Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/14/2023 - Planning and Zoning Commission - AGENDA - Work Session * Work session times are approximate and are subject to change without notice. David Katz, Chair Hybrid Meeting Julie Stackhouse, Vice Chair Conference Rooms C&D Michelle Haefele 281 N College Ave Adam Sass Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Ted Shepard Samantha Stegner Zoom Webinar York Planning and Zoning Hearing will be held on Thursday, July 20, 2023 in City Hall Chambers or online. Regular Work Session July 14, 2023 Hybrid Meeting Noon – 3:00 p.m. Planning and Zoning Commission Work Session Agenda Participation for this hybrid Planning and Zoning Commission work session will be available in-person, 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 Participation (In Person): Individuals who wish to view the work session in person may attend the meeting located at 281 N College Ave in Conference rooms C&D. 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/93585107924. 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 July 14, 2023. Attendees should try to sign in prior to 12:00 p.m. if possible. In order to attend virtually: 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: 935 8510 7924. Packet pg. 1 City of Fort Collins Page 2 TOPICS: PROJECTED TIMES: Consent: 1. May 18, 2023 Hearing Draft Minutes 12:00 – 12:05 Discussion: 2. LUC: Oil & Gas Reverse Setback (Longstein) 12:05 – 12:35 Policy and Legislation: • Land Use Code Update (Beals) • E Mulberry Update (Keith/Mounce/Van Zee) 12:35 – 2:00 Commission Topics: • Upcoming Hearing Calendar (Sizemore) • Commission Updates (Sizemore) • Public Engagement Updates (Myler) • Transportation Board Update (Dyrdahl) 2:00 – 2:30 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 July 20 Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting will be held with both remote and in-person participation options. Information on remotely participating in the July 20 Planning and Zoning regular meeting is contained in the agenda for the July 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 smanno@fcgov.com at least 24 hours prior to the July 20 meeting. Packet pg. 2 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 14, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission STAFF Noah Beals, Development Manager SUBJECT Land Use Code Update EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to inform the Commission about updates to the Land Use Code. ATTACHMENTS 1. LUC Update 7.14.23 2. LUC Engagement Summary Memo to Council – June 2023 3. Martin’s Memo Draft 4. LUC Council Memo with Attachment Packet pg. 3 Land Use Code Phase 1 Updates: Process Next StepsJuly 14, 2023Noah Beals| Development Review ManagerLUC UPDATE, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 4 Engagement Update & Timeline2LUC UPDATE, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 5 3Engagement Opportunities9Early April – Postcards arrived in mailboxes9April 12th, 6:00-9:00 p.m. – CityWorks 101 presentation on LUC updates9Earth Day 4/22, Open Streets 6/4, Bike to Work Day 6/28, etc. – Tabling9April 24th, 6:00-7:30 p.m. – Virtual Information Session9April 26th, 5:30-8:00 p.m. – Forum with Center for Public Deliberation9Late April – Next Level Neighborhood Walking Tours 9Thursdays, Fridays, and Saturdays in May – Neighborhood Walking Tours9May 8th, 2:00-7:00 p.m. – In Person Community Open House9June 21, 4:00 – 7:00pm – Overflow Neighborhood Walking TourLUC UPDATE, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 6 Themes and Topics to AddressLUC UPDATE, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 7 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•Equity5LUC UPDATE, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 8 FIVE GUIDING PRINCIPLESRevisions to the code will continue to support the five guiding principles confirmed by City Council in November 2021 with an emphasis on Equity.1.Increase overall housing capacity(market rate and affordable) and calibrate market-feasible incentives for deed restricted affordable housing2.Enable more affordability especially near high frequencytransit and growth areas 3.Allow for more diverse housing choices that fit in with the existing context 4.Make the code easier to use and understand5.Improve predictability of the development permit review process, especially for housingLUC UPDATE, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 9 7Specific topics for additional engagementIncreased menu of housing choices and associated regulationsAffordable housing comments, questions, and suggestionsSize, height, form, and allowed density of specific housing typesNotification, community input, and review procedures for residential developmentInteraction between the code and private covenantsInfrastructure and utilitiesLUC UPDATE, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 10 8Engagement SummaryDr. Martin Carcasson, Director, Colorado State University Center for Public DeliberationDrafted a Report on Public Comments on the Land Use Code EngagementKey Themes • Accessory Dwelling Units• Transit and Transit Oriented Development• Parking• Protecting the Character of Neighborhoods• Homeowners Associations (HOA’s)•U+2• Compliments About the Walking Tours and Open House• Supply and Demand Issues• Review Process for Developments• Multiplexes• Growth• Water and Additional InfrastructureLUC UPDATE, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 11 Potential Alternatives and RevisionsLUC UPDATE, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 12 10Approach to Revisions/AlternativesDraft Code OptionsCouncil DirectionConcerns and Suggestions from EngagementAlignment with Guiding PrinciplesAnalysis of TradeoffsLUC UPDATE, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 13 11Possible AlternativesMemo to Council July 06, 2023• Presented 33 possible alternatives presented in the following 8 categories• Evaluation Framework alignment with guiding principles and goals directed by Council• Equity Factors Matrix impact to equityoR-LoN-C-LoN-C-MoAffordable HousingoPrivate CovenantsoParking/InfrastructureoDevelopment ReviewoShort Term Rentals LUC UPDATE, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 14 12Possible Alternatives• Accessory Dwelling Units• Transit and Transit Oriented Development• Parking• Protecting the Character of Neighborhoods• Homeowners Associations (HOA’s)•U+2• Compliments About the Walking Tours and Open House• Supply and Demand Issues• Review Process for Developments• Multiplexes• Growth• Water and Additional InfrastructureAlternatives focus of the Key ThemesLUC UPDATE, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 15 13Possible AlternativesDevelopment Review•Allow residential projects to be reviewed under Basic Development Review•Require a neighborhood meeting for some projects (larger, more complex, etc.)•Require a pre-application conceptual review meeting for projects over 6 units•Establish a defined comment period for public comments on Basic Development Reviews•Require projects with Modifications go to P&Z when it involves a modification for certain code sections (such as parking, height, density)•Require projects with Modifications go to P&Z when it involves more than a certain number of modificationsLUC UPDATE, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 16 Next StepsLUC UPDATE, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 17 Next Steps15•June Memo: In-depth analysis of feedback from engagement events and corresponding potential code revisions•July 31st Work Session: Present engagement summary and discuss code revisions•August 22nd Work Session: Present draft code amendmentsLUC UPDATE, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 18 City Manager’s Office City Hall 300 LaPorte Ave. PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6505 970.224.6107 - fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation 281 N. College Ave PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 www.fcgov.com MEMORANDUM DATE: June 29, 2023 TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers THRU: Kelly DiMartino, City Manager Tyler Marr, Deputy City Manager Caryn Champine, Director, Planning, Development & Transportation Paul Sizemore, Director, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Clay Frickey, Interim Planning Manager, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Noah Beals, Development Review Manager FROM: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, Senior Policy & Project Manager Meaghan Overton, Housing Manager RE: Land Use Code Engagement Update The purpose of this memorandum is to share information with Council on community engagement activities and analysis of those activities conducted to date. Background Following the submission and certification of a petition sufficient for referendum, Council reconsidered Ordinance No. 114, 2023 at the Regular Meeting on January 17, 2023. Council voted unanimously (7-0) to repeal Ordinance No. 114, 2022, Repealing and Reenacting Section 29-1 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Code to Adopt the Land Development Code and Separately Codifying the 1997 Land Use Code As “Transitional Land Use Regulations”. Council directed staff to explore next steps to allow for additional community engagement and further refinement of housing-related code changes. Engagement Opportunities A wide range of engagement events were scheduled in accordance with Council direction received at the February 14, 2023 work session. Engagement opportunities were announced with a postcard (English/Spanish) mailed to all residents (97,000+ households) and a parallel social and print media effort. Events have included presentations to community groups, Boards, and Commissions, virtual and in-person sessions, small group meetings with residents and HOA groups, tabling at community events, and deliberative dialogue opportunities. All information about events will continue to be posted to the project website, https://www.fcgov.com/lucupdates.  Early April – Postcards arrived in mailboxes  April 12th, 6:00-9:00 p.m. – CityWorks 101 presentation on LUC updates DocuSign Envelope ID: 80ABCBDE-3385-4C34-9C92-84FFB40A29FF Packet pg. 19 Page 2 of 4  Earth Day 4/22, Open Streets 6/4, Bike to Work Day 6/28, etc. – Tabling at events  April 24th, 6:00-7:30 p.m. – Virtual Information Session  April 26th, 5:30-8:00 p.m. – Deliberative Forum with Center for Public Deliberation  Late April – Next Level Neighborhood Walking Tours  Thursdays, Fridays, and Saturdays in May – Neighborhood Walking Tours  May 8th, 2:00-7:00 p.m. – In Person Community Open House  May 10th – Historic Preservation Commission  May 12th – Planning & Zoning Commission  May 22nd – Boards and Commissions Super Issues Meeting  Walking tours/Discussion Groups – Seeking to engage with community in their neighborhoods  June 21st – General “catch-all” walking tours for those who were unable to attend other scheduled walking tours  June – Engagement activities that present potential code alternatives for review and feedback Participation to Date: Potential changes to the LUC have resulted in robust community dialogue and many comments shared with City Leaders and staff. Throughout March, April, May, and June 2023, staff engaged with hundreds of residents through online comments, virtual engagement opportunities, and in-person events:  187 General Comments received through the FCGov.com general comment form  60 Attendees at the Virtual Info Session  70 attendees at the Deliberative Forum  175 Attendees at the May 8th event  Over 100 attendees at the 14 completed Walking Tours, including a general tour for those who were not able to attend one in their neighborhood Webpage and OurCity Platform: A project-specific webpage through the City’s main “fcgov.com” website hosts project information and history, RSVP sign-up opportunities for events, documents and summaries of community feedback, comments received through comment cards, and an opportunity to sign up for the project newsletter. The OurCity platform offers other online engagement opportunities and will soon host opportunities to engage with code alternatives. Walking Tours: Tours were held in 14 different locations across the community, organized and run by City staff from several departments, including Planning, Neighborhood Services, Historic Preservation, and City Manager’s Office. Each tour averaged about 12 attendees, not inclusive of City staff. After each tour, participants were asked to fill out a survey to rate their experience and offer specific feedback regarding the code, including specific suggestions for changes to address concerns. Deliberative Forum: About 70 community members gathered for a facilitated discussion focused on the Land Use Code. Participants discussed concerns and interests related to the impact on their neighborhoods and the broader Fort Collins community. Open House Event: Nearly 180 community members gathered at the Lincoln Center to learn more about land use issues in Fort Collins and offer their feedback. This event included topic- DocuSign Envelope ID: 80ABCBDE-3385-4C34-9C92-84FFB40A29FF Packet pg. 20 Page 3 of 4 specific stations for participants to visit, pose questions, share concerns, and explore how the Code is applied to different situations across the community. Engagement with Boards and Commissions: Throughout the process, Boards & Commissions members have received updates through direct presentations, including a discussion at a Super Issues meeting in May, various board-specific presentations by City staff, and links to materials shared with City Council. Engagement Summary: The attached engagement summary report assembled by Dr. Martin Carcasson organizes feedback received from community members throughout “phase 2” of engagement for the Land Use Code project (between February 2023 through May 2023). This summary is meant to be an interim draft as engagement has continued through June and is ongoing. Therefore, a final engagement summary will be presented later in the summer to include feedback gathered at all stages of the engagement process between February and May of this year. While much of the engagement feedback has continued to fall within the 6 topic areas explored within previous Work Session presentations (explained below), Dr. Carcasson has taken a deep-dive into several of these topic areas to better understand the nuance of community feedback. Dr. Carcasson analyzed feedback from the events outlined above, in addition to information gathered from two other sources. These include comments shared by community groups that have been engaged in the project, and discussions from the Coloradoan specifically related to this project (Fort Collins local newspaper). Some of the key themes and feedback listed below are concerns that are not addressed solely through the Land Use Code, though they are topics that were surfaced through engagement feedback. Those topics include U+2, supply and demand issues, growth, and water and additional infrastructure. For more information on the analysis, please see the methodology section within the attached report. The attached summary focuses on the most referenced 12 Key Themes: 1. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) 2. Transit and Transit Oriented Development 3. Parking 4. Protecting the Character of Neighborhoods 5. Homeowners Associations (HOAs) 6. U+2 7. Compliments About the Walking Tours and Open House 8. Supply and Demand Issues 9. Review Process for Developments 10. Multiplexes 11. Growth 12. Water and Additional Infrastructure These key themes identified by Dr. Carcasson are similar to those identified by staff for discussion at the April 11, 2023 Council Work Session. These insights into areas of concern are helping staff to formulate code revisions that can potentially address or alleviate issues expressed through engagement. While staff will seek to respond to community feedback expressed through engagement, Dr. Carcasson identifies areas of competing feedback in Section 2 of the summary DocuSign Envelope ID: 80ABCBDE-3385-4C34-9C92-84FFB40A29FF Packet pg. 21 Page 4 of 4 Proposed Alternatives/Code Revisions: From the feedback received through community engagement and Council Work Sessions, staff has created an initial list of possible code revisions to address varied community concerns. Those alternatives are addressed in a separate memo that will be shared with City Council. Next Steps:  Staff will continue to engage with community members throughout the summer. The focus will shift to the exploration of code alternatives in the coming weeks by discussing the connection of code alternatives to the community feedback received and gathering feedback on these proposed alternatives. Those engagement opportunities are currently being  July 31st: Extended Work Session discussion with Council  August 22nd: Extended Work Session discussion with Council Attachment: Engagement Summary DocuSign Envelope ID: 80ABCBDE-3385-4C34-9C92-84FFB40A29FF Packet pg. 22 Draft Report Regarding Public Comments concerning Land Use Code Engagement June 27, 2023 Dr. Martin Carcasson, Director, Colorado State University Center for Public Deliberation Methodology section The city provided me with the raw data that has been collected mostly this spring connected to the Land Use Code (LUC) process. This included a wide variety of texts, such as all the post it notes and written comments from the open house, survey results from those attending the neighborhood walking tours, data from online feedback forms, and emails sent to city staff. I’ve also attended all the city council work sessions focused on housing this spring to follow the conversations there, and included past CPD reports on housing as well. I inputed all the data into special software called QDA Miner in order to organize it around various themes. I was then able to print out reports for specific themes in order to get a clearer sense of the public discussion around each theme across the different events and formats. I will continue to add to the data set as we move forward, and will work to include data from other sources (such as the Coloradoan conversations focused on housing and the websites of groups focused on these issues). Part 1 of this report describes the most common themes that I coded, and then Part 2 offers some of my own analysis about this issue based on the research. Part 1: Descriptive Analysis of Key Themes In terms of frequency of comments that were coded, the twelve most frequent themes are below, beginning with the most frequent and working down. It should be noted that this analysis is focused on the comments collected, which are not necessarily representative of the community as a whole. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) There were more comments coded as connected to ADUs than any other topic. Commentary was varied, but overall more positive than negative. Many residents felt that ADUs could provide additional housing options with the “least noticeable impact” on the neighborhood, particularly attached ADUs (that are part of an existing structure). There were seen as a “win-win.’ Some were enthusiastic about adding ADUs, and others explained their support more in terms of “I don’t have a problem with ADUs” (often after comments more negative about other options to increase density). Those in support at times wanted less restrictions and requirements to make it easier for people to develop ADU, while others wanted to allow them but have them tightly controlled. In particular, several argued that rules should be in place to not allow ADUs to function as short-term rentals or that ADUs should only be allowed in owner-occupied spaces. A smaller group of commenters were opposed to ADUs overall, particularly in neighborhoods where they are currently prohibited by HOA covenant. DocuSign Envelope ID: 80ABCBDE-3385-4C34-9C92-84FFB40A29FF Packet pg. 23 Transit and transit oriented development Comments regarding transit were remarkably consistent and in support of additional transit oriented development (numerous comments that density efforts should be focused and incentivized along existing and developing transit corridors). Many residents called for improvements in the Fort Collins public transportation system as density increases. At least in terms of the comments in this dataset, support for better public transit and transit oriented development were particular points of common ground. Parking Concerns about parking were frequent. Most common were calls for increased density (ADUs or multi-plexes) to be required to have their own off-street parking. Overall, residents wanted to be sure that parking was “adequately planned for” as density increased. A smaller subset of comments pushed back on the focus on parking, wanting fewer barriers to more housing and more focus on transit options. Protecting the character of neighborhoods Numerous comments were coded tied to the idea of protecting the character of neighborhoods. Residents were “highly concerned” about or “strongly opposed to” or “deeply dissatisfied about” changes that would impact “established neighborhoods.” A variety of factors were mentioned – parking, traffic, fit, height, roof style, etc. – though often no specifics were mentioned, only the broad concept of negative impacts on “character” or “quality of life.” Several comments noted the current high quality of Fort Collins neighborhoods, and the fear of losing something special. Others mentioned the natural variety of neighborhood styles that people can choose from, and argued that major changes city-wide would undermine that variety. The point that single family neighborhoods should remain a choice people can make was made a few times. Alternatively, a few comments expressed support for changes – ADUs and/or multiplexes—as long as they were a fit with the existing neighborhood in terms of style and size, and finally a few recognized that neighborhoods have changed and will continue to change. Homeowner Associations (HOAs) Comments regarding HOA’s were overwhelmingly positive (around a 90/10 split). The primary argument was a simple call to not “override,” “neuter,” or “supersede” the rules of HOAs that residents agreed to. Several commented that those covenants represented a legal binding agreement, and strongly opposed those agreements being eliminated. They commented that the current zoning rules and/or specific HOA covenants were key aspects of their decision to invest in their particular home. They explicitly chose to live in a low density, single family neighborhood, and see those covenants as a “guarantee” or “commitment” that would be “unfair” or a “breach of trust” to undo. Some argued that since HOA covenants are “state sanctioned,” they believed the city would not be able to override them, and warned of potential lawsuits if the city attempted to. Overall, based on several comments, the public needs more clarity and transparency regarding the relationships between HOA covenants and potential LUC DocuSign Envelope ID: 80ABCBDE-3385-4C34-9C92-84FFB40A29FF Packet pg. 24 changes. The limited negative comments about HOAs mentioned concerns about fees and abuse of power. U+2 Numerous comments focused on U+2, even though the ordinance is not technically part of the Land Use Code. Comments are mostly supportive of removing U+2, with some strong arguments to keep it. Calls to repeal were often simple (“get rid of U+2”), with others seeing it as an easy way to add density and potentially impact affordability without clear consequences. A few comments explicitly argued removing U+2 should be the initial step made on the overall affordability issue before more drastic changed are made to zoning laws. Compliments about the walking tours and open house Several comments were highly complimentary of the city staff, especially for the open house and the neighborhood tours. They found the information useful and the staff helpful. A few comments, on the other hand, pushed back on the engagement process as either not sufficient or being too inherently supportive or biased in favor of the changes. Supply and demand issues A significant number of comments were coded that explicitly discussed the complex cause effect relationship between density and affordability, which many residents see as a critical to the issue of land use planning. For some, a very basic tenant of addressing affordability is more supply of housing. The basic point that housing has not kept up with population increases is seen as an obvious issue. They argue that there simply needs to be more homes, particularly multi-family options and the “missing middle” to close the gap. For others, however, questions are raised about the causal relationship. They believe additional housing and density may simply attract more residents, undermining the impact on affordability while also bringing what they see as other negative impacts tied to growth and density. In other words, increased supply will not lead to lower costs if it simply attracts more demand. These arguments at times lead to calls for more specific policies that would better ensure a direct impact on affordability (such as direct subsidies or inclusionary zoning policies that would require developers to build a certain percentage of affordable housing with each project). This issue is somewhat an empirical one that could benefit from some focused research on impacts. Commenters were clearly working from different basic assumptions of this relationship. Review process for developments A high majority of the comments regarding the review process defended the need for neighborhood meetings and at times called for additional or improved public engagement beyond what is currently required . The attempt to remove the meetings was called “draconian,” “disenfranchising,” and “a slap in the face.” Residents argued that neighbors should have “meaningful input” and a “genuine say” in changes that would impact their property. Many of the comments were particularly negative about developers and “outside investors” that were assumed to not have the best interest of the neighborhood in mind. In addition, a few comments DocuSign Envelope ID: 80ABCBDE-3385-4C34-9C92-84FFB40A29FF Packet pg. 25 requested more transparency regarding the process after neighborhood meetings and how any input was taken into account. Push back on the removal of requiring neighborhood meetings was limited, but focused on concerns about the overrepresentation of local voices that would tend to oppose any new development, and the absence of voices of potential new residents. Multiplexes Comments regarding multiplexes (duplexes, triplexes, etc.) were rather varied. Several comments were in favor of more variety of housing overall and the need for more of the “missing middle” housing that multiplexes represent. Such housing is critical for younger residents as well as older residents looking to downsize. Some comments were supportive under particular conditions (such as fitting in to the character of the neighborhood or overall number being limited). A third group was more explicitly opposed, often due to the negative impact on neighborhood character and parking. One key concern expressed was if developers bought lots with smaller homes which are currently more reasonably priced, and demolished them for several units that may each be less affordable in the end. They argued that allowing multiplexes would make those lots much more lucrative for outside investors. Overall, the question whether these new developments would be affordable or simply a benefit to developers was a key contention. Growth Many residents are particularly concerned about growth overall. While they may express support for the need for affordable housing, efforts that primarily lead to more growth are particularly problematic to them unless the benefits are clear. Some push back on the predictions of growth, and argue that the city should not be responsible for finding housing for future potential residents. They believe that working to fill that need will incentivize growth while not actually impacting affordability (these arguments work closely with the “supply and demand” arguments summarized above). Many of those expressing these concerns also specifically mentioned environmental concerns, particularly water. Water and additional infrastructure One of the concerns mentioned quite often concerned questions about the infrastructure to handle the increased density that was being considered. These concerns often focused on water in particular, but also mentioned the electric grid, wastewater, storm water, transportation infrastructure, gas supply, etc. These concerns were primarily calls for the need to consider the infrastructure impacts to increasing density and to address them in any plans, though some comments argued more than our infrastructure is already taxed and simply cannot handle additional population. Secondary themes Some additional themes that may be of interest. These were not as prevalent as others, but involved some key issues. DocuSign Envelope ID: 80ABCBDE-3385-4C34-9C92-84FFB40A29FF Packet pg. 26 Inclusionary housing policy A number of comments supported relying on “mandates” or “requirements” for more affordable housing or deed restricted housing. Some specifically mentioned the concept of “inclusionary housing,” but others seemed to argue for them without the specific term. The argument here was often that incentives by themselves would not be sufficient, and that we needed to rely on “proven,” “intentional,” or “focused” efforts that would insure more affordable housing. Some comments also wanted to require more specified affordable housing units with new development than was required in the 2022 changes that were repealed (for example, arguing for 50% or 2 of 3 in new developments). Only one comment pushed back on inclusionary housing. One point of potential concern here is that it isn’t clear whether proponents of this policy recognize that requiring inclusionary housing may limit developer interest, especially when nearby communities do not have such requirements. Overall, more clarity on the pros and cons of inclusionary housing is likely warranted. Engagement process for land use code changes Comments about public engagement were generally split in two ways: engagement in the land use code changes process itsefl, and then the actual engagement process for specific developments. This section focuses on the former, and the latter was discussed above. As mentioned earlier, there were a high number of positive comments specifically about the walking tours and the open house (and a few complaints), but otherwise broader comments about the engagement process expressed concerns about the overall process or made suggestions for improvements. Concerns included being too rushed, too focused on defending the past changes, insufficient communication, or insufficient opportunities. A few comments suggested the city will not actually listen to the feedback. A number of negative comments about the engagement before the changes made in the fall of 2022 were also offered, as well as a warning that changes would be recalled again if not sufficiently limited. Developers Developers were generally described in a negative light when mentioned, at times with terms such as vultures or predators. A few argued that while they support more affordable housing overall, they fear that measures with such goals will be taken advantage by “outside” developers or investors that would take the benefits and only leave the costs to the neighborhood. Support for LUC changes from 2022 A set of comments did express support for the LUC changes made in 2022 that were subsequently repealed. Some simply expressed their support and called for the changes to be reinstated. Others provided specific reasons such as the need for more diversity of housing, support for workers to be able to live in Fort Collins, and wanting to avoid problems caused by additional sprawl and inequity. Some argued that the negative consequences of the code changes were exaggerated, and recognized that neighborhoods and cities must adapt as they grow. DocuSign Envelope ID: 80ABCBDE-3385-4C34-9C92-84FFB40A29FF Packet pg. 27 Part 2: Analysis I have paid particular attention to the discourse around housing at least since a CPD event with the city in spring of 2018 that was designed to help people understand the various viewpoints around affordable housing and housing affordability. For that event, I developed this viewpoints document and wrote this report about the conversations it sparked. During my fall 2022 Civic Engagement graduate class that is part of the Masters in Public Policy and Administration program, I focused on housing policy as an ongoing example for the class to engage. For the past year, I have also assisted the Coloradoan with their Coloradoan Conversations discussions, and there have been numerous questions connected to housing during those discussions. Those conversations have not yet been added to this analysis, but those conversations have contributed to my overall understanding of the issue and the public perspective. In my work, I use the frame of wicked problems often to try to understand complex issues and find better ways to engage them. Briefly, a wicked problems lens assumes tough issues are difficult to discuss and address because they inherently involve competing underlying values that create difficult tensions and tradeoffs. Psychologically, we prefer clarity, so we tend to avoid such tensions, and prefer to see issues as if our side is connected to positive values and the other either rejects those values or has negative motives. Said differently, we prefer to assume problems are caused by wicked people rather than putting the wickedness in the problem. A wicked problems analysis works to identify the underlying positive values inherent to different perspectives on issues, in order to surface the tensions and make them explicit. The hope is that when faced with the tensions, we can then tap into some of the best aspects of human nature—our creativity—when we attempt to negotiate the tensions (rather than avoid them or assume they doesn’t exist).This essay provides more background on this perspective. I’m currently working on a separate essay that makes the argument that housing issues represent a particularly difficult form of wicked problem. It has numerous underlying values like all wicked problems, but additional factors make it even more difficult to address productively. Some initial thoughts that I am working to refine for that essay are available here. With those perspectives in mind, here are some of my thoughts about the big picture related to the comments I analyzed focused on the potential Land Use Code updates. Overall, I see four significant topics that to me warrant some discussion. Issue #1 Varying perspectives on growth. There are at least three typical positions here that conflict. Some people are very concerned about growth, whether due to environmental capacity or quality of life issues, and hope to limit growth if possible. This is a vocal group that generally opposes measures to increase housing, seeing them as incentivizing growth. They may be sympathetic to the need for more affordable housing, but either that support is outweighed by the concerns about growth, or they support very specific policies that would provide more affordable housing without the need for significant population growth. For this group, the LUC changes that were passed in 2022—which focused on increasing density and housing supply—was highly problematic. A second group may hold similar concerns generally, but see DocuSign Envelope ID: 80ABCBDE-3385-4C34-9C92-84FFB40A29FF Packet pg. 28 growth as something that is rather inevitable, especially in a quality city in Colorado like Fort Collins. They focus, therefore, on finding ways to manage the growth they assume is coming (the first group tends to reject this premise). A third group—one not necessary active in the data analyzed here—is more apt to welcome growth, as more population equates to more customers and/or taxpayers, and, in their eyes, a more vibrant city. These different perspectives reveal fundamentally different starting points and spark distinct reactions to policy ideas. In particular, in this data, whether the state demographers estimate of a 70,000 increase to the Fort Collins population by 2040 (cited in City Plan and mentioned by several commenters) is something to assume and prepare for or something to push back on (or perhaps celebrate) represents a particular fault line. What isn’t clear is the relative size of each of these groups. It should also be noted here that the first guiding principle connected to the Land Use Code process (“Increase overall housing capacity”) is something that members of the first group would not support, meaning a basic premise of the process that city staff is working from is rejected by some residents. That is likely causing some of the concerns about the process being biased toward supporting the changes made in 2022. Issue #2 Negotiating the tension between increased housing and negative impacts to neighborhoods. A primary tension across all the comments is between making enough changes to make a difference (to housing supply and, ideally, affordability) but not disproportionately changing the character of neighborhoods or significantly altering the situation people invested in. I would argue that most people, at least theoretically, are in support of more affordable housing, particularly to help those who work in Fort Collins to live in Fort Collins, and avoid becoming too exclusive and unequal of a community. The tension is not, in other words, with that goal, but rather with the best path to achieve it and what tradeoffs people are willing to accept. One way to interpret the pushback on the recalled 2022 changes is that many considered it a shift regarding that tension that overcorrected too much toward increased housing. The discussion this spring, therefore, often focused on finding a better balance between these goals. At the last council work session, city staff explicitly set up the discussion around this polarity, asking council for their preferences along continua between allowing more diverse housing choices and protecting neighborhood character. In the data I analyzed, participants worked to negotiate the tension between increasing affordability while working to limit negative impacts focus on ideas such as: ·Focusing on ADUs, especially attached ADUs, which add capacity with less neighborhood impact than other options. ·Focusing on removing U+2 based on the assumption that it would add capacity within existing houses, thus limiting neighborhood impact (Note: U+2 is not specifically part of the LUC discussions, but was brought up quite often in the comments). ·Focusing primarily on adding density to new developments rather than to existing neighborhoods. DocuSign Envelope ID: 80ABCBDE-3385-4C34-9C92-84FFB40A29FF Packet pg. 29 ·Focusing efforts primarily on transit-oriented development. This would work to avoid impacting most established neighborhoods, while also potentially reducing concerns about parking and traffic, two of the most discussed impacts of increased density. All four of these policy ideas can be seen in two ways. More optimistically, they may represent ideas that work to negotiate the increased housing-neighborhood impact tension creatively, which is exactly what the process of identifying a tension and putting on the table seeks to do. Less optimistically, they may represent wishful thinking that in reality is avoiding the tension because they overestimate the practicality or impact of these ideas. Some key questions arise to discern which view has more merit, such as: How many attached ADUs (or less intrusive detached ones) could be developed? How much housing capacity would be added if U+2 was repealed? How much undeveloped space is left in Fort Collins for new developments and to what degree could the city require most new developments be higher density? What transit-oriented developments are possible, especially those that would limit impact on existing neighborhoods? The case of ADUs is particularly interesting, and ADUs was the most frequent topic of discussion in the data. Some seem to believe numerous ADUs would be developed – thus making an impact on housing supply – while others seem to recognize that developing an ADU has several requirements and can be quite expensive (for example, ADUs require separate heating/cooling systems, kitchens, and bathrooms, and would incur Capital Expansion Fees that can be significant). I would argue that perhaps some people are confusing an official ADU with more general co-housing situations where someone is renting an unused room or portion of a home. Of course, if somehow too many ADUs are developed, then concerns about negative impacts about parking and traffic would arise. So for some ADUs are a threat because they will be too many of them, and for others they are not a solution to the housing problem because there will be far too few. Overall, it seems clear that people are operating under different assumptions concerning what allowing ADUs can provide. Issue #3 –The supply and demand relationship between increasing housing and affordability. A third key issue that warrants more discussion focuses on the comments summarized in the supply and demand theme. Similar to Issue #2, this builds off the idea that most residents theoretically agree with the overall goal of more affordable housing, but some argue that the policies initially proposed would fail to achieve that goal (while incurring significant other costs). A key aspect of different views here are assumptions about the impact of increased supply. The 2022 LUC changes were based on the idea that increased supply would lead to affordability, connecting the first two guiding principles (increase overall housing capacity and enable more affordability). At mentioned above, for some the clear starting point to address the housing crisis is simply the need for more housing. Critics disagreed with that argument, and either argued against increased supply or for more specific policies that directly lead to affordable housing. Supporters of both perspectives even cited studies and research to back their viewpoint. A better sense of what the broader literature shows may be helpful, especially since some cities have made policy changes related to this relationship in recent years. DocuSign Envelope ID: 80ABCBDE-3385-4C34-9C92-84FFB40A29FF Packet pg. 30 A second key aspect of this issue is how tenable some policy alternatives are that were suggested that are specifically tied to affordable housing. Several comments, for example, argue for either more inclusionary zoning to require developers to build more affordable housing, for direct subsidies to residents to help them afford housing, or for the city to simply build more affordable housing themselves. Such policies are seen as desirable to them precisely because they more explicitly target affordable housing without relying too much on increased density. Some commenters specifically mentioned a willingness to pay additional taxes to support such policies. Other comments seem to call for programs that specifically target groups such as young families or service workers that people want to help live in Fort Collins. The concern several expressed is that a broad focus on increased density would not ultimately benefit them but rather simply draw new population in or benefit “outside investors.” Said differently, people want to help the people that are here. The question is whether these policies have merit to consider. Similar to above, do these have promise as ideas that can negotiate the tension creatively and better support affordable housing, or do they represent wishful thinking? Issue #4 - The unique complexity of public engagement on housing issues This fourth issue goes beyond the specific data gathered and analyzed and engages broader questions about the role of public engagement in housing issues. The bottom line is that engagement around changes such as those involved in the LUC discussion are particularly challenging. I have run processes on numerous issues across the years (the CPD has run over 500 meetings in our 18 years in northern Colorado), and a key concern about any sort of engagement is whether you are engaging a broad, somewhat representative cross-section of the community and relevant stakeholders to the issue. I would argue that housing code changes represent the most difficult issue I’ve engaged on this question of representativeness, for two key reasons. First, it is clear that some of the most powerful voices on this issue--current home owners in Fort Collins -- are generally supportive of the status quo. The reality of the situation is the housing “crisis” is not actually a crisis for them. The rising cost of housing mostly benefits them because it increases their equity and wealth (while for some the increased property taxes may be an issue if they are on a fixed income). When a significant portion of the population, particularly the most vocal and willing and able to engage, benefits from the status quo, it is difficult to engage in the sorts of conversations that are necessary to address the issue well. That being said, their support of the status quo need not be seen as simply nefarious and selfish (which critics applying the “NIMBY” -- not in my backyard -- label to them are apt to do). The practical reality is increasing density does incur costs to homeowners with little clear benefit. And from a psychological perspective, changes that are perceived to threaten major choices people made about their home and change the rules they believe they agreed to are significant and should not be dismissed. Humans react much more strongly to a perceived loss than potential gain, and react badly to any sense of loss of autonomy or control. If anything, the research shows that demonizing such groups generally backfires and stiffens their resolve. So we both need to recognize the legitimate concerns of current homeowners, while also working to avoid allowing them to have too much power over the conversation. Obviously this is a difficult balance to strike. DocuSign Envelope ID: 80ABCBDE-3385-4C34-9C92-84FFB40A29FF Packet pg. 31 The second key reason engagement is difficult on this issue is that the primary beneficiaries of LUC changes are a particularly difficult audience to reach. Generally, they would be less able to attend public meetings or be involved in public issues (historically lower income residents are much less likely to participate), and in many cases the primary beneficiaries are not current residents. They may work in Fort Collins but not currently live here, or they may simply be future residents that would like to live in Fort Collins. As a result, voices that support the changes will be rather limited. There is a growing so-called “YIMBY” (yes in my backyard) perspective across the country, which at times include current homeowners that support changes that increase density and support more affordable housing even though they would likely bear the brunt of the tradeoffs. We saw some specific comments from them to this effect, such as the benefit of living in a more economically diverse community where workers can afford to live in the community outweigh their concerns about the impacts. When the LUC changes were recalled, a primary argument was that the city did not adequately engage the Fort Collins public on the changes, and that the city council should focus more on the preferences of current residents and voters. Some called for the changes to go to the public through a referendum process. The reality is that across the country these sort of changes are unlikely to be supported by a majority of current residents, which is precisely why some have argued that expecting local municipalities to address the housing crisis is unrealistic (see this article in the Atlantic that explored how Colorado tried to make these changes at the state level because of this issue, but ultimately ran into a separate tension, the preference for local control). I’ll admit I struggled with this issue and how to address it in my analysis. Many of the key themes I reported on in part 1 represent basic arguments used to undermine new developments and efforts at increased density anywhere in the country. It seems clear that the data represents primarily the voices of current homeowners, so in some ways I am potentially simply reinforcing the inherent bias against these changes. That being said, the concerns of these homeowners are reasonable and should be taken seriously. A final related concern here is I fear this issue could easily dissolve into a polarized adversarial conflict. A NIMBY v. YIMBY battle will likely be very unproductive. Much of my work is focused on trying to reframe issues away from overly adversarial us v. them frames, which tend to bring out the worst in human nature. The wicked problems frame, again, attempts to shift from such adversarial frames to more collaborative ones. Rather than facing an opponent or enemy and seeking to “win,” we are trying to work together to address a shared problem. Housing issues are unfortunately naturally situated to fall into an adversarial frame, as the development of the two opposing interest groups soon after the passage of the changes last fall show. Considering one “side” would generally be satisfied with the status quo, an adversarial frame would disproportionaly benefit them. Too manage this polarization, we must find ways to frame the issue that brings people together and avoids simple attacks on the motives of the other side. I believe focusing on the tensions explored in this section of the report is one way to do that. Putting more focus on the drawbacks of status quo is perhaps another. People are more likely to come together to address DocuSign Envelope ID: 80ABCBDE-3385-4C34-9C92-84FFB40A29FF Packet pg. 32 a shared issue if status quo is seen as untenable long term. Most of the comments I analyzed in this report were reactions to potential changes, often highlighting concerns. There is much less discussion about the concerns related to non-action. If we are not proactive about addressing the affordability of housing, what will happen in Fort Collins? Hearing more voices from those struggling to remain in Fort Collins or forced to commute to work here would likely be helpful as well. Overall, I’ll be working more on this question of alternative frames that can help limit the polarization of this issue as the conversations continue. DocuSign Envelope ID: 80ABCBDE-3385-4C34-9C92-84FFB40A29FF Packet pg. 33 Planning, Development & Transportation 281 N. College Ave PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 www.fcgov.com MEMORANDUM DATE: JULY 06, 2023 TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers THRU: Tyler Marr, Deputy City Manager Clay Frickey, Interim Planning Manager, Community Development & Neighborhood Services FROM: Meaghan Overton, Housing Manager Noah Beals, Development Review Manager Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, Senior Policy & Project Manager RE: Land Use Code Engagement Update The purpose of this memorandum is to share information regarding possible code alternatives that seek to integrate community feedback and achieve the guiding principles of the land use code updates as directed by Council. This memorandum is intended to provide context and an in-depth update on potential alternatives to inform Council’s upcoming work session on Land Use Code changes scheduled for July 31, 2023. This memorandum focuses only on the key topic areas presented to Council at previous work sessions and explored during community engagement, recognizing that there are many other changes to the existing Land Use Code (e.g. code reorganization, increasing graphic representations, clarifying language and rules of measurement, and more) that will also be brought forward for Council consideration. Background Following the submission and certification of a petition sufficient for referendum, Council reconsidered Ordinance No. 114, 2023 at the Regular Meeting on January 17, 2023. Council voted unanimously (7-0) to repeal Ordinance No. 114, 2022, Repealing and Reenacting Section 29-1 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Code to Adopt the Land Development Code and Separately Codifying the 1997 Land Use Code As “Transitional Land Use Regulations”. Council directed staff to explore next steps to allow for additional community engagement and further refinement of housing-related code changes. Project information can be found at the following link: https://www.fcgov.com/lucupdates Engagement Memo: City staff drafted an engagement memo that was included in Council packets on June 27th. The memo included engagement events held since the February 14th, 2023 Council Work Session, attendance numbers at those events, and an engagement summary created by Dr. Martin Carcasson. That memo can be found at the following link: https://records.fcgov.com/CouncilCorr/DocView.aspx?id=17698235&dbid=0&repo=FortCollins& searchid=48c02bfa-601d-465a-a5b5-582f91134b30 Development and Evaluation of Potential Alternatives At the May 23rd Council Work Session, staff presented an approach to potential code alternatives using a quadrant framework that highlighted the spectrum of options for code DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F4A27F6-BFBA-4BDE-A504-2460EA495925 Packet pg. 34 revisions and the potential trade-offs. At that Work Session, Council feedback generally focused within the right, upper-hand quadrant: Given the feedback from the Work Session, staff has begun to formulate potential code alternatives informed by community feedback that address housing capacity while emphasizing existing neighborhood character. Methodology: Code alternatives have been developed using feedback gathered from various sources, including: • Emails to staff and City Leaders • Comments gathered through the general feedback form on the project webpage. • Feedback gathered at engagement events • The engagement summary assembled by Dr. Martin Carcasson, which includes information from both City-hosted engagement events and input gathered outside of the City’s engagement process: o Comments shared by community groups that have been engaged in the project o Discussions from the Coloradoan specifically related to this project (Fort Collins local newspaper) Evaluation Framework: City staff created a list of criteria by which each potential alternative was evaluated to determine alignment with the goals and purpose of the Land Use Code updates. The completed evaluation is attached to this memo. In creating the evaluation framework, staff considered several factors including alignment with the 5 Guiding Principles, potential impact on equity, resources necessary for implementation, whether the alternative responded to community feedback, and whether the alternative could advance community goals as expressed in key adopted plans. More information regarding the evaluation process can be found in the attachment. In addition to organizing the possible code alternatives into zone districts, staff has continued to consider the 7 key themes expressed in community feedback when developing alternatives: • Increased menu of housing choices and associated regulations • Affordable housing questions, concerns, and suggestions limit housing capacity and choices Allow for more diverse housing choices that fit in with the existingcharacter Allow for more diverse housing choices that do not fit within the existing character Increase housing capacity and choices More emphasis on changes to address housing capacity and choices Less emphasis on changes to address choices that fit in with existing character More emphasis on changes to address both housing capacity /choices and choices that fit in with existing character Less emphasis on changes to address either housing capacity /choices or choices that fit in with existing character (status quo) Less emphasis on changes to address housing capacity and choices More emphasis on changes to address choices that fit in with existing character Overview DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F4A27F6-BFBA-4BDE-A504-2460EA495925 Packet pg. 35 • Size, height, form, and allowed density of specific housing types • Interaction between the code and private covenants (HOAs) • Notification, community input, and review procedures for residential development • Infrastructure and utilities (including parking) • Process of LDC code changes and adoption Code Alternatives in Detail Staff has compiled a list of 33 potential code alternatives for consideration, each of which has been evaluated by staff for alignment with the project guiding principles and other criteria as discussed above and in the attached evaluation framework. They are not intended to be staff recommendations, and instead offer a list of options to consider based on community feedback and previous Council discussions. Where applicable, potential alternatives have been organized into different zone districts. Other potential alternatives are city-wide changes for Council to consider. For each group of alternatives, information has also been included about what is currently permitted under the existing Code and the purpose of the potential alternatives. Zone-specific alternatives: RL – Low Density Residential Currently allowed under the existing Land Use Code: • Housing Types Permitted: Single-unit detached house • Lot Size: 6,000 sq feet minimum OR 3 times the total floor area, whichever is greater • Maximum Height: 28 feet for residential buildings • Hearing Type: Public Hearing (Type 1) Purpose of Possible Alternatives: • Respond to community feedback indicating concerns about multi-unit housing • Allowing up to 2 units on all lots increases housing capacity and choice • Allowing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) increases housing capacity and choice • Allowing duplexes in limited circumstances and specific contexts increases housing capacity and choice while emphasizing existing character • Limiting the allowable height of ADUs responds to community feedback indicating concerns about privacy, shading, and neighborhood character • Including provisions for the integration of existing buildings helps add housing capacity while maintaining existing character • Extending affordable housing incentives into this zone district provides additional opportunity for deed-restricted affordable housing Possible Alternatives for Council Consideration: RL (Residential, Low Density) 1 Limit ADUs to one story when there is no alley 2 Allow ADU with single unit dwelling, not with a duplex 3 Require ADU properties to be owner occupied (meaning owner has to reside in one of the units) 4 Allow two units maximum (house + ADU or duplex only) DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F4A27F6-BFBA-4BDE-A504-2460EA495925 Packet pg. 36 5 Allow duplexes ONLY IF 1) a lot is 100ft width or wider or 2) one unit is an affordable housing unit or 3) the duplex converts and integrates an existing structure or 4) a lot is within 1/4 mile of current or future high-frequency transit NCL – Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density Currently allowed under the existing Land Use Code: • Housing Types Permitted: Single-unit detached house; carriage house • Lot Size: 6,000 sq. feet minimum; 12,000 sq. feet minimum for carriage house • Maximum Height: 2 stories, 1.5 stories for carriage house or building at the rear of the lot • Hearing Type: Administrative Review (Basic Development Review/BDR) for single-unit detached house, Public Hearing (Type 1) for 2 units or alley-fronting buildings Purpose of Possible Alternatives: • Respond to community feedback indicating concerns about multi-unit housing • Decreasing minimum lot sizes aligns with historic pattern of development and allows additional housing capacity and choice • Allowing up to 2 units on all lots increases housing capacity and choice • Allowing up to 3 units in limited circumstances and specific contexts increases housing capacity and choice while emphasizing existing character • Limiting the allowable height of ADUs responds to community feedback indicating concerns about privacy, shading, and neighborhood character • Including provisions for the integration of existing buildings helps add housing capacity while maintaining the existing character • Extending affordable housing incentives into this zone district provides additional opportunity for deed-restricted affordable housing Possible Alternatives for Council Consideration: NCL (Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density) 6 Decrease minimum lot size to 4,500 sf 7 Allow two units maximum on lots 4,500 - 6,000 sf (house + ADU or duplex) 8 Restrict ADU height to the height of the primary building. 9 Allow three units maximum on lots 6,000+ sf ONLY IF 1) a duplex + ADU or triplex converts and integrates an existing structure OR 2) a triplex or 3-unit cottage court includes one affordable unit NCM – Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density Currently allowed under the existing Land Use Code: • Housing Types Permitted: Single-unit detached house; carriage house; multi-unit up to 4 units (e.g. duplex, triplex, fourplex) • Lot Size: 5,000 sq. feet minimum for single-unit detached house; 10,000 sq. feet minimum for carriage house; 6,000 sq. foot minimum for multi-unit buildings up to 4 units • Maximum Height: 2 stories, 1.5 stories for carriage house or building at the rear of the lot • Hearing Type: o Administrative Review (BDR) for single-unit detached house or up to 2 units in one building on a vacant lot or with no exterior changes to an existing building DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F4A27F6-BFBA-4BDE-A504-2460EA495925 Packet pg. 37 o Public Hearing (Type 1) for 2 units in more than one building or up to 4 units on a vacant lot or with no exterior changes to an existing building o Public Hearing + neighborhood meeting (Planning and Zoning Commission) for 2-4 units when structural additions or exterior alterations are made to an existing building Purpose of Possible Alternatives: • Respond to community feedback indicating concerns about multi-unit housing • Decreasing minimum lot sizes aligns with historic pattern of development and allows additional housing capacity and choice • Allowing up to 3 units on all lots increases housing capacity and choice • Allowing up to 6 units in limited circumstances and specific contexts increases housing capacity and choice while emphasizing existing character • Including provisions for the integration of existing buildings helps add housing capacity while maintaining existing character • Extending affordable housing incentives into this zone district provides additional opportunity for deed-restricted affordable housing Possible Alternatives for Council Consideration: NCM 10 Decrease minimum lot size to 4,500 sf 11 Allow three units maximum on lots 4,500 - 6,000 sf (single unit, duplex, row house and ADU only) 12 Allow five units maximum on lots larger than 6,000 sf 13 Allow six units on 6,000 sf or larger ONLY IF the development converts and integrates an existing structure (single unit, duplex, row house and ADU only) AND one unit is affordable 14 Allow a Cottage Court (minimum 3 units, maximum 6 units) on lots 9,000 sf or larger City-wide alternatives Affordable Housing Currently allowed under the existing Land Use Code: • Density bonus of 3 additional dwelling units per acre in the Low- Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Zone • Height bonus of 2 stories for buildings that are both mixed-use and affordable in the Transit-Oriented Development Overlay (TOD) Zone • Parking Reductions of up to 50% in the TOD Zone for affordable developments at 60% Area Median Income (AMI) or below • Reduced tree sizes permitted for affordable housing developments Currently required under the existing Land Use Code: • 20-year deed restriction • 10% of units in a development must be affordable to households at 80% AMI or below Purpose of Possible Alternatives: • Respond to community input encouraging more affordable housing DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F4A27F6-BFBA-4BDE-A504-2460EA495925 Packet pg. 38 • Expanding affordable housing incentives citywide increases housing capacity and choice and responds to community input • Restructuring incentives and requirements achieves several strategies within adopted plans including the Housing Strategic Plan, City Plan, and Our Climate Future • Extending the required deed restriction length to 99 years increases the long-term availability of affordable housing citywide • Modifying the AMI targets for rental and ownership ensures that affordable units match community needs for different parts of the housing spectrum • Establishing a clear incentive framework improves the likelihood that potential mandatory inclusionary housing requirements can be effectively implemented if desired Possible Alternatives for Council Consideration: Affordable Housing 15 Expand affordable housing incentives citywide and calibrate market-feasible incentives for ownership and rental 16 Update definitions of affordable housing to match market needs for ownership and rental 17 Extend required affordability term to 99 years Private Covenants and HOAs Currently allowed under the existing Land Use Code: • Homeowners Associations (HOAs) can regulate several aspects of aesthetics and design including exterior colors, materials, and some aspects of design • HOAs cannot restrict residents from having solar panels, xeric landscaping, or clothes- drying lines on their properties Purpose of possible alternatives: • Respond to community input indicating concern about how HOAs could be impacted • Clarifying language about what HOAs can and can not regulate responds to community feedback indicating an interest to preserve predictability in HOA neighborhoods • Considering specific ways HOAs could regulate lots or ADUs can increase housing capacity and choice while emphasizing existing neighborhood character Possible Alternatives for Council Consideration: Private Covenants/HOAs 18 Allow an HOA to regulate the option for detached or attached ADU 19 Specify that HOA's can continue regulate aesthetics (color, window placement, height, materials, etc.) within the bounds of their existing rules 20 Add language to allow HOA's to regulate site placement (additional setbacks, separation requirements) 21 Allow an HOA to regulate whether a lot can be further subdivided Parking & Infrastructure Currently required under the existing Land Use Code: • Adequate Public Facilities (APF) management system ensures that public facilities and services are available concurrently with the impacts of development DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F4A27F6-BFBA-4BDE-A504-2460EA495925 Packet pg. 39 • Public streets are constructed to allow on-street parking • All developments are required to meet minimum parking standards Purpose of possible alternatives: • Respond to community input indicating concerns about parking availability • Maintaining the existing APF requirements ensures that public facilities and services are available concurrently with the impacts of development • Slightly reducing parking requirements for studio, 1- and 2-bedroom units in multi-unit buildings responds to community feedback while right-sizing parking requirements • Reducing parking requirements for affordable housing developments over 7 units creates a meaningful incentive and increases housing capacity and choice • Requiring parking for ADUs responds to community feedback Possible Alternatives for Council Consideration: Parking/Infrastructure 22 Reduce parking requirements for multi-unit developments: 1 bedroom = from 1.5 to 1, 2 bedroom = from 1.75 to 1.5 23 Reduce parking requirements for affordable housing ONLY if the development has 7 or more units 24 Require 1 parking space for an ADU 25 Allow a tandem parking space to count ONLY IF an ADU or extra occupancy Public Input in Development Review Currently required under the existing Land Use Code: • Notification and hearing requirements depend on the proposed use. Generally, projects that require a Planning and Zoning Commission hearing also require a neighborhood meeting • Most residential projects are subject to both a neighborhood meeting and public hearing. • The intention of the neighborhood meeting is to allow adjacent neighbors to learn more about the project and voice concerns early in the development review process Purpose of possible alternatives: • Respond to community input suggesting increased and clear avenues for resident engagement in the development review process • Allowing most residential projects to be reviewed through Administrative Review (BDR) simplifies the review process to allow for greater predictability, which can be a factor in the final cost of housing units • Adding requirements for neighborhood meetings, conceptual review meetings, and defined public comment periods responds to community input indicating a desire for more clarity and consistency around resident participation in development review • Considering requirements for some projects to go to the Planning and Zoning Commission when requesting modifications responds to community input about what kinds of projects should have a public hearing Possible Alternatives for Council Consideration: Input in Development Review 26 Allow residential projects to be reviewed under Basic Development Review DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F4A27F6-BFBA-4BDE-A504-2460EA495925 Packet pg. 40 27 Require a neighborhood meeting for some projects (larger, more complex, etc.) 28 Require a pre-application conceptual review meeting for projects over 6 units 29 Establish a defined comment period for public comments on Basic Development Reviews 30 Require projects with Modifications go to P&Z when it involves a modification for certain code sections (such as parking, height, density) or; 31 Require projects with Modifications go to P&Z when it involves more than a certain number of modifications Short Term Rentals Currently permitted under the existing Land Use Code: • Short Term Rentals (STRs) are currently only allowed in single-family homes (including single-family-attached homes) and only within specific areas • Depending on the area, two different STR types are allowed: o Non-primary short term rental is a dwelling unit that is not a primary residence and that is leased in its entirety to one party at a time for periods of less than 30 consecutive days o Primary short term primary rental is a dwelling unit that is the owner’s primary home and a portion of the home is leased to one party at a time for periods of less than 30 consecutive days. Owners must reside in their primary STR at least 9 months out of the year Purpose of possible alternatives: • Respond to community feedback indicating concern that new units could be used as STR while allowing established STRs to remain Possible Alternatives for Council Consideration: Short Term Rentals 32 Restrict new ADUs from being used as STR 33 Allow existing ADU or Accessory Structures with STR license to continue operating under current license Next Steps: • Staff will share these alternatives with community members prior to the July 31st Work Session. The focus of the engagement will be to discuss the connection between code alternatives and community feedback and gather feedback on possible alternatives. • July 31st: Extended Work Session discussion with Council • August 22nd: Extended Work Session discussion with Council DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F4A27F6-BFBA-4BDE-A504-2460EA495925 Packet pg. 41 Possible Code Alternatives – Evaluation Framework | July 5, 2023        This document describes an evaluation framework used by City Staff to analyze possible Land Use Code  alternatives for alignment with project guiding principles and goals as directed by City Council.   Scope. Alternatives evaluated focused only on the key topic areas presented to Council at previous work  sessions and explored during community engagement, recognizing that there are many other changes to  the existing Land Use Code (e.g. code reorganization, increasing graphic representations, clarifying  language and rules of measurement, and more) that will also be brought forward for Council  consideration. Key topic areas included:  • Increased menu of housing choices and associated regulations   o Accessory Dwelling Units/ADUs   o 2‐5 plexes  • Affordable housing   • Size, height, form, and allowed density of specific housing types  • Interaction between the code and private covenants (HOAs)  • Notification, community input, and review procedures for residential development  • Infrastructure and utilities (including parking)  Evaluation framework. A number of factors are important considerations in evaluating and prioritizing  specific code alternatives for inclusion in the City’s Land Use Code. Each alternative was evaluated  across a series of questions to confirm feasibility and alignment within each of the following topic areas:   Alignment with the 5 Guiding Principles   Potential impact on equity (as informed by the attached Equity Factors Matrix completed in May  2022)   Feasibility of implementation, including financial and legal considerations   Whether each alternative aligns with policies outlined in key adopted plans   Considerations for economic feasibility and enforceability  The Evaluation Framework is attached to this document. Evaluation criteria are listed in the left‐hand  column and zone districts/topic areas across the top (RL/Low Density Residential, NCL/Neighborhood  Conservation Low Density, NCM/Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density, Affordable Housing,  HOAs/Private Covenants, Parking/Infrastructure, Input in Development Review, and Short Term  Rentals). Alternatives were evaluated on each criterion using a yes/no/maybe response with additional  notes as needed.  Code Alternatives. Staff compiled a list of 33 possible code alternatives for consideration, each of which  was evaluated by staff using the attached evaluation framework. All 33 code alternatives are also  attached. These alternatives are not intended to be staff recommendations, and instead offer a list of  options to consider based on community feedback and previous Council discussions. Where applicable,  possible alternatives have been organized into different zone districts (Low Density Residential/RL,  Neighborhood Conservation Low Density/NCL, Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density/NCM). The  other possible alternatives are city‐wide changes for Council to consider. These possible alternatives will  continue to be refined through July and August through staff workshops, City Council feedback, and  community engagement.    DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F4A27F6-BFBA-4BDE-A504-2460EA495925 Packet pg. 42 Possible Code Alternatives ‐ Evaluation Framework | July 5, 2023    Figure 1: Evaluation Framework   RL NCL NCM Affordable Housing  HOAs/Private Covenants Parking/ Infrastructure Input in Development Review Short Term Rentals   Evaluation Framework    Respond to each question with yes, maybe, or no:                  Guiding Principles 1 Do these alternatives increase overall housing capacity (market rate and affordable) and/or calibrate market‐feasible incentives for deed restricted affordable housing? yes yes yes yes no yes maybe yes  2(a) Do these alternatives enable more affordability overall? yes yes yes yes no yes maybe maybe  2(b) Do these alternatives enable more affordability near high‐frequency transit and growth areas? yes yes yes yes no yes maybe no  3 Do these alternatives allow for more diverse housing choices that fit in with the existing context? yes yes yes yes maybe yes maybe no  4 Do these alternatives make the code easier to use and understand? no no no yes no yes yes yes  5 Do these alternatives improve predictability of the development review process? no no no yes no yes yes yes  Equity Do these alternatives increase equity as outlined in the Equity Factors Matrix (May 2022)? indirect yes ‐   supports equity in the context of providing more choices and better access to opportunity areas.  indirect yes ‐   supports equity in the context of providing more choices and better access to opportunity areas.  indirect yes ‐   supports equity in the context of providing more choices and better access to opportunity areas. yes no yes maybe; increases resident empowerment and participation in process yes; ensures that new housing units are used for long‐term residents and not short‐term rentals  Feasibility Does the city have necessary resources to implement, administer and monitor? yes; except owner occupancy no yes yes yes; over time will require more compliance and monitoring no yes yes maybe; will require more compliance and monitoring  Are these alternatives legally sound? yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes  Do these alternatives respond to public input? yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes  Do these alternatives require additional action outside of the LUC to fully implement?  mostly no; owner occupancy yes no no yes; requires coordination with housing team maybe no no yes  Policy Alignment Do these alternatives help advance other community goals contained in…   Our Climate Future yes yes yes yes no yes yes yes  Housing Strategic Plan yes yes yes yes no yes yes yes  City Plan yes yes yes yes no yes yes yes  Transportation/Transit Master plan maybe maybe maybe yes no yes yes yes  Subarea Plans (if applicable) ‐ needs more analysis Additional policy analysis needed to review subarea plans as applicable to different alternatives  Notes on economic feasibility and enforceability                 DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F4A27F6-BFBA-4BDE-A504-2460EA495925Packet pg. 43 Possible Code Alternatives ‐ Evaluation Framework | July 5, 2023       What kind of impact do these alternatives have on economic feasibility of projects?  limiting to 2 units maximum and requiring owner occupancy have biggest impact requiring integration of existing structures for more than 3 units has biggest impact requiring integration of existing structures for more than 3 units has biggest impact moderate to large impact; if calibrated to market conditions, can make affordable housing more feasible to build depending on regulations of individual HOAs, could have large impact on feasibility moderate to large impact on feasibility, especially for multi‐unit affordable projects minor impact on feasibility minor impact on feasibility    How enforceable are these alternatives?  easily enforceable except owner occupancy; need definitions for conversion of existing structures,  affordable housing incentives require additional compliance and monitoring  fairly enforceable; need definitions for conversion of existing structures,  affordable housing incentives require additional compliance and monitoring fairly enforceable; need definitions for conversion of existing structures,  affordable housing incentives require additional compliance and monitoring fairly enforceable; will require compliance and monitoring of deed restrictions and commitments difficult to enforce easily enforceable easily enforceable fairly enforceable; may require additional resources added to current compliance processes    DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F4A27F6-BFBA-4BDE-A504-2460EA495925Packet pg. 44 Possible Code Alternatives ‐ Evaluation Framework | July 5, 2023    Figure 2: Possible Alternatives   Possible Alternatives   RL (Low‐Density Residential Zone) 1 Limit ADUs to one story when there is no alley 2 Allow ADU with single unit dwelling, not with a duplex 3 Require ADU properties to be owner occupied (meaning owner has to reside in one of the units) 4 Allow two units maximum (house + ADU or duplex only)  5 Allow duplexes ONLY IF 1) a lot is 100ft width or wider or  2) one unit is an affordable housing unit or 3) the duplex converts and integrates an existing structure or 4) a lot is within 1/4 mile of current or future high‐frequency transit   NCL (Neighborhood Conservation Low Density Zone) 6 Decrease minimum lot size to 4,500 sf 7 Allow two units maximum on lots 4,500 ‐ 6,000 sf (house + ADU or duplex) 8 Restrict ADU height to the height of the primary building. 9 Allow three units maximum on lots 6,000+ sf ONLY IF 1) a duplex + ADU or triplex converts and integrates an existing structure or 2) a triplex or 3‐unit cottage court includes one affordable unit or 3) a lot is within 1/4 mile of current or future high‐frequency transit   NCM (Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density Zone) 10 Decrease minimum lot size to 4,500 sf 11 Allow three units maximum on lots 4,500 ‐ 6,000 sf (single unit, duplex, row house and ADU only) 12 Allow five units maximum on lots larger than 6,000 sf  13 Allow six units on 6,000 sf or larger ONLY IF the development converts and integrates an existing structure (single unit, duplex, row house and ADU only) AND one unit is affordable 14 Allow a Cottage Court (minimum 3 units, maximum 6 units) on lots 9,000 sf or larger   Affordable Housing 15 Expand affordable housing incentives citywide and calibrate market‐feasible incentives for ownership and rental 16 Update definitions of affordable housing to match market needs for ownership and rental DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F4A27F6-BFBA-4BDE-A504-2460EA495925Packet pg. 45 Possible Code Alternatives ‐ Evaluation Framework | July 5, 2023    17 Extend required affordability term to 99 years   Private Covenants/HOAs 18 Allow an HOA to regulate the option for detached or attached ADU 19 Specify that HOA's can continue regulate aesthetics (color, window placement, height, materials, etc.) within the bounds of their existing rules 20 Add language to allow HOA's to regulate site placement (additional setbacks, separation requirements) 21 Allow an HOA to regulate whether a lot can be further subdivided   Parking/Infrastructure 22 Reduce parking requirements for multi‐unit developments: 1 bedroom = from 1.5 to 1, 2 bedroom = from 1.75 to 1.5 23 Reduce parking requirements for affordable housing ONLY if the development has 6 or more units: 1 bedroom = 0.75 spaces per unit, 2 bedroom = 1 space per unit, 3 bedroom = 1.25 spaces per unit, 4 bedroom = 1.5 spaces per unit 24 Require 1 parking space for an ADU 25 Allow a tandem parking space to count ONLY IF an ADU or extra occupancy   Input in Development Review 26 Allow residential projects to be reviewed under Basic Development Review  27 Require a neighborhood meeting for some projects (larger, more complex, etc.) 28 Require a pre‐application conceptual review meeting for projects over 6 units 29 Establish a defined comment period for public comments on Basic Development Reviews 30 Require projects with Modifications go to P&Z when it involves a modification for certain code sections (such as parking, height, density)   31 Require projects with Modifications go to P&Z when it involves more than a certain number of modifications    Short Term Rentals 32 Restrict new ADUs from being used as short term rentals (STR) 33 Allow ADU or Accessory Structures with STR license to continue operating under current license    DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F4A27F6-BFBA-4BDE-A504-2460EA495925Packet pg. 46 Possible Code Alternatives ‐ Evaluation Framework | July 5, 2023    Figure 3: Equity Factors Matrix  Equity Factors Summary of Possible Changes How these changes impact equity Specific examples in PossiblePlternatives Alignment with Goals in other Plans Racial Inequity  Increased housing supply, diversity and price points  Reduce wealth disparities by increasing homeownership opportunities  Residential zones add new housing types including duplex, cottage court, triplex, rowhouse, apartment options Housing Strategic Plan  Increased mix of for‐sale & rental  Reduce disproportionately higher poverty rates by race with more affordable housing costs  Density bonuses and reduced parking for affordable housing 2020 Strategic Plan  Increased housing types, price points, density in high‐opportunity areas     Our Climate Future  ADUs in all districts      CityPlan         Livable Larimer County 5‐Year Plan Health Inequity  Increased housing supply, diversity and price points  Housing that is affordable enables more spending on health care, transportation, other critical needs  Smaller minimum lot sizes in NCL and NCM districts allows smaller, more affordable housing types Housing Strategic Plan  Increased mixed‐use housing  Being housed can reduce health disparities for BIPOC, low income, disabled residents  Affordable housing bonuses incentivize more housing units near basic services and transportation CityPlan  Bonus density for affordable housing in TOD zones      Livable Larimer County 5‐Year Plan  Increased housing diversity in ‘Health Equity Index’ priority areas (CityPlan)         Gentrification/ Displacement Risk  Increased housing diversity and supply in areas of displacement risk AND high‐opportunity areas  More for‐sale and rental housing options increases ability to stay in neighborhood  Increase in housing density and diversity in high Vulnerability Index areas Housing Strategic Plan  Increased housing options and sizes for ownership  More affordable housing supply reduces potential for eviction due to rent hikes  Increase in housing density and diversity in high‐opportunity areas for Economy, Mobility, Education CityPlan  Increased smaller and multifamily housing across price points       Climate Resilience & Environmental Justice  More housing supply and diversity for people to withstand climate events and disasters  Denser neighborhoods reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas emissions  Duplexes, triplexes, cottage courts, rowhouses, ADUs increase access to yards, green spaces,  parks, trails Our Climate Future   More types and locations of housing with proximity to parks/green space/nature   Denser housing allows space for parks/green space/tree canopy to mitigate pollution  Increased housing allows proximity to critical services/jobs; reduces driving trips Housing Strategic Plan  More housing near TOD reduces vehicle usage  Lower housing costs allow residents to better afford utility costs   CityPlan Access to Opportunity  More zones allow housing diversity in order to access  public and private goods (parks, quality schools, healthy food sources, multimodal transportation) in more neighborhoods  Increases housing supply, diversity, price points in high‐opportunity areas for Economy, Education, Mobility, Environment  Increased housing diversity and price points in high‐opportunity areas in NCL, NCM, NCB districts in downtown and along College Ave. Housing Strategic Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F4A27F6-BFBA-4BDE-A504-2460EA495925Packet pg. 47 Possible Code Alternatives ‐ Evaluation Framework | July 5, 2023     More housing diversity and price points reduce ‘opportunity hoarding’ of public goods  Increased housing density and diversity in high‐opportunity areas in CG, CC, CL, CS, CCN districts. CityPlan    Increased housing in high‐opportunity areas in LMN, MMN, HMN districts Livable Larimer County 5‐Year Plan Income and Wealth Inequality  Diverse housing types in high‐opportunity areas and near multimodal transportation can increase economic opportunity  Allows greater access to jobs, education, critical services to improve economic prosperity and reduce poverty  Increased housing supply, diversity and price points in high‐opportunity areas Housing Strategic Plan  Density bonuses for affordable housing increase access to jobs, services  Affordable housing near TOD reduces transportation spending Pandemic Response & Recovery  Increased housing diversity and affordability improves ability to shelter and isolate  Increases affordable housing options for essential workers  Duplexes, triplexes, ADUs increase access to yards, green spaces and neighborhood parks Housing Strategic Plan  Diverse housing supply reduces risk of eviction during pandemics and economic downturns  Density and ‘complete neighborhoods’ allow access to critical services including medical care and food; reduces impacts of supply chain interruptions  Expansion of housing types, density  and price points facilitates ability to work from home  Our Climate Future       CityPlan Community Empowerment / Access to the Political Process  Increased housing supply, diversity, price points increase chance to stay in neighborhood, strengthen social cohesion  Housing stability increases likelihood of political participation and power  Simplified Zone Districts Housing Strategic Plan  Incorporates Home2Health engagement process recommendations  Displacement leads to disruption of community voice and power  More housing diversity and price points throughout Districts  Code is easier to read and understand with many graphics  More transparent, easy to read code builds trust in and access to the development process  Graphic illustrations within the code      ADUs in all zones increase access to process of building ADUs  DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F4A27F6-BFBA-4BDE-A504-2460EA495925Packet pg. 48 Draft East Mulberry Plan – UpdatesJune 9, 2023E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 49 AgendaAgenda:Draft East Mulberry Plan Goals & PoliciesAnnexation Thresholds Approach: Annexation Transition CommitteePreview of Development Review Framework Discussion2E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 50 East Mulberry Plan Goals & PoliciesE MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 51 4East Mulberry Plan GoalsCommercial and Industrial HubStormwater InfrastructureMultimodal ConnectivityCommunity AccessHousing AffordabilityHistoric, Cultural, and Natural FeaturesGateway AestheticE MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 52 5Full Goal Text• Explore mechanisms to maintain housing affordability and existing character of residential neighborhoods. • Foster a healthy and prosperous commercial and industrial hub for the City, while remaining viable for small businesses and industry. • Improve the function and visual appearance of the Mulberry & I-25 interchange and Mulberry Street frontage as a gateway into Fort Collins. • Increase access for residents and businesses to community amenities and services. • Master plan, construct and maintain stormwater infrastructure to provide safe conveyance of 100-year storm water flows which will reduce flood risk and floodplain implications. • Plan and support safe and comfortable infrastructure for multi-modal transportation. • Protect and promote significant natural, historic, and cultural resources that support a cohesive and resilient community using nature-based solutions. E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 53 6Goal Intent and Purpose: Promote livability and preserve the unique characteristics that originally drew residents to live here (affordability, relaxed country lifestyle, etc.)Goal: Explore mechanisms to maintain housing affordability and existing character of residential neighborhoods.Some Strategies and Implementation Actions Supporting this Goal:• Utilize character area designations to maintain similar land use and streetscape character in established neighborhoods• Upon annexation select land use designations/zone districts that align with existing land use patterns• Consider additional flexibility to maintain farm animals in neighborhoods with rural setting• Do not require full frontage improvements in rural neighborhoods with low traffic roadways (unless otherwise required for safety/accessibility) • Preserve and enhance existing Mobile Home Parks• Periodically evaluate mitigation and redevelopment strategies for existing sources of affordable housing• Implement 15-minute City strategies to promote complete neighborhoods• Educate neighbors about opportunities to form funding mechanisms to maintain/improve infrastructure Housing AffordabilityWhat we Heard:• Residents enjoy the relaxed feel and rural lifestyle that this area affords, worry that potential annexation and City rules/enforcement may jeopardize this • Manufactured home communities interested in City’s mobile home park zoning to discourage displacement• Neighbors concerned about deteriorating infrastructure and road maintenance and cost to fix these issuesE MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 54 7Goal Intent and Purpose: Support the continued operation of businesses within East Mulberry into the future. Goal: Foster a healthy and prosperous commercial and industrial hub for the City, while remaining viable for small businesses and industry. Some Strategies and Implementation Actions Supporting this Goal:• Customize approach to infill development and business improvements • Prioritize improvements based on (re)development type and site-specific features (see Development Review Framework)• Support the retention of existing industrial and agricultural service business uses and their future expansion• Add permitted uses to Industrial zone district• Use of R&D Flex Placetype• Staff from the Economic Health Office and the Planning Department will be ongoing support for businesses• Recognize the interconnectivity of infrastructure and business• Continue to support East Mulberry Street as a primary travel and freight corridorCommercial and Industrial HubWhat we Heard:• Business owners want to continue operating here, are concerned that new, adjacent uses would not be compatible. • Concerned that City standards are too high regarding “change of use” and may inhibit business expansion.E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 55 8Goal Intent and Purpose: Create a visually attractive, functional, and safe first impression of the corridor and the broader community. Goal: Improve the function and visual appearance of the Mulberry & I-25 interchange and Mulberry Street frontage as a gateway into Fort Collins. Some Strategies and Implementation Actions Supporting this Goal:• Develop design standards and funding strategies for enhancements to the interchange• Actively partner with CDOT, Larimer County, and other stakeholders on interchange redesign opportunities• Enhance wayfinding signage for important designations (in coordination with CDOT and National Scenic Byway program)• Implement interim enhancements to improve attractiveness of frontage• Prioritize aesthetic improvements during redevelopment/change of use process for uses along interchange or Mulberry frontage• Replace non-conforming or outdated signageGateway AestheticWhat we Heard:• Desire for aesthetic improvements around I-25 and Mulberry Street frontage• Ensure that Mulberry Street remains a functional logistics and supply route for businesses • Concern about the safety and efficiency of frontage roads and interchange rampsE MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 56 9Goal Intent and Purpose: Residents and businesses lack access to daily needs, public amenities, and services. There is a desire for an increased sense of safety and overall improvement in service provision.Goal: Increase access for residents and businesses to Community Amenities & ServicesSome Strategies and Implementation Actions Supporting this Goal:• Increase community policing resources and safety within the East Mulberry Enclave• Increase access and availability of public amenities (green spaces, recreational amenities, parks, schools, bike trails, etc.)• Proactively identify potential locations of future parks, trails, and community amenities by including East Mulberry in future master planning efforts• Utilize placetype designations and land use decisions to encourage locating a grocery store in the corridor• Provide residents and businesses with upgraded levels of service over time and as annexation occursCommunity AccessWhat we Heard:• Residents would like a grocery store and access to community amenities like parks, trails, and schools• Safety concerns with drug use, vandalism, and other crime• Options for more affordable and stable internet connectivityE MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 57 10Goal Intent and Purpose: Multiple existing stormwater drainage and floodplain issues. A plan and process to address existing infrastructure and identify repairs and improvements is needed. Goal: Master plan, construct and maintain stormwater infrastructure to provide safe conveyance of 100-year storm water flows which will reduce flood risk and floodplain implications. Some Strategies and Implementation Actions Supporting this Goal:• Improve localized and substandard stormwater conveyance issues with proper infrastructure. • Identify funding commitments for regional stormwater master planned improvements• Reduce flood risk and floodplain encumbrances on public and private property with improved drainage infrastructure • Incorporate natural features while improving drainage infrastructure • Protect people, property and the environment through floodplain and stormwater regulations limiting and defining development and redevelopment. StormwaterWhat we Heard:• Residents want to see improvements to ongoing flooding issues• Businesses worried about flooding from creeks that overflow near business centers in the areaE MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 58 11Goal Intent and Purpose: Support walking, rolling, bicycling, driving and commercial activities. Focus connections on safety and comfort, utilize creative design elements to ensure safe and efficient travel for all modes. Goal: Plan and support safe and comfortable infrastructure for multi-modal transportation.Some Strategies and Implementation Actions Supporting this Goal:• Augment existing streets to create safe and comfortable multi-modal connections prior to improving streets to full LCUASS standards• Identify deficiencies and prioritize opportunities to augment with safe infrastructure and traffic calming• Collaborate with CDOT, business owners, and other stakeholders on the redesign or augmentation of East Mulberry and frontage roads for multi-modal transportation• Active Modes Plan calls for side paths along East Mulberry. Coordinate implementation and design with CDOT • Upon annexation, create a transportation-specific plan for East Mulberry to analyze transportation needs• Establish safe and direct multi-modal connections within the East Mulberry Enclave• Improve transit serviceMultimodal ConnectivityWhat we Heard:• Transportation infrastructure needs improvements for all modes and at key intersections, especially for bikes and pedestrians• Improved bicycle and pedestrian activity to trails, open space, and downtown• Preserve access to key business and manufacturing corridorsE MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 59 12Goal Intent and Purpose: Establish strategies that support Fort Collins’ commitment to natural and cultural resource conservation. Goal: Protect and promote significant natural, historic, and cultural resources that support a cohesive and resilient community using nature-based solutions. Some Strategies and Implementation Actions Supporting this Goal:• Protect and enhance natural habitats and features as well as historic and cultural resources through buffer standards and nature-based design. • Protect and enhance existing wetlands, naturalized stormwater features, and natural habitat buffer zones with green infrastructure design principles• Increase urban tree canopy• Identify new areas for potential parks and natural areas• Support the persistence, visibility, and physical integrity of significant historic places and cultural features that maintain a continuous sense of place Historic, Cultural & Natural FeaturesWhat we Heard:• Residents would like to preserve natural space and promote outdoor recreation • Concern about loss of natural resources and cultural spaces to developmentE MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 60 Annexation Transition CommitteeE MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 61 14What happens when a threshold has been identified?Staff identifies potential annexation boundariesNeighborhood meeting with residents and businesses within potential annexation area6-month period The following should occur:• Financial analysis • Evaluate condition and existing maintenance activities of streets and other infrastructure • Inform residents and businesses of service provider changes and anticipated fees• Staff to continue gathering feedback• Formulate annexation transition committee as applicableAdjust Threshold Annexation boundaries as needed based on results of analysisAnalysis shared with Decision-Makers to identify timing options and whether to pursue annexation Yes/No Pursue AnnexationIf Yes:Staff may initiate annexation proceedings immediately or delay effective date of annexation to align with budgeting/resource availabilityE MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 62 15What happens when a threshold has been identified?Staff identifies potential annexation boundariesNeighborhood meeting with residents and businesses within potential annexation area6-month period The following should occur:• Financial analysis • Evaluate condition and existing maintenance activities of streets and other infrastructure • Inform residents and businesses of service provider changes and anticipated fees• Staff to continue gathering feedback• Formulate annexation transition committee as applicableAdjust Threshold Annexation boundaries as needed based on results of analysisAnalysis shared with Decision-Makers to identify timing options and whether to pursue annexation Yes/No Pursue AnnexationIf Yes:Staff may initiate annexation proceedings immediately or delay effective date of annexation to align with budgeting/resource availabilityP&Z makes recommendationUpdates provided, P&Z to weigh in on boundary adjustments as neededE MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 63 Per the Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) in the case of an enclave the population of which exceeds one hundred persons according to the most recent United States census and that contains more than fifty acres, the enclave shall not be annexed pursuant to subsection (1) of this section unless the governing body of the annexing municipality has:•Created an annexation transition committee composed of nine members, five of whom shall reside, operate a business, or own real property within the enclave, two of whom shall represent the annexing municipality, and two of whom shall represent one or more counties in which the enclave is situated.16Annexation Transition CommitteeSource: C.R.S. 31-12-106E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 64 The duties of the annexation transition committee shall be to: •Serve as a means of communication between or among the annexing municipality, one or more counties within which the enclave is situated, and the persons who reside, operate a business, or own real property within the enclave regarding any public meetings on the proposed annexation; and•Provide a mechanism by which persons who reside, operate a business, or own real property within the enclave may communicate, whether by electronic mail, telephonic communication, regular mail, or public meetings, with the annexing municipality or any counties within which the enclave is situated regarding the proposed annexation.17Annexation Transition Committee cont.Source: C.R.S. 31-12-106E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 65 • How do P&Z Commissioners think the annexation transition committee should be incorporated in threshold annexations? What is the right level of detail to include in the Plan? 18Questions and DiscussionQuestions for Discussion:Some Potential Options for Consideration: • Formulate a new committee each time an area proposed to be annexed under a threshold annexation meets the size definition of over 100 persons and more than 50 acres• Formulate a new committee per threshold annexation, regardless of the size or population of the area • Formulate one committee prior to the first threshold annexation within the East Mulberry Enclave • Subsequent communications will occur through neighborhood meetings and ongoing staff involvement with residents/businesses• Others?E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 66 Preview of Development Review FrameworkE MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 67 • Strategy framework for redevelopment in the corridor• Information for corridor property owners, businesses, residents• Guide for staff & decision-makers to help prioritize discretionary site upgrades• Contextual to character areasHighest Requirement ->Development Review Spectrum<-Lowest RequirementGreenfield development, total site redevelopmentEx: Development of vacant site(PDP)Significant site upgrades or change in character Ex: Large building addition & site reconfiguration(Major Amendment)Minor additions and site enhancements Ex: Building addition(Minor Amendment)Change of UseEx: Retail to Manufacturing(Minor Amendment)All development standards metEstablish full site landscaping and tree canopyNew buildings/additions meets building design standardsNew walkway connection on onsite circulationDefine/reconfigure parking areasParking lot landscaping/screeningBuilding addition meets building design standardsReplace nonconforming signageReplace dead landscapingScreened trash/recycling enclosureSite Upgrades- Priority upgrade in Gateway, Mulberry Frontage Character AreasE MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 68 •July• July P&Z Work Session focused on goals/policies• Release of Draft Plan Sections One and Two (one month review window)• July 19thTransportation Board Update•August• August P&Z Work Session Update focused on development review framework and other components in Section Three of draft plan• August P&Z Hearing – Recommendation on adoption of East Mulberry Plan•September• September 19th– First Reading at City Council21Key DatesUpcoming Key DatesAre P&Z Commissioners comfortable making a recommendation on adoption of the East Mulberry Plan at the August Hearing while sections of the plan may still be out for public review?E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 69 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT UPDATE 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 July 6, 2023 To From Re Chair Katz and Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission Em Myler, Neighborhood Development Liaison July 2023 Public Engagement Update The purpose of this memo is to provide the Commission a monthly review of staff efforts to engage the public in Development Review as well as preview upcoming work of interest. July Public Engagement by the Numbers • Neighborhood meetings - 3 1. Fort Collins Rescue Mission Spanish-Language Meeting, June 14 2. The Collective City-led neighborhood meeting, June 22 3. Foothills Mall Redevelopment, June 26 Staff Update LUC continuing engagement plans • Utilizing OurCity to report findings back to the public. • Semi-permanent open house/exhibit • Alternatives survey o Meeting with key groups we want to hear from to promote survey. Public engagement in Development Review • The Collective City-led neighborhood meeting tested a new format. o Neighbors spent approx. 30 minutes asking staff questions. o Then spent 1.5 hours writing down comments, posting them on boards and organizing them into topic areas. o Written comments were typed up into a comment letter from the public and provided to the applicants. o Areas for improvement: Participants still struggle to stay on topic, the meeting went over by half an hour, not possible to allow virtual participation. o Participants were very complimentary of the new process, saying they felt heard and understood. o Working on ideas to help present results in a more intuitive and organized way. Packet pg. 70