HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/20/2023 - Historic Preservation Commission - AGENDA - Regular MeetingPage 1
Jim Rose, Chair Location:
Bonnie Gibson, Vice Chair This meeting will be held
Margo Carlock In person at Chambers, 300 LaPorte
Jenna Edwards And remotely via Zoom
Anne Nelsen
Andy Smith
Tom Wilson Staff Liaison:
David Woodlee Maren Bzdek
Vacant Seat Historic Preservation Manager
Regular Meeting
September 20, 2023
5:30 PM
Historic Preservation Commission
AGENDA
Pursuant to City Council Ordinance No. 143, 2022, a determination has been made by the Chair after
consultation with the City staff liaison that conducting the hearing using remote technology would be
prudent.
This hybrid Historic Preservation Commission meeting will be available online via Zoom or by phone and in person.
The online meeting will be available to join beginning at 5:00 p.m. Participants should try to join online or in person at
least 15 minutes prior to the 5:30 p.m. start time.
IN PERSON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to queue at the podium to indicate you would like to speak at that
time. You may speak when acknowledged by the Chair.
ONLINE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
You will need an internet connection on a laptop, computer, or smartphone, and may join the meeting through Zoom at
https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/95421717693. (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio). Keep
yourself on muted status.
For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to
speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to comment.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION BY PHONE:
Please dial 253-215-8782 and enter Webinar ID 954 2171 7693. Keep yourself on muted status.
For public comments, when the Chair asks participants to click the “Raise Hand” button if they wish to speak, phone
participants will need to hit *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an
opportunity to address the Commission. When you are called, hit *6 to unmute yourself.
Documents to Share: Any document or presentation a member of the public wishes to provide to the Commission for
its consideration must be emailed to preservation@fcgov.com at least 48 hours before the meeting.
Provide Comments via Email: Individuals who are uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or
participate by phone are encouraged to participate by emailing comments to preservation@fcgov.com at least 48
hours prior to the meeting. If your comments are specific to any of the discussion items on the agenda, please
indicate that in the subject line of your email. Staff will ensure your comments are provided to the Commission.
Packet Pg. 1
Page 2
Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government (CLG) authorized by the National Park Service and History Colorado based
on its compliance with federal and state historic preservation standards. CLG standing requires Fort Collins to maintain
a Historic Preservation Commission composed of members of which a minimum of 40% meet federal standards for
professional experience from preservation-related disciplines, including, but not limited to, historic architecture,
architectural history, archaeology, and urban planning. For more information, see Article III, Division 19 of the Fort
Collins Municipal Code.
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and
will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for
assistance.
Video of the meeting will be broadcast at 1:00 p.m. the following day through the Comcast cable system on Channel
14 or 881 (HD). Please visit http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/ for the daily cable schedule. The video will also be available
for later viewing on demand here: http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php.
• CALL TO ORDER
• ROLL CALL
• AGENDA REVIEW
o Staff Review of Agenda
o Consent Agenda Review
This Review provides an opportunity for the Commission and citizens to pull items from the
Consent Agenda. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be “pulled” off the Consent
Agenda and considered separately.
Commission-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered before Discussion Items.
Citizen-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered after Discussion Items.
• STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
• COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
• CONSENT AGENDA
1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 16, 2023
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the August 16, 2023 regular meeting of
the Historic Preservation Commission.
The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Commission to spend its time and energy on the important
items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request an
item on this calendar to be "pulled" off the Consent Agenda and considered separately. Agenda items pulled
from the Consent Agenda will be considered separately with Commission-pulled items considered before
Discussion Items and Citizen-pulled items considered after Discussion Items. Items remaining on the
Consent Agenda will be approved by Commission with one vote. The Consent Agenda consists of:
● Approval of Minutes
● Items of no perceived controversy
● Routine administrative actions
Packet Pg. 2
Page 3
• CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW UP
This is an opportunity for Commission members to comment on items adopted or approved on the
Consent Calendar.
• CONSIDERATION OF COMMISSION-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS
Any agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda by a Commission member will be discussed
at this time.
• DISCUSSION AGENDA
2. REPORT ON STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING
Staff is tasked with an array of different responsibilities including code-required project review
decisions on historic properties, support to other standing and special work groups across the City
organization, and education & outreach programming. This report will provide highlights for the
benefit of Commission members and the public, and for transparency regarding decisions made
without the input of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC).
3. LAND USE CODE HOUSING UPDATE (PHASE 1) – REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION
DESCRIPTION: Planning Division staff will provide an updated overview of the preferred land use code
alternatives that emerged from the full public outreach process and the August 22,
2023 extended discussion with City Council. Following the presentation, public
comment, and discussion, the HPC will consider the request for a recommendation to
City Council, based on the HPC’s assessment of the anticipated impact of the
changes on the protection and adaptive reuse of historic resources.
NOTE: This incomplete staff report is a placeholder and will be updated as soon as
possible prior to the HPC meeting with a summary and analysis of code revision
details that are of particular relevance to the preservation and management of historic
resources. Planning staff is working diligently to finalize presentation materials and
board and commission comments and recommendations in preparation for the
October 3, 2023 City Council meeting, at which the code updates will be discussed
and voted upon. In the meantime, full materials related to the outreach efforts to date
and the draft code sections are posted for public review at
https://www.fcgov.com/housing/lucupdates.
STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager
4. HISPANIC HERITAGE MONTH HISTORY PRIMER
DESCRIPTION: Staff will provide a brief summary of known history and historic places related to the
Hispanic History in Fort Collins from the 1860s and beyond. This presentation is being
given at a regular meeting as opposed to a work session to benefit the attending
public. Staff is partnering with the Poudre Libraries District to offer in-person walking
tours of several of these sites on upcoming Saturdays at 9:30 a.m., specifically
September 23 in Alta Vista, starting and ending at Sugarbeet Park, and October 14
in the Holy Family neighborhood, starting and ending at Washington Park.
Registration is required and is done through the Poudre Libraries website, HERE.
STAFF: Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Packet Pg. 3
Page 4
• CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS
Any agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda by a member of the public will be discussed at
this time.
• OTHER BUSINESS
• ADJOURNMENT
Packet Pg. 4
Agenda Item 1
Item 1, Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY SEPTEMBER 20, 2023
Historic Preservation Commission
STAFF
Melissa Matsunaka, Sr. Project Coordinator
SUBJECT
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 16, 2023 REGULAR MEETING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the August 16, 2023 regular meeting of the Historic
Preservation Commission.
ATTACHMENTS
1. HPC August 16, 2023 Minutes – DRAFT
Packet Pg. 5
Page 1
Kurt Knierim, Chair Location:
Jim Rose, Vice Chair Council Chambers, 300 Laporte
Margo Carlock And remotely via Zoom
Jenna Edwards
Bonnie Gibson
Anne Nelsen
Andy Smith Staff Liaison:
David Woodlee Maren Bzdek
Tom Wilson Historic Preservation Manager
Regular Meeting
August 16, 2023
Minutes
•CALL TO ORDER
Chair Knierim called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
•ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Margo Carlock, Jenna Edwards, Bonnie Gibson, Kurt Knierim, Tom Wilson, Andy Smith
ABSENT: Anne Nelsen, David Woodlee, Jim Rose
STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Heather Jarvis, Jim Bertolini, Yani Jones, Rebekah Schields, Melissa
Matsunaka
Chair Knierim welcomed new Commission Member Tom Wilson.
Commissioner Wilson introduced himself.
•AGENDA REVIEW
Ms. Bzdek stated there were no changes to the published agenda.
•CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW
No items were pulled from consent.
•STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner, introduced Rebekah Schields, a new Historic
Preservation Specialist working in historic survey.
Ms. Schields introduced herself.
Historic
Preservation
Commission
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
DRAFT
Packet Pg. 6
Page 2
• COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
• CONSENT AGENDA
1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JUNE 21, 2023.
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the June 21, 2023 regular meeting of the
Historic Preservation Commission.
Member Gibson made a motion, seconded by Member Edwards, to approve the consent
agenda for the June 21, 2023 meeting as presented. Yeas: Carlock, Edwards, Gibson,
Smith, Wilson and Knierim. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
• DISCUSSION AGENDA
2. REPORT ON STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING
Staff is tasked with an array of different responsibilities including code-required project review
decisions on historic properties, support to other standing and special work groups across the City
organization, and education & outreach programming. This report will provide highlights for the
benefit of Commission members and the public, and for transparency regarding decisions made
without the input of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC).
Mr. Bertolini reported on staff activities since the last Commission meeting, including a
rehabilitation project for a small landmark district covering the Carnegie Library and associated
courtyard containing several relocated historic buildings. He also noted staff provided support at
the Pride event on July 15th and held its last education program, a walking tour with Historic Larimer
County, related to the grant funded historic survey of the College Avenue corridor between
Mulberry and Laporte.
3. CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT INTREPRETATION STRATEGIES – REPORT TO HPC
DESCRIPTION: In June 2022, the City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Services Division
launched a project to develop a series of historic contexts focused on the Civil
Rights Movement in the city. The project consisted of historical and archival
research, interviews with community stakeholders, and community meetings.
Research partners and a Steering Committee of community members provided
feedback on early drafts. The project concluded in 2023 with the publication of
the historic context narratives to the City’s website. Themes included in this
project are:
• Voting Rights in Fort Collins (1867–1982)
• Racial Discrimination in Housing (1866–1983)
• Racial Desegregation in Public Education (1867–1975)
• Racial Desegregation of Public Accommodations (1867–1992)
• Equal Employment (1882–1992)
• Criminal Injustice (1873–1974)
• Indigenous Rights and the American Indian Movement (1968–1978)
The attached draft report discusses the basics of interpretive strategies and
options for educating the Fort Collins community and visitors about the Civil
Rights Movement. That is followed by a summary of best practices, including
case studies from other cities. Finally, this report presents a basic interpretive
framework, a potential phased approach to developing interpretive and
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
DRAFT
Packet Pg. 7
Page 3
educational materials, and a list of technology and third-party products currently
available at the time this document was completed.
This discussion will serve as an opportunity to hear directly form the project
consultant, Steph McDougal of McDoux Preservation, and to provide any
feedback that will assist with finalization of the recommended strategies.
STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager
Staff Presentation
Ms. Bzdek noted this project was a grant funded project supported by the State Historical Fund
and is part of the overarching Full Story Fort Collins effort to gather uncovered stories primarily
associated with underrepresented communities in Fort Collins and to help identify new sites and
sites about which new stories are being told. She stated the project consists of a series of context
studies around seven different themes.
Ms. Bzdek outlined the interpretive plan that is associated with the document and highlighted some
of the most important aspects of the plan. She stated the unifying idea between all the interpretive
themes is simply that everyone deserves to be treated equally. Because the work was done in
association with the City’s Historic Preservation Program, it is important that the context studies
specifically relate to existing or demolished sites in Fort Collins so place-based stories can be told.
Ms. Bzdek discussed the housing theme, which examines the ability for people to secure equitable
and livable housing in Fort Collins, is impacted by a number of important trends and legal
restrictions, including the way communities are zoned, restrictive covenants, major government-
led efforts, and road and housing construction projects. She commented on examples of
properties associated with this theme.
Ms. Bzdek commented on the desegregation in public education theme and associated properties,
including the Fullana School and the Mary Ontiveros House. She also discussed the voting rights
theme and associated properties, including the first League of Women Voters chapter and the
Grange Hall No. 7. Additionally, Ms. Bzdek commented on the desegregation in public
accommodations theme and associated properties, including the former State Theater site at 151
North College Avenue.
Ms. Bzdek stated looking across the themes, there are stories that can both inspire people as
individuals and collective groups. She specifically cited a collective action eliminating white trade
only signs in downtown businesses.
Ms. Bzdek commented on various interpretive methods outlined in the report including several
tours based on the sites and the addition of interactive components into the existing resources.
She stated a partnership with the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery and taking advantage of more
cutting-edge technologies have been recommended as well.
Mr. Bertolini commented on the development of some of the immediate activities related
specifically to civil rights, including a video, website, and self-guided and scheduled walking tours.
He stated survey work will be done on properties that may be added to the online map of historic
properties and there is a long-term plan for physical signage. Additionally, there is a long-term
plan for utilizing content management platforms.
Commission Questions and Discussion
Chair Knierim asked about some of the more innovative interpretive methods. Steph McDougal,
McDoux Preservation, commended staff and the work being done to make things become
actionable so quickly. In terms of more innovative tools, she commented on sidewalk decals that
include information, images, and a QR code to scan for more information. She noted it is important
for information to be presented in an analog format because not everyone has a cell phone, which
is an equity issue.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
DRAFT
Packet Pg. 8
Page 4
Chair Knierim asked about the timeframe for moving forward with some of the more immediate
action items. Mr. Bertolini replied he will be discussing the sidewalk decal option with Engineering
soon. He stated the hope is to have the civil rights video complete by Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
in 2024 and walking and biking tour ideas will be considered in 2024 as well. He stated the items
that will take a bit more time would be physical signs given funding constraints and apps given the
need for content development.
Ms. Bzdek commented on the spectrum of tools that are available based on needs and sensitivities
of various sites. Additionally, she commented on the importance of layering different interpretive
techniques. She noted this report is a living document which is a main benefit of having web-
based content.
Chair Knierim commented on possibly partnering with CSU or high school AP or ethnic studies
classes for some cost-effective labor.
Commissioner Gibson commented on a multi-layered approach to interpretation and stated she is
curious to know if the sidewalk decals will work with snow and shoveling, and if not, what other
similar techniques could be used.
Commissioner Carlock commented on the importance of signage identifying locations, even if it is
less expensive than a bronze sign. Ms. Bzdek stated staff is considering a budget offer for a
partnership program providing supportive funding to property owners for signage that provides
some uniformity and predictability. She noted staff would bring any BFO offer to the Commission
for input as staff would like to see it as a partnership activity with the community in various ways.
Commissioner Smith agreed with the sentiment that providing analog, tactile interpretive methods
is valuable, particularly from an urban design perspective. He commented on working with the
DDA or others on capital improvement projects to provide interpretation.
Commissioner Carlock noted living history was listed as one of the interpretive strategies and
asked if there is currently any living history occurring in the area. Ms. Bzdek replied there are
Chautauqua performances in Greeley, but nothing locally other than demonstrations at the Bee
Family Farm.
Commissioner Carlock commented on possibly recreating Camp Collins at the Poudre River
oxbow site.
Ms. Bzdek thanked McDoux Preservation for being fantastic consultants and exceeding
expectations. Ms. McDougal thanked the team for their partnership.
4. EDUCATION WORKSHOP: WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE PRIMER
DESCRIPTION: Staff will provide a brief summary of known history and historic places related to the
women’s suffrage movement in Fort Collins from the 1890s and beyond. This
presentation is being given at a regular meeting as opposed to a work session to
benefit the attending public. As a reminder, staff is partnering with the Poudre
Libraries District to offer an in-person walking tour of several of these sites this
Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 9:30, beginning and ending at Library Park (west side).
Registration is required and is done through the Poudre Libraries website, HERE.
STAFF: Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Staff Presentation
Mr. Bertolini stated this weekend is the anniversary of the adoption of the 19th Amendment and
the City has started to have a tradition of celebrating the unique history in Fort Collins related to
that. He stated this presentation was developed by Yani Jones as part of Women’s History Month.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
DRAFT
Packet Pg. 9
Page 5
Mr. Bertolini stated Colorado was the first state wherein women won the right to vote by
referendum, in 1893, which was 27 years prior to white women winning the right to vote across
the country. He noted the 1893 Colorado referendum provided suffrage for white and Black
women, though not always for Hispanic women and definitely not for Native American women as
they were not considered citizens of the United States until the 1920’s.
Mr. Bertolini provided information on certain sites from the walking tour of historic places related
to the women’s suffrage movement in Fort Collins, including Elizabeth Stone’s cabin which is part
of the construction site for the Carnegie Arts Center. He discussed Ms. Stone’s advocacy for
women’s suffrage and noted she cast her first ballot at the age of 93.
The next site discussed by Mr. Bertolini was Lucy McIntyre’s residence on Mathews Street. He
discussed her leadership of organizations focused on temperance, prohibition of alcohol, and
women’s suffrage, and her foundation of the Chautauqua Circle. He noted her writings do reflect
that she was supportive of suffrage for white women only which makes her a difficult figure to
remember, though he noted it is important to consider things in context.
Mr. Bertolini discussed the Northern Hotel which is included in this tour because it was one of the
polling places in the April 1894 election, which was the first election in which women could
participate in Colorado. He stated 439 women voted in that election in Fort Collins, which was
46% of registered voters, and the election produced Fort Collins’, and perhaps the state’s, first
female elected official, Alice Edwards, who was elected to City Council.
Mr. Bertolini next discussed the Opera House building, which is now the Opera Galleria. He
stated it was the site of several key gatherings and speeches associated with the push for suffrage
in 1893, with the most significant event being a speech by the nationally known suffragist Carrie
Chapman Catt. Additionally, the Opera House was the site of a grand ratification celebration after
the referendum passed.
Mr. Bertoini discussed the Routt Hall building on CSU’s campus and its association with Dr.
Theodosia Ammons who helped establish a domestic arts program at the college and became
the first female dean of that program. Dr. Ammons also gave speeches in support of suffrage,
including at the chapel in Old Main that since burned down. Additionally, she served as the
secretary and president of the Colorado Equal Suffrage Association.
The final site discussed by Mr. Bertolini was the now demolished Sarah Corbin residence at 402
Remington Street. He stated Ms. Corbin is particularly notable for hosting a four-week course
about politics for women in her home.
Mr. Bertolini commended Leslie Moore for doing most of the research that is the foundation for
this tour.
Commission Questions and Discussion
Chair Knierim asked when the Corbin house was demolished. Mr. Bertolini replied the exact date
is unknown, but the current building was constructed in 1976.
Commissioner Carlock commended the presentation.
5. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND/OR VICE CHAIR
DESCRIPTION: Elections of officers for boards and commissions are held in February or March of
each year following the annual appointment of new members. Due to the resignation
of Kurt Knierim, current Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission, effective at
the end of the August 16, 2023 meeting, the Commission must hold an election at
this meeting to elect a new Chair to serve as the presiding officer at meetings for the
remainder of this term, and a new Vice Chair to serve as backup for scenarios in
which the Chair is recused or absent.
The City’s handbook for boards and commissions states, “It is the presiding officer’s
responsibility to see that the meeting moves forward in an orderly fashion, that
discussion is guided and controlled, and that the meeting runs as smoothly as
possible.” It also states that “the success of presiding officers may depend upon
their ability to remain impartial and to keep business moving. Frequent displays of
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
DRAFT
Packet Pg. 10
Page 6
partisanship or favoritism risk destroying members’ and citizens’ respect for the
presiding officer.”
Current members of the Commission willing to serve as Chair and/or Vice Chair may
nominate themselves or other Commission members for consideration. A simple
majority vote determines the outcome of the election.
Commission member Jim Rose, who currently serves as Vice Chair of the HPC, will
not be present at the August 16, 2023 meeting but has submitted the attached letter
to the Commission regarding his potential candidacy for the role of chair.
STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager
Chair Knierim stated he will need to step down from the Chair position due to a new job. He
requested nominations for the Chair to complete this term.
Commissioner Carlock made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to nominate
Jim Rose as Chair. The motion was adopted unanimously.
Chair Knierim requested nomination for Vice Chair to complete Rose’s term.
Chair Knierim made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to nominate Bonnie
Gibson as Vice Chair. The motion was adopted unanimously.
Heather Jarvis, CAO, noted Jim Rose did provide a letter accepting the Chair position should it
be presented to him.
Commissioner Gibson accepted the position of Vice Chair.
• CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS
None.
• OTHER BUSINESS
None.
• ADJOURNMENT
Vice Chair Gibson adjourned the meeting at 7:08 p.m.
Minutes prepared by and respectfully submitted by Melissa Matsunaka.
Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________.
_____________________________________
Kurt Knierim, Chair
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
DRAFT
Packet Pg. 11
Agenda Item 2
Item 2, Page 1
STAFF REPORT September 20, 2023
Historic Preservation Commission
ITEM NAME
STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING (COVERING AUGUST 3, 2023 TO SEPTEMBER 6, 2023)
STAFF
Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner
Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager
INFORMATION
Staff is tasked with an array of different responsibilities including code-required project review decisions on
historic properties, support to other standing and special work groups across the City organization, and
education & outreach programming. This report will provide highlights for the benefit of Commission members
and the public, and for transparency regarding decisions made without the input of the Historic Preservation
Commission (HPC).
Specific to project review, in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to the Historic
Preservation Commission (HPC), with issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness or a SHPO report under
Chapter 14, Article IV of the City’s Municipal Code. Staff decisions are provided in this report and posted on
the HPS’s “Design Review Notification” page. Notice of staff decisions are provided to the public and HPC for
their information, but are not subject to appeal under Chapter 14, Article IV, except in cases where an
applicant has requested a Certificate of Appropriateness for a project and that request has been denied. In that
event, the applicant may appeal staff’s decision to the HPC pursuant to 14-55 of the Municipal Code, within
two weeks of staff denial.
Beginning in May 2021, to increase transparency regarding staff decisions and letters issued on historic
preservation activities, this report will include sections for historic property survey results finalized in the last
month (provided they are past the two-week appeal deadline), comments issued for federal undertakings
under the National Historic Preservation Act (also called “Section 106”), and 5G wireless facility responses for
local permit approval.
There is a short staff presentation this month highlighting recent items and events.
Packet Pg. 12
Agenda Item 2
Item 2, Page 2
Education & Outreach Activities
Part of the mission of the Historic Preservation Services division is to educate the public about local, place-
based history, historic preservation, and preservation best practices. Below are highlights from the last month
in this area.
Program Title Sponsor-Audience-
Partner Description # of
Attendees
Date of
Event/Activity
Women’s Suffrage
Walking Tour Poudre Libraries Walking tour of downtown
suffrage sites 25 8/19/2023
Walking Tour, Archive
Visit, and Interview
with Lyle Family
Descendants
Local History Archive
at FCMOD; FCTV
Sharon Kelly-North,
granddaughter of Mattie
Lyle, her husband, David,
and their son, Madison,
were hosted on a walking
tour by Jim Bertolini, viewed
and shared materials with
Archive staff, and did an
interview with FCTV
3 8/21/2023
Staff Design Review Decisions & Reports – Municipal Code Chapter 14
Property Address Description of Project Staff
Decision Date of Decision
417 E. Magnolia St.
(C.J. Hayes House)
In-kind roof replacement. Contributing
property to Laurel School Historic District
(NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal
Code 14, Article IV.
Approved August 4, 2023
250 N. Mason St.
(Colorado & Southern
Depot and Docks)
Addendum to COA issued 6/2/2023 - Added:
Replacement of east/rear stair, protection and
re-covering in concrete of dock exposed
through approved demo of front stair/landing,
re-setting of story stones and refinishing of
steel rings. City Landmark. Reviewed by staff
under Municipal Code 14, Article IV.
Approved August 18, 2023
121 S. Whitcomb St.
(Garbutt Residence and
Garage)
Re-roofing (TPO on flat-roofed garage). City
Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal
Code 14, Article IV.
Approved August 23, 2023
1006 W. Mountain Ave.
(Judge Claude C. Coffin
House)
Change French door on 2004 addition to
window. City Landmark. Reviewed by staff
under Municipal Code 14, Article IV.
Approved August 23, 2023
1003 Remington St.
(Myron/Garbe House)
Sash replacements. Contributing property to
Laurel School Historic District (NRHP -
compliance with Standards not required).
Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14,
Article IV.
Approved August 30, 2023
111 E. Elizabeth St.
(111 E. Elizabeth St.)
Sash replacements. Contributing property to
Laurel School Historic District (NRHP -
compliance with Standards not required).
Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14,
Article IV.
Approved August 30, 2023
415 E. Laurel St. (Peter
Hussey House)
New garage at rear of property. Contributing
property to Laurel School Historic District
(NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal
Code 14, Article IV.
Approved September 1, 2023
Packet Pg. 13
Agenda Item 2
Item 2, Page 3
401 Pine St. (Giddings
Machine Shop)
Mural on cinderblock portions of wall. Sash
replacements. City Landmark. Reviewed by
staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV.
Approved September 1, 2023
1112 Mathews St. (J.
Richard House)
Addition. Contributing property to Laurel
School Historic District (NRHP - compliance
with Standards not required). Reviewed by
staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV.
Approved September 1, 2023
Selected Staff Development Review Recommendations – Land Use Code 3.4.7
Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision /
Recommendation
401 & 405 Smith
Basic Development Review: Lot split of
a City Landmark to allow a new single-
family home on the rear. Boundary
adjustment already approved by HPC.
Actual lot split nearing completion.
Approve 8/8/2023
209 Cherry St
Project Development Plan: Mixed-use
infill of empty lot; seven stories. Will be
referred to HPC for recommendation
due to proximity to trolley barn.
N/A – Will be referred to
HPC 8/16/2023
2601 S College
Conceptual Development Review:
Mixed apartments and commercial
use; demo existing bldgs. At 2601 &
2627 S College and 132 W
Thunderbird
Historic Survey required
for all 3 properties (revisit
on 2601)
8/16/2023
900 S. College
Minor Amendment: City Landmark –
under HPC approved rehab (with State
and Federal Historic Tax Credits);
landscape adjustments
Requiring adjustments to
NW fence installation to
meet Preservation &
Zoning requirements
8/17/2023
1801 Sheely Dr
Conceptual Development Review:
Seeking to add a new accessory
dwelling unit in existing space; City
Landmark.
No outstanding
Preservation concerns
due to placement and
modifications proposed.
9/7/2023
Historic Property Survey Results
City Preservation staff frequently completes historic survey for properties for a number of reasons, usually in
advance of development proposals for properties. The table below includes historic property survey for the
reporting period for any historic survey for which the two-week appeal period has passed.
Address Field/Consultant Recommendation Staff Approved
Results?
Date Results
Finalized
N/A
National Historic Preservation Act – Staff Comments Issued
The City of Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government, which provides the Historic Preservation Services
division and Landmark Preservation Commission an opportunity to formally comment on federal undertakings
within city limits. This includes actions that are receiving federal funding, permits, or have direct involvement
from a federal agency.
Packet Pg. 14
Agenda Item 2
Item 2, Page 4
Note: Due to changes in how Preservation staff process small cell/5G wireless facilities, staff does not provide
substantive comments on those undertakings (overseen by the Federal Communications Commission) and do
not appear in the table below.
National Historic Preservation Act – Staff Comments Issued
The City of Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government, which provides the Historic Preservation Services
division and Landmark Preservation Commission an opportunity to formally comment on federal undertakings
within city limits. This includes actions that are receiving federal funding, permits, or have direct involvement
from a federal agency.
Lead Agency & Property
Location Description of Project Staff Comment
Date
Comment
Issued
HUD – 2019-2025 W.
Harmony Rd.
Habitat for Humanity residential
development – Harmony Cottages
No historic properties
affected; concur with
APE
August 10,
2023
Staff 5G Wireless Facility Summary
Note: Co-locations with existing street infrastructure, usually traffic lights, is considered a co-location and not
subject to denial due to proximity to properties that meet the City’s definition of historic resources (Sec. 14-3)
Due to recent changes in how Preservation staff reviews small cell/5G towers, co-located towers no longer
receive substantive review except where historic resources would be impacted directly by the tower’s installation.
These types of direct impacts would include potential damage to archaeological resources and/or landscape
features throughout the city such as trolley tracks, carriage steps, and sandstone pavers. This report section will
summarize activities in this area.
Within this period, staff processed a total of 5 5G/Small Cell tower requests total, with 4 seen for the first time.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Presentation
Packet Pg. 15
Staff Activity Report
September 20, 2023
Historic Preservation Commission
Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner,
Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner,
Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager
Design Review Highlight
401 Pine St. (Giddings Machine Shop)
Mural by Fort Collins Mural Project
• Within cinderblock-filled portions of the wall
surface only
If a property has a Landmark designation, then all
exterior alterations (including projects that don’t
require a building permit, like painting) require historic
preservation review for compliance with relevant
historic preservation standards and the issuance of a
Certificate of Appropriateness prior to work
beginning.
2
1
2
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 16
Education and Outreach Highlight 3
- On August 21, Sharon Kelly-North, her
husband, David North, and their son,
Madison Lyle Kelly, visited Fort Collins.
- Sharon is the granddaughter of
Mattie Lyle, and Madison is the only
descendent of Mattie in his
generation.
- Jim Bertolini hosted them on a walking
tour, including Mattie Lyle’s home at 312
N. Meldrum (shown left).
- Lesley Struc and Sarah Frahm with the
Local History Archive shared photos and
other documentary sources with them,
and the family also brought resources to
share with the archive.
- FCTV interviewed the family (not yet
aired).
Survey/Projects Highlight 4
- Civil Rights Context complete
- Will be posted shortly
- Moving ahead with related projects
- Social equity
- Ethnic History
- Education programming
3
4
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 17
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 1
STAFF REPORT September 20, 2023
Historic Preservation Commission
ITEM NAME
LAND USE CODE UPDATE
STAFF
Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager
Noah Beals, Development Review Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to consider changes to the City’s Land Use Code. The Land Use Code (LUC)
Phase 1 Update implements policy direction in City Plan, the Housing Strategic Plan, and the Our Climate
Future plan. Planning Division staff will provide an updated overview of the preferred land use code
alternatives that emerged from the full public outreach process and the August 22, 2023 extended discussion
with City Council. Following the presentation, public comment, and discussion, the HPC will consider the
request for a recommendation to be forwarded to City Council, based on the HPC’s assessment of the
anticipated impact of the changes on the protection and adaptive reuse of historic resources. While there are
no changes to the specific LUC section that addresses historic and cultural resources proposed at this time,
other aspects of the code changes intended to addressed housing policy will have direct and indirect impacts
on the existing (including historic) built environment.
Council will consider the first reading of the item at its October 3, 2023 meeting, and if adopted by Council staff
recommends the proposed changes take effect on January 1, 2024. Full materials related to the outreach
efforts to date, as well as the draft code sections, are posted for public review at
https://www.fcgov.com/housing/lucupdates.
APPLICANT
City of Fort Collins
BACKGROUND
In March 2021, City Council approved an off-cycle appropriation to fund updates to the City’s Land Use Code
as an implementation item related to adoption of the Housing Strategic Plan. From July 2021 – October 2022,
staff led a process to explore changes to the Land Use Code. This process included:
• Community engagement
• Policy analysis and synthesis
• Development of guiding principles
• Diagnostic report of the existing Land Use Code
• Code drafting
• Public review of the draft Land Development Code
As a component of the public review and comment process, the Historic Preservation Commission provided a
recommendation to adopt the proposed changes on September 21, 2022. City Council adopted the Land Use
Packet Pg. 18
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 2
Code via Ordinance No. 114-2022. In November and December 2022, a group of voters gathered enough
signatures through the City’s referendum process to require that Council reconsider the Ordinance. On
January 17, 2023, Council repealed Ordinance No. 114, 2022 and directed City staff to conduct further
community engagement and further refine housing-related Land Use Code changes.
Staff re-launched the Land Use Code engagement process in March 2023. The project has followed the
timeline below:
Stage 1 (March – April)
• Launch outreach
• Identify areas of the Land Use Code that need further engagement and potential adjustment
Stage 2 (April – August)
• Gather feedback from the community through dialogue
• Listen, consult, & involve
Stage 3 (June – August)
• Draft potential Code alternatives
• Analysis & legal review
Stage 4 (August – October)
• Code drafting
• Recommendations and adoption
Throughout this process, staff conducted five work sessions with City Council to solicit feedback from Council
and ensure the new Land Use Code aligns with Council’s direction. The purpose of these work sessions was
to continuously engage with Council on how to best engage with the community and craft new updates to the
Land Use Code that align with the Guiding Principles of the project and address feedback from the community.
SUMMARY OF CITY COUNCIL ENGAGEMENT
February 14, 2023:
At the February 14 Work Session, staff outlined potential paths forward for Council’s consideration of housing-
related changes to the City’s Land Use Code (LUC). Staff presented the option of a four-stage process that
would include various community engagement activities and revisions to the previously adopted Land
Development Code.
Council discussed the timeline for outreach and code revisions, specific engagement activities, and the policy
foundations that should guide the LUC update. Feedback included:
• Continue to focus on alignment with adopted plans, including City Plan, Housing Strategic Plan, and
Our Climate Future.
• Discussion of the differences between affordable housing, housing affordability, housing capacity, and
housing choice.
• Support for walking tours in different types of neighborhoods and zone districts.
• Support for visualizations to help illustrate the development patterns that can occur with various code
scenarios.
• Support for a citywide postcard mailing to inform people about the project and share opportunities to
get engaged.
• Ensure there are ways to find information digitally, through printed communication, and in both English
and Spanish.
• Emphasis on the need for both listening and information sharing, including educational information on
the current LUC, development processes, and affordable housing requirements.
• Utilize other community events to increase community awareness and participation, including
Neighborhood Night Out, the spring Housing Summit, and other major events. Leverage partnerships
with community groups, “plan ambassadors,” and the interfaith community.
Packet Pg. 19
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 3
• Explore creative, fun ways to get people interested and involved.
• Revisit the potential to adopt elements of the code sequentially, starting with less controversial
components.
• Lack of support for a task force or community survey.
April 11, 2023:
At the April 11 Work Session, staff updated Council on the approach and timeline for engagement around
housing-related Land Use Code (LUC) changes, sought input from Council about engagement topics that
should be included, and shared a preliminary approach to exploration of potential alternatives and code
revisions for Council consideration.
Council discussed the content for this work session in three segments: 1) engagement approach and timeline,
2) themes and topics to include in engagement, and 3) approach to potential alternatives and revisions.
1) Public Engagement Approach and Timeline
• Councilmembers expressed general support for the engagement approach and timeline overall
• Several Councilmembers indicated excitement for the walking tours
• Council discussed how success is measured regarding public engagement. Staff shared information
about how success metrics are defined in project engagement plans. For this effort, success metrics
include:
o Diverse participation and representation, measured through demographic data (examples
include geographic, income, housing tenure, racial, ethnic, and other characteristics)
o Results of participant questionnaires during or after public events
o Total number of participants as compared to participation in the initial round of engagement for
the project
• Councilmembers encouraged staff to monitor and consider how to weave in information about the
state-level land use/housing bill SB23-213
2) Themes and Topics to Include in Engagement
• Councilmembers expressed general agreement on the themes to focus on in community engagement
• Councilmembers discussed how to address new topics or themes that may emerge. Staff shared
information about how engagement can be adjusted to incorporate emerging topics if necessary, and
stated that additional topics would be shared with Council as well
• Some Councilmembers asked questions about staff bandwidth to support this work going. The City
Manager shared that additional staff have been brought on to the team to support the project from
departments including Communications and Public Involvement and the City Manager’s Office. Staff
will come back to Council and discuss staff capacity if there are scope changes guided by the
community and/or Council as the work progresses.
• Councilmembers encouraged staff to share information with the public during engagement to build
shared understanding of some key topics including:
o Definition of affordable housing and the ways in which the Land Use Code interacts with
affordable housing;
o Purpose of a form-based code and how it differs from the current Land Use Code;
o The purpose and impact of community feedback at neighborhood meetings;
o Applicability of housing capacity increases throughout the city, explanation of how
neighborhoods could/could not change over time
3) Approach to Potential Alternatives and Revisions
• Councilmembers expressed general support for the approach to potential alternatives and revisions
• Councilmembers encouraged staff to engage community in developing solutions and informing
alternatives that come forward to Council in July
• Councilmembers encouraged staff to continue monitoring state-level activities including SB23-213 and
implementation of Proposition 123
Packet Pg. 20
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 4
May 23, 2023
At the May 23 Work Session, staff updated Council on engagement conducted so far related to the Land Use
Code (LUC) changes, received feedback regarding potential code alternatives, and received guidance on next
steps.
Council discussed the content for this work session in multiple segments. The presentation began with a
summary of engagement events to date. Councilmembers were overall pleased with engagement efforts and
complimented staff work on events including the open house and a series of walking tours. Many
Councilmembers were able to attend one or more engagement events and indicated that they were well done
and valuable for Councilmembers and attendees.
Following the discussion about engagement, Councilmembers reviewed a series of polarity maps for 5 specific
topics: Accessory Dwelling Units, 2-5 plexes, Affordable Housing, Private Covenants/HOAs, and Parking.
Council discussed each topic in turn, identifying the direction they would like staff to take when drafting code
options to present at the July work session. An overview of the polarity map framework has been included
below for reference. Council also reviewed staff’s proposed direction about two additional topics: Community
Input in Development Review and Short-Term Rentals.
Specific Feedback
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): Most Councilmembers supported a direction that seeks to maximize both
housing capacity and options that fit in with the existing context (top right quadrant). Some Councilmembers
supported more emphasis on options that fit in with the existing context (bottom right quadrant). Additional
potential regulations discussed by Councilmembers included:
• Support for allowing ADUs more widely alongside design requirements to address concerns about
privacy, shading, and overall visual impact.
• Support for allowing a separate exterior entrance for attached ADUs.
• Support for further work on parking requirements, including exploration of tandem spaces.
• Exploration of lot size requirements that could limit where ADUs are permitted; alternatively, some
suggested that ADUs on smaller lots could potentially require additional privacy regulations.
Packet Pg. 21
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 5
• Exploration of options that would require owner-occupancy of either the primary house or the ADU.
Some expressed concern that ADUs could circumvent occupancy regulations, and owner-occupancy
requirements were one potential solution shared during the discussion.
• There was some discussion of whether specific proposed changes should be referred to the ballot if
Councilmembers are not hearing consensus or definitive feedback.
2-5 plexes: Councilmembers explored several potential directions for 2-5 plex Land Use Code (LUC)
requirements. Overall, Councilmembers encouraged a greater emphasis on transit corridors for these “missing
middle” housing types. Councilmembers requested a comparison of where 2-5 plex buildings are permitted in
the current LUC and repealed code (see follow-ups section below). Additional analysis was also requested that
would identify lots where 2-5 plex buildings are actually feasible, which staff will provide as part of the July 31
work session code alternatives for 2-5 plexes. Additional potential regulations discussed included:
• Consider allowing 2-5 plexes along transit corridors only; alternatively, consider allowing a smaller
number of units further away from transit and a higher number of units closer to transit.
• Exploration of incentives to incorporate existing buildings.
• Support for design regulations where 2-5 plexes are permitted.
• Exploration of expanding where 2-5 plex buildings are permitted if affordable housing is provided.
Affordable Housing: Overall, Councilmembers expressed support for maximizing affordable housing incentives
and expanding incentives citywide (top right quadrant). Several Councilmembers requested additional
information about mandatory inclusionary housing (IHO) and the potential phasing of an IHO policy.
Councilmembers asked about the role of the LUC in affordable housing, noting that some policies (e.g., impact
fees) are not directly regulated by the LUC. Specific topics explored included:
• Overlap between incentivizing incorporation of existing buildings and naturally occurring affordable
housing. Support for exploring ways to keep existing and more affordable housing stock.
• Discussion about Proposition 123 funding and Fort Collins’ eligibility for the funding.
• Discussion about the relationship between housing supply and affordability. Some Councilmembers
expressed doubt that increased housing supply will improve housing affordability.
Private covenants/HOAs: Councilmembers supported including HOAs in land use changes. While
Councilmembers generally agreed that additional housing types permitted through LUC changes should also
apply in HOA communities, Council also clarified that HOAs should still be able to regulate design and other
community characteristics. There were several legal questions about HOA covenants that could indirectly
restrict housing types (e.g., no overnight parking).
Parking: Overall, Councilmembers supported “right-sizing” parking requirements and encouraged careful
consideration of parking impacts to adjacent neighborhoods if less parking is required. Councilmembers
discussed the following additional regulations:
• Support for parking reductions for affordable housing projects
• Acknowledgement that there is a balance between having too much parking and not enough parking,
and a trade-off between space on a site for parking and space for housing.
• Exploration of allowing tandem parking spaces to count toward parking requirements.
• Exploration of ways to encourage permeable paving.
Community Input in Development Review: Councilmembers generally supported staff’s proposed direction on
community input in development review. Council encouraged exploration of dedicated comment periods,
posting comments online, and requiring neighborhood meetings for housing developments. Some
Councilmembers noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission plays an important role, particularly when a
development requires modifications from the LUC. Councilmembers discussed that when a development
meets code requirements, administrative approval may be appropriate. When a development does not meet
code requirements, some Councilmembers suggested requiring a public hearing.
Short Term Rentals: Councilmembers generally supported staff’s proposed direction on short term rentals
(STR). Councilmembers agreed that changes to the code should not create additional opportunities for STR.
Staff will explore code options that would limit or prohibit new STR in ADUs and 2-5 plexes.
Packet Pg. 22
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 6
Follow ups and Clarifications
As follow-up from this work session, staff shared several additional analyses with Councilmembers:
• Summary of zone districts listing the housing types allowed currently under the LUC and the housing
types that would have been allowed under the repealed code (attached to this Memo)
• Memorandum on mandatory inclusionary housing ordinance (IHO), potential phasing, and policy
considerations
• Memorandum on deconstruction of existing structures
• Legal memorandum regarding HOA covenants and potential for covenants that indirectly restrict
housing types
July 31, 2023:
Council discussed the content for this work session in multiple segments. The presentation began with a
review of key topics of potential code changes, review of engagement events to date, previous Council
feedback, and a review of current Housing Capacity across the community.
Following the introduction and project grounding, Councilmembers reviewed a series of 33 potential code
Alternatives organized into two buckets, including Zone Districts and Citywide Topics. Within those buckets,
Alternatives within 3 different Zone Districts were discussed: Residential, Low Density (RL); Neighborhood
Conservation, Low Density (NCL); Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density (NCM). Following the
discussion of Zone District Alternatives, Councilmembers reviewed a series of Citywide Topics, including
Affordable Housing, Private Covenants and HOAs, Parking & Infrastructure, the Development Review Process,
and Short-Term Rentals (STRs).
Low Density Residential Alternatives:
Alternative Number 1: Limit ADUs to one story when there is no alley (based on experience that garages
frequently abut alleys and an above garage ADU is common.)
Alternative Number 2: Allow ADU with single unit dwelling, not with a duplex thereby limiting total number of
dwelling units on a parcel.
Alternative Number 3: Require ADU properties to be owner-occupied (meaning the owner must reside in one
of the units)
Alternative Number 4: Allow two units maximum (house & ADU OR Duplex only)
Alternative Number 5: Allow duplexes only under the following circumstances: 1) If a lot is at least 100ft wide,
OR 2) One unit is an affordable housing unit, OR 3) Lot is within ¼ mile of current or future high-frequency
transit
Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density Alternatives:
Alternative Number 6: Decrease minimum lot size from 6,000 to 4,500 square feet.
Alternative Number 7: Allow a maximum of two dwelling units on lots 4,500 to 5,999 square feet, as a
combination of a house plus an ADU, or one duplex.
Alternative Number 8: Restrict ADU height to the height of the primary building , based on community
concern for privacy/shading of adjacent neighbors.
Alternative Number 9: Allow three units maximum on lots larger than 6,000 square feet only under the
following circumstances: 1) A duplex plus an ADU or a triplex that converts and integrates an existing
structure, OR 2) A triplex or 3-unit cottage court that includes one affordable unit, OR 3) A lot is within ¼ mile
of a current or future high-frequency transit line
Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density Alternatives:
Alternative Number 10: Decrease minimum lot size to 4,500 from 5,000
Alternative Number 11: Allow a maximum of three units on lots 4,500 to 6,000 square feet (combination of the
following building types; single unit, duplex, row house, or ADU)
Alternative Number 12: Allow a maximum of five units on lots larger than 6,000 square feet.
Alternative Number 13: Allow six units on lots 6,000 square feet and larger IF the development converts and
integrates an existing structure AND one unit is affordable.
Alternative Number 14: Allow a Cottage Court (minimum 3 units, maximum 6 units) on lots 9,000 square feet
or larger.
Packet Pg. 23
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 7
Affordable Housing:
Alternative Number 15: Expand affordable housing incentives and calibrate market-feasible incentives for
ownership and rental.
Alternative Number 16: Update definitions of affordable housing to match market needs for ownership and
rental.
Alternative Number 17: Extend required affordability term to 99 years for any project seeing LUC incentives
for affordable housing.
Private Covenants/Homeowners Associations (HOAs):
Alternative Number 18: Allow an HOA to regulate the option for detached or attached ADU
Alternative Number 19: Specify that HOAs can continue regulate aesthetics (color, window placement,
height, materials, etc.) within the bounds of their existing rules
Alternative Number 20: Add language to allow HOAs to regulate site placement (e.g., additional setbacks,
separation requirements)
Alternative Number 21: Allow an HOA to regulate whether a lot can be further subdivided
Parking & Infrastructure:
Alternative Number 22: Reduce parking requirements for multi-unit developments: 1 bedroom = from 1.5 to 1,
2 bedroom = from 1.75 to 1.5
Alternative Number 23: Reduce parking requirements for affordable housing ONLY if the development has 7
or more units
Alternative Number 24: Require 1 parking space for an ADU
Alternative Number 25: Allow a tandem parking space to count ONLY IF an ADU or extra occupancy
Input in Development Review:
Alternative Number 26: Allow residential projects to be reviewed under Basic Development Review (BDR)
Alternative Number 27: Require a neighborhood meeting for some projects (e.g., larger, more complex)
Alternative Number 28: Require a pre-application conceptual review meeting for projects over 6 units
Alternative Number 29: Establish a defined comment period for public comments on BDR
Alternative Number 30: Require projects with Modifications go to the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z)
when it involves a modification to certain code sections (such as parking, height, density).
Alternative Number 31: Require projects with Modifications go to P&Z when it involves more than a certain
number of modifications.
Short Term Rentals:
Alternative Number 32: Restrict new ADUs from being used as short-term rentals
Alternative Number 33: Allow ADU or Accessory structures with existing STR licenses to continue operating
under current license.
Specific Feedback
Residential, Low Density (RL): Most Councilmembers expressed general support for Alternatives 1 through 4,
accompanied by a discussion that included the following questions and requests:
• Evaluation of existing multi-unit buildings in the Residential, Low Density (RL) zone district how those
were reviewed and approved. Multi-unit buildings and duplexes that existed in a RL zone today were
either approved through different zoning requirements at the time they were built such as a Planned
Unit Development (PUD). There was a period of time when the City allowed over-under duplexes that
were built without a permit to come through and be approved and establish safely and legally with
minimum fees. Additionally, as the City becomes aware of unpermitted dwelling units our inspectors
engage with those property owners to bring the property into compliance.
• Discussion of the Transit Oriented Development Overlay District (TOD) and how that relates to
Residential, Low Density zone district. The TOD does not overlap any RL zone district. However, the
RL zone does abut areas where the TOD is located, as seen in the example below.
Packet Pg. 24
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 8
Several Councilmembers asked for clarifying information regarding Alternative Number 5 given the
interactions between the “or” statements. Follow up requests regarding Alternative Number 5 include:
• More detailed explanation of Alternative Number 5, including feasibility and how the different options
may interact.
Allow Duplexes on any of the following:
Lots of 100ft width or
Lots that integrate the existing structure or
Lots that create an affordable housing development or
Lots within .25 of high frequency transit
Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density (NCL): Most Councilmembers expressed general support for
Alternatives 6 through 8, accompanied by a discussion that included the following considerations and
questions:
• Interest in maintaining the height limit to 24 feet for residential structures to avoid nonconformities for
existing homes.
• Request to clarify allowance of 6 units on lot sizes between 4,500 and 6,000 square feet.
• Review previous code regulations and historic context to explain how current conditions and proposed
changes will complement existing character.
Affordable Housing: Councilmembers expressed general support for Alternatives 15 and 16, with a request for
an update to the Housing Capacity estimates to better understand how the proposed Alternatives affect
housing capacity and current affordable housing goals.
Councilmembers also requested more information regarding deed restriction requirements and what impact
moving beyond the 20-year requirement will have on the creation of affordable housing.
Private Covenants and HOAs: Councilmembers expressed general support for Alternatives 18 through 20,
accompanied by a discussion regarding differential treatment of HOAs versus neighborhoods without HOAs.
Councilmembers requested a comparison between implications of the Alternatives on HOA and non-HOA
neighborhoods.
Parking & Infrastructure: Councilmembers generally supported Alternatives 22 through 25, though there was a
request to consider exempting corner lots from Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) parking requirements and to
always count tandem parking spaces.
Packet Pg. 25
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 9
Development Review Process: Councilmembers were generally in agreement that no changes should be
made to the Development Review Process regarding review types, neighborhood meeting requirements and
current public hearing requirements.
One exception discussed was to allow Affordable Housing projects to go through a Basic Development Review
(BDR) process to expedite such projects.
Short Term Rentals (STRs): Councilmembers generally supported Alternatives 32 and 33 to restrict new
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) from being used as STRs and allow existing ADUs to continue to operate
under their current license. A request was made to follow up regarding how many STRs existing in accessory
buildings. There are approximately 375 STRs City wide and 48 of those are in accessory buildings.
Follow ups and Clarifications
As follow-up from this work session, staff committed to share several additional analyses with Councilmembers
following the July 31 work session and at the work session on August 22nd:
• Where helpful for illustration, create a comparison for code Alternatives to compare current code,
repealed code, and proposed code changes.
• Clarify the proposed changes do include allowing Accessory Dwelling Units in the Urban Estate zone
on all residential lots regardless of lot size.
• Clarify proposed design changes (specifically articulation) to assess whether they will be better than
current code.
• Prepare a legal assessment of the approach that "opts out" of certain zoning regulations, (specifically
ADU’s) practiced in Houston.
• Prepare a list of all City Plan amendments.
• Offer examples of common nonconformities and their consequences.
August 22, 2023:
At the August 22nd Work Session, staff received feedback regarding potential code alternatives, and received
guidance on next steps. Council discussed the content for this work session in multiple segments. The
presentation began with a review of key topics of potential code changes, review of engagement events to
date, previous Council feedback, and a review of updated Housing Capacity across the community.
Following the introduction and project grounding, Councilmembers reviewed 9 potential code Alternatives
identified as requiring more information for decision-making after initial review at the July 31st Council Work
Session. These alternatives were organized into two buckets, including Zone Districts and Citywide Topics.
Within those buckets, Alternatives in 3 different Zone Districts were discussed: Residential, Low Density (RL);
Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density (NCL); Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density (NCM).
Following the discussion of Zone District Alternatives, Councilmembers reviewed several Citywide Topics,
including Affordable Housing, Private Covenants and HOAs, and the Development Review Process. Staff then
confirmed status of all 33 potential alternatives with Councilmembers.
While Councilmembers discussed each alternative in depth, there are still several outstanding details to be
sorted out at first reading on October 3, 2023.
Specific Feedback
Residential, Low Density (RL): Most Councilmembers expressed general support for Alternative 5, regarding
duplexes in RL, accompanied by a discussion that included the following comments:
• Interest in supporting existing single-family neighborhoods to preserve existing character.
• An interest in better understanding whether Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are supported across
the community, especially in neighborhoods with large residential lots.
Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density (NCL): Several Councilmembers expressed general support for
Alternative 9, regarding three units on lots greater than 6,000 square feet, accompanied by a discussion that
included the following comments and requests:
• The criteria for 3 units should integrate the existing structure or require affordable housing unit.
Packet Pg. 26
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 10
• Request to further coordinate tree preservation on single unit lots with the update to landscape
standards being presented later this year.
Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density (NCM): Councilmembers had significant discussion
regarding Alternatives 12 (allowing five units maximum on lots larger than 6,000 square feet), 13 (allow
six units on 6,000 square feet with conditions), and 14 (allow a Cottage Court on lots 9,000 square feet
or larger). The discussion included the following:
• Interest in allowing 5 units if those should be integrated into an existing structure.
• Allowing a 6th unit only if it is dedicated as deed-restricted Affordable Housing.
• Request for photographs of existing Cottage Courts and 6-unit apartment buildings on 9,000 square
foot lots within the community.
Affordable Housing: Councilmembers expressed general support for Alternative 17 (extending the affordability
term to 50, 60, or 99 years), with discussion surround what differences there might be between 50, 60, and 99
years for terms of deed restriction. There was also a request to receive information regarding right of first
refusal after 50 years.
Private Covenants and HOAs: Councilmembers asked several questions related to Alternatives 20 and 21 with
several expressing concern regarding differential treatment of HOAs versus neighborhoods without HOAs.
Generally, Councilmembers expressed a desire to continue discussions regarding Alternative 20 (allow HOAs
to regulate site placement) and generally did not support Alternative 21 (allow an HOA to regulate whether a
lot can be further subdivided).
Development Review Process: Councilmembers were generally in agreement that Basic Development Review
(BDR) should only be allowed for projects designated as deed-restricted affordable housing. All other
development review processes, including neighborhood meetings and public hearings, received support from
Councilmembers to remain as-is in the existing Land Use Code.
Following the discussion of the Alternatives above, staff summarized feedback and confirmed the feedback
given on all 33 of the potential code Alternatives.
Packet Pg. 27
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 11
Follow ups and Clarifications
As follow-up from this work session, staff will share several additional analyses with Councilmembers at a
regular Council meeting, intended for first reading of the Land Use Code (LUC) on October 3, 2023:
• Provide photographs of existing Cottage Court developments on larger lots from across the community
for the purposes of illustration and discussion.
• Provide information regarding “right of first refusal” for buildings after 50 years as deed-restricted
affordable housing.
• When the proposed ordinance comes before Council present these topics one at a time to allow
discussion and specifically action on these topics.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED LUC CHANGES
Revisions to the code continue to support the five guiding principles confirmed by City Council in November
2021 and re-affirmed by a majority of Councilmembers at a work session in February 2023. The proposed
Code changes outlined within this staff report continue to advance each of the guiding principles. These
proposed Code changes also attempt to incorporate feedback heard through community engagement
regarding neighborhood character and stability with the advancement of these principles:
1. Increase overall housing capacity and calibrate market-feasible incentives for affordable housing
2. Enable more affordability, especially near high frequency transit and priority growth areas
3. Allow more diverse housing choices that fit in with the existing context and priority place types
4. Make the Code easier to use and understand
5. Improve predictability of the development review process, especially for housing
NOTE: There are no proposed changes to Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources at this time,
other than a new section number and section title. The new section would be Section 5.8.1 Historic,
Landmark Preservation, and Cultural Resources. Those proposed policy changes that relate most directly
to the existing built environment are highlighted below for quick reference.
A. PRINCIPLE #1: INCREASE OVERALL HOUSING CAPACITY
Current regulations constrain housing capacity in certain areas of the City. As a result, the inventory of
housing options is not keeping pace with demand. To ensure that Fort Collins has sufficient housing capacity
to meet our community’s needs now and into the future, the proposed Land Use Code updates make several
changes to the regulation of housing development.
Proposed changes include:
• Targeting increases in housing capacity to zones in transit corridors and zones with the greatest
amount of buildable land
• Increasing maximum density in the LMN zone from 9 to 12 dwelling units per acre
• Reducing parking requirements for studio, one- and two-bedroom units in multi-unit developments
• Regulating building size through maximum floor area and form standards instead of units per building
• Regulating density through form standards and building types instead of dwelling units per acre
If Council adopts the housing capacity changes proposed, staff estimates that overall housing capacity
will increase by about 52% overall, and by about 61% within a 5-minute walk of current and future
transit corridors.
B. PRINCIPLE #2: ENABLE MORE AFFORDABILITY
The current Code provides limited incentives for affordable housing development. To encourage production of
affordable housing and align with community needs identified in the Housing Strategic Plan, the Land Use
Code updates propose more effective incentives for deed-restricted affordable housing. After conducting pro
forma and market analyses, significant improvements to affordable housing incentives have been calibrated
and proposed.
Packet Pg. 28
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 12
Proposed changes include:
• Expanding affordable housing incentives to most residential & mixed-use zones
• Modifying income criteria (currently 80% AMI) so incentives help address the most critical shortages in
affordable rental (60% AMI or below) and ownership (100% AMI or below)
• Raising the density bonus incentive in the LMN zone to increase the economic value of the incentive
• Creating height bonus and parking reduction incentives in higher density residential and mixed-use
zones
• Requiring 50-60 years of deed restriction instead of the current 20 years
• Continuing to require a minimum 10% of units to be affordable for any development seeking incentives
• Updating definitions for affordable housing, reviewing for consistency. Staff has reviewed all affordable
housing terms and definitions and purposes creation of a new affordable housing section within Article
5 to consolidate incentives, definitions, and terms in one place.
If Council adopts the housing affordability changes proposed, staff estimates that capacity for affordable units
will increase by about 194%.
C. PRINCIPLE #3: ALLOW FOR MORE DIVERSE HOUSING CHOICES THAT FIT WITH
THE EXISTING CONTEXT
The Diagnostic Report that guided this code update suggests that the current Code does not provide a clear,
context-specific framework for infill and redevelopment. Rather, the LUC has many standards that assume a
“greenfield” or undeveloped site. This can create challenges for compatibility, as most of the land in the city
has already been developed. Additionally, there are very few types of housing that can be approved through a
Basic Development Review (BDR) process. Constrained choices for housing contributes to limited housing
supply and does not meet the needs of the variety of household types in our community, both today and in the
future.
Proposed changes include:
• Allowing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in all residential and mixed-use zones. Adding “cottage
court” as a housing type allowed in most residential zones.
• Creating a menu of building types and standards that apply to all proposed development. Form
standards are illustrated for ease of use and include (but are not limited to) building height, lot
dimensions, massing and articulation, and build-to lines.
• Adjusting standards to enable more small-lot infill development and develop form-based standards to
guide compatibility more effectively.
o In the historic core (Old Town/Neighborhood Conservation Districts):
Setting a floor area maximum of 2,400 square feet for single-unit detached homes
Reducing minimum lot sizes from 6,000 square feet to 4,500 square feet for single-unit
detached dwellings
Permitting multi-unit “missing middle” housing types on lots 6,000 square feet or larger
Allowing “missing middle” housing types
• Duplexes and Accessory Dwelling Units in Neighborhood Conservation
Low Density/Old Town A
• Up to a Five-plex in Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density/Old
Town B under certain conditions
Allowing additional units through affordable housing incentives
o Outside the historic core:
Allowing Duplexes and Accessory Dwelling Units in the Low Density Residential
Allowing additional units through affordable housing incentives
Consolidating duplicative standards
Reducing required setbacks where feasible to allow small-lot infill development (ex: corner
lots)
• Updating use standards, rules of measurement, and definitions to align with new building types and
standards. (Recommendation 3)
Packet Pg. 29
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 13
o Defining new terms and rules of measurement (ex: detached accessory structure, cottage
court, bulk plane)
o Removing unneeded or duplicative definitions
D. PRINCIPLES #4 AND #5: MAKE THE CODE EASIER TO USE AND UNDERSTAND, AND
IMPROVE PREDICTABILITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS
The project team has heard from many different groups that the code is hard to understand, inaccessible and
cumbersome to navigate. The intent of the proposed Code reorganization changes is to make the Code easier
to use and understand for all users, including neighbors, customers, staff, decision-makers, and others. These
improvements will provide benefits to users by making it easier to understand what is allowed, what can be
built, and what can change in a neighborhood. These improvements will also provide common understanding
and clarity to users engaged in decision making.
The proposed Code will add predictability to the development review process by being clearer about what uses
are permitted where in the community and by clearly explaining design standards through easy to understand
graphics. The new Building Types (Article 3) will provide more clarity about how buildings should be designed,
leading to more predictable outcomes.
Proposed changes include:
• Consistent, graphic approach to communicate land use standards
• Reorganizing content so the most used information is first in the Code
• Reformatting all zone districts to use consistent graphics, tables, lists, and illustrations
• Creating a new article (Article 3 – Building Types) to consolidate form standards in one place and
develop consistent graphic templates
• Creating a new article (Article 4 – Use Standards) to consolidate use standards in one place and
reformat into a clear and comprehensive Land Use Table
• Updating definitions and rules of measurement for consistency; remove duplicative definitions;
consolidate all rules of measurement in Article 7 – Rules of Measurement and Definitions
• Renaming some zones and create subdistricts (ex: Neighborhood Conservation District) to improve
usability and consolidate similar standards
Packet Pg. 30
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 14
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission forward a recommendation to City Council to approve
the proposed Land Use Code changes.
SAMPLE MOTIONS
SAMPLE MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL: I move that the Historic Preservation
Commission recommend approval of the proposed updates to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code based
on the following finding(s):
[List findings as they relate to requirements for the protection of historic resources, e.g. “the proposed changes
will allow for an increase in overall housing capacity and housing affordability while continuing to allow for
preservation of historic resources.”]
SAMPLE MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS: I move that
the Historic Preservation Commission recommend approval of the proposed updates to the City of Fort Collins
land use code, provided the following conditions are met:
[List condition(s) in detail and reason for concern, e.g. “The proposed code change related to XX needs
revision to clarify the following in regards to historic resources . . .” ]
SAMPLE MOTION FOR DENIAL: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend denial of the
proposed updates to the City of Fort Collins land use code based on the following findings:
[List findings as they relate to requirements for the protection of historic resources, e.g. “The proposed code
changes do not sufficiently provide for the preservation of historic resources due to the following concerns . . .”]
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Presentation_Land Use Code Update
Packet Pg. 31
Land Use Code: Potential Code Alternatives
September 20th, 2023
Noah Beals | Development Review Manager
Outline
Introduction: Overview and Policy Alignment
Part 1: Engagement Update and Timeline
Part 2: Zone-Specific Alternatives
Part 3: Citywide Alternatives
Conclusion: Next Steps
2
1
2
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 32
Questions 3
Tonight, we are seeking a recommendation on the
draft update to the Land Use Code.
Purpose of the Land Use Code Updates:
To Align the LUC with Adopted City Plans and Policies with a focus on:
•Housing-related changes
•Code Organization
•Equity
44
3
4
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 33
FIVE GUIDING
PRINCIPLES
Revisions 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 housing
2.Enable more affordability
especially near high frequency
transit 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 understand
5.Improve predictability
of the development permit review
process, especially for housing
1.Increase overall housing capacity
(market rate and affordable)
and calibrate market-feasible incentives for
deed restricted affordable housing
2.Enable more affordability
especially near high frequency
transit 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 understand
5.Improve predictability
of the development permit review
process, especially for housing
Other ChangesKey Topic Areas
• Housing types and number
of units allowed in RL, NCL,
and NCM Zones
• Affordable housing
incentives
• Affordable housing
definitions + requirements
• Regulations to enhance
compatibility in RL, NCL,
and NCM Zones
• Private covenants and
HOAs
• Parking
• Short-term rentals (STRs)
• Levels of review for
residential development
• Basic Development
Review process
• Housing types allowed in
mixed-use and some
commercial zones (cottage
court, ADU, etc)
• Increasing maximum density in
LMN Zone from 9 to 12
dwelling units per acre
• Maximum 2,400 sq. ft single-unit floor
area in NCM, NCL, NCB
• Design requirements (bulk plane,
façade articulation, etc.) and rear-lot
requirements in NCM, NCL, NCB
• Form-based approach to regulating
housing types
• Allow ADUs in the UE zone
• Code reorganization
• Simplify and rename NCL, NCM,
NCB to OT A, B, C
• Clarification of definitions/measures
• Graphic and form-based
representation of code standards
5
6
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 34
Engagement Update
8Engagement Update
Engagement to Date:
• 38+ meetings and events over the last 4 months
• 10+ updates to Council + Boards and Commissions
• 200+ emails and general comments received
• 60 attendees at the April Virtual Info Session
• 70 attendees at the April Deliberative Forum
• 175 attendees at the May 8
th open house event
• 100+ attendees total at 13 neighborhood-specific
walking tours and 1 general walking tour
• Spanish walking tour July 26
th
• Alternatives Exhibit on August 9th
7
8
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 35
9Timeline
Stage 1 (March - April)
• Begin outreach
• Identify areas for engagement and potential
adjustment
Stage 2 (April - June)
• Gather feedback through dialog
• Listen, Consult & Involve
Stage 3 (June - July)
• Draft Potential Alternatives
• Analysis & Legal Review
Stage 4 (August - October)
• Code drafting
• Recommendations & Adoption
Summary of Code
Changes
9
10
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 36
Summary: Housing capacity 11
#1: Increase overall housing
capacity (market rate and
affordable)
Key Proposals:
• Target increases in housing capacity to zones in transit corridors and zones with the greatest
amount of buildable land
• Increase maximum density in the LMN zone from 9 to approximately 12 dwelling units per acre
• Reduce parking requirements for studio, one- and two-bedroom units in multi-unit developments
• Regulate density through form standards and building types instead of dwelling units per acre
Summary: Housing Affordability 12
Key Proposals:
• Expand affordable housing incentives
• Modify income criteria to address the most critical shortages
• Raise the density bonus incentive in the LMN zone
• Create height bonus and parking reduction incentives in mixed use and commercial zones
• Require 60 years of deed restriction instead of the current 20 years
• Continue to require a minimum 10% of units to be affordable for development seeking incentives
#2: Enable more affordability,
especially near high frequency
transit and priority growth areas
11
12
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 37
Summary: Housing choice, compatibility, and diversity 13
#3: Allow for more diverse housing choices
that fit in with the existing context and/or future priority place types
Key Proposals:
• Allow ADUs in all residential and mixed-use zones
• Create a menu of building types and form standards to guide compatibility
• Update Land Use Table to permit more housing types
• Adjust standards to enable more small-lot infill development and “missing middle” housing types.
• Update use standards, rules of measurement, and definitions to align with new building types and
standards.
Summary: Code Reorganization 14
#4: Make the code easier to use
and understand
Key Proposals:
• Introduce more Graphics and tables to describe standards
• Reorganize content so the most used information is first in the Code
• Reformat zone districts with consistent graphics, tables, and illustrations
• Consolidate form standards in new Article 3 – Building Types
• Consolidate use standards into table in new Article 4 – Use Standards
• Update definitions and rules of measurement for consistency
• Rename some zones and create subdistricts to consolidate standards
#5: Improve predictability of the
development review process, especially
for housing
13
14
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 38
15Housing Capacity
PERFORMANCE METRIC EXISTING
CODE LDC CODE % CHANGE
Total Housing Capacity
Estimated number of units possible to build
under zoning standards
25,959
dwelling units
39,725
dwelling units
⬆53%Housing Capacity as
Percent of Projected
20-Year Housing Need
Estimated capacity compared to total projected
housing demand through 2040.1
85%
of 30,480 units
130%
of 30,480 units
Housing Capacity in
Transit Corridors
Estimated number of units possible to build
under zoning standards within 5 minute walk of
existing and future transit corridors.
5,104
dwelling units
8,299
dwelling units ⬆63%
1 Source: City Plan Trends and Forces Report (2017)
HOUSING CAPACITY REPORT CARD – Original Capacity Analysis based on LDC
16
PERFORMANCE METRIC EXISTING
CODE PROPOSED CODE % CHANGE
Total Housing Capacity
Estimated number of units possible to build
under zoning standards
25,959
dwelling units
39,563
dwelling units
⬆52%Housing Capacity as
Percent of Projected
20-Year Housing Need
Estimated capacity compared to total projected
housing demand through 2040.1
85%
of 30,480 units
130%
of 30,480 units
Housing Capacity in
Transit Corridors
Estimated number of units possible to build
under zoning standards within 5 minute walk of
existing and future transit corridors.
5,104
dwelling units
8,221
dwelling units ⬆61%
1 Source: City Plan Trends and Forces Report (2017)
Housing Capacity
HOUSING CAPACITY REPORT CARD -UPDATED
15
16
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 39
Potential Alternatives and
Revisions
18Mapping Potential Code Revisions
limit housing capacity and
choices
Allow for more diverse
housing choices
that fit in with the existing
character
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
17
18
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 40
1
9Alternatives
33 Alternatives
• Residential, Low Density
• Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density
• Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density
• Affordable Housing
• Private Covenants/HOAs
• Parking/Infrastructure
• Input in Development Review
• Short Term Rentals
Include in the Draft Include in the Draft Not at this time
20Zone-Specific Alternatives
ௗ 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
4 Allow two units maximum (house + ADU or duplex only)
19
20
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 41
21Zone-Specific Alternatives
ௗ All Zone Districts
3 Require ADU properties to be owner occupied (meaning
owner has to reside in one of the units)
22Zone-Specific Alternatives
ௗ 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
21
22
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 42
23Zone-Specific Alternatives
ௗ NCM (Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density)
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
24Citywide Alternatives
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 60 years
Affordability Standards. Rental and For-sale projects
shall provide one of following minimum unit options:
(1) Rental Units:
(a) 10% units at 60% AMI; or
(b) 20% units at 80% AMI
(2) For-Sale:
(a) 10% units at 80% AMI; or
(b) 20% units at 100% AMI
Covenant/Deed Restriction. The units will be required by binding legal instrument acceptable to the City,
providing rights of enforcement to the City, and duly recorded with the Larimer County Clerk and
Recorder, to be occupied by and affordable to low-income households for at least sixty (60) years. This
covenant shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit for the development. There will be
language placed in real estate sales documents, acceptable to the City, clearly noticing the deed
restriction as part of the sale, and containing a continued requirement of notice in all future sales.
Applicability. Article 5, general development and site design
standards apply throughout the City and are not unique to a
specific zone district, unless excluded as stated in a specific
standard such as Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins regarding Landmarks.
23
24
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 43
2
5Alternatives for Discussion
Items for Council Discussion
5 In the RL Zone allow duplexes ONLY IF 1) a lot is 100ft wide 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
2
6Alternatives for Discussion
Items for Council
Discussion
9
In the NCL Zone 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.
25
26
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 44
2
7Alternatives for Discussion
Integrate with existing structure
(1) The addition must be the same height as the existing structure or lower;
(2) The addition must be placed to the rear of the existing structure;
(3) The addition must be designed to be compatible with defining features including but not limited to materials, finishes,
windows, doors, entries, porches, decks, and balconies of the existing structure; and
(4) The addition may not increase the footprint of the existing structure by more than 50%.
(C)Any allowed demolition or additions shall be identified in the building permit submittal.
Integrate with existing structure shall mean using the existing structure to achieve a new use and/or using the existing structure to achieve
an increase in the number of dwelling units at an existing use. In order to meet the definition of integrate existing structure, the following
requirements must be met:
(A)Exterior walls must remain and cannot be demolished except for the following:
(1) New windows, doors, or entry features may be added and only the area of the new features may be removed from the
existing wall;
(2) 0% of front walls, 25% of side walls, and 100% of rear walls may be removed; and
(3) Exterior finishes may be maintained or replaced without increasing the footprint.
(B)In conjunction with the demolition exceptions in (A), additions to existing structure may occur. Additions shall be subordinate to the
existing structure by satisfying all of the following requirements:
2
8Alternatives for Discussion
Items for Council Discussion
13 In the NCM zone 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
In the NCM zone allow a Cottage Court (minimum 3 units,
maximum 6 units) on lots 9,000 sf or larger
27
28
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 45
2
9Historic Preservation Standards
Existing Proposed
3
0Historic Preservation Standards
Chapter 14 of the City Code
Sec. 14-6. - Offenses against historic resources and potentially eligible
resources.
(a)Except as may be authorized pursuant to this Chapter or the provisions of
the Land Use Code, no person shall damage, deface, destroy, or otherwise
cause any alteration to be made to any site, structure or object that is: (1) Fifty
(50) years of age or older that is not a single-family detached dwelling; (2) An
accessory building or structure fifty (50) years of age or older that is not
directly associated with a single-family detached dwelling; (3) A historic
resource; or (4) Undergoing any of the processes provided for in this Chapter.
(b)Except in response to a bona fide determination of imminent danger
under §14-8 of this Article, no person shall deviate from or fail to comply with
any approved plan of protection for any historic resource that is required
under this Chapter or the Land Use Code.
29
30
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 46
3
1Historic Preservation Standards
Chapter 14 of the City Code
Sec. 14-31. - Initiation of designation procedure.
(a)The Fort Collins landmark or Fort Collins landmark district designation
process may be initiated at the written request of any Councilmember, by
motion of the Commission, upon application of the owner(s) of the resource(s)
to be designated, or of any three (3) or more residents of the City.
Next Steps
31
32
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 47
Next Steps 33
Planning and Zoning Commission: September 27, 2023
First reading: October 3, 2023
33
34
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 48
Agenda Item 4
Item 4, Page 1
STAFF REPORT September 20, 2023
Historic Preservation Commission
SUBJECT
EDUCATION WORKSHOP – HISPANIC HISTORY PRIMER
STAFF
Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
SUMMARY
Staff will provide a brief summary of known history and historic places related to the Hispanic History in Fort
Collins from the 1860s and beyond. This presentation is being given at a regular meeting as opposed to a work
session to benefit the attending public. Staff is partnering with the Poudre Libraries District to offer in-person
walking tours of several of these sites on upcoming Saturdays at 9:30 a.m., specifically September 23 in Alta
Vista, starting and ending at Sugarbeet Park, and October 14 in the Holy Family neighborhood, starting and
ending at Washington Park. Registration is required and is done through the Poudre Libraries website, HERE.
Packet Pg. 49