twenty-eight (28) feet for a single-family dwelling, accessory building, group home or child care center and three (3) stories for all other uses.” Currently, this means that accessory building structures can either match the height, or in some cases, exceed the height of the primary building structure on the lot. This current allowance for height is in conflict with the definition for accessory buildings which states that is shall mean “a building detached from a principal building and customarily used with, and clearly incidental and subordinate to, the principal building or use, and ordinarily located on the same lot with such principal building.” Indicate accessory buildings are not to be significantly taller than the primary building.ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 153 ϮϱCarriage Houses and Accessory Building in the NCL, NCM, and NCB Zone District4.7, 4.8, and 4.9These Old Town Neighborhood zoning districts have detailed size limit standards for new construction of additional buildings in rear yards. Redundant language confuses the simple intent for this construction to be limited to 1½ stories (with any upper floor area underneath a sloping roof). The overall purpose is for neighborhood change and evolution to reflect historic neighborhood scale in careful balance with contemporary requirements and desires. The original zoning district standards have had revisions and additions over the years since they were first drafted in a special planning process in 1997, and it has become evident in recent projects that the resulting state of organization is very difficult to use and interpret. The proposed solution consolidates reduntant standards.ϮϲMarijuana - Adding R&D use back into the Downtown Zone district4.16(F)(2)(1)Within a recent code change, the Downtown Zone district was expanded. This expansion created additional sub-districts. Some of these sub-districts were existing zone districts that included their own list of permitted uses. One of these new sub-districts is Innovation. Previous to the Inovation zone district this area included Medical Marijuana Research and Development. However, this use was left out inadvertently creating a nonconforming use. Restore the Medical Marijuana Research and Development to the Downtown Innovation zone districtϮϳClarifications to the PUD regulations4.29Council adopted the Land Use Code PUD regulations in 2018 and the PUD regulations have been utilized to approve one PUD, the Montava PUD, in 2020. During the extensive review process for the Montava PUD, several desired clarifications to the PUD regulations were noted.At this time, minor edits correcting a title, grammar and punctuationITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 154 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 1 ORDINANCE NO. ___, 2020 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING VARIOUS AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE WHEREAS, on December 2, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 190,1997, the City Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the “Land Use Code”); and WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the understanding of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors, but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic document capable of responding to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and citizens of the City; and WHEREAS, City staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have reviewed the Land Use Code and identified and explored various issues related to the Land Use Code and have made recommendations to the Council regarding such issues; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use Code amendments are in the best interests of the City and its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That Section 1.4.9(E) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 1.4.9 Rules of Construction for Text . . . (E)Delegation of Authority. Whenever a provision appears requiring the Director or some other City officer or employee to do some act or perform some duty, such provision shall be construed as authorizing the Director or other officer or employee to designate, delegate and authorize professional-level subordinatesanother City employee to perform the required act or duty unless the terms of the provision specify otherwise. With respect to the review of development applications eligible for Type 1 review, in addition to or in substitution for delegation to subordinatesCity employees as above authorized, the Director may engage the services of an attorney with experience in land use matters. . . . ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 155 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 2 Section 3. That Section 2.1.1 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.1.1 Decision Maker and Administrative Bodies The City Council, Planning and Zoning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals and Community Planning and Environmental Services Director (the "Director") Director are frequently referenced in this Land Use Code. Reference should be made to Chapter 2 of the City Code for descriptions of these and other decision makers and administrative bodies, and their powers, duties, membership qualifications and related matters. . . . Section 4. That Section 2.2.10(A)(5) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.2.10 Step 10: Amendments and Changes of Use (A)Minor Amendments and Changes of Use. (1) Minor amendments to any approved development plan, including any Overall Development Plan, Project Development Plan, or PUD Master Plan, any site specific development plan, or the existing condition of a platted property; and (2) Changes of use, either of which meet the applicable criteria of below subsections 2.2.10(A)(1) or 2.2.10(A)(2), may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied administratively by the Director and may be authorized without additional public hearings. With the exception of PUD Master Plans, such minor amendments and changes of use may be authorized by the Director as long as the development plan, as so amended, continues to comply with the standards of this Code to the extent reasonably feasible. PUD Master Plan Minor amendments may be authorized by the Director as long as the PUD Master Plan, as so amended, continues to comply with the standards of this Code, as such standards may have been modified in the existing PUD Master Plan, and so long as the amendments are consistent with the existing PUD Master Plan. Minor amendments and changes of use shall only consist of any or all of the following: . . . (5)Appeals. Applicable pursuant to Section 2.2.12(C). Appeals of the decision of the Director regarding the approval, approval with conditions or denial of, a change of use, or a minor amendment of any approved development plan, site specific development plan, or the existing condition of a platted property, shall be to the Planning and Zoning Board. Any such appeal shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal of the final decision with the Director within fourteen (14) days after the action that is the subject of the appeal. The decision of the Planning and Zoning Board on such appeals shall constitute a final decision appealable pursuant to Section 2.2.12 (Step 12). ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 156 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 3 Section 5. That Section 2.2.12 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.2.12 Step 12: Appeals/Alternate Review (A) Appeals. Appeals of any final decision of a decision maker under this Code shall be only in accordance with Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code, unless otherwise provided in this Section or Division 2 Divisions 2.3 through 2.11 and 2.16, 2.18, and 2.19 of this Code. . . . (C) Appeal of Minor Amendment, Changes of Use, and Basic Development Review Decisions by the Director. The Director’s final decision on a minor amendment or change of use application pursuant to Section 2.2.10(A) or basic development review application pursuant to Division 2.18 may be appealed to the Planning and Zoning Board as follows: (1) Parties Eligible to File Appeal. The following parties are eligible to appeal the Director’s final decision on a minor amendment, change of use, or basic development review application: (a) The applicant that submitted the application subject to the Director’s final decision; (b) Any party holding an ownership or possessory interest in the real or personal property that was the subject of the final decision; (c) Any person to whom or organization to which the City mailed notice of the final decision; (d) Any person who or organization that provided written comments to the appropriate City staff for delivery to the Director prior to the final decision. (2) Filing Notice of Appeal. An appeal shall be commenced by filing a notice of appeal with the Director within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date the written final decision is made that is the subject of the appeal. Such notice of appeal shall be on a form provided by the Director, shall be signed by each person joining the appeal (“appellant”), and shall include the following: (a) A copy of the Director’s final decision being appealed; (b) The name, address, email address, and telephone number of each appellant and a description why each appellant is eligible to appeal the final decision pursuant to Subsection (C)(1) above; (c) The specific Land Use Code provision(s) the Director failed to properly interpret and apply and the specific allegation(s) of error and/or the specific ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 157 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 4 Land Use Code procedure(s) not followed that harmed the appellant(s) and the nature of the harm; and (d) In the case of an appeal filed by more than one (1) person, the name, address, email address and telephone number of one (1) such person who shall be authorized to receive, on behalf of all persons joining the appeal, any notice required to be mailed by the City to the appellant. (3) Scheduling of Appeal. A public hearing shall be scheduled before the Planning and Zoning Board within sixty (60) calendar days of a notice of appeal being deemed complete unless the Planning and Zoning Board adopts a motion granting an extension of such time period. (4) Notice. Once a hearing date before the Planning and Zoning Board has been determined, the Director shall mail written notice pursuant to Section 2.2.6(A). Notice requirements set forth in Section 2.2.6(B)-(D) shall not apply. The mailed notice shall inform recipients of: (a) The subject of the appeal; (b) The date, time, and place of the appeal hearing; (c) The opportunity of the recipient and members of the public to appear at the hearing and address the Planning and Zoning Board; and (d) How the notice of appeal can be viewed on the City’s website. (5) Planning and Zoning Board Hearing and Decision. (a) The Planning and Zoning Board shall hold a public hearing pursuant to Section 2.2.7 to decide the appeal, and City staff shall prepare a staff report for the Planning and Zoning Board. The notice of appeal, copy of the Director’s final decision, and the application and all application materials submitted to the Director shall be provided to the Planning and Zoning Board for its consideration at the hearing. (b) The hearing shall be considered a new, or de novo, hearing at which the Planning and Zoning Board shall not be restricted to reviewing only the allegations of error listed in the notice of appeal, the Planning and Zoning Board shall not give deference to the Director’s final decision being appealed, and the applicant shall have the burden of establishing that the application complies with all relevant Land Use Code provisions and should be granted. The applicant, appellant or appellants, members of the public, and City staff may provide information to the Planning and Zoning Board for its consideration at the appeal hearing that was not provided to the Director for his or her consideration in making the final decision being appealed. (c) The Planning and Zoning Board shall review the application that is the subject of the appeal for compliance with all applicable Land Use Code ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 158 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 5 standards and may uphold, overturn, or modify the decision being appealed at the conclusion of the hearing and may impose conditions in the same manner as the Director pursuant to Section 2.2.10(A) and Division 2.18. The Planning and Zoning Board decision shall constitute a final decision appealable to City Council pursuant to Section 2.2.12(A). Section 6. That Section 2.11.1(A) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 2.11 APPEAL FROM ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2.11.1 Purpose and Applicability (A) Purpose. The purpose of this Division is to provide for appeals of certain administrative/city staff decisions to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Appeals to the Planning and Zoning Board of Minor Amendment and Change of Use and Basic Development Review decisions made by the Director are addressed in Section 2.2.12(C). . . . Section 7. That Section 2.18.3(L) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.18.3 Basic Development Review and Minor Subdivision Review Procedures An application for a Basic Development Review or Minor Subdivision shall be processed according to, in compliance with, and subject to the provisions contained in Division 2.1 and Steps (1) through (12) of the Common Development Review Procedures (Sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.12, inclusive), as follows: . . . (L) Step 12 (Appeals): Applicable pursuant to Section 2.2.12(C). Applicable and in explanation thereof, appeals of the decision of the Director regarding approval, approval with conditions or denial of a Basic Development Review and Minor Subdivision shall be to the Planning and Zoning Board. Any such appeal shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal of the final decision of the Director within 14 days after the action that is the subject of the appeal. The appeal hearing with the Planning and Zoning Board shall be considered a new, or de novo, hearing. The decision of the Planning and Zoning Board on such appeals shall constitute a final decision appealable to City Council pursuant to Section 2.2.12 (Step 12). ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 159 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 6 Section 8. That Section 3.2.1 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.2.1 Landscaping and Tree Protection . . . (E) Landscape Standards. All development applications shall include landscape plans that meet the following minimum standards: . . . (2) Landscape Area Treatment. Landscape areas shall include all areas on the site that are not covered by buildings, structures, paving or impervious surface, or other outdoor areas including play areas, plaza spaces, patios, and the like. Landscape areas shall consist only of landscaping. The selection and location of turf, ground cover (including shrubs, grasses, perennials, flowerbeds and slope retention), and pedestrian paving and other landscaping elements shall be used to prevent erosion and meet the functional and visual purposes such as defining spaces, accommodating and directing circulation patterns, managing visibility, attracting attention to building entrances and other focal points, and visually integrating buildings with the landscape area and with each other. . . . (d) Foundation Plantings. Exposed sections of building walls that are in high- use or high-visibility areas of the building exterior shall have planting beds at least five (5) feet wide placed directly along at least fifty (50) percent of such walls, except where pedestrian paving abuts a commercial building with trees and/or other landscaping in cutouts or planting beds along the outer portion of the pedestrian space away from the building. . . . (N) Alternative Compliance. Upon request by an applicant, the decision maker may approve an alternative landscape and tree protection plan that may be substituted in whole or in part for a landscape plan meeting the standards of this Section. . . . In reviewing the proposed alternative plan for purposes of determining whether it accomplishes the purposes of this Section as required above, the decision maker shall take ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 160 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 7 into account whether the alternative preserves and incorporates existing vegetation in excess of minimum standards, protects natural areas and features, maximizes tree canopy cover, enhances neighborhood continuity and connectivity, fosters nonvehicular access or accomplishes the functions listed in Subsection (C) (1) through (7) and Subsection (H) of this Section 3.2.1 and demonstrates innovative design and use of plant materials and other landscape elements. Section 9. That Section 3.2.2(C), (D) and (K) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking . . . (C) Development Standards All developments shall meet the following standards: . . . (4) Bicycle Facilities. Commercial, industrial, civic, employment and multi-family residential uses shall provide bicycle facilities to meet the following standards: . . . (b) Bicycle Parking Space Requirements. The minimum bicycle parking requirements are set forth in the table below. For uses that are not specifically listed in the table, the number of bicycle parking spaces required shall be the number required for the most similar use listed. Enclosed bicycle parking spaces may not be located on balconies. Use Categories Bicycle Parking Space Minimums % Enclosed Bicycle Parking/ % Fixed Bicycle Racks Residential and Institutional Parking Requirements . . . . . . . . . Extra Occupancy Rental Houses 1 per bed occupant 0%/100% . . . . . . (D) Access and Parking Lot Requirements. All vehicular use areas in any proposed development shall be designed to be safe, efficient, convenient and attractive, considering ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 161 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 8 use by all modes of transportation that will use the system, (including, without limitation, cars, trucks, buses, bicycles and emergency vehicles). . . . (3) Location. Only off-street parking areas provided to serve uses permitted in a zone district predominated by residential uses will be allowed in such district. . . . (c) Pavement. All open off-street parking and vehicular use areas shall be surfaced with asphalt, concrete or other material in conformance with city specifications with the exception of off-street parking and vehicular use areas for a park or trail connection point that may be surfaced with gravel or another similar inorganic material. . . . (K) Parking Lots - Required Number of Off-Street Spaces for Type of Use.* (1) Residential and Institutional Parking Requirements. Residential and institutional uses shall provide a minimum number of parking spaces as defined by the standards below. (a) Attached Dwellings: For each two-family and multi-family dwelling there shall be parking spaces provided as indicated by the following table: Number of Bedrooms/Dwelling Unit Parking Spaces Per Dwelling Unit *, ** One or less 1.5 Two 1.75 Three 2.0 Four and above 3.0 * Spaces that are located in detached residential garages (but not including parking structures) or in attached residential garages, which attached garages do not provide direct entry into an individual dwelling unit, may be credited toward the minimum requirements contained herein only if such spaces are made available to dwelling unit occupants at no additional rental or purchase cost (beyond the dwelling unit rental rate or purchase price). ** When public streets abutting the perimeter of the development site do not provide on-street parking then the percentage of garage parking spaces provided for the development site shall not exceed eighty (80) percent of the parking total. . . . (j) Extra Occupancy Rental Houses: For each extra occupancy rental house, there shall be 0.75 (¾) parking space per tenant occupant, rounded up to the nearest whole parking space, plus one (1) additional parking space if the extra occupancy rental house is owner-occupied. If the lot upon which such ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 162 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 9 parking spaces are to be situated has more than sixty-five (65) feet of street frontage length on any one (1) street or abuts an alley, then each such parking space shall have direct access to the abutting street or alley and shall be unobstructed by any other parking space. If such lot has less than sixty- five (65) feet of street frontage length on any one (1) street and does not abut an alley, then one (1) of the required parking spaces may be aligned in a manner that does not provide direct access to the abutting street. . . . Section 10. That Section 3.3.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.3.2 Development Improvements (A) Approval of City Engineer. . . . (2) No improvements shall be made until all required plans, profiles and specifications, including reproducible plansMylar prints for the same, have been submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. . . . Section 11. That Section 3.4.1 (D)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.4.1 Natural Habitats and Features . . . (D) Ecological Characterization and Natural Habitat or Feature Boundary Definition. The boundary of any natural habitat or feature shown on the Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map is only approximate. The actual boundary of any area to be shown on a project development shall be proposed by the applicant and established by the Director through site evaluations and reconnaissance, and shall be based on the ecological characterization of the natural habitat or feature in conjunction with the map. . . . (2) Wetland Boundary Delineation. In establishing the boundaries of a wetland, the applicant and the Director shall use soil samples, ecological characterization and hydrological evidence, to the extent that such are in existence or are requested of and provided by the applicant. The Director may also utilize the standards and guidelines and/or the professional recommendations of Wetland boundary delineations of both a non-jurisdictional wetland and “jurisdictional wetland” shall ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 163 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 10 be established in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987 Westland Delineation Manual and the appropriate Regional Supplement, and classified according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, wetland classification system. In establishing the boundaries of a wetland, the applicant and the Director shall use soil samples, vegetation analysis and hydrological evidence. the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, and/or the Colorado Division of Wildlife in establishing such boundaries. If at least one of the required criteria for wetland delineation, hydric soil, hydrophytic vegetation, or hydrology, is present on the development site, the applicant shall communicate the criterion or criteria to the Director for consideration.Wetland boundary delineations shall be established in accordance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wetland classification system and shall be identified The Director may also utilize the standards and guidelines and/or the professional recommendations of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or other organization, individual, or governmental entity in reviewing such boundaries. These shall be identified in the submittal documents for the review of the project development plan (if applicable, or if not applicable, the most similar development review) and prior to commencement of any construction activities. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers standards and guidelines shall be used to identify the boundaries of any "jurisdictional wetland." . . . Section 12. That Section 3.5.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.5.2 Residential Building Standards . . . (D) Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking. (1) Orientation to a Connecting Walkway. Every front facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face the adjacent street to the extent reasonably feasible. Every front facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face a connecting walkway with no primary entrance more than two hundred (200) feet from a street sidewalk and the address shall be posted to be visible from the intersection of the connecting walkway and public right of way. The following exceptions to this standard are permitted: (a) Up to onetwo (12) single-family detached dwellings on an individual lot that has frontage on either a public or private street. . . . ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 164 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 11 (E) Residential Building Setbacks, Lot Width and Size. . . . (3) Side and Rear Yard Setbacks. The minimum side yard setback for all residential buildings and for all detached accessory buildings that are incidental to the residential building shall be five (5) feet from the property line, except for alley- accessed garages accessed from alleys or private drives where the associated dwelling faces on-site walkways rather than street sidewalks, for which the minimum setback from an alley or private drive shall be eight (8) feet. If a zero-lot- line development plan is proposed, a single six-foot minimum side yard is required. Rear yard setbacks in residential areas shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet from the rear property line, except for garages and storage sheds not exceeding eight (8) feet in height, where the minimum setback shall be zero (0) feet. . . . (H) Second Kitchen. A maximum of one additional kitchen may be established inside a dwelling unit without creating an additional dwelling unit if the Director determines: (1) That both kitchens are accessible to all occupants of the dwelling unit; (2) That neither kitchen is located in an accessory building; and (3) That both kitchens have non-separated, continuous, and open access with no locked doors separating the kitchens from the rest of the dwelling unit. The property owner of a dwelling unit in which a second kitchen is approved by the Director shall prior to issuance of a building permit sign and record with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder a notarized affidavit stating that the second kitchen will not be used for a second dwelling unit and the property owner acknowledges and agrees that the dwelling shall only be used as a single-family dwelling. Section 13. That Figure 14 in Section 3.5.4(D)(3)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby replaced in its entirety with the following figure: Figure 14 Building Entrances ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 165 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 12 . . . Section 14. That Section 3.6.2(G), (M) and (N) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.6.2 Streets, Streetscapes, Alleys And Easements . . . (G) Repealed and held in reserve Lots having a front or rear lot line that abuts an arterial street shall have a minimum depth of one hundred fifty (150) feet. (1) Alternative Compliance. Upon request by the applicant, the decision maker may approve an alternative lot plan that does not meet the standard of this subsection if the alternative lot plan includes additional buffering or screening that will, in the judgment of the decision maker, protect such lots from the noise, light and other potential negative impacts of the arterial street as well as, or better than, a plan which complies with the standard of this subsection. (2) Procedure. Alternative lot plans shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the submittal requirements for streets, streetscapes, alleys and easements as set forth in this Section and landscape plans as set forth in Section 3.2.1. The alternative lot plan shall clearly identify and discuss the modifications and alternatives proposed and the ways in which the plan will equally well or better accomplish the purpose of this subsection than would a plan which complies with the standards of this subsection. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 166 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 13 (3) Review Criteria. To approve an alternative lot plan, the decision maker must first find that the proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purpose of this subsection as well as, or better than, a lot plan which complies with the standard of this subsection. In reviewing the proposed alternative plan, the decision maker shall take into account whether the lot plan provides screening and protection of the lots adjacent to the arterial street from noise, light and other negative impacts of the arterial street equally well or better than a plan which complies with the standard of this subsection. . . . (M) Private Streets. Private streets shall be controlled by the following requirements: (1) When Allowed. Private streets shall be allowed in a development, provided that their function will only be primarily to provide access to property within the development. Private streets shall not be permitted if (by plan or circumstance) such streets would, in the judgment of the City Engineer, attract "through traffic" in such volumes as to render such public streets necessary as connections between developments, neighborhoods or other origins and destinations outside of the development plan. (2) Design Requirements. Designs for private streets shall meet all standards for public streets in accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards , as adopted by the City Council by ordinance or resolution. Optional treatments beyond the minimum city standards, such as landscaped medians or other decorative features, will not be approved unless the City determines that such treatments present no safety risk to the public and that the City's utilities will not incur maintenance or replacement costs for their utilities above normal costs associated with the City's standard design. As with public streets, the design of private streets must be completed by or under the charge of a professional engineer licensed by the State of Colorado. The design for all private streets shall be included in the utility plans for the development. Designs for public streets shall be permitted if either: (a) The designs meet all standards for public streets in accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, as adopted by the City Council by ordinance or resolution; or (b) The designs have customized treatments and features including travel lanes; parallel or diagonal street parking; tree-lined sidewalks with the sidewalks either detached or attached with trees in cutouts; and crosswalks. Other features such as bikeways, landscaped medians, corner plazas, custom lighting, bike racks, and identity signs may be provided to afford an appropriate alternative to a standard City street in the context of the development plan. Head-in parking may only be used in isolated ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 167 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 14 parking situations where the effect on the character of the street is negligible. Customized treatments and features will not be approved unless the City determines that such treatments and features present no safety risk to the public and that the City's utilities will not incur maintenance or replacement costs for their utilities above normal costs associated with the City's standard design. . . . (N) Private Drives and Street-Like Private Drives. (1) When Allowed. . . . (c) Street-Like Private Drives. A street-like private drive shall be allowed as primary access to facing buildings or to parcels internal to a larger, cohesive development plan, or for the purposes of meeting other requirements for streets. Street-like private drives shall be designed to include travel lanes, on-street parking, tree- lined border(s), detached sidewalk(s) and crosswalks. Other features such as bikeways, landscaped medians, corner plazas and pedestrian lighting may be provided to afford an appropriate alternative to a street in the context of the development plan. On-street parking for abutting buildings may be parallel or angled. Head-in parking may only be used in isolated parking situations. Such street-like private drives must be similar to public or private streets in overall function and buildings shall front on and offer primary orientation to the street-like private drive. Street-like private drives may be used in conjunction with other standards, such as block configuration, orientation to connecting walkways, build-to-lines, or street pattern and connectivity. (dc) Neither aA private drive nor a street-like private drive shall not be permitted if it prevents or diminishes compliance with any other provisions of this Code. . . . Section 15. That Section 3.8.3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.8.3 Home Occupations ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 168 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 15 A home occupation shall be allowed as a permitted accessory use, provided that all of the following conditions are met: . . . (4) There shall be no exterior advertising other than identification of the home occupationthe residential sign allowed in Section 3.8.7.1(D)(5)(a) of this Code. . . . Section 16. That Section 3.8.7.1(G)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.8.7.1 Generally. . . . (G) Prohibited signs and sign elements. . . . (2) Prohibited Signs. The following signs are not allowed, whether temporary or permanent: . . . (f) Permanent off-premises signs, except as provided in Section 3.8.7.6; . . . Section 17. That Section 3.8.7.2(B) and (G) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.8.7.2 Permanent Signs . . . (B) Wall Signs. Wall signs are allowed according to the standards in Table (B), Wall Signs. Table (B) Wall Signs Sign District Outside of Residential Neighborhood Sign District 1 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 169 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 16 Type of Sign Standards Downtown Commercial/ Industrial Mixed-Use Multifamily Single-Family Within Residential Neighborhood Sign District 1 Applied or Painted Wall Signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Max. Sign Width N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tenant space 45,000 sf. or less: lesser of 40 ft. or 75% of width of tenant space; Tenant space is larger than 45,000 sf.: 55 ft. N/A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (G) Freestanding Permanent Signs. Detached permanent signs are allowed according to the standards in Table (G)(1), Freestanding Permanent Signs. Table (G)(1) Freestanding Permanent Signs Type of Sign Standards Sign District Outside of Residential Neighborhood Sign District 1 Downtown Commercial/ Industrial Mixed-Use Multifamily Single-Family Within Residential Neighborhood Sign District 1 Primary Detached Signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Allowed Lighting Any Any Any Indirect only None AnyIndirect only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other Standards Location may be established by approved development plan; Structure shall match primary finish and colors of associated buildings; Pole style signs shall contain no more than thirty (30) percent (or forty [40] percent if located within the site distance triangle) of free air space between the top of the sign and the ground, vertically and between the extreme horizontal limits of the sign extended perpendicular to the ground. A base or pole cover provided to satisfy this requirement shall be integrally designed as part of the sign by use of such techniques as color, material and texture. Freestanding signs that existed prior to December 30, 2011, and that do not comply with this Structure shall match primary finish and colors of associated buildings; must be monument style ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 170 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 17 requirement shall be removed or brought into compliance by December 31, 2019, provided that such signs otherwise comply with Section 3.8.7.4, Nonconforming Signs. Secondary Detached Signs Max. # 1 per vehicular access point to nonresidentia l, mixed-use, or multifamily property 1 per vehicular access point to nonresidential, mixed-use, or multifamily property 1 per vehicular access point to nonresidential , mixed-use, or multifamily property 1 per vehicular access point to nonresidential , mixed-use, or multifamily property 1 per vehicular access point to nonresidential, mixed-use, or multifamily property 1 per street frontage of a neighborhood service center or neighborhood commercial districtnonresidential, mixed-use, or multifamily uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Max. Sign Area 16 sf. 16 sf. 16 sf. 16 sf. 16 sf. 3220 sf. Max. Sign Height 4 ft. 4 ft. 4 ft. 4 ft. 4 ft. 65 ft. Allowed Lighting Any Any Any Indirect only Indirect only AnyIndirect only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 18. That Section 3.8.16(D) and (E) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.8.16 Occupancy Limits; Increasing the Number of Persons Allowed . . . (D) Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Section, shall have the meanings ascribed to them below: (4) Occupant shall mean a person who occupies a dwelling unit or any portion thereof for living and sleeping purposes. (E) Increasing the Occupancy Limit. (1) With respect to single-family and two-family dwellings, the number of persons allowed under this Section may be increased by the issuance of a certificate of occupancy allowing for use as an extra occupancy rental house in zones allowing such use. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 171 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 18 (2) With respect to multiple-family and single family attached dwellings, the decision maker (depending on the type of review, Type 1 or Type 2) may, upon receipt of a written request from the applicant and upon a finding that all applicable criteria of this Code have been satisfied, increase the number of unrelated persons who may reside in individual dwelling units. The decision maker shall not increase said number unless satisfied that the applicant has provided sufficient additional amenities, either public or private, to sustain the activities associated with multi-family residential development, to adequately serve the occupants of the development and to protect the adjacent neighborhood. Such amenities may include, without limitation, passive open space, buffer yards, on-site management, recreational areas, plazas, courtyards, outdoor cafes, neighborhood centers, limited mixed-use restaurants, parking areas, sidewalks, bikeways, bus shelters, shuttle services or other facilities and services. . . . Section 19. That Section 3.8.17(A)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.8.17 Building Height (A) Measuring Building Height. . . . (2) Building Height Measured in Stories. In measuring the height of a building in stories the following measurement rules shall apply: (a) A balcony or mezzanine shall be counted as a full story when its floor area is in excess of one-third (1/3) of the total area of the nearest full floor directly below it. (b) Half (1/2) story shall mean a space under a sloping roof which has the line of intersection of the roof and wall face not more than three (3) feet above the floor level, and in which space the possible floor area with head room of five (5) feet or less occupies at least forty (40) percent of the total floor area of the story directly beneath. (bc) No story of a commercial or industrial building shall have more than twenty-five (25) feet from average ground level at the center of all walls to the eave/wall intersection or wall plate height if there is no eave, or from floor to floor, or from floor to eave/wall intersection or wall plate height as applicable. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 172 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 19 (cd) A maximum vertical height of twelve (12) feet eight (8) inches shall be permitted for each residential story measured from average ground level at the center of all walls to the eave/wall intersection or wall plate height if there is no eave, or from floor to floor, or from floor to eave/wall intersection or wall plate height as applicable. This maximum vertical height shall apply only in the following zone districts: U-E; R-F; R-L; L- M-N; M-M-N; N-C-L; N-C-M; N-C-B; R-C; C-C-N; N-C; and H-C. . . . Section 20. That Section 3.8.28 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.8.28 Extra Occupancy Rental House Regulations (A) Extra occupancy rental houses, not including multiple family and single family attached dwellings which shall be governed by Section 3.8.16(E)(2), shall conform to the occupancy limits and separation requirements specified in the following table: Zone Maximum number of permissible residents, excluding occupant family Maximum percentage of parcels per block face that may be used for extra occupancy houses L-M-N One (1) tenant occupant per three hundred fifty (350) square feet of habitable floor space, in addition to a minimum of four hundred (400) square feet of habitable floor space if owner-occupied No more than twenty-five (25) percent of parcels on a block face may be approved for extra occupancy rental house use. M-M-N, H-M-N, N-C-B One (1) tenant occupant per three hundred fifty (350) square feet of habitable floor space, in addition to a minimum of four hundred (400) square feet of habitable floor space if owner-occupied. No limit. D, R-D-R, C-C, C-C-N, C-C-R, C-G, C-N, N-C, C-L-E, I One (1) tenant occupant per three hundred fifty (350) square feet of habitable floor space, in addition to a minimum of four hundred (400) square feet of habitable floor space if owner-occupied. No limit. R-L, N-C-L, R-F, U-E, N-C-M, H- C, P-O-L, R-C n/a Extra occupancy rental houses not allowed. (B) In all zone districts allowing extra occupancy rental houses except L-M-N, an application for extra occupancy rental house use for five (5) or fewer tenants occupants shall be subject to basic development review. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 173 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 20 (C) In all zone districts allowing extra occupancy rental houses except L-M-N, an application for extra occupancy rental house use for more than five (5) tenants occupants shall be subject to Type 1 administrative review. (D) In the L-M-N zone district, an application for extra occupancy rental house use for more than four (4) tenants occupants shall be subject to Type 1 administrative review. Section 21. That Section 4.4(B) and (D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Division 4.4 Low Density Residential District (R-L) . . . (B) Permitted Uses. (1) The following uses are permitted in the R-L District, subject to basic development review, provided that such uses are located on lots that are part of an approved site specific development plan: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Single-family detached dwellings on lots created through the Minor Subdivision process pursuant to Section 2.18.2. . . . . . . (D) Land Use Standards. . . . (2) Dimensional Standards. . . . (e) Maximum building height shall be twenty-eight (28) feet for a single-family dwelling, accessory building, group home, or child care center and three (3) stories for all other uses. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 174 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 21 (f) Accessory buildings and structures may exceed the height of any existing or proposed principal building on the lot by no more than two (2) feet except when the height of an existing or proposed principal structure is twenty-six (26) feet or greater in which case, the accessory building or structure shall not exceed twenty-eight (28) feet. . . . Section 22. That Section 4.5(B)(2)(a)8 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Division 4.5 Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N) . . . (B) Permitted Uses. . . . (2) The following uses are permitted in the L-M-N District, subject to administrative review: (a) Residential Uses: . . . 8. Extra occupancy rental houses with four (4) or more tenants. . . . Section 23. That Sections 4.6(B)(1)(e)1 and (B)(2)(a)8 of the Land Use Code are hereby amended to read as follows: Division 4.6 Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (M-M-N) . . . (B) Permitted Uses. (1) The following uses are permitted in the M-M-N District, subject to basic development review, provided that such uses are located on lots that are part of an approved site-specific development plan: . . . (e) Residential Uses: 1. Extra occupancy rental houses with five (5) or fewer tenants. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 175 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 22 . . . (2) The following uses are permitted in the M-M-N District, subject to administrative review: (a) Residential Uses: . . . 8. Extra occupancy rental houses with more than five (5) tenants. . . . Section 24. That Section 4.7(E) and (F) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Division 4.7 Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L) (E) Dimensional Standards. . . . (5) Building Height. Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot and accessory buildings (a) Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot and accessory buildings, which shall be limited to one and one-half (1 ½) stories. (b) Front porches shall be limited to one (1) story. (c) The height of a carriage house or an accessory building containing habitable space shall not exceed twenty-four (24) feet. (d) The height of an accessory building containing no habitable space shall not exceed twenty (20) feet. (6) Eave Height. (a) The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not exceed thirteen (13) feet from grade for a dwelling unit located at the rear of the lot or an accessory building with habitable space. An eave of a dormer or similar architectural feature may exceed thirteen (13) feet if set back two ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 176 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 23 (2) feet from the wall below and does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the wall length. (b) The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not exceed ten (10) feet from grade for an accessory building containing no habitable space. An eave of a dormer or similar architectural feature may exceed ten (10) feet if set back two (2) feet from the wall below and does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the wall length. (c) If a second story has an exterior wall that is set back from the lower story's exterior wall, the eave height shall be the point of an imaginary line at which the upper story's roofline (if extended downward) would intersect with the lower story's exterior wall (if extended upward). Illustration of Carriage House Roofline and Eave Heights (F) Development Standards. (1) Building Design. . . . (e) Front porches shall be limited to one (1) story, and the front facades of all one- and two-family dwellings shall be no higher than two (2) stories, except in the case of carriage houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be a maximum of one and one-half (1½) stories. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 177 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 24 (fe) In the event that a new dwelling is proposed to be constructed on the rear portion of a lot which has frontage on two (2) streets and an alley, the front of such new dwelling shall face the street. (gf) The minimum pitch of the roof of any building shall be 2:12 and the maximum pitch of the roof of any building shall be 12:12, except that new, detached accessory buildings and additions to existing dwelling units may be constructed with a pitch that matches any roof pitch of the existing dwelling unit. Additionally, the roof pitch of a dormer, turret or similar architectural feature may not exceed 24:12 and the roof pitch of a covered porch may be flat whenever the roof of such a porch is also considered to be the floor of a second-story deck. (hg) Front Facade Character. When building construction results in: . . . (ih) Side Façade Character. When building construction results in: . . . (2) Bulk and Massing (a) Building Height. 1. Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot and accessory buildings. 2. The height of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot or an accessory building containing habitable space shall not exceed twenty-four (24) feet. 3. The height of an accessory building containing no habitable space shall not exceed twenty (20) feet. (b) Eave Height. 1. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not exceed thirteen (13) feet from grade for a dwelling unit located at the rear of the lot or an accessory building with habitable space. An eave of a dormer or similar architectural feature may exceed thirteen (13) feet if set back two (2) feet from the wall below and does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the wall length. 2. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not exceed ten (10) feet from grade for an accessory building containing no habitable space. An eave of a dormer or similar architectural ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 178 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 25 feature may exceed ten (10) feet if set back two (feet) from the wall below and does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the wall length. 3. The maximum eave height is measured at the minimum setback from an interior side-yard lot line and can be increased at a ratio of six (6) inches of additional building height for each one (1) foot of setback from the interior side property line. 4. If a second story has an exterior wall that is set back from the lower story's exterior wall, the eave height shall be the point of an imaginary line at which the upper story's roofline (if extended horizontally) would intersect with the lower story's exterior wall (if extended vertically). Illustration of Carriage House Roofline and Eave Heights (32) Carriage Houses and Habitable Accessory Buildings. . . . Section 25. That Section 4.8(E) and (F) of the Land Use Code are hereby amended to read as follows: Division 4.8 Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District . . . ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 179 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 26 (E) Dimensional Standards. . . . (5) Building Height. Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot and accessory buildings (a) Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot and accessory buildings, which shall be limited to one and one-half (1 ½) stories. (b) Front porches shall be limited to one (1) story. (c) The height of a carriage house or an accessory building containing habitable space shall not exceed twenty-four (24) feet. (d) The height of an accessory building containing no habitable space shall not exceed twenty (20) feet. (6) Eave Height. (a) The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not exceed thirteen (13) feet from grade for a dwelling unit located at the rear of the lot or an accessory building with habitable space. An eave of a dormer or similar architectural feature may exceed thirteen (13) feet if set back two (2) feet from the wall below and does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the wall length. (b) The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not exceed ten (10) feet from grade for an accessory building containing no habitable space. An eave of a dormer or similar architectural feature may exceed ten (10) feet if set back two (2) feet from the wall below and does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the wall length. (c) If a second story has an exterior wall that is set back from the lower story's exterior wall, the eave height shall be the point of an imaginary line at which the upper story's roofline (if extended downward) would intersect with the lower story's exterior wall (if extended upward). Figure 17.5-1 Illustration of Carriage House Roofline and Eave Heights ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 180 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 27 (F) Development Standards. (1) Building Design. . . . (e) Front porches shall be limited to one (1) story, and the front facades of all one- and two-family dwellings shall be no higher than two (2) stories, except for carriage houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be limited to one and one-half (1½) stories. (fe) In the event that a new dwelling is proposed to be constructed on the rear portion of a lot which has frontage on two (2) streets and an alley, the front of such new dwelling shall face the street. (gf) The minimum pitch of the roof of any building shall be 2:12 and the maximum pitch of the roof of any building shall be 12:12, except that new, detached accessory buildings and additions to existing dwelling units may be constructed with a pitch that matches any roof pitch of the existing dwelling unit. Additionally, the roof pitch of a dormer, turret or similar architectural feature may not exceed 24:12 and the covered porch may be flat whenever the roof of such porch is also considered to be the floor of a second-story deck. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 181 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 28 (hg) Front Facade Character. When building construction results in: 1. a two (2) -story house where a one (1) -story house previously existed and where there is an abutting house on either side that is one (1) story, or . . . (ih) Side Façade Character. When building construction results in: . . . (2) Bulk and Massing. (a) Building Height. 1. Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot and accessory buildings. 2. The height of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot or an accessory building containing habitable space shall not exceed twenty-four (24) feet. 3. The height of an accessory building containing no habitable space shall not exceed twenty (20) feet. (b) Eave Height. 1. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not exceed thirteen (13) feet from grade for a dwelling unit located at the rear of the lot or an accessory building with habitable space. An eave of a dormer or similar architectural feature may exceed thirteen (13) feet if set back two (2) feet from the wall below and does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the wall length. 2. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not exceed ten (10) feet from grade for an accessory building containing no habitable space. An eave of a dormer or similar architectural feature may exceed ten (10) feet if set back two (2) feet from the wall below and does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the wall length. 3. The maximum eave height is measured at the minimum setback from an interior side-yard lot line and can be increased at a ratio of six (6) inches of additional building height for each one (1) foot of setback from the interior side property line. 4. If a second story has an exterior wall that is set back from the lower story's exterior wall, the eave height shall be the point of an imaginary line at which the upper story's roofline (if extended ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 182 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 29 horizontally) would intersect with the lower story's exterior wall (if extended vertically). (See illustration contained in Division 4.7.) (32) Carriage Houses and Habitable Accessory Buildings. . . . Section 26. That Sections 4.9(B)(1)(a)4 and 4.9(B)(2)(a)7 of the Land Use Code are hereby amended to read as follows: Division 4.9 Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B) . . . (B) Permitted Uses. (1) The following uses are permitted in the N-C-B District, subject to basic development review, provided that such uses are located on lots that are part of an approved site specific development plan: (a) Residential Uses: . . . 4. Extra occupancy rental houses with five (5) or fewer tenants. . . . (2) The following uses are permitted in the N-C-B District, subject to administrative review: (a) Residential Uses: . . . 7. Extra occupancy rental houses with more than five (5) tenants. . . . Section 27. That Section 4.9(E)(1)(b) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Division 4.9 Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B) . . . ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 183 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 30 (E) Development Standards. (1) Single-Family Dwellings. . . . (b) Bulk and Massing. 1. Building Height. 1. Maximum building height shall be three (3) stories, except in the case of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot and accessory buildings which shall be limited to one and one-half (1 ½) stories. b. The height of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot or an accessory building containing habitable space shall not exceed twenty-four (24) feet. c. The height of an accessory building containing no habitable space shall not exceed twenty (20) feet. 2. Eave Height. 1.a. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not exceed thirteen (13) feet from grade for a dwelling unit located at the rear of the lot or an accessory building with habitable space. An eave of a dormer or similar architectural feature may exceed thirteen (13) feet if set back two (2) feet from the wall below and does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the wall length. 2.b. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not exceed ten (10) feet from grade for an accessory building containing no habitable space. An eave of a dormer or similar architectural feature may exceed ten (10) feet if set back two (2) feet from the wall below and does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the wall length. 3.c. The maximum eave height is measured at the minimum setback from an interior side-yard lot line and can be increased at a ratio of six (6) inches of additional building height for each one (1) foot of setback from the interior side property line. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 184 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 31 4.d. If a second story has an exterior wall that is set back from the lower story's exterior wall, the eave height shall be the point of an imaginary line at which the upper story's roofline (if extended horizontally) would intersect with the lower story's exterior wall (if extended vertically). . . . Section 28. That Section 4-10(B)(1)(e)1 and (B)(2)(a)4 of the Land Use Code are hereby amended to read as follows: Division 4.10 High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (H-M-N) . . . (B) Permitted Uses. (1) The following uses are permitted in the H-M-N District, subject to basic development review, provided that such uses are located on lots that are part of an approved site-specific development plan: . . . (e) Residential Uses: 1. Extra occupancy rental houses with five (5) or fewer tenants occupants. . . . (2) The following uses are permitted in the H-M-N District, subject to administrative review: (a) Residential Uses: . . . 4. Extra occupancy rental houses with more than five (5) tenants occupants. . . . Section 29. That the table contained in Section 4.16(F)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 4.16 Downtown District (D) . . . (F) Permitted Uses. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 185 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 32 . . . (2) The following uses are permitted in the subdistricts of the Downtown District, subject to Basic Development Review (BDR), Minor Amendment (MA), Administrative (Type 1) Review or Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2) Review as specifically identified on the chart below: Land Use Historic Core Canyon Avenue/Civic/ North Mason Innovation/ River River Corridor Campus North Entryway Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EOR Houses < 5 tenants occupants BDR/MA BDR/MA BDR/MA Not Permitted BDR/MA BDR/MA EOR Houses > 5 tenants occupants Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Medical Marijuana Research and Development Not Permitted Not Permitted BDR/MA Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 30. That Section 4.18(B)(1)(e)1 and B(2)(a)5 of the Land Use Code are hereby amended to read as follows: Division 4.18 Community Commercial District (C-C) . . . (B) Permitted Uses. (1) The following uses are permitted in the C-C District, subject to basic development review provided that such uses are located on lots that are part of an approved site-specific development plan, except that a stationary vendor use must be approved as a minor amendment: . . . (e) Residential Uses: 1. Extra occupancy rental houses with five (5) or fewer tenants occupants. . . . (2) The following uses are permitted in the C-C District, subject to administrative review: ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 186 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 33 (a) Residential Uses: . . . 5. Extra occupancy rental houses with more than five (5) tenants occupants. . . . Section 31. That Section 4.19(B)(1)(e)1 and (B)(2)(a)6 of the Land Use Code are hereby amended to read as follows: Division 4.19 Community Commercial - North College District (C-C-N) . . . (B) Permitted Uses. (1) The following uses are permitted in the C-C-N District, subject to basic development review provided that such uses are located on lots that are part of an approved site-specific development plan, except that a stationary vendor use must be approved as a minor amendment: . . . (e) Residential Uses: 1. Extra occupancy rental houses with five (5) or fewer tenants occupants. . . . (2) The following uses are permitted in the C-C-N District, subject to administrative review: (a) Residential Uses: . . . 6. Extra occupancy rental houses with more than five (5) tenants occupants. . . . Section 32. That the table contained in Section 4.21(B)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Division 4.21 General Commercial District (C-G) . . . (B) Permitted Uses. . . . ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 187 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 34 (2) The following uses are permitted in subdistricts of the C-G District, subject to Basic Development Review (BDR), Minor Amendment (MA), Administrative (Type 1) Review or Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2) Review as specifically identified on the chart below: Land Use I-25/SH 392 (CAC) General Commercial District (C-G) A. RESIDENTIAL Extra occupancy rental houses with 5 or fewer tenants occupants Not permitted BDR . . . . . . . . . Extra-occupancy rental houses with more than 5 tenants occupants Not permitted Type 1 . . . . . . . . . Section 33. That Section 4.22(B)(1)(e)1 and (B)(2)(a)6 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Division 4.22 Service Commercial District (C-S) . . . (B) Permitted Uses. (1) The following uses are permitted in the C-S District, subject to basic development review provided that such uses are located on lots that are part of an approved site-specific development plan, except that a stationary vendor use must be approved as a minor amendment: . . . (e) Residential Uses: 1. Extra occupancy rental houses with five (5) or fewer tenants occupants.* . . . (2) The following uses are permitted in the C-S District, subject to administrative review: (a) Residential Uses: . . . 6. Extra occupancy rental houses with more than five (5) tenants occupants.* ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 188 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 35 . . . Section 34. That Section 4.23(B)(1)(e)1 and (B)(2)(a)5 of the Land Use Code are hereby amended to read as follows: Division 4.23 Neighborhood Commercial District (N-C) . . . (B) Permitted Uses. (1) The following uses are permitted in the N-C District, subject to basic development review provided that such uses are located on lots that are part of an approved site-specific development plan, except that a stationary vendor use must be approved as a minor amendment: . . . (e) Residential Uses: 1. Extra occupancy rental houses with five (5) or fewer tenants occupants. (2) The following uses are permitted in the N-C District, subject to administrative review: (a) Residential Uses: . . . 5. Extra occupancy rental houses with more than (5) tenants occupants. . . . Section 35. That the table contained in Section 4.24(B) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Division 4.24 Limited Commercial District (C-L) . . . (B) Permitted Uses. . . . (2) The following uses are permitted in subdistricts of the C-L District, subject to Basic Development Review (BDR), Minor Amendment (MA), Administrative (Type 1) Review or Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2) Review as specifically identified on the chart below: ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 189 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 36 Land Use Riverside Area All Other Areas A. RESIDENTIAL . . . . . . . . . Extra occupancy rental houses with five (5) or fewer tenants occupants BDR BDR . . . . . . . . . B. INSTITUTIONAL/CIVIC/PUBLIC Extra occupancy rental houses with more than five (5) tenants occupants Type 1 Type 1 . . . . . . . . . Section 36. That Section 4.27(B)(1)(e)1 and (B)(2)(a)2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Division 4.27 Employment District (E) . . . (B) Permitted Uses. (1) The following uses are permitted in the E District, subject to basic development review provided that such uses are located on lots that are part of an approved site-specific development plan, except that a stationary vendor use must be approved as a minor amendment: . . . (e) Residential Uses: 1. Extra occupancy rental houses with five (5) or fewer tenants occupants. . . . (2) The following uses are permitted in the E District, subject to administrative review: (a) Residential Uses: . . . 2. Extra occupancy rental houses with more than five (5) tenants occupants. . . . Section 37. That Section 4.28 (B)(1)(e)1 and (B)(2)(a)2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 190 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 37 Division 4.28 Industrial District (I) . . . (B) Permitted Uses. (1) The following uses are permitted in the I District, subject to basic development review provided that such uses are located on lots that are part of an approved site-specific development plan, except that a stationary vendor use must be approved as a minor amendment: . . . (e) Residential Uses: 1. Extra occupancy rental houses with five (5) or fewer tenants occupants. . . . (2) The following uses are permitted in the I District, subject to administrative review: (a) Residential Uses: . . . 2. Extra occupancy rental houses with more than five (5) tenants occupants. . . . Section 38. That Section 4.29 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 4.29 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) OVERLAY* . . . (D) PUD Master Plan Review Procedure. . . . ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 191 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 38 (2) In order to approve a proposed PUD Master Plan, the decision maker must find that the PUD Master Plan satisfies the following criteria: . . . (e) The PUD Master Plan is consistent with all applicable Land Use Code General Development Standards (Article 3) except to the extent such development standards have been modified pursuant to below Subsection (G) or are inconsistent with the PUD Master Plan. (E) Permitted Uses. . . . (2) Additional uses not permitted in the underlying zone district may be requested for inclusion in a PUD Master Plan along with the type of review for such use, whether Type I, Type II, or Basic Development Review. The application must enumerate the additional use being requested, the proposed type of review, and how the use satisfies below criteria (a) through (d). The decision maker shall approve an additional use if it satisfies criteria (a) through (d). For each approved additional use, the decision maker shall determine the applicable type of review and may grant a requested type of review if it would not be contrary to the public good. . . . (b) The use complies with applicable Land Use Code provisions regarding the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise, storm water management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment;. (c) The use is compatible with the other proposed uses within the requested PUD Overlay and with the uses permitted in the zone district or districts adjacent to the proposed PUD Overlay; and. (d) The use is appropriate for the property or properties within the PUD Overlay. . . . (G) Modification of Densities and Development Standards. . . . (3) In order to approve requested density or development standard modifications, the decision maker must find that the density or development standard as modified satisfies the following criteria: (a) The modified density or development standard is consistent with the applicable purposes, and advances the applicable objectives of, the PUD Overlay as described in Sections 4.29 (A) and (B); ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 192 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 39 . . . (H) PUD Master Plan Non-Expiration. PUD Master Plans do not expire but are subject to the amendment and termination provisions of Sections 4.29 (I) and (J). . . . Section 39. That the definition “Dwelling unit” contained in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Dwelling unit shall mean one (1) or more rooms and a single kitchen, or including a second kitchen pursuant to Section 3.5.2(H), and at least one (1) bathroom, designed, occupied or intended for occupancy as separate quarters for the exclusive use of a single family for living, cooking and sanitary purposes, located in a single-family, two-family or multi-family dwelling or mixed-use building. Section 40. That the definition “Extra occupancy rental house” contained in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Extra occupancy rental house shall mean the use of a building or portion of a building which is used by a number of occupants that exceeds the occupancy limits set forth in Section 3.8.16 to accommodate, for compensation, four (4) or more tenants, boarders or roomers, not including members of the occupant's immediate family who might be occupying such building. The word compensation shall include compensation in money, services or other things of value. Section 41. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition “Kitchen” which reads in its entirety as follows: Kitchen shall mean a portion of a dwelling unit used for the purposes of cooking, preserving, or otherwise preparing food and contains a cooking appliance such as a stove, microwave, or hot-plate. Section 42. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition “Occupant” which reads in its entirety as follows: Occupant, as the term is used only in Section 3.8.28 and in relation to extra occupancy in other parts of this Code, shall mean a person who occupies a dwelling unit or any portion thereof for living and sleeping purposes. Section 43. That the definition “Story” contained in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 193 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 40 Story, half shall mean a space under a sloping roof which has the line of intersection of the roof and wall face not more than three (3) feet above the floor level, and in which space the possible floor area with head room of five (5) feet or less occupies at least forty (40) percent of the total floor area of the storye directly beneath. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this ___ day of ____, A.D. 2020, and to be presented for final passage on the ___ day of _____, A.D. 2020. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on this _____ day of ____, A.D. 2020. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 194 October 14, 2020 City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board Re: Emergency Services and Alley Access Members of the Board: The PFA has received an inquiry regarding addressing requirements and alley access as it relates to carriage house-type projects. We appreciate the Board’s interest in keeping our codes practical and attainable for the public, while still protecting public safety and supporting efficient Emergency Services response times. Currently, the PFA does not support allowing new carriage houses to provide access from alleys for the following reasons: -Private alleys have not been designed to support Emergency Vehicle loads (up to 40 tons), widths (16’ minimum), and maneuvering requirements (ie: hammer heads, turnarounds, pullouts). -Per GIS addressing standards, carriage houses are addressed from the street of the main residence on the property. Since many alleys are private, they are not named and so would not support property addressing. -Emergency response systems will direct first responders to the mapped address according to the GIS data. This will take responders to the public street side of the property. -Alleys are not necessarily publicly owned or maintained, bring many potential access issues, such as: o Blocked access from parked vehicles, dumpsters, etc. o Impassible conditions due to lack of maintenance or snow removal o Lack of street lighting to identify buildings and driveways -In Fire response, hydrants are located along public streets and not alleys. Access for quick hydrant connection is critical and cannot always be achieved from alleys The PFA thanks for Board for hearing our concerns regarding this issue. Sincerely, Sarah Carter Assistant Fire Marshal Poudre Fire Authority 102 Remington Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 970-416-2864 sarah.carter@poudre-fire.org ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 195 1 Katharine Claypool From:Noah Beals Sent:Friday, October 9, 2020 4:46 PM To:beatrice.s.krummholz@gmail.com Cc:Development Review Comments; Kacee Scheidenhelm Subject:2020Land Use Code Changes Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Hello Beatrice, Thanks, for sending comments. We will certainly send these comments on to the Planning and Zoning Board for the public hearing. Please let us know if you have more questions about the code changes. Beatrice Krummholz Comments I am concerned about the "affidavit" for an extra kitchen. Too many houses throughout the city have illegal apartments/Airbnb's. Letting people just sign an affidavit saying their not using these as apartments or vacation rentals is not good enough. I also thing the most strict definition of a wetland (the US fish and wildlife definition) should be used not the Army Corps of Engineers. Thank you Kind Regards, Noah Beals Interim Development Review Manager | City of Fort Collins 970 416-2313 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 196 1 Katharine Claypool From:Ted Shepard <tshepard533@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, October 15, 2020 8:37 AM To:Katharine Claypool Subject:[EXTERNAL] Land Use Code Revision - Question for Noah Good morning Katie – could you pass along this question to Noah: Regarding proposed Land Use Code revision number 11, Section 3.5.2(D)(1)(a), which would require a connecting walkway, not exceeding 200 feet, out to the front of the lot to the public street for a carriage house that is located at the rear of the lot: My question has to do with lots located in the NCL, NCM zones where lots are also served by alleys. Am I correct is assuming that this requirement would not apply to Accessory Buildings with Habitable Space? These would be the structures that are typically built on lots less than 10,000 square feet where there are no cooking facilities, and thus not considered to be dwelling units? (And where the applicant has signed and recorded the affidavit stating that there will be no cooking facilities.) Thanks, Ted Shepard (970)219‐1101 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 197