HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/28/2013 - 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
February 28, 2013
1:00 pm – 3:00 pm
City Council Chambers
300 LaPorte Avenue
AGENDA
1. Approve minutes from the November 15, 2012 Meeting
2. Annual Elections
3. Capital Expansion Fee Study
4. East Side/West Side Neighborhoods Character Study
5. Follow-Up Reports:
None.
6. Other Business
2012 I-Code Review Update
Development Review and Permit Activity
FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD
Regular Meeting – November 15, 2012
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, November 15, 2012 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
George Smith
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Delynn Coldiron, Customer & Administrative Services Manager
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 SEPTEMBER 27, 2012 MINUTES:
A motion was made by Dunlap to approve the September 27, 2012 minutes as written.
Montgomery seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Dunlap, Schneider, Cram, Lenoch, Montgomery
Nays: None
Abstain: Reider
2. CONTRACTOR APPEAL HEARING: DAVID HOUTS
**Please see verbatim transcript for this item attached.
3. 2013 ANNUAL WORK PLAN
Coldiron reviewed the Board’s draft work plan and requested input regarding changes.
Schneider made a motion to approve the 2013 work plan for the Building Review Board
as presented. Montgomery seconded the motion.
BRB – November 15, 2012 - Page 2
Vote:
Yeas: Dunlap, Schneider, Cram, Lenoch, Montgomery, Reider, Smtih
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Dunlap asked if the Board should be expecting additional property maintenance issues. Gebo
replied there is a move to have some of the sub-standard conditions of the property
maintenance applicable to owner-occupied buildings. There may not be a great deal of staff
support for such an amendment change. Gebo stated staff is expecting to see additional
contractor and subcontractor violations.
4. MINUTES - TIMING
Coldiron reviewed the new procedure for outsourcing minutes and noted the draft minutes are
not included for Board Members until the next meeting packet. She asked if the Board would
rather receive minutes as they are completed. The Board was in agreement that they would like
to receive minutes as soon as they are completed versus waiting for the next meeting.
5. FOLLOW-UP REPORTS: None
6. OTHER BUSINESS:
a) Contractor Licensing: Gebo noted that based on the contractor licensing changes that
were recently adopted, security alarm contractors no longer require a license for
installations. He added that there is an alarm systems ordinance which will need to be
reviewed at some point.
b) Budget: Coldiron stated the budget will go before City Council for a second reading on
November 20, 2012.
c) Gebo provided an update on the coming review process for the International Codes.
d) Meeting schedule: Coldiron asked if the Board was comfortable with the current plan of
holding the December meeting on the third week of the month or if it would prefer to hold
the meeting on the fifth Thursday of the month if one exists. Board Members replied
they would prefer to keep the schedule as is.
Gebo thanked the Board for its work regarding the David Houts case.
Meeting adjourned at 2:28 p.m.
_____
Mike Gebo, Chief Building Official Alan Cram, Chair
HEARING OF THE BUILDING REVIEW BOARD
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
Held Thursday, November 15, 2012
City Council Chambers
200 West Laporte Street
Fort Collins, Colorado
In the Matter of:
Contractor Appeal Hearing: David Houts
Meeting time: 1:00 p.m., November 15, 2012
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Alan Cram, Chair Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Andrea Dunlap Mike Gebo, Chief Building Official
Justin Montgomery Delynn Coldiron, Customer & Admin Services Manager
Torey Lenoch
Rick Reider
Jeffrey Schneider
2
1 CHAIRMAN ALAN CRAM: Okay, next item of business is to…this month, is to hear
2 our contractor’s appeal, Mr. David Houts. Let me first go through the procedure so that
3 everyone is on the same playing ground. First, City staff will present their background
4 information and the respondent will present and/or call any witnesses. City staff may then ask
5 questions of the respondent. The respondent may ask questions of the City staff and the City’s
6 witnesses. The City staff will have an opportunity to ask questions of the respondent and any
7 witnesses. The respondent will have an opportunity to make any final closing comments. City
8 staff will have an opportunity to make any final closing comments. The Board, then, may ask
9 questions of the respondent, witnesses, or City staff. The Board makes a finding of fact by a
10 majority vote, as to which, if any of the previously described violations were committed by the
11 license holder or the supervisor certificate holder. The Board then makes the determination as to
12 what, if any, action is appropriate, including, but not limited to suspension or revocation of the
13 license or certificate in question. The decisions of the Board may be appealed to City Council.
14 However, the City Council may not hear any new evidence. Therefore, it is important that the
15 respondent present any and all evidence that they feel is relevant during the meeting today.
16 Appeals must be filed, in writing, with the City Clerk within fourteen days of the Board’s
17 decision. So, with that, Mr. Houts, would you please state your name for us?
18 MR. DAVID HOUTS: David Houts.
19 CHAIRMAN CRAM: Okay…I’m sorry…right, that’s where we’re headed. Mike, you’re
20 up.
21 MR. MIKE GEBO: Thank you. First piece of business is the form that Mr. Houts filled
22 out is called a building review board appeal form. Actually, this is not an appeal. We’ve lost
23 that chance to appeal the decision that was made by the Board in September. So, really this
24 is…probably the correct term is request to reinstate contractor’s license. It’s my understanding
25 that the actions that the Board takes today on the reinstatement of the license is something that
26 can be appealed. The fact that he’s already lost his license, he’s lost that chance to make that
27 appeal. So, I just wanted to clear that up a little bit. And then I noticed on the form from Mr.
28 Houts, there’s a different address…3721 Precision Drive, number 314, which is not the address
29 that we’ve been using in the past. So, I just wanted to make note that apparently the Precision
30 Drive is the more accurate, currant address. Dave, is that correct?
31 MR. HOUTS: Yes.
MR. GEBO: Okay. So, a little bit of background…on September 27
th
32 , the
33 Board…Building Review Board…met and heard case 04-2012, where it was staff requesting the
34 revocation of licenses from Mr. Houts for violations to the contractor’s license, and one was
35 disregard of permits and following processes and things. At that Board meeting, the Board did
36 act upon our revocation of both the contractor’s license and the certificate license for Mr. Houts.
37 This case today is review for reinstatement of his contractor’s license, and in accordance with
3
1 City Code, 15-162(E), when a license or supervisor’s certificate is revoked, the holder, therefore,
2 shall not be granted another license or supervisor’s certificate under this article without approval
3 of the Board. In deciding whether to approve a new such license or supervisor’s certificate, the
4 Board shall determine whether the applicant has demonstrated that any disciplinary actions that
5 have been taken against any contractor license or supervisor’s certificate currently or previously
6 held by the applicant, whether with the City or any other contractor licensing agency or
7 jurisdiction, have resulted in the rehabilitation of the applicant to good and disciplined character
8 for lawful conduct as a licensed contractor or certified supervisor as applicable. When the Board
9 suspends a license or supervisor’s certificate, the Board shall state the period of conditions of the
10 suspension. In this case, the Board has revoked the license, which is different than suspension.
11 Mr. Houts is requesting reinstatement of his supervisor’s certificate. We’ll let him talk
12 further on that I think. Mr. Houts is recommending further that he be allowed to continue work
13 on Sunrise Ridge, 5103 Daylight Court, which is the address of the violation for which we
14 actually brought him before the Board in September. And, if you remember, that was work
15 without a permit. It was actually footing and foundations installed prior to the development even
16 being approved, before we could even issue permits. So, it was…it was a violation. We have
17 placed a penalty fee of $3,458 to that address, so when that permit is ultimately issued and
18 obtained…that is twice the permit…it’s a duplex, so that’s why it’s twice what a standard
19 building permit for a house would be, because this is a duplex.
20 Mr. Houts indicated to me in a conversation that, if his license remains revoked…he is
21 the principal of this development, he’s kind of the owner, developer of the whole project…and
22 that…we talked a little bit about his involvement in that project. And, he still would have the
23 right to, you know, be involved in the sales and the development, he just would not be able to do
24 anything that would be under contractor, we would still need a contractor and a supervisor’s
25 certificate. We are working at licensing a Bogard Construction, which I believe is out of
26 California, and at this point, Bogard has requested a contractor’s license only, not a certificate
27 holder’s. I still need to visit with Mr.…with Bogard Construction out there to let them know that
28 we would still need a supervisor’s certificate for any work up here in Fort Collins.
29 So, at this point, there was no documentation for this request for reinstatement. So, I’m
30 assuming Mr. Houts will present his case verbally. And, I believe that’s all I have at this point.
31 MR. CRAM: Okay, so next procedure then is Mr. Houts has the opportunity to present
32 your facts and figures and whatever you’ve got to support your request.
33 MR. HOUTS: Thank you. I’m going to be brief. It’s been almost, it’s been three months
34 to the day since we were red tagged. Just want to make note of that. In November of 2011, this
35 major modification…make one more thing…the subdivision I was working within, Sunrise
36 Ridge Estates, was fully approved for permitting in December of 2006. The subdivision has
37 been alive and well, actually barely alive and not well, since then, but it was permitable (sic) as
4
1 of 2006. It comprised of five duplex lots and seven estate single-family lots. We all have some
2 attachment to the market and the industry, and we have experienced the great recession, as it’s
3 called. So, when we brought that product to market in the spring of ’07, it was a much different
4 place than it was today. Lots of personal drama, lots of personal challenges, divorces, loss of
5 property, and it’s not something that our industry…I’ve been spared of. I think our industry has
6 bore the brunt (sic) of this economic time. Regardless, we’re forced to carry on and do the best
7 we can do with the cards we’ve been dealt. During the course of the downtime, or the quiet time,
8 we made the observation that the lots should all be converted to a duplex variety, as they can
9 create patio homes, which there is a living, breathing, identifiable market for.
10 Before I continue, I want to make a couple different observations though. I was not here,
11 it was due to some unforeseen personal news that I was unavailable to attend and defend myself,
12 so I called Mike before the meeting. Did not get him personally, left him a voicemail. I called
13 back moments later to talk to somebody who would answer the phone. I was disconnected and
14 unable to call. I called Mike, Mr. Gebo, shortly after I was back in cell range, and he informed
15 me of your decision, apologized if it put me in a bad place, and said, let’s talk on Monday when
16 you’re through your issue, and we will figure out where we go from here. On Monday, when I
17 called to make that appointment, Mike had suffered his own personal setback and was…started
18 what turned out to be a two week leave. So, although Mr. Gebo reached out to me as a
19 professional and said, hey, we had to do what we had to do, but we’re not trying to leave you
20 high and dry, come and see me. He was unavailable for two weeks. Needless to say, in his two
21 weeks absence, the revocation of my license became a pretty hot topic in my subdivision, in my
22 building community, in my neighbors, amongst the building officials, and I was…there was no
23 one there to service my concerns other than the acting building official who admittedly said, I
24 really don’t know what to do in this case. All I can do is what I think I can do. I serviced a lot of
25 negative feedback because of the…of postings that were on site, that were on-line, on the
26 building permit. And, after several conversations with the acting, interim building official, some
27 adjustments were made, but those weren’t removed until Mike was back from his personal leave,
28 at which time he apologized and simply said, we never do this, our staff really doesn’t know how
29 to handle a license revocation. So, I apologize if it felt personal, it wasn’t intended to be that
30 way.
Mike, in the previous write-up that went out for the September 22
nd
…27
th
31 … I keep
32 saying Mike, I’ll refer to him as Mr. Gebo to be official. Mr. Gebo said two things in this write-
33 up that you guys reviewed and decided on that I want to call to attention. The first thing
34 identified…it was a personal comment about my character. It said, and I’m trying to find it, Mr.
35 Houts has been before the Building Review Board on numerous occasions for repeatedly
36 commencing construction of his projects before obtaining required permits…approvals and
37 permits. I don’t know if many is the right answer, and I don’t know repeatedly is the right word.
38 It’s happened, but it was neither repeatedly or numerous. There’s commentary here that
39 says…references that it seems to me that Mr. Houts would rather do what he wants and ask for
5
1 forgiveness than to abide by the rules. That’s just simply not true. That implies that my
2 character has no regard for authority, it implies that my character can sweet talk my way out of
3 anything, and that’s just not the case. As some of you may or may not be in the building
4 business, but things go wrong and you have to apologize for them. And, my…any previous
5 interactions with Mr. Gebo or his staff were honest and sincere apologies given because I messed
up, they weren’t some manipulative way. The staff recommendation from September 27
th
6
7 simply says, in my opinion, Mr. Houts has eroded that professionalism and trust to the extent that
8 any future projects will require significant staff oversight. That’s Mr. Gebo’s opinion, but it
9 certainly is called into my character again, professionalism and trust.
10 I said…the first thing I said when I walked up here is it has been three months since the
11 red tag has been put on that job. Three months in construction is a long time, three months in
12 construction after coming out of the economy we’ve been out of is an eternity. One of the
13 frustrations this building community is dealing with is the length of time it takes things to be
14 done administratively. It’s not an excuse; it’s simply a source of frustration. Case in point, it’s
15 taken three months to get here. Back to the time table, Mr. Gebo has identified that the project
16 was not approved. To be clear, the project was built in 2006 and permit-ready at that time, at the
17 end of 2006. During the course of the economic challenges, it was determined by the market and
18 my…other people involved with the subdivision, that we need to consider rezoning, rebuilding,
19 replatting, redefining the seven interior estate home lots to duplex lots. And, after careful
20 consideration of cost, facts, journeys, and so forth, it was decided that we should to that. The
21 developer took the reins and submitted in October of ’11, protocol or process an application for
22 review that the internal seven lots be converted to allow to be duplex lots. I was told, I didn’t see
23 the documentation, I was told by the developer, as of mid-November, the application had gotten
24 staff approval. I said okay, I was in the middle of finishing a model for this project. I told the
25 developer, as soon as we finish the model and we start selling, I’ll tackle the permitting and
26 related development issues on this application. That was in April of 2012. As soon as I got
27 involved, I realized that his staff approval was actually a staff support, and very little had been
28 done in the application. But, model was open and we were open for business and we were taking
29 orders. I’ve been working diligently on this conversion, if you will, of these estate lots to duplex
30 lots, since April. So, it’s seven months ago, we started. My first emails on the subject were
31 seven months ago. And, so, again, for clarity, it was not approved, but it was very much in the
32 works.
In July of this year, July 25
th
specifically, it might be the 25
th
, might be the 26
th
33 , I was
34 before the Board, before the staff, reapplying with all the detail of this conversion. And, actually
35 I think my plans were routed in the beginning of July. At the end of July, I was…I met with staff
36 and the staff had very few comments. And, again, they were uncommitted, but all but said the
37 staff supports this project. We’ll go through the hearing process, the public component, and
38 we…I would…I have no reason to believe this will not be approved. That was the end of July.
39 My hearing was…with the hearing officer as part of the development process, was scheduled for
6
first of August, and on August 20
th
1 , we were not approved, but it was a twelve minute meeting,
2 which all but approved us. And, while that was happening, the course of the summer, all the
3 enthusiasm that was around the subdivision in April and May was starting to wane because of
4 our inability to get the planning done and the permits pulled. July brought more, and by the end
5 of July, I was faced with losing a marketing team as well as customers. At that time, we had six
6 of these pre-sold. Bogard Construction, as an entity, was brought up earlier by Mr. Gebo.
7 During that time, I was actively negotiating a relationship with Bogard Construction with me to
8 work under their leadership. And, one of the conditions of that was, Dave, you’ve got to bring
9 work to the table. We can’t put you on payroll if you don’t have any work. So, that turned into a
10 conditional deal of employment if I could get Sunrise Ridge off and going.
11 Beginning of August, we were four months into this process that seemed to have about
12 six weeks left. I made a decision to dig a hole, and although if you look at the letter of the law,
13 letter of the building code, I was clearly in violation of the building code. But, it’s common
14 practice to dig a hole, as it’s hard to identify, are you digging a hole for exploration engineering,
15 or are you digging a hole for foundation. So, the building officials tend to leave you alone. And,
16 in an effort to show some progress, I dug a hole. And, I let that get away from me a little bit, and
17 I decided to continue some construction because I was only a few weeks away from having my
subdivision fully approved and permit ready. On the end of August…by August 20
th
18 , we
19 were…we had our hearing, we were told that Ted Shepard, who was my planner of record, called
20 me a couple days later, and he said, full steam ahead, I do not anticipate a yes or no, although it’s
21 not official until the hearing officer calls me. He traditionally calls me in a couple of days. So,
22 seventeen days later, two weeks and three days later, I got a call from Ted saying, believe it or
not, we finally got our yes. So, by Tuesday, September 5
th
23 , we were official. From that day
24 forward, and Mr. Gebo and Delynn can attest to this, I’ve been down in their office almost every
day since September 5
th
25 trying to hand-carry the metamorphosis of this approval to final permit
26 condition. I can say today, as of today, the subdivision has been fully approved and the major
27 modification has been signed and filed and is currently official. And, that happened yesterday
28 with a stamp. That concluded a seven month process that I was told would take six weeks.
29 So, I’m not here to be absolved or point fingers, but six weeks turned into seven months
30 and to come out of an economy that our industry has been coming out of, that was a very, very
31 long seven months. We have difficult decisions to make every day, and I knowingly started a
32 foundation before the building permit was issued, and in those criteria, I’m guilty. I want it to be
33 clear, I never misconstrued my permit status, I never compromised public safety, I never
34 compromised public interest, I never compromised bank interest, I never compromised owner
35 interest. Everything was done in and only for an effort for progress, progress that was greatly
36 needed for all people involved.
37 I brought out last agenda’s write-up for Mr. Gebo. I also wanted to go on record as
saying, on the 17
th
or 16
th
38 of August, when I was served the stop work order notice, Ron, whose
39 last name I don’t know. Mike, what’s Ron’s last name…Ron Carroll. Came in, I saw him, I
7
1 went right to Ron and said, sorry, the foundation’s right there. Do what you’ve got to do, and he
2 was distraught. He said, I hate doing this. He said, you guys are in a tough place, but I have to
3 do this, and he put the red tag on. And I said, Ron, it’s okay, do what you’ve got to do, I
4 understand. He said, you better go see Mike. I said okay. So, I called Mike instantly, left a
5 voicemail. I called him on two or three different occasions, and I say this, not pointing fingers
6 again, understanding that I needed to reach out to Mike. I was feeling a little sheepish, and I
7 thought, well, I’d like to talk to Mike first before I go and just show up. After a couple days of
8 unsuccessful, I went and saw Mike, he wasn’t in. I called a couple more times, no feedback.
9 Two weeks had gone by; I had no idea what was going to happen. I stopped, I cleaned up, it’s
10 like stopping a train, it doesn’t happen in a moment. I got to a logical location and stopped work.
11 Mike finally called me on a Friday and said, hey Dave, apparently some contact information we
12 have for you is inaccurate, can you come in, I’ve got to review some stuff with you. I knew then
13 he at least had to talk to me about what had happened. That was on a Friday, I think on
Monday…in fact it might have been on September 5
th
14 , Tuesday, I came in and he said, Dave, I
15 hate to do this to you, but you give me no choice to do this, so I got the information, I set down
16 with him and talked. And, he admitted frustration, he admitted that he can’t have rogue
17 contractors out there doing whatever they think they should do regardless of the circumstances,
18 and he had no choice but to put me before the Board. So, here I am.
19 As I said earlier, it’s been twelve weeks since I got my red tag, and it’s been a difficult
20 twelve weeks. I’ve had some work that was not under your jurisdiction that I kept busy with,
21 completed successfully a large remodel at CSU, as Bogard. Bogard has since hired me because
22 we’ve had immense success at Sunrise Ridge despite not pulling one building permit. We’ve
23 sold our first eight units, we’ve sold out…our first batch of homes were established as eight, they
24 all sold out and everyone’s anxiously awaiting permits so that we can get started. I can’t help
25 but to recognize Andrea Dunlap, I think you’ve actually been through the product, you know the
26 product.
27 The first few weeks, I was just mad, I was just mad that here we were again. I was
28 frustrated that, despite being a good person, as being someone of character, but being hungry, I
29 made a decision that has come back to sting me. I spend the middle weeks of that three month
30 period trying to figure out why it happened. You know, what code did I miss? I looked through
31 this large book from cover to cover figuring out, what did I miss here? On what grounds is the
32 City bringing me to trial? Couldn’t find anything. It kept referencing jurisdiction-driven. I
33 looked at the amendments, there’s nothing. I looked at all the information that I knew to look at
34 and there was no reference to violation enforcement that said, your license is in jeopardy, your
35 living is in jeopardy, and you may not be able to ever make a living in the city of Fort Collins
36 again. That was never anywhere. So, the first few weeks, as I said, I was frustrated. Why am I
37 here? The second…the middle weeks, I was spent figuring out why I was here, and I found
38 Article Five in the City Code.
8
1 And, Mike called it…he read the section that he read that identified the course of action if
2 a license was revoked. The middle weeks…I was preparing for this presentation for this meeting
3 that I was unable to attend. I looked through this, and I, literally, for the first time, saw my
4 violations. Whether that’s appropriate or inappropriate isn’t the point. For the first time, I read
5 Article Five that’s addressed to contractors and completely outlines consequences and reasons
6 for review. I noticed a couple things also while I was looking at that. Section 15-158 was titled
7 Applications: Review and Issuance. Prior to being issued any license or certificate specified in
8 this Article, all applicants for such license or certificate shall complete and submit to the
9 Building Official, an application containing the following information. And, it’s all standard
10 stuff, name, phone number, a written summary of product examples, disclosure of any
11 disciplinary action previously in this or any other jurisdiction. Which, by the way, my license
12 has never…has been held in multiple jurisdictions, including California, and has never been in
13 review, ever. And then at number four jumped out at me. Number four reads, a signed statement
14 by the applicant acknowledging the obligations associated with such license or certificate. It
15 jumped out at me like it was a snake. I’ll read it again, the signed statement by the applicant
16 acknowledging the obligations associated with such license or certificate. And I sat back in my
17 chair, and I said to myself, I have never seen this document. Mike and I have had a couple
18 different exchanges trying to figure out what to do, and I said, Mike, I’m not here to point figures
19 or to sidestep responsibility, but I’ve never signed a statement by the applicant acknowledging
20 the obligations associated with such license or certificate. So, I’ll first say this, I’m not here to
21 get my license back based on a technicality…someone had a bug on their shirt and unlawfully
22 recorded a conversation that implicated me and they can’t use it in court; I’m not here to say that.
23 I’m here to say, simply, I never signed any kind of disclosure saying I understood what you guys
24 were asking of me.
25 Then I told Mike, so I said, Mike, I said Mr. Gebo, and I call him Mike all the time, I
26 said, you know, whatever happens with me from this point forward, we have to sign an insurance
27 disclosure and we have to sign a legal immigrant disclosure, clearly stating that we are not hiring
28 illegal aliens, or illegal immigrants who aren’t lawfully in the state of Colorado or the country to
29 work. But, we don’t have to sign acknowledgement that we’ve read Article Five and we
30 understand it. And I said, I don’t care what happens to me Mike, I’d recommend that you add to
31 the disclosure list a document that says, all applicants are to read Article Five and acknowledge
32 that they understand it. I went on…I asked Mike, I said, Mike, did I ever see this, did I sign
33 something I never knew? And, he didn’t say yes or no, he found a copy of a letter that was
34 issued to me back in ’07 that said, here’s when your license was issued. And, Delynn doesn’t
35 know whether or not she sent out Article Five or not.
36 (UNIDENTIFIABLE RESPONSE FROM MS. DELYNN COLDIRON)
37 MR. HOUTS: It’s okay, I’m not saying you didn’t. I didn’t talk to you, Delynn, so I
38 wasn’t putting you on the spot. All I know, I never read this, so shame on me. I
39 looked…nowhere in the building link is there this. You have to go to…you have to go to City of
9
1 Fort Collins website and dive through City Code to find this document. And so, again, although
2 ignorance of the law doesn’t make you innocent, I think it’s important, if you’re going to hold
3 people accountable, to make sure that the information they’re going to be held accountable to is
4 always available. And I looked long and hard and it’s not on any link related to the Building
5 Department and it’s not on any link related to contractor licensing. But, here’s the most…I’ve
6 said a bunch of stuff just to give you guys some background. Mike asked me, what should I send
7 out? And, what…Dave, if you want anything hard copy to be a part of the review process, you
8 better get it here so we can give it to the folks. I said…I have nothing to say, I’m guilty. I can’t
9 give you any evidence to say I wasn’t guilty. So, I’ll bring my story. So, I spent a lot of
10 time…spent about, I timed myself, spent about twenty-five minutes explaining background. I
11 said this to Mike, and Mike will confirm…Mike, until I read this, I didn’t understand to the
12 extent that you guys…I didn’t understand the extent of the responsibility that you are bestowing
13 upon me when you gave me a building license. I said, I just didn’t. And I said, we can be
14 pragmatic and we can disclose accountability so we’re never in that place again. But, I would
15 recommend…make it recommended mandated disclosure reading for every applicant so they
16 understand the responsibilities that are required when getting licensed in the City of Fort Collins.
17 Mike agreed, there’s been some commentary about whether I did or didn’t get this
18 document…that’s come up. That was signed, when? Last year. I’m not saying that I’ve never
19 seen this, I don’t remember…I’m talking to you from my core. I don’t remember ever seeing
20 this. And, I do know…I think it’s interesting that we have to sign an affidavit disclosing that we
21 clearly acknowledge that we’re not hiring illegal immigrants, but that same document’s not
22 forced us to sign this. And, I think it’s something that we should consider as a building
23 community so everyone knows the rules. And, most importantly, everyone knows the
24 responsibility that we’re supposed to carry out.
25 Mike aptly read the paragraph giving you guys the parameters to evaluate the
26 reinstatement, or a reissuing. Like people with history, they get good at telling people what they
27 want to hear. And, the proof’s in the pudding. I clearly have to show that I have a rehabilitated
28 character and I can be a lawful license-holding contractor or certificate holder. Quite frankly,
29 there’s nothing I can say that’s going to show you whether I’m rehabilitated or not. You’re
30 going to simply see it if I do it, and if you don’t reinstate any licenses then you’ll never know.
31 And I…rehabilitation is a large word. It seems to imply significant character metamorphosis. I
32 don’t know that it’s…doesn’t feel applicable to my violation. But, I will simply say, when I read
33 this to try to figure out why I was here, it was clear for the first time what the City expected of
34 me in carrying out responsibilities as a licensed professional. I alluded to my Bogard
35 relationship. At the time when I made the decision to dig a hole and nudge along progress just in
36 a hope to give people enough progress to not bail, I was in negotiations with an employment
37 relationship with Bogard. That currently is in place and I’m now an employee of Bogard
38 Construction. I…whatever I do with the City of Fort Collins, or any other jurisdiction, will be
39 done under their general contractor license, whatever it may be. And, my supervisory role will
40 be administered under them with their umbrella, insurances and so on. And any behaviors that I
10
1 am in charge of not only put my certificate in jeopardy, but that of a company who believed in
2 me during a time when growth expansion and business development’s pretty lean. So, again,
3 time will tell if I’m rehabilitated. I feel funny saying that, but there’s…I’m moving forward with
4 a clear understanding of what responsibility I have is. But, even as importantly, it’s not just my
5 license that I’m putting at risk if I don’t follow the protocol and the systems that the City has
6 outlined.
7 I did not ask for an appeal, I did not ask for a reinstatement. I asked for an opportunity to
8 tell you my side of the story. And, I’m asking for some grace to go move forward and make a
9 living. This subdivision I’ve been attached to for four years and it’s been through a lot, and
10 we’re finally at a place now where the market likes it and we have an opportunity to turn it into
11 something. We have…for three years it sat as vacant lots waiting to be mowed. We’ve seen
12 them all over town. One by one, they’re starting to get integrated and worked, and this is one of
13 those. I didn’t ask for full reinstatement of my general contracting license because, at the time,
14 it’s obvious…my history here, that I don’t have the administrative support around me to do
15 things the way you require me to. That’s why I’ve offered my services for hire through Bogard
16 Construction. I didn’t even ask for my unconditional receipt of my supervisor’s certificate, I
17 simply asked for a chance to show worthiness. So, specifically I’m requesting that the Board
18 consider issuance of a supervisory certificate to match my previous qualifications which was C2,
19 only for the management of Sunrise Ridge for the course of one year. I asked my application to
20 be reviewed by staff so I wouldn’t have to sit before you again and I saw that Mr. Gebo declined
21 and said that we have no opinion, we have no recommendation, but we will say that if Mr.
22 Houts’ supervisory certificate was to be released as unconditional, that it would be your call. So,
23 that’s all I have.
24 CHAIRMAN CRAM: Thank you. Next phase, then, is City staff has the opportunity to
25 ask the respondent any questions.
26 MR. HOUTS: I’m sorry, Mike, before you do that, I want to add one thing. My family
27 goes back with the Bogard family about fifty-five years. It’s a very highly regarded, integrity-
28 filled company of great character. We’ve been in business since 1947 and I’m honored that
29 they’ve given me the opportunity. We…when this all, as was all part of the plan, we were going
30 to review Bogard’s license in the spring and summer and make sure it was all consistent to what
31 we’re trying to do and how we’re trying to do it. I turned in, I think…Delynn, five weeks ago,
32 four weeks ago, three weeks ago? I’m not sure, I think it was middle of October, my formal,
33 complete application. Actually, I turned in Bogard’s application…Jared Bogard’s, one of the
34 principals. And, we’ve given the Building Department six applicable projects to be reviewed.
35 Delynn contacted me earlier this week and said that two were good for a B status, one was good
36 for…two were good for an E status, and one was incomplete. Yesterday, I submitted another
37 example that I think is complete and I asked her to review it and get back to me and I have not
38 heard. I say all that to say, we’re trying to honor the process, we’re trying to catch up Bogard.
11
1 Bogard has been…is currently in application for a corporate general contracting license, of
2 which local supervisory certificates can be posted to supervise work on their behalf.
3 CHAIRMAN CRAM: Mike, go ahead.
4 MR. GEBO: Excuse me, thank you. I’ll be real quickly…under 15-158, Application
5 Review and Issuance, the actual wording is, prior to being issued any license or certificate
6 specified by this article, all applicants for such license or certificate shall complete and submit to
7 the building official an application containing the following information. Item number four, a
8 signed statement by the applicant acknowledging the obligations associated with such license or
9 certificate. So, it’s a document that they submit to us as part of their application, not that we
10 have to have one for the applicant to sign. That’s not a bad idea; I think we’ll look at how do I
11 make sure that everybody in fact has offered this document to us. So, I did take that, but it’s
12 really up to the applicant to provide that information to us. As part of any license packet, once a
13 license has been reviewed and granted, the license package is then mailed off to the applicant
14 with accompanying documentation. And, every time, every license, we duplicate a letter that
15 talks about, congratulations, you’ve been approved for your license. Oh, by the way, required
16 permits…permits are required in accordance with City Code. In bolded letter, it is the
17 responsibility of the contractor to assure that a permit has been obtained. So, the information
18 that we give with the approved license is this letter that welcomes them to Fort Collins and
19 outlines some of the basic requirements. In addition, we send the contractor’s license article,
20 right out of the Code, as part of this package. So, not only have you been approved for your
21 license, here’s some base information, be mindful, you’re required to follow these, and here’s the
22 contractor’s license by which we do with it. Now, do I want another document that says, yes,
23 I’ve read it, yes, I’ve understood it? I’m not sure that that’s my responsibility. I think it’s my
24 responsibility to make sure that they have the information that they need, and I think we do
25 provide that. So, that would be the extent of my follow-up I think.
26 CHAIRMAN CRAM: Just a second, has the City any further questions,
27 comments…Delynn?
28 MS. DELYNN COLDIRON: Well, I guess the only other thing, I think what was
29 intended to, in the article was….in the application form that they sign, there is this statement that
30 says, I have read and agree to abide by the requirements contained in the contractor packet. It
31 gives a subset of the information, maybe not the complete article, but they don’t…they don’t
32 actually get the actual ordinance until after their application has been approved. But, this is part
33 of the signature, if you will, that we get from people that has alerted them to the processes and
34 the procedures to get your license and to abide by those things, and then we follow-up afterwards
35 with these things. So, I guess the only other thing that I would add is in Houts’ case, we’ve done
36 it twice, because he got the information as part of his D license, when he initially got his license
37 with the City, and we also have record that he got it again with his C2 license. And then, I guess,
38 every time he’s come to the Board, there’s also been a review of those requirements within the
12
1 licensing ordinance as well. So, I think we’ve reviewed that information with Mr. Houts several
2 times over the course of these cases.
3 CHAIRMAN CRAM: Any other staff comments? Then…
4 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY PAUL ECKMAN: I would just ask maybe a question of
5 Mr. Houts, in arguing regarding paragraph four that you had never signed a statement, and given
6 the fact that that statement needs to be signed prior to the issuance of a license, are you arguing
7 that your license was void at the beginning because of the lack of that statement?
8 MR. HOUTS: So, I want to be very clear. I am not here to get grace based on a
9 technicality. I am not here to call anybody out. I am here to take full responsibility for my
10 violating City Code. My point in bringing that up was, I talked to a predominant construction
11 manager in town, half of you may know him by name. He is the most integrity-filled human
12 being I know. I’ve…we’ve worked together before. I told him my plight, and he said this…he
13 said, you know what, when you told me your story, I looked through my files. And, I didn’t
14 have Article Five. And, I read it, and I thought to myself, I have never read this. I’m not
15 bringing that up in any way, shape, or form, to again point to anybody but us. And, he said, man,
16 we’re in the heat of battle, our business is hard, we’re signing things left and right. We should
17 pay attention to what we’re signing and take note of what we’re signing and understand what
18 we’re signing. And, in the heat of battle waiting for building permits and…customers yelling at
19 us and we’re just trying to get signatures down so we can get our building permit. We probably
20 need to take that a little more seriously. That was my point in bringing that up. I never…I want
21 to make this very clear…I have never marched into the office, I’ve never disregarded or
22 disrespected any official. I’ve always honored their authority. I’ve never called anybody out.
23 Needless to say, I don’t know that that’s been reciprocated to the building community. I’ve dealt
24 with many building inspectors that are less than objective, but that’s just the business of working
25 with authority. So, I want to say, to your issue, Paul, I am not asking for reinstatement because
26 of a technicality. That’s not my point, I want you guys to hear that loud and clear. I brought that
27 up simply to say this process, again, caused me to look at this and read it for the first time. If it’s
28 something that comes out of this, whether I get my ability to work again or not, I understand the
29 responsibility that you’re requiring of us when you license a professional here.
30 CHAIRMAN CRAM: Staff, any further questions of the respondent?
31 MR. GEBO: No, thank you.
32 CHAIRMAN CRAM: Okay, so now we are back to the respondent, Mr. Houts. You may
33 ask questions of the City staff.
34 MR. HOUTS: I don’t know that I have any more questions. Mr. Gebo, the human part of
35 him, saw the human part of me when this all started happening, and he said, with understanding,
36 Dave, I’m sorry. I don’t want to put anybody out of business or cause financial hardship. That’s
13
1 not my intent. It’s my intent to keep you builders from doing things you’re not supposed to be
2 doing. It’s my intent to govern this office as I’m supposed to. Mike, can I…is that the gist of
3 our conversation?
4 MR. GEBO: Yes it is, I’ll agree with that.
5 MR. HOUTS: So, needless to say, and I didn’t…I’m a man, I’m prepared to take
6 responsibility for my actions and be held for…be held accountable. But, I am asking…one more
7 thing I want to say.
8 CHAIRMAN CRAM: Mr. Houts, do you have any further questions of the City.
9 MR. HOUTS: No.
10 CHAIRMAN HOUTS: Okay, then it goes back to the City. Do you have any further
11 questions of Mr. Houts?
12 MR. GEBO: No, sir.
13 CHAIRMAN CRAM: Then, we are back to Mr. Houts. We’re playing ping-pong here I
14 think. Do you have any further questions of the City?
15 MR. HOUTS: No.
16 CHAIRMAN CRAM: Okay, so at this point then, City staff, you have your chance to
17 make your closing statements.
18 MR. GEBO: Well, as…you know, I’m distraught here, as well as probably any of you
19 sitting on the Board, as to trying to decide the fate of an individual and his business. This
20 is…I’m not real comfortable saying we should cut him off completely. I would like to say that
21 there’s…there’s got to be some way to express the understanding of what we do, and the
22 importance of what we do and how we do it, and it’s up….it’s really the Board’s decision I think
23 as to how far we take that. I just…and, I’ll agree, when Dave and I met…and I’ll call you Dave
24 instead of Mr. Houts, because I think we’re closer than that, but…I don’t think my intent was to
25 drive someone out of town or to drive someone away, but to make very clear that we’re…we’re
26 absolutely serious about what we’re doing. And, if there’s something on the City side that we
27 can do to help get that word out, and get that understanding out that this is really very serious,
28 then I think maybe we should do that. Maybe we should look at, how do we change something
29 to get that word out. But, I…I’m just real uncomfortable recommending one way or another here
30 on this, it’s just, it’s problematic for me I think at this point. So, I think that’s all I’ll say. I’ll be
31 glad to answer any questions.
32 CHAIRMAN CRAM: Mr. Houts, do you have any closing comments?
14
1 MR. HOUTS: I jumped ahead a moment ago, I was about to make my closing comment,
2 not knowing I would have a chance. My request is clear, I’m asking for conditional issuance of a
3 supervisory certificate to be governed under the general contractor license of Bogard
4 Construction. I do not take that lightly…it’s a company that’s been in business, third generation,
5 for forty-seven years. That’s impressive in and of itself. And, I would be of compromised
6 character if I did anything to jeopardize a relationship with such an upstanding company. This
7 whole thing has been about character. I’m here because Mike needs to know that professionals
8 carrying out responsibilities of general contracting are doing it in an ethical and character-filled
9 way. And, I think I am a man of great character, but in times that have been difficult, things
10 aren’t really as white…black and white as they used to be. We have difficult decisions to make
11 every day. I’m asking…I’m adding to the observations alluded to…the amount of hardship that
12 would be caused by my inability to work here would be great. So, I’m asking you for this
13 conditional issuance as an opportunity.
14 CHAIRMAN CRAM: Okay, at this point the Board may ask questions of the respondent,
15 or witnesses, or City staff. Board, do you have any questions of any of those two entities, since
16 there’s no witnesses? Jeff?
17 MR. JEFFREY SCHNEIDER: For staff, I just want to clarify that the rezoning of the
18 subdivision is approved at this point?
19 MR. GEBO: It is my understanding, yes.
20 MR. SCHNEIDER: Okay, thank you. And then I guess, where does Bogard’s license
21 stand at this point?
22 MS. COLDIRON: They…they do have enough to get their B license back. But, at this
23 point don’t have a supervisor.
24 MR. SCHNEIDER: Okay, thank you.
25 CHAIRMAN CRAM: Any discussion amongst the Board? Then, does anybody wish to
26 make findings of fact?
27 UNIDENTIFIED BOARDMEMBER: Point of clarification, there’s no findings of fact.
28 We’re just deliberating if his license, or I’m sorry certificate holder, is to be reinstated or not.
29 And, I guess one other clarification is C2 supervisor certificate can go with a B company, but
30 can’t do all the B work.
31 MS. COLDIRON: True.
32 UNIDENTIFIED BOARDMEMBER: So, I don’t know if there’s finding of fact is there?
33 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: I think the only finding that I can see in this
34 Section 15-162(E) would be that you might want to entertain that making a finding as to whether
15
1 the applicant…you know this language in here…whether the applicant has demonstrated that any
2 disciplinary action taken against them has resulted in the rehabilitation of the applicant to good
3 and disciplined character for lawful conduct as a licensed contractor. You might want to make
4 that finding in your motion, something to that effect.
5 CHAIRMAN CRAM: Anyone wish to make any motion at this point? Basically, what
6 we’ve been appraised of is…you know, has there been rehabilitation such that the license
7 could…the certificate could be reinstated? And that would be a finding of fact. So, either there
8 is evidence of rehabilitation or there is not. So, the finding of fact is one way or the other as I
9 would read it.
10 UNIDENTIFIED BOARDMEMBER: I would offer…I don’t know how we know if
11 there’s rehabilitation, I guess the only thing we can offer is that perhaps now that he is more…he
12 has had a chance, or he says that he’s read that article for the first time, that he is now in more
13 understanding than he was before of what his responsibilities are under his contractor license, so
14 I would maybe state that that’s some show of rehabilitation since last time…I don’t know.
15 UNIDENTIFIED BOARDMEMBER: I guess my only comment is that, this is the
16 seventh appearance in front of the Board for similar actions.
17 MR. HOUTS: I disagree with that, by the way.
18 UNIDENTIFIED BOARDMEMBER: June…I’m not going to get into it. There’s six,
19 this is the seventh appearance in front of the Building Review Board since June of 2007 for
20 issues. And, for similar types of actions, moving forward without inspections or permits or what
21 have you. And, I think, just in three months, I don’t see how someone can get rehabilitated, just
22 because they haven’t worked in the City. So, I appreciate what you’re saying, I just…I don’t
23 know how three months can cure since June of 2007 to current, same type of similar issues.
24 MR. HOUTS: Can I comment or is it out of protocol?
25 CHAIRMAN CRAM: Not at this point.
26 UNIDENTIFIED BOARDMEMBER: If we go back to 2007 with Raven View. Here we
27 are started a building project without a permit, all the way up to the most current one, where not
28 only was it started, foundation was poured, plumbing in place in the basement, and gravel
29 backfill, obvious intent is to continue the project. So, I look at it and see there are three very
30 distinct situations that are almost identical…improper conduct. And, I’m not seeing…I hear
31 what he’s saying, but I’m not in a position where I feel like that tells me that he is in fact
32 rehabilitated and he’s not going to come before the Board again because he made another
33 mistake. I would like to hear finding of fact that in fact that he has not been able to show that he
34 is in fact rehabilitated…that the revocation of the certificate as well as the license should stand.
35 So, I’ll make that as a motion. Can I have a second please?
16
1 MS. ANDREA DUNLAP: I’ll second.
2 UNIDENTIFIED BOARDMEMBER: Thank you, Andrea.
3 MS. COLDIRON: Smith?
4 MR. GEORGE SMITH: Yes.
5 MS. COLDIRON: Dunlap?
6 MS. DUNLAP: Yes.
7 MS. COLDIRON: Schneider?
8 MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes.
9 MS. COLDIRON: Cram?
10 CHAIRMAN CRAM: Yes.
11 MS. COLDIRON: Reider?
12 MR. RICK REIDER: Yes.
13 MS. COLDIRON: Lenoch?
14 MR. TOREY LENOCH: Yes.
15 MS. COLDIRON: Montgomery?
16 MR. JUSTIN MONTGOMERY: Yes.
17 CHAIRMAN CRAM: So, finding of fact says that, at this point, there is no clear
18 evidence of a rehabilitation. So, the next phase then is to step in and make a determination of
19 what’s an appropriate action and it pretty much has been covered in the motion, and that is that
20 the revocation of the license and the certificate will stand. But, I would like to have a motion to
21 that to clarify that that is the action of the Board.
22 UNIDENTIFIED BOARDMEMBER: Well, before I make the motion, I just want to say,
23 Mr. Houts, your integrity, your building…your command of the building code is not in question
24 here. We as a Building Review Board are tasked with protecting the public interests, and you as
25 a contractor are tasked with protecting the interest of principals involved, subcontractors, banks,
26 clients, et cetera, and we understand that. Most of us here are contractors and we understand
27 dealing with permits, dealing with administrative officials can bring frustration, and we’ve all
28 dealt with that as well. However, I think as many times as you’ve been in front of this Board,
29 and this is the first time…this is the second time I’ve dealt with a case with your name on it, and
30 I’ve only been here for a short time. I think there shows a pretty large lack of respect for the
17
1 building codes that are in place. And, because of that, I want to file a motion to uphold the
2 revocation of your license, general contractor license C2-119, your supervisor’s certificate 2646-
3 C2, and supervisor’s certificate 2646-C2Z.
4 CHAIRMAN CRAM: Do we have a second to the motion?
5 UNIDENTIFIED BOARDMEMBER: Second.
6 MS. COLDIRON: Smith?
7 MR. SMITH: Yes.
8 MS. COLDIRON: Dunlap?
9 MS. DUNLAP: Yes.
10 MS. COLDIRON: Schneider?
11 MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes.
12 MS. COLDIRON: Cram?
13 CHAIRMAN CRAM: Yes.
14 MS. COLDIRON: Reider?
15 MR. REIDER: Yes.
16 MS. COLDIRON: Lenoch?
17 MR. LENOCH: Yes.
18 MS. COLDIRON: Montgomery?
19 MR. MONTGOMERY: Yes
20 CHAIRMAN CRAM: So, that closes the application. Mr. Houts, I do wish you the best
21 of luck, and maybe you can find a way to work around this.
22
23
24
25
26
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: February 15, 2013
To: Building Review Board
From: Jessica Ping-Small, Revenue and Project Manager
Subject: Capital Improvement Expansion Fee Update
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.
Background
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
Community Park Fees.
The item was discussed at a City Council Work Session on February 12th and first reading of the
ordinance will be on June 4th.
Enclosures:
Draft Fee Study
Power Point Presentation
1
Capital Improvement
Expansion Fee Update
Building Review Board
February 28, 2013
2
Capital Improvement Expansion
Fee Overview
• Background
• Definitions
• Methodology
• Fee Overview
• Fees by type
• Revenue Analysis
• Public Outreach
• Conclusions
3
Fees Included in Update
• Neighborhood Parks
• Community Parks
• Fire
• Police
• General Government
4
Background
• Capital Improvement Expansion Fees are used to
require new developments to pay a proportionate share
of infrastructure costs
• 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
5
Definitions
• Incremental Expansion: Methodology used for calculating
capital expansion fees based on current level of service
• Level of Service (LOS): Ratio of the replacement cost of
existing facilities to existing service units
• Service Unit: A common or standardized measure of the
demand for the type of facility in question
• Functional Population: The number of people present at a
land use expressed in full time equivalents – the service unit
used for fire, police and general government
• Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU): The ratio of the average
household size of a dwelling type to the average household
size of the typical single-family detached unit – the service
unit used for parks
6
Methodology
• Largely unchanged from 1996 study – retained incremental
expansion approach
• Continued use of functional population for Police, Fire and
General Government but simplified formula
• Updated Park fees to be based on average # of residents in a
dwelling unit vs. population directly – eliminates need to
consider vacancy rates
• Updated household size data
• Updated all formula inputs including current asset info
Current update retains overall methodology of 1996 study.
7
Fees – Overview
What’s Driving the Changes?
• Inputs to the calculations that include:
Updated inventory of existing capital facilities
Updated determination of current 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 to Community Parks and 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.
8
Fees – Overview
• Neighborhood and Community Park fees are
increasing for smaller units and decreasing for
larger units
• Fire, Police and General Government fees are
increasing
• Net residential fees increasing except for largest
units
• Net Commercial/Industrial fees are increasing
9
Updated Fee Schedule
• Parks fees have been updated since the January 14th Council
Finance Meeting
• Trail portion of fees have been updated to include:
Design
Engineering
Construction Management
Land acquisition
• Cost per acre of raw parkland has been updated from $20K per
acre to $30K per acre
• Updated fees changing from a 5% average increase to a 15%
average increase.
10
Fee Overview
N'hood Comm. Gen.
Land Use Type Unit Park Park Fire Police Gov't Total
Current Fees
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $920 $1,023 $110 $74 $139 $2,266
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,302 $1,451 $157 $107 $197 $3,214
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,531 $1,704 $183 $127 $231 $3,776
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,759 $1,961 $211 $145 $267 $4,343
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,142 $2,385 $257 $177 $324 $5,285
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $0 $0 $225 $157 $252 $634
Industrial 1,000 sq. ft. $0 $0 $62 $43 $70 $175
Updated Fees
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,181 $1,475 $260 $128 $300 $3,344
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,515 $1,893 $331 $162 $384 $4,285
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,674 $2,091 $366 $180 $423 $4,734
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,744 $2,179 $381 $187 $443 $4,934
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,868 $2,333 $408 $200 $475 $5,284
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $0 $0 $314 $154 $730 $1,198
Industrial 1,000 sq. ft. $0 $0 $75 $37 $171 $283
Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $261 $452 $150 $54 $161 $1,078
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $213 $442 $174 $55 $187 $1,071
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $143 $387 $183 $53 $192 $958
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling -$15 $218 $170 $42 $176 $591
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling -$274 -$52 $151 $23 $151 -$1
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $0 $0 $89 -$3 $478 $564
Industrial 1,000 sq. ft. $0 $0 $13 -$6 $101 $108
Percent Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 28% 44% 136% 73% 116% 48%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 16% 30% 111% 51% 95% 33%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 9% 23% 100% 42% 83% 25%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling -1% 11% 81% 29% 66% 14%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling -13% -2% 59% 13% 47% 0%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. n/a n/a 40% -2% 190% 89%
Industrial 1,000 sq. ft. n/a n/a 21% -14% 144% 62%
11
Neighborhood & Community
Park Fees
• Key Factors:
Service Units based on housing units or equivalent
dwelling units (EDU) – the average # of people in a
dwelling unit
Fees are increasing for smaller units
Fees are decreasing for larger units due to findings
that larger units have fewer people than 1996 study
• Trails – included in fee calculations which is a
change from original study
Basing fee structure on equivalent dwelling units eliminates
the need to consider occupancy rates which are variable.
12
Neighborhood/Community Park Fees
Change in number of people in larger units driving down fees.
Current Fee Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type Unit per Unit per Unit Change
Neighborhood Parks
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $920 $1,181 28%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,302 $1,515 16%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,531 $1,674 9%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,759 $1,744 -1%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,142 $1,868 -13%
Community Parks
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,023 $1,475 44%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,451 $1,893 30%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,704 $2,091 23%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,961 $2,179 11%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,385 $2,333 -2%
Total Parks
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,943 $2,656 37%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,753 $3,408 24%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $3,235 $3,765 16%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $3,720 $3,923 5%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $4,527 $4,201 -7%
13
Community Park Fees Including the Trail Fee
Community Park Fees Not Including the Trail Fee
Current Fee Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type Unit per Unit per Unit Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,023 $1,475 44%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,451 $1,893 30%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,704 $2,091 23%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,961 $2,179 11%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,385 $2,333 -2%
Current Fee Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type Unit per Unit per Unit Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,023 $ 1,001 -2%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,451 $ 1,285 -11%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,704 $ 1,419 -17%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,961 $ 1,479 -25%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,385 $ 1,584 -34%
14
Fire Capital Improvement Fees
• Two most common methodologies:
Calls for Service
Functional Population – current and recommended
method
• Fees increasing for both residential and commercial
units
• Service Unit calculated by dividing total cost of existing
facilities and equipment by functional population or
$208 per service unit
Fees increasing due to updated inputs to functional population
calculations and updated asset information.
15
Proposed Fire Fees
Fee Comparison
Func. Pop. Net Cost/ Net Cost/
Land Use Type Unit per Unit Func. Pop. Unit
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.25 $208 $260
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.59 $208 $331
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.76 $208 $366
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.83 $208 $381
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.96 $208 $408
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. 1.51 $208 $314
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 0.36 $208 $75
Current Fee Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type Unit per Unit per Unit Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $110 $260 136%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $157 $331 111%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $183 $366 100%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $211 $381 81%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $257 $408 59%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $225 $314 40%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $62 $75 21%
16
Police Capital Improvement Fees
• Functional population methodology retained –same as
Fire
• Fees increasing for residential with a slight decrease for
commercial and industrial units
• Service Unit calculated by dividing total cost of existing
facilities and equipment by functional population or
$102 per service unit
• Facility assets assumes 25% excess capacity for police
facility
Fees increasing due to updated inputs to functional population
calculations and updated asset information.
17
Proposed Police Fees
Fee Comparison
Func. Pop. Net Cost/ Net Cost/
Land Use Type Unit per Unit Func. Pop. Unit
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.25 $102 $128
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.59 $102 $162
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.76 $102 $180
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.83 $102 $187
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.96 $102 $200
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. 1.51 $102 $154
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 0.36 $102 $37
Current Fee Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type Unit per Unit per Unit Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $74 $128 73%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $107 $162 51%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $127 $180 42%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $145 $187 29%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $177 $200 13%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $157 $154 -2%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $43 $37 -14%
18
General Government Fees
• Retained Functional Population methodology
• Service Unit calculated by dividing total cost of existing
facilities and equipment by functional population or
$323 net cost per service unit (includes existing debt
credit)
• Fees increasing for both residential and commercial
• Streets capital inventory included in updated fee study
Fees increasing more for commercial and smaller residential units.
19
Proposed General Government Fees
Fee Comparison
Func. Pop. Net Cost/ Net Cost/
Land Use Type Unit per Unit Func. Pop. Unit
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.93 $323 $300
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.19 $323 $384
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.31 $323 $423
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.37 $323 $443
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.47 $323 $475
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. 2.26 $323 $730
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 0.53 $323 $171
Current Fee Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type Unit per Unit per Unit Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $139 $300 116%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $197 $384 95%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $231 $423 83%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $267 $443 66%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $324 $475 47%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $252 $730 190%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $70 $171 144%
20
Single-Family Building Permit Data
Larger unit permits have steadily declined in the last 10 years.
21
Annual Revenue Impact Analysis – 10 yr. Avg.
Unit Type*
Current Fees
Based
on 10 Year
Permit
Average
Proposed Fees Based
on 10 Year Permit
Average
Percent
Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. $28,098 $41,465 48%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft.
755,932 1,007,832 33%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft.
1,046,707 1,312,264 25%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. 692,274 786,479 14%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft.
873,082 872,916 0%
Commercial 271,292 512,632 89%
Industrial 4,249 6,872 62%
Total $3,671,637 $4,540,463 24%
*Units include both single and multifamily dwellings for residential
22
Annual Revenue Impact Analysis – 2012 Actuals
Unit Type*
Current Fees
Based on
2012 Permit
Data
Proposed Fees Based
on 2012 Permit Data
Percent
Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. $0 $0 0%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft.
1,099,188 1,465,470 33%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft.
1,989,952 2,494,818 25%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. 929,402 1,055,876 14%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft.
317,100 317,040 0%
Commercial 10,398 19,647 89%
Industrial 21,829 35,301 62%
Total $4,367,869 $5,388,152 23%
*Units include both single and multifamily dwellings for residential
23
Fee Comparison – Residential
and substantial of the Capital Expansion fee mix in Northern Colorado.
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
Fire
Police
General Government
24
Fee Comparison - Commercial/Industrial*
Commercial
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Industrial
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
$-
$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
*Longmont’s General Government fee is a flat $375
*Commercial/Industrial fees approximated based on varied
multipliers and unique city classifications
25
Fund Balance Analysis
Fund Balance As of 12/31/12
Neighborhood Parks $5,580,000*
Community Parks $8,750,000**
Fire $190,000
Police $960,000
General Government $6,030,000***
*Neighborhood Parks - $1.8M in offers funded in the 2013-2014 budget
**Community Parks - $1.3M in offers funded in the 2013-2014 budget
***General Government - $5.0M on loan to the URA for N. College Marketplace
and JAX
26
Public Outreach
ENTITY DATE
Council Finance Committee January 14
Chamber of Commerce January 25
Affordable Housing Board February 7
Board of Realtors/Homebuilders
Association
February 12
Council Work Session February 12
Economic Advisory Committee February 20
Building Review Board February 28
City Council Regular Meeting – June 4
27
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 Community Park fees
substantially
• Staff will recommend codifying comprehensive review
every 3-5 years
Capital Expansion Fee Study
for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado
prepared by
February 2013
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 1
Background....................................................................................................................................... 1
Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 1
Demand Factors .............................................................................................................................. 1
Comparative Fees ............................................................................................................................ 2
PARKS .................................................................................................................................................. 4
Service Units ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Cost per Service Unit ...................................................................................................................... 5
Net Cost per Service Unit .............................................................................................................. 7
Potential Fees ................................................................................................................................... 7
FIRE ...................................................................................................................................................... 9
Service Units ..................................................................................................................................... 9
Cost per Service Unit ...................................................................................................................... 9
Net Cost per Service Unit ............................................................................................................ 10
Potential Fees ................................................................................................................................. 10
POLICE .............................................................................................................................................. 12
Service Units ................................................................................................................................... 12
Cost per Service Unit .................................................................................................................... 12
Net Cost per Service Unit ............................................................................................................ 13
Potential Fees ................................................................................................................................. 14
GENERAL GOVERNMENT ....................................................................................................... 15
Service Units ................................................................................................................................... 15
Cost per Service Unit .................................................................................................................... 15
Net Cost per Service Unit ............................................................................................................ 16
Potential Fees ................................................................................................................................. 16
APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ................................................................................. 18
Average Household Size by Housing Types ............................................................................. 18
Average Household Size by Unit Size ........................................................................................ 19
Existing Housing Units by Type ................................................................................................. 21
APPENDIX B: FUNCTIONAL POPULATION ...................................................................... 22
Residential Functional Population .............................................................................................. 22
Nonresidential Functional Population ....................................................................................... 23
Total Functional Population ........................................................................................................ 24
List of Tables
Table 1. Current and Updated Capital Expansion Fees ................................................................ 3
Table 2. Park Service Unit Multipliers ............................................................................................. 4
Table 3. Park Service Units, 2012 ..................................................................................................... 4
Table 4. Existing Park and Trail Facilities ....................................................................................... 5
Table 5. Neighborhood Park Development Cost per Acre .......................................................... 5
Table 6. Community Park Development Cost per Acre ............................................................... 6
Table 7. Park Cost per Service Unit ................................................................................................. 7
Table 8. Potential Park Capital Expansion Fees............................................................................. 8
Table 9. Comparative Park Capital Expansion Fees ...................................................................... 8
Table 10. Existing Fire Stations ........................................................................................................ 9
Table 11. Existing Fire Cost per Service Unit .............................................................................. 10
Table 12. Potential Fire Capital Expansion Fees ......................................................................... 10
Table 13. Comparative Fire Fees .................................................................................................... 11
Table 14. Existing Police Vehicles .................................................................................................. 12
Table 15. Existing Police Cost per Service Unit ........................................................................... 13
Table 16. Police Debt Credit ........................................................................................................... 13
Table 17. Police Net Cost per Service Unit .................................................................................. 14
Table 18. Potential Police Capital Expansion Fees ...................................................................... 14
Table 19. Comparative Police Fees ................................................................................................ 14
Table 20. Existing General Government Facilities ...................................................................... 15
Table 21. General Government Cost per Service Unit ............................................................... 15
Table 22. General Government Debt Credit ................................................................................ 16
Table 23. General Government Net Cost per Service Unit ....................................................... 16
Table 24. Potential General Government Capital Expansion Fees ........................................... 16
Table 25. Comparative General Government Fees ..................................................................... 17
Table 26. Average Household Size, 2000 and 2010 ..................................................................... 18
Table 27. Average Household Size by Housing Type, 2000 ...................................................... 18
Table 28. Average Household Size by Housing Type, 2006-2010 ............................................ 19
Table 29. Change in Average Household Size, 2000-2010 ......................................................... 19
Table 30. Current Average Household Size by Housing Type .................................................. 19
Table 31. Average Household Size by Dwelling Unit Size, Western U.S., 2011 ..................... 20
Table 32. Dwelling Units by Housing Type, Fort Collins, 2000-2010 ...................................... 21
Table 33. Dwelling Units by Housing Type, Fort Collins, 2012 ................................................ 21
Table 34. Functional Population per Unit for Residential Uses ................................................ 23
Table 35. Functional Population per Unit for Nonresidential Uses ......................................... 24
Table 36. Existing Functional Population ..................................................................................... 24
Prepared by Duncan Associates
360 Nueces St., Suite 2701, Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 258-7347 x204, clancy@duncanassociates.com
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 1 February 1, 2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study provides the analysis required to update the City’s capital expansion fees for
neighborhood park, community park, fire, police and general government facilities. The City’s
capital expansion fees are impact fees that assess new developments for the proportionate share of
the cost of new capital facilities required to serve them at the same level of service provided to
existing development.
Background
The City’s capital expansion fees were originally adopted in June 1996, based on a study prepared by
City staff.1 The fees have been updated periodically to account for inflation, but have not been
comprehensively reevaluated in 16 years. The current community park fees are about 82% higher
than the ones originally calculated in 1996, while the fire, police and general government fees are
about 50% higher than originally calculated. The park fees were increased by 14% in 2000 to
include the cost of irrigation water and required Americans with Disabilities Act improvements.
Excluding this adjustment, the park fees were increased by 68% over the 16 year period to account
for inflation. By way of comparison, the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index increased
by 66% from June 1996 to June 2012.
Methodology
The same basic methodology employed in the 1996 study is retained in this update. The overall
methodology is known as “incremental expansion.” The incremental expansion methodology bases
the fees on the existing level of service. The concept behind the incremental expansion
methodology is simple: as a community grows, capital facilities and equipment will need to be
expanded proportional to the growth. The existing level of service, whether measured directly in
terms of cost per service unit or indirectly in terms of an intervening variable, such as acres of
parkland, is assumed to be adequate to serve existing development, but with little or no excess
capacity to serve growth (an exception in this update is that the new police station is estimated to
have about 25% excess capacity to serve future development).
Demand Factors
In impact fee analysis, the demand for services generated by different types of development must be
expressed in terms of a common measure, known as a service unit. For example, residential
population is a commonly-used service unit for park impact fees. For each land use type, the
number of service units expected to be generated by a unit of development is specified in what is
often called a demand equivalency table. In this table, for example, a new single-family detached
home may be determined to house an average number of residents.
Some changes have been made in this update in determining the service units and demand
equivalency tables. The park fees continue to be based on population, but rather than using
population directly, the number of people is translated into equivalent dwelling units, based on the
1 City of Fort Collins, Capital Expansion Cost Study, May 21, 1996.
Executive Summary
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 2 February 1, 2013
average number of residents in an occupied single-family detached unit. This approach has the
advantage of eliminating the need to consider occupancy rates, which can be quite variable over
time. Functional population is retained as the service unit for fire, police and general government
fees. Functional population represents the number of people present at a land use, expressed in full-
time equivalents.
While the service units are relatively unchanged, the methodology used to calculate the demand
equivalency tables have been modified somewhat in this update. The park fees are based on
dwelling unit size, expressed in square footage and divided into five size ranges (up to 700 square
feet, for example). To determine persons per unit by unit size, the 1996 study relied on census data,
which does not include information on the size of the dwelling unit. Since the census does provide
data on the number of bedrooms, bedrooms were used as an indicator of unit size. Building permit
data were analyzed to determine the relationship between bedrooms and square footage, and
regression analysis was used to determine persons by unit size ranges. This update relies on a single
data source, the American Housing Survey, that provides information on both number of residents
and unit size. Since the data provided by the American Housing Survey are regional (western United
States), the results have been adjusted to match the overall average household size in Fort Collins.
The basic functional population methodology used in the 1996 study was also used in this update. A
minor change was to simplify the calculation of functional population multipliers for nonresidential
land uses. The 1996 study calculated nonresidential functional population on a weekly basis, with
separate calculations for weekdays and weekends, while this update uses a daily approach based on a
typical weekday.
Comparative Fees
Current and updated capital expansion fees are shown in Table 1. As noted, this is the first
comprehensive update of the City’s capital expansion fees in 16 years. All of the inputs into the
calculation of fees were updated. This update included an inventory of existing capital facilities,
determination of current costs and identification of existing levels of service. Changes in costs and
levels of service, however, would cause fees to go up or down uniformly for all land use types.
Changes to inputs that would affect fees differently by land use type are related to the demand
equivalency tables discussed above. Changes to residential fees by unit size for all the fee types are
the result of utilizing a more direct data source for linking residents and unit size. This resulted in
less variation between the number of residents in the smallest and largest size ranges than was found
in the 1996 study. Consequently, the updated fees for smaller units increase more than fees for
larger units.
Fire and police tend to increase less for nonresidential than for residential units, while the opposite
is true for general government fees. This reflects changes in the functional population multipliers.
While the calculation of residential functional population is simple and unchanged from the previous
study, the calculation of nonresidential functional population requires many inputs, including trip
generation rates, average vehicle occupancy, employee density and average time spent at a land use.
Since the 1996 study did not specify what inputs were used, it is not possible to determine precisely
what input changes were responsible for the residential/nonresidential variability in the updated fees
compared to the current fees.
Executive Summary
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 3 February 1, 2013
The total of all five fees is higher than current fees for all land uses except for the largest residential
units. It should be kept in mind while that the percentage increases for nonresidential look high, the
nonresidential fees are relatively low. For example, the 89% increase for commercial equates to only
$0.56 more per square foot.
Table 1. Current and Updated Capital Expansion Fees
N'hood Comm. Gen.
Land Use Type Unit Park Park Fire Police Gov't Total
Current Fees
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $920 $1,023 $110 $74 $139 $2,266
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,302 $1,451 $157 $107 $197 $3,214
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,531 $1,704 $183 $127 $231 $3,776
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,759 $1,961 $211 $145 $267 $4,343
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,142 $2,385 $257 $177 $324 $5,285
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $0 $0 $225 $157 $252 $634
Industrial 1,000 sq. ft. $0 $0 $62 $43 $70 $175
Updated Fees
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,181 $1,475 $260 $128 $300 $3,344
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,515 $1,893 $331 $162 $384 $4,285
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,674 $2,091 $366 $180 $423 $4,734
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,744 $2,179 $381 $187 $443 $4,934
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,868 $2,333 $408 $200 $475 $5,284
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $0 $0 $314 $154 $730 $1,198
Industrial 1,000 sq. ft. $0 $0 $75 $37 $171 $283
Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $261 $452 $150 $54 $161 $1,078
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $213 $442 $174 $55 $187 $1,071
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $143 $387 $183 $53 $192 $958
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling -$15 $218 $170 $42 $176 $591
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling -$274 -$52 $151 $23 $151 -$1
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $0 $0 $89 -$3 $478 $564
Industrial 1,000 sq. ft. $0 $0 $13 -$6 $101 $108
Percent Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 28% 44% 136% 73% 116% 48%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 16% 30% 111% 51% 95% 33%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 9% 23% 100% 42% 83% 25%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling -1% 11% 81% 29% 66% 14%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling -13% -2% 59% 13% 47% 0%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. n/a n/a 40% -2% 190% 89%
Industrial 1,000 sq. ft. n/a n/a 21% -14% 144% 62%
Source: Current fees from City of Fort Collins, Annual Report of Development Impact Fees, Reported as of June 30, 2012;
updated fees from Table 8 (parks), Table 12 (fire), Table 18 (police) and Table 24 (general government).
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 4 February 1, 2013
PARKS
The City provides a number of public park facilities for the benefit of residents. This section
calculates updated community and neighborhood park capital expansion fees.
Service Units
The demand for City park facilities is generated by people. However, it is preferable to base the
service unit on housing units, since the number of housing units can be more easily determined than
the number of people, which is affected by highly variable occupancy rates. The proposed service
unit for the park impact fee update is an equivalent dwelling unit or EDU. An EDU represents the
average number of people living in a single-family detached dwelling unit. A single-family home is
by definition one park service unit. The number of service units associated with other types and
sizes of dwelling units is determined by dividing average household size of that housing type by the
average household size of a single-family unit. The resulting service unit multipliers are presented in
Table 2.
Table 2. Park Service Unit Multipliers
Average Single-Family EDUs/
Housing Type Unit HH Size Avg. HH Size Unit
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 2.76 2.76 1.00
Multi-Family Dwelling 1.85 2.76 0.67
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.86 2.76 0.67
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.38 2.76 0.86
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.62 2.76 0.95
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.73 2.76 0.99
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.93 2.76 1.06
Source: Average household size from Table 30 and Table 31 in Appendix A; EDUs/unit is average
household size divided by single-family average household size.
The existing number of service units can be determined by multiplying the estimated number of
housing units by the service unit multipliers for each housing type and summing. Existing service
units (EDUs) in the City of Fort Collins are calculated in Table 3.
Table 3. Park Service Units, 2012
Existing EDUs/ Existing
Housing Type Unit Units Unit EDUs
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 35,838 1.00 35,838
Multi-Family Dwelling 25,846 0.67 17,317
Total 53,155
Source: Existing units from Table 33 in Appendix A; EDUs per unit from Table 2.
Parks
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 5 February 1, 2013
Cost per Service Unit
The City of Fort Collins provides a variety of parks and recreation facilities for it residents. Existing
park and trail facilities are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4. Existing Park and Trail Facilities
Park Facility Type Number Acres
Developed Community 6 507.65
Developed Neighborhood 27 352.48
Developed Pocket 11 14.83
Total Developed Acres 874.96
Undeveloped Parks/Natural Features 75.75
Total Park Acres 950.71
Trails 4 121.24
Source: City of Fort Collins Park Planning, December 4, 2012 and
January 8, 2013.
The cost per acre to develop a neighborhood park is shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Neighborhood Park Development Cost per Acre
General conditions, mobilization $60,000 Site survey and plat $7,000
Traffic control $7,000 Envirionemntal studies $10,000
Adjacent street improvements $15,000 Landscape architecture firm $6,000
Access drive and parking lot $20,000 Architect $30,000
Domestic water system $17,000 Engineering firm $15,000
Sanitory sewer system $25,000 Soils evaluation/testing $8,000
Demolition $7,000 Irrigation design $6,000
Topsoil management $25,000 As-built stormwater survey $5,000
Storm drainage improvements $15,000 Stormwater analysis/floodplain $15,000
Earthwork $70,000 Subtotal, Consultant Fees $102,000
Electrical service $15,000
Underground irrigation system $70,000
Lined irrigation pond $65,000 Street oversizing and local $5,000
Irrigation pump house and pumps $85,000 Light & Power charges $7,000
Raw water delivery system $15,000 Water plant investment fee $15,000
Restroom $200,000 Raw water fee $10,000
Picnic shelter(2) $55,000 Sewer plant investment fee $3,500
Playground infrastructure $25,000 Plan check and permit fees $2,000
Playground equipment/surface $70,000 Stormwater drainage fees $6,000
Sidewalks - concrete $20,000 Subtotal, Development Fees $48,500
Plaza area $20,000
Special feature - multi-use pad $35,000
Ballfield $30,000 Administration $80,000
Site lighting $5,000 Park mainteance facility $30,000
Landscape, trees, etc. $45,000 APP $11,781
Soil prep, and seeding $45,000 Raw water for irrigaiton $80,000
Bike racks, picnic tables, etc. $10,000 Total Development Cost $1,530,381
Contingency and change orders $107,100 ÷ Acres 6.8
Subtotal, Construction $1,178,100 Development Cost per Acre $225,056
Source: City of Fort Collins Park Planning, December 4, 2012 (2011 pricing).
Parks
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 6 February 1, 2013
The cost per acre to develop a community park is shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Community Park Development Cost per Acre
General conditions $250,000 Bike racks, picnic tables, entry, etc. $250,000
Traffic control $10,000 Signage $50,000
Adjacent street improvements $100,000 Maintenance facility $200,000
Access drive and parking lots $840,000 Contingency and change orders $783,800
Domestic water system $60,000 Subtotal, Construction $7,338,000
Sanitary sewer system $55,000
Demolition $40,000 Site survey and plat $10,000
Topsoil removal/replacement $50,000 Environmental studies $15,000
Earthwork $475,000 Landscape Architecture firm $300,000
Strom drainage improvements $100,000 Architecture $80,000
Electrical & telecomm. service $300,000 Engineering firm $100,000
Underground irrigation system $500,000 Soils engineer site evaluation $35,000
Lined irrigation pond $60,000 Soils eningeer construction testing $40,000
Irigation pumphouse & pump $80,000 Irrigation design $70,000
Raw water delivery system $25,000 As-built survey w/stormwater need $15,000
Restrooms $470,000 Stormwater analysis $10,000
Picnic shelter (4) $350,000 Subtotal, Consultant Fees $675,000
Playground infrastructure $300,000
Playground equipment $500,000 Street oversizing and local $70,000
Sidewalks concrete/gravel paths $220,000 Light & Power charges $140,000
Plaza areas $163,000 Water plant investment fee $5,000
Special features, bike trials, etc. $10,000 Raw water fee- domestic $7,000
Ballfield (2) $80,000 Sewer plant investment fee $2,500
Skate park $200,000 Plan check and permit fees $45,000
Dog park with pond $120,000 Public R.O.W. inspection fees $45,000
Tennis courts $80,000 Storm drainage fee $15,000
Basketball courts $120,000 Subtotal, Development Fees $329,500
Splash park complete $150,000
Site features, walls, etc. $240,000 Administration $160,000
Site trail bridges, culverts, etc. $90,000 Art in Public Places $95,000
Site fencing $100,000 Raw water $300,000
Site lighting: ball fields, tennis, etc. $300,000 Total Development Cost $8,897,500
Landscape, trees, etc. $500,000 ÷ Acres 74.6
Soil prep and seeding $400,000 Development Cost per Acre $119,269
Source: City of Fort Collins Parks Department, December 2012 (2011 pricing).
The existing level of service can be expressed in terms of the current cost per service unit, as shown
in Table 7. The total cost represents the expenditure that would be required to acquire the amount
of existing developed park land and to develop that land as parks and trails at today’s prices. The
total cost is divided by the existing number of service units to determine the cost per service unit to
provide the same level of service to future residents.
Parks
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 7 February 1, 2013
Table 7. Park Cost per Service Unit
Neighborhood/ Community
Pocket Parks Parks/Trails
Developed Acres 367.31 507.65
x Development Cost per Acre $225,056 $119,269
Existing Park Facility Cost $82,665,319 $60,546,908
Total Acres 367.31 628.89
x Land Cost per Acre $30,000 $30,000
Existing Park Land Cost $11,019,300 $18,866,700
Miles of Trails na 34.00
x Construction Cost per Mile na $1,104,626
Existing Trail Cost na $37,557,284
Total Existing Facility Cost $93,684,619 $116,970,892
÷ Existing EDUs 53,155 53,155
Cost per EDU $1,762 $2,201
Source: Developed and total acres from Table 4; development cost per acre from
Table 5 and Table 6; land cost per acre, miles of trails and trail cost per mile from
Park Planning, December 5, January 18, 2013 and February 1, 2013; existing EDUs
from Table 3.
Net Cost per Service Unit
Impact fees should be reduced in order to account for other types of revenues that will be generated
by new development and used to fund capacity-expanding improvements of the same type as those
to be funded by the impact fees. Cases in which such a credit is warranted include funding of
existing deficiencies and outstanding debt payments on existing facilities. Since the fees are based
on the existing level of service, there are no deficiencies. The City has no outstanding debt on past
park improvements. Consequently, no credits against the park impact fee are required based on
these criteria, and the net cost per service unit is the same as the cost per service unit calculated
above.
Potential Fees
The maximum neighborhood and community park capital expansion fees that may be adopted by
the City based on this study are determined by multiplying the number of service units generated by
a dwelling unit by the net cost per service unit. The resulting fee schedules are presented in Table 8.
Parks
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 8 February 1, 2013
Table 8. Potential Park Capital Expansion Fees
EDUs/ Net Cost/ Net Cost/
Land Use Type Unit per Unit EDUs Unit
Neighborhood Parks
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.67 $1,762 $1,181
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.86 $1,762 $1,515
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.95 $1,762 $1,674
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.99 $1,762 $1,744
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.06 $1,762 $1,868
Community Parks
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.67 $2,201 $1,475
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.86 $2,201 $1,893
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.95 $2,201 $2,091
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.99 $2,201 $2,179
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.06 $2,201 $2,333
Source: EDUs per unit from Table 2; net cost per EDU is cost per EDU from Table 7.
The updated park fees are compared to current fees in Table 9. In general, the updated fees are
higher for smaller units and lower for larger units. This reflects the fact that this study found that
larger units have fewer residents than was found in the 1996 study.
Table 9. Comparative Park Capital Expansion Fees
Current Fee Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type Unit per Unit per Unit Change
Neighborhood Parks
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $920 $1,181 28%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,302 $1,515 16%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,531 $1,674 9%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,759 $1,744 -1%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,142 $1,868 -13%
Community Parks
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,023 $1,475 44%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,451 $1,893 30%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,704 $2,091 23%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,961 $2,179 11%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,385 $2,333 -2%
Total Parks
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,943 $2,656 37%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,753 $3,408 24%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $3,235 $3,765 16%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $3,720 $3,923 5%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $4,527 $4,201 -7%
Source: Current fee from City of Fort Collins, Capital Improvement Expansion Fees, Effective January 2,
2012; updated fees from Table 8.
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 9 February 1, 2013
FIRE
Fire protection and rescue service is provided in Fort Collins by the Poudre Fire Authority. The
City owns the fire stations and apparatus that are located within the city limits. This section
calculates updated fire capital expansion fees.
Service Units
The two most common methodologies used in calculating public safety (fire and police) service units
and impact fees are the “calls-for-service” approach and the “functional population” approach. The
1996 study used the functional population approach, and this update retains this methodology. This
approach is a generally-accepted methodology for both fire and police impact fee types, and is based
on the observation that demand for public safety facilities tends to be proportional to the presence
of people. This approach generates service unit multipliers that are similar to those based on call
data, but are more stable over time.2 The service unit is functional population. The description of
the functional population methodology, the calculation of the service unit multipliers and the
determination of existing fire and police service units are presented in Appendix B.
Cost per Service Unit
The cost per service unit to provide fire protection to new development is based on the current level
of service provided to existing development. The level of service is quantified as the ratio of the
replacement cost of existing fire capital facilities to existing fire service units. The existing fire
stations within the city limits are summarized in Table 10.
Table 10. Existing Fire Stations
Building Building
Facility Address Acres Sq. Feet Cost
Fire Station #1 Peterson 505 0.54 8,516 $1,672,835
Fire Station #2 S. Bryan 415 0.31 4,376 $729,125
Fire Station #3 Mathews 2000 0.55 6,500 $688,295
Fire Station #4 1945 W. Drake 3.54 15,380 $2,616,461
Fire Station #5 Hogan 4615 1.18 8,773 $1,431,268
Fire Station #6 Donella Ct. 2511 1.69 11,603 $1,635,268
Fire Station #7 N. Overalnd Trail 2817 0.24 5,627 $706,413
Fire Station #10 Vermont 2067 0.62 9,830 $1,213,549
Fire Station #12 E. Country Club Rd. 321 1.09 9,800 $1,308,246
Fire Station #14 2109 Westchase Rd. 0.89 10,800 $1,236,189
Total 10.65 91,205 $13,237,649
Source: City of Fort Collins and Poudre Fire Authority, December 3 and 5, 2012.
2 See Clancy Mullen, Fire and Police Demand Multipliers: Calls-for-Service versus Functional Population, proceedings of the
National Impact Fee Roundtable, Arlington, VA, October 5, 2006 http://growthandinfrastructure.org/proceedings/
2006_proceedings/fire%20police%20multipliers.pdf
Fire
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 10 February 1, 2013
The fire stations and equipment serving existing development in Fort Collins have a total estimated
replacement cost of $31 million, as summarized in Table 11. Dividing the total cost of existing
capital facilities and equipment by the existing functional population results in a cost of $208 per
service unit.
Table 11. Existing Fire Cost per Service Unit
Fire Facility Building Replacement Cost $13,237,649
Fire Facility Land Cost $319,500
Fire Vehicle Replacement Cost $17,607,388
Total $31,164,537
÷ Existing Functional Population (24-Hour) 149,740
Net Cost per Functional Population $208
Source: Existing building cost from Table 10; land cost based on acres from
Table 10 and $30,000 cost per acre; vehicle replacement cost from City of
Fort Collins, December 5, 2012; existing 24-hour functional populaiton from
Table 36.
Net Cost per Service Unit
Impact fees should be reduced in order to account for other types of revenues that will be generated
by new development and used to fund capacity-expanding improvements of the same type as those
to be funded by the impact fees. Cases in which such a credit is warranted include funding of
existing deficiencies and outstanding debt payments on existing facilities. There are no existing
deficiencies, since the fees are based on the existing level of service. The City does not have any
debt on existing fire stations or capital leases on fire vehicles. Consequently, the net cost per service
units is the same as the cost per service unit calculated above
Potential Fees
The maximum fire capital expansion fees that may be adopted by the City based on this study are
determined by multiplying the number of service units generated by a unit of development by the
net cost per service unit. The resulting fee schedule is presented in Table 12.
Table 12. Potential Fire Capital Expansion Fees
Func. Pop. Net Cost/ Net Cost/
Land Use Type Unit per Unit Func. Pop. Unit
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.25 $208 $260
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.59 $208 $331
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.76 $208 $366
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.83 $208 $381
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.96 $208 $408
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. 1.51 $208 $314
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 0.36 $208 $75
Source: Functional population per unit from Table 34 and Table 35 in Appendix B; net cost per
functional population is cost per functional population from Table 11.
Fire
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 11 February 1, 2013
Table 13 compares the current fire fees with the updated fire fees. The updated fees increase more
for residential than for nonresidential uses, and more for smaller residential units than larger ones.
Table 13. Comparative Fire Fees
Current Fee Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type Unit per Unit per Unit Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $110 $260 136%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $157 $331 111%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $183 $366 100%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $211 $381 81%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $257 $408 59%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $225 $314 40%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $62 $75 21%
Source: Current fees from City of Fort Collins, Capital Improvement Expansion Fees, Effective January 2,
2012; updated fees from Table 12.
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 12 February 1, 2013
POLICE
The City provides police protection throughout the town. This section calculates updated police
capital expansion fees.
Service Units
The two most common methodologies used in calculating public safety (fire and police) service units
and impact fees are the “calls-for-service” approach and the “functional population” approach. The
1996 study used the functional population approach, and this update retains this methodology. This
approach is a generally-accepted methodology for both fire and police impact fee types, and is based
on the observation that demand for public safety facilities tends to be proportional to the presence
of people. This approach generates service unit multipliers that are similar to those based on call
data, but are more stable over time. The service unit is functional population. The description of
the functional population methodology, the calculation of the service unit multipliers and the
determination of existing fire and police service units are presented in Appendix B.
Cost per Service Unit
The cost per service unit to provide police protection to new development is based on the existing
level of service provided to existing development. The level of service is quantified as the ratio of
the replacement cost of existing police capital facilities to existing police service units.
The replacement cost of existing police vehicles is shown in Table 14.
Table 14. Existing Police Vehicles
Vehicle Type Number Unit Cost Total Cost
Bearcat 1 $233,554 $233,554
Car 24 $22,000 $528,000
Mini-Bus 1 $77,313 $77,313
Motorcycle 3 $20,841 $62,523
Patrol Car 105 $33,845 $3,553,725
Patrol Pickup 1 $75,845 $75,845
Patrol SUV 28 $40,025 $1,120,700
Patrol Van 13 $32,950 $428,350
Pickup 6 $26,923 $161,538
Police Car 1 $18,967 $18,967
Police Van 1 $29,125 $29,125
SUV 14 $37,727 $528,178
Van 9 $29,125 $262,125
Total 207 $7,079,943
Source: City of Fort Collins, December 5, 2012.
The City’s recently-completed new police station was built with some excess capacity to serve future
growth. According to the City, approximately 25% of the building represents excess capacity.
Consequently, only 75% of the cost will be included in determining the current level of service (cost
per service unit) for existing development. Including vehicles and equipment, the portion of the
City’s existing police facilities serving existing development has a total estimated replacement cost of
Police
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 13 February 1, 2013
$34.7 million, as summarized in Table 15. Dividing the cost of existing capital facilities and
equipment serving existing development by existing service units results in a cost of $231 per
functional population.
Table 15. Existing Police Cost per Service Unit
Police Station Building Square Feet 99,878
Police Station Land Acres 7.53
Police Station Building/Land Value (75%) $20,294,687
Police Firing Range Value $351,930
Police Facility Contents Value $6,937,981
Police Vehicle Replacement Value $7,079,943
Total Police Facility/Equipment Value $34,664,541
÷ Existing Functional Population (24-Hour) 149,740
Police Cost per Functional Population $231
Source: Building square feet, acres and replacement values from City of
Fort Collins, December 5, 2012 (75% of police station deemed to serve
existing development); existing functional population from Table 36.
Net Cost per Service Unit
Impact fees should be reduced in order to account for other types of revenues that will be generated
by new development and used to fund capacity-expanding improvements of the same type as those
to be funded by the impact fees. Cases in which such an offset is warranted include funding of
existing deficiencies and outstanding debt payments on existing facilities. Since the updated fees are
based on the existing level of service, there are no existing deficiencies.
The City has some outstanding debt on the police station, as well as outstanding capital lease
payments on some vehicles. A relatively simple way to calculate a credit for outstanding debt is to
divide the debt by the number of existing service units. This places new development on an equal
footing with existing development in terms of the proportion of their costs that are funded through
debt. Since 25% of the new police station represents excess capacity available to serve, only 75% of
the debt is eligible for credit. The other 25% of the debt represents the cost of facilities that will
serve future development, and this portion of the debt service could be retired with police capital
expansion fees. As shown in Table 16, the police debt credit is $129 per functional population.
Table 16. Police Debt Credit
Outstanding Debt on Police Station (75%) $18,900,000
Outstanding Vehicle Capital Lease Payments $453,578
Total Police Facility Debt $19,353,578
÷ Existing Functional Population (24-Hour) 149,740
Police Debt Credit per Functional Population $129
Source: Outstanding debt and capital lease payments as of December 31,
2012 from City of Fort Collins, December 3, 2010; existing functional
population from Table 36 in Appendix B.
The credit for outstanding debt is subtracted from the cost per service unit to determine the net cost
per service unit (see Table 17 below).
Police
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 14 February 1, 2013
Table 17. Police Net Cost per Service Unit
Police Cost per Functional Population $231
– Police Debt Credit per Functional Population -$129
Net Police Cost per Functional Population $102
Source: Cost per functional population from Table 15; debt credit from
Table 16
Potential Fees
The maximum police capital expansion fees that may be adopted by the City based on this study is
the product of the number of service units generated by a unit of development and the net cost per
service unit calculated above. The resulting fee schedule is presented in Table 18.
Table 18. Potential Police Capital Expansion Fees
Func. Pop. Net Cost/ Net Cost/
Land Use Type Unit per Unit Func. Pop. Unit
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.25 $102 $128
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.59 $102 $162
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.76 $102 $180
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.83 $102 $187
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.96 $102 $200
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. 1.51 $102 $154
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 0.36 $102 $37
Source: Functional population per unit from Table 34 and Table 35 in Appendix B; net cost from Table
17.
Table 19 compares the current police fees with the updated fees. The updated fees are higher for
residential uses and lower for nonresidential uses.
Table 19. Comparative Police Fees
Current Fee Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type Unit per Unit per Unit Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $74 $128 73%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $107 $162 51%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $127 $180 42%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $145 $187 29%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $177 $200 13%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $157 $154 -2%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $43 $37 -14%
Source: Current fees from City of Fort Collins, Capital Improvement Expansion Fees, Effective January 2,
2012; updated fees from Table 18.
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 15 February 1, 2013
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
The City provides a number of administrative facilities that will need to be expanded as the
community grows. To ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of these facilities,
the City charges a general government capital expansion fee. This section calculates updated general
government capital expansion fees.
Service Units
One of the most common methodologies used in calculating general government impact fees is the
“functional population” approach. This allocates the cost of growth to different types of new
development based on the presence of people at the site of the land use. The description of the
functional population methodology, the calculation of the service unit multipliers and the
determination of existing general government service units are presented in Appendix B.
Cost per Service Unit
The City’s existing general government facilities and replacement costs are summarized in Table 20.
Table 20. Existing General Government Facilities
Land Building Building
Facility Address Acres Value Sq. Feet Cost
City Hall 300 Laporte Ave 2.00 $60,000 31,553 $8,968,435
Main Administration Bldg. 281 N. College 0.75 $22,500 37,603 $6,689,347
City Office Building 215 N. Mason 2.00 $60,000 71,500 $12,731,810
OPS Service Facility 2.50 $75,000 26,564 $5,647,145
Streets Storage 625 Ninth St 3.24 $97,200 48,400 $4,125,256
Streets Office/Shop 625 Ninth St 8.48 $254,400 14,287 $763,936
Total 18.97 $569,100 229,907 $38,925,929
Source: City of Fort Collins, January 4, 2013 (land value based on $30,000 per acre).
The existing level of service (cost per service unit) is determined by dividing the replacement cost of
existing facilities by the existing service units being served by those facilities. As shown in Table 21,
the cost per service unit for general government facilities is $328 per functional population.
Table 21. General Government Cost per Service Unit
Building Replacement Value $38,925,929
Land Value $569,100
Vehicle/Equipment Value $9,753,022
Total Replacement Cost $49,248,051
÷ Existing Functional Population (16-Hour) 150,354
Cost per Functional Population $328
Source: Building and land replacement costs from Table 20; vehicle-
equipment value is sum of original costs from City fixed asset listings,
January 2, 2013; existing functional population from Table 36 in Appendix B.
General Government
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 16 February 1, 2013
Net Cost per Service Unit
Impact fees should be reduced in order to account for other types of revenues that will be generated
by new development and used to fund capacity-expanding improvements of the same type as those
to be funded by the impact fees. Cases in which such an offset is warranted include funding of
existing deficiencies and outstanding debt payments on existing facilities. Since the updated fees are
based on the existing level of service, there are no existing deficiencies.
The City has some outstanding debt on the main administration building. A relatively simple way to
calculate a credit for outstanding debt is to divide the debt by the number of existing service units.
This places new development on an equal footing with existing development in terms of the
proportion of their costs that are funded through debt. As shown in Table 22, the police debt credit
is $5 per functional population.
Table 22. General Government Debt Credit
Outstanding Debt on Main Administration Bldg. $745,745
÷ Existing Functional Population (16-Hour) 150,354
Cost per Functional Population $5
Source: Outstanding debt from City of Fort Collins, December 3, 2010;
existing functional population from Table 36 in Appendix B.
The credit for outstanding debt is subtracted from the cost per service unit to determine the net cost
per service unit, as shown in Table 23.
Table 23. General Government Net Cost per Service Unit
Cost per Functional Population $328
– Debt Credit per Functional Population -$5
Net Cost per Functional Population $323
Source: Cost per functional population from Table 15; debt credit from
Table 16
Potential Fees
The maximum general government capital expansion fees that may be adopted by the City based on
this study is the product of the number of service units generated by a unit of development and the
net cost per service unit calculated above. The resulting fee schedule is presented in Table 24.
Table 24. Potential General Government Capital Expansion Fees
Func. Pop. Net Cost/ Net Cost/
Land Use Type Unit per Unit Func. Pop. Unit
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.93 $323 $300
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.19 $323 $384
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.31 $323 $423
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.37 $323 $443
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.47 $323 $475
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. 2.26 $323 $730
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 0.53 $323 $171
Source: Functional population per unit from Table 34 and Table 35 in Appendix B; net cost per
functional population from Table 23.
General Government
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 17 February 1, 2013
Table 25 compares the current general government capital expansion fees with the updated fees.
The updated fees increase more for nonresidential than for residential uses, and more for smaller
residential units than larger ones.
Table 25. Comparative General Government Fees
Current Fee Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type Unit per Unit per Unit Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $139 $300 116%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $197 $384 95%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $231 $423 83%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $267 $443 66%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $324 $475 47%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $252 $730 190%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $70 $171 144%
Source: Current fees from City of Fort Collins, Capital Improvement Expansion Fees, Effective January 2,
2012; updated fees from Table 24.
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 18 February 1, 2013
APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
Average Household Size by Housing Types
A key input into impact fee analysis is the average number of people residing in different types of
dwelling units. This statistic, known as average household size, is the ratio of household population
to households (which is the same as occupied dwelling units).
The most reliable data on average household size comes from the decennial census counts.
However, these 100%-count data are only available for all housing units, with no distinction by
housing type. Overall, the trend between the 2000 and 2010 census was one of a slight decline in
overall average household size, as can be seen in Table 26.
Table 26. Average Household Size, 2000 and 2010
Total Occupied Household Average
Housing Type Units Units Population HH Size
All Housing Types, 2000 47,755 45,882 112,597 2.45
All Housing Types, 2010 60,503 57,829 136,901 2.37
Source: 2000 and 2010 US Census for Fort Collins, CO, SF1 (100% counts).
The 2000 census provided data on average household size by housing type for a 1-in-6 sample
(about 17%). Those data are shown in Table 27.
Table 27. Average Household Size by Housing Type, 2000
Total Occupied Household Average
Housing Type Units Units Population HH Size
Single-Family Detached 26,706 25,941 73,943 2.85
Single-Family Attached 3,613 3,464 7,031 2.03
Multi-Family 16,163 15,190 28,522 1.88
Mobile Home 1,267 1,216 2,840 2.34
RV/Other 17 17 40 2.35
Total 47,766 45,828 112,376 2.45
Multi-Family/SF Attached 19,776 18,654 35,553 1.91
Source: 2000 US Census for Fort Collins, CO, SF-3 data (1-in-6 sample)
Unfortunately, the Census Bureau has discontinued providing robust sample data as part of the
decennial census, and instead conducts annual data from 1% samples, which has been aggregated
into a 5% sample for the 2006-2010 period. These data are based on a much smaller sample than the
2010 census, and also collapse single-family detached and attached housing into the same category.
They are shown in Table 28.
Appendix A: Demographic Data
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 19 February 1, 2013
Table 28. Average Household Size by Housing Type, 2006-2010
Total Occupied Household Average
Housing Type Units Units Population HH Size
Single-Family, Det./Att. 38,434 36,779 96,923 2.64
Multi-Family 19,441 17,747 31,168 1.76
Mobile Home 1,414 1,350 3,383 2.51
Other 13 13 21 1.62
Total 59,302 55,889 131,495 2.35
Source: US Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey data (5%
sample), Fort Collins, CO.
Comparing the data from 2000 and 2006-2010, it is clear that the decline in average household size is
not due to a change in the mix of housing, but rather to a more general decline in household size
among all housing types. While mobile home units show an increase, the sample sizes are too small
for this housing type for the results to be reliable.
Table 29. Change in Average Household Size, 2000-2010
Percent
Housing Type 2000 2006-10 Change
Single-Family, Detached/Attached 2.75 2.64 -4.00%
Multi-Family 1.88 1.76 -6.38%
Mobile Home 2.34 2.51 7.26%
Total 2.45 2.35 -4.08%
Average HH Size
Source: Table 27 and Table 28.
An estimate of current average household size by housing type starts with the data from the 2000
census, since these numbers are based on the most robust sample. The average household sizes
from the 2000 census are adjusted downward for all housing types by the overall decline, as shown
in Table 30.
Table 30. Current Average Household Size by Housing Type
Ratio of
Avg. HH Size 2010/2000 Current
Housing Type 2000 Census Avg. HH Size Avg. HH Size
Single-Family Detached/MH 2.85 0.9673 2.76
Multi-Family/SF Attached 1.91 0.9673 1.85
Total 2.45 0.9673 2.37
Source: 2000 average household size from Table 27; ratio derived from Table 26.
Average Household Size by Unit Size
In the 1996 study, average household size by dwelling unit size was estimated using census
microdata for Larimer County to determine average household size by bedrooms, and City building
permit data to determine average dwelling unit size by bedrooms using linear regression analysis.
The two results were combined to estimate average household size by dwelling unit size.
While the approach used in the original study has the advantage of relying solely on local (city and
county level) data, its weakness is that it is indirect – neither the census data nor the building permit
data contain information on both the number of persons in the unit and the size of the unit.
Appendix A: Demographic Data
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 20 February 1, 2013
Consequently, the 1996 analysis had to utilize an intervening variable of the number of bedrooms in
the unit.
A simpler and more direct approach is to utilize national data from the American Housing Survey,
sponsored by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and conducted by the U.S.
Census Bureau. The most recent survey was done in 2011. This survey provides data on the
number of residents and the square footage of a sample of individual housing units. The data from
the Western Census Region, which includes Colorado, was used. Average household sizes by
dwelling unit size from the western U.S. were converted to Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs), with
one EDU representing the average number of persons residing in an occupied single-family
detached unit. These EDU multipliers were then multiplied by the average household size of a
single-family unit in Fort Collins to estimate local average household sizes by dwelling unit size, as
summarized in Table 31.
Table 31. Average Household Size by Dwelling Unit Size, Western U.S., 2011
Ft. Collins
House- Avg. EDUs/ Avg. HH
Housing Type/Size Sample HH Pop. Holds HH Size Unit Size
0-700 sf 4,726 3,943,814 2,046,482 1.93 0.675 1.86
701-1,200 sf 11,845 13,908,874 5,631,663 2.47 0.864 2.38
1,201-1,700 sf 8,570 11,753,334 4,320,515 2.72 0.951 2.62
1,701-2,200 sf 6,218 8,824,060 3,112,727 2.83 0.990 2.73
2,200 sf + 7,686 11,545,664 3,793,080 3.04 1.063 2.93
All Units 39,045 49,975,747 18,904,467 2.64 0.923 n/a
All Single-Family Det. 23,453 34,517,546 12,053,378 2.86 1.000 2.76
American Housing Survey, 2011
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Housing Survey, 2011, Western Census
Region; Fort Collins average household size by unit size based on average household size for a single-family
detached unit in Fort Collins from Table 30 and EDUs/unit from the American Housing Survey.
The updated average household sizes confirm the tendency of larger units to have more residents,
but the difference between the smallest and largest units is less pronounced than it was found to be
in the 1996 analysis, as illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Average Household Size by Unit Size, 1996 and 2012
Appendix A: Demographic Data
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 21 February 1, 2013
Existing Housing Units by Type
The mix of housing units by type in Fort Collins has not changed significantly over the last decade,
as shown in Table 32. Because of its larger sample size, the housing shares from the 2000 census
will be used.
Table 32. Dwelling Units by Housing Type, Fort Collins, 2000-2010
Housing Type 2000 2006-10 2000 2006-10
Single-Family Detached 26,706 33,525 55.9% 56.5%
Single-Family Attached 3,613 4,909 7.6% 8.3%
Multi-Family 16,163 19,441 33.8% 32.8%
Mobile Home 1,267 1,414 2.7% 2.4%
RV/Other 17 13 0.0% 0.0%
Total 47,766 59,302 100.0% 100.0%
Single-Family Det./Mobile Home 27,973 34,939 58.6% 58.9%
Total Units % of Total Units
Source: 2000 data from 2000 US Census, SF3 (1-in-6 sample); 2006-2010 data from US
Census, American Community Survey (5% sample).
The current number of dwelling units in Fort Collins by housing type is estimated based on the total
number of units enumerated in the 2000 census, the share of units by housing type from the 2000
census, and the number of building permits issued over the last two years, as shown in Table 33.
Table 33. Dwelling Units by Housing Type, Fort Collins, 2012
Housing Est. 2010 2010-2011 Est. 2012
Housing Type Share Units Permits Units
Single-Family Detached/MH 58.6% 35,432 406 35,838
Multi-Family/SF Attached 41.4% 25,071 775 25,846
Total 100.0% 60,503 1,181 61,684
Source: Housing share based on 2000 Census from Table 32; 2010 total units from 2000 Census (Table
26), 2010 units by housing type based on housing share; 2010-2011 permits are number of permits
issued by City in 2010 and 2011 calendar years from City of Fort Collins, December 3, 2012.
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 22 February 1, 2013
APPENDIX B: FUNCTIONAL POPULATION
A common methodology used in calculating public safety (fire and police) and general government
service units and impact fees is the “functional population” approach. This approach is a generally-
accepted methodology for these impact fee types and is based on the observation that demand for
public safety and general government facilities tends to be proportional to the presence of people at
a particular site.
Functional population is analogous to the concept of “full-time equivalent” employees. It
represents the number of “full-time equivalent” people present at the site of a land use, and it is
used for the purpose of determining the impact of a particular development on the need for
facilities. For residential development, functional population is simply average household size times
the percent of time people spend at home. For nonresidential development, functional population
is based on a formula that factors trip generation rates, average vehicle occupancy and average
number of hours spent by visitors at a land use.
Two types of functional population are used in impact fee analysis: “24-hour” functional population
and “daytime” functional population. 24-hour functional population is most appropriate for
services, like fire and police protection, that operate on a 24-hour per day basis. Daytime functional
population is more appropriate for general government facilities, which do not operate around the
clock.
Residential Functional Population
For residential land uses, the impact of a dwelling unit on the need for capital facilities is generally
proportional to the number of persons residing in the dwelling unit. This can be measured for
different housing types in terms of either average household size (average number of persons per
occupied dwelling unit) or persons per unit (average number of persons per dwelling unit, including
vacant as well as occupied units). In this analysis, average household size is used to develop the
functional population multipliers, as it avoids the need to make assumptions about occupancy rates.
Determining residential functional population multipliers is considerably simpler than the
nonresidential component. It is estimated that people, on average, spend 16 hours, or 67 percent, of
each 24-hour weekday at their place of residence and the other 33 percent away from home. For
daytime functional population, a 16-hour day is used, and it is estimated that people spend half of
the 16-hour day at home. The functional population per unit for residential uses is shown in Table
34.
Appendix B: Functional Population
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 23 February 1, 2013
Table 34. Functional Population per Unit for Residential Uses
Average
Housing Type Unit HH Size 24-Hour Daytime 24-Hour Daytime
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 2.76 0.67 0.50 1.85 1.38
Multi-Family Dwelling 1.85 0.67 0.50 1.24 0.93
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.86 0.67 0.50 1.25 0.93
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.38 0.67 0.50 1.59 1.19
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.62 0.67 0.50 1.76 1.31
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.73 0.67 0.50 1.83 1.37
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.93 0.67 0.50 1.96 1.47
Occupancy Func. Pop. Per Unit
Source: Average household size from Table 30 (housing type) and Table 31 (unit size).
Nonresidential Functional Population
The functional population methodology for nonresidential land uses is based on trip generation and
employee density data. Functional population per 1,000 square feet is derived by dividing the total
number of hours spent by employees and visitors during a week day by 24 hours (16 hours for
daytime functional population). Employees are estimated to spend 8 hours per day at their place of
employment, and visitors are estimated to spend one hour per visit. The formulas used to derive the
nonresidential functional population estimates are summarized in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Nonresidential Functional Population Formulas
24-HR FUNCPOP/UNIT = (employee hours/1000 sf + visitor hours/1000 sf) ÷ 24 hours/day
Where:
Employee hours/1000 sf = employees/1000 sf x 8 hours/day
Visitor hours/1000 sf = visitors/1000 sf x 1 hour/visit
Visitors/1000 sf = weekday ADT/1000 sf x avg. vehicle occupancy – employees/1000 sf
Weekday ADT/1000 sf = one-way avg. daily trips (total trip ends ÷ 2)
DAILY FUNCPOP/UNIT = (employee hours/1000 sf + visitor hours/1000 sf) ÷ 16 hours/day
Where:
Employee hours/1000 sf = employees/1000 sf x 8 hours/day
Visitor hours/1000 sf = visitors/1000 sf x 1 hour/visit
Visitors/1000 sf = weekday ADT/1000 sf x avg. vehicle occupancy – employees/1000 sf
Weekday ADT/1000 sf = one-way avg. daily trips (total trip ends ÷ 2)
Appendix B: Functional Population
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 24 February 1, 2013
Using this formula and information on trip generation rates, vehicle occupancy rates from the
National Household Travel Survey and other sources and assumptions, nonresidential functional
population estimates per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area are calculated in Table 35.
Table 35. Functional Population per Unit for Nonresidential Uses
Trip Persons/ Employee/ Visitors/
Land Use Unit Rate Trip Unit Unit 24-Hour Daytime
Retail 1,000 sq. ft. 21.47 1.96 1.02 41.06 2.05 3.08
Office 1,000 sq. ft. 5.51 1.24 2.31 4.52 0.96 1.44
Industrial 1,000 sq. ft. 3.48 1.24 1.05 3.27 0.49 0.73
Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 1.78 1.24 0.43 1.78 0.22 0.33
Func. Pop. Per Unit
Source: Trip rates based on one-half of average daily trip rate from ITE, Trip Generation, 8th ed., 2008 (retail based
on shopping center, office based on general office, industrial based on light industrial); persons/trip is average
vehicle occupancy from Federal Highway Administration, Nationwide Household Travel Survey, 2009;
employees/unit from U.S. Department of Energy, Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey, 2003;
visitors/unit is trips times persons/trip minus employees/unit; functional population/unit calculated based on
formula from Figure 2.
Total Functional Population
The total functional population of Fort Collins is determined by multiplying the number of existing
units of development by the functional population per unit, as shown in Table 36.
Table 36. Existing Functional Population
Existing
Land Use Unit Units 24-Hour Daytime 24-Hour Daytime
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 35,838 1.85 1.38 66,300 49,456
Multi-Family Dwelling 25,846 1.24 0.93 32,049 24,037
Commercial/Institutional 1,000 sq. ft. 32,533 1.51 2.26 49,125 73,525
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 6,295 0.36 0.53 2,266 3,336
Total Functional Population 149,740 150,354
Func. Pop./Unit Functional Pop.
Source: Existing dwelling units from Table 33; existing nonresidential building square footage from Larimer
County Assessor’s Office, December 4, 2012; functional population per unit from Table 34 and Table 35
(commercial/institutional is average of retail and office; industrial/warehouse is average of industrial and
warehouse).
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
Long Range Planning
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.221.6376
970.224.6111- fax
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 15, 2013
TO: Members of the Building Review Board
FROM: Pete Wray, Senior City Planner
RE: Eastside & Westside Neighborhoods Character Study
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study (study) represents an assessment of
neighborhood compatibility issues related to impacts of larger new construction projects. In comparison
to the previous 2010/2011 study, which focused on building size impacts, this study takes a broader look
at the character and context of the neighborhoods including building size and design compatibility.
Staff prepared two options for Council to consider for the proposed package of potential Land Use Code
(LUC) amendments to be included in the Ordinance at First Reading.
Option A reflects a package of Land Use Code amendments that implement the five
recommended strategy options as well as a revision of existing FAR standards using a new
formula.
Option B reflects a package of Land Use Code amendments that implement the five
recommended strategy options, but does not include a revision to existing FAR standards.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests that the Building Review Board make a recommendation to City Council regarding an
Ordinance for proposed Land Use Code changes related to implementation of the Eastside and Westside
Neighborhoods Character Study.
BACKGROUND
Staff initiated the study in June, 2011 after receiving direction from City Council to take a new and
broader look at neighborhood compatibility and character issues in the core area neighborhoods near
Downtown. The basis of the study is in response to continued concerns with potential impacts of larger
additions and new construction in the city’s oldest neighborhoods.
Eastside & Westside Neighborhoods Character Study
Building Review Board Hearing Memo
February 15, 2013
Page 2
A similar study was conducted in 2010 for the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods with a resulting
Ordinance approved by City Council that was later repealed in response to a citizen petition. While
the previous effort led to a primary focus on building size aspects, the current study has emphasized a
broader perspective to understand the character, larger context of compatibility, and threshold for
change in these neighborhoods.
The initial direction for the new study began with a goal developed by a Council Ad Hoc Committee
to:
Retain and enhance the unique character and context of the neighborhoods as they continue to
change with renovations, additions, and new housing construction, with a well-supported and
effective public process resulting in appropriate and mutually agreeable solutions.
The study is summarized in a highly illustrated Strategy Report with information on the character and
context of the neighborhoods, community engagement, issues, and strategy options for City Council
consideration.
The study identified and clarified a number of key issues with ongoing changes that affect existing
residents and the unique character and context of the neighborhoods. These issues led to the strategy
options. Key issues include:
New construction that appears to be overly large in relation to its context
Building walls that appear to loom over neighbors
Reduced solar access/shading issues
Incompatible design features
Loss of older/more affordable houses that make the neighborhoods unique
Loss of green space and mature trees
The study process included extensive public outreach that included identification of neighborhood
objectives and issues, and defining. The study process and findings are summarized in a final Strategy
Report. This report also includes staff recommendations to implement five strategy options that were
presented to City Council at the Work Session on November 27, 2012. The staff recommendations at
that time did not include revising existing Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards, because the team
concluded the proposed design standard sufficiently addressed neighborhood compatibility issues, and
revising the FAR did not reflect a mutually agreeable solution from the public. City Council directed
staff to proceed with implementation of those strategy options, including development of the formula to
revise the existing maximum FAR standard.
Some of these strategies involve Land Use Code changes that are the subject of the Ordinance, and
others are administrative or involve future actions as follows:
Eastside & Westside Neighborhoods Character Study
Building Review Board Hearing Memo
February 15, 2013
Page 3
Promote the City's existing Design Assistance Program. This involves ongoing administrative
actions, including such measures as a marketing brochure, newsletter, neighborhood mailings,
and posting program information online.
Expand neighborhood notification of variance requests.
Create voluntary design handbooks/guidelines to provide specialized information for interested
owners and builders on compatible development in unique character areas throughout the
neighborhoods. These products would be developed as part of future planning efforts that will need
to be budgeted and incorporated into the staff work program. Staff is recommending
implementation of this action concurrent with neighborhood plan updates for the Eastside and Westside
neighborhoods in 2014.
Adjust existing height-at-setback and floor area ratio (FAR) measurement methods in the Land
Use Code for the N-C-L and N-C-M zoning districts.
Address building mass and solar access, including revisions to existing FAR standards, and new
design standards to address mass and solar impacts.
Illustrate the effect of potential standards on new construction.
A series of public meetings were held in January, 2013 to present a draft potential package of Land Use
Code amendments to implement the strategy options. Staff received a mix of opinions from the public
on the proposed standards, especially relating to revisions to the Far standards. An additional Council
Work Session was held on February 12 to discuss options for FAR standards, which included direction
for staff to describe these options for Council to consider on First Reading.
I. Description of Ordinance Option A (with new FAR formula)
This option reflects a package of Land Use Code amendments that implements the five recommended
strategy options as well as a revision to existing FAR standards using a new formula. More specifically,
it includes clarifying Code terminology and formatting, expanded notice for variance requests, revising
the existing FAR standard using a new formula, adding new adjustments to FAR measurement method
for calculating building square footage, and incorporating new design and solar access standards. A
more detailed description of each standard is included in the attached draft Ordinance options.
Following is a brief summary of potential Land Use Code changes contained in the proposed Ordinance
(Option A).
1. Expand notification area for variance requests.
This LUC change would add a new standard regarding neighborhood notification for Zoning Board of
Appeals (ZBA) variance requests exceeding a certain project size threshold. Staff recommends that the
notice area for ZBA hearings be extended from 150 feet to 500 feet for variance requests for certain size
construction and other thresholds (see attachment No. 3).
2. Address building massing and scale (Revised FAR Standard).
The staff recommendation outlined in the strategy report did not include a revision to the existing FAR
standards because other recommended tools were seen to sufficiently address the identified objectives
Eastside & Westside Neighborhoods Character Study
Building Review Board Hearing Memo
February 15, 2013
Page 4
and issues, and because many residents and other stakeholders feel that FAR is an overly restrictive tool
that limits flexibility for expansion. However, FAR reductions were presented as a possible alternative
tool for addressing identified issues with overly large new construction and loss of green space.
Based on Council direction, the staff and consultant team evaluated potential revisions to the maximum
permitted FAR, including modeling of a variety of reduced FARs on projects that have been identified
as appearing overly large in relation to their context. The proposed FAR formula was selected because
it:
Addresses projects that have been identified as appearing overly large in relation to their context
while allowing flexibility for new construction and home expansion;
Promotes the scale of new construction that was most often identified as compatible in
community workshops and the online visual survey;
Works in concert with other recommended tools such as reduced wall heights for solar access
and additional building design standards to address front and side façade character; and
More directly targets identified issues than the FAR revisions included in the repealed 2011
ordinance.
Overall, the new formula provides greater flexibility through less substantial FAR reductions because it
would work in combination with other tools that also address identified issues with new construction
that appears to be overly large in relation to its context, building walls that appear to loom over
neighbors and reduced solar access.
New FAR Formula
The first proposed FAR change revises the minimum lot area standards that currently relate lot area to
the total floor area of buildings on the lot in the N-C-L and N-C-M zoning districts. This would apply
new or adjusted design standards to address the scale and solar access impacts of larger new
construction and additions. The potential revised standard would reduce the maximum FAR from the
currently permitted 0.40 in the N-C-L district and 0.50 in the N-C-M district according to a sliding scale
as summarized in the table below.
For example, the formula above would limit floor area on a 7,000 square foot lot in the N-C-M district
to 2,750 square feet ((7,000x0.25)+1,000=2,750) with an additional allowance for 250 square feet in a
detached rear accessory (acc.) structure on a lot of 6,000 square feet or more, for a total of 3,000 square
feet. The sliding scale would generally result in reductions of allowed floor area for larger lots in both
districts.
Eastside & Westside Neighborhoods Character Study
Building Review Board Hearing Memo
February 15, 2013
Page 5
New FAR Measurement Method
The second change incorporates adjusted measurement methods for calculating floor area, which was
recommended in the Strategy Report. These proposed measurement method adjustments would address
the issues of high volume spaces not being counted as floor area (which created the potential for single-
story homes being twice as large as a two-story home); including basement floor area in calculation
where the new construction raises the finish floor elevation above a certain threshold; and providing
some allowance for accessory structures to promote separate building masses.
Option A further addresses building mass and scale impacts by combining a reduction in overall
building size (reduced FAR), with new design standards to shape building façade features.
3. Adjust measurement method for building wall height and reduced height for solar access.
The first part of this Code change would adjust the method for measuring building height at the
minimum side yard setback, to better account for the impact of tall walls on raised grade. Staff
recommends implementation of a revised measurement method for maximum height (18 feet) at the
minimum side yard to better account for potential looming impacts related to grade changes on a
property. The building side wall height is proposed to be measured from the existing grade at the
interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, rather than at the improved grade.
A second new standard is proposed to reduce the potential solar access impacts of large new houses or
additions on neighboring property to the north. The staff and consultant team decided not to develop a
complicated “solar ordinance” limiting shading on neighboring lots. Instead a simple solar standard is
proposed for building wall height to promote solar access. The side wall height would be reduced to14'
from the currently allowed 18' and the side wall height could increase by 1' for each 1' of additional
setback.
4. Add new standards for building façades over certain size thresholds.
Façade design standards are proposed to provide a menu of options to shape the character of front and
side building facades for compatibility. At least one façade feature from a design menu would be
required to promote pedestrian orientation and compatibility with the character of the structures on the
block face.
The front façade options would promote pedestrian orientation and the appearance of compatible mass
and scale as viewed from the street by using one-story elements, front porches, etc. The proposed
options for side building facades are intended to reduce potential looming and privacy impacts on
adjacent lots.
II. Description of Ordinance Option B (Retain Existing FAR formula)
Option B reflects a package of Land Use Code amendments that implements the five recommended
Eastside & Westside Neighborhoods Character Study
Building Review Board Hearing Memo
February 15, 2013
Page 6
strategy options but does not include a revision to existing FAR standards. It includes clarifying Code
terminology and formatting, expanded notice for variance requests, retaining the existing FAR standard
formula, adding new adjustments to FAR measurement method for calculating building square footage,
and incorporating new design and solar access standards. Ordinance Option B contains the same
standards as Option A, except for the FAR formula. A more detailed description of each standard is
included in the attached draft Ordinance options.
This option reflects the staff recommendation described in the Strategy Report, and presented to Council
at the November 27, 2012 Work Session. The staff and consultant team concluded in the report that the
proposed package of new design standards, without a reduction in FAR, would address most identified
mass and scale issues with larger new construction while allowing flexibility for home expansion.
New construction that appears to be overly large in relation to its context was often cited by residents as
a key issue in the neighborhoods. Many residents also felt that FAR reductions would be the most
effective tool for addressing this issue. However, when presented with alternative design scenarios in
community workshops and surveys, many participants selected alternatives that incorporate design
elements other than floor area reductions. This indicates that design elements apart from overall size
contribute significantly to neighborhood compatibility. The recommended design standards within
Ordinance Option B address these key design elements while allowing flexibility for home expansion.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The following activities were included in the public process used for this study:
Phase 1 – Understand the character and context of the neighborhoods (May – July, 2012)
Email notice for meetings, post card mailing for work shops
Posted project information on web page
Initial working group meetings (June)
2 public work shop meetings (July 10/12)
On-line questionnaire
Updates to Boards and Commissions
City Council Work Session (July 24)
Phase 2 – Develop a Strategy (August – November, 2012)
Series of working group meetings (August/September)
On-line survey
Public work shop meeting (November 5)
Updates to Boards and Commissions
City Council Work Session (November 27)
Eastside & Westside Neighborhoods Character Study
Building Review Board Hearing Memo
February 15, 2013
Page 7
Phase 3 – Implementation of Strategy Options (December, 2012 – February, 2013)
Series of working group meetings (January 16, 2013)
Public Open House meeting (January 30)
Updates to Boards and Commissions
Planning & Zoning Board Hearing – Recommendation (February 7)
City Council Work Session (February 12)
Landmark Preservation Commission Hearing – Recommendation (February 13)
Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing - Recommendation (February 14)
City Council Hearing, 1st Reading (February 19)
Building Review Board Hearing – Recommendation (February 28)
ATTACHMENTS
1. Table 1, FAR comparison.
2. Summary of public comments from January meetings.
3. Potential Land Use Code amendments (Option A)
4. Potential Land Use Code amendments (Option B)
5. PowerPoint presentation
Eastside & Westside Neighborhoods Character Study
Building Review Board Hearing Memo
February 15, 2013
Page 8
.
1
Building Review Board
Hearing - February 28, 2013
Recommendation to City Council regarding an
Ordinance for proposed Land Use Code changes
related to implementation of the Eastside and
Westside Neighborhoods Character Study
2
Eastside & Westside Neighborhoods
Character Study
Three Phases to Planning Process:
Phase 1 Understand character/context and
neighborhood compatibility issues
Phase 2 Develop Strategies for addressing issues and
impacts of larger new construction
Phase 3 Develop tools, systems, and actions to
implement strategies
3
Public Process for Implementation - 2013
• Working Group Meetings (January 16)
• Public Open House Meeting (January 30)
• Boards/Commissions Recommendation to
Council (February)
• City Council Hearing (1st Reading – February 19)
• City Council Hearing (2nd
Reading – March 5)
4
Staff Recommended Strategy Options
1.Promote Ex. Design Assistance Program
2.Expand Notification for Variances
3.Create Design Handbooks/Guidelines
4.Adjust Measurement Methods
5.Address Building Massing/Solar Access
a. Address Building Scale/Size Directly
b. Address Solar Access Directly
c. Address Building Massing/Solar Impacts
with Design Tools (Indirectly)
6.No Action/Limited Action
5
Direction from City Council (11/27/12)
1. Develop a strategy to promote design assistance
2. Expand notification of variances
3. Create voluntary design guidelines
4. Adjust measurement methods
5. Address building massing/solar access:
5a. Address building scale/size - Revise (FAR)
5b. Address Solar Access Impacts - directly
5c. Address building massing/solar impacts
indirectly with new design standards
6
Study Area
7
Study Area
8
Proposed Options for Potential Land Use
Code Amendments
Option A
• Reflects package of revised and new standards - including
revision of the existing FAR standard formula
Option B
• Same as Option A - except retains existing FAR standard
formula
9
Option A
Proposed Land Use Code Amendments
• Expand existing notification distance for variance
requests
• Revise Ex. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards
• Adjust Ex. Standard for measuring height of new
building wall along side lot line
• New solar access standard
• New standards for building front/side façade
design
10
Expand the notification distance for some Zoning
Board of Appeals (ZBA) variance requests (New
Land Use Code Amendment)
11
Revise Existing Maximum Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) Standards
Clarifying Code terminology and
formatting
Reduces maximum FAR according
to a sliding scale by lot size
FARs differ for the N-C-L and
N-C-M districts
12
Revise Existing Maximum Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) Standards
Adjust measurement method
for calculating maximum
permitted FAR
Count large volume
spaces as two floors
Count square footage
of elevated
basements
Not count up to 250
square feet of
detached rear
accessory structure
13
Revise Existing Maximum Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) Standards
Potential FAR Formula
Additional allowance for 250 square feet in detached
accessory structure on lots 6,000 SF or larger
14
15
16
Eastside Neighborhood Data
Existing Floor Area Ratio (Average = 0.17)
17
Westside Neighborhood Data
Existing Floor Area Ratio (Average = 0.18)
18
Eastside/Westside Neighborhood Data
FAR by Zoning District
Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (N-C-L)
• Average Lot Size = 8,387 (sq. ft.)
• Average House Size = 1,361 (sq. ft.)
• Average Total FAR = 0.21
Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (N-C-M)
• Average Lot Size = 7,334 (sq. ft.)
• Average House Size = 1,171 (sq. ft.)
• Average Total FAR = 0.21
19
Adjust measurement method for height of a new
wall along a side lot line
Proposed System –
Existing Grade at Property Line
Current System –
Finished Grade at Wall
20
Façade Standard for Solar Access
Lower maximum wall height facing a one-story neighbor to the
north
Would only apply to large new houses or new two-story
houses
21
Additional Building Design Standards
Provides a menu of design options for the building
front façade of large new homes
22
Additional Building Design Standards
Provides a menu of design options for the building
side façade of large new homes
23
Standards Comparison
Existing: All Standards Combined
Potential: All Standards Combined
24
Case Study 1 (existing conditions)
25
Page 11: Case Study 1 (before/after)
26
Case Study 1 (solar access)
27
Case Study 2 (existing condition)
28
Case Study 2 (before/after)
29
Case Study 3 (existing condition)
30
Case Study 3 (before/after)
31
Case Study 3 (solar access)
32
Option A
Main Issues Addressed
• Expands notification for variance requests , increasing
awareness for affected neighbors
• Reduces FAR to limit largest house sizes
• Adjusts side wall height measurement to account for raised
grading relative to neighboring properties
• Addresses compatibility issues and solar impacts of some
larger new construction
33
Option B
Proposed Land Use Code Amendments
• Expand existing notification distance for variance
requests
• Retain Ex. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards
• Adjust Ex. Standard for measuring height of new
building wall along side lot line
• New solar access standard
• New standards for building front/side façade
design
34
Option B
Main Issues Addressed
• Expands notification for variance requests , increasing
awareness for affected neighbors
• Adjusts side wall height measurement to account for raised
grading
• Addresses compatibility issues and solar impacts of some
larger new construction
35
Comparison of Ordinances
2011 Ordinance (Repealed):
• Lowering current limit for building FAR applied the
same for all lots in both NCL/NCM districts
• Require recommendation from Landmark
Preservation Commission to Zoning Board of
Appeals on variance requests for FAR
• Adjust measurement method for maximum side
wall height
36
Comparison of Ordinances
Proposed 2013 Ordinance – Option A:
• New standard for expanded notice for variance
requests
• Lowering current limit for building FAR applied
differently for both NCL/NCM districts based on lot
size (Option B does not include this standard)
• Adjust measurement method for maximum side
wall height (similar)
• New solar access standard
• New building façade design standards
37
Building Review Board
Hearing - February 28, 2013
Recommendation to City Council regarding an
Ordinance for proposed Land Use Code changes
related to implementation of the Eastside and
Westside Neighborhoods Character Study
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
1
OPTION A
ORDINANCE NO. ___, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
LAND USE CODE PERTAINING TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
EASTSIDE AND WESTSIDE NEIGHBORHOODS CHARACTER STUDY
WHEREAS, in 2010, City staff conducted an Eastside/Westside Neighborhood Study
which resulted in an ordinance being approved by the City Council which was later repealed in
response to a citizen petition; and
WHEREAS, in June 2011, City staff initiated a new Eastside/Westside Neighborhood
Character Study (the “Study”) after receiving direction from City Council to take a fresh look at
neighborhood compatibility and character issues in the neighborhoods near downtown; and
WHEREAS, the basis of the Study is to respond to continued concerns with respect to
potential impacts of building additions and new construction in the City’s oldest neighborhoods;
and
WHEREAS, the Study process included extensive public outreach and the consideration
of the proposed Code changes arising from the Study by the Planning and Zoning Board, the
Landmark Preservation Commission, the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Building Review
Board; and
WHEREAS, the direction from the Study is to amend the Land Use Code in the
following particulars:
1. Expand the existing notification distance for some Zoning Board of Appeals
variance requests;
2. Revise the existing Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards using a new formula to
lower the largest allowable house sizes, and adjust the method for calculating allowable floor
area;
3. Adjust the method for measuring the height of a new wall along a side lot line;
4. Incorporate a new solar access standard; and
5. Incorporate new design standards with a menu of options for front and side
building façade features; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed changes to the Land Use
Code are in the best interests of the City.
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
2
NOW, THERFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 2.10.2(F) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(F) Step 6 (Notice): Section 2.2.6(A) only applies, except that “5800 feet” shall be
changed to “150 feet”, and for single-family houses in the NCL and NCM zone
districts, eight hundred (800) feet shall be changed to five hundred (500) feet for
variance requests for:
(a) Construction that results in a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house
previously existed and where there is at least one (1) lot abutting the side of
the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story; or
(b) Construction of a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred
(2,500) square feet; or
(c) Construction of an addition that results in a total square footage of more than
three thousand (3,000) square feet;
and "14 days" shall be changed to "7 days," everywhere they occur in Section
2.2.6.(A). Section 2.2.6(B)-(D) shall not apply.
Section 2. That Section 4.7(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(D) Land Use Standards.
(1) Density Required Lot Area. Minimum lot area shall be equivalent to at least two
and one-half (21/2) times the total floor area of the building(s), but not be less
than six thousand (6,000) square feet. For the purposes of calculating density,
"total floor area" shall mean the total gross floor area of all principal buildings as
measured along the outside walls of such buildings and including each finished or
unfinished floor level plus the total gross floor area of the ground floor of any
accessory building larger than one hundred twenty (120) square feet, plus that
portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least
seven and one-half (71/2) feet located within any such accessory building located
on the lot. (Open balconies and basements shall not be counted as floor area for
purposes of calculating density).
(2) Allowable Floor Area on Lots.
(a) The allowable floor area shall be as follows:
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
3
(1) On a lot of less than five thousand (5,000) square feet, the
allowable floor area for single-family dwellings and buildings
accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed forty (40)
percent of the lot area.
(2) On a lot that is between five thousand (5,000) square feet and ten
thousand (10,000) square feet, the allowable floor area for single-
family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family
dwellings shall not exceed twenty (20) percent of the lot area plus,
one thousand (1,000) square feet. On a lot that is between six
thousand (6,000) square feet and ten thousand (10,000) square feet,
an additional two hundred-fifty (250) square feet shall be added for
a detached accessory structure.
(3) On a lot that is more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, the
allowable floor area for single-family dwellings and buildings
accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed thirty (30)
percent, plus two hundred-fifty (250) square feet for a detached
accessory structure.
(4) The allowable floor area for buildings containing permitted uses
other than single-family dwellings and buildings accessory to
single-family dwellings shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the
lot area.
(b) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, one hundred (100)
percent of the floor area of the following spaces and building elements
shall be included:
(1) The total floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the
outside walls of such buildings and including each finished or
unfinished floor level plus the total floor area of the ground floor
of any accessory building larger than one hundred twenty (120)
square feet, plus that portion of the floor area of any second story
having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7-1/2) feet
located within such accessory building on the lot.
(2) Basement floor areas where the exterior basement walls are
exposed by more than three (3) feet above adjacent finished grade.
(3) Roofed porches, balconies and breezeways that are enclosed on
more than two sides.
(c) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the
following spaces and building elements shall be counted at two hundred
(200) percent:
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
4
High volume spaces on the first or second floor where the distance
between the floor and the ceiling or roof rafters directly above is greater
than fourteen (14) feet.
(d) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the
following spaces and building elements shall not be included:
The first two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of a detached accessory
building, provided that it is located behind a street-fronting principal
building and is separated from such principal building by at least ten (10)
feet.
(3) Allowable Floor Area on Rear Half of Lots. The allowable floor area on the rear
half of a lot shall not exceed twenty five (25) percent of the area of the rear fifty
(50) percent of the lot.
(24) Residential. Any new single-family dwelling that is proposed to be located behind
a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of eight hundred
(800) square feet of floor area unless such new single-family dwelling contains a
two-car garage, in which case it shall contain a maximum of one thousand (1,000)
square feet of floor area, including the garage. Floor area shall include all floor
space within the basement and first floor plus that portion of the floor area of any
second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet. A
new single-family dwelling may be located in any area of the rear portion of such
lot, provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and
there is at least a ten-foot separation between structures. The building footprint for
such single-family dwelling shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet.
(35) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future Habitable Space).
Any accessory building with water and/or sewer service shall be considered to
have habitable space. Any person applying for a building permit for such a
building shall sign and record with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder an
affidavit stating that such accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit.
All applicable building permits issued for such buildings shall be conditioned
upon this prohibition. Any such structure containing habitable space that is
located behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of six
hundred (600) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space
within the basement and ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any
second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet. Such
accessory building may be located in any area of the rear portion of a lot,
provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and there
is at least a ten-foot separation between structures.
(46) Accessory Buildings Without Habitable Space. Any accessory building without
water and/or sewer service, which has not been declared to contain habitable
space by the applicant, shall not exceed a total floor area of six hundred (600)
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
5
square feet. Floor area shall include all floor space (including basement space)
within the building having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½)
feet.
(5) Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Lots are subject to a maximum FAR of twenty-five
hundredths (0.25) on the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot as it existed on October
25, 1991. The lot area used as the basis for the FAR calculation shall be
considered the minimum lot size within the zone district.
Section 3. That Section 4.7(E) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(E) Dimensional Standards.
. . .
(4) Minimum Side Yard and Maximum Wall Height. Minimum side yard width shall
be five (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a building wall
or building along a side lot line exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, as measured
from the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, such
portion of the building wall or building shall be set back from the interior side lot
line an additional one (1) foot, beyond the minimum required, for each two (2)
feet or fraction thereof of building wall or building height that exceeds eighteen
(18) feet in height, except as provided in “a” below. Minimum side yard width
shall be fifteen (15) feet on the street side of any corner lot. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, minimum side yard width for schools and places of worship shall be
twenty-five (25) feet (for both interior and street sides).
(a) Solar Access Setbacks. For building construction that results in:
1. a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously
existed, or
2. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
3. an addition that results in a total square footage of more than three
thousand (3,000) square feet, and
4. construction on a lot where there is a lot abutting the north side of
the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story,
buildingheight shall be reduced to preserve solar access on adjacent lots such that
whenever any portion of a north-facing side building wall that adjoins a lot to the
north exceeds fourteen (14) feet in height, as measured from the existing grade at
the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, such portion of the building wall
shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot beyond
the minimum required, for each one (1) foot, or fraction thereof, of building wall
that exceeds fourteen (14) feet in height. For lots that are forty (40) feet or less in
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
6
width, the fourteen (14) foot starting height may be increased by one (1) foot for
each one (1) foot of decreased lot width up to a maximum starting height of
eighteen (18) feet.
Figure XX: Minimum Side Yard Width and Maximum Building Wall Height
*Applies only to north-facing building walls adjoining a property to the north for
building construction that results in a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house
previously existed, or when the construction is for a new house that is greater than two
thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, or for an addition that results in a total square
footage of more than three thousand (3,000) square feet, and where there is a lot abutting
the north side of the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story.
(5) Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case of carriage
houses, and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be a
maximum of one and one-half (1-1/2) stories.
Section 4. That Section 4.7(F) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(F) Development Standards.
(1) Building Design.
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
7
. . .
(h) Front Façade Character. When building construction results in:
1. a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously
existed and where there is at least one (1) lot abutting the side of
the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story,
or
2. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
3. a second-story addition that results in a total square footage of
more than three thousand (3,000) square feet
at least one (1) front façade feature from the menu below shall be included
to promote pedestrian orientation and compatibility with the character of
the structures on the block face:
Figure XX: Menu of Design Options for Front Façade Character
Limited Two Story Façade
Two-story front-façade width is no more than 40’,
with any remaining two-story front façade set back
an additional six (6) feet from the street.
One Story Element
The portion of the façade closest to the street is
one-story, with any two-story façade set back an
additional six (6) feet from the street.
Covered Entry Feature
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
8
A covered entry feature such as a front porch or
stoop is located on the front façade. The feature
shall have a minimum depth of at least six (6) feet.
(as measured from the building façade to the posts
and railings) and a minimum length of eight (8) feet.
(i) Side Façade Character. When building construction results in:
1. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
2. a second-story addition that results in a total square footage of
more than three thousand (3,000) square feet
at least one (1) side façade feature from the menu below shall be included to
address potential looming and privacy impacts on neighbors:
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
9
Figure XX: Menu of Design Options for Side Façade Character
Wall Offset
Two-story façade width at the minimum side yard is no
more than forty (40) feet, with any remaining two-story
façade set back an additional six (6) feet beyond the
minimum required side yard.
Step Down in Height
Two-story façade width at the minimum side
yard is no more than forty (40) feet, with any
remaining façade width at the minimum side
yard reduced to one-story.
One Story Element
A one-story building element with a minimum depth of
six (6) feet is located at the minimum side yard.
Additional Setback
Any two-story façade is set back an additional
six (6) feet beyond the minimum required side
yard.
. . .
Section 5. That Section 4.8(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(D) Land Use Standards.
(1) Density/Intensity of Development Required Lot Area. Minimum lot area shall be
equivalent to at least two (2) times the total floor area of the building(s), but not
be less than the following: five thousand (5,000) square feet for a single-family or
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
10
two-family dwelling and six thousand (6,000) square feet for all other uses. For
the purposes of calculating density, "total floor area" shall mean the total gross
floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the outside walls of such
buildings and including each finished or unfinished floor level plus the total gross
floor area of the ground floor of any accessory building larger than one hundred
twenty (120) square feet, plus that portion of the floor area of any second story
having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (71/2) feet located within
any such accessory building located on the lot. (Open balconies and basements
shall not be counted as floor area for purposes of calculating density).
(2) Allowable Floor Area on Lots.
(a) The allowable floor area shall be as follows:
(1) On a lot of less than four thousand (4,000) square feet, the
allowable floor area for single-family dwellings and buildings
accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed fifty (50)
percent of the lot area.
(2) On a lot that is between four thousand (4,000) square feet and ten
thousand (10,000) square feet, the allowable floor area for single-
family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family
dwellings shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the lot area
plus one thousand (1,000) square feet. On a lot that is between six
thousand (6,000) square feet and ten thousand (10,000) square feet,
an additional two hundred-fifty (250) square feet shall be added for
a detached accessory structure.
(3) On a lot that is more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, the
allowable floor area for single-family dwellings and buildings
accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed thirty-five
(35) percent of the lot area, plus two hundred-fifty (250) square
feet for a detached accessory structure.
(4) The allowable floor area for buildings containing permitted uses
other than single-family dwellings and buildings accessory to
single-family dwellings shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the
lot area.
(b) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, one hundred (100)
percent of the floor area of the following spaces and building elements
shall be included:
(1) The total floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the
outside walls of such buildings and including each finished or
unfinished floor level plus the total floor area of the ground floor
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
11
of any accessory building larger than one hundred twenty (120)
square feet, plus that portion of the floor area of any second story
having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7-1/2) feet
located within such accessory building located on the lot.
(2) Basement floor areas where the exterior basement walls are
exposed by more than three (3) feet above adjacent finished grade.
(3) Roofed porches, balconies and breezeways that are enclosed on
more than two (2) sides.
(c) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the
following spaces and building elements shall be counted at two hundred
(200) percent:
High volume spaces on the first or second floor where the distance
between the floor and the ceiling or roof rafters directly above is greater
than fourteen (14) feet.
(d) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the
following spaces and building elements shall not be included:
The first two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of a detached accessory
building, provided that it is located behind a street-fronting principal
building and is separated from such principal building by at least ten (10)
feet
(3) Allowable Floor Area on Rear Half of Lots. The allowable floor area on the rear
half of a lot shall not exceed thirty-three (33) percent of the area of the rear fifty
(50) percent of the lot.
(24) Residential. Any new single-family dwelling that is proposed to be located behind
a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of eight hundred
(800) square feet of floor area unless such new single-family dwelling contains a
two-car garage, in which case it shall contain a maximum of one thousand (1,000)
square feet of floor area, including the garage. Floor area shall include all floor
space within the basement and first floor plus that portion of the floor area of any
second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet. A
new single-family dwelling may be located in any area of the rear portion of such
lot, provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and
there is at least a ten-foot separation between structures. The building footprint for
such single-family dwelling shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet.
(35) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future Habitable Space).
Any accessory building with water and/or sewer service shall be considered to
have habitable space. Any person applying for a building permit for such a
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
12
building shall sign and record with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder an
affidavit stating that such accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit.
All applicable building permits issued for such buildings shall be conditioned
upon this prohibition. Any such structure containing habitable space that is
located behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of six
hundred (600) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space
within the basement and ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any
second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet. Such
accessory building may be located in any area of the rear portion of a lot,
provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and there
is at least a ten-foot separation between structures.
(46) Accessory Buildings Without Habitable Space. Any accessory building without
water and/or sewer service, which has not been declared to contain habitable
space by the applicant, shall not exceed a total floor area of six hundred (600)
square feet. Floor area shall include all floor space (including basement space)
within the building having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½)
feet.
(5) Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Lots are subject to a maximum FAR of twenty-five
hundredths (0.25) on the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot as it existed on October
25, 1991. The lot area used as the basis for the FAR calculation shall be
considered the minimum lot size within the zone district.
Section 6. That Section 4.8(E) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(E) Dimensional Standards
. . .
(4) Minimum Side Yard and Maximum Wall Height. Minimum side yard width shall
be five (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a building wall
or building along a side lot line exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, as measured
from the natural grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, such portion
of the building wall or building shall be set back from the interior side lot line an
additional one (1) foot, beyond the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or
fraction thereof of building wall or building height that exceeds eighteen (18) feet
in height, except as provided for in “a” below. Minimum side yard width shall be
fifteen (15) feet on the street side of any corner lot. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, minimum side yard width for schools and places of worship shall be
twenty-five (25) feet (for both interior and street sides).
(a) Solar Access Setbacks. For building construction that results in:
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
13
1. a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously
existed, or
2. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
3. an addition that results in a total square footage of more than three
thousand (3,000) square feet, and
4. construction on a lot where there is a lot abutting the north side of
the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story
building height shall be reduced to preserve solar access on adjacent lots
such that whenever any portion of a north-facing side building wall that
adjoins a lot to the north exceeds fourteen (14) feet in height, as measured
from the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall,
such portion of the building wall shall be set back from the interior side lot
line an additional one (1) foot beyond the minimum required, for each one
(1) foot, or fraction thereof, of building wall that exceeds fourteen (14)
feet in height. For lots that are forty (40) feet or less in width, the fourteen
(14) foot starting height may be increased by one (1) foot for each one (1)
foot of decreased lot width up to a maximum starting height of eighteen
(18) feet.
Figure XX: Minimum Side Yard Width and Maximum Building Wall Height
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
14
*Applies only to north-facing building walls adjoining a property to the north for
building construction that results in a two (2) story where a one (1) story previously
existed, or when the construction is for a new house that is greater than two thousand five
hundred (2,500) square feet, or for an addition that results in a total square footage of
more than three thousand (3,000) square feet, and where there is a lot abutting the north
side of the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story.
(5) Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case of
carriage houses, and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which
shall be a maximum of one and one-half (11/2) stories.
Section 7. That Section 4.8(F) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
(F) Development Standards
(1) Building Design.
. . .
(h) Front Façade Character. When building construction results in:
1. a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously
existed and where there is an abutting house on either side that is
one (1) story, or
2. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
3. a second-story addition that results in a total square footage of
more than three thousand (3,000) square feet
at least one (1) front façade feature from the menu below shall be included
to promote pedestrian orientation and compatibility with the character of
structures on the block face:
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
15
Figure XX: Menu of Design Options for Front Façade Character
Limited Two Story Façade
Two-story front-façade width is no more than 40’,
with any remaining two-story front façade set back
an additional six (6) feet from the street.
One Story Element
The portion of the façade closest to the street is
one-story, with any two-story façade set back an
additional six (6) feet from the street.
lCovered Entry Feature
A covered entry feature such as a front porch or
stoop is located on the front façade. The feature
shall have a minimum depth of at least six (6) feet
(as measured from the building façade to the posts
and railings) and a minimum length of eight (8) feet.
(i) Side Façade Character. When building construction results in:
1. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
16
2. a second-story addition that results in a total square footage of
more than three thousand (3,000) square feet
at least one (1) side façade feature from the menu below shall be included to
address potential looming and privacy impacts on neighbors:
Figure XX: Menu of Design Options for Side Façade Character
Wall Offset
Two-story façade width at the minimum side yard is no
more than forty (40) feet, with any remaining two-story
façade set back an additional six (6) feet beyond the
minimum required side yard.
Step Down in Height
Two-story façade width at the minimum side
yard is no more than forty (40) feet, with any
remaining façade width at the minimum side
yard reduced to one-story.
One Story Element
A one-story building element with a minimum depth of
six (6) feet is located at the minimum side yard.
Additional Setback
Any two-story façade is set back an additional
six (6) feet beyond the minimum required side
yard.
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
17
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of
February, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 5th day of March, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 5th day of March, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
1
OPTION “B”
ORDINANCE NO. ___, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
LAND USE CODE PERTAINING TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
EASTSIDE AND WESTSIDE NEIGHBORHOODS CHARACTER STUDY
WHEREAS, in 2010, City staff conducted an Eastside/Westside Neighborhood Study
which resulted in an ordinance being approved by the City Council which was later repealed in
response to a citizen petition; and
WHEREAS, in June 2011, City staff initiated a new Eastside/Westside Neighborhood
Character Study (the “Study”) after receiving direction from City Council to take a fresh look at
neighborhood compatibility and character issues in the neighborhoods near downtown; and
WHEREAS, the basis of the Study is to respond to continued concerns with respect to
potential impacts of building additions and new construction in the City’s oldest neighborhoods;
and
WHEREAS, the Study process included extensive public outreach and the consideration
of the proposed Code changes arising from the Study by the Planning and Zoning Board, the
Landmark Preservation Commission, the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Building Review
Board; and
WHEREAS, the direction from the Study is to amend the Land Use Code in the
following particulars:
1. Expand the existing notification distance for some Zoning Board of Appeals
variance requests;
2. Adjust the method for calculating allowable floor area;
3. Adjust the method for measuring the height of a new wall along a side lot line;
4. Incorporate a new solar access standard; and
5. Incorporate new design standards with a menu of options for front and side
building façade features; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed changes to the Land Use
Code are in the best interests of the City.
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
2
NOW, THERFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 2.10.2(F) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(F) Step 6 (Notice): Section 2.2.6(A) only applies, except that “5800 feet” shall be
changed to “150 feet”, and for single-family houses in the NCL and NCM zone
districts, eight hundred (800) feet shall be changed to five hundred (500) feet for
variance requests for:
(a) Construction that results in a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house
previously existed and where there is at least one (1) lot abutting the side of
the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story; or
(b) Construction of a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred
(2,500) square feet; or
(c) Construction of an addition that results in a total square footage of more than
three thousand (3,000) square feet;
and "14 days" shall be changed to "7 days," everywhere they occur in Section
2.2.6.(A). Section 2.2.6(B)-(D) shall not apply.
Section 2. That Section 4.7(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(D) Land Use Standards.
(1) Density Required Lot Area. Minimum lot area shall be equivalent to at least two
and one-half (21/2) times the total floor area of the building(s), but not be less
than six thousand (6,000) square feet. For the purposes of calculating density,
"total floor area" shall mean the total gross floor area of all principal buildings as
measured along the outside walls of such buildings and including each finished or
unfinished floor level plus the total gross floor area of the ground floor of any
accessory building larger than one hundred twenty (120) square feet, plus that
portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least
seven and one-half (71/2) feet located within any such accessory building located
on the lot. (Open balconies and basements shall not be counted as floor area for
purposes of calculating density).
(2) Allowable Floor Area on Lots.
(a) The allowable floor area shall be as follows:
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
3
(1) The allowable floor area for all buildings shall not exceed forty
(40) percent of the lot area.
(b) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, one hundred (100)
percent of the floor area of the following spaces and building
elements shall be included:
(1) The total floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the
outside walls of such buildings and including each finished or
unfinished floor level plus the total floor area of the ground floor
of any accessory building larger than one hundred twenty (120)
square feet, plus that portion of the floor area of any second story
having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7-1/2) feet
located within such accessory building on the lot.
(2) Basement floor areas where the exterior basement walls are
exposed by more than three (3) feet above adjacent finished grade.
(3) Roofed porches, balconies and breezeways that are enclosed on
more than two sides.
(c) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the
following spaces and building elements shall be counted at two hundred
(200) percent:
High volume spaces on the first or second floor where the distance
between the floor and the ceiling or roof rafters directly above is greater
than fourteen (14) feet.
(d) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the
following spaces and building elements shall not be included:
The first two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of a detached accessory
building, provided that it is located behind a street-fronting principal
building and is separated from such principal building by at least ten (10)
feet.
(3) Allowable Floor Area on Rear Half of Lots. The allowable floor area on the rear
half of a lot shall not exceed twenty five (25) percent of the area of the rear fifty
(50) percent of the lot.
(24) Residential. Any new single-family dwelling that is proposed to be located behind
a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of eight hundred
(800) square feet of floor area unless such new single-family dwelling contains a
two-car garage, in which case it shall contain a maximum of one thousand (1,000)
square feet of floor area, including the garage. Floor area shall include all floor
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
4
space within the basement and first floor plus that portion of the floor area of any
second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet. A
new single-family dwelling may be located in any area of the rear portion of such
lot, provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and
there is at least a ten-foot separation between structures. The building footprint for
such single-family dwelling shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet.
(35) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future Habitable Space).
Any accessory building with water and/or sewer service shall be considered to
have habitable space. Any person applying for a building permit for such a
building shall sign and record with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder an
affidavit stating that such accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit.
All applicable building permits issued for such buildings shall be conditioned
upon this prohibition. Any such structure containing habitable space that is
located behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of six
hundred (600) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space
within the basement and ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any
second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet. Such
accessory building may be located in any area of the rear portion of a lot,
provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and there
is at least a ten-foot separation between structures.
(46) Accessory Buildings Without Habitable Space. Any accessory building without
water and/or sewer service, which has not been declared to contain habitable
space by the applicant, shall not exceed a total floor area of six hundred (600)
square feet. Floor area shall include all floor space (including basement space)
within the building having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½)
feet.
(5) Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Lots are subject to a maximum FAR of twenty-five
hundredths (0.25) on the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot as it existed on October
25, 1991. The lot area used as the basis for the FAR calculation shall be
considered the minimum lot size within the zone district.
Section 3. That Section 4.7(E) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(E) Dimensional Standards.
. . .
(4) Minimum Side Yard and Maximum Wall Height. Minimum side yard width
shall be five (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a building wall or
building along a side lot line exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, as measured from the existing
grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, such portion of the building wall or
building shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot, beyond the
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
5
minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of building wall or building height
that exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, except as provided in “a” below. Minimum side yard
width shall be fifteen (15) feet on the street side of any corner lot. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, minimum side yard width for schools and places of worship shall be twenty-five (25)
feet (for both interior and street sides).
(a) Solar Access Setbacks. For building construction that results in:
1. a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously
existed, or
2. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
3. an addition that results in a total square footage of more than three
thousand (3,000) square feet, and
4. construction on a lot where there is a lot abutting the north side of
the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story,
building height shall be reduced to preserve solar access on adjacent lots such that
whenever any portion of a north-facing side building wall that adjoins a lot to the
north exceeds fourteen (14) feet in height, as measured from the existing grade at
the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, such portion of the building wall
shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot beyond
the minimum required, for each one (1) foot, or fraction thereof, of building wall
that exceeds fourteen (14) feet in height. For lots that are forty (40) feet or less in
width, the fourteen (14) foot starting height may be increased by one (1) foot for
each one (1) foot of decreased lot width up to a maximum starting height of
eighteen (18) feet.
Figure XX: Minimum Side Yard Width and Maximum Building Wall Height
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
6
*Applies only to north-facing building walls adjoining a property to the north for
building construction that results in a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house
previously existed, or when the construction is for a new house that is greater than two
thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, or for an addition that results in a total square
footage of more than three thousand (3,000) square feet, and where there is a lot abutting
the north side of the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story.
(5) Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case of carriage
houses, and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be a
maximum of one and one-half (1-1/2) stories.
Section 4. That Section 4.7(F) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(F) Development Standards.
(1) Building Design.
. . .
(h) Front Façade Character. When building construction results in:
1. a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously
existed and where there is at least one (1) lot abutting the side of
the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story,
or
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
7
2. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
3. a second-story addition that results in a total square footage of
more than three thousand (3,000) square feet
at least one (1) front façade feature from the menu below shall be included
to promote pedestrian orientation and compatibility with the character of
the structures on the block face:
Figure XX: Menu of Design Options for Front Façade Character
Limited Two Story Façade
Two-story front-façade width is no more than 40’,
with any remaining two-story front façade set back
an additional six (6) feet from the street.
One Story Element
The portion of the façade closest to the street is
one-story, with any two-story façade set back an
additional six (6) feet from the street.
Covered Entry Feature
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
8
A covered entry feature such as a front porch or
stoop is located on the front façade. The feature
shall have a minimum depth of at least six (6) feet.
(as measured from the building façade to the posts
and railings) and a minimum length of eight (8) feet.
(i) Side Façade Character. When building construction results in:
1. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
2. a second-story addition that results in a total square footage of
more than three thousand (3,000) square feet
at least one (1) side façade feature from the menu below shall be included to
address potential looming and privacy impacts on neighbors:
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
9
Figure XX: Menu of Design Options for Side Façade Character
Wall Offset
Two-story façade width at the minimum side yard is no
more than forty (40) feet, with any remaining two-story
façade set back an additional six (6) feet beyond the
minimum required side yard.
Step Down in Height
Two-story façade width at the minimum side
yard is no more than forty (40) feet, with any
remaining façade width at the minimum side
yard reduced to one-story.
One Story Element
A one-story building element with a minimum depth of
six (6) feet is located at the minimum side yard.
Additional Setback
Any two-story façade is set back an additional
six (6) feet beyond the minimum required side
yard.
. . .
Section 5. That Section 4.8(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(D) Land Use Standards.
(1) Density/Intensity of Development Required Lot Area. Minimum lot area shall be
equivalent to at least two (2) times the total floor area of the building(s), but not
be less than the following: five thousand (5,000) square feet for a single-family or
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
10
two-family dwelling and six thousand (6,000) square feet for all other uses. For
the purposes of calculating density, "total floor area" shall mean the total gross
floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the outside walls of such
buildings and including each finished or unfinished floor level plus the total gross
floor area of the ground floor of any accessory building larger than one hundred
twenty (120) square feet, plus that portion of the floor area of any second story
having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (71/2) feet located within
any such accessory building located on the lot. (Open balconies and basements
shall not be counted as floor area for purposes of calculating density).
(2) Allowable Floor Area on Lots.
(a) The allowable floor area shall be as follows:
(1) The allowable floor area for all buildings shall not exceed fifty
(50) percent of the lot area.
(b) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, one hundred (100)
percent of the floor area of the following spaces and building elements
shall be included:
(1) The total floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the
outside walls of such buildings and including each finished or
unfinished floor level plus the total floor area of the ground floor
of any accessory building larger than one hundred twenty (120)
square feet, plus that portion of the floor area of any second story
having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7-1/2) feet
located within such accessory building located on the lot.
(2) Basement floor areas where the exterior basement walls are
exposed by more than three (3) feet above adjacent finished grade.
(3) Roofed porches, balconies and breezeways that are enclosed on
more than two (2) sides.
(c) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the
following spaces and building elements shall be counted at two hundred
(200) percent:
High volume spaces on the first or second floor where the distance
between the floor and the ceiling or roof rafters directly above is greater
than fourteen (14) feet.
(d) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the
following spaces and building elements shall not be included:
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
11
The first two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of a detached accessory
building, provided that it is located behind a street-fronting principal
building and is separated from such principal building by at least ten (10)
feet
(3) Allowable Floor Area on Rear Half of Lots. The allowable floor area on the rear
half of a lot shall not exceed thirty-three (33) percent of the area of the rear fifty
(50) percent of the lot.
(24) Residential. Any new single-family dwelling that is proposed to be located behind
a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of eight hundred
(800) square feet of floor area unless such new single-family dwelling contains a
two-car garage, in which case it shall contain a maximum of one thousand (1,000)
square feet of floor area, including the garage. Floor area shall include all floor
space within the basement and first floor plus that portion of the floor area of any
second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet. A
new single-family dwelling may be located in any area of the rear portion of such
lot, provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and
there is at least a ten-foot separation between structures. The building footprint for
such single-family dwelling shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet.
(35) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future Habitable Space).
Any accessory building with water and/or sewer service shall be considered to
have habitable space. Any person applying for a building permit for such a
building shall sign and record with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder an
affidavit stating that such accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit.
All applicable building permits issued for such buildings shall be conditioned
upon this prohibition. Any such structure containing habitable space that is
located behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of six
hundred (600) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space
within the basement and ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any
second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet. Such
accessory building may be located in any area of the rear portion of a lot,
provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and there
is at least a ten-foot separation between structures.
(46) Accessory Buildings Without Habitable Space. Any accessory building without
water and/or sewer service, which has not been declared to contain habitable
space by the applicant, shall not exceed a total floor area of six hundred (600)
square feet. Floor area shall include all floor space (including basement space)
within the building having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½)
feet.
(5) Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Lots are subject to a maximum FAR of twenty-five
hundredths (0.25) on the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot as it existed on October
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
12
25, 1991. The lot area used as the basis for the FAR calculation shall be
considered the minimum lot size within the zone district.
Section 6. That Section 4.8(E) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(E) Dimensional Standards
. . .
(4) Minimum Side Yard and Maximum Wall Height. Minimum side yard width shall
be five (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a building wall
or building along a side lot line exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, as measured
from the natural grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, such portion
of the building wall or building shall be set back from the interior side lot line an
additional one (1) foot, beyond the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or
fraction thereof of building wall or building height that exceeds eighteen (18) feet
in height, except as provided for in “a” below. Minimum side yard width shall be
fifteen (15) feet on the street side of any corner lot. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, minimum side yard width for schools and places of worship shall be
twenty-five (25) feet (for both interior and street sides).
(a) Solar Access Setbacks. For building construction that results in:
1. a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously
existed, or
2. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
3. an addition that results in a total square footage of more than three
thousand (3,000) square feet, and
4. construction on a lot where there is a lot abutting the north side of
the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story
building height shall be reduced to preserve solar access on adjacent lots
such that whenever any portion of a north-facing side building wall that
adjoins a lot to the north exceeds fourteen (14) feet in height, as measured
from the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall,
such portion of the building wall shall be set back from the interior side lot
line an additional one (1) foot beyond the minimum required, for each one
(1) foot, or fraction thereof, of building wall that exceeds fourteen (14)
feet in height. For lots that are forty (40) feet or less in width, the fourteen
(14) foot starting height may be increased by one (1) foot for each one (1)
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
13
foot of decreased lot width up to a maximum starting height of eighteen
(18) feet.
Figure XX: Minimum Side Yard Width and Maximum Building Wall Height
*Applies only to north-facing building walls adjoining a property to the north for
building construction that results in a two (2) story where a one (1) story previously
existed, or when the construction is for a new house that is greater than two thousand five
hundred (2,500) square feet, or for an addition that results in a total square footage of
more than three thousand (3,000) square feet, and where there is a lot abutting the north
side of the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story.
(5) Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case of
carriage houses, and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which
shall be a maximum of one and one-half (11/2) stories.
Section 7. That Section 4.8(F) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
(F) Development Standards
(1) Building Design.
. . .
(h) Front Façade Character. When building construction results in:
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
14
1. a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously
existed and where there is an abutting house on either side that is
one (1) story, or
2. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
3. a second-story addition that results in a total square footage of
more than three thousand (3,000) square feet
at least one (1) front façade feature from the menu below shall be included
to promote pedestrian orientation and compatibility with the character of
structures on the block face:
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
15
Figure XX: Menu of Design Options for Front Façade Character
Limited Two Story Façade
Two-story front-façade width is no more than 40’,
with any remaining two-story front façade set back
an additional six (6) feet from the street.
One Story Element
The portion of the façade closest to the street is
one-story, with any two-story façade set back an
additional six (6) feet from the street.
lCovered Entry Feature
A covered entry feature such as a front porch or
stoop is located on the front façade. The feature
shall have a minimum depth of at least six (6) feet
(as measured from the building façade to the posts
and railings) and a minimum length of eight (8) feet.
(i) Side Façade Character. When building construction results in:
1. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
16
2. a second-story addition that results in a total square footage of
more than three thousand (3,000) square feet
at least one (1) side façade feature from the menu below shall be included to
address potential looming and privacy impacts on neighbors:
Figure XX: Menu of Design Options for Side Façade Character
Wall Offset
Two-story façade width at the minimum side yard is no
more than forty (40) feet, with any remaining two-story
façade set back an additional six (6) feet beyond the
minimum required side yard.
Step Down in Height
Two-story façade width at the minimum side
yard is no more than forty (40) feet, with any
remaining façade width at the minimum side
yard reduced to one-story.
One Story Element
A one-story building element with a minimum depth of
six (6) feet is located at the minimum side yard.
Additional Setback
Any two-story façade is set back an additional
six (6) feet beyond the minimum required side
yard.
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
17
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of
February, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 5th day of March, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 5th day of March, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
)
Lot Size Lot Size
Max.
FAR
Additional
Accessory
Structure
Floor Area
Allowance
Total
Allowed
Floor
Area
Max.
FAR
Allowed
Floor
Area
Additional
1,000 sf Floor
Area Lots ≥
5,000 sf & <
10,000 sf
Additional
Accessory
Structure
Floor Area
Allowance
Total Floor
Area
Actual
FAR
Max.
FAR
Additional
Accessory
Structure
Floor Area
Allowance
Total
Floor
Area
Max.
FAR
Allowed
Floor
Area
Additional
1,000 sf Floor
Area Lots ≥
5,000 sf & <
10,000 sf
Additional
Accessory
Structure
Floor Area
Allowance
Total Floor
Area
Actual
The
form
prov
new
Wes
Sum
1. &
3. W
W
I
P
p
E
C
A
A
O
4. D
st
J
final public
mat of the me
vide written a
Code chang
tside Neighb
mmary of all w
& 2. Where d
Of the 52
two neigh
Which action
Westside ne
Implementa
Promote the
program
Expand notif
Create volun
Adjust side w
Adjust floor
Other Potent
Count ba
No furthe
Promote
Big impr
Caveat; s
lean-to a
FAR alre
Do you have
tandards?
Clever w
Maybe ch
Page 2
fine. But to say the garage does not count towards the floor area ration is just not appropriate. The
biggest issue to the neighborhood is the move to the densely populated, fully built out, suburban to
urban, change, that will profoundly change the character of old town. To a large degree, the rights of
homeowners, and the nature of the real estate market will move in that direction, without regard to any
changes government can make. But floor area ratio is the best, most objective, least subject to
discrimination, easiest to administer tool.
I support the new, proposed FAR standards. Regarding balconies needing to be counted as part of FAR
standards, please reference house at 122 S Whitcomb with its second story balcony which extends
beyond neighbor’s garages, uses majority of lot and reduces/diminishes neighbor’s privacy.
I think the changes (if approved) will help resolve some of the concerns presented by citizens in the
workshops. Will definitely be an improvement.
Not sure they go far enough to meet objectives.
I like what I hear. It sounds like it has the potential to close loopholes.
I am sure the potential revisions will upset larger lot owners.
It is a thinly veiled attempt to reinstate the FAR standards that were repealed by the public in ’11. It
should not be passed and it has been a gross waste of City time and resources and Council is out of line
in trying to push it through on short notice before an election.
Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes!!! The projects that are maxing out the standards or getting “variance” in (is
that a word?), are obtrusive, greedy, obsessive, completely against the character of the neighborhoods of
Old Town.
I like these suggestions. I think you’ve creatively allowed for growth without allowing for obscenity in
terms of size.
Please do not make additional restrictions on building standards. We are right back to what was
repealed before. This will damage the development of our growing neighborhood. People will leave or
decide to go elsewhere. This will financially impact our neighborhood and home values.
FAR!! 003 repealed this issue.
No adjustment to floor area ration (FAR) measurement. Petition in 2011 was successful and 003 was
repealed and City Council stated that if this issue came back, it would not be based on “FAR” . The
people of Fort Collins spoke via that petition in 2011.
Looks intelligent, fair, forward-looking.
Differentiation of NCL & NCM seems arbitrary. Use the NCL standard for both zones. Sliding scale by
lot size is good, but the FAR is still too high. It should be .30 for a 10,000 sq.ft. lot in both zones and
without the 250 sq. ft. accessory building exception.
New plan looks very positive in being able to place some limits without prohibiting reasonable
expansion of house sizes in the neighborhood.
Good idea to include elevated basements in the FAR. Should point out in presentations and to City
Council that non-elevated basements do not count in FAR thus possible to have more finished square
feet than what is listed in the tables presented.
If the new unit fits the lot it should be ok. Each lot design is different.
Using a sliding scale by lot size makes sense now. Yes, differentiate between the NCL and NCM zone
districts. OK – provide a 250 sq.ft. exception for detached rear accessory structures. Yes, work with a
revised floor area measurement method that considers high volume spaces.
Too restricted, limits creating decent sized family homes with garages. Prohibits diversity and value of
property.
I like them, particularly adding 3’ above ground basements and high ceiling rooms to the FAR.
Yes, differentiate between the NCL and NCM zone districts. Yes, provide a 250 sq.ft. exception for
detached rear accessory structures. No to: Work with a revised floor area measurement method that
considers high volume spaces.
Page 3
Check to see what Boulder is going to do about slanting roofs. Concerned about odd setbacks different
on north and south side.
Include balcony measurements into accounting the FAR requirements/calculations. I think the proposed
FAR standards are overly restrictive. Should have existing FAR the same. Limits to side wall height.
Should be on a case by case basis. One size does not fit all . . . especially in Old Town. The example
used for the NCL zone of a lot of 7,000 sq.ft. seemed like an extreme result. What good is a 250 sq.ft.
accessory building.
There is NO current problem.
5. Do you have comments on the potential side wall height standards for solar access?
Will this result in homes that do not fit into the overall character of the neighborhood?
Protecting neighbor’s light & sun is one of the most important requirements. Measurements taken at
12:00 noon, winter solstice. No loss of sun to neighbor needs to be the standard.
Not really – I think it’s a great idea to make the proposed changes.
Good idea
It’s only fair, for both solar & gardening.
Solar access is important so 18’ is generous.
At this time, I believe the proposal is too vague and should be studied further before a final proposal is
put forth for adoption.
The value of these Old Town lots and yards is greatly reduced as these extreme projects get taller and
closer to lot boundaries.
My only concern here is that we might end up with funky, lop-sided houses.
No more standards! Solar access can be blocked by planting a tree and everyone supports tree planting.
Standards do not address this without negatively effecting home values.
For our property it’s not a large impact but larger lots are greatly impacted. Large houses are not out of
place in Old Town, just need to be done in character.
What about landscaping – trees grow – is that an issue? Old Town has big trees – do you want them cut
down!?
Limit wall height at the minimum side setback on the north side of the lot to preserve solar access.
I am strongly in favor of the standards as defined
Applying only to large additions or new construction is a huge loophole. Somebody could build a 250
sq.ft addition on a roof and significantly shade a neighbor to the north. Is there a sliding scale so
houses/additions built at a 5’6” setback can’t move up to 18’? Also, the 1:1 height increase for lots
narrower than 40’ seems overly generous. A tall house on a narrow lot has a greater potential to impact
neighbors, so maybe buying a narrow lot should limit what you can do. A height increase of 6” for each
foot narrower than 40’ with a maximum of 16’ would be better.
North-south impact is addressed well without being overly prohibitive. East-west impacts may need to
be considered as well.
Good idea for north facing wall heights restrictions.
Doesn’t apply to my lot, but it is an important issue. Yes, apply only to large additions and new
construction adjacent to a neighbor to the north. Yes, limit wall height at the minimum side setback on
the north side of the lot to preserve solar access.
Properties are in flux. A single story home may become a two story in the future. South properties are
always subject to a northern neighbor . . . which may also change height in the future.
I like the concept although I’m concerned about asymmetrical roofs.
OK, apply only to large additions and new construction adjacent to a neighbor to the north. Yes, limit
wall height at the minimum side setback on the north side of the lot to preserve solar access.
Solar access protection needs to be set at winter solstice rather than spring equinox.
Needs to have a variance for homes that are forced to raise their base elevations due to flood plains.
Page 4
6. Do you have comments on the potential additional building design standards to address front and side
façade character?
The illustrations I saw on the poster do not reflect the character of homes in the area. I think it’s a good
idea but designs need to be tweaked.
I am in favor!
This should be approached with caution. Jackson Hole did it and now it looks like a Disney theme park.
Variety is good.
Compatibility with other buildings important.
Tightening up the standards will ensure that the character of a neighborhood will evolve gracefully.
I love that you’re not only looking at FAR but you’re considering design as well. Thank you.
No more standards! This will negatively impact our neighborhoods.
This design standard alone could address many of the out of place renovations.
Provide a menu of options to address the character of front and side facades.
Positive
Can’t legislate accounting for task. It is a diverse neighborhood. That’s part of the flavor of Eastside.
Save the cookie-cutter mindset for the “burbs”.
New plan offers good options. Design assistance will help achieve better outcomes.
Good ideas
An important issue to maintain the character of the neighborhoods. I enjoyed judging the various
facades at the Lopez Elementary workshop. OK, apply only to large additions and new construction – it
saves time and effort spent on small projects. OK, provide a menu of options to address the character of
front and side facades.
They are ok
No to: Apply only to large additions and new construction. Yes, provide a menu of options to address
the character of front and side facades. Develop standards for front setback to align with others on the
block. Address porches, trim, etc. to mimic nearby older homes.
Are porches the only way to create a more friendly façade in character? I think the standards are narrow
and will create a cookie cutter effect and most likely unintended consequences.
Why should the City get involved in how people design their homes? It’s all subjective.
7. Do you have other comments and feedback?
These neighborhoods are the jewels of Fort Collins, and their character needs to be preserved. It’s what
makes them so popular.
Please do not make the building process (permits, notifications, etc.) expensive. Voluntary design
guidelines and example designs – Great!
“Neighborhood Contexts??” On one hand they do seem to assign a label to neighborhoods. But so
what! I see this as a first step in an unannounced hidden agenda towards mandating HOA. Folks can
see the context of the neighborhoods without a government definition.
Consultation with neighbors before building may reduce disharmony and help create a neighborly
feeling. In the case of a builder/developer building a spec house to be sold in near future, hold these
houses to the standards & insist on neighborhood meeting for guidance. City needs to be proactive in
designating historic home protection recognizing the desirability of living in these neighborhoods and
the fact that some people have so much money they can buy, scrape & build anything.
Keep doing this. I hope City Council will enforce these changes. Keep our neighborhood’s historic
character.
Pleased that you have a significantly involved those of us living in the areas. Hope City council has
same approach vs. only interests of developers.
Page 5
I don’t believe there is enough evidence of a problem caused by the current FAR standards that will be
solved by the proposed new standards. Furthermore, I feel that Council is attempting to railroad through
new standards that the community has shown they do not support (i.e. the 2011 repeal of an extremely
similar FAR standard to the one now being proposed). Additionally, the graphs and presentation is
misleading (i.e. the 250 sq.ft. exemption for detached structures).
The market does an excellent job of monitoring the developing and maintaining the market. This
tinkering isn’t going to do anything except screw up the market and leave some properties that should be
address without a suitor. Your building size is ratcheted down so that no one will buy the old houses
and fix them up – not profitable. You are seriously messing with the market which is the best control.
Thanks for all your hard work in this lengthy and difficult process. Even if we pretend not to like you!!
We still appreciate your time.
Great job so far, we need change for the better!
I really appreciate how well you all have listened to the community. I feel like you’ve done a good job
at considering all sides of these issues. I also think you’ve come up with some creative solutions that
have the potential to work well. I especially liked being able to see how a newly built house might look
different under your new proposals. This really helped to solidify in my mind what exactly the
proposals would mean. Thanks for all your hard work.
The redevelopment and growth of our neighborhood will be stunted with these standards being
implemented again. These changes were repealed once before but the agenda of the Council is being
pushed. Not the voice of the community. These last minute explanations and last minute finalization of
suggestions leading to meetings where decisions will be made is exactly what happened last time. This
is not ok. No more standards.
I worry if we get too prescriptive, young families will not look to move/reinvest in Old Town. Without
flexibility, many people will get priced out of the Old Town market. The neighborhood will eventually
grow stagnant and start to decline.
I believe the new construction is good for the neighborhood. Keep the current standards. I thought this
was sealed a couple of years ago. The people of Fort Collins have spoken by repealing 003.
Grade is required to be raised in some of the area because of a high water table, so home owners are
being penalized with height restrictions, based on existing City imposed restrictions. In considering
financial impacts, both positive and negative impacts should be considered. Improvement of
neighboring properties improves the neighborhood as a whole . . . property values go up, and this is what
causes taxes to go up. Property value increase only benefits the community.
Great job. Wonderful outreach. Cooperative approach. Nicely phased. Good communication. Kudos
to City, Winter, other support staff.
Case by case – some projects are more disappointing in their choices than others. Don’t punish the
many for the disappointments of the few. Happy that due to additions, new builds, etc. that families are
able to thrive in Old Town.
1. Thank you for finally listening to citizens and council by addressing solar access. It’s a good start,
but it needs to directly protect solar access (e.g. regardless of lot size or width, or building size, additions
or new houses would not be allowed to cast a shadow higher than 5’ on a house to the north built at the
5’ setback, at noon on Dec. 21). This would allow maximum flexibility for construction without
allowing a negative environmental or economic impact (by shading windows) on neighbors to the north.
2. Why do the standards kick in at 2,500 sq. ft. for new construction, but 3,000 total sq.ft. for additions?
2,000 sq. ft. would be a good threshold for both. Remember, it’s not saying a house can’t be bigger – it
just says you have to consider your neighbors.
Thanks for the good work.
Didn’t we go through this two years ago? Things are working ok now – no action is needed.
It appears from this information and my discussion with Abe that converting my one-car garage to a
two-car garage will not exceed the potential FAR standard.
Page 6
It always seems to go back to the City Council’s agenda of changing the FAR and creating restrictive
standards that were vetoed last year!!! I feel that these changes affect the property values and
desirability of Old Town. WATCH OUT!! Is this even legal? Put it to a vote, not a Council that
determines citizen’s outcome! Washed A LOT of resources $$ to get this FAR changed again. Outrage.
Provide for neighbors consultation on new building and in some cases remodels. Work toward
neighborhood harmony.
It might be helpful to make a table that shows total FAR by lot size with an assumed addition of a full
basement to estimate total possible finished square footage. For example, a NCL lot of 7,000 sq.ft.
could allow a 2,650 sq.ft. FAR. If that 2,650 is two floors of 1,200 sq.ft. each plus a detached garage,
then a full basement could be 1,200 sq.ft. and usable space would really be closer to 3,600 sq.ft.
City Council is once again creating a mountain out of a mole hill. Fort Collins is land locked and in one
breath the “City” promotes infill projects and building up not out, and in the other breath they restrict
future building and improvements by making regulations over restrictive. Fort Collins (City Council)
needs to figure out what they really want and they need to listen to all the people – not just the loud few.
Regarding high volume space being counted as two floors – why would that matter? This will
financially impact the home.
Can we please finally allow the FAR conversation to die? The citizens spoke in 2011, and they don’t
want it. Just because there are two City Council members who are so arrogant as to believe that their
opinions are more important than the thousands of citizens who signed on to repeal the last FAR
proposal doesn’t make it right.
Two
for th
impl
Stud
Sum
1. &
3. D
(F
o neighborho
he meetings
lementation
dy.
mmary of all w
& 2. Where d
Of the 23
residents
Do you have
FAR) standa
Allow ho
mother-in
Overall,
some of t
Look for
and build
Like the
Like mea
character
Moving i
lots over
When fig
considera
What is t
How is ir
How muc
Clarify h
How is th
no time f
What abo
for adjac
How man
You’ve r
Page 2
The two hits for implementing less FAR based on .25 + 1000 sf AND counting ceiling over 14' is
excessive. I suggest adopting one or the other. For example on a 10,000 sq ft lot w/ a cathedral ceiling
over 14' for a 400sq ft home, the allowable FAR is roughly 60% of current standards. 10,000 (.25) +
1000 = 3500 -400 (cathedral greater than 14') = 3100 sq ft. Current standard (NCM) is 5000sq
ft. 3100/5000 = roughly 60%
4. Do you have comments and feedback on the potential standards for solar access?
Suggest a lower front home and put more sq.ft. in a back unit/addition or detached carriage house.
For the most part, I like this one as well. Case study four freaks me out a little because the folks to the
north keep their sunshine, but the folks to the south lose privacy and have a big wall along their yard. I
also don’t want a bunch of awkward, slanty houses in the neighborhood.
Looks good – like the setback/height adjustment plan.
Great ideas! There should be a standard for lots under 40 ft. wide such as 15 ft. max height at min. side
yard setback and 12 ft. at 40 ft. and over. Keep 1 ft. to 1 ft. increase in max height for each additional
setback. Not 2 ft. for 1 ft. setback. Second story additions that result in over 2,500 sq.ft. should fall
under the new façade standards for solar access, not 3,000 sq.ft.
Access to light/sun is a key criteria for a livable space for me.
I like access rules but don’t want lots of asymmetrical roof lines or asymmetrical side lot setbacks.
Do solar access requirements apply to major remodels as well as new construction? Will this create
asymmetrical buildings (rooflines)?
Does solar access address or include trees (evergreens)? They also shade adjacent buildings; should also
look at evergreen placement in new landscaping
Does solar access address or require solar panels or collectors?
Would solar apply to narrow lots? Would apply only those lots less than 40’ wide?
Concerned about solar with corner lots because they have wider setbacks so lot is more difficult to build
on, especially when lot is also narrow...
What is side wall height limit for solar access?
Solar access will push houses to the south side – this is one solution, but there may be other ways to
address on lots
Could a variance be requested to solar access?
Keep the exception to the offset standards for the lot's w/ 40' or less of street frontage, only measure the
40' as "build able lot area" - The portion of the lot remaining after subtracting required offsets. For an
interior lot, this would be 30' in this example: 40 - 2(5 (side setbacks)) = 30' For a corner lot: 40 - 15
(street side setback) - 5 (interior side setback). Also, does a house w/ street frontage on a northern road
have to comply w/ this standard. If so, why? Are we trying to ensure the street has sufficient solar
access? An exception should be made to corner lots or alley lots w/ streets and alleys on their northern
side. Lastly, neighbors should be able to come to consensus on when to apply these standards. This is an
agreement between two individual property owners. The City's blanket approach to solar protection will
not consider the intricacies of each situation. Two interested parties are much better at realizing an
appropriate solution than cookie cutter standards.
5. Do you have comments and feedback on the potential additional façade standards?
This all looks good to me.
Looks good.
Generally these standards are an improvement.
How about apply in relation to the specific buildings on adjacent lots – be sure to apply to major
remodels.
Can a façade/porch encroach into the setback?
This seems like good regulation. Changing the facade every 40' is adequate.
Page 3
6. What additional evaluation do you feel is necessary?
A second story deck is a different animal from a first floor deck. I think it should be counted somehow.
Open decks need to be counted in FAR and /or the impacts on neighbor’s privacy.
To reiterate the 40' lot frontage exception to solar access. A 50' corner lot is just as prohibitive as a 40'
interior lot regarding buildable area. 40 - two 5' side setbacks = 30 buildable dimension and 50 (corner
lot) - 15' setback on street and 5' setback on interior lot = 30 buildable dimension.
7. Do you have other comments and feedback?
There should be notification for neighbors for new building and demolition even when it doesn’t require
a variance. These can be “big deals” even when they follow the current rules. Neighbors shouldn’t be
taken by surprise. I think you all have done a great job. You seem to be thorough, considerate and fair.
I really appreciate all you’ve done.
Expand notification in a timely manner for variance requests and especially for
demolition/deconstructions.
Please don’t use flat roof houses for examples in your case studies – they aren’t realistic. Can you
provide photos of Boulder or other places where solar access standards apply? Also, what Boulder is
doing to respond to solar access problems that result in asymmetrical roof lines? We’ll have some
problems – might as well address it now.
How to get information out about requirements like these – maybe through REALTORS – so people
know before they buy.
Suggest city modify requirements for elevations to be submitted on projects to require elevations that
show context (block face where house is and opposite block face) – would be more useful.
Suggest looking at building permits from past 5 years to see how many would/would not meet these
standards (like what Ben Manvel did before).
How were houses on Wood Street allowed? Variances?
Compare previous proposal to current proposal and show how they are different and similar or the same.
Standards only apply to single-family not multi-family. Why does NCM have greater allowance?
Does City Council attend these meetings (open house, etc.) on this project?
Suggest a comparison table be made to show what was passed before and what is proposed now.
These standards don’t completely address compatibility – the future design guidelines/standards will
also help with compatibility.
Suggest that input with your neighbors can help reduce surprises and result in better design (mentioned
variance for the turret on Whitcomb Street).
Like the use of “privacy” as a term for what we’re trying to protect.
If you want to retain the "neighborhood character" provisions should be made to consider adjoining
properties in all directions that border a house. For example maximum height should be based on the
highest adjoining property. Provisions should be in place for many of these variables, i.e. setbacks,
FAR, maximum building height.
impact on
Overall F
Should th
Do large
Easts
Janua
ood working
included a s
of the recom
written and v
do you live?
3 people atte
or owners w
comments
ards?
ome owner to
n-law unit fo
I really like
the crazy wi
ward to calc
d a two car g
proposed fo
asurements f
r of adjacent
in right direc
5,000 sq.ft.
guring ratios
ation?
the height of
rregular lot s
ch flexibility
how the garag
his different
for review.
out shifting m
ent propertie
ny lots woul
reduced FAR
n smaller lot
FARs are low
he FAR of 0
patios and d
side and We
ary 16,
Summ
group meeti
staff overvie
mmended stra
verbal comm
Do you ow
ending the m
within the tw
and feedba
o distribute m
or lots under
this change.
illy nilly stuf
culating how
garage.
r std’s
from ground
t homes.
ction – looks
to table.
, is preserva
f a basement
sizes/lot con
y is allowabl
ge is counted
from the pre
more square
es than havin
ld fit into the
R, which is p
ts, especially
wer, but con
.33 for the b
decks count t
stside Neigh
2013 W
mary of
ings were he
ew presentati
ategy option
ments receive
wn or rent?
meeting, two
wo neighborh
ck on the po
more of the
r 10,000 sq.f
It seems to
ff that’s been
w new standa
d level vs. rai
s good to me
ation of solar
t that is inclu
nfigurations h
le?
d – would ge
evious FAR
e footage to t
ng a larger h
e under 40’ w
probably ok o
y when you a
struction stil
back half of t
toward FAR
hborhoods C
Working
Public
eld on Janua
ion of potent
ns from the E
ed by staff:
did not own
hoods.
otential rev
sq.ft. to the
ft.
o be still very
n going on.
ards would af
ised. Apprec
e but photo e
r access of ad
uded in FAR
handled?
et a 250 SF e
? Concerne
the back of th
house or addi
width except
on larger lot
add in the im
ll tends to fa
the lot be ret
R?
Character St
g Grou
Comm
ary 16, 2013
tial new Lan
Eastside & W
n or live in th
visions to exi
back of the
y gracious to
ffect my pla
ciate the rev
examples wo
djacent prop
R measureme
exception fo
d about proc
the lot (i.e. in
ition near th
tion?
ts of 9,000 sf
mpacts of the
all within thi
tained or rem
tudy
up Meet
ments
with 22 in a
nd Use Code
Westside Nei
he two neigh
isting maxim
lot such as a
o new builde
ans to demoli
vision to FAR
ould be nice.
perties (rear y
ent?
or a detached
cess and this
nto carriage
he front of th
f or 10,000 s
e solar acces
is formula.
moved – give
ting
attendance. T
e changes rel
ighborhoods
hborhoods an
mum floor a
a carriage ho
ers while reig
ish my one c
R in keeping
. Add actual
yards) taken
d garage.
s being done
house) – ma
he lot
sf but concer
ss requireme
en these low
The agenda
lating to
s Character
nd 21 are
area ratio
ouse or
gning in
car garage
g with the
l FAR for
n into
too quickly
ay be better
rned about
ents.
wer FARs?
,
A change
fill dirt h
than plen
logic beh
Easts
Januar
open house
eeting reflect
and verbal c
ges relating t
borhoods Ch
written and v
do you live?
2 people who
hborhoods a
ns should be
eighborhood
ation Action
existing des
fication of va
ntary design
wall height m
area ratio (F
tial Actions:
alconies as p
er action on
discussions
rovements fr
see if you ca
symmetrical
eady remove
comments
with the new
hange 250 sq
e to the floor
hauled in to i
nty. GARAG
hind the addi
side and We
y 30, 20
Summ
meeting wa
ted an inform
omments. S
to implemen
haracter Stud
verbal comm
Do you ow
o signed our
and 28 are re
e adopted to
ds? (Numbe
n
sign assistanc
ariances
guidelines
measurement
FAR) measur
art of FAR
any non-vol
among neig
rom previous
an tweak lim
l roofs. Ask
ed by commu
on the pote
ways of mea
q.ft. to 500 s
r area ratio c
ncrease grad
GES SHOUL
itional 600 s
stside Neigh
013 Pub
mary of
s held on Jan
mal “drop in
Staff also pro
tation of the
dy.
ments receive
wn or rent?
r roster, 33 c
esidents or ow
o address th
ers in Table
ce
t
rement
luntary issue
ghbors prior t
s (2010?) pro
ited side wa
k Boulder how
unity. Help
ntial revisio
asuring FAR
sq.ft.
calculation, t
de, inappropr
LD COUNT
q.ft. garage!
hborhoods C
blic Op
Public
nuary 30, 20
n” style for ci
ovided two b
e recommend
ed by staff:
ompleted a c
wners within
he identified
represent #
Imple
19
Revis
standa
19 Limit
21 Addre
19 Addre
17 Take n
es
to large prop
oposal
ll height to p
w they will f
folks with d
ons to existi
R & sliding s
to count high
riate. I feel
T TOWARD
If someone
Character St
pen Hou
Comm
013 with an e
itizens to rev
brief overvie
ded strategy
comment sh
n the two ne
d objectives
# of people r
ementation
e maximum
ards
side wall he
ess front faça
ess side faça
no action
posed chang
promote sola
fix this prob
design!!
ing maximu
scale by lot s
h ceilings, is
that 40% an
S THE PER
e wants a sm
tudy
use Me
ments
estimated 60
view the pro
ew presentati
options from
heet. Five di
ighborhoods
and issues
responding
Action
m floor area ra
eight to prom
ade characte
ade character
ges
ar access so
blem.
um floor are
size
s appropriate
nd 50% floor
RCENTAGE
maller house
eeting
0-70 in atten
oject informa
ions of the p
m the Eastsid
d not own or
s.
for the East
to question
atio (FAR)
mote solar ac
er
r
we don’t ge
ea ratio (FA
e. The chang
r area ratios
. I never un
and a larger
ndance. The
ation and
proposed
de &
r live in the
tside and
)
16
ccess 19
17
13
8
t a bunch of
AR)
ge to address
are more
nderstood the
r garage,
6
9
7
3
8
f
s
e
FAR
3,000 0.40 0 1200 0.40 1,200 0 0 1,200 0.40 3,000 0.50 0 1,500 0.50 1,500 0 0 1,500 0.50
4,000 0.40 0 1600 0.40 1,600 0 0 1,600 0.40 4,000 0.50 0 2,000 0.25 1,000 1,000 0 2,000 0.50
5,000 0.40 0 2000 0.20 1,000 1,000 0 2,000 0.40 5,000 0.50 0 2,500 0.25 1,250 1,000 0 2,250 0.45
6,000 0.40 0 2400 0.20 1,200 1,000 250 2,450 0.41 6,000 0.50 0 3,000 0.25 1,500 1,000 250 2,750 0.46
7,000 0.40 0 2800 0.20 1,400 1,000 250 2,650 0.38 7,000 0.50 0 3,500 0.25 1,750 1,000 250 3,000 0.43
8,000 0.40 0 3200 0.20 1,600 1,000 250 2,850 0.36 8,000 0.50 0 4,000 0.25 2,000 1,000 250 3,250 0.41
9,000 0.40 0 3600 0.20 1,800 1,000 250 3,050 0.34 9,000 0.50 0 4,500 0.25 2,250 1,000 250 3,500 0.39
10,000 0.40 0 4000 0.30 3,000 0 250 3,250 0.33 10,000 0.50 0 5,000 0.35 3,500 0 250 3,750 0.38
11,000 0.40 0 4400 0.30 3,300 0 250 3,550 0.32 11,000 0.50 0 5,500 0.35 3,850 0 250 4,100 0.37
12,000 0.40 0 4800 0.30 3,600 0 250 3,850 0.32 12,000 0.50 0 6,000 0.35 4,200 0 250 4,450 0.37
13,000 0.40 0 5200 0.30 3,900 0 250 4,150 0.32 13,000 0.50 0 6,500 0.35 4,550 0 250 4,800 0.37
14,000 0.40 0 5600 0.30 4,200 0 250 4,450 0.32 14,000 0.50 0 7,000 0.35 4,900 0 250 5,150 0.37
15,000 0.40 0 6000 0.30 4,500 0 250 4,750 0.32 15,000 0.50 0 7,500 0.35 5,250 0 250 5,500 0.37
All Lots: All Lots:
Lot < 5,000 sf: Lot < 4,000 sf:
Table 1 - Comparison of Existing and Potential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Standards
Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density Zone District (N-C-L)
Existing Standard Existing Standard
Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density Zone District (N-C-M)
2013 Standard 2013 Standard
Lot ≥ 4,000 and
< 10,000 sf
Lot ≥ 10,000 sf
Lot Size * 0.50 = Max. Floor Area
Lot Size * 0.25 + 1,000 (+250 sf in detached rear accessory structure on
lots ≥ 6,000 sf) = Max. Floor Area
Lot Size * 0.35 (+250 sf in detached rear accessory structure) = Max. Floor
Area
Lot ≥ 5,000 and
< 10,000 sf
Lot ≥ 10,000 sf
Lot Size * 0.20 + 1,000 (+250 sf in detached rear accessory structure on
lots ≥ 6,000 sf) = Max. Floor Area
Lot Size * 0.30 (+250 sf in detached rear accessory structure) = Max. Floor
Area
Lot Size * 0.40 = Max. Floor Area
2013 FAR Option for N-C-L
Existing FAR Standard for N-C-L
Lot Size * 0.40 = Max Floor Area
Existing FAR Standard for N-C-M
Lot Size * 0.50 = Max Floor Area
2013 FAR Option for N-C-M