HomeMy WebLinkAboutAffordable Housing Board - Minutes - 12/01/2016MINUTES
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD
Date: Thursday, December 1, 2016
Location: CIC Room, City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave.
Time: 4:00–6:00pm
For Reference
Jeff Johnson, Chair
Ray Martinez, Council Liaison
Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Staff Liaison 970-221-6753
Board Members Present Board Members Absent
Jeffrey Johnson, Chair Eloise Emery
Diane Cohn
Terence Hoaglund
Jennifer Bray
Curt Lyons
Kristin Fritz
Staff Present
Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Social Sustainability Specialist
Dianne Tjalkens, Administrative Assistant/Board Support
Meaghan Overton, Associate Planner
Ryan Mounce, City Planner
Guests: None
Call to order: Jeff called to order at 4:06pm.
Agenda Review: No changes
Public Comment: No comment
Review and Approval of Minutes
Jen moved to approve the November minutes as amended. Diane seconded.
Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-0.
Corrections: Last page, change to “Jeff is willing to continue as chair but prefers to give another an
opportunity to be chair.”
AGENDA ITEM 1: Board Officer Nominations
Will have new board member in January. Curt Lyons is being recommended for a second term.
Diane is willing to become Chair. She has been Vice Chair. Curt is willing to be Vice Chair.
Jeff moved to elect Diane as Chair of the AHB for 2017. Jen seconded.
Motion passed, 6-0-0.
1 | Page
Jeff moved to elect Curt as Vice Chair of the AHB for 2017. Jen seconded.
Motion passed, 6-0-0.
ACTION ITEMS: Notification to City Clerk’s Office of 2017 officers.
AGENDA ITEM 2: 2016 AHB Annual Report
Comments/Q&A
• Jeff: Add a paragraph about comments board members have given at Council.
o Sue: It is noted as happening once a month. Will change language to “periodically.”
Jen moved and Kristin seconded a motion to approve the 2016 Annual Report as amended.
Motion passed, 6-0-0.
ACTION ITEMS: Sue will submit to City Clerk’s Office.
AGENDA ITEM 3: Old Town Neighborhoods Plan—Ryan Mounce
Draft plan is completed—seeking feedback and recommendation to Council. Adoption planned for
February. Plan is a combination of neighborhoods east and west of downtown. Addressing emerging
issues in land use, housing, compatibility, etc.
Organizing topics:
• Neighborhood character and compatibility: landscaping, historic resources, design
o Design guidelines, educational/promotional materials
• Land use and transition areas:
o NCB (buffer district) guidelines and standards
• Circulation & Mobility: safe/convenient travel options
o Bike/pedestrian corridor improvements
o Sidewalk improvements
• Sustainability: TBL
Neighborhood Zoning
Neighborhood conservation zone districts came out of last neighborhood plan. Not recommending
changes to what is permitted in these zones. Low density zone districts have larger lots with mostly
single family homes. Medium density zones near CSU, have more multifamily and duplexes.
Considering rezoning select pockets of LMN to NCM or NCL. Have some homeowners who are in
downtown zone district who are asking to be downzoned. There is no buffer zone district in that
area—that has been one suggestion. Owners are mostly concerned about neighbors opening
businesses. Also looking to rezone some areas along Riverside from CL to NCM or NCB.
Specific Areas
Employment zone district next to LMN—have seen scrapes with new construction of large
structures. Limited interest in other uses. Size limits and design standards of NCM don’t apply to
LMN.
LMN pockets in NCL areas—Not recommending changes to existing businesses or mobile home
park. Recommending NCM zoning—has similar density (3-9/acre). In LMN can do larger structures.
Have areas that could be scraped and become office buildings next to single family homes.
CL district along Riverside—Considering rezoning some CL to NCM and NCB. Would still allow
light commercial offices. Ex: If an auto repair shop wanted to expand, could do so about a block into
the neighborhood (with demo of houses). Can do multifamily in CL. Limits commercial uses.
ADUs
2 | Page
Have also been discussing greater flexibility for ADUs and housing choice/effect on affordability in
neighborhoods. Have policies and strategies. Would have short term implementation action around
changes to land use code including reducing minimum lot size requirements for Carriage Houses.
Considering whether to change in NCL as well as NCB and NCM.
Land Use Codes
RL Low Density Residential
LMN Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood
MMN Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood
HMN High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood
NCL Neighborhood Conservation Low Density
NCM Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density
NCB Neighborhood Conservation Buffer
NC Neighborhood Commercial
CL Limited Commercial
Comments/Q&A
• Jeff: Guidelines designed to prevent infill/scraping to build apartments?
o Ryan: Keeping most zone districts the same. Does allow some multifamily. Potential
for some infill, but not a lot. Scrapes usually result in larger single family homes.
o Curt: Minimum lot size permitted?
Ryan: Typically 5000sf.
Curt: Do all three zones allow duplexes?
• Ryan: Not all.
• Diane: Guidelines vs. standards?
o Ryan: Guidelines are voluntary, standards are code.
• Curt: Possible to add verbiage to allow rebuild as is without rezoning in places where current
use is not permitted by land use code.
o Ryan: Have language for this already. Must rebuild within 12 months.
• Jeff: All zoning changes would be downzoning?
o Ryan: Yes.
o Jeff: Any changes to the downzoning since the last time visited AHB?
o Ryan: Unsure.
o Sue: Considered NCB instead of NCM?
Ryan: Design standards are more lenient in NCB than NCM.
• Curt: Parcel across from Beaver’s triggered this?
o Ryan: Certainly brought about much discussion. Many people were not aware this
use was permitted.
o Kristin: Replaced a gas station with housing. Scale could have been done differently
for neighborhood compatibility. Issue from neighborhood is how big it looks, not
how many units.
• Diane: Why were these zoned differently?
o Ryan: Left out of conservation district when created in 90s. Have a number of
duplexes and triplexes. One complex has 6 units.
• Kristin: Housing Catalyst has offices in the neighborhood.
o Sue: So other offices could be incorporated into the neighborhood without impacting
the character.
o Ryan: Reflecting actual use of lots.
• Curt: In LMN can have residential above commercial. Can do same in NCL.
3 | Page
o Ryan: True. Big divide in neighborhood between those who want to protect
residential character, whereas others want more mixed-use. Ex: Having coffee shop
that can walk to vs. concerns about commercial creep into neighborhoods.
• Diane: Walkability to commercial/retail is a good thing. Helps with a lot of the City goals.
Struggle with downzoning in general. Can see where appropriate in some cases, but in others
feels random. Want downtown to remain charming, but want new residents to be able to fit
in.
o Kristin: Great example of Fort Collins issue—neighborhoods and political leadership
that are afraid about compatibility. But plans have visions for density and mixed use.
Sustainable, walkable in the right places.
o Curt: When eliminate whole types of housing, or downzone, throwing baby out with
bathwater. Just make sure that style of housing is compatible.
o Diane: Agree that voice doesn’t get heard much in this plan.
o Jeff: Lot size, plus design standards, plus historic preservation make it impractical to
do these projects anyway. This action locks up this area. Many other protections in
place. Balance with choice of future generations and compatibility of this with the
current vision.
• Kristin: Have wanted to see more information about these parcels. There are cases to be
made, but hard to understand actual impact without photos, lot sizes, etc. Don’t have enough
information to understand impact on AHB goals. AHB won’t like downzoning if has effect
on density in downtown area.
o Diane: Character is there now with existing zoning. “What if” zone changing.
Kristin: Never know what people are planning. Housing Catalyst is always
looking at properties in this area.
Jeff: When housing becomes so unaffordable, it will make some of these
projects more affordable. Probably will be redeveloped into mixed use or
multifamily. Compatibility provisions of code are so strong that it is effective
in encouraging compatibility. Not worth cost of giving up future options to
downzone now.
Ryan: For most areas suggesting downzoning, NCM would not put a ceiling
on density because most are single family homes.
• Curt: Can’t see condition under which would be cost effective to scrape homes to create more
commercial.
o Ryan: There are properties for sale near businesses that are doing very well.
• Sue: No discussion of changing any zones to RL?
o Ryan: Larger citywide discussion for City Plan. This subarea does not have any RL.
AGENDA ITEM 3: Other Business
Not discussed
Meeting Adjourned: 6:15pm
Next Meeting: January 5
4 | Page