HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/25/2013 - Building Review Board - Agenda - Regular MeetingCommunity Development & Neighborhood Services
281 N. College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.416.2740
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov.com
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD
April 25, 2013
1:00 pm – 3:00 pm
City Council Chambers
300 LaPorte Avenue
AGENDA
1. Approve minutes from the February 28, 2013 Meeting
2. Capital Expansion Fee Study Follow Up
3. Follow-Up Reports:
None.
4. Other Business
2012 I-Code Review Update
FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD
Regular Meeting – February 28, 2013
1:00 p.m.
Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson Staff Liaison: Mike Gebo (416-2618)
Chairperson: Alan Cram
A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, February 28, 2013 at
1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 Laporte Avenue,
Fort Collins, Colorado.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Alan Cram
Andrea Dunlap
Justin Montgomery
Torey Lenoch
Rick Reider
Jeffrey Schneider
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
George Smith
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Melanie Clark, Staff Support to the Board
Mike Gebo, Chief Building Official
Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order and roll call was taken.
1. APPROVAL OF NOVEMER 15, 2012 MINUTES:
A motion was made by Dunlap to approve the November 15, 2012 minutes as written.
Montgomery seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Dunlap, Schneider, Cram, Reider, Lenoch, Montgomery
Nays: None
Abstain: None
2. ANNUAL ELECTIONS
A motion was made by Dunlap to appoint Alan Cram as Chairman. Reider seconded the
motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Dunlap, Schneider, Cram, Reider, Lenoch, Montgomery
Nays: None
Abstain: None
BRB – February 28, 2013 - Page 2
A motion was made by Dunlap to appoint Jeff Schneider as Vice-Chairman. Montgomery
seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Dunlap, Schneider, Cram, Reider, Lenoch, Montgomery
Nays: None
Abstain: None
3. CAPITAL EXPANSION FEE STUDY
Jessica Ping-Small, Revenue and Project Manager, stated the fees included in this study were:
neighborhood parks, community parks, fire, police, and general government. The goal of this
study was to provide a comprehensive review of the fees, which had not been done since 1996.
Ping-Small discussed the calculation of the fees and the methodology of the study. The fees
are proposed to increase due to the city’s increased infrastructure, updated household size
data, the inclusion of the trail infrastructure in the fees, and the inclusion of streets capital to the
general government fee. Ping-Small reviewed the fees with and without the inclusion of the trail
infrastructure, an aspect that remains debatable.
Ping-Small compared the proposal to neighboring jurisdictions and discussed the fund balances
of the various fees. She stated the two large changes resulting from the study are the possible
inclusion of the trail infrastructure and the inclusion of the streets capital to the general
government fee. Additionally, staff is recommending codifying a comprehensive review of the
fees every three to five years.
Cram asked what statistics determine the amount of usage based on house square footage.
Ping-Small replied average household sizes are applied to infrastructure costs. Household size
data was taken from the Census bureau housing survey and extrapolated to local data.
Cram asked what percentage of the trails is in the open space that was purchased with the
special open space tax. Ping-Small replied she would need to return with that information.
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer, stated it comes down to a segregation of funds. Part of
the trail fee here will go to build new trails and underpasses associated with those trails. Fees
and revenues that come from these trail fees cannot be used to build underpasses within the
existing trail system. Cram suggested that distinction be outlined in the document.
Lenoch asked if any opinion was voiced by the Homebuilders Association or Fort Collins Board
of Realtors regarding the larger increase in fees for smaller units. Ping-Small replied all groups
have had input regarding that issue, particularly affordable housing folks. There are currently
very few permits for smaller units and there was a formulaic process which resulted in those
increases. A way to mitigate this would be to create a credit for the smaller units.
Montgomery stated it would be difficult to make a recommendation given the extreme amount of
data. He noted these fees have been increased annually based on inflation and asked what
percentage increase this proposal would have over current fees. Ping-Small replied the
average increase is 21% based on where the bulk of permits are pulled, and with the inclusion
of the trails.
Montgomery asked how these fees fit in with general taxes and other revenue taken in by the
City. He asked about the impact on the City coffers should these fees not be increased. Ping-
BRB – February 28, 2013 - Page 3
Small replied there would be less money available to grow the infrastructure as new
development happens should the increase not be approved.
There was a question about the housing stock existing prior to 1996 that never paid these fees.
Ping-Small replied they are benefitting without having paid the fees, but that is an unavoidable
consequence.
There was a question asked if taking into account only the housing stock since 1996, which has
paid into this system, makes more sense. Ping-Small replied functional population is calculated
based on how many people are at a land use at any one given time.
A comparison was requested between a new construction 2,000 square foot home at current
rates, versus the proposed new fees. Ping-Small replied current fees would be $5,381 and
proposed fees, with the trail fee, would be $5,276. She added that the number decreases in
larger units because of the community park fee.
It was asked whether uninhabitable basement square footage is included in calculations. Ping-
Small replied in the negative. She stated that impact fees are assessed only when a new
dwelling unit is added, not for remodels or additions.
Dunlap asked if the fees are associated with an area of town or specific development. Ping-
Small replied a development has to benefit from the capital expansion fees. The trails fee is a
slightly more difficult example than the other fees.
Cram stated the fees have increased 5% every year and asked if the need for the fees to double
every twelve years actually exists. Beckstead disagreed that the increase has been 5% a year
as that increase is based on inflation. Beckstead stated that he would return to the Board with a
better understanding of that information.
It was asked how the future trails expansion would be funded if this trail fee is not included.
Ping-Small replied Natural Area funding runs out in a couple years and there are some
concerns regarding future funding.
Cram stated the mass of information provided makes it difficult to provide a recommendation.
Ping-Small noted she could return with additional information as the item does not go before
Council until June.
A motion was made by Lenoch to table the item until the Board’s next meeting in April in
order to allow the Board more time to review the information and to allow staff time to
research Board questions. Schneider seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Dunlap, Schneider, Cram, Reider, Lenoch, Montgomery
Nays: None
Abstain: None
4. EASTSIDE/WESTSIDE NEIGHBORHOODS CHARACTER STUDY
See verbatim minutes attached.
BRB – February 28, 2013 - Page 4
Meeting adjourned at 3:21 p.m.
_____
Mike Gebo, Chief Building Official Alan Cram, Chair
HEARING OF THE BUILDING REVIEW BOARD
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
Held Thursday, February 28, 2013
City Council Chambers
300 West Laporte Street
Fort Collins, Colorado
In the matter of:
Eastside & Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Presentation
Meeting time: 1:00 p.m., February 28, 2013
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Alan Cram, Chair Mike Gebo, Chief Building Official
Andrea Dunlap Melanie Clark, Board support
Jeff Schneider, Vice Chair
Rick Reider
Torey Lenoch
Justin Montgomery
Pete Wray, Senior City Planner and Project Manager for the Eastside & Westside
Neighborhoods Character Study, provided background of the project explaining staff had
received direction from City Council in 2011 to have a new and broader look at
neighborhood compatibility for both the eastside and Westside neighborhoods. He further
explained a previous study took place in 2010 and an ordinance had been brought
forward in early 2011 with a package of Land Use Code amendments approved by
Council. This ordinance was later repealed by citizen initiative. Wray noted the bulk of
that package was a revision to the existing floor area ratio standards. Wray stated staff
was charged with revisiting the issue and a consultant team was hired. Beginning in the
spring of 2012, staff worked with a Council ad hoc committee to establish the initial goal
of the new process and schedule, initiating a public process. The group identified issues
and objectives, a neighborhood profile in defining the character and context of the
neighborhoods, potential tools and strategies to address the recognized issues of the
largest construction examples, impacts of new additions and new construction within the
neighborhoods, including the size of some of the issue homes, the immediate impacts on
building mass and scale, solar access, and privacy on neighboring properties.
Wray stated the group brought forward conclusions of the study process at a Council
Worksession in November and there was a staff recommendation on five key strategy
options to address those issues. Council supported the five key strategy options with the
inclusion of an assessment of the new floor area ratio. Wray stated they were directed to
proceed with implementation. Since November 2012, staff and the consultant team
drafted new Land Use Code language to include in the Ordinance. They had additional
public meetings in January, working group meetings with neighbors and other stake
holders, public open house meetings and a series of Board and Commission hearings.
Wray noted they are at the final stage of implementation with the Building Review Board
being the final Board from which they are seeking a recommendation. Wray further
noted that City Council adopted the ordinance on first reading with second reading taking
place on March 5
th
.
2013. Wray explained the Land Use Code amendments included in
the package would be applicable to two zoning districts within both neighborhoods. He
further explained the (NCL) Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density and the
Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) zones, comprised the boundaries of
the two neighborhood study areas.
Wray stated that based on direction they received from Council in November, to include
a revision to the existing floor area ratio, they proceeded in developing the package of
Land Use Code amendments referred to as Option A. They recently developed Option B
because of continued discussion and differing opinions on whether change to the floor
area ratio should be included or not. Wray believes this was helpful for the Boards to
look at in the event that Option A wasn’t supported. Wray explained that Option A
included five new standards.
The first was to expand the existing notice area for variance requests from 150 feet to 500
feet. The majority of public support was for this type of change.
The second standard was a revision to the existing floor area ratio standards. In the NCL
zone, the existing floor area ratio is .4 or 40% lot coverage and in the NCM it is .5 or
50%. So they are looking at a new reduction in the floor area ratio for both zoning
districts within both neighborhoods, based on lot size on a sliding scale. As well, it would
be applied differently to the zoning districts. The second part of that change was to look
at an adjusted measurement method for counting floor area, large volume spaces,
elevated basements, and detached accessory structures up to 250 square feet. Wray
referred to the packet provided to the Board explaining there were tables that outlined the
adjusted floor area comparing the existing standard based on lot size to the proposed new
standard. He explained that this is an enlargement of the NCL calculation. They
highlighted the new allowances for total floor area based on lot size and the same for
NCM. The intent of the adjustment was to address the largest recognized construction
examples in order to limit the overall size to a certain extent. Wray stated that this was a
slight adjustment as they didn’t want to push it too far and be overly restrictive knowing
they also had a package of new design standards that would play into addressing all of the
issues associated with neighborhood compatibility. Wray referred to the slides
explaining that it showed a description of the average lot size and house size within the
two zoning districts and the average floor area ratio which is incidentally the same for
both zoning districts which is .21. He further explained that the prevailing FAR is low
and well within the existing floor area ratio maximum of .4 and .5. The largest lots are
being reduced down from .4 to .33, which is still well within above the average FAR for
these areas. Wray referred to another chart for the Westside neighborhood in the NCL
zone showing a decreased trend for larger lot sizes. He explained that the intent was to
address and target the outliers, the largest construction examples, providing sufficient
flexibility for most other projects to not be affected by the FAR. He noted there are
similar charts for the NCM and the Eastside neighborhoods.
Wray stated that the second part of this proposed standard is a measurement method
change for the side wall height at the minimum side yard setback. He noted that under
the current standard it is measured from the finished grade at wall of 18 feet for the
second story and the new adjustment would be measured from the existing grade of
property line on the left side.
Wray explained that the next standard is looking at a solar access standard based on a
certain size project. He further explained there’s a threshold, and where one story is being
changed to a two story and where there is a neighboring property to the north of the side
wall. They were not addressing east/west shading aspects. This is for neighboring
properties to the north to reduce the sidewall height from eighteen feet to fourteen feet
providing some flexibility for some elevated finished floors for steps up to front porch
and such. Wray clarified that this is different than coming up with a more restrictive full
solar access ordinance where there are several aspects that could be included in a solar
ordinance which the City doesn’t have right now. Some of those aspects or considerations
include the exact measurement of shading on a neighboring property, building or yard.
He is taking into account mature vegetation and trees, the shape of a lot, slope of grade, a
lot of different things that could be factored into a solar ordinance. Wray reiterated they
are recommending a simple standard to just look at the sidewall height for those that
would have neighboring properties to the north. Wray referred to a slide showing an
illustration looking at the winter solstice, sun angle and generally where the shading
would occur if a neighboring home is on the minimum of five foot side yard setback and
with different roof pitches.
Wray stated that the next standard addresses front and side building façade articulation
with a menu of options being provided to address building massing and scale and reduce
the looming effect of long building walls. Wray explained that typically average building
wall lengths are between thirty and thirty five feet and they are providing anything
greater than forty feet. He noted that this gives a little extra provision for either having a
setback or a step down to articulate the building façade wall design. Lastly they looked at
a series of case studies in the neighborhoods and compared the existing standards to the
proposed package of new amendments.
Wray stated that Option B is the same as Option A; however, it does not include the
reduction in the floor area ratio formula.
Schneider stated that some of the questions he had are non-relevant, as this has already
been approved on first reading by City Council. He asked when the ordinance is proposed
to be put into effect, assuming Council would again choose Option A at the second
reading.
Wray answered that if Council adopts the ordinance on second reading and still chooses
Option A, it would normally take effect ten days after the hearing. He explained they
have included in both options A and B under section 8, a provision to allow a two month
delay for application of the ordinance. He further explained they heard from several
builders and owners that were in various stages of design who recommended allowing
additional time to work through the processes to submit and staff responded in providing
that. He noted that Council supported this provision on first reading.
Lenoch asked if the current solar access study to date took into account that east and west
facing homes would be subject to different rules than north or south facing homes. He
explained that this is all based on side walls and because the City already has the
requirement that a certain percentage of the home be built on the front or back half of the
lot, he believes they are creating some sort of scenario where homes will have different
possible valuations relative to the solar access, because they are a south or east facing
home and the effect of the winter solstice sun and the effect on its neighbors.
Wray stated they didn’t look at an assessment of impacts on valuation. He explained that
the standard simply limits the sidewall height where there is a neighboring property to the
north that typically is applicable to homes that are on north/south streets where the
sidewall height is adjacent to a property to the north. He further explained that it wouldn’t
affect east/west considerations or homes on an east/west aligned street. Wray reiterated
they are not measuring a specific degree of shading and they looked at the winter solstice
as the worst case scenario for maximum shading for a certain time of the year. Wray
noted there had been a lot of questions on why they didn’t consider impacts of mature
trees and other considerations. Wray believes that could go into a solar ordinance but the
standard just focused on limiting the sidewall height.
Wray further noted they heard a lot from neighbors that solar access was one of the most
important issues, including anything from the amount of shading on a building, sidewall,
property, or yard within these neighborhoods.
Lenoch asked if staff was confident and happy with the fact that the study takes into
account that this sidewall only effects fifty percent of the homes in the Eastside/Westside
neighborhoods assuming that half the homes are on north/south streets and half the
homes are on east/west streets.
Wray stated that it depends on the amount of new additions or new construction. He
explained that eighteen cases were looked at in their case studies and of the eighteen
there were eleven that had these conditions where the project was over a certain size,
went to two stories, there was a neighboring property to the north, some of the homes
were at a different lot alignment going on those type of streets, or they weren’t impacted
by the design or FAR standards.
Lenoch stated that he is concerned about the number of people that will be going in front
of the Building Review Board or the Zoning Board of Appeals if something like this goes
through.
Barnes clarified, with regards to Lenoch’s question, about fifty percent of the lots being
affected stating that is not necessarily true. He stated that as Wray alluded to briefly,
there are thresholds that have to be met before the solar access kicks in. He explained
that no matter what happens if the house to the north is a two story house then there are
no solar access regulations. Therefore, it is already not possible to say that fifty percent of
the lots, because that would assume then that every house is a one story house and we
know that is not the case. He further explained the proposed construction has to result in
a second story or an addition that brings the total square footage of the house to three
thousand square feet or a new house that is twenty five hundred square feet. Barnes
reiterated that there are a lot of thresholds that have to be met before the solar access
regulation would kick in, and if the house to the north is a two story house or even a one
and a half story house, it would not apply.
Schneider asked for clarification if an existing home would have to comply with the solar
standard if it were a two story home with a ranch style to the north, but they added a one
story addition out the back.
Barnes stated they would be looking at the new part of the addition and the additional
impact being made. He explained the City can’t make someone lower the height of the
existing two story house. He further explained that it is possible to do a one story addition
with wall heights that are taller than fourteen feet.
Cram shared his frustration with a comment that had been made that the Building Review
Board was really not an important part of the decision process and therefore they were
bypassed until they asked for a presentation. Cram explained the Building Review Board
is deeply involved and charged with responsibility for building structures and is also the
appeal process Board for people who wish to appeal their building permits.
Cram stated that he has heard the numbers, but the majority of the streets in the old,
east/west portions of town are east/west so he takes umbrage with their assessment of
how many homes would be affected. He further stated they did not look at what the
orientation of the existing roof lines were regardless of whether the house is north, south,
east or west, because it depends on the slope of the roof. He further stated they did not
and acknowledged they did not take into consideration existing sheltering from trees that
exist in the area and that is the area that has the biggest trees.
Cram expressed frustration and felt the solar piece is just an attempt to come in the back
door with a solar recommendation. He believes if there is going to be a solar ordinance
then they need to deal with a solar ordinance, so it can be dealt with equally throughout
town and not just in two particularly chosen neighborhoods.
Cram stated that City Council has this attitude about wanting infill and a lot of people are
not going to come into Fort Collins if in fact the houses are small.
Reider asked what “Elevated Basement” meant.
Barnes explained if you elevate your basement wall by more than three feet above the
grade along a side lot line the basement will count as floor area and currently basements
do not count as floor areas. Barnes read the section of the ordinance that pertains to the
definition of an elevated basement stating “Basement floor areas where any exterior
basement wall is exposed by more than three feet above the existing grade at the interior
side lot line adjacent to the wall.”
Schneider asked if the three feet will be an average.
Barnes stated it is not average.
Schneider asked if the square footage would have to be part of a calculation of an
addition if the side lot line were 3 feet one inch.
Barnes stated that it would or that it may be an appropriate case to take to the Zoning
Board of Appeals. He explained that the Land Use Code cannot address every potential
situation. He further explained that topographical situations are grounds for variances.
Reider stated that a lot of homes in Old Town rely upon basements for mechanical,
sometimes a spare bedroom, storage, etc. He asked if in the floodway which occupies a
lot of the Westside neighborhood in particular and some of the Eastside, if there would be
any consideration for increased FAR for those lots that cannot have a basement. He
further asked if they would be faced with the same FAR as any other home regardless of
whether there are in the floodway or not.
Wray confirmed this. He stated that the proposed changes to the FAR would apply to
both zoning districts in both neighborhoods. He explained that if the basement is not
counted, there would be an additional allowance for building square footage or accessory
structures for those properties.
Reider asked what large volume spaces were and how they are determined.
Barnes stated that this is a loop hole in the current code. He explained that right now only
the floor area of each floor level or each story is counted. He gave examples of homes
with large two story atriums and vaulted ceilings that get counted as only one level. He
further explained that if you have an area where the ceiling height exceeds fourteen feet,
then that portion that exceeds fourteen feet will be counted twice, because it’s really
affecting the height of the structure. He noted that with the bulk and mass is where you
get the looming issue over abutting properties.
Reider asked if the sidewall abutted to the neighbor’s rear property line if the same
standards would apply.
Wray stated it would be the same as it pertains to the main building and accessory
structures if they meet the threshold. Wray confirmed with Reider that it is simply how
far back you are from the property line.
Schneider stated that all of the mailings went to property owners of the areas, which he
understood, but thought it should be important to notify the industry or design
professionals that are working in it. He asked why there wasn’t any outreach to the
professional industries.
Wray apologized for the oversight during the process stating that they really focused on
community engagement from the area property owners and tenants. He noted they also
included other interests and stake holders, which included builders, developers, and
realtors. He explained that their notification included the study area for both of the
neighborhoods as well as public information and notification on websites, through media
and email distribution.
Reider stated that he remembered two years ago spending a lot of time attending many
different meetings on the Eastside/Westside. He thought it came to a vote or consensus
where the vast majority of the citizens impacted, which would have included himself with
all the property he owns there, were opposed to any changes and so nothing happened.
He asked why this is back so quickly if so many people were opposed to it just two years
ago.
Wray stated they received direction from City Council.
Reider stated it bothers him that if just a couple of people for personal reasons or political
reasons go against, what he believes to be the vast majority of the public that he heard
from in all of those meetings. Reider asked if it was true that the vast majority of the
public a few years ago were opposed to this, but a member or two of City Council has
really pushed this thing through.
Wray stated that the previous effort was really a focus on just building size and the
change to the FAR. He explained with this effort, they were asked to have a broader look
at not only building size but design compatibility and that is the reason why they came up
with a different package of Land Use Code amendments that includes new design
standards. He further explained that their recommendation in November identified in the
strategy report had floor area ratio as a viable tool to consider, which wasn’t included
based on the direction received at that time. Wray stated for this study they were to come
up with mutually agreeable solutions and there were definitely mixed opinions in the
previous effort with that and also through this process in looking at potential changes to
the floor area ratio. He reiterated that at the November 27
th
work session, Council asked
them to include a change to the floor area ratio with the other five recommended strategy
options.
Reider asked Wray if he thought all the impacted parties were in favor of this, or if it was
simply something that Council is dealing with. He asked if Wray has heard from a lot of
neighbors in eastside/westside who are giving thanks and stating that this is a terrific
thing. Reider stated that he appreciates what Wray and Barnes do and he knows they are
working at the direction of Council.
Reider stated that he wasn’t able to connect what he witnessed two years ago with what
he witnessed during the most recent presentation. He was questioning how it came about.
Barnes stated that he thought Wray answered how it came about with regards to Reider’s
last question about whether everybody was in favor of this. Barnes stated that based on
the last Council session when it got adjourned and the amount of public input on both
sides that there was no consensus.
Schneider asked if the FAR is more or less restrictive when compared to other zoning
districts.
Barnes stated that it is more restrictive. He clarified that there is already an existing FAR
in the NCL and NCM zones that is more restrictive than the other zones. As well, there
are other regulations in the NCL and NCM zones that are more restrictive than other
zones, so by their very nature, those zoning districts have more restrictive regulations.
Barnes noted that he didn’t believe other zones have a FAR. He explained that the RL
zone does low density residential where there’s a three to one lot area to floor area ratio
and the lot area has to be three times larger than the floor area, but in those zones they
don’t count the garage, and they don’t count the basement in any circumstances.
Schneider asked why they are changing things for these zones when they don’t take into
account other aspects in those zones that require the three to one ratio.
Barnes stated that it is not changing. He explained that the current NCL and NCM
regulations have been in place with regards to the size limitation on houses since 1991
and the NCL up until 2006 was more restrictive than it is now. He noted that it was a .33
and then was changed to .4 and the proposal now is basically to go back to what it was
from 1991 until 2006.
Schneider clarified that his question was purely in those other areas where they don’t take
in account the garages or the basements why they don’t use that same model for these
two zoning districts.
Barnes reiterated they were added in 1991 and have been in place for 20 years. He
explained the NCL, NCM and the NCB zones were enacted and implemented in 1991. At
that time regulations were put in place, noting that if you spell out NCL, Neighborhood
Conservation Low Density was to conserve the character and the established pattern.
Schneider stated one thing he heard change is the height of the sidewall for basement
calculations, where it’s not in place now.
Barnes stated that is in response to citizen concerns and they don’t hear those concerns in
other neighborhoods.
Schneider noted that part of this was to help promote the design assistance program.
Wray explained there were two other strategy options that were supported that aren’t
included in the potential Land Use Code changes. He stated that there was a lot of
support for the promotion of the existing design assistance program that really hasn’t
been used much since 2011. He noted that would be an ongoing administrative action that
staff is already working on further promoting. Wray explained that the other was to
develop new design guidelines for these neighborhoods which, was also well supported
from the neighborhoods, and outside interest. However, it’s not budgeted or in current
work programs. They are suggesting staff take a look at these in 2014 when we look at
the neighborhood plan updates, concurrent with that process. So it is on future action
identification.
Schneider noted that with a design assistance program and trying to help promote the
program a list of preferred contractors and designers is being handed out. He further
noted that one of the contractors on the list had his license revoked by the Building
Review Board last year.
Wray stated that presently the program is promoted through the Landmark Preservation
Commission, Historic Resources staff.
Schneider asked how the design assistance program interacts with Historic Preservation
or Landmark Preservation Commission and whether they have to approve the design.
Wray stated that it’s a voluntary design assistance program with money that Council put
aside and established in 2011 to provide funding to support having architects assist in the
design of additions or new construction.
Schneider asked if the design aspect of the ordinance would hinder Historic Preservation
or if there were any concerns about the character of Historic Preservation with some of
the design elements.
Barnes stated that Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Manager, has been involved
in the process attending the workshops and being involved with the ordinance drafting
and are aware of all of this. As well, the LPC has heard and made their recommendation
to City Council. He reiterated that the design assistance is voluntary. Barnes explained
that it’s not, whether someone does it or doesn’t, regardless of what they are
recommended they still have to comply with the regulations which are design standards.
Cram stated that he didn’t believe a motion was appropriate since City Council had
already acted. The rest of the Board agreed.
Cram reiterated that he sincerely hoped this kind of an overlook or sidestep of the
Building Review Board does not happen again. He explained that anytime there are
changes to the building regulations in this City, that this is the Building Review Board.
He asked that staff please look at the Board’s requirements and what they are responsible
for because, they are responsible for these things. He stated that the Board will hear
appeals to these and have heard appeals to these kinds of issues about flood plain, how
high the building is and so on and so forth.
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 25, 2013
To: Building Review Board
From: Jessica Ping-Small, Revenue and Project Manager
Subject: Capital Improvement Expansion Fee Update
Staff presented the Capital Improvement Expansion Fee update to the Building Review Board on
February 28, 2013. The board requested additional time to consider the implications of the fee update. In
addition, the Board had the following questions:
1. How were capital expansion projects funded prior to 1996 and did development prior to this get a
free pass?
a. Response: Capital expansion projects prior to 1996 were funded through general
revenues that included sales tax, property tax, fees for service, etc. So although
developers didn’t incur an upfront fee via a capital expansion fee, the citizens and/or
businesses that eventually occupied the new development helped fund the necessary
projects. One exception is the Neighborhood Park fee which was first implemented in
1968.
2. Why don’t capital expansion fees take housing type into consideration?
a. Response: Capital expansion fees for residential development are calculated based on
household size and functional population. Factoring in some sort of weighting scale
based on need for housing type would be very difficult as the data to support the fee
calculation doesn’t exist. An example would be a new senior or student housing
development should potentially pay a higher police and fire fee because they would
theoretically have more calls for those services. It’s a worthwhile discussion but not a
national standard for how capital expansion fees are structured. The legality and needs vs.
benefits test around this type of fee requires specific and court tested methodologies
which the City is recommending.
3. How have the trails been funded to date?
a. Response: Historically, paved trails have been funded by Conservation Trust (CT)
dollars, which are generated by the Colorado Lottery and distributed to local
governments on a per capita basis. The City receives about $1.2 million annually
in CT funding. Since 2006, and concurrent with sales and use tax funding
shortfalls, CT funds have been allocated to park and trail maintenance. Currently,
$730,000 in CT funding is used for park and trail maintenance. The remaining
$470,000 is used for trails, but after land acquisition, planning, design and
construction administration costs are covered, only ~$270,000 is spent on actual
trail construction each year. In addition, The Natural Areas Program has been
contributing funding for construction of the City’s paved trails since 2003 and is
currently contributing $350,000 annually. Aside from the one-time KFCG and
BCC funds, and occasional GOCO grants, the primary funding sources to build
our trail system is the $270,000 from CT and the $350,000 from Natural Areas. If
the Natural Areas funding ceases, build out of the trail system will slow
considerably. We estimate it will cost ~$15 million to build out the trail system
as currently planned (in today’s dollars, after expending the KFCG and BCC
funds, and not including underpasses of major arterial streets for the Mason and
Power trails). This means the build out the system will take 55 years without the
$350,000 from Natural Areas and 24 years if the funding remains. The time
frame could be reduced somewhat by grant funding, but it should be noted the
Trails Master Plan project could identify a variety of trail improvement projects
that are not currently planned, thereby increasing the cost and time needed to
complete the trail system. The implementation of a capital expansion fee for trails
would also accelerate the build out of the system especially if Natural Areas
funding ceases.
4. Provide clarification on the percentage of fee increases provided in the Background Section of the
draft study.
a. Response: The percentage increases referenced the background section of the draft study
are based off the original fees implemented in 1996. They are compared to the current fee
structure, not the proposed fee structure. With the exception of the 14% increase to Park
fees in 2000 in relation to the ADA requirements, the fees have been increased annually
based on the local CPI.
Background Recap
In the fall of 2012, staff initiated a comprehensive review of the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees
that were first implemented in 1996. The goal of the review was to ensure that the methodology first
implemented was still applicable and also to assess the fee structure to confirm that it was in line with the
current level of service. To assist with the review, Finance staff contracted with Duncan Associates, a
nationally known firm that specialized in impact fees.
Capital Improvement Expansion fees are used to require new developments to pay a proportionate share
of infrastructure costs. The City’s Capital Improvement Expansion fees were originally prepared and
adopted in 1996. The fees included in the study are:
• Neighborhood Parks
• Community Parks
• Fire
• Police
• General Government
Although the fees have been updated annually for inflation according to the Denver-Boulder-Greeley
Consumer Price Index, there has not been a comprehensive review of the study since implementation.
Staff worked with the Duncan Associates to review the methodology and update the fees. The outcome of
the study retains the basic methodology of incremental expansion but recommends minor changes to
some of the inputs. The fees have all been updated based on current level of service which factors in
current capital assets for all fees. In addition, trails have been added to the parks calculations.
Staff will be recommending that City Council adopt the updated fee structure based on the fee study. The
study reflects an increase to most fees. The current level of service which is the basis for all Capital
Improvement Expansion Fees has risen since 1996. Primary factors contributing to the increase are a
change in household size, updates to the value of current infrastructure and the addition of trails to the fee
calculations.
The item was discussed at a City Council Work Session on February 12th and first reading of the
ordinance will be on June 18th.
Enclosures:
Power Point Presentation
1
Capital Improvement
Expansion Fee Update
Building Review Board
April 25, 2013
2
Recap
• Capital Improvement Expansion Fees are used to
require new developments to pay a proportionate share
of infrastructure costs or to “buy-in” to the system
• First implemented at the City of Fort Collins in 1996
• Fees updated annually according to the Denver-
Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index
• In 2012, City contracted with Duncan Associates to:
Analyze methodology
Update Fees
Draft Study – Basis for presentation
3
Fees – Overview
What’s Driving the Changes?
• Inputs to the calculations that include:
Updated inventory of existing capital facilities
Updated determination of current replacement costs
Updated identification of existing levels of service
• Updated data source for household size which resulted in less
variation between small and large units than previous study
• Inclusion of Trails infrastructure and the addition of streets
capital to General Government
Although methodology remains similar – the inputs to fee calculations changed,
resulting in a variation in updated fees – both positive and negative.
4
Fee Overview
N'hood Comm. Gen.
Land Use Type Unit Park Park Trail Fire Police Gov't w/o Trail w/Trail
Updated Fees
Resid., up to 700 sf Dwelling $1,181 $1,001 $474 $255 $128 $300 $2,865 $3,339
Resid., 701-1,200 sf Dwelling $1,515 $1,285 $608 $324 $162 $384 $3,670 $4,278
Resid., 1,201-1,700 sf Dwelling $1,674 $1,419 $672 $359 $180 $423 $4,055 $4,727
Resid., 1,701-2,200 sf Dwelling $1,744 $1,479 $700 $373 $187 $443 $4,226 $4,926
Resid., over 2,200 sf Dwelling $1,868 $1,584 $749 $400 $200 $475 $4,527 $5,276
Commercial 1,000 sf $0 $0 $0 $308 $154 $730 $1,192 $1,192
Industrial 1,000 sf $0 $0 $0 $73 $37 $171 $281 $281
Current Fees
Resid., up to 700 sf Dwelling $937 $1,041 $0 $112 $75 $142 $2,307 $2,307
Resid., 701-1,200 sf Dwelling $1,325 $1,477 $0 $160 $109 $201 $3,272 $3,272
Resid., 1,201-1,700 sf Dwelling $1,559 $1,735 $0 $186 $129 $235 $3,844 $3,844
Resid., 1,701-2,200 sf Dwelling $1,791 $1,996 $0 $215 $148 $272 $4,422 $4,422
Resid., over 2,200 sf Dwelling $2,181 $2,428 $0 $262 $180 $330 $5,381 $5,381
Commercial 1,000 sf $0 $0 $0 $229 $160 $257 $646 $646
Industrial 1,000 sf $0 $0 $0 $63 $44 $71 $178 $178
Change
Resid., up to 700 sf Dwelling $244 -$40 $474 $143 $53 $158 $558 $1,032
Resid., 701-1,200 sf Dwelling $190 -$192 $608 $164 $53 $183 $398 $1,006
Resid., 1,201-1,700 sf Dwelling $115 -$316 $672 $173 $51 $188 $211 $883
Resid., 1,701-2,200 sf Dwelling -$47 -$517 $700 $158 $39 $171 -$196 $504
Resid., over 2,200 sf Dwelling -$313 -$844 $749 $138 $20 $145 -$854 -$105
Commercial 1,000 sf $0 $0 $0 $79 -$6 $473 $546 $546
Industrial 1,000 sf $0 $0 $0 $10 -$7 $100 $103 $103
Percent Change
Resid., up to 700 sf Dwelling 26% -4% n/a 128% 71% 111% 24% 45%
Resid., 701-1,200 sf Dwelling 14% -13% n/a 103% 49% 91% 12% 31%
Resid., 1,201-1,700 sf Dwelling 7% -18% n/a 93% 40% 80% 5% 23%
Resid., 1,701-2,200 sf Dwelling -3% -26% n/a 73% 26% 63% -4% 11%
Resid., over 2,200 sf Dwelling -14% -35% n/a 53% 11% 44% -16% -2%
Commercial 1,000 sf n/a n/a n/a 34% -4% 184% 85% 85%
Industrial 1,000 sf n/a n/a n/a 16% -16% 141% 58% 58%
Total Fees
5
Neighborhood/Community Park Fees
Current Fee Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type Unit per Unit per Unit Change
Neighborhood Parks
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $937 $1,181 26%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,325 $1,515 14%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,559 $1,674 7%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,791 $1,744 -3%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,181 $1,868 -14%
Community Parks
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,041 $1,001 -4%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,477 $1,285 -13%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,735 $1,419 -18%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,996 $1,479 -26%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,428 $1,584 -35%
Total Parks
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,978 $2,182 10%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,802 $2,800 0%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $3,294 $3,093 -6%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $3,787 $3,223 -15%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $4,609 $3,452 -25%
Trails
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $0 $474 n/a
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $0 $608 n/a
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $0 $672 n/a
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $0 $700 n/a
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $0 $749 n/a
Total Parks and Trails
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,978 $2,656 34%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,802 $3,408 22%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $3,294 $3,765 14%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $3,787 $3,923 4%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $4,609 $4,201 -9%
6
Proposed Fee Breakdown
Residential
1200-1700 sq. ft.
Total Fee w/out Trail % Total Fee w/Trail %
Neighborhood Park $1,674 41% $1,674 35%
Community Park 1,419 35% 1,419 30%
Trail 0 0% 672 14%
Fire 359 9% 359 8%
Police 180 4% 180 4%
General Government 423 10% 423 9%
Total $4,055 100% $4,727 100%
Park fees account for over 75% of the total fee structure.
7
Single-Family Building Permit Data
Larger unit permits have steadily declined in the last 10 years.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Residential
over 2,200 sq ft
Residential
1,701-2,200 sq ft
Residential
1,201-1,700 sq ft
Residential
701-1,200 sq ft
Residential
up to 700 sq ft
8
Annual Revenue Impact Analysis – Based on 10 yr. Avg.
Unit Type*
Current Fees Proposed Fees
w/o Trails
%
Change
Proposed
Fees
w/Trails
%
Change
Resid., up to 700 sq. ft. $28,607 $35,526 0% $41,404 45%
Resid., 701-1,200 sq. ft.
769,574 863,184 12% 1,006,186 31%
Resid., 1,201-1,700 sq. ft.
1,065,557 1,124,046 5% 1,310,324 23%
Resid., 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. 704,867 673,624 -4% 785,204 11%
Resid., over 2,200 sq. ft.
888,941 747,860 -16% 871,595 -2%
Commercial 276,428 510,065 85% 510,065 85%
Industrial 4,323 6,824 58% 6,824 58%
Total $3,738,296 $3,961,130 6% $4,531,602 21%
*Units include both single and multifamily dwellings for residential
9
Annual Revenue Impact Analysis – 2012 Actuals
*Units include both single and multifamily dwellings for residential
Unit Type*
Current Fees Proposed Fees
w/o Trails
%
Change
Proposed
Fees
w/Trails
%
Change
Resid., up to 700 sq. ft. $0 $0 0% $0 0%
Resid., 701-1,200 sq. ft.
1,119,024 1,255,140 12% 1,463,076 31%
Resid., 1,201-1,700 sq. ft.
2,025,788 2,136,985 5% 2,491,129 23%
Resid., 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. 946,308 904,364 -4% 1,054,164 11%
Resid., over 2,200 sq. ft.
322,860 271,620 -16% 316,560 -2%
Commercial 10,594 19,549 85% 19,549 85%
Industrial 22,203 35,051 58% 35,051 58%
Total $4,446,778 $4,622,709 4% $5,379,529 21%
10
Fee Comparison – Residential
Neighborhood and Community Park fees are the most common
and substantial of the Capital Expansion fee mix in Northern Colorado.
*Fort Collins Fees based on a 1201-1700 sq. ft. unit
$- $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000
Loveland
Longmont
Fort Collins Proposed*
Windsor
Fort Collins Current*
Greeley
Boulder
Neighborhood Park
Community Park
Trail
Fire
Police
General Government
11
Fee Comparison - Commercial/Industrial*
Commercial
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Industrial
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
*Longmont’s General Government fee is a flat $375
*Commercial/Industrial fees approximated based on varied
multipliers and unique city classifications
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
$2,000
General Government
Police
Fire
$-
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
General Government
Police
Fire
12
Conclusions
• Fee update retains basic methodologies of original study
• Inputs to formula and asset information updated for all fees
• Reduction household size driving partial fee change
• Inclusion of trails increasing net fees substantially
• Staff will recommend codifying comprehensive review every
3-5 years
• New web page:
http://www.fcgov.com/finance/capitalexpansion.php