The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/15/2021 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Work Session * Work session times are approximate and are subject to change without notice. Jeff Hansen, Chair Virtual Meeting Michelle Haefele, Vice Chair Zoom Webinar Per Hogestad David Katz Jeff Schneider Ted Shepard William Whitley Planning and Zoning Hearing will be held on Thursday, December 17, 2020, in City Hall Chambers. Regular Work Session January 15, 2021 Virtual Meeting Noon – 3:45 p.m. Planning and Zoning Board Work Session Agenda Participation for this remote Planning and Zoning Board work session will be available online or by phone. No one will be allowed to attend in person. Public Attendance (Online): Individuals who wish to attend the Planning and Zoning work session via remote public participation can do so through Zoom at https://zoom.us/j/96089493917. Individuals participating in the Zoom session should also watch the meeting through that site. The meeting will be available to join beginning at 11:45 a.m. on January 15, 2021. Attendees should try to sign in prior to 12:00 p.m. if possible. In order to attend: Use a laptop, computer, or internet-enabled smartphone. (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio). You need to have access to the internet. Keep yourself on muted status. If you have any technical difficulties during the work session, please email smanno@fcgov.com. Public Attendance (Phone): If you do not have access to the internet, you can call into the work session via phone. Please dial: 1-253-215-8782 or 1-346-248-7799, with Webinar ID: 960 8949 3917. (Continued on next page) Packet pg. 1 City of Fort Collins Page 2 TOPICS: PROJECTED TIMES: Consent: 1. December 2020 Hearing Draft Minutes 2. CDOT Port of Entry SPAR (Wray) 3. 2020 Annual Report (Sizemore) 12:00 – 12:30 Discussion: 4. H-25 Multi-Family (Overton) 5. King Soopers #146 Midtown Gardens Marketplace (Kleer) 12:30 – 2:10 Policy and Legislation: • Lighting Code Update (Smith) • Housing Strategic Plan (Overton/Ex) 2:10 – 3:05 Board Topics: • Upcoming Hearing Calendar (Sizemore) • Future Work Session Topics (Sizemore) • Transportation Board Liaison Update (York) 3:05 – 3:45 The meeting will be available beginning at 11:45 a.m. Please call in to the meeting prior to 12:00 p.m., if possible. Once you join the meeting: keep yourself on muted status. If you have any technical difficulties during the meeting, please email smanno@fcgov.com. The January 15 Planning and Zoning Board regular meeting will be held remotely and not in-person. Information on remotely participating in the January 15 Planning and Zoning regular meeting is contained in the agenda for the January 15 meeting available at https://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/planning-zoning.php. Members of the public wishing to submit documents, visual presentations, or written comments for the Board to consider regarding any item on the agenda must be emailed to smanno@fcgov.com at least 24 hours prior to the January 15 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 There are no documents to review prior to work session regarding Lighting Code. Please tune into the work session on January 15, 2021 for an update. Packet pg. 3 LIGHTING CODE UPDATE 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970.221.6376 970.224.6134 - fax Planning, Development & Transportation MEMORANDUM DATE: January 7, 2021 TO: Planning and Zoning Board FROM: Lindsay Ex, Interim Housing Manager Meaghan Overton, Senior City Planner RE: December P&Z Work Session Materials Bottom Line: Attached are two documents – a draft prioritized set of strategies (Chapter 4) and a draft set of guiding principles (Chapter 5) - to facilitate discussion on the draft Housing Strategic Plan. Getting feedback from the P&Z Board on the prioritization of strategies and guiding principles for implementation will be the focus of our time at the January work session. Specific Questions for Discussion: What feedback do Board Members have on: •Strategies prioritized? •Guiding principles? Does the Board wish to make a recommendation to Council about the Housing Strategic Plan? •First Reading February 16, Second Reading March 2 Housing Strategic Plan Background: The City developed its first Affordable Housing Strategic Plan in 1999 to stimulate housing production for the City’s low-wage earners (under 80% of the area median income, or AMI). The current update to the Housing Strategic Plan has expanded this scope to include the entire housing spectrum, recognizing the gap between peoples’ incomes and the cost of housing continues to widen, and that current resources are insufficient to meet our adopted goals for affordable housing production. Staff expects to share the plan with Council for consideration of adoption on February 16, 2021. Housing Strategic Plan Progress to Date: The graphic below outlines the progression of the Housing Strategic Plan process: Attachments: 1.Table 1: Initial Set of Prioritized Strategies for the Housing Strategic Plan 2.Table 2: Draft Guiding Principles to guide Plan Implementation 3.Housing Strategic Plan Fall 2020 Engagement Report HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN Packet pg. 4 P&Z Work Session | 1.15.2021 | Housing Strategic Plan Update | Attachment 2 Table 1: Initial Set of Prioritized Strategies Associated with Step 6 of the Housing Strategic Plan Review the list of strategies below and consider the following questions: What feedback do Board Members have on this refined set of strategies? What strategies are critical path, i.e., should be done first? What additional clarification would be helpful for the final plan? Initial Set of Prioritized Strategies Brief Description Anticipated Outcome Alignment with Community Recommendations (Draft)1 GC #1. Price escalation impacts everyone, and disproportionately impacts BIPOC [Black, Indigenous and People of Color] and low-income households. Vision Alignment: The following strategies primarily address the "everyone" (i.e., equity) component of the Vision. 1 *2Assess displacement and gentrification risk. Map that illustrates the threat of displacement and gentrification at the neighborhood level Improve housing equity, housing stability, and preservation •While the community did not directly reference this, there were multiple references to no longer being able to afford to live in Fort Collins. 2 Promote inclusivity, housing diversity, and affordability as community values. Prioritize practices that include storytelling and culturally appropriate engagement with a broad range of communities, especially those that are considered historically marginalized and underrepresented. Engagement should focus on issues related to density, structural racism, the need for and myths about affordable housing, etc. Improve housing equity and increase housing choice •Combat stigmas associated with affordable housing •Build community-wide support for doing things differently 3 Implement the 2020 Analysis of Fair Housing Choice Action Steps. (1)Strengthen fair housing information, educational and training opportunities. (2) Improve the housing environment for people with disabilities. (3) Support efforts to improve residents’ establishment and building of credit. (4) Support programs, projects, and organizations that improve housing access and affordability. (5) Continue to pursue infrastructure and public amenity equity. (6) Pursue public engagement activities to inform Land Use Code and policy updates through Home 2 Health. Improve housing equity and access to opportunity •Focus financial support on lowest income residents •Ensure all neighborhoods have access to amenities •Increase equity in existing programs and services GC #2. There aren’t enough affordable places available for people to rent or purchase, or what is available and affordable isn’t the kind of housing people need. Vision Alignment: The following strategies drive forward affordable, healthy, stable housing for all by increasing housing choice across the entire housing spectrum. 4 Implementation, tracking, and assessment of housing strategies. Regularly assess existing housing policies and programs to ensure they are effective, equitable, and aligned with vision. Develop real-time, accessible, and performance-based data that evaluates the performance of these strategies and their progress toward the vision. Increase/monitor effectiveness of all strategies •Increase equity in existing programs and services •Consult with BIPOC and low-income households on housing policy and programs 1 Staff is continuing to analyze the community engagement feedback and how it supports the prioritized strategies; this section will continue to evolve. 2 * Indicates Council Ad Hoc Committee quick(er) win HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 5 Initial Set of Prioritized Strategies Brief Description Anticipated Outcome Alignment with Community Recommendations (Draft)1 5 Advocate for housing-related legislation at state and federal levels. Possible focus areas: monitor and support state level renter protection legislation, advocate for additional housing funding, explore eviction protections and the option of pausing evictions in times of crisis. Varied (e.g., renter protections, funding options) including housing stability and preservation •Advocate for limits on rent prices and/or annual rent increases •Provide emergency gap funding to prevent eviction 6 Visitability policy. Allows easy visitation by mobility impaired residents in a portion/percentage of units in new housing developments. Improve accessibility •N/A 7 Remove barriers to the development of Accessory Dwelling Units. Remove Land Use Code barriers and create more incentives for revamping existing housing/neighborhoods Diversify housing options / Increase housing choice •Explore new housing types, including tiny homes and cooperative housing •Relax restrictions in the Land Use Code to make it easier for developers to build new homes 8 *Extend the city’s affordability term. The City’s current affordability term for projects receiving City funding or incentives is 20 years but many cities use longer terms, commonly 30 up to 60 years, to keep inventory affordable for longer. Increase stability & preservation of affordable rental/owner options •N/A 9 *Off-cycle appropriation to advance Phase One of the Land Use Code (LUC) Audit. Defines additional housing types; creates opportunity to increase overall supply; recalibrates incentives for affordable housing production; identifies opportunities to add to existing incentives; refines and simplifies development processes Diversify housing options / Increase housing choice •Explore opportunities to limit fees associated with housing •Remove or relax regulations that limit creative reuse of existing homes. GC #3. The City does have some tools to encourage affordable housing, but the current amount of funding and incentives are not enough to meet our goals. Vision Alignment: The following strategies primarily address the affordability component of the Vision. 10 Refine local affordable housing goal. Set more specific housing goals by income level so that it is easier to track progress and communicate our housing goals to developers. Improve targeting of housing investments •Incentivize developers to build affordable housing 11 Create a new dedicated revenue stream to fund the Affordable Housing Fund. Create a fee or tax that generates money for the Affordable Housing Fund. This would allow the City to support additional affordable housing development and rehabilitation. Increase supply and preservation of affordable rental/owner housing •Incentivize developers to build affordable housing 12 Expand partnership(s) with local Community Development Financial Institution (CDFI) to offer gap financing and low-cost loan pool for affordable housing development. A loan pool and gap financing for affordable housing projects that need additional financial support to be viable Increase supply of affordable rental/owner housing •Incentivize developers to build affordable housing HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 6 Initial Set of Prioritized Strategies Brief Description Anticipated Outcome Alignment with Community Recommendations (Draft)1 13 *Recalibrate existing incentives to reflect current market conditions (existing incentives include fee waivers, fee deferral, height bonus, density bonus, reduced landscaping, priority processing). Alter incentives for affordable housing development so developers are motivated to use them based on market conditions Increase supply of affordable rental/owner housing •Incentivize developers to build affordable housing 14 *Create additional development incentives for affordable housing. Add more incentives to develop affordable housing in the Land Use Code so that we can increase the supply of affordable housing Increase supply of affordable rental/owner housing •Incentivize developers to build affordable housing GC #4. Job growth continues to outpace housing growth. Vision Alignment: The following strategies increase housing for all by removing barriers to development and increasing housing options. 15 Explore/address financing barriers to missing middle development. Collaborate with developers to understand financing barriers for missing middle projects and consider partnerships with financial institutions to address these barriers Diversify housing options / Increase housing choice •Incentivize developers to build affordable housing •Relax restrictions in the Land Use Code to make it easier for developers to build new homes 16 Remove barriers to allowed densities through code revisions. Revisit or remove barriers in code that limit the number of multifamily units, have square footage requirements for secondary or non-residential buildings and height limitations restricting the ability to maximize compact sites using tuck-under parking Diversify housing options / Increase housing choice •Explore new housing types, including tiny homes and cooperative housing •Build more duplexes and small multifamily units •Remove or relax regulations that limit creative reuse of existing homes •Relax restrictions in the Land Use Code to make it easier for developers to build new homes GC #5. Housing is expensive to build, and the cost of building new housing will likely continue to increase over time. Vision Alignment: The following strategies primarily address the affordability component of the Vision. 17 Reconsider affordable housing requirements/funding as part of metro districts. Consider requirement that Metropolitan Districts containing housing must provide affordable housing Increase supply of affordable rental/owner housing •Incentivize developers to build affordable housing 18 Increase awareness & opportunities for collaboration across water districts and other regional partners around the challenges with water costs and housing. Fort Collins has multiple water providers and the cost of water is different in each district. This collaboration could result in more consistent water prices across districts. Improve affordability and housing diversity •Incentivize developers to build affordable housing HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 7 Initial Set of Prioritized Strategies Brief Description Anticipated Outcome Alignment with Community Recommendations (Draft)1 19 Bolster city land bank activity by allocating additional funding to the program (contingent on adopting additional revenue stream policy). The Land Bank program sets aside land for affordable housing development. This would allow the City to purchase more land to add to the Land Bank. Increase supply of affordable rental/owner housing •Incentivize developers to build affordable housing GC #7. Housing policies have not consistently addressed housing stability and healthy housing, especially for people who rent. Vision Alignment: The following strategies primarily address the health and stability components of the Vision. 20 Explore the option of a mandated rental license/registry program for long-term rentals and pair with best practice rental regulations. Can result in landlord education (fair housing or other), standardized lease agreements in English and Spanish, application fee reasonableness requirements, and health & safety rental inspections. Improve renter protections, housing quality, housing stability and landlord access to information •Explore rental licensing to promote safe and healthy housing •Increase equity in existing programs and services 21 Explore revisions to occupancy limits and family definitions. Occupancy limits and narrow family definitions often create unintended constraints on housing choice and options, including cooperative housing opportunities for seniors and people with disabilities desiring to live with unrelated adults in a single family home setting. Diversify housing options / Increase housing choice •Remove or relax occupancy restrictions •Increase equity in existing programs and services 22 Public Sector Right of First Refusal for Affordable Developments. Typically requires owners of affordable housing to notify the public sector of intent to sell or redevelop property and allow period of potential purchase by public sector or non-profit partner. Preserve current supply of affordable rental housing •Bolster nonprofits providing “housing first” models of support •Focus financial support on lowest income residents 23 Tenant right of first refusal for cooperative ownership of multifamily or manufactured housing community. Laws that give tenants the right to purchase a rental unit or complex (including a manufactured housing community) before the owner puts it on the market or accepts an offer from another potential buyer. Increase stability and housing options for renters and manufactured housing residents and preservation of affordable housing •Explore opportunities for resident- owned manufactured housing communities. •Explore new housing types, including tiny homes and cooperative housing 24 Support community organizing efforts in manufactured home communities and access to resident rights information. Continue and expand existing efforts to work with residents and nonprofit community partners to address the critical need for programs focused on manufactured housing livability and safety, preservation of these as an affordable housing option, and equitable access to City resources in historically underserved neighborhoods and populations. Increase stability and housing options for manufactured housing residents •Explore opportunities for resident- owned manufactured housing communities. •Preserve manufactured housing communities. HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 8 Initial Set of Prioritized Strategies Brief Description Anticipated Outcome Alignment with Community Recommendations (Draft)1 25 *Foreclosure and eviction prevention and legal representation. Provides assistance with mortgage debt restructuring and mortgage and/or utilities payments to avoid foreclosure; short-term emergency rent and utilities assistance for renters. CARES Act funding is currently dedicated to a legal defense fund for renters but additional resources are needed. Increase stability for vulnerable renters and owners •Provide emergency gap funding to prevent eviction •Increase equity in existing programs and services 26 Small landlord incentives. Incentivize small landlords to keep units affordable for a period of time in exchange for subsidized rehabilitation or tax or fee waivers. Increase affordable rentals, housing stability and preservation, and improve condition •Advocate for limits on rent prices and/or annual rent increases •Explore rental licensing to promote safe and healthy housing Aligning the Plan with Related Efforts Continue the City's ongoing efforts to implement recommendations from current housing-related studies and other City efforts. (LUC Audit, Fair Housing Analysis, Homeward 2020, 2015-2019 Affordable Housing Strategic Plan) This work acknowledges that continuing the City’s existing efforts (as will be noted in the full plan chapter) is critical for achieving the City’s goals and achieving the vision. This includes continuing to prioritize direct funding to the lowest-income residents. Diversify housing options, increase housing choice, increase equity, solutions to end homelessness, preservation of affordable housing •Focus financial support on lowest income residents •Bolster nonprofits providing supportive housing services •Preserve manufactured housing communities •Bolster nonprofits providing “housing first” models of support •Provide emergency gap funding to prevent eviction Continue to align housing work with other departmental plans and programs to leverage more funding resources and achieve citywide goals that advance the triple bottom line of economic, environmental, and social sustainability (could include citywide disparity study). As housing impacts every aspect of the community, integrating this work across the triple bottom line to leverage funds, reduce redundancies, and align toward multiple city goals is critical to success. Citywide alignment •Build community-wide support for doing things differently •Seek out innovative ideas from the community and peer cities •Increase equity in existing programs and services HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 9 P&Z Work Session 1.15.2021 Housing Strategic Plan Update Attachment 2 Table 2: Draft Guiding Principles for the Housing Strategic Plan Review the draft guiding principles below and consider the following question: What feedback do Board Members have on the draft guiding principles? Guiding Principles What the Principle Means Center the work in people • One outcome, targeted strategies – achieving the vision that “Everyone has healthy, stable housing they can afford,” will require a suite of strategies that target different income levels, geographies, and identities; the portfolio should reflect the entire system of impacted players •Value in both content & context experts – strategies should be prioritized from both technical and lived experiences. Both forms of expertise should contribute to prioritization. Be Agile and Adaptive •Priorities should be reviewed annually for progress and overall work planning •Priorities and strategies must be specific enough to generate real solutions and flexible enough to address the changing landscape of the community Rapid decision making with inclusive communication and engagement •Be clear that the work requires action while also prioritizing time and space for all community members, especially those impacted by the decisions, to engage with and influence the outcome Build on existing plans and policies – & their engagement •Review adopted plans and policies to inform policy priorities •Also review the feedback community members have already shared on a topic before asking again – respect their time and prior engagement Expect and label tensions, opportunities, and tradeoffs •Recognize and name where limited resources impact decision making, where stakeholders are impacted differently and had different perspectives, and the tradeoffs involved in moving forward with a given solution Direct investment should be focused on the lowest income levels •Limited financial resources must be targeted for housing the lowest income households. Policy should be used all along the continuum to stimulate a wide range of housing choice for residents at all ages, income levels and life stages. •Exceptions can be considered when an innovative technique or strategy is being applied at higher AMI levels but generally should not exceed 120% AMI Transparency in decision making •Be clear regarding how the decision maker came to their conclusions and what was/was not considered. Make decisions for impact, empowerment, and systems (not ease of implementation) •While projects may be shovel ready, they are not always shovel worthy •Assess the entire portfolio of prioritized strategies for a mix of quick wins versus longer-term transformational solutions that may require more dialogue and investment to implement HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 10 January 1, 2021 HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN FALL 2020 ENGAGEMENT REPORT Prepared by Cactus Consulting, LLC in partnership with the Home2Health team Executive Summary The City is updating the Housing Strategic Plan. This plan sets housing goals and guides City decisions on policy and funding for the housing system. While previous plans have focused on income-qualified Affordable Housing, this update to the Housing Strategic Plan will address the entire spectrum of housing needs in our community. The draft vision – Everyone has stable, healthy housing they can afford – reflects this shift. In October and November of 2020, nearly 450 community members took the time to share their experiences, provide feedback, and brainstorm solutions to the housing challenges in Fort Collins. This report sums up this early community feedback. Participants highlighted five priorities—Stability, Equity, Choice, Collaboration, and Creativity. Within each priority are suggested strategies for the City, nonprofits, developers, and community members. The report ends with next steps, including important community conversations around density and home ownership and recommendations from the community on how to evaluate strategies and center equity in decision-making. The Process In preparation for updating the Housing Strategic Plan, the City of Fort Collins reviewed local housing data and community feedback gathered through the Home2Health project. As a result, the City identified six key challenges related to housing: 1. Price escalation impacts everyone, and disproportionately impacts BIPOC [Black, Indigenous and People of Color] and low-income households. 2. There aren’t enough affordable places available for people to rent or purchase, or what is available and affordable isn’t the kind of housing people need. 3. The City does have some tools to encourage affordable housing, but the current amount of funding and incentives for affordable housing are not enough to meet our goals. 4. Housing is expensive to build, and the cost of building new housing will likely continue to increase over time. 5. It is difficult to predict the lasting effects of COVID-19 and the impacts of the pandemic. 6. Housing policies have not consistently addressed housing stability and healthy housing, especially for people who rent. These challenges were later updated and expanded to include a specific mention of the imbalance between job growth and housing growth. The updated list of challenges is available in the Housing Strategic Plan. HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 11 2 The Housing Strategic Plan team designed safe and accessible engagement opportunities to gather feedback on the challenges and ideas for overcoming them. This included Community Guide discussions, in-person (distanced and masked) focus groups, virtual workshops, and an “At-Your-Own Pace” online survey. The goals for engagement were: 1) To provide safe, flexible opportunities for all community members to participate. 2) To close persistent engagement gaps, including under-engagement of Spanish-speaking residents, renters, and residents who make less than $50,000/year. To this end, workshops and surveys, which traditionally result in more responses from women, older adults, and higher income households, were combined with outreach to specific stakeholders and community groups. The City partnered with the Mi Voz community group to discuss housing with 38 Spanish-speaking residents, many of whom reside in mobile home parks. The Partnership for Age-Friendly Communities hosted conversations with older adults and mobile home park residents. The Center for Public Deliberation hosted conversations that targeted residents under 30, and those making less than the median income. Additional engagement with neighborhood groups, including homeowners’ associations, was identified as an opportunity for growth in future engagement opportunities in this plan. Overall, staff and community partners facilitated 37 different engagement opportunities. This included four events facilitated by the Partnership for Age-Friendly Communities (PAFC) and eight by the Center for Public Deliberation (CPD). Through these approaches, the City was able to gather feedback from around 450 participants in October and November of 2020. Demographic data was not analyzed because it was optional and may not provide a full picture of participation. Participants were asked six questions related to current housing challenges in Fort Collins, the housing vision, and their ideas for achieving it. The six questions were: 1. Based on your experience, do these challenges reflect what you know about housing in Fort Collins? 2. How do these challenges affect you and our community more broadly? 3. What needs to change to address these challenges? 4. Who has the ability to make the change needed? 5. What do you wish decision makers understood about your experience with housing? HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 12 3 6. How would you like to engage in this project in the future? Though the responses to these questions provided rich information on community experiences and ideas related to housing, it is important to note that this report is also built on the shoulders of many engagement efforts conducted over the past two years, including City Plan, Our Climate Future, and the Home2Health project. Community members have consistently talked about the importance of affordable housing to a healthy environment, an equitable community, and to the physical and mental health of individuals. Prior to analyzing responses from this year’s engagement efforts, we revisited the findings, and data from recent surveys and analysis (including the Social Sustainability Gaps Analysis and the Larimer County Community Health Survey) to ground our work. The following community priorities reflect the collective engagement of hundreds of community members who shared their time, energy, and experiences. Community Priorities Community members generally felt that the housing challenges reflected the experience of housing in Fort Collins. Some shared personal stories of their struggle to afford healthy, stable housing. As one person shared, While organizations like the City may express goals in number of affordable housing units available or number of dollars allocated to emergency rent relief, community members described their goals for housing in very different ways—in the ability to feel secure in their homes, in the ability to choose a home with the amenities that they want and need, and in the ability to rely on their community to work towards a better future for all. Participants suggested a variety of strategies to overcome housing challenges and help everyone in Fort Collins have healthy, stable housing they can afford. These strategies are grouped into five priority areas: 1. Stability. The cost of housing is a major source of stress and instability for many households. People want options for stable rentals and home ownership. 2. Equity. Folks want a diverse community where equity guides how we fund, build, and manage housing. 3. Choice. People recognized that different households have different housing needs. They prioritized having options for the types of housing they rent or buy. This calls for increasing the total supply of housing, revamping the housing we have, and improving access to amenities like public transportation and parks. 4. Collaboration. Housing is a complex problem, and no one organization can do it alone. Community members want the City to take the lead, but also want the community and local organizations to step up and be part of the solution. 5. Creativity. People want new and innovative solutions. They want the City and the community to be willing to do things differently. HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 13 4 It is important to note that the community priorities are not listed in order of importance to the community, and many of the strategies and recommendations overlap. Stability The cost of housing is a major source of stress and instability for many households. People want options for stable rentals and home ownership. Community Recommendations: Advocate for limits on rent prices and/or annual rent increases ⧫ Explore rental licensing to promote safe and healthy housing ⧫ Preserve manufactured housing communities ⧫ Explore opportunities for resident-owned manufactured housing communities ⧫ Explore opportunities to limit fees associated with housing ⧫ Bolster nonprofits providing “housing first” models of support ⧫ Provide emergency gap funding to prevent eviction What we heard: The cost of housing was described as a major source of stress and instability for households in Fort Collins. People recognized that easing the cost burden of housing could have a transformational impact on an individual’s mental and physical health, among other things, and praised nonprofit organizations pursuing a “housing first” model in the community. They stressed the importance of gap funding for emergency rent relief to prevent eviction and displacement. Participants expressed frustration that landlords could set and increase prices without any oversight, and suggested regulations at the state or local level that would limit maximum rent prices, reduce extra fees, and/or limit maximum annual increases. Many also recognized that low wages were a barrier to affordability and called on employers to increase wages. People also shared negative experiences with landlords who did not maintain their homes. Some were afraid that asking landlords to maintain homes would invite retaliation or lead to rent increases, putting their housing at risk. A rental registration or licensing program was suggested to put housing protections in place and ensure housing is safe and healthy. Residents of manufactured housing communities discussed the need for park preservation, and the desire to work towards more resident control and ownership of communities. Many owners of manufactured housing discussed struggling with costs despite owning their home because of perpetual increases in lot rent, costly utility bills, and frequent fees. Similarly, some participants expressed concern about the monthly fees from HOAs, condominium associations, and metro districts inflating the cost of home ownership. Guidance for the Housing Strategic Plan: These comments align with community feedback from the Larimer County Community Health Survey and the Home2Health project regarding the central role of housing stability for individual and community well-being. Though many responses suggested home ownership as the preferred source of stability, some community members defined stability in a different way. The Housing Strategic Plan HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 14 5 should discuss how each strategy could create pathways to stability for residents, whether that be long-term, stable rentals, cooperative housing, or home ownership. Equity Folks want a diverse community where equity guides how we fund, build, and manage housing. Community Recommendations: Focus financial support on lowest income residents ⧫ Increase equity in existing programs and services ⧫ Bolster nonprofits providing supportive housing services ⧫ Combat stigmas associated with affordable housing ⧫ Consult with BIPOC and low-income households on housing policy and programs What we heard: Though community members discussed and defined equity in different ways, most emphasized the importance of focusing efforts on those who are most affected by the current housing challenges, including BIPOC households, low-income households, people with disabilities, and seniors. While some participants were concerned that specifically discussing challenges for BIPOC households was outside the scope of this plan, most comments expressed a need for more inclusive programs and practices to combat ongoing discrimination and historic inequalities. In general, folks recognized that current funding levels were not adequate to meet the housing needs in our community, and discussed the importance of balancing the very immediate need to keep people’s housing stable with the longer-term need to fund the housing options people want and need in our community. In general, community members prioritized “gap funds” to help households make ends meet and subsidized housing for low-income households over financial assistance to middle-income earners. People discussed the importance of creating specialized support systems so folks can find and keep homes. Participants praised the hard work of nonprofits in this arena and expressed support for bolstering funding and expanding services to meet the needs of seniors, seniors raising grandchildren, immigrant and refugee families, and people who were previously incarcerated. Participants discussed the importance of continuing to consult with BIPOC and low-income households as decisions about housing are being made. As one person stated, Finally, a few community members shared personal experiences of feeling unwelcome in the community because of race, ethnicity, and/or income status. As one participant shared, HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 15 6 Community conversations may be needed to break stigmas around affordable housing and promote equity and inclusion in Fort Collins’ neighborhoods. Guidance for the Housing Strategic Plan: These comments align with previous feedback from the Home2Health project and the Social Sustainability Gaps Analysis on the disproportionate impact of housing challenges on BIPOC and low-income households. The Housing Strategic Plan should consider how their decisions can support equitable outcomes (going beyond the traditional focus on equitable opportunities). In addition, the Housing Strategic Plan should include clear opportunities for consultation with BIPOC and low-income households and community conversations around equity in housing. Choice People recognized that different households have different housing needs. They prioritized having options for the types of housing they rent or buy. This calls both for increasing the total supply of housing, and changing the types of housing we are creating. Community Recommendations: Remove or relax occupancy restrictions ⧫ Explore new housing types, including tiny homes and cooperative housing ⧫ Build more duplexes and small multifamily units ⧫ Ensure all neighborhoods have access to amenities ⧫ Remove or relax regulations that limit creative reuse of existing homes. What we heard: Many community members expressed frustration with the lack of housing choices currently available, especially for low- and middle-income earners. As one participant shared, People called for building more housing and revamping the housing Fort Collins has to offer. Community members emphasized the need to build new housing options that people can afford on a typical salary, rather than “luxury” homes or apartments. Some also expressed a desire for options that go beyond the “traditional” large single-family home, including more duplexes, small multi-family developments, and tiny houses. Community members highlighted that the goal should be to increase options—not to expect that every low-income household should live in an apartment building. People stressed the importance of being able to access the amenities that were important to them. Some mentioned the value of having access to a personal yard or garden. Many advocated for improved community amenities in all neighborhoods, including parks, open space, and public transportation. Many participants also saw zoning and occupancy restrictions as a significant barrier to having enough housing, and to having housing that is affordable for all residents. Many supported repealing or modifying “U+2”, which limits the number of unrelated people who can live in a house. This was seen as a potential benefit HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 16 7 for people of all ages living on single incomes, and an opportunity to “free up” additional homes for rental or purchase. Some participants acknowledged concerns around noise or parking that can come with higher occupancy levels, but many felt that the rule was unfairly limiting the housing choices of the larger community to prevent problems caused by a small group. Community members also suggested relaxing some restrictions in the Land Use Code to make it easier for homeowners and developers to renovate homes and set up living arrangements that work for modern households. Ideas included making it easier to add Accessory Dwelling Units (carriage houses, in-law apartments, etc.), convert single-family houses into duplexes, and set up cooperative housing. In addition to increasing available housing units, duplexes and Accessory Dwelling Units in particular were seen as a benefit for extended families who could pool resources to purchase a home, and adults for caring for aging parents. Finally, there was a perception among participants that “investment buyers” were unfairly driving up prices and reducing opportunities for home ownership by buying homes to rent out. As one participant shared, Community members expressed frustration that first-time homebuyers were “competing” with purchasers looking for a source of income rather than a place to call home. Some community members suggested limiting the ability of investors to purchase homes, though there was recognition that this would pose a serious challenge. Additional conversations will be necessary to understand the impact of investment buying on the community and discuss opportunities to support first-time homebuyers. Guidance for the Housing Strategic Plan: These comments align with previous feedback from City Plan engagement on relaxing occupancy ordinances and Land Use Code restrictions to allow for more housing choices. The Housing Strategic Plan should discuss how each strategy can increase the housing choices available in our community. In addition, continued conversations are needed on the right balance between encouraging homeownership and providing enough rental options. Collaboration Folks recognized that a challenge like housing requires community-wide action. Many of the ideas for addressing housing challenges would require changes to local or statewide policies. However, responses also highlighted the importance of bringing in nonprofits, developers, and local employers. Community Recommendations: Incentivize developers to build affordable housing ⧫ Relax restrictions in the Land Use Code to make it easier for developers to build new homes ⧫ Collaborate with large employers on housing ⧫ Partner with nonprofits to provide specialized support ⧫ Build community-wide support for doing things differently HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 17 8 What we heard: Though many of the recommendations were City policies or programs, community feedback highlighted the importance of collaboration to reaching Fort Collins’ vision for housing. People shared strategies that would encourage developers to build more affordable, diverse types of housing, including waiving fees or providing other financial incentives, and relaxing requirements in the Land Use Code on density (or the number of houses in an area), building height, and parking. Some also suggested placing requirements on builders and developers to provide some affordable housing in all new developers. There was some support for City-led development of subsidized housing or “tiny home” sites, but largely folks did not see the City as a major supplier or manager of affordable housing. People recognized the work of nonprofits to provide housing and supportive services to vulnerable populations, and called for increased collaboration and support for these existing programs. Some also called on local employers to take a larger role in housing policy and provision. In addition to calling for higher wages, folks suggested that large employers should take a greater responsibility for helping their employees find healthy, stable housing. One suggestion was for the City to incentivize employers who provide housing or housing stipends to their employees. Finally, people recognized the need for public awareness and education to build community-wide support for doing things differently. Community members want increased public awareness around the true size, scope, and impact of housing challenges on our community. Some expressed concern that current homeowners may resist changes that they see as a threat to their wealth and livelihood (for example, allowing more homes and occupants in their neighborhood). Guidance for the Housing Strategic Plan: These comments align with past feedback from City Plan, Our Climate Future, Home2Health, and the Larimer County Community Health Survey on the importance of recognizing and leveraging the connections between housing and other important community priorities. Continued collaboration and dialogue will be essential to understanding the needs and the true community costs and benefits of any potential actions. The Housing Strategic Plan should discuss opportunities to leverage the skills and resources of our entire community, including community members, nonprofits, developers, and local employers. Creativity People want new and innovative solutions. They want the City and the community to be willing to do things differently. Recommendations: Explore opportunities for creative reuse of buildings ⧫ Seek out innovative ideas from the community and peer cities What we heard: Fort Collins is a city known for innovation. Community members highlighted that they valued the spirit of innovation and creativity in the City’s approach to housing. Though many recognized that the largest and most impactful solutions were likely to be more traditional strategies—things like changing the Land Use Code and offering incentives to developers—people also wanted to see new and creative ways to provide housing. Some HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 18 9 suggestions included turning hotels into group homes and instituting “housing swaps” between older individuals looking to downsize and live in more accessible homes and younger people looking for more space. The City should continue to seek out innovative ideas from within the community, and from peer cities moving forward. Guidance for the Housing Strategic Plan: Though it can be difficult to commit resources and times to ideas that may end up being less impactful, the Housing Strategic Plan should discuss ways to pilot creative strategies for ensuring healthy, stable, affordable housing. Next Steps Community feedback identified five priorities for housing as the City adopts its new Housing Strategic Plan—Stability, Equity, Choice, Collaboration, and Creativity—along with a number of exciting and creative strategies that the City could use along the way. These community priorities and ideas have provided a starting point for the Housing Strategic Plan’s efforts. The following section outlines two important next steps. Evaluate housing strategies with community priorities in mind The community has highlighted priorities for housing that build on prior feedback from the Home2Health project, City Plan, Our Climate Future, and more. As the City evaluates strategies, the following questions could help ensure that these community priorities are centered in decision-making: 1. Does this strategy increase the housing choices available for the community, particularly for vulnerable or traditionally under-resourced groups? 2. Does this strategy increase opportunities for housing stability for renters and homeowners? 3. Does this strategy leverage the resources and skills of our whole community? Incorporating these questions and centering community recommendations in any Housing Strategic Plan documents and decisions will be vital to achieving our housing vision. Facilitate community conversations on “sticky” issues People recognized that changes in housing policy and programs have community-wide impact and require community-wide action. As one participant shared, HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 19 10 Honest conversations about what is needed to achieve the vision—Everyone has healthy, stable housing they can afford—will be vital to identifying the best path forward. Below, a few important topics are highlighted. Understanding and de-stigmatizing affordable housing Participants recognized that there are many misconceptions and fears around affordable housing. More conversations are needed to understand what affordable housing looks like in our community, and to promote acceptance and understanding between all people—no matter their income level or whether they rent or own their home. Balancing Density and Occupancy Many recognized that removing U+2 and/or increasing density in neighborhoods may be a challenging transition and could be unpopular with some homeowners. Some participants acknowledged concerns around noise or parking that can come with higher occupancy levels, but many felt that the rule was unfairly limiting the housing choices of the larger community to prevent problems caused by a small group. More conversations are needed to identify the root causes of occupancy concerns, and discuss potential alternatives. Balancing Options for Renting and Home Ownership There was a perception among participants that “investment buyers” were unfairly driving up prices and reducing opportunities for home ownership by buying homes to rent out. More data is still needed on the impact of investment buying in Fort Collins, and the right balance between promoting home ownership and supporting quality rental supply. Understanding the housing goals of the community, including what percentage prefer renting over home ownership, and the types of rentals and for-sale units that people would select, could help the City to better understand challenges and opportunities related to investment buying. Ultimately, additional conversations could reduce the perception of competition between renters and homeowners for housing. Conclusion The Fort Collins vision for housing – everyone has healthy, stable housing they can afford -– is not currently a reality for everyone. Realizing this vision and overcoming the complex challenges of our housing system will require big, community-wide solutions. Overall, these responses suggest that the community is ready to do things differently. Centering both the five community priorities—Stability, Equity, Choice, Collaboration, and Creativity—and the ideas and feedback of low-income and BIPOC households will be essential to the continued efforts of the Housing Strategic Plan. HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 20 1 Katharine Claypool From:Paul S. Sizemore Sent:Monday, January 11, 2021 5:05 PM To:P&Z Board Subject:Community Engagement Study Presentation and White Paper Attachments:2020 P&Z Work Session Dev Rev Engagement_Presentation.pdf; CommunityEngagement_Study White Paper.pdf Categories:P&Z Dear Planning and Zoning Board Members, At the last regular Board meeting a request was made for staff to conduct peer city and best practice research on community engagement in the development review process. Upon further investigation, I found that this research had been conducted based on a prior Board request, and the results were reported in a staff presentation by Sylvia Tatman‐ Burruss at the P&Z Work Session on February 14, 2020. The presentation highlighted peer cities Lakewood, CO, Longmont, CO, and Ann Arbor, MI, as well we best practice cities Seattle, WA, Golden, CO, Minneapolis, MN, and Portland, OR. Attached to this email please find a copy of the PowerPoint presentation from the February 2020 meeting as well as the white paper handout which provides greater detail on the information learned from these cities. My understanding is that the Board is interested in having additional discussion about the development review engagement process, and staff has begun assembling information to facilitate that conversation. I’ve included an item on this week’s work session agenda to discuss future work session topics as an opportunity to confirm alignment between your request and the information we are gathering. I hope this discussion will lead to some engaging and informational work session topics in the coming months. I look forward to seeing you on Friday. Regards, PS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paul Sizemore, AICP, PTP Interim Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services City of Fort Collins psizemore@fcgov.com 970.224.6140 (O) 970.305.0212 (C) The City of Fort Collins is an organization that supports equity for all, leading with race. We acknowledge the role of local government in helping create systems of oppression and racism and are committed to dismantling those same systems in pursuit of racial justice. Learn more. COVID19 Resources For all residents: https://www.fcgov.com/eps/coronavirus For businesses: https://www.fcgov.com/business/ Want to help: https://www.fcgov.com/volunteer/ FUTURE WORK SESSION TOPICS Packet pg. 21 February, 2020Community Engagement with Development ReviewSylvia Tatman-Burruss, City PlannerPacket pg. 22 Current Outreach Process2• 800-foot radius notification area for most development projects (to homeowners)• Notification for neighborhood meetings• Notification for public hearings (Administrative hearings and Planning and Zoning Board hearings)• All review documents available online (CityDocs or OurCity)• Development Review Liaison facilitates all development review meetingsPacket pg. 23 Connecting with other CitiesPurpose: understand how we compare among our peer cities and what larger, high-achieving cities may be doing that we can consider implementing.Scope: Examine community outreach programs specifically related to Development ReviewStrategy: 13 questions, over the phone interviews lasting between 25-30 minutesDeliverables: Summary of each conversation, key takeaways and potential process improvements/changes for City of Fort Collins3Packet pg. 24 List of CitiesPeer Cities• Lakewood, CO• Longmont, CO• Ann Arbor, MI“Best practice” Cities• Seattle, WA• Golden, CO• Minneapolis, MN• Portland, OR4Packet pg. 25 Jacksonville, FL• Citizens Planning Advisory Committees• 6 “Planning Districts”• Not related to Development Review5Packet pg. 26 Notification – Peer CitiesLakewood, COLongmont, COAnn Arbor, MI• no public review process of site plans • notice to renters and owners on sub-divisions, re-zonings using County Assessor’s data• charges applicant for each mailing• City mails notifications• sends notifications for site plan review projects that go to a public hearing• Planner’s discretion as to whether to mail to tenants/occupants in high rental areas• Does not charge applicants for mailings.• Applicant required to send notification to residents within 1,000 feet of a proposed project area6Packet pg. 27 Notification – Best Practice CitiesSeattle, WA Golden, CO Minneapolis, MN Portland, OR“Early Outreach” Homeowners Applicants manage sign postingsApplicants manage outreach processFocus on ApplicantsCity manages outreachCity manages notification lettersRobust local outreach requiredRegistered neighborhood groups7Packet pg. 28 Neighborhood Meetings – Peer CitiesLakewood, COLongmont, COAnn Arbor, MIVariances and plats Required on all major projectsRequired on all major projectsCity Planner facilitates City Planner facilitates Applicant facilitates, City staff is not presentApplicant finds and books facilityCity finds and books facilityApplicant finds and books facilityApplicant required to submit summary and sign-in sheets8Packet pg. 29 Neighborhood Meetings – Best Practice CitiesSeattle, WA Golden, CO Minneapolis, MN Portland, ORDesign Review board projectsMost projects require mtgUp to neighborhood associationNeighborhood association-basedApplicant manages entire processCity staff assists applicantCity staff is not involved at allCity staff is not involvedCity staff is not presentProject Planner facilitatesNeighborhood association may assistProposal to shift notification to applicant9Packet pg. 30 Availability of Online Materials10• For Best-Practice Cities, project submittals are available online. In Portland, Oregon, the code specifies that applicants must make conceptual project plans available to residents online• For peer-cities, it varies. Golden, CO does not offer site plans online. Longmont utilities the Accela public portal. Ann Arbor, MI utilizes a similar public platform and an RSS feed for development “petitions” or applications.Packet pg. 31 Advisory Groups• For best-practice Cities, Advisory Committees for Development Review are not being used. Seattle had utilized them in the past but found that the people who sat on those committees were not representative of the broader community in several ways• Instead, some Cities, including Minneapolis, Portland and Lakewood utilize various forms of Neighborhood Associations with varying degrees of effectiveness• Other Cities do convene focus groups for policy updates and long-range planning efforts with the goal of informing broader goals of the Land Use Code 11Packet pg. 32 Suggested changes• Reestablish NextDoor posts to engage renters and neighborhood groups in Development Review• Focus on engaging residents in Land Use Code and other high-level policy updates• Program evaluation of the Development Review Liaison position• Continue to improve upon web access materials12Packet pg. 33 Community Engagement Study Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, City Planner Planning and Zoning Board Work Session, 2/14/2020 Introduction Fort Collins utilizes various community engagement mechanisms for Development Review that have evolved over time. Because Fort Collins is currently and is likely to remain a fast-growing city in the years to come, City staff would like to ensure that engagement processes are as inclusive and far- reaching as possible. These processes seek to gather diverse voices to inform development review projects towards the best possible outcome for community members, developers and other stakeholders in the process. While the development review process is regulated by the Land Use Code and other local, state and federal regulations, there is always room and value in gathering comments, concerns and ideas from residents regarding specific development proposals. The following report offers an overview of how other Cities across the United States conduct their community engagement specifically related to Development Review projects. While these processes vary widely across communities, common threads were observed, and some surprising deviations were discovered. Much of the report will focus on similarities and differences in specific categories, while a portion of the report will focus on “aha” moments or fascinating tidbits. The report ends with a section on recommendations to explore to improve on current processes. Brief History of Development Review and Community Engagement in Fort Collins Prior to 1997, the City of Fort Collins used a land use development system called the “Land Development Guidance System” or LDGS. Under this system, there was a lot flexibility in land use on any given piece of land. This allowed for greater input from community members and a wider array of options for developers. While flexibility was sometimes welcome, there was also a lot of unpredictability in the outcome. While the current Land Use Code was created in 1997, the basis of this code is still largely used today. It incorporates a list of standard design guidelines and a series of uses and regulations based on zone districts. Within this system, the zone districts allow for various types of land uses under 4 different types of review. These include “Staff Level” review where staff is given the authority to make decisions on basic development review applications and other projects seen to be minor within the bounds of the Land Use Code. Other projects fall under a “Type 1” review where a single hearing officer holds a public hearing and renders a decision within 10 days of the hearing. Projects seen to have more significant impacts on the community are reviewed and decided upon by the Planning and Zoning Board. In other cases, such as rezoning from land use to another or annexations from County City limits, those decisions are made by the City Council. While the City of Fort Collins no longer operates under the Land Development Guidance System, community input is still a focus in the process. This is done from the time of the Conceptual Review phase through the hearing process. Current Community Engagement Process Community engagement and input are very important steps in the Development Review process. To help community members understand the process and to have a neutral resource at the City, the City created the Development Review Liaison position in 2013. Since then, the liaison has worked with other City staff to create educational materials and improve upon existing systems. Packet pg. 34 Community Engagement Study Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, City Planner Planning and Zoning Board Work Session, 2/14/2020 In addition to the Development Review Liaison, other administrative tasks are used to inform and engage community members in the process. These include the following procedures, some of which are outlined in the Land Use Code while others are not: · All development review proposals are available online including Conceptual Review/Preliminary Development Review applications and full application submittals, among other things. · A weekly newsletter is sent out to community members who subscribe to receive information regarding projects and their progress in development review. · Signs of a codified site and location are posted at the proposed development site. · For many Type 1 and all Type 2 projects, neighborhood meeting and hearing notification letters are sent to homeowners within 800 or 1,000 feet of the property depending on the direction of the Land Use Code. · For all Type 2 development projects, at least one public neighborhood meeting is held at least 10 days prior to the full project submittal. o Summary notes are taken at the meeting o Sign-in sheets are used o Notes are sent to those who provide email addresses within 2 weeks of the meeting · All community input is submitted to the decision-maker prior to a decision being made for it to be considered in the process. Other Cities We have looked to other cities in the past to benchmark our programs. We reached out again to a broader cohort of cities to understand their community outreach programs, especially related to renters. We were seeking to understand how renters are notified of development projects, how do all residents interact with the development review process, how do Cities engage the development community and how are those systems working now. Peer Cities The City of Fort Collins has created a “Peer Cities” list in an effort to bring consistency to research regarding proposed policies, regulations and ideas. The model utilizes four general categories and compares them for likeness to Fort Collins ultimately creating a Composite Likeness Score. The categories are population, utility services provided, percentage of enrolled college students to population and square miles of the city limits. For this community engagement project, the following Peer Cities were chosen: · Lakewood, CO · Longmont, CO · Palo Alto, CA · Santa Barbara, CA · Ann Arbor, MI Of these Cities, I was able to connect with staff in Lakewood, Longmont and Ann Arbor. I was not able to reach staff in Palo Alto or Santa Barbara after several attempts. Packet pg. 35 Community Engagement Study Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, City Planner Planning and Zoning Board Work Session, 2/14/2020 Best Practice Cities The City of Fort Collins does not have a list of “Best Practice” cities but instead defines them as communities that are leaders in specific areas, on a specific program, approach or service. In this case, cities were chosen based on their experience with community engagement programs related to Development Review and their status as growing, “desirable” places. They were also chosen as places that are in particularly high demand and have recently experienced change through growth and development. For those reasons, these communities were chosen: Minneapolis, MN Jacksonville, FL Madison, WI Seattle, WA Portland, OR Golden, CO Of these Cities, I was able to connect with Minneapolis, Seattle, and Golden and had previously connected with staff in Portland and Madison specifically related to their community engagement programs. Upon further review of the Jacksonville program, it was determined that it more closely focuses on long-range planning and neighborhood organizing, similar to the Sustainable Neighborhoods program in Neighborhood Services. Big “Ah-Ha” Moments and Takeaways Development Review Notification, Peer Cities Because engagement programs have evolved over time to fit the unique needs of each community, a straight-line comparison could not be drawn between each city. Therefore, I will highlight some of the unique qualities of their processes based on differences in their policies and procedures. Lakewood: · Lakewood does not require a public review process of site plans of any kind, even large, multi- family projects. If the zone district allows for it as a “use by right,” then no public process is required, and no notifications are sent. · Lakewood does send written notices to renters and owners for new sub-divisions, re-zonings and a few other types of projects. They utilize their County Assessor’s Data to send notifications, as we do, but they do not alter the data for renters and therefore often have several notifications going to one household. · Lakewood charges applicants for each mailing and the City manages that mailing (type and format the letter, print and send) Longmont: · Longmont sends notifications for site plan review projects that go to a public hearing. It is at the Planner’s discretion as to whether to mail to tenants in high rental areas. · Longmont does not charge applicants for mailings and City staff manages those mailings Packet pg. 36 Community Engagement Study Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, City Planner Planning and Zoning Board Work Session, 2/14/2020 · While Longmont has followed this process for a long time, they are exploring changes to their procedures and have expressed interest in learning what we discover in this process Ann Arbor: · For “Type 1” projects (similar to our “Type 2” projects) Applicant is required to send notification to residents within 1,000 of a proposed project area. The City provides the mailing labels and the postcard template, but the applicant is ultimately responsible for that process. Development Review Notification, “Best Practice” Cities Seattle, WA: · Seattle has a separate “Early Outreach” process that applicants must follow at the very beginning of the development review process. Created because the earlier process was seen to be too narrow in scope and too late in the process. · For most projects, applicants are required to use printed, digital and posted materials that are focused on nearby neighborhoods, neighborhood groups and businesses. The applicants must create all the materials, must conduct door-to-door canvasing or put up posters. Applicants are encouraged to use the County Assessor’s Data, but still imperfect for renters. Posted notification and door-to-door canvasing are favored in rental areas and areas with multi-family buildings. · Applicant is required to submit evidence of this outreach process. If everything is followed and the Early Outreach staff deem it to be sufficient, they can move on in the Development Review process. Golden, CO: · City of Golden sends notifications to homeowners within 100 to 500 feet depending on the project type and the requirements. · Every project has a posted sign within 7 to 12 days of the project being submitted or any other deadline or milestone for the project. This is seen to be sufficient for renter notification. Minneapolis, MN: · City of Minneapolis sends notifications to property owners within 350 feet of the proposed project site 14 days prior to the neighborhood meeting. · Minneapolis also has registered neighborhood groups that receive notifications. · Applicants are required to post a sign in all four corners of the proposed site. Neighborhood Meetings, Peer Cities Lakewood: · Variances and plats over 10 homes require neighborhood meetings. Neighborhood meetings are not required for site plans, even large multi-family buildings. Packet pg. 37 Community Engagement Study Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, City Planner Planning and Zoning Board Work Session, 2/14/2020 · City Planners introduces the meeting, discusses City’s review process and acts as the facilitator for the meeting. The applicant then presents their project and takes questions from the attendees. · Applicant must find and book a room for the neighborhood meeting in a public place. A limited number of rooms are also available at the City to rent. Longmont: · Neighborhood meetings are required for all major development projects. · Project Planner introduces the meeting, discusses the City’s review process and acts as the facilitator for the meeting. The applicant then presents their project and takes questions from the attendees. · Format varies depending on the Project Planner. Ann Arbor · Applicant is responsible for the neighborhood meeting for “Type 1” (major) projects. · Applicants are required to submit a detailed report of the meeting, including the following details: Date(s) and location(s) of meeting(s), copies of all written materials prepared and provided to the public (letters, meeting notices, emails, newsletters, etc.). Number of residents sent notices by mail, email or other; number of residents attending; and copies of attendance or sign-in sheets. Summary of comments, concerns, issues, or problems expressed by residents; statement of how you have addressed or intend to address those concerns, issues or problems, or why a concern, issue or problem cannot or will not be addressed. · Link to Ann Arbor’s public process for Development Review: https://www.a2gov.org/departments/planning/Documents/Planning/CPO%20Guide%205-9- 19%20%20.pdf Neighborhood Meetings, “Best Practice” Cities Seattle: · If total area of a project is over 35,000 square feet, it must go to the design review board for a public hearing. Therefore, a neighborhood meeting is required. · The applicant is responsible for everything related to the neighborhood meeting including notification for the meeting, booking the meeting facility, facilitating the meeting and providing a summary of the meeting and the concerns from attendees. · City staff is not present or involved in the neighborhood meeting process. Golden: · Most projects require neighborhood meetings except for minor amendments and variances. Controversial projects usually require more than one neighborhood meeting. · City staff assists the applicant in finding a meeting facility. · Project Planner assists with meeting facilitation; however, the applicant is expected to present the bulk of the information and answer specific questions about the project. Packet pg. 38 Community Engagement Study Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, City Planner Planning and Zoning Board Work Session, 2/14/2020 Minneapolis, MN: · Minneapolis has 70 different neighborhood associations that serve 83 neighborhoods, which is the basis for community outreach for development review projects. Applicants are required to notify nearby neighborhood associations of the proposed project. Neighborhood associations then communicate directly with the applicant and decide whether to hold a neighborhood meeting. · City staff is not involved in the neighborhood meeting process at all, nor is a neighborhood meeting required prior to the submittal of a development review application. Portland, OR · Similar to Minneapolis, Portland has neighborhood associations that work with applicants on development review proposals. Neighborhood associations have traditionally led the outreach effort for residents within the neighborhoods. · Applicant is required to hold a neighborhood meeting with surrounding neighborhood associations and must hire an outside facilitator for those meetings. · There is a proposal before City Council to shift the notification responsibility from neighborhood associations to the applicant. Online Materials Lakewood: · Limited documents available online. “Pre-Planning” or conceptual review documents are not available online. · For controversial projects, documents are placed on the “Lakewood Speaks” website, similar to the OurCity platform. · If a project requires a public hearing, those documents are available about a week ahead of the public hearing as an agenda item similar to our Planning and Zoning Board agenda packet. Longmont · Staff utilizes Accela’s public portal, but no other document service or platform is used. Ann Arbor, MI · The City of Ann Arbor website does not have development review documents available. · Ann Arbor does have a neighborhood association program and a code section requiring notification to neighborhood associations. Those associations may then choose to distribute documents received from the applicant or obtained from the City. Online Materials, “Best Practice” Cities Seattle, WA: · The Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections does offer many documents online for review during the development review process. Packet pg. 39 Community Engagement Study Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, City Planner Planning and Zoning Board Work Session, 2/14/2020 · It is a bit tricky to navigate the different types of review, the review meetings and the public comment periods. Because Seattle is much larger than Fort Collins, it is harder for City staff to offer a comprehensive view of development and therefore the focus of community engagement is more neighborhood-specific and outreach is done by the applicant. Golden: · Information on project proposals are not readily available online. Residents can schedule a meeting with a City staff member to review plans at the development review office. · Some plans for controversial projects are posted to a community engagement site similar to the “OurCity” platform. However, this is not done very often. Minneapolis, MN: · City staff posts project information prior to public hearings before the Planning Commission much like our Planning and Zoning Board packets. · While there is not a lot of information available on the City’s webpage, outreach to Neighborhood Associations is done by the applicant, thereby opening a dialog between neighbors and applicants. That is often how neighborhoods get early proposal documents and plans. Advisory Groups · None of the peer cities utilize advisory groups. Lakewood has a Neighborhood Association program but applicants aren’t required to reach out to them, though it sometimes suggested for controversial projects. Advisory Groups for “Best Practice” Cities Seattle, WA: · City of Seattle used to utilize citizen advisory groups but found them to be problematic for representation. The new Early Outreach for Development Review program is designed to include more voices in the process and focus more specifically on neighborhoods affected by specific developments. Portland, Oregon: · Portland utilizes a Development Review Advisory Committee (DRAC) and has made this a requirement within their Land Use Code (Chapter 3.30). The group consists of 17 members, each representing 17 specific groups (outlined here: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/citycode/article/330920). Examples include Land use planning professions, large developers, low-income housing developers and neighborhood coalition land use committees. · In addition to their Planning and Sustainability Commission, Design Commission (reviews major developments within design districts) and Hearing Officers (quasi-judicial decisions). Packet pg. 40 Community Engagement Study Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, City Planner Planning and Zoning Board Work Session, 2/14/2020 · Purpose of the Committee is “to foster a timely, predictable and accountable development review process that implements the City’s goals for land use, transportation, housing economic development, neighborhood livability and the environment.” Possible changes/Next Steps · Neighborhood Services could reestablish a commitment to posting to NextDoor for neighborhood meetings and hearings related to Development Review. This could be coordinated with the City’s Communication and Public Involvement Office (CPIO). This can reach a broader group of community members and renters than mailings. · Focus on engaging residents with Land Use Code and other high-level policy updates. This may also involve more engagement with the Lemonade Stand in Neighborhood Services to serve as a kind of “pop-up” informational center in a neighborhood that may be impacted by a Development Review Proposal. · Conduct a program evaluation of the Development Review Liaison position. This has been requested by executive City staff to evaluate other possible methods of engagement for the Liaison and whether the current methods are effective for Development Review outreach. · Staff will continue to improve upon web access of Development Review materials to make that process more intuitive and organized. Packet pg. 41