HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/28/2022 - Planning and Zoning Commission - AGENDA - Regular MeetingPlanning and Zoning Commission Page 1 September 28, 2022
Upon request, the City of Fort Collins will provide language access services for individuals who have limited English
proficiency, or auxiliary aids and services for individuals with disabilities, to access City services, programs and activities.
Contact 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. Please provide 48 hours advance notice when
possible.
A solicitud, la Ciudad de Fort Collins proporcionará servicios de acceso a idiomas para personas que no dominan el idioma
inglés, o ayudas y servicios auxiliares para personas con discapacidad, para que puedan acceder a los servicios,
programas y actividades de la Ciudad. Para asistencia, llame al 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Marque 711 para Relay Colorado).
Por favor proporcione 48 horas de aviso previo cuando sea posible.
Additional Hearing
September 28, 2022
6:00 PM
David Katz, Chair City Council Chambers - City Hall West
Ted Shepard, Vice Chair 300 Laporte Avenue
Michelle Haefele Fort Collins, Colorado
Per Hogestad
Adam Sass Virtual (Zoom or Telephone)
Jeff Schneider Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 on Connexion &
Julie Stackhouse Channels 14 & 881 on Comcast
Planning and Zoning Commission
Hearing Agenda
Participation for this hybrid Planning and Zoning Commission additional meeting will be available online, by
phone, or in person.
Public Participation (In Person): Individuals who wish to address the Planning & Zoning Commission in person may
attend the meeting located in City Council Chambers at City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave.
Public Participation (Online): Individuals who wish to address the Planning & Zoning Commission via remote
public participation can do so through Zoom at https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/94649332301. Individuals participating
in the Zoom session should also watch the meeting through that site.
The meeting will be available to join beginning at 5:45 p.m. on Wednesday, September 28, 2022. Participants
should try to sign in prior to 6:00 p.m. if possible. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the
“Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to
ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Commission.
In order to participate:
Use a laptop, computer, or internet-enabled smartphone. (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly
improve your audio). You need to have access to the internet. Keep yourself on muted status.
If you have any technical difficulties during the hearing, please email smanno@fcgov.com.
(Continued on next page)
Packet pg. 1
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 2 September 28, 2022
ROLL CALL
• AGENDA REVIEW
• PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Individuals may comment on items not specifically scheduled on the hearing agenda, as follows:
• Those who wish to speak are asked to sign in at the podium if they are in person or use the raise hand
function if they are on Zoom or on the phone.
• The presiding officer will determine and announce the length of time allowed for each speaker.
• Each speaker should state their name and address and keep their comments to the allotted time.
• Any written materials should be provided to the Secretary for record-keeping purposes.
• In person participates will hear a timer beep once and the time light will turn to yellow to indicate that
30 seconds of speaking time remains and will beep again and turn red when a speaker’s time to speak
has ended. Phone and Zoom participants will be told verbally when their allotted time has ended.
• CONSENT AGENDA
The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Planning and Zoning Commission to quickly resolve items that
are non-controversial. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request that an
item on this agenda be “pulled” for consideration within the Discussion Agenda, which will provide a full
presentation of the item being considered. Items remaining on the Consent Agenda will be approved by the
Planning and Zoning Commission with one vote.
The Consent Agenda generally consists of Commission Minutes for approval, items with no perceived
controversy, and routine administrative actions.
Public Participation (Phone): If you do not have access to the internet, you can call into the hearing via phone.
Please dial: 253-215-8782 or 346-248-7799, with Webinar ID: 946 4933 2301.
The meeting will be available beginning at 5:45 p.m. Please call in to the meeting prior to 6:00 p.m., if possible.
For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like
to speak at that time – phone participants will need to hit *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom
session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Committee. Once you join the meeting:
keep yourself on muted status. If you have any technical difficulties during the hearing, please email
smanno@fcgov.com.
Documents to Share: If residents wish to share a document or presentation, City Staff needs to receive those
materials via email by 24 hours before the meeting. Please email any documents to smanno@fcgov.com.
Individuals uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or unable to participate by phone are
encouraged to participate by emailing general public comments you may have to smanno@fcgov.com . Staff will
ensure the Commission receives your comments. If you have specific comments on any of the discussion items
scheduled, please make that clear in the subject line of the email and send 24 hours prior to the meeting.
As required by City Council Ordinance 079, 2020, a determination has been made by the chair after
consultation with the City staff liaison that conducting the hearing using remote technology would be
prudent.
Packet pg. 2
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 3 September 28, 2022
There are no items on consent.
• DISCUSSION AGENDA
1. Phase 1 Land Use Code Update
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION:
The LUC Phase 1 project began in summer 2021. Work completed to date
includes:
• Policy analysis and synthesis (Summer 2021)
• A series of community engagement events to inform and seek input
(September/October 2021)
• An Equity and Opportunity Assessment (November 2021)
• Completion of a Diagnostic Report (January/February 2022)
• Code drafting
This effort has also been informed by two rounds of briefings with
Councilmembers and Council work sessions in November 2021 and February
2022, as well as many presentations to Boards and Commissions and
community groups. Groups engaged to date include, but are not limited to:
Planning and Zoning Commission, Affordable Housing Board, Economic
Advisory Board, Historic Preservation Commission, multiple affordable housing
providers (e.g. Housing Catalyst, CARE housing, Habitat for Humanity, Neighbor
to Neighbor), League of Women Voters, Partnership for Age-Friendly
Communities, Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce, and a LUC Phase 1 working
group of frequent Code users who are advising staff on technical code items.
The Planning and Zoning Commission will also consider, and provide City
Council a recommendation for, the renaming of the Neighborhood Conservation
Low Density District, the Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density District,
and the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District, to rename such zone
districts as the Old Town District (OT), which is comprised of three subdistricts,
OT-A, OT-B, and OT-C. This renaming is being addressed as a rezoning under
the Land Use Code and is being considered in association with the Phase 1
Land Use Code Update. No changes to the zone district boundaries are
proposed.
APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
STAFF ASSIGNED: Noah Beals, Development Review Manager
• OTHER BUSINESS
• ADJOURNMENT
Packet pg. 3
PUBLIC NOTICE
OF
ADDITIONAL MEETING
Date of Posting: September 2, 2022
Name of Board/Commission
or Subcommittee: Planning & Zoning Commission
Date of Additional Meeting: September 28, 2022
Time of Cancelled Meeting: 6:00pm
Location of Additional Meeting: City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave., Council Chambers
This meeting is in addition to the regular Planning & Zoning Commission hearing to hear
the following: Phase 1 Land Use Code Update as well as the associated amendment of
the zoning map to rename the NCL, NCM and NCB Zone Districts to OT-A, OT-B and
OT-C.
For additional information call: Rebecca Everette at 970-416-2625.
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City
services, programs, and activities and will make special communication
arrangement for persons with disabilities. Please contact: for assistance.
Cc: City Clerk’s Office
Packet pg. 4
Development Review Staff Report Item 1
Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com
1. Summary of Changes
The existing code has been reorganized into 7 new Articles and a proposed name change to:
The Land Development Code.
• Article 1 - General Provisions
• Article 2 - Zone Districts
• Article 3 - Building Types
• Article 4 - Use Standards
• Article 5 - General Development and Site Design
• Article 6 - Administration and Procedures
• Article 7 - Rules of Measurement and Definitions
Planning and Zoning Commission: September 28th, 2022
Land Use Code Phase 1 Update – Implementation of the Housing Strategic Plan
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 reorganization of the LUC to improve
usability and clarity and on housing-related changes to the code.
The LUC Phase 1 Update implements policy direction from 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 (Summer 2021)
• A series of community engagement events to inform and
seek input (September/October 2021)
• An Equity and Opportunity Assessment (November 2021)
• Completion of a Diagnostic Report (January/February
2022)
• Code drafting
This effort has also been informed by two rounds of briefings with
Councilmembers and Council work sessions in November 2021 and
February 2022, as well as many presentations to Boards and
Commissions and community groups. Groups engaged to date
include, but are not limited to: Planning and Zoning Commission,
Affordable Housing Board, Economic Advisory Board, Historic
Preservation Commission, multiple affordable housing providers (e.g.
Housing Catalyst, CARE housing, Habitat for Humanity, Neighbor to
Neighbor), League of Women Voters, Partnership for Age-Friendly
Communities, Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce, and a LUC Phase
1 working group of frequent Code users who are advising staff on
technical code items.
Applicant
City of Fort Collins
PO BOX 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Staff
Noah Beals, Development Review Manager
Meaghan Overton, Housing Manager
Contents
1. Summary of Changes
Packet pg. 5
P&Z - Agenda Item 2
Land Use Code Changes
Thursday, December 17th, 2020 | Page 2 of 2
Back to Top
Other changes include:
• New Format – Tables, Graphics, Two Column presentation, Highlighted Section Breaks
Applicability statement in regard to adopted Housing Policies
• Renamed the N-C-L, N-C-M, and N-C-B districts to Old Town District OT-A, OT-B, and OT-C
• Organized Zone Districts in General Categories
• Added 10 new Building Types
• NEW Land Use Table
• Change of Review Process for Residential Uses to a Basic Development Review
• Expanding where Accessory Dwelling Units are allowed
• Consolidating Use Standards
• New Affordable Housing Incentives that include additional height allowance, parking reductions, and density
increase.
• Multi-Unit Parking reduction for studio, one-bedroom and two-bedroom units.
• Consolidating Existing Code Standards
• Reorganization (Placing Frequent Review Processes First)
• Establish a Notification Area for ADU
• Minor Amendment review for City Projects
• New Rules and Measurements
Packet pg. 6
Planning and Zoning CommissionLUC Phase 1 Updates: Recommendation to CouncilSeptember 28, 2022Noah Beals | Development Review ManagerMeaghan Overton | Housing ManagerPacket pg. 7
Recommendation ConsiderationDoes the Commission wish to provide a recommendation regarding the proposed Land Development Code to City Council in advance of First Reading on October 18, 2022?Packet pg. 8
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•Equity3Packet pg. 9
Process4POLICIESCODE AUDITPRIORITIESPROBLEM STATEMENTSGUIDING PRINCIPLESInputsP2P MatrixREVISIONSAPPROACHMenuDIAGNOSTICINTERVIEWS WITH CITY COUNCIL AND P&Z STAFF WORKSESSIONSCOMMUNITY ENGAGEMENTPacket pg. 10
FIVE GUIDING PRINCIPLESThese 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.1.Increase overall housing capacity(market rate and affordable) and calibrate market-feasible incentives for Affordable (subsidized/deed restricted) housing2.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 types4.Make the code easier to use and understand5.Improve predictability of the development permit review process, especially for housingPacket pg. 11
Summary: Code Reorganization6Make the code easier to use and understandKey Proposals:• Change name to “Land Development Code” (Recommendation 14)• Reorganize content so the most used information is first in the Code• Reformat zone districts with consistent graphics, tables, and illustrations (Recommendation 12)• Consolidate form standards in new Article 3 – Building Types (Recommendation 11)• Consolidate use standards into table in new Article 4 – Use Standards (Recommendation 13)• Update definitions and rules of measurement for consistency (Recommendation 13)• Rename some zones and create subdistricts to consolidate standards (Recommendation 15)Improve predictability of the development review process, especially for housingPacket pg. 12
Summary: Housing choice, compatibility, and diversity7Allow for more diverse housing choices that fit in with the existing context and/or future priority place typesKey Proposals:• Allow ADUs in all residential and mixed-use zones (Recommendation 1)• Create a menu of building types and form standards to guide compatibility (Recommendation 1)• Update Land Use Table to permit more housing types through BDR (Recommendation 1)• Adjust standards to enable more small-lot infill development and “missing middle” housing types. (Recommendation 2)• Update use standards, rules of measurement, and definitions to align with new building types and standards. (Recommendation 3) Packet pg. 13
Summary: Housing capacity8Increase overall housing capacity(market rate and affordable) Key Proposals:• Target increases in housing capacity to zones in transit corridors and zones with the greatest amount of buildable land (Recommendation 8)• Increase maximum density in the LMN zone from 9 to approximately 12 dwelling units per acre (Recommendations 4, 5, and 8)• Reduce parking requirements for studio, one- and two-bedroom units in multi-unit developments (Recommendations 4, 9, and 10)• Regulate building size through maximum floor area and form standards instead of units per building (Recommendation 5)• Regulate density through form standards and building types instead of dwelling units per acre (Recommendation 5)Enable more affordability, especially near high frequency transit and priority growth areas Packet pg. 14
9HHOUSING CAPACITY REPORT CARDPPERFORMANCE METRICEEXISTING CODE PROPOSED CODE % CHANGETotal Housing CapacityEstimated number of units possible to build under zoning standards25,959dwelling units39,725dwelling unitsሄ53%Housing Capacity as PPercent of Projected 20-Year Housing NeedEstimated capacity compared to total projected housing demand through 2040.185%of 30,480 units130%of 30,480 unitsHousing Capacity in TTransit CorridorsEstimated number of units possible to build under zoning standards within 5 minute walk of existing and future transit corridors.5,104dwelling units8,299dwelling unitsሄ63%1 Source: City Plan Trends and Forces Report (2017)Packet pg. 15
Summary: Housing Affordability10Key Proposals:• Expand affordable housing incentives (Recommendations 6 and 9)• Modify income criteria to address the most critical shortages (Recommendations 6 and 9)• Raise the density bonus incentive in the LMN zone (Recommendations 6 and 9)• Create height bonus and parking reduction incentives (Recommendations 6 and 9)• Require 50-60 years of deed restriction instead of the current 20 years • Continue to require a minimum 10% of units to be affordable for development seeking incentives • Update definitions for affordable housing, review for consistency (Recommendation 7)Calibrate market-feasible incentives for affordable housingEnable more affordability, especially near high frequency transit and priority growth areas Packet pg. 16
11HHOUSING AFFORDABILITY REPORT CARDPPERFORMANCE METRICEEXISTING CODE PROPOSED CODE % CHANGECapacity for Affordable UUnits with Bonus Incentives Estimated number of deed-restricted affordable units possible to build if bonus incentives are used in all projects.1,590dwelling units(LMN Zone)4,677dwelling units(multiple zones)ሄ194%Capacity as Percent of AAffordable Rental Unit ShortageEstimated capacity compared to total estimated shortage of rental units affordable to households earning less than 60% of AMI.123%of 6,787 units68%of 6,787 unitsTotal Housing Capacitywwith Bonus Incentives Estimated number of total units (market rate and affordable) possible to build if bonus incentives are used in all projects.32,394dwelling units53,106dwelling unitsሄ64%1 Source: Housing Strategic Plan (2021)Packet pg. 17
12Public EngagementPriorities + Guiding Principles (inform)• Synthesize previous plan engagement (City Plan, Housing Strategic Plan, Our Climate Future)• Info Sessions• Advisory Group meetings• Council briefingsDiagnostic Report (inform/consult)• Input Sessions• Community Presentations• Boards and Commissions• Advisory Group meetings• Council briefings• Council Work Sessions Nov. 2021, Feb. 2022Public Draft (consult) • 3-hour Council Work Session June 2022• Public Workshops• Office Hours• Community Presentations• Boards and Commissions• Advisory Group meetingsSummer 2021Fall 2021Fall 2022Spring 2022Packet pg. 18
13Public EngagementSince the Public Review Draft was released in early August, the project team has… • Offered office hours 2-3 times per week• Hosted 4 virtual public workshops• Held a workshop with development review staff• Met with community groups, Boards & Commissions including:• Affordable Housing Board • Transportation Board• Historic Preservation Commission• Natural Resources Advisory Board• Planning and Zoning Board • Land Development Code advisory group• Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce (housing task force)• Affordable Housing Providers groupPacket pg. 19
14Recommended changes from public review draftChange #Feedback Public Review DraftStaff Recommendation1The proposed floor area allowance (2,000 sf) in OT zone is overly restrictive.Floor area for primary structure in OT zone limited to 2,000 sfIncrease floor area allowance in OT zone for primary structure to 2,400 sf2Make the requirements for “substantially varied” building design clearer and more objectiveNo change from current codeCreate table outlining options for meeting requirements for “substantial variation”3Extend deed restriction for affordable housing (50 years) 50 year deed restrictionIncrease to 99 year deed restriction4If ADUs are allowed in RL, why not duplexes?Duplexes are not allowed in RL zoneAllow duplexes in the RL zone5Consider revision to requirement that all buildings be with 200-350 ft of a public sidewalk.No change from current codePermit buildings to be up to 600 ft from public sidewalk if development provides an enhanced walkway spine or greater connectivity to abutting developments.6The way “floor area” is measured is very confusingNo change from current codeAdjust measurement of floor area to improve clarity and consistencyPacket pg. 20
15Change #Feedback Public Review DraftStaff Recommendation7Consider allowing more than 45% of primary structure for detached ADUsDetached ADU size is limited to 45% of the floor area of the primary structure or 1,000 sf, whichever is smallerAllow a detached ADU of up to 600 sf. for primary houses that have 1,335 sf of floor area or less. All others must meet the 45% floor area requirement.Recommended changes from public review draftPacket pg. 21
16FeedbackPublic Review DraftRationaleFloor area in Old Town calculationMake allowances for larger lotsChange to levels of reviewDon’t allow ADUs and duplexes in RLSuper-ceding HOAsParking reductions are too muchParking reductions are not enoughAdditional changes suggestedPacket pg. 22
Next Steps171. Public Review Draft & Public engagement and testing –Summer / Fall 2022• Virtual engagement opportunities to educate, seek input, test code changes, and keep the public informed. More details at https://www.fcgov.com/housing/lucupdates• Workshops and presentations with a range of City departments• Presentations to multiple Boards and Commissions• Dialogues with community groups and members of the public2. Consideration of Adoption – Fall 2022, First Reading October 18, 2022Packet pg. 23
Recommendation ConsiderationDoes the Commission wish to provide a recommendation regarding the proposed Land Development Code to City Council in advance of First Reading on October 18, 2022?18Packet pg. 24
1
Katie Claypool
From:Rebecca Everette
Sent:Monday, September 26, 2022 7:48 AM
To:Development Review Comments; Noah Beals; Meaghan Overton; Katie Claypool
Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] 2000 SF maximum -- land use code
Categories:P&Z
For P&Z packet.
Rebecca Everette
Planning Manager | City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com | 970‐416‐2626
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Barry Schram <barry@lamarvalleycraftsman.com>
Date: Sep 26, 2022 6:47 AM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 2000 SF maximum ‐‐ land use code
To: Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>
Cc:
To City of Fort Collins Planning Commission ……. It has come to my attention that the Land Use Code is currently being
updated by the City of Fort Collins. From my research it seems that many of the items being amended will expand
building options within the city which is probably needed.
The item that I STRONGLY APPOSE is the provision for only allowing a maximum of 2000 square foot of home. This is not
at all realistic in the year 2022 we live. While I don’t believe we should be allowing people to build 7000‐8000 square
foot homes in the core of the city, restricting homes to 2000 square feet does not work.
What about families that want to live in the old town core and …….
Have a large family of 4 to 5 children and additionally what if they home school
Have a multigenerational family with parents living with them
Need a caretakers quarters to help care for aging or disabled parents and want this space to be separate in the
main home
Need one or two professional office spaces if one or both of the parents work from home
What if they home someone owns is already over 2000 square foot in size and they want to add an addition to
accommodate the above
These are just a few of the examples that would need space and square footage above the 2000 proposed maximum
limit. 3500 square feet would be a much more workable square footage for the lifestyle many families balance today.
This restriction will also only increase the cost of housing in the old town core. Anytime you place restrictions there are
consequential efforts to be dealt with. I thought one of the agenda’s of City Council was affordable housing? Properties
in the old town core will only increase more in value and create even a greater barrier to families wanting to purchase a
home in the old town core.
Regards,
Barry Schram
Owner / Project Manager
Lamar Valley Craftsman
CORRESPONDENCE 1
Packet pg. 25
2
970‐690‐8526
www.lamarvalleycraftsman.com
CORRESPONDENCE 1
Packet pg. 26
1
Katie Claypool
From:Rebecca Everette
Sent:Monday, September 26, 2022 9:39 PM
To:Development Review Comments; Katie Claypool; Noah Beals; Meaghan Overton
Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Proposed Changes to the Fort Collins Land Use Code
Categories:P&Z
For the P&Z packet
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rebecca Everette, AICP
Pronouns: she/her/hers
Planning Manager | City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct
From: Janet Oliver <oliver1953@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 1:59 PM
To: Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed Changes to the Fort Collins Land Use Code
Ms. Everette,
The builder of my new home, Barry Schram—owner and project manager of Lamar Valley Craftsman—has made me
aware that the Land Use Code is currently being updated by the City of Fort Collins. His research indicates that many of
the items being amended will expand building options within the city, an update which is likely needed.
The item that he strongly opposes is one I oppose as well: it is the provision to set a floor area maximum of 2,000
square feet for a single-united detached home in the historic core, namely, Neighborhood Conservation Districts.
Barry argues, and I agree, that this is not at all realistic in the year 2022. There is probably no place for 7,000-8,000
square foot homes in the core of the city, but restricting homes to 2,000 square feet does not work, and will likely have
consequences other than your stated one, which is to “Allow more diverse housing choices.” The requirement to build
small could result in unimaginative, cookie-cutter style homes. Not exactly the best fit for a conservation district.
There are many reasons and many different types of families who would love to live in the Old Town core, and who need
more than 2,000 square feet. For example:
They have a large family of 4 to 5 children. Perhaps the children are home schooled.
They are a multigenerational family whose parents live with them.
They need caretaker quarters to help care for aging or disabled parents and want this space to be separate in the
main home.
The parents work from home and need one or more professional office spaces.
They already own a home of over 2,000 square feet but are contemplating adding on to accommodate any of the
above options.
They may not need over 2,000 square feet. They may just want it. This is their right as property owners.
CORRESPONDENCE 2
Packet pg. 27
2
I see that you further plan to restrict the property size by reducing it from 6,000 square feet to 4,500. Is the point of having
a 2,000 square foot house on a 4,500 square foot lot one of aesthetics? What if the owners don’t want 2,500 square feet
of property? What if they want to maximize their interior living area?
One alternative to limiting the square footage of a new home in a historic district (although it is still intrusive to owners'
property rights), is the notion of floor area ratio: the ratio of square footage divided by the lot size. In practice, this ratio is
constant for a zone. A floor area ratio of 1.0 means that floor area may equal the lot area. FAR 5.0 means that the floor
area may be up to five times as large as the lot area; and FAR 0.5 means that it may be no more than half the lot
area. Though a floor area ratio affects volume, shape, and spacing of buildings on the land, it does not determine a
particular shape or spacing. Rather, it permits a choice.
For instance, a 4,500 square foot lot could have a FAR of 1.0, which means that the square footage of the home would
equal the lot size. This does not necessarily mean that the house takes up the entire lot. The home could be situated on
half the lot, or 2,250 square feet, with a basement, middle floor, and upper floor consisting of 1,500 square feet each.
By limiting both floor area square footage and property square footage, you are not offering choice to new
homebuilders. You are restricting it.
I agree with Barry when he says: This restriction will also only increase the cost of housing in the old town core. Anytime
you place restrictions there are (usually unintended) consequential efforts to be dealt with. I thought one of the agendas of
City Council was affordable housing? Properties in the old town core will only increase more in value and create even a
greater barrier to families wanting to purchase a home in the old town core.
Regards,
Janet Oliver
CORRESPONDENCE 2
Packet pg. 28
1
Katie Claypool
From:Rebecca Everette
Sent:Tuesday, September 27, 2022 10:03 AM
To:Moses Horner
Cc:Katie Claypool; Development Review Comments; Noah Beals; Meaghan Overton
Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL] 2000 SF maximum -- Land Use Change
Hi Moses,
Thank you for these comments. They will be added to the packet for the Planning & Zoning Commission (9/28 meeting)
and City Council (10/18 meeting).
Rebecca
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rebecca Everette, AICP
Pronouns: she/her/hers
Planning Manager | City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct
From: Moses Horner <moses@hornerpainting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 9:00 AM
To: City Leaders <CityLeaders@fcgov.com>; Sarah Kane <SKane@fcgov.com>; Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 2000 SF maximum ‐‐ Land Use Change
I STRONGLY OPPOSE the provision for only allowing a maximum of 2000 square feet of home. This is not at all realistic
in the year 2022 we live. While I don’t believe we should be allowing people to build 7000‐8000 square foot homes in
the core of the city, restricting homes to 2000 square feet does not work.
What about families that want to live in the old town core and …….
Have a large family of 4 to 5 children and additionally what if they homeschool
Have a multigenerational family with parents living with them
Need a caretakers quarters to help care for aging or disabled parents and want this space to be separate in the
main home
Need one or two professional office spaces if one or both of the parents work from home
What if the home someone owns is already over 2000 square feet in size and they want to add an addition to
accommodate the above
Thank you for all you do for our city
‐‐
Moses Horner
CORRESPONDENCE 3
Packet pg. 29
2
President
(970) 481-1200
317 Stover St. Fort Collins, CO 80524
People Matter-Integrity Always-Community Driven
CORRESPONDENCE 3
Packet pg. 30
1
Katie Claypool
From:Development Review Comments
Sent:Wednesday, September 28, 2022 11:24 AM
To:Katie Claypool
Subject:Fw: [EXTERNAL] Re: Complaint about housing strategic plan
Attachments:floorarea22.pdf
Categories:P&Z
From: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 4:53 PM
To: Development Review Comments <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Complaint about housing strategic plan
Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Rachel Pries <rachelpries@gmail.com>
Date: Sep 27, 2022 11:09 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Complaint about housing strategic plan
To: Jeni Arndt <jarndt@fcgov.com>
Cc: "Caryn M. Champine" <cchampine@fcgov.com>,Meaghan Overton <moverton@fcgov.com>,Jeff Achter
<jachter@gmail.com>,Emily Francis <efrancis@fcgov.com>
Dear Ms Arndt, thanks for your response. Jeff and I had the chance to meet with Noah Beals and Ryan Mounce, who
were very helpful. We had an in‐depth and thoughtful conversation about the floor plan proposals for old town. I am
including a letter that describes the negative impact of the proposed floor area limit when combined with the definition
of floor area in old town. We will try to attend the meeting on Oct 18. Thanks for your consideration and best wishes,
Rachel Pries
On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 8:23 PM Jeni Arndt <jarndt@fcgov.com> wrote:
HI Rachel,
Thanks for writing to us. We are considering some elements of the Housing Strategic Plan.
I am unaware of the changes you describe here. So, I will copy our head of Planning and also Housing. I know eight
Caryn or Meaghan can help with a detailed answer.
Kindly,
Jeni
Jeni Arndt, Mayor of Fort Collins
970‐413‐3146
‐‐‐
With limited exceptions, emails and any files transmitted with them are subject to public disclosure under the Colorado
CORRESPONDENCE 4
Packet pg. 31
2
Open Records Act (CORA). To promote transparency, emails will be visible in an online archive, unless the sender
puts #PRIVATE in the subject line of the email. However, the City of Fort Collins can’t guarantee that any email to or
from Council will remain private under CORA
On Sep 15, 2022, at 5:18 PM, Rachel Pries <rachelpries@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Ms Arndt and Ms Fisher,
I am writing to you as my mayor and district 6 representative. I like a lot of the values that are
motivating the new housing strategic plan but I have serious concerns about their implementation. I
just found out about this yesterday and need some time to write up the details of my complaint but in
the meantime I would like to bring this to your attention right away.
When I bought my house in 2005, its floor area was 1472 square feet.
An architect told me that the city is currently defining the floor area of my house as 1648 square feet,
with the difference being that the new assessment includes parts of the second floor where the head
height is between 1 and 7 feet. This would be easy to laugh about, except that now the city wants to
put a cap of 2000 square feet on the primary dwellings in old town, making it very difficult to make
reasonable additions on my home in the future.
At a basic level, I don't understand why old town residents are subject to different rules from people in
other neighborhoods in town. But even if that is justified, it is crucial for the new rules to be both
reasonable and precise. I spent some time looking at the definition of floor area for houses in old town
found in Article 7 (see attached link).
My request is for this definition of floor area to be fixed and improved. The most obvious problem is
that the floor area includes parts of the primary residence that are above the roof. In addition, the
system of including area from accessory units is both complicated and poorly articulated. It is easy to
describe reasonable plans that are excluded by these rules and awful plans that are permitted by
them.
On a more positive note, I like the direction the city is going with accessory dwelling units but the
document does not contain enough detail on the rules for these.
I will join the future workshops on this topic and continue to reach out to the task force writing the
proposal but I am feeling pretty annoyed about the time this will take.
Thanks for your consideration, best wishes, Rachel
723 W. Mountain Ave. Fort Collins
https://www.fcgov.com/housing/lucupdates
‐‐
Rachel Pries,
Professor of Math at CSU
from `The Hill We Climb' by Amanda Gorman:
The new dawn blooms as we free it. For there is always light.
If only we’re brave enough to see it. If only we’re brave enough to be it.
CORRESPONDENCE 4
Packet pg. 32
3
‐‐
Rachel Pries,
Professor of Math at CSU
from `The Hill We Climb' by Amanda Gorman:
The new dawn blooms as we free it. For there is always light.
If only we’re brave enough to see it. If only we’re brave enough to be it.
CORRESPONDENCE 4
Packet pg. 33
Rachel Pries and Jeff Achter
723 W. Mountain Ave.
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Telephone: 970-310-7180, 970-690-4261
rachelpries@gmail.com, jachter@gmail.com
To whom it may concern on the city council and the housing strategic plan committee,
Thank you for the time and attention you are giving to the city land use codes. This
is an important project and we like many of the values that are motivating the new hous-
ing strategic plan. We would also like to thank Noah Beals and Ryan Mounce for meet-
ing with us to explain the code revisions. We like the proposal for allowing accessory
dwelling units in old town.
However, we have serious concerns about how the floor area restrictions in old town
will impact us.We think that the limit of 2000 square feet on the primary residence is
too restrictive, because it does not allow residents to make modest additions on their
homes.Also, we think that the city does not have a good understanding of this proposed
limit.Due to problems in the definition of floor area, we think that the city does not
have accurate data about how residents of old town will be affected by the 2000 square
foot limit.
For this reason, we would like to encourage you to:
(1) Increase the maximum floor area allowed for a detached house in old town:
for example, from 2000 to to 2500 square feet.
(2) Write a better definition of floor area in old town.
The definition should align with the Colorado building standards for head height. It
shouldseparatethefloorareaoftheprimarybuildingfromthatofitsaccessorystructures.
Items (1) and (2) are closely linked, because it is necessary to define floor area before
it can be restricted.
Here are more details about why the proposed change would negatively impact us.
We are hoping to make a one room addition on the back of our house. This is a modest
change that will make our house more livable and environmentally sustainable. How-
ever, the limit of 2000 square feet will make it impossible for us to do this, as explained
below.
The definition of floor area for old town has some significant issues. First, it is out
of alignment with Colorado building standards and the Larimer county accessor’s office.
For example, our primary house is assessed at 1472 square feet by Larimer county, but
CORRESPONDENCE 4
Packet pg. 34
it is 1648 square feet by the old town definition of floor area, which includes parts of the
second floor of the primary residence which have a head height of between 0 and 7 feet.1
Secondly, the current definition of floor area has a complicated relationship between
the primary dwelling and the accessory structures. It is not good policy to define the floor
area of the primary structure in terms of the floor area of accessory structures, especially
if each is limited in size by the other. For example, on our property, a historic carriage
house has the potential to add an additional 215 square feet to the floor area of the pri-
mary building simply because of its proximity to the main structure, giving us even less
opportunity to build a modest addition.
We hope these details make it clear that the proposed limit on floor area in old town
is more restrictive than it appears. We hope that the city will be careful in implementing
limits whose advantages and disadvantages have not been clearly evaluated. We would
be happy to discuss any of these issues with you in greater depth.
Thank you for reading this letter.
Best wishes, Rachel Pries and Jeff Achter
1 By the building code, spaces where the head height is less than 5 feet cannot be included in a room and
there are restrictions on rooms where the head height is less than 7 feet.
CORRESPONDENCE 4
Packet pg. 35
1
Katie Claypool
From:Noah Beals
Sent:Wednesday, September 28, 2022 11:26 AM
To:Katie Claypool
Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Land Development Code - Questions
Categories:P&Z
From: Ted Shepard <tshepard533@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 10:32 AM
To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Land Development Code ‐ Questions
Hello Noah,
Thanks for the explanations ‐ very helpful.
I'm still a little concerned, however, about building mass in the HMN, especially with the proposed reduction in front
setback along an arterial. These days, developers are building "flence‐row to fence‐row as can be seen a College and
Maple/Cherry. I re‐read the variation in massing standard and I think we may need something more prescriptive to
prevent large building mass from looming over an arterial street.
Thanks,
Ted
On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 5:33 PM Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> wrote:
Hello Ted,
Thanks for the questions. I provided responses below in blue and can discuss further if you would like.
Regards,
Noah Beals, AICP
Development Review Manager | City of Fort Collins
nbeals@fcgov.com | 970.416.2313 direct
CORRESPONDENCE 5
Packet pg. 36
2
From: Ted Shepard <tshepard533@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 2:18 PM
To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Land Development Code ‐ Questions
Noah, could you answer a few quick questions:
For all the zone districts, did the Purpose Statements Change? The residential district purpose statements were
updated to align closer with the recent City Plan.
For OT A,B, and C, did any boundaries change? No, the boundaries did not change. Rename only NCL= OT‐A, NCM = OT‐
B, and NCB = OT‐C.
Is a "Detached Accessory Structure" the same as what we now call an "Accessory Building with Habitable Space"? The
requirement for a dwelling unit is still includes a kitchen. Anything else is considered a detached accessory structure.
In the HMN zone, existing standard 4.10(D)(2)(b) appears to have been omitted. Is this intentional or an oversight? It
is intentional as we are proposing building types that include Massing variations.
In Bulk Plane standards for the OT zones, where buildings must be setback an additional one foot for every two feet (or
fraction thereof?) This language was omitted. Do we want to add back in "...or fraction thereof"? We can look at the .
And it's not clear to me that the above standard applies also to the interior side? Or just the corner side? It would apply
to the interior as well. Yes, that could be made a clearer.
In LMN, under Contextual Height Setback, if a building abuts a zone with lower maximum height, the stories above the
second floor must be setback from the property line by 25 feet. This appears to be more permissive than Sec.
3.8.30(F)(2) which requires the entire building to be setback 25 feet. Is this intentional? Has this been fully vetted? Yes,
it is intentional. The thought is there could be a 2‐story building on the other side of the property line.
CORRESPONDENCE 5
Packet pg. 37
3
In the tables in Article Four (LDC), Mixed Use Dwellings are currently allowed in NCB but appear to not be allowed in OT
‐ C? We will correct that. You are right Mixed‐Use Dwellings will still be permitted in the OT‐C
In Article 2 (LDC), in R‐L, "Duplex" is listed as an allowable Building Type but is not so indicated in the Table in Art
4. We are presenting this a change for P&Z and Council to consider. We will correct it as directed.
Also, just in case there is pushback, could you confirm that ADU's are currently permitted in LMN as being allowed
simply as being equivalent to a "dwelling unit"? An additional dwelling unit is currently allowed in LMN if the lot meets
the number of min. and max. density requirements and is approved through a development review process, with no
restrictions to floor area. The term carriage house is only used in the NCL, NCM, and NCB zone district and are limited
to certain size. The proposed changes put size limits and quantity limits on Accessory Dwellings units throughout all
zone districts.
Thanks,
Ted
CORRESPONDENCE 5
Packet pg. 38
Change or Edit Requested Comment or additional detail
Allow ADU in RF zone Consider allowing ADUs in RF zone
Extend affordability term for affordable
housing projects to 99 years
At work session, several Councilmembers suggested that we extend the affordability term to 99
years from the proposed 50 years. Staff agreed to do additional outreach to affordable housing
developers to explore this potential change and any implications.
Consider allowing duplexes in RL Consider allowing duplexes in RL
Consider fourplexes instead of duplexes in
some places
Consider fourplexes instead of duplexes in some places
Do we need to limit density in LMN to 12?
Other ways to address this?
Do we need to limit density in LMN to 12? Other ways to address this?
Require affordable set-aside, modest
infill/density increases, allow adus
I moved here about a year and a half ago from Austin Texas. Over a 40 year period Austin grew
from 300,000 to 2.3 million people. In my opinion, wholesale urban core density and infill
development made the quality of life in Austin degrade so much that my wife and I had to leave
and moved here to retire. So I would caution against the idea of wholesale urban density and
infill at the expense of quality of life. The quality of life (i.e. traffic, affordable water, utilities,
property tax) is so much better here. As a result of the Austin City Council deciding on creating
an inner urban dense core, I saw the city become an unaffordable, gentrified city similar to San
Francisco. Traffic is horrible and so many variances were given to developers that I feel that
making a profit for development overrode any sensible infill. My suggestion is to do modest
infill with more density coupled with a requirement that all new apartments or any type of
rental unit have a certain percentage of low income housing assistance available. Also, allow
central home owners add garage apartments or small housing units on their lots if done in the
style and construction of existing homes. Please balance the quality of life for residents over the
pressure of developers to make this a dense urban city.
Modification to Article 5.8.1(B) language 5.8.1(B) Jurisdiction of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) When Chapter 14 of the
Code of the City of Fort Collins designates the HPC or City Staff as the decision maker, the
proposed development must first ultimately meet the requirements of Chapter 14 of the City
Code. This includes jurisdiction over properties inside a Landmarked District or Landmarked
properties. Once The Code of the City for Fort Collins Chapter 14 standards must be have been
met, as the proposed development project may then proceeds through this Code’s review
procedures to ensure compliance with the criteria herein.
LDC CHANGE OR EDIT REQUESTED
Packet pg. 39
I am just confused by one thing. Starting
on page 12 of Article 4, it says “are these
being added”. It continues through the
rest of the document.
Light standards that did not get updated Parking Lot Lighting. Parking lot lighting, if used at all, shall conform to the requirements
contained in Section 3.2.4, and shall be further restricted such that (a) the lighting is of high
pressure sodium only and does not exceed seventy (70) watts and one hundred twenty (120)
volts; and (b) the fixture does not exceed a height of fourteen (14) feet above ground level.
For those of us who aren’t deeply familiar
with the Code, you might want to define
each of these acronyms on this page. I
know each one gets defined later, but
seeing them all together when a term is
used can be very helpful, too!
Article 2 Cover Page the list of zone district acronyms.
Section 1 references the Housing Strategic
Plan and Our Climate Future. (References
are in both 1.2.2 and 1.3.3) You might
want to consider using generic names for
these plans, rather than formal names, in
case the names of the plans change in the
future. Perhaps something like “the city’s
current housing strategic plan” and “the
city’s current climate plan.”
Section 1.2.1 (Title) has unused white
space in the first line.
LDC CHANGE OR EDIT REQUESTED
Packet pg. 40
Will there be an index for this article — or
perhaps the whole document. Given this
article’s length and comprehensive
content, it would be easier to locate
provisions with an index.
6.1.1 - At least on my PDF version,
“Residential Foothills District” is not
aligned with the other bullets
6.2.3e2 - Just want to confirm that the
bolded text was intended.
6.3.2. Step 2 - Just recalling the issues we
have had with some neighborhood
meetings occurring so early in the process
that neighbors were confused with the
final plan. Should another meeting be
required if material changes are made to
the plan?
6.3.6 Step 6 - Need a double space
between items (c) and (d)
Article 6 Page 17, item (E) - The text needs
to be consistently aligned under the
heading to match the rest of the page.
Article 6 Pages 28, 29, 33, 44 and 58 -
There are inconsistencies in text
alignment. A good cleanup might be in
order.
LDC CHANGE OR EDIT REQUESTED
Packet pg. 41
Article 6 Page 45 - Reasonable
Accommodation Process - Just my
personal view, but it seems more logical to
me that the Reasonable Accommodation
Decision be made by the same party that
will be acting on the proposal.
Article 6 Page 50 - there are extra spaces
after the ADU Exemption and the start of
Division 6.18
Article 6 Page 61 - In 6.24.3, there should
be a double space between (A) and (B)
Article 6 Page 64 - Need to double space
between (F) and (G), and (J) and (K)
Article 6 Page 65 - There should be one
space after each “step”. List is
inconsistent.
Article 7 Page 7 - there is an extra line
between “lot line, rear” and “Lot line,
side”
Artice 7 Page 12, affordable housing
development - I am being lazy here, but
just want to confirm that the 10 percent
figure is the figure currently in use.
If Duplex Building Type is allowed in NCL
(OT-A) why not in the R-L?
N/A - question only Hey all - Just starting to dig into the revisions. Quick question that I had a developer ask. Will
there be any changes/relief in impact fees associated with building affordable housing?
N/A - question only I currently live in the Low-Density Residential zoning district. I see that ADUs were added to the
allowable uses in RL. Does this have to be a detached structure or can an existing basement be
renovated into an ADU with a separate entrance, kitchen, parking, etc.?
LDC CHANGE OR EDIT REQUESTED
Packet pg. 42
Suggestions for further changes to parking
(count on-street spaces), roofs (reduce
articulation requirements if solar is
provided), and building footprint
variation/architecture requirements
(reduce/eliminate footprint variation
requirement)
*Would be helpful to be able to count on-street spaces toward parking requirements - clarify
what is "internal" for projects
*Roofs - primary roofline articulation can be issue w PV, consider lifting if there is solar
*Concern about building footprint variation and multifamily architecture requirements;
consider an OR?
*Overall good direction with code, like the changes proposed for both market rate and
affordable.
*Like change to BDR and think a checklist is a good idea for each round.
Entry/doorway towards street Provide clarity that it applies to all streets.
N/A - question only Question about utility requirements for ADUs both inside FC utility district and outside. Can
utilities be pulled from main/primary structure? Is this different for detached/attached ADUs
and if so, why?
N/A - question only Are there stock plans for ADUs? Is that something you would consider? Plus general questions
about ADU requirements in RL zone.
N/A - comment Important to keep compatibility standards as density and heights are increased. It's going to be
very important to transition from existing lower density neighborhoods to new LMN or
commercial developments with much higher intensity and building heights.
N/A - comment ADU suggestions: City should also be looking at utilities for ADUs and if possible permit them to
run from the existing house, which will reduce costs and expenses. Additionally, a maximum
separation distance between an ADU and the primary unit should also be considered for very
large lots; if an ADU can go anywhere on the lot it may feel less like a subordinate unit.
N/A - comment Appreciate the City exploring more administrative reviews for housing projects and would
appreciate a similar review for commercial projects when Phase 2 updates are being
considered.
N/A - comment Fort Collins has typically been less prescriptive when it comes to design and allowing many
different types of architectural expression; some concern about the appearance of new
presciptive standards for 6:12 roof slopes which could be quite limiting for future projects.
N/A - comment As more compatibility standards are added or they become more prominent with higher
intensity projects, the City should explore defining what context compatibility will be measured
against. One example could be the same radius as the notification area for a project.
LDC CHANGE OR EDIT REQUESTED
Packet pg. 43
Comments about water resources, climate
change, and impact of density
With a background in Natural Resources, I am very concerned with the tack City Council is
taking in trying to change the Land Use Code. The western United States is in the middle of a
drought (20 years so far) that has surpassed any in recent history. We are looking at the
possibility of a drought severity that rivals the 50 - 80 year drought that collapsed thriving
Native American civilizations throughout the Southwest region in 1130 A.D.. We are seeing
massive climate changes due to global warming and more dense housing will cause more water
concerns in an already arid climate. Look at issues arising with water levels in the Colorado River
and water needed for agriculture on the Eastern plains. By increasing density and sanctioning
high density housing you will be perpetuating more severe water conflicts between urban uses
and agriculture/food uses. This is a region/state wide issue that is coming readily apparent, but
it really comes down to individual municipalities making decisions with eyes toward the future
of more scarce resources, especially water.
Consider specific zoning for a new class of
multi-family housing where owners are
allowed to rent rooms in their units.
Zoning for a new class of multi-family housing, with an owner for each unit also allowed to rent
a room in the unit. The
ideal use would be multi-generation, with an older person and a younger person, not
necessarily related. Property
management could facilitate matching interested renters with compatible owners. Some
smaller units could be rental
only, for a potential renter on a waiting list to be matched with an owner/unit when available.
Do not make changes to the code I'd like to expound, but to start with I'll try to keep this brief. This is a terrible idea all around
and a gift to developers
instead of residents. Neither Denver nor New York City have been able to build their way to
affordability. The idea is
inherently flawed. I know recent council members think they were elected to fix housing
affordability, but the fact is that
isn't really your job or under your control. Nice places will be more expensive to live once word
gets out. Period. Our
infrastructure and limited outdoor recreation is already over capacity. Please keep Fort Collins
great instead and stick
with the plan. We'll all be glad you did.
LDC CHANGE OR EDIT REQUESTED
Packet pg. 44
Increase the 2000sf floor area max in OT
zone, perhaps to 2500sf or make some
consideration for main floor living/aging in
place
In early stages of planning a renovation to a local landmark home in the OT-B zone. Wanted to
understand how the regulations impact their options, and expressed concern about the 2000 sf
floor area requirement. Impossible to do. Under the current code, 2,750sf would have been
allowed. Agree with intent of changes to add infill, invisible/gentle density. Have a second half
story but want to live on main floor. Also wondering if a basement needs to be finished or if it
can be roughed in/designed to meet building code and finished at a later time. Want clarity
about what counts toward floor area.
Consider saying "all lot sizes" or "no
minimum" for ADUs allowed instead of
N/A - N/A makes it seem like it's not
allowed when it is.
What is the 45% based on for ADUs? Outside wall to outside wall, does not include below-grade floor area.
Consider increasing floor area in OT zone
to 2500 sf
Thanks so much for overseeing what I am certain has been an enormous lift… revising portions
of the Land Use Code for the City of Fort Collins.
My overall response is BRAVO, as the proposed updates are thoughtful and address both city
and resident desires.
My ONE comment / suggestion: As I understand, the OT-A zone reflects a proposed decrease in
allowable above grade square footage of a primary dwelling to 2000 sq ft, and I strongly believe
that this should be revised upward to at least 2500 sq ft. Many of the lots in OT-A exceed
10,000 sq ft, so even a new upward limit of 2,500 sq ft, for example, represents a significant
reduction in primary residence size as compared to the prior zoning of NCL. As the owner of a
deteriorating home on a lot in the OT-A zone, I genuinely believe that a upward revision of
primary dwelling square footage is warranted for lot sizes above 10,000 sq ft.
THANK YOU again, with great appreciation....
Definition of truck
Mid-block pedestrian connection
requirement in LMN - add back in
Update dates for existing limited
permitted use definition
Definition of occupant - update reference
LDC CHANGE OR EDIT REQUESTED
Packet pg. 45
N/A - Comment only Love, love, love UE zoning allowing ADUs!! Makes it possible for us future retirees to stay on our
small acreages!
Does modification requests require a
higher level of review for BDR projects
It does not require a greater level of review.
LDC CHANGE OR EDIT REQUESTED
Packet pg. 46