HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/14/2022 - Planning and Zoning Commission - AGENDA - Work Session
* Work session times are approximate and are subject to change without notice.
Michelle Haefele, Chair Virtual Meeting
Ted Shepard, Vice Chair Zoom Webinar
Per Hogestad
David Katz
Adam Sass
Jeff Schneider
Julie Stackhouse
Planning and Zoning Hearing will be held on Thursday, January 20, 2022 in City Hall Chambers or online.
Regular Work Session
January 14, 2022
Virtual Meeting
Noon – 2:35 p.m.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Work Session Agenda
Participation for this remote Planning and Zoning Commission work session will be available online or by phone.
Commission members and staff may be present in-person but interested members of the public and applicant
teams are strongly encouraged to participate via Zoom. No public comment is accepted during work sessions.
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://fcgov.zoom.us/j/95618934172. 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 14, 2022. 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 kclaypool@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: 956 1893 4172.
(Continued on next page)
Packet pg. 1
City of Fort Collins Page 2
TOPICS: PROJECTED TIMES:
Consent:
1. November 18, 2021 Hearing Draft Minutes
2. Sweetwater Brewing Major Amendment (Lindsey)
3. Land Use Code Amendment – Enclosed Mini Storage Unit Restriction
in TOD Overlay (Wray)
12:00 – 12:35
Discussion:
4. Strauss Lakes PUD Pre-Application Hearing (Axmacher)
12:35 – 1:00
Policy and Legislation:
• Land Use Code Phase 1 (Overton/Beals)
• East Mulberry Plan Update (Tatman-Burruss)
1:00 – 2:05
Commission Topics:
• Upcoming Hearing Calendar (Sizemore)
• Commission Updates (Sizemore)
• Public Engagement Updates (Stephens)
• Transportation Board Liaison Update (Gavaldon)
2:05 – 2:35
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 kclaypool@fcgov.com.
The January 20 Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting will be available online, remotely and in-
person. Information on participating in the January 20 Planning and Zoning regular meeting is contained in the
agenda for the January 20 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 Commission to
consider regarding any item on the agenda must be emailed to kclaypool@fcgov.com at least 24 hours prior to
the January 20 meeting.
Packet pg. 2
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 3, 2022
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Kelly DiMartino, Interim City Manager
Kyle Stannert, Deputy City Manager
Affordable Housing Executive Team1
FROM: Noah Beals, Development Review Manager
Meaghan Overton, Housing Manager
RE: Housing Strategic Plan Implementation: Land Use Code Phase 1 Updates –
Diagnostic Report
Bottom Line: A Diagnostic Report was completed during fall 2021 to evaluate the current Land
Use Code (LUC), identify existing regulatory barriers to housing supply and affordability, and
outline key findings and recommendations for Phase 1 LUC Updates to address those barriers.
This memorandum briefly outlines the key findings and next steps. The full Diagnostic Report is
included as an attachment to facilitate Council preparation for January briefings on the Diagnostic
Report and a February 8 Work Session on staff’s recommended approach to LUC changes.
Background:
In March 2021, in conjunction with the adoption of the Housing Strategic Plan (HSP), Council
unanimously approved an off-cycle appropriation to fund the Land Use Code (LUC) Phase 1
updates. These updates are focused on housing-related changes to the code and a reorganization
of the LUC to improve usability and clarity. The LUC Phase 1 Update implements policy direction in
City Plan, the Housing Strategic Plan, the Transit Master Plan, and the Our Climate Future Plan.
The LUC Phase 1 project began in summer 2021. Work completed to date includes policy analysis
and synthesis, a series of community engagement events to inform and seek input from the
community (September/October 2021), an Equity and Opportunity Assessment (November 2021),
and the Diagnostic Report presented in this memorandum. Code drafting is expected to commence
in early 2022 with a public review draft available in April. Staff expects to present LUC changes for
consideration of adoption in late spring 2022.
Findings: The Diagnostic Report is centered around the place types identified in City Plan. The
project team analyzed each place type and conducted pro forma (development) analyses for a
range of different prototypes to determine potential future housing capacity, estimate a place type’s
affordability range, and identify barriers to housing supply and affordability. Findings from the
Diagnostic Report suggest several areas of potential improvement, noting that the current LUC:
1 Jackie Kozak Thiel, Chief Sustainability Officer; Theresa Connor, Interim Utilities Executive Director; Caryn
Champine, Planning, Development, and Transportation (PDT) Director; Julie Brewen, Housing Catalyst Executive
Director; Dave Lenz, Finance Planning and Analysis Director; Beth Yonce, Social Sustainability Director
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 3
2
1. Does not support future Priority Place Types
2. Limits housing capacity overall
3. Does not prioritize housing capacity, diversity, or affordability along transit corridors
4. Is difficult to use
The Diagnostic Report includes recommendations for each of these four key findings. In summary,
key changes to the LUC that are likely to be proposed include the following:
Update the types of housing permitted, revise existing density limitations, and refine
required review processes to allow greater housing capacity and diversity by right,
particularly within a 5-minute walk to transit and within Priority Place Types.
Create clear and predictable requirements to ensure context-sensitive design (e.g.,
setbacks, height, massing, building footprint) to more efficiently guide compatible infill
and redevelopment.
Recalibrate parking requirements, particularly for Affordable Housing and near transit.
Expand and recalibrate incentives for Affordable Housing projects citywide.
Next Steps: The analysis and recommendations from the Diagnostic Report will be used alongside
information gathered through community engagement, the Equity and Opportunity Assessment
(EOA), and the City’s adopted policy documents to shape the content of draft code changes for
Council’s consideration of adoption.
Briefings for all Councilmembers have been scheduled during the month of January to
provide dedicated time for in-depth exploration of the Diagnostic. Staff and consultants
hope to answer any questions Councilmembers have about the Diagnostic and the
implications of its recommendations.
The Diagnostic Report will also be shared with community stakeholders, key Boards and
Commissions, community groups, and City Staff, with the goal of gathering input that
represents a diversity of perspectives.
A Work Session has been scheduled for February 8 to seek Council feedback on staff’s
proposed approach to specific LUC changes, which will be based on the Guiding Principles
for the LUC Phase 1 Updates and the recommendations from the Diagnostic Report. The
work session will also seek feedback on planned community engagement and next steps
for the LUC Phase 1 work.
Attachment: Land Use Code Diagnostic Report
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 4
Diagnostic + Code
Update Approach
01.03.22
LAND USE CODE UPDATE
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I : Introduction
2
1.Purpose of the Land Use
Code Updates
2.The Evolving City
3.Community Engagement
4.Key Plans/Policy
Foundation
5.Guiding Principles
II : Code Diagnostic
1.Key Findings Overview
2.Key Findings &
Recommendations
a. Does not support future
Priority Place Types
b. Limits Housing Capacity
c. Does not prioritize housing
capacity, diversity,
affordability along transit
corridors
d. Difficult to Use
III : Code Update Approach
1.A Transparent Process
2.Co-Create with Staff
3.Focus on Transit Corridors
4.Update and Create New
Zone Districts for
Implementing Future Plans
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 6
Purpose of the Land Use Code Updates:
To Align the LUC with Adopted City Plans and Policies
with a focus on:
•Housing-related changes
•Code Organization
•Equity
3
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 7
1. Align Zoning Districts and Uses with
Structure Plan Place Types
2. Create More Opportunities for a
Range of Housing Options
3. Clarify and Simplify Development Standards
4. Enhance the Development Review Procedures
5. Create a More User-Friendly Document
The LUC Updates will also be guided by the LUC
Audit prepared upon adoption of City Plan.
5 THEMES:
4
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 8
An Evolving City
5
Our City’s past and future evolution is summarized below in three eras distinguished by different growth patterns that
resulted from our evolving city planning priorities and policies, regulatory systems, and transportation modes.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 9
7%
built in
ERA I
HISTORIC CORE
E R A I
Pre-1929 to Late 1950’s
CHARACTER & BUILT FORM:
Land Use
Diverse mix of single unit, duplex,
and multi-unit residential buildings
often integrated on same block;
Commercial uses/services within
walking distance of residential
areas
Streets & Blocks
Interconnected street grid,
alley-loaded garages/services,
treelawns, street trees, detached
sidewalks
Mobility
Multi-modal (trams, bus transit,
automobiles, pedestrian-friendly)
PLANNING/REGULATORY
CONTEXT:
Zoning Code (1929)
Annexations
Between 1925 and 1950 the City made only four
annexations totaling 18 acres. However, during the
1951-57 period there were twenty-seven
annexations of 1,388 acres (Fort Collins Postwar
Development 1945-1969 Survey Report).
6
“In 1946 the Chamber of Commerce adopted
the slogan “Fort Collins E-X-P-A-N-D-S,” a
campaign area businesses and the local
newspaper supported wholeheartedly.”
An Evolving CityDocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 10
27%
built in
ERA II:
1960-1980
GROWING OUT
FROM THE CORE
E R A I I
Late 1950’s to Early 1980’s
“Fort Collins
E-X-P-A-N-D-S”
CHARACTER & BUILT FORM:
Land Use
Primarily single unit residential with
duplex/multi-unit residential and
commercial uses often in separate
clusters away from single unit areas
Streets & Blocks
Limited connectivity, cul-de-sacs,
front-loaded driveways and
garages, attached sidewalks
Mobility
Auto-centric with bus transit
PLANNING/REGULATORY
CONTEXT:
1959 Comprehensive Plan
1967 Plan for Progress
1979 Comprehensive Plan
Amendments to the 1929 Code
Annexations
Given the general lack of development during the
1930s and 1940s, there was little need for zoning
enforcement until the postwar period; the Fort Collins
zoning board was not created until 1954. This body
dealt with annexations that expanded the city
boundaries and dramatic subdivision development
during the postwar period and beyond.
7
“The verb “expand,” in all its meanings, very much
defined Fort Collins in the postwar era. The word’s
Latin root, expandere, means literally to spread
out, an apt description of Fort Collins’s
geographical transformation in the second half of
the twentieth century.”
An Evolving CityDocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 11
Fort Collins continued to E-X-P-A-N-D following
postwar development patterns that prioritized
accommodation of automobiles and single unit
residential most often separated from
multi-unit residential and commercial uses.
8
27%
built in
ERA II:
1981-1997
8
GROWING OUT
FROM THE CORE
E R A I I
Early 1980’s to Late 1990’s
“Fort Collins
E-X-P-A-N-D-S”
CHARACTER & BUILT FORM:
Land Use
Primarily single unit residential with
duplex/multi-unit residential and
commercial uses often in separate
clusters away from single unit areas
Streets & Blocks
Limited connectivity, cul-de sacs,
front-loaded driveways and
garages, attached sidewalks
Mobility
Auto-centric with bus transit
PLANNING/REGULATORY
CONTEXT:
1980 Land Development Guidance
System
8
An Evolving CityDocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 12
36%
built in
ERA II:
1998-2020
Growth continued to prioritize single unit
residential separated from multi-unit residential
uses, however, alleys, treelawns, detached
sidewalks, street trees, and greater emphasis on
walkability, multi-modality, and mixed-use
emerged in new development areas. More infill
development emerged in the “Core” areas.
GROWING OUT
FROM THE CORE
E R A I I
Late 1990’s to 2020
“Fort Collins
E-X-P-A-N-D-S”
CHARACTER & BUILT FORM:
Land Use
Primarily single unit residential with
duplex/multi-unit residential uses
often in separate clusters away
from single unit areas; commercial
uses/services within walking
distance of residential areas
Streets & Blocks
Internal connectivity, front and
alley-loaded garages, treelawns,
street trees, detached sidewalks
Mobility
Auto-centric with bus transit, BRT,
and dedicated bicycle routes
PLANNING/REGULATORY
CONTEXT:
1997 City Plan
1997 Land Use Code
2018 City Plan
9
An Evolving CityDocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 13
FUTURE VISION
E R A I I I
Today and Tomorrow
DIVERSE USE
MULTIMODAL
HIGH CONNECTIVITY
SUSTAINABLE
EQUITABLE
Key Plans &
Policy Foundations
Codes change over time and it’s time for our
code to change again. Our next era will be
guided by our commitments to equity and climate
resilience in our future planning and growth.
10
CHARACTER & BUILT FORM:
Land Use
Diverse mix of single unit, duplex,
and multi-unit residential buildings
integrated on same block;
Commercial uses/services within
walking distance of residential
areas
Streets & Blocks
Interconnected street grid,
alley-loaded garages/services,
treelawns, street trees, detached
sidewalks
Mobility
Multi-modal (bus transit, BRT,
automobiles, pedestrian and
bicycle-friendly)
PLANNING/REGULATORY
CONTEXT:
2018 City Plan
2021 Housing Strategic Plan
2019 Transit Master Plan
2021 Our Climate Action Future
2022 Land Use Code Updates
10
An Evolving CityDocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 14
“Does not have a robust
menu of zone district
options to accommodate
varying housing densities
and types.”
“Single family
zoning has a long
history of limiting
options.”
“Need more variety in
minimum lot sizes and
consider small lots.”
“Setbacks and other
form standards
presume greenfield
development and create
constraints for infill,
more urban contexts.”
“Zoning along
transit; too auto
oriented, too
commercial.”
Engagement
Stakeholder Interviews
As part of this Diagnostic, a series of interviews were conducted to get a better
understanding of policy priorities and challenges with the current LUC. These
included interviews with City Council Members, Planning & Zoning Commissioners
in July 2021, a work session with City Staff in September 2021, and the LUC
Working Group in October 2021.
11
“If we can’t build
more outward, we
need to build more
upward.”
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 15
Engagement
Public Information / Input Sessions
Lack of Affordability
➔Concern that younger generations will
not be able to buy a home in Fort Collins
Housing Mix
➔Oversaturation with one housing type
➔Desire for more diverse housing
options throughout the city
ADUs
➔Helpful, but concerns about ADUs used
as short term rentals for visitors
➔Need to ensure ADUs would be for people
who actually live here and need housing
Parking/Transportation
➔Increasing capacity without considering parking
would create major headaches in all neighborhood
types
➔Suburban neighborhoods already
experiencing parking issues
➔New housing in vacant land must be done in tandem
with increasing access to public transit to help
alleviate parking/traffic issues
Changes people are willing to accept:
●Density increases
●Smaller yards
●Taller buildings
●City needs to demonstrate infrastructure
(streets, transportation, water, etc.) would be
able to accommodate this increase in density
12
Source: 11/1/21 High level themes from Input Sessions, Center for Public Deliberation
City Staff conducted a series of Public
Information and Input Sessions in October and
November 2021. Below is a summary of input from
those sessions.
12
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 16
Policies To Principles
The LUC is the City’s primary
regulatory tool for implementing the
community’s vision as described in
various adopted policies and plans so it’s
critical to establish a clear
understanding of the relationship
between the City’s policy priorities and
the current LUC.
Over 300 pages of adopted policies and
information were distilled into five
guiding principles to inform the LUC
Updates, Diagnostic, and Approach
work.
The LUC Updates depend on broad
understanding and support for the
guiding principles.
13
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 17
FIVE GUIDING
PRINCIPLES
These Guiding Principles
(presented to City Council
on November 9, 2021)
provide the foundation for
the LUC Updates
Diagnostic and Approach
and will inform all
proposed code changes
with emphasis on Equity.
14
1.Increase overall housing capacity
(market rate and affordable)
and calibrate market-feasible incentives for
Affordable (subsidized/deed restricted)
housing
2.Enable more affordability
especially near high frequency/capacity
transit and priority growth areas
3.Allow for more diverse housing choices
that fit in with the existing context and/or
future priority place types
4.Make the code easier to use
and understand
5.Improve predictability
of the development permit review
process, especially for housing
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 18
KEY FINDINGS
& Recommendations
15
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 19
A disciplined and deliberate process:
All proposed LUC Updates will be created and
evaluated based on how they address the findings.
KEY FINDINGS
1.Does not support
future Priority
Place Types
2.Limits
housing capacity
3.Does not prioritize
housing capacity,
diversity, & affordability
along transit corridors
4.LUC is
difficult to use
16
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 20
17
• OVERVIEW OF PRIORITY PLACE TYPES
• LIMITS HOUSING DIVERSITY AND CREATES
UNCERTAINTY
• Mixed Neighborhood
• Mixed Employment
• Mixed Use Districts
• DOES NOT SUPPORT COMPATIBLE INFILL
• PLACE TYPE + ZONING MISMATCHES
KEY FINDING #1
DOES NOT SUPPORT
FUTURE PLACE TYPES
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 21
KEY FINDING #1
DOES NOT SUPPORT
FUTURE PLACE TYPES
18
Priority Place
Types Overview
The Structure Plan establishes the
guiding vision for where and how
new housing will be developed
in Fort Collins. Structure Plan
Place Types describe the
intended built form of various
types of neighborhoods and
mixed use districts.
These Place Types are distinct
from zone districts. Place Types
are broad depictions of form and
character. Zone districts are
specific regulations that
implement the vision of a Place
Type. A single Place Type may be
implemented through multiple
zone districts with regulations
that vary by specific context.
This diagnostic focuses on the
five (5) Priority Place Types for
residential development in the
Structure Plan that offer the
greatest opportunities for
more diverse housing options.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 22
KEY FINDING #1
DOES NOT SUPPORT
FUTURE PLACE TYPES
19
Priority Place Types Overview
The Place Types with the greatest supply of vacant and
redevelopable land and zoned capacity are Mixed
Neighborhoods and four Mixed Use Districts comprised of Mixed
Employment, Urban Mixed Use, Suburban Mixed Use, and
Neighborhood Mixed Use Districts.
City Plan acknowledges that much of the needed growth is going
to be infill and redevelopment, however, the current code does
not provide clear guidance for these situations – most of the
standards and guidance are for greenfield development. This
mismatch is most apparent in the “Core” and nearby areas where
there are a significant number of non-conforming lots and
structures that resulted from code changes made after 1929 to
bring these areas up to “modern” postwar standards. While
investment and infill activity in these older neighborhoods are
proof of their desirability today, the code makes it difficult to
develop buildings that “fit” in context sensitive ways.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 23
KEY FINDING #1
DOES NOT SUPPORT
FUTURE PLACE TYPES
Limits Housing Diversity
20
If detached single-family
homes continue to dominate
the city’s housing supply,
demand for housing is
projected to exceed the city’s
capacity in the future. A
more diverse selection of
housing types and price
points will be needed to
meet the needs of the city’s
changing population.
(City Plan, p. 108)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 24
KEY FINDING #1
DOES NOT SUPPORT
FUTURE PLACE TYPES
“Missing Middle” Housing Types
City Plan recommends allowing a variety of housing
types to expand housing options.
The Audit describes the following specific changes to achieve this goal:
●“Current standards were described as overly restrictive and out of
touch with market demands.” Increase clarity and build in flexibility
in order to promote a diversity of housing options and density called
for by City Plan.
●Define a range of options between two-family and multi-family
housing: duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, ADUs (attached and
detached), small-scale multifamily.
●New definitions for: ADU, co-housing, triplex, fourplex, multi-family,
cottage developments, live-work, student housing complex
●Updating definitions for: Carriage house, single-family detached,
duplex
21
Duplex
Triplex
Quadplex
Detached ADU
Limits Housing Diversity
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 25
KEY FINDING #1
DOES NOT SUPPORT
FUTURE PLACE TYPES
●No specific definition of accessory dwelling units in LUC
●“Carriage House” is closest description to ADU but unclear and
limited where they are allowed; only allowed in Neighborhood
Conservation zone districts (NCL, NCM, and NCB)
●Min lot size is 12,000 sf in NCL and 10,000 sf in NCM ➔NC districts consist
of ~3% of Fort Collins
22
Carriage houses:
“a single-family detached
dwelling unit, typically
without street frontage,
that is located behind a
separate, principal
dwelling on the same lot”
➔Most lots within the NC
districts are too small for
Carriage houses, as
currently regulated.
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s)
Limits Housing Diversity
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 26
KEY FINDING #1
DOES NOT SUPPORT
FUTURE PLACE TYPES
Over Reliance on Multi Layered
process - creates uncertainty
●Limited housing types
allowed under Basic
Development Review In
Priority Place Types and
Along transit
●Indicator of an outdated
code: More procedural
oversight to compensate
for inadequate standards
that do not align with
adopted policies
hsp
23
Creates Uncertainty
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 27
KEY FINDING #1
DOES NOT SUPPORT
FUTURE PLACE TYPES
The Mixed Neighborhood Place
Type envisions a mixture of
housing types and an increase in
housing capacity, however, this
growth looks different in the “core”
of the city compared to the areas
“outside the core”. and the code
should be calibrated to the existing
patterns of these areas.
24
The Mixed Neighborhood Place
Type makes up 34% of the City.
Mixed-Neighborhood place
type is one of the primary
opportunities for moderate
density housing options.
Limits Housing Diversity, Creates Uncertainty
Mixed Neighborhood Place Type
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 28
KEY FINDING #1
DOES NOT SUPPORT
FUTURE PLACE TYPES
25
Limits Housing Diversity, Creates Uncertainty
Mixed Neighborhood Place Type
Mixed Neighborhoods Place Type is mapped to areas in
8 different zone districts.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 29
KEY FINDING #1
DOES NOT SUPPORT
FUTURE PLACE TYPES
26
Mixed Neighborhood Place Type
The limited range of housing
types allowed in each zone do not
support housing diversity.
Uncertainty:
Most housing types are not allowed
through basic development review
and require administrative or P&Z
review except in NCB Zone.
“Missing middle” housing types like
triplex/fourplexes, townhouses, and
cottage cluster housing are grouped
with multi-family housing, even though
they can fit in with existing
house-scale neighborhoods.
➔There are opportunities to
allow a wider variety of
housing types that fit in with
existing neighborhoods.
Limits Housing Diversity, Creates Uncertainty
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 30
KEY FINDING #1
DOES NOT SUPPORT
FUTURE PLACE TYPES
27
Mixed Employment Place Type
has the potential to help the City
reduce vehicle-miles traveled and
support GHG reduction goals by
integrating a more diverse mix of
uses–such as multifamily housing,
supportive services and amenities
within existing employment centers.
Potential need to require higher
densities and transit-supportive uses
in key locations. (City Plan, p. 148)
The Mixed Employment Place
Type makes up 13% of the City.
Mixed Employment Place Type
Limits Housing Diversity, Creates Uncertainty
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 31
KEY FINDING #1
DOES NOT SUPPORT
FUTURE PLACE TYPES
28
Audit Recommendations:
●Consider consolidating HC and E●Update list of residential uses, and allow certain
housing types administratively, especially for
transition areas●Apply 6-story height limit along Harmony Corridor
(currently at 3-stories)
Mixed Employment Place Type
Limits Housing Diversity, Creates Uncertainty
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 32
KEY FINDING #1
DOES NOT SUPPORT
FUTURE PLACE TYPES
29
Mixed Employment Place Type
Limits Housing Diversity, Creates Uncertainty
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 33
KEY FINDING #1
DOES NOT SUPPORT
FUTURE PLACE TYPES
Urban Mixed Use Districts are adjacent to
existing MAX stations and along other corridors
planned for high-frequency transit service. Most
areas have not achieved transit-supportive
densities. These districts offer the greatest
potential for a diverse mix of uses at
transit-supportive densities in the near-term.
Suburban Mixed-Use Districts in Fort Collins
today are low-density, auto-oriented centers.
Although largely auto-oriented today, the
integration of higher-density residential and a
broader mix of uses is encouraged to help
reinvigorate underutilized centers.
Neighborhood Mixed-Use Districts are
stand-alone, grocery-anchored centers that
serve the immediate neighborhood(s).
Opportunities exist to improve connections
to surrounding neighborhoods, expand the
range of amenities, and incorporate
multifamily housing.
30
Mixed-Use Districts Place Type
Limits Housing Diversity, Creates Uncertainty
Mixed-use districts provide opportunities for a range of retail and commercial services,
office and employment, multifamily residential, civic and other complementary uses in a
compact, pedestrian and transit-supportive setting. (City Plan, p. 99)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 34
KEY FINDING #1
DOES NOT SUPPORT
FUTURE PLACE TYPES
31
The Mixed-Use District Place Types make up 7% of
the City, but include 36% of redevelopable land
and are typically located along transit.
Mixed-Use Districts Place Type
Limits Housing Diversity, Creates Uncertainty
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 35
KEY FINDING #1
DOES NOT SUPPORT
FUTURE PLACE TYPES
32
Mixed-Use Districts Place Type
Limits Housing Diversity, Creates Uncertainty
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 36
KEY FINDING #1
DOES NOT SUPPORT
FUTURE PLACE TYPES
33
●Most of the City’s existing commercial zones
allow for a wide range of housing types to be
approved through Administrative Review.
●Multifamily uses with more than 50 units, and
all multifamily in the NC zone, require review
by Planning and Zoning Commission. This
procedural requirement can be a barrier to
some development projects.
●The CS and CL zones allow for single-family
detached housing. This may be inconsistent
with the vision for the Mixed Use Districts to
concentrate density within a walkable distance
of key services and amenities.
●Residential uses are allowed as a secondary
use in the HC zone. It may be appropriate to
allow some residential uses or projects outright
in order to encourage housing development in
this zone.
Mixed-Use Districts Place Type
Limits Housing Diversity, Creates Uncertainty
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 37
KEY FINDING #1
DOES NOT SUPPORT
FUTURE PLACE TYPES
Does not promote compatible infill or
support envisioned neighborhood form
34
The LUC was created primarily
to guide development of vacant
parcels, or “greenfield”
development. The updated code
will need to contemplate infill
and redevelopment of parcels,
and should promote compatible,
contextual design solutions.
“Eliminate or better
define compatibility
standards.”
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 38
KEY FINDING #1
DOES NOT SUPPORT
FUTURE PLACE TYPES
The historic “Core” is the oldest
residential area of the City. The
Core is mapped both Mixed
Neighborhood and Suburban
Neighborhood Place Types, and it
contains the Neighborhood
Conservation zone districts (NCL,
NCM, NCB).
The historic patterns are most
closely aligned with 1929 code,
including smaller lots, varying
setbacks, and a variety of housing
types including duplexes and
“carriage houses.” In the past, a
disproportionate amount of
variance requests have come from
the historic Core, as compared to
other parts of the City.
35
Core: Placetypes
Core: Zoning
Does not promote compatible
infill in the “Core”
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 39
KEY FINDING #1
DOES NOT SUPPORT
FUTURE PLACE TYPES
36
●Variety of architectural
style and building types
(mostly single family
detached with some
duplexes and commercial)
●Regular blocks with alleys
(mostly), buildings
oriented to “primary” and
“side” streets.
“Adaptability in
the historic
neighborhoods
is crucial.”
“Preserve smaller
historic homes that
are more affordable
than the single family
scrape offs that
replace them.”
“More flexibility
for historic
compatibility.”
Does not promote compatible
infill in the “Core”
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 40
KEY FINDING #1
DOES NOT SUPPORT
FUTURE PLACE TYPES
37
Most of the development “Outside the Core” was built in
the last few decades, much of it since the 1990s (under
the current LUC). Infill and redevelopment in these areas
must consider a different context than the Core
neighborhood. Some areas have plan support for greater
change, especially along transit corridors, however the
Mixed Neighborhood Place Type, in general, is
anticipated to accommodate much of the City’s
residential capacity.
While the plan guidance for these areas is clear, the
existing built condition varies greatly, different densities,
lot sizes, and building forms. These areas will need further
study to calibrate updated design and development
standards that are compatible with the existing context.
37
Does not support envisioned
neighborhood form “Outside the Core”
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 41
KEY FINDING #1
DOES NOT SUPPORT
FUTURE PLACE TYPES
38
These areas has developed largely since the 1990s and while still auto-centric,
demonstrates some evolution toward more walkability with the reintroduction of
detached sidewalks, treelawns (sometimes with trees), and alley-loaded garages.
Does not support envisioned
neighborhood form “Outside the Core”
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 42
KEY FINDING #1
DOES NOT SUPPORT
FUTURE PLACE TYPES
Place Type +
Zoning Mismatches
➔RL & UE in Mixed Neighborhood
“Rezoning may be required...where the land uses,
density, and development characteristics supported
by the place type designation significantly differs
from underlying zoning.” - Code Audit
39
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 43
KEY FINDING #1
DOES NOT SUPPORT
FUTURE PLACE TYPES
Better Form Standards =
Greater Predictability
●Long, multistep processes do not compensate for
ineffective base code standards or guarantee
better outcomes. They often lead to even greater
frustration since the negotiation begins with
inadequate standards and approval criteria.
●Updated Standards that are in line with the values
and desires of the community can rely less on
time-consuming negotiated processes, provide more
equitable access to opportunity, and result in better,
more predictable outcomes for everyone.
➔Equitable Process:
Clearly defined
expectations, lower the
“entry point” for
development, opens the
door for local, small
businesses.
40
“Code is too focused on use
regulation and process and
not enough priority and
focus on predictable form.”
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 44
RECOMMENDATIONS
1.Update the permitted residential uses and review types
within Priority Place Types to allow greater housing diversity
by right.
2.Update Zones that comprise Priority Place Types to more
efficiently guide compatible infill (in the core) and
development patterns envisioned in adopted city plans
(outside the core).
3.Update Use Standards & Definitions (e.g. ADU’s & STR’s)
KEY FINDING #1
DOES NOT SUPPORT
FUTURE PLACE TYPES
41
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 45
42
• ZONED CAPACITY
• LAND SUPPLY
• AFFORDABILITY
KEY FINDING #2
LIMITS HOUSING CAPACITY
“Feels like buyers
now are closing the
door behind them.”
-Input Session
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 46
KEY FINDING #2
LIMITS HOUSING CAPACITY The city’s housing stock will need to expand
significantly to meet future demand
43
A total of about 30,000 additional homes are needed in the
community by 2040. Homes of all types are needed, but high density
housing must be built at the fastest rate to keep up with demand.
Existing housing stock (2016) Additional housing need (2040) Source: City Plan, Trends
and Forces Report
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 47
KEY FINDING #2
LIMITS HOUSING CAPACITY
44
Limited Dwelling Units
per Acre Allowed
●85% of city is less than 9 du/ac
●35% is 3-6 du/ac
●31% is less than 3 du/ac
The overall residential Dwelling Units per Acre (DUA) allowed
under the current LUC is generally low.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 48
KEY FINDING #2
LIMITS HOUSING CAPACITY
Current LUC allows fewer homes to be built
than are needed in the next 20 years.
45
Demand for housing will exceed
the city’s zoned capacity by around
2,000 units.
●If no changes are made to increase
zoned capacity, housing demand is
likely to oustrip supply, which drives
up housing prices as more people
seek out fewer homes.
●Other factors affect how much land
will be available (infrastructure,
environmental issues), so it is
important to have more zoned
capacity than needed.City zoning map
Source: City Plan, Trends
and Forces Report
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 49
KEY FINDING #2
LIMITS HOUSING CAPACITY
Zoning changes in the Mixed
Neighborhoods, Suburban
Neighborhood, and Mixed
Employment areas will expand housing
capacity most effectively because there
is more vacant land in these areas.
In Mixed Use Districts, more new
housing will be built through
redevelopment of existing properties. It
will be important to ensure the code
supports redevelopment where it is
appropriate and beneficial.
Housing Prototypes were used to
identify barriers to housing capacity and
affordability in the LUC standards that
apply to these Place Types.
Certain Place Types and Zones have
more capacity for new housing
46
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 50
KEY FINDING #2
LIMITS HOUSING CAPACITY
47
PLACE TYPE AND KEY ZONES HOUSING PROTOTYPES Prototypes are models of developments that maximize the zoned capacity
for housing and estimate levels of affordability of housing in that zone.
Mixed
Neighborhood
LMN
MMN
RL
Single Family
Detached House
Townhouses
2-Story Apartments
3-Story Apartments
Single Family
Detached House
Suburban
Neighborhood
RL
NCL
A detailed description of the
Prototypes analysis was sent to City
Council as part of the November 9
Work Session. See Diagnostic Reports
Methods for more information.
Prototypes Analyzed in Zones that comprise Mixed Neighborhood
and Suburban Neighborhood Place Types
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 51
KEY FINDING #2
LIMITS HOUSING CAPACITY
48
●Maximum density of 9 units per acre in the LMN
zone renders townhouse and multi-family
development less feasible than single-family
detached housing.
●Prohibition of housing types outside of single-family
detached in RL and NCL limit opportunities for low
or moderate income households to live in these areas.
●A variety of other regulations combine to constrain
housing capacity in these areas:
○Minimum lot sizes for single-family houses
encourage larger, more expensive units.
○Minimum setbacks consume significant land
area and limit infill development.
○Limitations on the number of units in each
apartment building increase the cost of
development.
Mixed
Neighborhood
LMN
MMN
RL
Suburban
Neighborhood
RL
NCL
Barriers to Housing Capacity in Zones that comprise Mixed
Neighborhood and Suburban Neighborhood Place Types
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 52
KEY FINDING #2
LIMITS HOUSING CAPACITY
49
On nearly all of the city’s vacant
residential land, zoning only
permits housing types that higher
income households can afford.
These zones and other low density zones
hold 90% of vacant residential land
Minimum Market Feasible Sale PriceMinimum Income Level Needed to Afford(% of Area Median Income)Barriers to Housing Capacity in Zones that comprise Mixed
Neighborhood and Suburban Neighborhood Place Types
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 53
KEY FINDING #2
LIMITS HOUSING CAPACITY
50
Infill Townhouses
The LMN zone holds 52% of vacant residential land, but the maximum
density standard severely restricts housing capacity and affordability.
(per unit)
Barriers to Housing Capacity in Zones that comprise Mixed
Neighborhood and Suburban Neighborhood Place Types
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 54
KEY FINDING #2
LIMITS HOUSING CAPACITY
51
2-Story Apartments
Barriers to Housing Affordability in Zones that comprise Mixed
Neighborhood and Suburban Neighborhood Place Types
The maximum density of the LMN zone discourages developers from
building more affordable rental apartments.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 55
KEY FINDING #2
LIMITS HOUSING CAPACITY
There are few zoning
incentives for building
income-restricted
affordable housing, and
those that do exist are
unlikely to entice private
developers to include
income-restricted units.
52
The LMN zone’s density bonus is too limited and too
costly to comply with to make a mixed-income project
economically feasible for most private developers.
●Sites smaller than 10 acres must provide 10% of units
affordable to households earning less than 80% of median
income. This is a reasonable standard, but it only allows an
increase in maximum density from 9 to 12 units per acre.
This density level remains below the densities usually
necessary to make mixed-income projects viable.
●Sites between 10 and 20 acres must provide approximately
50% of units affordable to households earning less than
60% of median income. This deep level of affordability is
very costly to comply with and will render many projects
infeasible.
●Sites over 20 acres are not eligible for the density bonus.
Current Affordable Housing
incentives allow for an increase in
density from 9 du/ac to 12 du/ac
in the LMN zone, but other
requirements, such as parking,
height maximums, setbacks,
actually make it difficult to
achieve allowed density.
“Parking, height, and
setbacks are what
add cost….these areas
need relief for
Affordable housing.”
Barriers to Housing Affordability in Zones that comprise Mixed
Neighborhood and Suburban Neighborhood Place Types
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 56
KEY FINDING #2
LIMITS HOUSING CAPACITY
53
Infill Single-Family
Detached House
Barriers to Housing Affordability in Zones that comprise Mixed
Neighborhood and Suburban Neighborhood Place Types
The RL, UE, and NCL zones hold 35% of the vacant residential land, but
only allow single-family detached houses.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 57
KEY FINDING #2
LIMITS HOUSING CAPACITY
54
PLACE TYPE AND KEY ZONES HOUSING PROTOTYPES Prototypes are models of developments that maximize the zoned capacity
for housing and estimate levels of affordability of housing in that zone.
Mixed-Use
Districts
GC, NC, HC,
SC, CC
4-Story Mixed Use
(residential over
commercial)
Mixed Employment
HC
E
4-Story
Apartments
6-Story Mixed Use
(residential over
commercial)
3-Story
Apartments
Prototypes Analyzed in Zones that comprise Mixed-Use and Mixed
Employment District Place Types
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 58
KEY FINDING #2
LIMITS HOUSING CAPACITY
55
Mixed Use
Districts
GC, NC, SC, CC
Mixed Employment
HC
E
●The city’s minimum parking
requirements range from 1.5 to 3
spaces per unit.
●Parking consumes land area that
could otherwise be used for
additional housing units.
●Structured parking or underground
parking saves land area, but is very
costly to build and requires higher
rents/sale prices to be feasible.
●There are a variety of alternative
strategies to manage parking
demand and supply.
Barriers to Housing Capacity in Zones that comprise Mixed Use
and Mixed Employment District Place Types
Minimum parking requirements are the primary barrier to increasing
housing capacity in Mixed Use and Mixed Employment areas.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 59
KEY FINDING #2
LIMITS HOUSING CAPACITY
56
4-Story Apartments
●Standalone multi-family developments are allowed
in the mixed use and employment zones. While
vertical mixed use may be desired wherever
feasible, commercial spaces are not viable in all
locations.
●This prototype tests the affordability of a 4-story
apartment building with surface parking, allowed
in most commercial/mixed use zones and the
Employment (E) zone. A small infill lot is used to
test feasibility where site area is more constrained.
●Minimum feasible rent on this prototype is
estimated at about $2,100. This is affordable to a
household earning about $92,000, or 96% of AMI.
●The primary barrier to deeper affordability for this
prototype is minimum off-street parking
requirements. A lower parking ratio would allow
more efficient use of the site and to spread fixed
costs across more dwelling units.
●A secondary barrier to affordability is minimum
setbacks. Residential buildings are subject to
minimum yard setbacks, even in commercial or
employment zones. These setback areas occupy
28% of the site, preventing additional units and a
more efficient use of the site.
Barriers to Housing Affordability in Zones that comprise Mixed
Use and Mixed Employment District Place Types
Housing is allowed in commercial zones, but a combination of minimum parking
requirements, minimum setbacks, maximum height inhibit housing development.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 60
KEY FINDING #2
LIMITS HOUSING CAPACITY
57
4-Story Mixed Use
(residential over commercial)
●Vertical mixed use development (residential over
commercial) is envisioned in the Structure Plan as a key
prototype for mixed use districts.
●The city’s current commercial/mixed-use zones (CC, CG, NC)
and the employment district (E) apply a similar set of
standards to mixed use development.
●The NC and the CC zone allow up to 5 stories; however, it is
generally not feasible to reach a 5-story density level on a
smaller site unless the parking is structured or underground.
This adds significant costs compared with surface parking. In
most locations, market rents would not offset those costs.
Thus, this prototype tests the affordability of a 4-story mixed
use building with surface parking.
●Minimum feasible rent on this prototype is estimated at
about $2,500. This is affordable to a household earning
about $110,000, or 115% of AMI. This estimate is higher than
other multi-family prototypes due to higher construction
costs associated with mixed use buildings and relatively low
estimated rents on the commercial space in the building.
●The primary barrier to deeper affordability for this
prototype is minimum off-street parking requirements. This
prototype assumes a ratio of 1.88 spaces per unit, including
spaces for the commercial uses. About 2/3 of the site is
occupied by surface parking. A lower parking ratio would
allow more efficient use of the site.
Barriers to Housing Affordability in Zones that comprise Mixed
Use and Mixed Employment District Place Types
Commercial zones encourage mixed use development, but minimum
parking requirements are a major barrier to more mixed use projects.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 61
KEY FINDING #2
LIMITS HOUSING CAPACITY
58
3-Story Apartments
Housing is classified as a “secondary use” and
thus limited to 25% of the site area. This
effectively requires mixed use development,
which few developers are willing to do.
Barriers to Housing Affordability in Zones that comprise Mixed
Use and Mixed Employment District Place Types
The employment zones (E and HC) have a substantial supply of vacant
land, but they severely restrict housing capacity.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 62
KEY FINDING #2
LIMITS HOUSING CAPACITY
59
6-Story Mixed Use
(residential over commercial)
Barriers to Housing Affordability in Zones that comprise Mixed
Use and Mixed Employment District Place Types
Vertical mixed use development is encouraged in employment zones, but
minimum parking requirements limit opportunities for this housing type.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 63
RECOMMENDATIONS
4.Update Zones that comprise Priority Place Types to
allow greater housing capacity by right.
a. Remove barriers (limitations on total number of
units or square footage per MF building)
b. Clarify and simplify development standards
c. Explore parking reductions
d.Consider replacing max densities with improved
form standards that guide better design
KEY FINDING #2
LIMITS HOUSING CAPACITY
60
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 64
RECOMMENDATIONS
KEY FINDING #2
LIMITS HOUSING CAPACITY
5.Expand and calibrate incentives for deed-restricted
affordable housing and develop monitoring tools.
6.Update definitions for affordable housing, review for
consistency.
a.Clarify and simplify development standards
b.Provide greater flexibility for deed-restricted affordable housing
61
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 65
62
KEY FINDING #3
DOES NOT PRIORITIZE HOUSING
CAPACITY, DIVERSITY AND AFFORDABILITY
ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 66
KEY FINDING #3
HOUSING CAPACITY
& AFFORDABILITY
Policies to concentrate growth along transit
63
“Fort Collins has a limited
supply of vacant land in the
Growth Management Area,
so future growth will have to
include infill and
redevelopment, which has
not been realized previously.
The Structure Plan identifies
Priority Place Types to
illustrate the challenges and
opportunities associated with
infill and redevelopment,
especially in activity centers
and along major corridors,
and the critical role it will
play in helping the
community achieve its vision
over the next 10-20 years.”
(City Plan, p. 107)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 67
KEY FINDING #3
HOUSING CAPACITY
& AFFORDABILITY
Zoning in Transit Areas
(as defined in TMP)
RL and then LMN are the most prevalent zones within 1/4 mile of
existing and future transit lines. These zones are primarily single
family residential with dwelling units per acre limits that do not
support transit oriented development.
64
“Too much low
density residential
zoning near transit
infrastructure.”
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 68
KEY FINDING #3
HOUSING CAPACITY
& AFFORDABILITY
Transit Walksheds
65
The street network connectivity within a transit area buffer
determines the amount of land accessible within a comfortable
(5-minute) walk of a station. The “walkshed” maps the area
actually within a 5-minute walk. This analysis uses walksheds
instead of ¼ mile buffers to provide a clearer picture of how
well the current LUC supports Transit Oriented Development.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 69
KEY FINDING #3
HOUSING CAPACITY
& AFFORDABILITY
Existing Zones within
5-minute Transit Walkshed
In looking at the zones within a 5-minute walkshed of existing and future
transit, RL still comprises of the most land area. This relatively low density,
single family district along transit corridors is not reflective of the
community’s vision for transit oriented development along these corridors.
66
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 70
KEY FINDING #3
HOUSING CAPACITY
& AFFORDABILITY
Limits Housing Diversity and Capacity
within the Transit Walkshed
67
As discussed earlier, housing
diversity and capacity are
limited citywide, however, they
are even more limited within
transit areas. Current DUA limits
of the RL and LMN zones within
transit areas do not support the
City’s future multi-modal vision.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 71
KEY FINDING #3
HOUSING CAPACITY
& AFFORDABILITY
68
The Transit-Oriented Development Overlay Zone lacks effective
zoning incentives for income-restricted affordable housing.
The incentive allows a 50%-60% reduction in parking requirements. This is a
substantial incentive, but there are two limitations that constrain the effectiveness
of this incentive:
●The reduction only applies to the income-restricted units, which
usually only makeup 10-20% of units in mixed income projects.
●The TOD overlay zone applies to a limited area with a limited supply
of vacant land. Redevelopment projects are more costly and complex,
making it less feasible for private developers to include income-restricted
units.
Recalibrate existing incentives to reflect current market conditions.
Create additional development incentives for affordable housing.
(Housing Strategic Plan, p. 42)
The Transit-Oriented Development Overlay Zone lacks effective zoning
incentives for deed-restricted affordable housing.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 72
KEY FINDING #3
HOUSING CAPACITY
& AFFORDABILITY
69
4-Story Apartments
TOD Overlay Zone
The TOD Overlay enables more units and less expensive units in apartment
buildings, but additional capacity and affordability gains are possible.
●The TOD Overlay Zone applies to
standalone multi-family developments.
●The reductions in minimum parking
requirements compared to the base
zone allow an additional 8 units to be
accommodated on the site.
●However, the TOD Overlay Zone does
not provide an exception to minimum
setbacks that apply to residential
buildings.
●These setbacks make it difficult to
increase density while maintaining
surface parking. This limits efficient use
of the site and prevents additional
capacity and affordability gains.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 73
KEY FINDING #3
HOUSING CAPACITY
& AFFORDABILITY
70
5-Story Mixed Use
TOD Overlay Zone
Mixed use apartment buildings also benefit from TOD overlay zone
allowances, but minimum parking requirements remain an impediment.
●The TOD Overlay grants a 50% reduction in
minimum parking requirements from 1.5-3.0
spaces per unit to 0.75-1.5 spaces per unit.
●This reduction allows a 59% increase in the
number of units that can be provided on the
site compared to the the base zone
prototype, from 17 to 27.
●Unlike standalone apartment buildings,
mixed use buildings are not subject to
minimum setbacks.
●The minimum feasible rent for this prototype
is about $2,300, which is 7% lower than the
minimum feasible rent for the base zone
prototype.
●Additional gains in affordability could be
made by further reducing minimum parking
requirements.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 74
RECOMMENDATIONS
7.Update Zones within a 5 minute walk to transit to
allow greater housing diversity and capacity by right.
8.Calibrate effective bonus incentives for deed-restricted
Affordable housing and develop monitoring tools.
9.Recalibrate parking requirements to improve
residential capacity in TOD.
KEY FINDING #3
HOUSING CAPACITY
& AFFORDABILITY
71
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 75
72
• LIMITED GRAPHICS
•LACKS HIERARCHY
•INCONSISTENT STANDARDS
KEY FINDING #4
LUC IS HARD TO USE
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 76
KEY FINDING #4
LUC IS HARD TO USE Lengthy written Standards, little to no Graphics
LMN Zone District
is 9 pages, all text.
73
“Can we write
the code in plain
language?”
“Too many words,
not enough tables
and graphics.”
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 77
KEY FINDING #4
LUC IS HARD TO USE Inconsistent Graphic Style
74
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 78
KEY FINDING #4
LUC IS HARD TO USE
Formatting issues
Print version, titles for graphics are on the previous page
75
“Page layout is
not intuitive.”
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 79
KEY FINDING #4
LUC IS HARD TO USE
LUC Code Audit Recommendations
76
The 2020 LUC Code Audit
provides useful guidance on
code organization and
non-substantive
improvements that would
address existing
inconsistencies and
navigation challenges.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 80
KEY FINDING #4
LUC IS HARD TO USE
BEST PRACTICE:
Illustrations by Zone District
CASE STUDY:
South Bend Zoning
Ordinance (2021)
Winner of 2021
Driehaus Awards
77
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 81
KEY FINDING #4
LUC IS HARD TO USE
CASE STUDY:
South Bend Zoning
Ordinance (2021)
Winner of 2021
Driehaus Awards
78
BEST PRACTICE:
Illustrations for Rule of Measurement
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 82
RECOMMENDATIONS
11.Develop consistent graphic templates for building form and use standards.
12.Reformat Zones so Form Standards and Graphics are consistent
and more effectively communicate requirements.
13.Update Use standards, Definitions, and Rules of Measurement in
alignment with adopted plans and define density consistently.
14.Change name from “Land Use Code” to “Land Development Code”.
15.Rename Zones (without boundary changes) and consolidate to be more
intuitive with clear hierarchy.
KEY FINDING #4
LUC IS HARD TO USE
79
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 83
SUMMARY OF
Recommendations
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 84
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
1.Update the housing uses permitted
and review types required within
Priority Place Types to allow greater
housing diversity by right.
2.Update Zones that comprise Priority
Place Types to more efficiently guide
compatible infill (in the core) and
development patterns envisioned in
adopted city plans (outside the core).
3.Update Use Standards & Definitions
(e.g. ADU’s & STR’s)
4.Update Zones that comprise Priority
Place Types to allow greater housing
capacity by right.
a. Remove barriers (limitations on
total number of units or square
footage per MF building)
b. Clarify and simplify
development standards
c. Explore parking reductions
10.Recalibrate parking requirements
to improve residential capacity in
TOD.
11.Develop consistent graphic
templates for building form and use
standards.
12.Reformat Zones so Form Standards
and Graphics are consistent
and more effectively communicate
requirements.
13.Update Use standards, Definitions,
and Rules of Measurement in
alignment with adopted plans and
define density consistently.
14.Change name from “Land Use
Code” to “Land Development Code”.
15.Rename Zones (without boundary
changes) and consolidate to be
more intuitive with clear hierarchy.
5.Consider replacing maximum
densities with improved form
standards that guide better design.
6.Expand and calibrate incentives for
deed-restricted affordable housing
and develop monitoring tools.
7.Update definitions for affordable
housing.
a.Review for consistency
b. Clarify and simplify development
standards
c. Provide greater flexibility for
deed-restricted affordable
housing
8.Update Zones within a 5 minute walk
to transit to allow greater housing
diversity and capacity by right.
9.Calibrate effective bonus incentives
for deed-restricted Affordable housing
and develop monitoring tools.
81
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 85
APPROACH
Considerations
82
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 86
CODE UPDATE
APPROACH
1.Broad community
engagement and education
2.Co-create LUC Updates with
broad and active
participation from staff &
stakeholders
3.Focus on Transit Corridors
to increase housing
4.Update existing and/or create
new zones to more effectively
implement the Place Types in
future subarea plans
83
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 87
1.Broad community
engagement and education.
➔Build on previous outreach
➔Leading up to the 1st Public Review Draft
➔Throughout Public Review and Adoption process
➔Test and refine standards
CODE UPDATE
APPROACH
84
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 88
2. Co-create LUC Updates with
broad and active participation
from staff & stakeholders.
➔Benefit from staff’s experience and expertise
➔Create strong understanding and
ownership of the changes to ensure successful
implementation
CODE UPDATE
APPROACH
85
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 89
3.Focus on Transit Corridors to
Increase Housing Capacity and
Diversity.
➔Modify existing zones within 5-minute walking
distance from transit corridors to allow greater
housing diversity and capacity by right.
➔These areas provide most opportunities for
effectively using bonus incentives to create
long-term affordable housing.
➔These areas provide most opportunities for
adding more diverse housing options in ways
that potentially lower GHG impacts, lower VMT,
and increase transit ridership.
CODE UPDATE
APPROACH
86
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 90
4.Update existing and/or
create new zones to
effectively implement the
Place Types in future
subarea plans.
CODE UPDATE
APPROACH
➔Focus on zones that comprise Priority
Place Types assigned to areas that have
greater likelihood for evolution and/or are
scheduled for plan updates.
➔Prioritize based on degree of alignment
between existing built patterns, existing
zoning, assigned Place Types, and select
EOA characteristics.
87
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 91
•Existing Zoning
•Allowed Housing Types
•Summary of Development Standards
APPENDIX 1:
Existing Zoning
88
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 92
Zone Districts
89
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 93
Housing Types Allowed by Zone District
90
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 94
Types of Review
Basic Development Review (BDR) - does not require a public hearing
Public Hearing - requires a public hearing, and is required for most
development review projects in most zone districts
-Administrative Review: Type 1 Staff review and Public Hearing
required with a Hearing Officer
-Planning & Zoning Board Approval: Type 2 Staff review and
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing required. A neighborhood
meeting is required
While the process varies, and is much longer when a public hearing is
required, the criteria for approval and the standards guiding the
development do not change. So, the increase in process does not
necessarily result in an improved final outcome, as the underlying
standards are the same.
https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/files/dev-review-
submittal-requirements_v3-3-31-2021.pdf?1625856543
91
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 95
92
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 96
APPENDIX 2:
Existing Built Environment
93
•Existing Zoning
•Connectivity
•Building Height
•Building Coverage
•Dwelling Units per Acre
•Lot Size
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 97
Lot size of Residential lots
94
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 98
Lot size by zone District
95
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 99
Building Coverage
96
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 100
Building Height
97
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 101
Connectivity
The “walkability” of an area is based on
the amount of connections within a street
network. One metric used to determine the
connectivity of an area is the amount of
intersections within a square mile, called
intersection density.
In Fort Collins, the earliest built
neighborhoods (those built before 1959)
small, regular blocks that are well
connected to the surrounding area, and
these areas have the highest intersection
density in the City.
The other well connected areas of Fort
Collins are seen in areas that were
developed after the 1997 LUC; however,
while these areas are well connected
internally, they connections
98
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 102
KEY FINDING #3
HOUSING CAPACITY
& AFFORDABILITY
Walkshed +
Connectivity
99
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 103
APPENDIX 3:
Trends
100
•Recent Development (2017)
•Vacant Land (2017)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 104
Recent
Development
101
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 105
Vacant Lands
102
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0BAB2B6C-1E82-448B-A85A-D240EB58BD8E
Packet pg. 106
East Mulberry Project UpdateJanuary 14, 2022Planning and Zoning CommissionSylvia Tatman-BurrussE MULBERRY PROJECT UPDATEPacket pg. 107
2Agenda1. Plan/Process update2. Potential Scenario Development3. Joint County Commissioner/City Council TopicsE MULBERRY PROJECT UPDATEPacket pg. 108
Engagement UpdateOutreach tools:• Webpage• Newsletter• Chamber Outreach• Community Visioning Sessions• HOA Outreach• Working Group Sessions• Community Advisory Group• Targeted Character Area Engagement• Spanish-Speaking Targeted Outreach3E MULBERRY PROJECT UPDATEPacket pg. 109
System RolesConsultants•Economic Planning Solutions: Financial Modeling, Triple Bottom Line Analysis/Scenarios•Institute for the Built Environment: Community Advisory Group, Targeted Outreach, City Council/BCC Facilitation, Working Group Facilitation•Metta Urban Design: Plan Design and Content/CopyInternal Teams•Plan Team: Finalizing Vision and Guiding Principles•Core Team: High-level agenda planning, Coordination, and Advisory•Working Groups: Policies, Key Strategies, pitfalls4E MULBERRY PROJECT UPDATEPacket pg. 110
East Mulberry Map5E MULBERRY PROJECT UPDATEPacket pg. 111
Character Areas6E MULBERRY PROJECT UPDATEPacket pg. 112
Preliminary Financial AnalysisE MULBERRY PROJECT UPDATEPacket pg. 113
8Preliminary Fiscal Impact EstimatesGovernmental ServicesOperating Impacts Capital Impacts PersonnelAverage Annual($M per year)20 Year Total($M)20 Year Total($M)FTERevenues $5 - $7 $100 - $140$80 - $12040 - 60Expenses$8 - $12$160 - $240$20 - $40Net Impact($3) - ($5) ($60) - ($100)$60 - $80Utility ServicesOperating ImpactsCapital Impacts PersonnelAverage Annual($M per year)20 Year Total($M)20 Year Total($M)FTERevenues$9 – $15$180 - $300$20 - $4020 - 30Expenses$8 - $12$160 - $240$110 - $170Net Impact$1 - $3$20 - $60($90) - ($130)E MULBERRY PROJECT UPDATEPacket pg. 114
Plan StructureE MULBERRY PROJECT UPDATEPacket pg. 115
East Mulberry Plan - Structure10Phased Annexation of EnclaveDedicated and Flexible Space for IndustrySafe and Functional Transportation OptionsIntegrate and Connect to Community Amenities & ServicesCelebrate and Enhance Historic and Natural FeaturesGoals• Goals• Key Outcomes by Strategic Outcome Areas• Broad policies for the entire corridor• Character Areas• Industrial Park• East Mulberry Commercial Corridor• I-25 Gateway Area• Future Development Area• Residential (North and South)• Implementation• Short-term• Mid-term• Long-term• Annexation PhasingE MULBERRY PROJECT UPDATEPacket pg. 116
11Illustrating Character Areas• Strategies and Policy recommendations are clearly represented in physical space• Plan is concise and visually pleasing• Character is celebrated across the corridor• Areas of change are clearly articulatedE MULBERRY PROJECT UPDATEPacket pg. 117
ThemesOutcomesPotential PoliciesNon-conforming UsesPreservationOverlay DistrictCompatible within an areaAdditional Uses in I districtPrioritize most problematic site concernsDon’t create “sidewalks to nowhere”Buffer StandardsSignageEducation around amortization and sign code standards7-year amortization - existingAchieve equitable outcomeAnalyze sign inventory for non-compliance and create sign code letter and messaging upon annexationScreening“Back of house” and “front of house”Allow existing screeningDo not create fence “corridors”Capital projectsBetter pedestrian and transit access along LincolnWork with Capital Project staff and FCMoves on TCAPS and Active Modes study for prioritization of projectsExplore grant funding for shared bicycle and pedestrian path along Summit ViewTWhat has come up in discussionsp • What is the desired outcome?• How does it tie back to goals?ThemesOutcomesPoeservationOvompatible within an areaaaaAdrioritize most prprprproboboboblelelelematic site ncernson’t tt t crcrcrcreaeaeaeattte “sidewalks to nowhere”SignageEducation around amortization and sign code standards7-yAchieve equitable outcomeAncomlettannScreening“Back of house” and “front of house”Allow existing screeningTThemesOuNon-conforming UsesPreCoPrconDoBuffer StandardsTin discussionsred outcome?ack to goals?• Existing policies or new policies that get us to the desired outcomeE MULBERRY PROJECT UPDATEPacket pg. 118
Annexation Phasing Scenario PlanningE MULBERRY PROJECT UPDATEPacket pg. 119
14Scenario PlanningTriple Bottom Line Analysis – by Character Area• Decision-making factors for each Character Area• Economic•Social• Environmental• Present 3 Potential Phasing Scenarios with One Staff Recommendation• In Addition, Explore “Annexing vs. Not-Annexing” for certain timeframes• 10, 20, 30 year outlook for each character area• “If this area is not annexed, here are possible/likely consequences/changes”• “If this area is annexed, here are possible/likely consequences/changes”E MULBERRY PROJECT UPDATEPacket pg. 120
County engagement – staff and County Commissioners15E MULBERRY PROJECT UPDATEPacket pg. 121
County Staff EngagementKelly D and Linda – December• Understand Key Issues for consideration (example: ag business preservation solutions, existing Improvement Districts, Street standards, etc.)• County staff commitment/directionCounty/City Staff Meetings – January (Council Work Session on “Big Ideas”)• Discuss key issues between Subject Matter Experts/Key Staff• Understand key points for executive decision-making and/or for elected officialsKelly D and Linda – March• Decision-making for key issues for internal staff• Decision-making for elected officials• Confirm City Council/BCC collaborative meeting topicsCity Council and BCC Collaborative Meeting – Late March, Early April?Draft Plan Review – City Council Work Sessions: February 22ndand April 26thE MULBERRY PROJECT UPDATEPacket pg. 122
E MULBERRY PROJECT UPDATEPacket pg. 123
Community Development &
Neighborhood Services
Planning & Development Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.221.6376
970.224.6111- fax
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 7, 2022
To: Chair Haefele and Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Alyssa Stephens, Neighborhood Development Liaison
Re: January Public Engagement Update
_____________________________________________________________________
The purpose of this memo is to provide an update on public engagement in development review.
Recent Public Engagement by the Numbers
• Neighborhood meetings — 0
• Educational events – 0
News and Updates
• Data analysis of attendance at neighborhood meetings from the past 13 months yielded the
following results:
o The City of Fort Collins mailed over 15000 neighborhood meeting invitations.
▪ Residential projects averaged attendance of about 10% of total letters mailed.
▪ The largest attendance was approximately 20% of total letters mailed.
o The average number of attendees for a neighborhood meeting was 42 (including staff
and applicants). The median number of attendees was 29.
▪ Five neighborhood meetings saw more than 80 attendees, including three with
over 100 (including staff and applicants). This included one mixed-use project,
three residential projects, and one infrastructure project.
▪ Nine meetings included fewer than 20 participants (including staff and
applicants). This included three meetings on storage projects and two meetings
on residential projects, among others.
Packet pg. 124