Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11/16/2017 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Regular Meeting
Planning and Zoning Board Page 1 November 16, 2017 Jeffrey Schneider, Chair City Council Chambers Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair City Hall West Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue Emily Heinz Fort Collins, Colorado Michael Hobbs Ruth Rollins Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & Channel 881 William Whitley on the Comcast cable system The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing November 16, 2017 6:00 PM • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Individuals may comment on items not specifically scheduled on the hearing agenda, as follows: • Those who wish to speak are asked to sign in at the podium. • The presiding officer will determine and announce the length of time allowed for each speaker. • Each speaker should state their name and address and keep their comments to the allotted time. • Any written materials should be provided to the Secretary for record-keeping purposes. • A timer will beep once and the time light will turn to yellow to indicate that 30 seconds of speaking time remain and will beep again and turn red when a speaker’s time to speak has ended. • CONSENT AGENDA The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Planning and Zoning Board to quickly resolve items that are non-controversial. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request that an item on this agenda be “pulled” for consideration within the Discussion Agenda, which will provide a full presentation of the item being considered. Items remaining on the Consent Agenda will be approved by the Planning and Zoning Board with one vote. The Consent Agenda generally consists of Board Minutes for approval, items with no perceived controversy, and routine administrative actions. Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Agenda Planning and Zoning Board Page 2 October 16, 2017 1. Draft October 19, 2017, P&Z Board Minutes The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes for the October 19, 2017, Planning and Zoning Board hearing. 2. Eligibility Expansion for Affordable Housing Fee Waivers PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to change City policy to allow any developer of housing units targeting households with incomes of no more than 30% area median income (AMI) to request affordable housing fee waivers for the qualifying units and to amend the City Land Use Code to reflect this change. APPLICANT: STAFF ASSIGNED: City of Fort Collins Sue Beck-Ferkiss 3. 2017 Three-Mile Plan Update PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Draft 2017 update of the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins APPLICANT: STAFF ASSIGNED: City of Fort Collins Ryan Mounce • DISCUSSION AGENDA 4. Spring Creek Rezone PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The purpose of the rezoning is to facilitate a future mixed-use development that would consist of commercial uses, multi-family apartments and two-family dwellings (duplexes). APPLICANT: OWNER: STAFF ASSIGNED: North Spring Creek Properties, LLC c/o Ripley Design 419 Canyon, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 North Spring Creek Properties, LLC c/o Mr. Steve Schroyer 401 W. Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 Ted Shepard • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 1 STAFF REPORT November 16, 2017 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME DRAFT OCTOBER 19, 2017, P&Z HEARING MINUTES STAFF Cindy Cosmas, Administrative Assistant EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the October 19, 2017, Planning and Zoning Board hearing minutes. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Oct P&Z Minutes (DOC) Attachment 1 Jeff Schneider, Chair City Council Chambers Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair City Hall West Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue Emily Heinz Fort Collins, Colorado Michael Hobbs Ruth Rollins Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & William Whitley Channel 881 on Comcast The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing October 19, 2017 Member Schneider called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hansen, Heinz, Hobbs, Rollins, Schneider and Whitley Absent: none Staff Present: Gloss, Yatabe, Wray, Frickey, Holland, Shepard, Beals, Everette, Kleer, Tatman- Burruss, Langenberger, Virata, Wilkinson, Uhlman, Bassinger and Cosmas Chair Schneider provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He described the following procedures: • While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input is valued and appreciated. • The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for each item. • Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land Use Code. • Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed for that as well. • This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes Planning & Zoning Board October 19, 2017 Page 2 Agenda Review Planning Director Gloss reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, stating that all items will be heard as originally advertised. Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: None noted. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from September 14, 2017, P&Z Hearing 2. Fox Hills Second Annexation 3. Highway I-25 Third Annexation and Zoning 4. Reasonable Accommodation Land Use Code Public Input on Consent Agenda: A citizen requested that the Highway I-25 Third Annexation and Zoning project be pulled from the Consent agenda. This item will be heard at the end of the Discussion agenda. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Consent agenda for the October 19, 2017, Planning and Zoning Board hearing as originally advertised, with the exception of the Highway I-25 Third Annexation and Zoning, which will be reviewed separately. Member Heinz seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0. Discussion Agenda: 5. Hansen Farm ODP 6. St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church ODP Amendment 7. Fort Collins Jeep PDP 8. Small Cell Land Use Code Changes Member Rollins excused herself due to a conflict of interest at 6:09pm. Project: Hansen Farm ODP Project Description: This is a request for an Overall Development Plan (O.D.P.) for the vacant 69 acre parcel located on the west side of S. Timberline Road at the intersection of Zephyr Road. The property lies within multiple zone districts, including the Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (L-M-N), Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (M-M-N), and Neighborhood Commercial (N-C) districts. The Neighborhood Commercial zone district will include primary and/or secondary uses. The Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods zone district will include primary or secondary uses including multi-family dwellings. The Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district will consist of residential uses, including single-family and multi-family dwellings. The purpose of an Overall Development Plan is to establish general planning and development control parameters for projects that will be developed in phases, with multiple submittals, while allowing sufficient flexibility to permit detailed planning in subsequent P.D.P. submittals. There is no established vested right with an O.D.P. Planning & Zoning Board October 19, 2017 Page 3 Recommendation: Approval Secretary Cosmas reported that several citizen emails have been received – from the Willow Springs Community Association, Tom Barlowe, and others; the concerns expressed are related to traffic concerns and the proximity of the project to the Crowne condominium development. We also received copies of the Fossil Creek Plan Willow Springs South, Fossil Creek Area Reservoir Plan, and associated neighborhood comments. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe provided some reference for the audience of what the parameters are for Board consideration, given that this project is in the ODP phase, which requires a more general approach to the project development. Staff and Applicant Presentations Senior Planner Wray gave a brief overview of this project, including a description of the zoning and density requirements. Jeff Mark, Owner and Developer with Lorson North Development, provided a separate, brief presentation, focusing on the project’s conformance with City codes. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Patricia Book, 2006 Willow Springs Way, President of the Willow Springs Community Association, has concerns about the compatibility of lot and home sizes, the proposed density of the transition point, proposed buffers, profiles of homes, lot placement, impact to the south development, egress out of Willow Springs, and potential traffic issues. She asked the Board to consider the long-term development plan for this area. Steve Anderson, 1518 Fairway 7 Court, has a concern with security associated with the proposed fencing specifically related to the railroad right-of-way and associated security issues. Tim Abbott, 5625 Red Willow Court, and Tim Kinney, 5711 White Willow Drive, yielded their speaking time to Tom Barlowe. Tom Barlowe, 5631 Red Willow Court, has a concern regarding the proposed density with respect to Willow Springs. He gave some background, referring to the 1998 ordinance and subsequent amendments, including the adopted Fossil Creek Reservoir Plan, which overrides the City Structural Plan. He indicated that the Willow Springs density is currently 3 units/acre for the overall development, as compared with 4 units/acre being proposed for the Hansen Farm project. He added that this proposed increase in density is not in compliance with the Fossil Creek Plan. He offered some solutions: a 100-foot buffer off the ditch, movement of the park to the northern edge, restriction of northern units to 21 units, or a height reduction of units to 1 story. He is willing to work with the developer, but he feels strongly that the Board stipulate that the northern and southern borders have compatible densities. Brian Cranberger, 5527 Golden Willow Drive, has a concern that square footage of homes in the proposed development will not be consistent with those in surrounding areas, which could have an impact on property values. Vivian Bust, 5557 Weeping Way, has several concerns, including the drainage easements, storage solutions and overall water management for this project, saying that the ODP only identifies one drainage outflow on site. To ensure sufficient stormwater capacity, she listed over-detention is one option. She is also concerned with possible pollutants (from farm activities) in the soil. She would like to see more soil and water testing. She also objects to the conclusion of the Traffic Study that confirms current roadway operations are acceptable at peak traffic periods. Planning & Zoning Board October 19, 2017 Page 4 Angie Green, 1942 Willow Springs Way, has a concern with the overall development of Fort Collins, saying that there should be more effort to preserve the current quality of life and integrity of Fort Collins. Jillian Harrison, 5620 Weeping Way, has a concern that connecting roadways will be established through her neighborhood, which would put more stress on the present streets. Staff and Applicant Response Senior Planner Wray addressed several of the citizen concerns, starting with the comparison of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Plan (FCRP) and the City Plan. He stated that these plans are not regulatory but provide guidance that affects this and other projects. Within the FCRP, the LUF5 policy provides general guidance over new neighborhood development, but there is also some degree of interpretation; Staff believes that the proposed project does compliment and is compatible with existing neighborhoods. The ODP is required to comply with Article 4 of the Land Use Code, based on the zoning, which was approved by City Council by ordinance. There were also strategic decisions made to locate this project in this area, including the intentional placement within the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zoning. He added that, for any developer, there is some degree of flexibility in project design to be able to provide a range of housing types and home sizes while meeting zoning requirements. Mr. Mark stated that he is coordinating with the Parks Department to establish park placement. Regarding the 50-foot buffer, this is considered to be an amenity and a good separator from Willow Springs and will result in a true separation of 80-100 feet when measured house to house. To address the density issues brought up by residents, he confirmed that the proposed density is well within the code requirements. There is a legal requirement to provide detention ponds, and there will be a Phase I study to comply with this objective, and he is not aware of any looming environmental issues. A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) will continue to be developed and refined during the PDP stage. He also has no intention of accessing this project through the Willow Springs neighborhood. Chair Schneider asked for clarification of buffer or lot sizes at this stage of development; Assistant City Attorney Yatabe confirmed that the Board can put conditions of approval on an ODP, but this type of stipulation is more appropriate at the PDP project level. Board Questions Member Hobbs asked about the general situation between Hansen Farm and Willow Springs with respect to slope. Senior Planner Wray showed a slide of the layout and discussed the latest environmental analysis, including the existing drainage features, pond, trees, and the irrigation ditch. Chair Schneider asked for clarification of the zoned areas; Senior Planner Wray provided details of each area in question, adding that the ODP must meet the range of densities prescribed by the LUC. While Willow Springs was approved prior to City Plan adoption, when the zoning was different, the LUC does not require a new development to match an existing adjacent development. Planning Director Gloss also clarified that the proposed lot size actually results in a density of 7 units/acre. Senior Environmental Planner Everette explained that, at the ODP level of a project, a general assessment of natural features would be performed to analyze any environmental impacts; a full Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) will be performed at the PDP level. A wetland area has been identified on this site, and the standard buffer for this type of project is 50 feet. Member Heinz asked if the density changes in the neighborhood along the property lines; Senior Planner Wray responded that the average density is less than the current provisions for LMN. He added that it was intentional to locate future mixed-use residential to provide housing choices adjacent to established neighborhoods. Mr. Mark pointed out that Willow Springs also includes a variety of residential property types that are Planning & Zoning Board October 19, 2017 Page 5 adjacent to large lots. Vice Chair Hansen inquired about the location and extent of the buffers; Senior Environmental Planner Everette responded by saying the location and extent of future buffers would be determined during the PDP phase, adding that the ECS would be considered when establishing buffers. Vice Chair Hansen also asked whether the park location had been defined; Senior Planner Wray stated that it would be approximately 3 acres in size, and the exact location would be decided during the PDP phase. Member Carpenter asked if there is a buffer along the lots on the north side of the Mail Creek ditch; Senior Environmental Planner Everette said that the buffer standards may be somewhat different due to timing of the code requirements. Member Carpenter asked if the park is required to be in the MMN zone; Senior Planner Wray responded that coordination of park requirements will occur at the PDP phase. Suzanne Bassinger, a Civil Engineer with Park Planning and Development, stated that parks are located per the Parks Master Plan and some are general, conception locations. There are considerations given to proximity and accessibility to the surrounding neighborhood, which will again be addressed at the PDP stage. Member Hobbs asked if ditches are typically raised up enough to create a physical buffer. Senior Planner Wray responded that they do create a physical buffer. Member Heinz asked about other wetland areas that are buffered at the 50-foot level; Senior Environmental Planner Everette reviewed the wetland standards and associated buffers per the code for the Board. Board Deliberation Member Carpenter stated for the record that many of the citizen issues discussed are not applicable at this time; she urged citizens not to be frustrated but to continue in their involvement during future project phases. Member Hobbs stated that the ODP is consistent with existing zoning standards. Member Whitley concurs with Member Hobbs. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Hansen Farm ODP170003, based on the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item. Member Carpenter seconded. Member Heinz encouraged the citizens to stay engaged during the PDP phase. Vice Chair Hansen agreed, saying the public concerns will be more appropriate during the PDP phase. Chair Schneider concurred and encouraged the audience as well. Vote: 6:0. The Board took a break at 7:24pm; they reconvened at 7:30pm. Project: St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church ODP Amendment Project Description: This is a request for an amendment to the existing Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church Overall Development Plan (ODP). The amendment to the ODP will reflect the current proposal for an addition of the existing worship hall on the southwest side of the multi-use building constructed during Phase I of the Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church PUD. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Cosmas reported no additional information has been received since the work session. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Frickey gave a brief overview of the project. Father Joseph Toledo, Pastor at the St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church, stated that he is prepared to answer any questions related to the project. Bob Saas, Principal from Eidos Architects, is also available to answer questions. Planning & Zoning Board October 19, 2017 Page 6 Staff Analysis and Board Questions Planner Frickey provided some guidance for the ODP being proposed and its conformance with codes and zoning. He reviewed the original proposal with respect to the requested addition to the church and the changes being proposed now. He also reviewed the benefits of this change, which mainly include a reduction in visual impacts to the neighborhood. Staff finds that the ODP is in conformance with the code, keeps existing connections, and conforms to the drainage master plan. Member Carpenter inquired whether the current design was previously approved; Planner Frickey confirmed this is true. Member Hobbs asked for the definition of a Rectory, which is a home for single priests. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Catherine Stager, 1451 Front 9 Drive, has a concern that the plan directions were labelled incorrectly regarding heights for the drawing. Adrian Farmer, 1529 Front 9 Drive, has a concern that the buildings greater than 40-feet tall will block the neighborhood views and should have a special review in order to ensure they are compatible with the scale of the surrounding neighborhood buildings. He suggested that the process be stopped now to resolve these issues. Michael Oberlander, 2436 Sunstone Drive, is a parishioner at the church and has been working on this project with the church. He understands the issues associated with the proposed height of the sanctuary and is trying to minimize impacts to the community. He also noted that church bells are exempt from being classified a “nuisance” per City code. David Bruner, 1101 Oakleaf Court, would like more information about the usage of the bells, the parking garage, and the overall style of the church. Ken Sanberg, 6249 Southridge Greens Boulevard, is in favor of the current plan and feels it is superior to the original plan. Steve Anderson, 1518 Fairway 7 Court, stated that the bells are much more desirable than the other City noises (i.e. trains, music, traffic, sports). Jan Heidecker, 1431 Hummell Lane, is a parishioner and is on the building committee. He also feels that this plan is far superior to the original plan. Judy Hughes, 950 Southridge Greens, is a parishioner and is pleased that the location was changed; she is in support of this project. Applicant/Staff Response and Board Questions Planner Frickey stated that there is no parking garage included in the ODP. Fr. Toledo also stated that the church has tried to be considerate of the neighborhood needs in developing this project. Member Hobbs asked about the citizen concern related to the direction issues on the plans; Planner Frickey responded that this would be reviewed during the PDP review. Mr. Saas stated that he understands the sensitivity to the placement of the addition along with the proposed height; further, he pointed out that the trees located on the adjacent golf course already block much of the mountain views, more so than the church will. Member Rollins clarified whether the PDP for this project would be a Type I review, which Planner Frickey verified, so it will not be under purview of P&Z Board. Planner Frickey also clarified the difference between Type I and II projects. Planning & Zoning Board October 19, 2017 Page 7 Board Deliberation Vice Chair Hansen clarified the purpose of the ODP changes, which constitutes movement of the addition but doesn’t include a change to building height. He feels that this change to the ODP is well done. Member Hobbs asked what the process would be if the Applicant wanted to make further changes to the ODP in the future; Planner Frickey responded that this process would be repeated, and having an original ODP would have no impact on future ODPs. Vice Chair Hansen made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church Expansion ODP170002, based on the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item; Member Hobbs seconded. Vote: 7:0. Project: Fort Collins Jeep PDP Project Description: This is a request to re-develop an abandoned building supply store and lumber yard as a full-service vehicle dealership located at 224 West Harmony Road. The existing building is 25,430 square feet and would be expanded to 34,752 square feet. Additions are proposed on both the north and south. One existing metal shed will remain for vehicle storage. The site is divided by the 100- foot wide B.N.S.F Railroad right-of-way which includes the MAX bus rapid transit system. The area west of the railroad right-of-way is approximately .87 acre and would remain as is for inventory storage. This area is also the subject of a good-faith negotiation with Transfort for potential acquisition as a park-and- ride for the MAX. A plan amendment will be required should this acquisition not occur and redevelopment is pursued. A Modification of Standard is requested to allow less than the required parking lot setbacks along portions of the two public streets [Section 3.2.2(J)]. The parcel is 4.48 acres, located at the northwest corner of W. Harmony Road and S. Mason Street and zoned C-G, General Commercial. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Cosmas reported that 1 email had been received that was a response from Nicole Hahn, City Traffic Engineer, to the Wojciechoski family addressing their concerns with travel through the Harmony and Mason intersection and indicating that a turn lane will be constructed if this project is approved. Staff and Applicant Presentations Chief Planner Shepard gave a brief overview of this project. Steve More, Architect for Commercial Building Services (representing FC Jeep), gave a more detailed presentation, discussing the existing structures onsite, site improvements, upgraded lighting, pedestrian connections, landscape plan and mitigation, buffering, materials, and parking provisions. He also discussed the design issues of the pedestrian walkway and the options that were being considered to enhance security and comfort of pedestrians. With the new design, the existing building will look completely different, and contrasting colors and faces will enhance the conversion. Staff Analysis and Board Questions Chief Planner Shepard reiterated his recommendation to approve the modification to standard for the landscaping setback and for the PDP. Vice Chair Hansen asked to clarify that the image shown represents the prototype, not the material changes made; Mr. More confirmed that the image does not properly represent the lower base material. Planning & Zoning Board October 19, 2017 Page 8 Public Input (3 minutes per person) None noted. Applicant/Staff Response and Board Questions Member Rollins asked about the original request for the pedestrian walkway; Chief Planner Shepard responded that it was a recommendation from the Midtown Plan, specifically for the area between the railroad tracks and Mason Street in this general area. Mr. More provided a slide to show where that MAX location is. Chair Schneider has a concern with lighting along that path; Mr. More stated that there is a plan for night lighting. Chief Planner Shepard stated there is light spillover from surrounding areas, which makes that section feel less like a tunnel. He discussed the planning process for creating the walkability, which he believes is essential to the project success. There was more discussion regarding light spillover. Member Hobbs asked if there were similar examples of the proposed fencing along the corridor; Chief Planner Shepard responded with several examples. Member Carpenter asked about potential hiding places along the corridor and whether low-lying lights could be installed along with fewer shrubs in order to avoid creating any dark, dense areas. Member Heinz asked about installing security cameras, but this option would result in more liability to maintain constant monitoring. Board Deliberation Member Carpenter asked whether this proposal be in compliance and the modification would be needed if the City hadn’t required the “turn lane” piece. Mr. Move responded that the final plan may include widening the pathway to 8 feet. Member Heinz asked if any blind spots could be created on that pathway as well; Chief Planner Shepard responded that, since the path turns 90 degrees, bicyclists would have to slow down, but he doesn’t think this would create a blind spot. Member Whitley asked what would happen if bicyclist didn’t make the turn; Chief Planner Shepard responded that a bicyclist would end up in the MAX lane, would be less hazardous than other scenarios. Martina Wilkinson, Traffic Operations, added that similar situations have occurred, which resulted in road markers for better wayfinding. Member Whitley also asked if using reflective materials would help; Ms. Wilkinson responded that signage is required to be retro-reflective and, since bicyclists must wear helmets, the signage would be visible. Vice Chair Hansen made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification of standard to Section 3.2.2(J) (parking lot setbacks for Harmony and Mason) for the Fort Collins Jeep PDP, based on the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item, because granting this modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and the modification is justified by reason of being an exceptional situation unique to this property. Member Hobbs seconded. Chair Schneider commented that he intends to support this modification. Vote: 7:0. Vice Chair Hansen proposed some conditions for the approval of this PDP, saying that, since the connection between the MAX and Mason Street is important, it should be inviting to the public, and moving the fence to the south side of the landscaping will improve this situation. He continued by saying the proposed lighting should be improved by modifying existing poles. Member Rollins has some concerns with the walkway, saying it doesn’t have a lot of activity, and it has a tunnel-like feeling for pedestrians; she would prefer that this pathway be removed. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe suggested that the Board consult with staff before imposing conditions. Mr. More stated that he has no objection to removing that sidewalk; there should be an adequate connection to the south side of the area. There was more discussion of access through adjacent auto dealerships, most of which is unimproved walkways. Member Carpenter has a concern with the safety of this walkway, which is approximately 400 Planning & Zoning Board October 19, 2017 Page 9 feet long. There was more discussion on how far apart the present connections are and the viability of installing security cameras. Member Hobbs is also in favor of a condition that will remove that corridor to enhance public safety. Planning Director Gloss clarified that there are no current bus routes on Mason. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Fort Collins Jeep PDP170013, with the following condition: that the multimodal pathway on the north border of the property be removed and that the Applicant’s fence line be made to be continuous with the fence line to the north to disallow traffic from Mason to the MAX line, based on the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item; Member Whitley seconded. Member Rollins suggested a friendly amendment to the motion to also remove the multimodal walkway on the west side; Members Hobbs and Whitley accepted friendly amendment. Vice Chair Hansen is in agreement with the motion. Chair Schneider is in favor of this project with the additional conditions. Vote: 7:0. Member Hobbs commended the applicant for repurposing an existing building rather than adding to the landfill. Project: Small Cell Land Use Code Changes Project Description: This is a request for a recommendation to City Council regarding updates to the Land Use Code related to small cell wireless technology in public right-of-way. These proposed revisions add language to Section 3.8.13 addressing small cells and revises the definition of development in Article 5 that addresses small cells. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Cosmas reported that the Legal Department submitted a revised ordinance since the work session. Staff Presentation and Board Questions Planner Frickey gave a brief overview of this proposal, explaining what “small cells” are and how they add capacity to wireless cell phone networks. He reviewed how this revision would impact the state statute and how it would modify the definitions in the LUC in Article 5, mainly affecting the City code. The LUC changes would clarify the applicability of LUC 3.8.13, which is a supplemental regulation that deals specifically with wireless equipment; he also proposes to revise the definition of development, saying that, if it doesn’t meet this definition, the correct process for that application would be to use the process as defined in the City code. The proposed LUC changes would add a section to 3.8.13(D), stating that this section of the code wouldn’t apply if the carrier wants to place the project within a public highway, per the State statute. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe discussed the reason the revision was made, adding that the new language and scope should fit with the current legislation. He explained that, to be exempt from the LUC criteria, the area in question must be located wholly within a public highway. He added that this is new legislation, and some portions could be open for interpretation, but the intent is to focus on public right-of-ways. Public Input (3 minutes per person) None noted. Board Questions and Deliberation Chair Schneider asked about flight path distance requirements for FAA approval; Assistant City Attorney Yatabe responded that he has noted this point for future discussion. Planning & Zoning Board October 19, 2017 Page 10 Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to City Council approval of the Small Cell Land Use Code Changes as proposed in the staff report, based on the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item; Member Whitley seconded. Vote: 7:0. Project: Highway I-25 Third Annexation and Zoning Project Description: This is a request to annex and zone approximately 282 acres located along the eastern boundary of the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA). This is a 100% voluntary annexation. The annexation consists solely of Interstate 25 public right-of-way and the requested zoning districts for this annexation match the abutting zone districts are; Community Commercial (CC), Industrial (I), Public Open Lands (POL) and Rural Lands District (RUL). Recommendation: Approval The citizen who had requested that this item be discussed was not present to pose questions to the Planning staff on this item. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to City Council approval of the Highway I-25 Annexation and Zoning, based on the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item; Member Whitley seconded. Vote: 7:0. Other Business Chair Schneider noted for the public that the November P&Z work session will be held on Thursday, November 9th, because the City will be closed on the 10th due to the Veteran’s Day holiday. Chair Schneider moved to adjourn the P&Z Board hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 9:05pm. Cameron Gloss, Planning Director Jeff Schneider, Chair Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 1 STAFF REPORT November 16, 2017 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME FEE WAIVER ELIGIBILITY EXPANSION STAFF Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Social Sustainability Specialist PROJECT INFORMATION The purpose of this item is to change City policy to allow any developer of housing units targeting households with incomes of no more than 30% area median income (AMI) to request affordable housing fee waivers for the qualifying units and to amend the City Land Use Code to reflect this change. Problem Statement: The City has long provided affordable housing fee waivers as an incentive for developing affordable housing. In March 2013, City Council changed the fee waiver policy to target very low income and specific vulnerable populations, and to be discretionary. That change also limited the eligibility to seek fee waivers to the housing authority only. In recognition of the fact that housing for these populations often require public subsidy to reach the low-incomes of the end user, City Council is considering allowing any developer who produces units targeting households earning no more than 30% AMI to apply for affordable housing fee waivers. Sections 2.2.3 (D) (3) and 2.13.3 (E) of the Land Use Code need to be amended to allow this change, as well as various City Code amendments. Staff and Board recommendations: Council Finance Committee and the Affordable Housing Board support this change in policy. Staff also supports this expansion in fee waiver eligibility. Proposed Solution Overview: By allowing only the housing authority to be eligible to apply for affordable housing fee waivers, the City is limiting the usefulness of this incentive. The proposed solution is to amend both City Code and the Land Use Code to allow any developer of affordable housing units targeting homeless, disabled and households earning no more than 30% AMI to apply for discretionary fee waivers. This change is intended to be for new developments. By requiring that applications be made prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, this change will not apply to completed developments. Proposed Code revisions: That Section 2.2.3 (D)(3) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2.2.3 Step 3: Development Application Submittal Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 2 . . . (D) Development Review Fees. … (3) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Council may, by ordinance, waive the imposition of any fee imposed by the provisions of this Chapter for an affordable housing project wholly or partially owned by a housing authority formed pursuant to the provisions of C.R.S. Section 29-4-101, et. seq, if the City Council, in its sole discretion, determines that: (a) the affordable housing project is intended to house homeless or disabled persons, as such terms are defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or households with an annual income that does not exceed thirty (30) percent of the area median income for the applicable household size in the Fort Collins-Loveland metropolitan statistical area, as published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development; and (b) the proposed waiver, if approved by the City Council, will not jeopardize the financial interests of the City. The developer of a qualifying affordable housing project who wants to request a waiver must do so before the City issues any certificates of occupancy for such project. That Section 2.13.3(E) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.13.3 Application … (E) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Council may, by ordinance, waive the imposition of any fee imposed by the provisions of this Chapter for an affordable housing project wholly or partially owned by a housing authority formed pursuant to the provisions of C.R.S. Section 29-4-101, et. seq, if the City Council, in its sole discretion, determines that: (1) the affordable housing project is intended to house homeless or disabled persons, as such terms are defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or households with an annual income that does not exceed thirty (30) percent of the area median income for the applicable household size in the Fort Collins-Loveland metropolitan statistical area, as published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development; and (2) the proposed waiver, if approved by the City Council, will not jeopardize the financial interests of the City or the timely construction of the capital improvements to be funded by the fees for which a waiver is sought. Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 3 The developer of a qualifying affordable housing project who wants to request a waiver must do so before the City issues any certificates of occupancy for such project. ATTACHMENTS 1. 2017.08.03 Affordable Housing Board Minutes (PDF) 2. July 24 2017 LPT Minutes final (PDF) 3. CFC minutes - Fee waiver discussion (DOCX) 1 | Page MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD Date: Thursday, August 3, 2017 Location: Community Room, 215 North Mason Street Time: 4:00–6:00pm For Reference Diane Cohn, Chair Ken Summers, Council Liaison Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Staff Liaison 970-221-6753 Board Members Present Board Members Absent Diane Cohn Kristin Fritz Catherine Costlow Eloise Emery Jennifer Bray Curt Lyons Jeffrey Johnson Staff Present Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Social Sustainability Specialist Tina Hopkins-Dukes, Minute Taker Guests Christine Macrina, City Clerk’s Office Dale Adamy, Community Member Call to order: 4:00 pm Agenda Review: No changes Public Comment: None Review and Approval of Minutes: Jennifer moved to accept the July meeting minutes as corrected. Curt seconded. The correction is to the last page third bullet should be Catherine with a ‘C’ not ‘K’. Motion passed 5-0-1. Eloise abstained as she was absent for the July meeting PRESENTATION: Engage Volunteer Software – Christine Macrina – City Clerk’s Office Christine Macrina presented on the new Engage Volunteer Software. Christine registered all Board members and set up everyone’s profile. All Board members should have received an email from engage@mail.offero.com. You can log in to your Engage account and make changes by going to engage.fcgov.com and logging in with your email and password. Once logged in you can use your dashboard at the top to navigate. You can see upcoming events you are scheduled to attend, find Attachment 1 2 | Page activities/places to volunteer, make a to-do list, and view messages from staff under the tab “Announcements”. The tab labeled “My Profile” is where you will go to edit and update your contact information, availability, interests & skills, and change your privacy settings. Under this tab you can also create a report of your service history. Christine mentioned that by adding interests to your profile will trigger emails to be sent to you when opportunities to volunteer in those areas are available. You may opt out of the email notifications however; Christine strongly urged not to opt out of “Special Events” since that would include thigs like recognitions, awards, and social celebrations. Christine mentioned that you must be on the waiting list in order to receive emails regarding opportunities to volunteer. Christine said the “Discussion Tab” is strictly off limits for Boards and Commission members. She is trying to get that tab removed. Christine showed the members how to add hours to their record. This can be done through the dashboard and “My site visit” tab. You simply click on the schedule/report research visit tab and calculate your time. Christine offered to help anyone either individually or as a group if you have any questions or concerns you should call or email her for assistance. Comments/Q&A • Can we change or add hours? o Christine: Yes. If you have hours for prep time for meetings or research or if you need to adjust your hours for any reason. • Is this information public? o Christine: You can change the privacy to make it public or private • What is the purpose of this software? o Christine: The purpose is to use this site to track volunteer hours and to use it as a webpage for Boards and Commissions. It can be used to distribute communications and to find volunteer opportunities. • Can you change the name of the tabs? It would be easier to name the tab “Add Hours” o Christine: I will see what I can do. ACTION ITEMS: Christine Macrina will follow up with the issues we discovered when trying to adjust hours and will suggest the changes to labels for accessing the tabs in the dashboard. Update on City Waiver Policy: Sue Beck-Ferkiss – Social Sustainability Department The current City Code states that fee waivers can only be accessed by Housing Catalyst for the development of housing for individuals with an AMI of 30% or less. Council Finance would like to extend that to include all developers who provide housing units to this AMI level not just to Housing Catalyst. The new proposal will go to Council on September 19, 2017. Sue said that in 2016 no fee waivers were offered and in 2015 about $300,000 was provided to Red Tail Ponds. Raw Water Fee Rate Increase Discussion: Sue Beck-Ferkiss said the proposal being considered by Council is to delay the implementation of a fee increase for six months and to make no accommodation for affordable housing. They have committed to continue to discuss options for affordable housing developments. The proposal brought to Council by Utilities staff would implement an increase in fees for water and reevaluate the need for amount of water depending on unit type. Diane reminded the members of the memo sent to Council and what the Board recommended. Sue said Council has legal concerns regarding the freeze on rates the Board proposed and that Council will discuss the phase approach over the next six months before finalizing. Eloise Emery moved that the Affordable Housing Board support the proposed ordinance change to allow any developer to request fee waivers for 30% AMI housing units. The motion was seconded by Jennifer Bray. After much discussion the motion passed unanimously 6-0. Attachment 1 3 | Page ACTION ITEMS: Diane Cohn and Jeffery Johnson are available to attend the Council meeting on August 15th to reemphasize the Boards recommendations and stance on this issue and to reference the memo provided to Council by this Board earlier. Open Board Discussion: Diane Cohn was invited by City Council to attend a work group to understand and decide on development fees. This group will discuss what the development fees are and how those fees are assigned. The first meeting is August 14, 2017. ACTION ITEM: Diane will present next month after this meeting and will share the Charter information with this Board via email. NoCo Housing Now – They are a regional group including City, County, Housing, and Real Estate members who are gathering data regarding growth of the City to estimate where we will be in the future in terms of planning and zoning based on projected population. The group has contracted with EPS, Inc. to do a study on whether current zoning would allow anticipated population growth. The group also just applied for a grant to send nine people to technical assistance training so they can work to develop a regional housing strategic plan. Diane and Kristin are meeting with Councilman Ken Summers for coffee on Monday August 7, 2017 and invite him to attend a meeting. Sue said she will be gone for a few weeks in August and mentioned that Social Sustainability hired an Administrative Support to replace Dianne Tjalkens, her name is Brittany Depew. Agenda Planning • September meeting: Beth Rosen – HBA and deed restrictions and Sue – Provincetowne update. • October meeting: Sue – Private Activity Bonds Ginny Sawyer on U + 2 Meeting Adjourned: 5:54 pm Next Meeting: September 7 Attachment 1 City Clerk 300 LaPorte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6515 970.221-6295 - fax fcgov.com/cityclerk MEMORANDUM DATE: July 24, 2017 TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Wanda Winkelmann, City Clerk RE: Leadership Planning Team (LPT) Meeting Mayor Wade Troxell, Mayor Pro Tem Gerry Horak, City Manager Darin Atteberry, Deputy City Manager Mihelich, Assistant City Manager Kelly DiMartino, City Attorney Carrie Daggett, City Clerk Wanda Winkelmann, and Deputy City Clerk Aimee Jensen met on Monday, July 24, and the following summarizes the discussions that began at 7:31 a.m. July 25 Adjourned Meeting/Work Session During the Adjourned Meeting, City Council will consider adjourning into Executive Session to conduct the mid- year performance evaluation of the Municipal Judge. Following the Adjourned Meeting, three Work Session topics will be discussed: 1. City Charter and Municipal Court Jurisdiction. 2. NISP Fish and Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan. It was noted that Save the Poudre has submitted comments and staff is asked to be ready to respond. Also, staff reported that $100,000 is needed for monitoring – does this amount include an escalator for future monitoring costs? Please address this during the presentation. 3. PFA Annual Report. Are KFCG funds being placed in reserves to minimize impact if KFCG is not renewed? If so, how was this determination made? Please respond to this during the presentation. Six Month Calendar Due to the number of items scheduled for the August 8 Special Meeting, the LPT requested that the Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3) be moved to August 22. Because of this addition to the August 22 Work Session, the Fort Collins and Organized Energy Markets has been moved to the Unscheduled Items list. The order of items for the August 22 Work Session will be: 1. RP3; 2. Smoking Ordinance; 3. Business Engagement Action Plan. Discussion ensued about placing a question on the November ballot to amend City Code provisions regarding marijuana to allow Council to conform with state statutes; currently any changes require a local vote. The LPT requested that this item be heard by the Legislative Review Committee (LRC) at their next meeting (August 8) to determine if the City has taken a position on past changes made by the state, and then bring the item forward at the August 15 Regular Meeting for Council’s consideration. In a memo, staff is asked to explain the proposed ballot measure and summarize the outreach that has occurred. Attachment 2 Leadership Planning Team Meeting July 24, 2017 Page 2 of 3 Staff will be taking the STR item to Planning & Zoning at their August meeting. To ensure there is enough time for public outreach and compliance, staff is asked to schedule the first reading regarding STRs on September 5, with second reading occurring September 19. The ordinance is effective ten days after final passage (September 29), and STR operators will have until October 15 to obtain a license. As noted last week, due to the NLC Conference, the Annual Evaluations of the City Manager and City Attorney have been moved to Monday, November 13. The evaluation of the Municipal Judge will occur on November 28 (the Judge is unavailable on November 13). Other Discussion Items Deputy City Manager Mihelich noted: 1. Staff’s comments regarding NISP are online and there is a portal for citizens to add their comments. There is no formal open house planned. 2. The Finance Committee recommends allowing other non-profits (not just Housing Catalyst) to apply for fee waivers for affordable housing projects. The LPT requested that this item come before Council for formal consideration. 3. Business Engagement Action Plan will be discussed at the August 22 Work Session. In the presentation, staff is asked to address goals and recommended strategies, including recommendations for how Council can engage. 4. Staff engaged residents in the Alta Vista neighborhood by going door-to-door with a Spanish-speaking interpreter and asking questions that were loaded on an electronic tablet. The neighbors expressed concern for traffic calming and getting from the neighborhood to destinations further south. Based on extensive engagement, staff is now recommending extending the sidewalk from the bus stop north of Vine east to Lemay so people can get to the existing park and businesses, as well as Tres Colones monument signs. City Manager Atteberry reported: 1. The meeting with the BAVA neighbors, Odell, and New Belgium went well. Topics discussed include the Lincoln Corridor and special events. 2. As noted in his email to Council last week, planning staff attended the Larimer County Planning Commission meeting to oppose the metro district application (I-25 and Mulberry - “Mokler Annexation”) unless certain design standards are met and the applicant agreed to be annexed into the City. 3. Councilmember Stephens received information from Larimer County about the possibility of licensing businesses that sell tobacco products. She intends to bring this up under “Other Business” at the August 15 Regular Meeting and staff is asked to be able to respond to questions. The materials received by Councilmember Stephens will be included in the Thursday packet. 4. A ceremony commemorating the 1997 Spring Creek Flood will be held on Friday from 6:30 -7:30 p.m. 5. He is meeting with North Fort Collins Business Association Leadership to discuss topics they have identified, including transients, homelessness, Stormwater west side of north College, Albertsons vacancy, and transit in north Fort Collins. Mayor Pro Tem Horak commented on the following items from the July 20 Thursday packet: a. City Plan. In a memo for the Thursday packet, staff is asked to address the rationale for what was excluded in the various options. What was the scope of equity and inclusivity, and are there alternatives for how this may be accomplished? Attachment 2 Leadership Planning Team Meeting July 24, 2017 Page 3 of 3 2. Fireworks Report. Excellent memo and a good template for future staff reports as it contains data, graphs, and future actions/recommendations. 3. Homeless/Transient Calls. The “heat map” that lists the contacts was appreciated. For the next report, please include a heat map that shows current contacts and last year’s contacts (in a different color). 4. Spring Water Quality Update. What is the plan to telegraph this good news to the public? 5. DBA Community Outreach. Councilmember Overbeck provided this excellent summary that describes the outreach being conducted around Bohemian Nights/NewWestFest. Is the City/CSU planning to provide a similar document for stadium events? 6. Radon Workgroup. It was suggested it may be helpful to form the workgroup prior to data collection. 7. Electric Time of Use (TOU) Implementation. What are the goals and objectives to increase energy efficiency efforts for low income residents? How is Environmental Services involved in energy efficiency efforts? PRPA is working with a third-party to evaluate their efficiency programs. 8. City Manager’s Report. It might be helpful to arrange the report by Outcome Area rather than department. Also, a high-level review or connection to the City Council Initiatives Dashboard would be appreciated. 9. Game Day Operations. A request for funding Student Ambassadors has been made from the Good Neighbor Fund; this expense should be charged to normal game-day operations. The LPT discussed Broadband and the suggestion to post financial data on the City’s website. Can information about Longmont’s Broadband be included (such as their financial information)? How do we make information gained from Longmont’s experience more accessible to the community? Mayor Pro Tem Horak inquired into the process around annexations – is there a staff member assigned to a particular annexation/neighborhood who can serve as the point of contact for neighbors after the annexation has occurred? Mayor Troxell: 1. Discussed his recent experience with learning about another municipality’s building review process. The LPT noted it would be helpful for Fort Collins to have one person serve as the point of contact and coordinate the development review process. 2. Inquired into small cell facilities and if they can have their own pole (vs. using an existing City-pole). It was requested that the City Manager bring forward an ordinance for August 15 or September 5 for Council to consider a moratorium (in order for standards to be developed) on these types of small cell facilities. 3. Attended the Bloomberg Harvard Leadership program last week. The focus of the program is on leadership and innovation in governance. The meeting adjourned at 9:42 a.m. Attachment 2 Council Finance Committee October 16, 2017 (DRAFT) Attachment 3 1 Housing Affordability Task Force - Policy Recommendation - Capital Fund Sue Beck-Ferkiss Dean Klingner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The voters approved an Affordable Housing Capital Fund (AHCF) as part of the Community Capital Improvement Program (CCIP) to be used for the capital costs of one or more affordable housing community. Over ten years the fund will accumulate $4 million. Staff is offering suggested strategies for the use of this fund for Council Finance Committee direction and feedback. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Which Strategies do you support? • Fee Waiver backfill • Land Bank Program • Direct subsidy • Social innovation grant • Affordable Housing Demonstration Project 2. Is there feedback on the fee waiver backfill strategy? BACKGROUND In 2015, the voters approved the Affordable Housing Capital Fund (AHCF) as part of the dedicated sales tax initiative for City capital projects. The approved language states: This project will fund capital costs of development or rehabilitation of one or more public or private housing projects designated specifically for low-income individuals or families. The AHCF funds accumulate over time according to the following schedule: 2016 $200,000 2017-2018 $250,000 2019-2020 $400,000 2021-2015 $500,000 The current fund balance is $450,000. It will accumulate a total of $4 million over 10 years. Staff was asked to look at the best way to use this fund to incentivize one or more affordable housing projects. This task was given to the Internal Housing Task Force (Task Force) which is a multi - departmental group with representatives from over 10 City departments including: City Manager’s Office, Communications and Public Involvement Office, Economic Health Office, Environmental Services, Engineering, Finance, Planning, Social Sustainability, Utilities - Community Engagement, Utilities – Finance, and Utilities – Water. Other departments expertise is also tapped as needed. While this group has many deliverables, options for the best use of the AHCF is the current focus of their work. This group was created in recognition of the Council Finance Committee October 16, 2017 (DRAFT) Attachment 3 2 importance of the issue of affordable housing to our community and the fact that many City departments are involved in this type of development. In analyzing the approved language, staff focused on the capital costs purpose and the low- income target population. We looked at trying to maximize the productions of units while at the same time leaving flexibility to respond to future opportunities that present while also striving for innovation. That said, $4 million does not really go far in the production of affordable housing units that often cost more than $200,000 per unit to construct and not much less to rehabilitate units for preservation. With that in mind, the AHCF must be seen as a leveraging tool and something to add to the way the City is already supporting affordable housing projects. To further illustrate that point, here are examples of recent projects total development costs: Community Total cost Units City investment Source of investment Redtail $12.5 M 60 $1.68M CDBG/HOME $1,085,856 AHF (City) $229,416 Fee Waivers $288,000 Legacy $14.7 M 60 $717,000 CDBG/HOME $688,261 AHF (City)$28,890 Horsetooth $26.5 M 96 $2.25 M+ HOME $1.1M AHF (City) $1.1M Fee Waivers pending $360,136 Discounted land 20% Oakridge Crossing $22 M 110 PAB allocation State allocation Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and HOME funding is federal funding from the federal department of Housing and Urban Development. The Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) is City general funds. Waivers are typically reimbursed with general funds too. The Private Activity Bond support is assigning tax free debt capacity and not actual funding. Recent rehabilitation projects have had similar big budgets. An example of a large acquisition and rehab project is the Village on Shields. Total cost for this was $64 million for 285 units. The City provided $3.14 million using CDBG, HOME and the AHF for this project. A small rehabilitation project was the Village on Matuka. To renovate 20 units it costs $1.1 million of which the City invested $380,000 of CDBG. Council Finance Committee October 16, 2017 (DRAFT) Attachment 3 3 Fee waivers are an incentive provided by City code at the discretion of City Council. Currently they are only available to the Housing Authority for the production of units targeting households with income of no more than 30% area median income (AMI) which is currently about $16,150 for a single person or $24,600 for a family of 4. However, the City is considering expanding the eligibility of this incentive to all developers of units for this income. That would require additional City resources because the City’s custom is to reimburse City departments for capital expansion fees that are waived. This has typically come from General Fund Reserves. An expansion of this incentive may require additional funding sources. Staff is recommending that this expansion be applied only to developments who have not yet received their certificate of occupancy to ensure we are using the incentives to bring on new units and not reimburse developers for units that have already been delivered. The last 4 projects that received waivers and backfill of CEFs were: 1. In 2011, $509,896 was backfilled for CARE Housing’s Provincetowne 2. In 2014, $288,000 was backfilled for Redtail Ponds 3. In 2017, $100,708 was backfilled for Village at Redwood 4. Pending request for $308,907 to backfill for Village at Horsetooth. In considering the best use of the AHCF, the Task Force considered many things including: • Immediacy – How quickly do we want to use these funds? • Number of investments – One project or multiple? • Flexibility – How do we respond to funding or innovation opportunities? • Metrics for success – Just more units or innovation factor? • Target population – The Lowest wage earners or more of the housing spectrum? In addition to regular monthly meetings, the Task Force conducted two focused sessions on the best use of the AHCF. We also convened a developer’s focus group to get industry input early in the process and to test our ideas. The following strategies are a result of this work to date. We looked at existing programs as ways to deploy these funds quickly, and also propose some ideas for new programs that may take some time to develop. Lastly, since the funds come in over time, strategies requiring more money may have to wait until more funds accumulate. Staff identified the following optional strategies for consideration: 1. Fee Waiver Backfill: • Existing program that could use funds quickly Targets households making no more than 30% AMI. • Responds to assist developers already bringing affordable housing projects and relies on those projects coming forward. • Total contribution to project limited to waivable fees. Since total fees not more than 9% of cost, impact small. 2. Land Bank Program: • Existing program that could use fund quickly if land is identified and would serve incomes in the affordable ranges. Currently capped at 50% AMI average for rental Council Finance Committee October 16, 2017 (DRAFT) Attachment 3 4 and 60% AMI for Home Ownership. Pending recommendations may increase to full affordable range or up to 80% AMI. Program specifies limit what may be constructed. • Relies on developer’s response to City issued Request for Proposals • Offers discounted land value, impact small to overall costs. 3. Direct Subsidy: • New program with parameters to be determined. Time would be required to develop. • Possible two prong approach with the City code providing specific amounts per unit in income ranges up to a maximum amount or the ability to ask Council for more than the amounts per unit if that is what is required. For instance, $15,000 per 30% AMI unit, $10,000 per 40% AMI unit and $5,000 per 50% AMI unit or a discretionary ask of Council for $4 million to close a funding gap in one development. • Could target lower incomes, for example up to 60% AMI. • Responds to assist developers already bringing affordable housing projects and relies on those projects coming forward. • Total contribution to each project would depend on whether Council approved a large amount for one project or if the City code small per unit investments were sought. 4. Social Innovation Grant: • New program with parameters to be determined. Time would be required to develop. • Possibly a competition approach for innovation in addition to affordable housing units. This could be innovation in an existing affordable housing concept and assist a developer bringing housing to the market, or it could be a new concept that traditional funding sources could not support. • Could serve the affordable housing income ranges and possibly include mixed income options. • Total contribution to development costs would depend on how much of the fund is offered. 5. Affordable Housing Demonstration project: • New program with parameters to be determined. Time would be required to develop. • Concept is that the City would purchase land or a building for adaptive reuse to be offered to a partner for an affordable housing development that would meet the goals of several City programs in addition to providing affordable housing. For instance, it could need to meet the City’s Climate Action goals and/or include Nature in the City. • More flexible than the Land Bank Program. • Could serve affordable ranges and possibly include mixed income if the City desires. • Would require a substantial portion of the AHCF. • Total contribution to the project would be in the range of 15-25%. Council Finance Committee October 16, 2017 (DRAFT) Attachment 3 5 Staff recommendations are preliminary as direction is sought from Council. Staff recommends using the AHCF for capital expansion fee backfills in combination with General Fund Reserves until a BFO offer is funded for fee waiver backfills. Staff would like to reserve some portion of the AHCF to respond to future opportunities. Discussion / Next Steps; Ken Summers; I am comfortable considering e just utilized funds for backfill for fee waivers Backfill of fee waivers – backfilling ahead of income coming in from Affordable Housing Fund ($450K) $4M comes in over 10 years – we need to keep alternatives in mind - not let those go by the wayside - every project is going to have those requests – give us available funds to address those Ross Cunniff; I agree with Ken Summers - stay the course on this - innovation always comes with risk – not a negative – tried and true in early years of capital expansion tax - the dollar amounts are relatively low - Like 1-10 leverage magnifier - we don’t have other ideas flushed out to meet that kind of benchmark - Using it in this targeted way makes sense – support the idea of expanding applications beyond just Housing Catalyst - meet requirements as they apply Land Bank was a possible option - yellow flag - I expect in the next 5 years we will be forced to be more innovative on how we address – we aren’t there yet Mayor Troxell; supportive of comments made I like the things you are exploring - continue down that path Mike Beckstead; As we move into BFO next spring – conversation we had about a BFO offer - setting up a tiered system - we talked to Sue about getting in front of what is coming - see if we can get 30 months in advance – understand what is coming – use that for BFO offer - that is the kind of dialog on how we operationalize this policy – as a blend of available funding – we are out in front of it – having dialog Sue Beck-Ferkiss; we are moving forward November 7 th with the eligibility of fee waivers - 30% units only for projects that are not completed - time standard - they don’t yet have their certificate of occupancy Ross Cunniff; yes, unfunded backlog Village on Horsetooth Fee Waiver Request Sue Beck-Ferkiss EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Fort Collins Housing Authority, doing business as Housing Catalyst (HC), has requested that certain development and capital improvement expansion fees be waived for qualifying units at Council Finance Committee October 16, 2017 (DRAFT) Attachment 3 6 the Village on Horsetooth. In March 2013, City Council limited the types of projects for which fee waivers may be requested and made these waivers discretionary. Eligible projects are those constructed for homeless or disabled persons, or for households whose income falls at or below 30% of the area median income of all City residents. HC is requesting fee waivers in the amount of $360,136 for the 43 qualifying units at the Village on Horsetooth. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Does the Council Finance Committee (CFC) support granting the fee waiver request? 2. If so, does the CFC support a waiver of fees and backfilling or waiver without a backfill? 3. If CFC desires the Capital Expansion Fees to be backfilled, should this funding come from the General Fund or the Affordable Housing Capital Fund or from both? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION HC is seeking the waiver of certain development and capital improvement expansion fees for the Village on Horsetooth affordable housing project as allowed by City Code, the Land Use Code, and an Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Fort Collins and the Fort Collins Housing Authority dated July 3, 2013. The Village on Horsetooth will deliver 96 units, of which 43 will be targeted to households making no more than 30% of the area median income (AMI). The request from HC is attached as attachment 1. Under Colorado Statutes and City of Fort Collins ordinances and resolutions dating back to 1988, projects of housing authorities are exempt from taxes and some fees. For many years, the City waived building permit and development review fees and some capital expansion fees for housing authority projects. Historically they had been small amounts. In March 2013, City Council amended its policies on fee waivers for affordable housing to allow for more discretion in determining the kinds of housing authority sponsored projects for which City fees should be waived. This was after a large waiver was granted to a project that was being developed primarily by CARE Housing with the Housing Authority having only a very small interest. By adopting Ordinance No. 37, 2013, City Council limited the types of projects for which HC could ask for waivers. These are projects that are constructed for homeless or disabled persons, or for households whose income is no greater than 30% of the area median income of all City residents. Furthermore, these waivers will be granted at the discretion of City Council upon a determination that the proposed waiver will not jeopardize the financial interests of the City or the timely construction of the capital improvements to be funded by the fees for which a waiver is sought. This change also limited waiver eligibility to only the Housing Authority. Earlier this summer, staff was directed to bring forward for Council consideration, a change that would allow all developers who produce units targeting households making no more than 30% to request discretionary affordable housing fee waivers. That is now scheduled for November 7, 2017. Council Finance Committee October 16, 2017 (DRAFT) Attachment 3 7 The Village on Horsetooth is a 96 unit affordable housing community being constructed at 1506 W. Horsetooth Road in Fort Collins. See attachment 2 for map of location. Of the 96 total units, 43 units, equaling 45% of the total development, will be dedicated to households making no more than 30% AMI. HC is seeking the waiver of certain fees for those 43 qualifying units. The total of these fees for the project is $1,749,865 (including $608,994 not eligible for City fee waivers). The request is for 45% of eligible fees, $360,136, to be waived. This amount includes a request to waive a Larimer County capital expansion fee which is under review. If determined ineligible, the request moving forward will be reduced by about $10,000. The 2017 income limits published by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for 30% of the Fort Collins AMI is $16,150 for a household of 1 and $24,600 for a household of 4. Households at this income level are some of the City’s most vulnerable residents. These units fit the definition and are eligible for fee waivers as established by City Code, the Land Use Code, and the Intergovernmental Agreement (attachment 3). Funding for this $26.5 million project is a combination of city and state grants, Low Income Housing Tax Credit financing, owner equity and conventional financing. Current pro formas rely upon these fee waivers to complete the project’s funding. The City has established affordable housing production goals in the 2015-2019 Affordable Housing Strategic Plan (Plan). The need for financial support for these goals to be met is also stated in the Plan. The annual production goal for this 5 year plan is 188 units. This project will deliver 96 units which is 51 % of the City’s annual goal. Since the City does not develop housing, development partners are relied upon to bring this necessary housing product to the community. This project will increase the inventory of affordable rental units which is one of the strategies listed in the Plan. It is recommended that any capital expansion fees waived be subject to backfill by the City to reimburse city departments for fees if this waiver is granted, as has been the City’s custom to date. Traditionally backfill of capital expansion fees occurred and has come from General Fund reserves. Alternatively, funds for this request could come from the Affordable Housing Capital Fund that was approved by the voters as part of the City Capital Improvements Program. This fund will accumulate $4 million over ten years. Of that amount, $200,000 was scheduled for 2016, $250,000 for 2017 and $250,000 for 2018. The Affordable Housing Board supports this waiver request. The City’s waiver policy has greatly limited the types of projects that qualify for waivers. This policy recognizes that households earning no more than 30% AMI cannot afford market rate housing in our City at this time. The average rent is currently over $1,200 a month. A one person household at 30% AMI would need to pay 89% of their income to pay the average rent. A four person household would need to pay 59% of their income to afford the average market rate. Ideally, renters would never pay more than 30% of their income on housing. Developers need public subsidy to produce housing that this demographic can afford. Staff also supports granting this waiver request. Council Finance Committee October 16, 2017 (DRAFT) Attachment 3 8 We pulled the forecast back and things are coming in consistent with the forecast. Discussion / Next Steps; Updated Waiver Request presented; Ross Cunniff; two thumbs up Ken Summers; occupation chart is very interesting - the waiver request is a good program and I am supportive Mayor Troxell; two thumbs up Bring back as an appropriation to Council on November 7 th Work session scheduled on November20th AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 7, 2017 City Council STAFF Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Social Sustainability Specialist Ingrid Decker, Legal SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2017, Amending Various Provisions of the Code of the City of Fort Collins and the Land Use Code to Allow for the Discretionary Waiver of City Fees on Additional Affordable Housing Projects to be Constructed in the City. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to change City policy to allow any developer of housing units targeting households with incomes of no more than 30% area median income (AMI) to request affordable housing fee waivers for the qualifying units and to amend the City Code to reflect this change. This matter was presented to the Council Finance Committee on October 16, and will be presented to the Planning and Zoning Board at a work session on November 9 and a hearing on November 16. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The City has long been committed to affordable housing, and the need for financial support continues to be demonstrated by the increase in the number of applications for local and federal funds and the long waiting lists for available affordable housing in our City. Fee waivers have been one of the consistent incentives available to developers of affordable housing in the City. Historically, most development fees of the Fort Collins Housing Authority were traditionally waived. In March 2013, City Council amended its policies on fee waivers for affordable housing to allow for more discretion in determining the kinds of projects for which City fees should be waived. This was after a large waiver was granted to a project that was being developed primarily by CARE Housing, a local non-profit, with the Housing Authority having only a very small interest. This change limited waiver eligibility to only the Housing Authority, and then only for projects constructed for: • Persons experiencing homelessness • Disabled persons, • Or for households whose income is no greater than 30% of the area median income (AMI) of all City residents. Furthermore, waivers were to be granted at the discretion of City Council upon a determination that the proposed waiver will not jeopardize the financial interests of the City or the timely construction of the capital improvements to be funded by the fees for which a waiver is sought. The categories of fees for which waivers can be requested include: Attachment 4 (1) Capital expansion fees, (2) Development review fees, and (3) Building permit fees. The City’s waiver policy has greatly restricted the number of projects that qualify for waivers. This policy recognizes that households earning no more than 30% AMI cannot afford market rate housing in our City at this time. The average rent in the City is currently over $1,400 a month. A one-person household at 30% AMI would have a monthly income of about $1,345 - less than the City’s average rent. (Attachment 3) A four- person household would need to pay 68% of their income to afford the average market rate. Ideally, renters would never pay more than 30% of their income on housing. Developers need public subsidy to produce housing that this demographic can afford. In recognition that housing units that target household’s earning no more than 30% AMI requires public support to be offered to that demographic at rates affordable to their income level, the City wishes to incentivize all developers bringing 30% AMI units to the City. The proposed Ordinance allows all developers of units targeting this income bracket to request affordable housing fee waivers. Such request must be made before a certificate of occupancy is issued for the community to assure that this policy apply to only new development projects. Granting fee waivers will still be at the discretion of City Council and subject to a showing that granting the request will not jeopardize the finances of the City or delay any capital improvement funded by impact fees. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS When fees are waived, the City forgoes revenue it would otherwise collect. Further, the City’s custom has been to reimburse City departments for all capital expansion fees that are waived out of City funding, usually from the General Fund reserves. Affordable Housing funds in the Community Capital Improvement Fund are another possible source for funding the reimbursement of waived capital expansion fees. Lastly, Staff is proposing a 2019-2020 budget offer for the reimbursement of anticipated capital expansion fees projected to be waived in 2019-2020 as a proactive approach to funding this affordable housing incentive. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its August 3, 2017 meeting, the Affordable Housing Board unanimously voted to support the expansion of eligibility to request affordable housing fee waivers. (Attachment 2). The Planning and Zoning Board will consider the proposed changes to the Land Use Code at a work session on November 9 and a hearing on November 16. The Board’s decision will be provided to City Council in its read-before packet on November 21. The Council Finance Committee discussed this and supports expanding fee waivers to all developers of 30% AMI units. PUBLIC OUTREACH Public outreach on expansion of eligibility for waivers was conducted as part of the Housing Affordability Policy Study in 2014 and as part of the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan in 2015. The Affordable Housing Board discussed this expansion at its regular board meeting on August 3, 2017. The public was given an opportunity to comment on staff’s proposal at that time. Additionally, several developers were informally informed of the proposed change and uniformly supported the expansion of eligibility. ATTACHMENTS 1. Council Finance Committee minutes, October 16, 2017 (draft) (PDF) 2. Affordable Housing Board minutes, August 3, 2017 (PDF) 3. 2017 Income Limits (PDF) Attachment 4 Council Finance Committee October 16, 2017 (DRAFT) 1 Housing Affordability Task Force - Policy Recommendation - Capital Fund Sue Beck-Ferkiss Dean Klingner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The voters approved an Affordable Housing Capital Fund (AHCF) as part of the Community Capital Improvement Program (CCIP) to be used for the capital costs of one or more affordable housing community. Over ten years the fund will accumulate $4 million. Staff is offering suggested strategies for the use of this fund for Council Finance Committee direction and feedback. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Which Strategies do you support? • Fee Waiver backfill • Land Bank Program • Direct subsidy • Social innovation grant • Affordable Housing Demonstration Project 2. Is there feedback on the fee waiver backfill strategy? BACKGROUND In 2015, the voters approved the Affordable Housing Capital Fund (AHCF) as part of the dedicated sales tax initiative for City capital projects. The approved language states: This project will fund capital costs of development or rehabilitation of one or more public or private housing projects designated specifically for low-income individuals or families. The AHCF funds accumulate over time according to the following schedule: 2016 $200,000 2017-2018 $250,000 2019-2020 $400,000 2021-2015 $500,000 The current fund balance is $450,000. It will accumulate a total of $4 million over 10 years. Staff was asked to look at the best way to use this fund to incentivize one or more affordable housing projects. This task was given to the Internal Housing Task Force (Task Force) which is a multi - departmental group with representatives from over 10 City departments including: City Manager’s Office, Communications and Public Involvement Office, Economic Health Office, Environmental Services, Engineering, Finance, Planning, Social Sustainability, Utilities - Community Engagement, Utilities – Finance, and Utilities – Water. Other departments expertise is also tapped as needed. While this group has many deliverables, options for the best use of the AHCF is the current focus of their work. This group was created in recognition of the Attachment 4 Council Finance Committee October 16, 2017 (DRAFT) 2 importance of the issue of affordable housing to our community and the fact that many City departments are involved in this type of development. In analyzing the approved language, staff focused on the capital costs purpose and the low- income target population. We looked at trying to maximize the productions of units while at the same time leaving flexibility to respond to future opportunities that present while also striving for innovation. That said, $4 million does not really go far in the production of affordable housing units that often cost more than $200,000 per unit to construct and not much less to rehabilitate units for preservation. With that in mind, the AHCF must be seen as a leveraging tool and something to add to the way the City is already supporting affordable housing projects. To further illustrate that point, here are examples of recent projects total development costs: Community Total cost Units City investment Source of investment Redtail $12.5 M 60 $1.68M CDBG/HOME $1,085,856 AHF (City) $229,416 Fee Waivers $288,000 Legacy $14.7 M 60 $717,000 CDBG/HOME $688,261 AHF (City)$28,890 Horsetooth $26.5 M 96 $2.25 M+ HOME $1.1M AHF (City) $1.1M Fee Waivers pending $360,136 Discounted land 20% Oakridge Crossing $22 M 110 PAB allocation State allocation Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and HOME funding is federal funding from the federal department of Housing and Urban Development. The Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) is City general funds. Waivers are typically reimbursed with general funds too. The Private Activity Bond support is assigning tax free debt capacity and not actual funding. Recent rehabilitation projects have had similar big budgets. An example of a large acquisition and rehab project is the Village on Shields. Total cost for this was $64 million for 285 units. The City provided $3.14 million using CDBG, HOME and the AHF for this project. A small rehabilitation project was the Village on Matuka. To renovate 20 units it costs $1.1 million of which the City invested $380,000 of CDBG. Attachment 4 Council Finance Committee October 16, 2017 (DRAFT) 3 Fee waivers are an incentive provided by City code at the discretion of City Council. Currently they are only available to the Housing Authority for the production of units targeting households with income of no more than 30% area median income (AMI) which is currently about $16,150 for a single person or $24,600 for a family of 4. However, the City is considering expanding the eligibility of this incentive to all developers of units for this income. That would require additional City resources because the City’s custom is to reimburse City departments for capital expansion fees that are waived. This has typically come from General Fund Reserves. An expansion of this incentive may require additional funding sources. Staff is recommending that this expansion be applied only to developments who have not yet received their certificate of occupancy to ensure we are using the incentives to bring on new units and not reimburse developers for units that have already been delivered. The last 4 projects that received waivers and backfill of CEFs were: 1. In 2011, $509,896 was backfilled for CARE Housing’s Provincetowne 2. In 2014, $288,000 was backfilled for Redtail Ponds 3. In 2017, $100,708 was backfilled for Village at Redwood 4. Pending request for $308,907 to backfill for Village at Horsetooth. In considering the best use of the AHCF, the Task Force considered many things including: Immediacy – How quickly do we want to use these funds? Number of investments – One project or multiple? Flexibility – How do we respond to funding or innovation opportunities? Metrics for success – Just more units or innovation factor? Target population – The Lowest wage earners or more of the housing spectrum? In addition to regular monthly meetings, the Task Force conducted two focused sessions on the best use of the AHCF. We also convened a developer’s focus group to get industry input early in the process and to test our ideas. The following strategies are a result of this work to date. We looked at existing programs as ways to deploy these funds quickly, and also propose some ideas for new programs that may take some time to develop. Lastly, since the funds come in over time, strategies requiring more money may have to wait until more funds accumulate. Staff identified the following optional strategies for consideration: 1. Fee Waiver Backfill: Existing program that could use funds quickly Targets households making no more than 30% AMI. Responds to assist developers already bringing affordable housing projects and relies on those projects coming forward. Total contribution to project limited to waivable fees. Since total fees not more than 9% of cost, impact small. 2. Land Bank Program: Existing program that could use fund quickly if land is identified and would serve incomes in the affordable ranges. Currently capped at 50% AMI average for rental Attachment 4 Council Finance Committee October 16, 2017 (DRAFT) 4 and 60% AMI for Home Ownership. Pending recommendations may increase to full affordable range or up to 80% AMI. Program specifies limit what may be constructed. Relies on developer’s response to City issued Request for Proposals Offers discounted land value, impact small to overall costs. 3. Direct Subsidy: New program with parameters to be determined. Time would be required to develop. Possible two prong approach with the City code providing specific amounts per unit in income ranges up to a maximum amount or the ability to ask Council for more than the amounts per unit if that is what is required. For instance, $15,000 per 30% AMI unit, $10,000 per 40% AMI unit and $5,000 per 50% AMI unit or a discretionary ask of Council for $4 million to close a funding gap in one development. Could target lower incomes, for example up to 60% AMI. Responds to assist developers already bringing affordable housing projects and relies on those projects coming forward. Total contribution to each project would depend on whether Council approved a large amount for one project or if the City code small per unit investments were sought. 4. Social Innovation Grant: New program with parameters to be determined. Time would be required to develop. Possibly a competition approach for innovation in addition to affordable housing units. This could be innovation in an existing affordable housing concept and assist a developer bringing housing to the market, or it could be a new concept that traditional funding sources could not support. Could serve the affordable housing income ranges and possibly include mixed income options. Total contribution to development costs would depend on how much of the fund is offered. 5. Affordable Housing Demonstration project: New program with parameters to be determined. Time would be required to develop. Concept is that the City would purchase land or a building for adaptive reuse to be offered to a partner for an affordable housing development that would meet the goals of several City programs in addition to providing affordable housing. For instance, it could need to meet the City’s Climate Action goals and/or include Nature in the City. More flexible than the Land Bank Program. Could serve affordable ranges and possibly include mixed income if the City desires. Would require a substantial portion of the AHCF. Total contribution to the project would be in the range of 15-25%. Attachment 4 Council Finance Committee October 16, 2017 (DRAFT) 5 Staff recommendations are preliminary as direction is sought from Council. Staff recommends using the AHCF for capital expansion fee backfills in combination with General Fund Reserves until a BFO offer is funded for fee waiver backfills. Staff would like to reserve some portion of the AHCF to respond to future opportunities. Discussion / Next Steps; Ken Summers; I am comfortable considering e just utilized funds for backfill for fee waivers Backfill of fee waivers – backfilling ahead of income coming in from Affordable Housing Fund ($450K) $4M comes in over 10 years – we need to keep alternatives in mind - not let those go by the wayside - every project is going to have those requests – give us available funds to address those Ross Cunniff; I agree with Ken Summers - stay the course on this - innovation always comes with risk – not a negative – tried and true in early years of capital expansion tax - the dollar amounts are relatively low - Like 1-10 leverage magnifier - we don’t have other ideas flushed out to meet that kind of benchmark - Using it in this targeted way makes sense – support the idea of expanding applications beyond just Housing Catalyst - meet requirements as they apply Land Bank was a possible option - yellow flag - I expect in the next 5 years we will be forced to be more innovative on how we address – we aren’t there yet Mayor Troxell; supportive of comments made I like the things you are exploring - continue down that path Mike Beckstead; As we move into BFO next spring – conversation we had about a BFO offer - setting up a tiered system - we talked to Sue about getting in front of what is coming - see if we can get 30 months in advance – understand what is coming – use that for BFO offer - that is the kind of dialog on how we operationalize this policy – as a blend of available funding – we are out in front of it – having dialog Sue Beck-Ferkiss; we are moving forward November 7 th with the eligibility of fee waivers - 30% units only for projects that are not completed - time standard - they don’t yet have their certificate of occupancy Ross Cunniff; yes, unfunded backlog Village on Horsetooth Fee Waiver Request Sue Beck-Ferkiss EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Fort Collins Housing Authority, doing business as Housing Catalyst (HC), has requested that certain development and capital improvement expansion fees be waived for qualifying units at Attachment 4 Council Finance Committee October 16, 2017 (DRAFT) 6 the Village on Horsetooth. In March 2013, City Council limited the types of projects for which fee waivers may be requested and made these waivers discretionary. Eligible projects are those constructed for homeless or disabled persons, or for households whose income falls at or below 30% of the area median income of all City residents. HC is requesting fee waivers in the amount of $360,136 for the 43 qualifying units at the Village on Horsetooth. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Does the Council Finance Committee (CFC) support granting the fee waiver request? 2. If so, does the CFC support a waiver of fees and backfilling or waiver without a backfill? 3. If CFC desires the Capital Expansion Fees to be backfilled, should this funding come from the General Fund or the Affordable Housing Capital Fund or from both? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION HC is seeking the waiver of certain development and capital improvement expansion fees for the Village on Horsetooth affordable housing project as allowed by City Code, the Land Use Code, and an Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Fort Collins and the Fort Collins Housing Authority dated July 3, 2013. The Village on Horsetooth will deliver 96 units, of which 43 will be targeted to households making no more than 30% of the area median income (AMI). The request from HC is attached as attachment 1. Under Colorado Statutes and City of Fort Collins ordinances and resolutions dating back to 1988, projects of housing authorities are exempt from taxes and some fees. For many years, the City waived building permit and development review fees and some capital expansion fees for housing authority projects. Historically they had been small amounts. In March 2013, City Council amended its policies on fee waivers for affordable housing to allow for more discretion in determining the kinds of housing authority sponsored projects for which City fees should be waived. This was after a large waiver was granted to a project that was being developed primarily by CARE Housing with the Housing Authority having only a very small interest. By adopting Ordinance No. 37, 2013, City Council limited the types of projects for which HC could ask for waivers. These are projects that are constructed for homeless or disabled persons, or for households whose income is no greater than 30% of the area median income of all City residents. Furthermore, these waivers will be granted at the discretion of City Council upon a determination that the proposed waiver will not jeopardize the financial interests of the City or the timely construction of the capital improvements to be funded by the fees for which a waiver is sought. This change also limited waiver eligibility to only the Housing Authority. Earlier this summer, staff was directed to bring forward for Council consideration, a change that would allow all developers who produce units targeting households making no more than 30% to request discretionary affordable housing fee waivers. That is now scheduled for November 7, 2017. Attachment 4 Council Finance Committee October 16, 2017 (DRAFT) 7 The Village on Horsetooth is a 96 unit affordable housing community being constructed at 1506 W. Horsetooth Road in Fort Collins. See attachment 2 for map of location. Of the 96 total units, 43 units, equaling 45% of the total development, will be dedicated to households making no more than 30% AMI. HC is seeking the waiver of certain fees for those 43 qualifying units. The total of these fees for the project is $1,749,865 (including $608,994 not eligible for City fee waivers). The request is for 45% of eligible fees, $360,136, to be waived. This amount includes a request to waive a Larimer County capital expansion fee which is under review. If determined ineligible, the request moving forward will be reduced by about $10,000. The 2017 income limits published by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for 30% of the Fort Collins AMI is $16,150 for a household of 1 and $24,600 for a household of 4. Households at this income level are some of the City’s most vulnerable residents. These units fit the definition and are eligible for fee waivers as established by City Code, the Land Use Code, and the Intergovernmental Agreement (attachment 3). Funding for this $26.5 million project is a combination of city and state grants, Low Income Housing Tax Credit financing, owner equity and conventional financing. Current pro formas rely upon these fee waivers to complete the project’s funding. The City has established affordable housing production goals in the 2015-2019 Affordable Housing Strategic Plan (Plan). The need for financial support for these goals to be met is also stated in the Plan. The annual production goal for this 5 year plan is 188 units. This project will deliver 96 units which is 51 % of the City’s annual goal. Since the City does not develop housing, development partners are relied upon to bring this necessary housing product to the community. This project will increase the inventory of affordable rental units which is one of the strategies listed in the Plan. It is recommended that any capital expansion fees waived be subject to backfill by the City to reimburse city departments for fees if this waiver is granted, as has been the City’s custom to date. Traditionally backfill of capital expansion fees occurred and has come from General Fund reserves. Alternatively, funds for this request could come from the Affordable Housing Capital Fund that was approved by the voters as part of the City Capital Improvements Program. This fund will accumulate $4 million over ten years. Of that amount, $200,000 was scheduled for 2016, $250,000 for 2017 and $250,000 for 2018. The Affordable Housing Board supports this waiver request. The City’s waiver policy has greatly limited the types of projects that qualify for waivers. This policy recognizes that households earning no more than 30% AMI cannot afford market rate housing in our City at this time. The average rent is currently over $1,200 a month. A one person household at 30% AMI would need to pay 89% of their income to pay the average rent. A four person household would need to pay 59% of their income to afford the average market rate. Ideally, renters would never pay more than 30% of their income on housing. Developers need public subsidy to produce housing that this demographic can afford. Staff also supports granting this waiver request. Attachment 4 Council Finance Committee October 16, 2017 (DRAFT) 8 We pulled the forecast back and things are coming in consistent with the forecast. Discussion / Next Steps; Updated Waiver Request presented; Ross Cunniff; two thumbs up Ken Summers; occupation chart is very interesting - the waiver request is a good program and I am supportive Mayor Troxell; two thumbs up Bring back as an appropriation to Council on November 7 th Work session scheduled on November20th Attachment 4 AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD Thursday, August 3, 2017 Update on City Waiver Policy: Sue Beck-Ferkiss – Social Sustainability Department The current City Code states that fee waivers can only be accessed by Housing Catalyst for the development of housing for individuals with an AMI of 30% or less. Council Finance would like to extend that to include all developers who provide housing units to this AMI level not just to Housing Catalyst. The new proposal will go to Council on September 19, 2017. Sue said that in 2016 no fee waivers were offered and in 2015 about $300,000 was provided to Red Tail Ponds. Eloise Emery moved that the Affordable Housing Board support the proposed ordinance change to allow any developer to request fee waivers for 30% AMI housing units. The motion was seconded by Jennifer Bray. After much discussion the motion passed unanimously 6-0. Attachment 4 2017 Income Limits Income Limits (effective 06/15/17) 2017 Median Income: $76,800 City of Fort Collins Household Members AMI = Area Median Income *80%, 50% & 30% are the Section 8 income limits published by HUD. Income 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 100% of AMI $53,800 $61,500 $69,200 $76,800 $83,000 $89,100 $95,300 $101,400 80% of AMI* $43,050 $49,200 $55,350 $61,450 $66,400 $71,300 $76,200 $81,150 60% of AMI $32,280 $36,900 $41,520 $46,100 $49,800 $53,460 $57,180 $60,840 50% of AMI* $26,900 $30,750 $34,600 $38,400 $41,500 $44,550 $47,650 $50,700 30% of AMI* $16,150 $18,450 $20,750 $24,600 $24,900 $26,750 $28,600 $30,450 Attachment 4 ORDINANCE NO. 148, 2017 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND THE LAND USE CODE TO ALLOW FOR THE DISCRETIONARY WAIVER OF CITY FEES ON ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE CITY WHEREAS, Housing Catalyst (“HC”), formerly the Fort Collins Housing Authority, was formed by the City Council in 1970 pursuant to the authority contained in Section 29-4-101, et seq. of the Colorado Revised Statutes, for the purpose of providing affordable, safe and sanitary housing in the City that is within the means of families of low or moderate income; and WHEREAS, by adoption of Ordinance No. 065, 1999, the City Council exempted from the imposition of the City’s capital improvement expansion fees the land development projects of housing authorities formed pursuant to the provisions of Section 29-4-101, et seq., and specified various other City fees from which such projects are also to be exempted; and WHEREAS, the financial impact of such fee waivers on the City can be substantial, depending upon the size of the project that is exempted, and whether the lost fee revenues need to be replaced by the City; and WHEREAS, on March 19, 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 037, 2013 (the “2013 Ordinance”), which made amendments to the City Code and Land Use Code limiting the types of projects for which HC could request fee waivers, and specifying that those waivers are to be granted at the discretion of City Council upon a determination that proposed waivers will not jeopardize the financial interests of the City or the timely construction of capital improvements to be funded by the fees; and WHEREAS, the 2013 Ordinance also authorized and directed the Mayor to enter into an intergovernmental agreement between the City and HC documenting HC’s intent to limit future fee waiver applications to affordable housing projects that meet the criteria established by such Ordinance (the “Intergovernmental Agreement”); and WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Agreement was executed on July 3, 2013; and WHEREAS, the City Code currently provides that the City Council can waive, by ordinance, fees that would otherwise be imposed for an affordable housing project wholly or partially owned by a housing authority only if the City Council determines that: (1) the proposed project is intended to house homeless or disabled persons, as such terms are defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), or households with an annual income that does not exceed 30% of the area median income (AMI) for the applicable household size in the Fort Collins-Loveland metropolitan statistical area, as published by HUD; and (2) the proposed waiver will not jeopardize the financial interests of the City or the timely construction of the capital improvements to be funded by the fees for which a waiver is sought; and Attachment 4 WHEREAS, the general categories of fees that the City Council can consider waiving include capital expansion fees, development review fees and building permit fees; and WHEREAS, the related City Code provisions are based on the recognition that households earning less than 30% AMI cannot afford market rate housing in Fort Collins, and that developers need public subsidies to produce housing that residents in this demographic can afford; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to provide an incentive for all developers to provide units affordable to those making less than 30% AMI by amending the City Code and Land Use Code to allow all developers of units targeting that income bracket to request fee waivers for the affordable portion of their projects; and WHEREAS, a developer would be required to request such waivers prior to the City issuing any certificates of occupancy for a project; and WHEREAS, whether to grant a fee waiver would still be in the discretion of the City Council and subject to a finding that granting the request will not jeopardize the City’s financial interests or timely construction of capital improvements; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes it is in the best interests of the City to amend the City Code and Land Use Code accordingly. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings outlined in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That Section 7.5-19(b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7.5-19. Imposition, computation and collection of fees. ... (b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Council may, by ordinance, waive the imposition of any fee imposed by the provisions of this Article for an affordable housing project wholly or partially owned by a housing authority formed pursuant to the provisions of C.R.S. Section 29-4-101, et. seq, if the City Council, in its sole discretion, determines that: (1) the affordable housing project is intended to house homeless or disabled persons, as such terms are defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or households with an annual income that does not exceed thirty (30) percent of the area median income for the applicable household size in the Fort Collins-Loveland Attachment 4 metropolitan statistical area, as published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development; and (2) the proposed waiver will not jeopardize the financial interests of the City or the timely construction of the capital improvements to be funded by the fees for which a waiver is sought. Any waiver of fees hereunder must be applied for in accordance with City application requirements prior to the City’s issuance of any certificates of occupancy for the project that is the subject of the waiver request. Section 3. That Section 7.5-48(e) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7.5-48. Land dedication or in-lieu fees imposed. … (e) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Council may, by ordinance, waive the imposition of any fee imposed by the provisions of this Article for an affordable housing project wholly or partially owned by a housing authority formed pursuant to the provisions of C.R.S. Section 29-4-101, et. seq, if the City Council, in its sole discretion, determines that: (1) the affordable housing project is intended to house homeless or disabled persons, as such terms are defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or households with an annual income that does not exceed thirty (30) percent of the area median income for the applicable household size in the Fort Collins-Loveland metropolitan statistical area, as published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development; and (2) the proposed waiver will not jeopardize the financial interests of the City or the timely construction of the capital improvements to be funded by the fees for which a waiver is sought. Any waiver of fees hereunder must be applied for in accordance with City application requirements prior to the City’s issuance of any certificates of occupancy for the project that is the subject of the waiver request. Section 4. That Section 7.5-71(c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7.5-71. Neighborhood parkland capital expansion fee. Attachment 4 … (c) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Council may, by ordinance, waive the imposition of any fee imposed by the provisions of this Article for an affordable housing project wholly or partially owned by a housing authority formed pursuant to the provisions of C.R.S. Section 29-4-101, et. seq, if the City Council, in its sole discretion, determines that: (1) the affordable housing project is intended to house homeless or disabled persons, as such terms are defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or households with an annual income that does not exceed thirty (30) percent of the area median income for the applicable household size in the Fort Collins-Loveland metropolitan statistical area, as published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development; and (2) the proposed waiver will not jeopardize the financial interests of the City or the timely construction of the capital improvements to be funded by the fees for which a waiver is sought. Any waiver of fees hereunder must be applied for in accordance with City application requirements prior to the City’s issuance of any certificates of occupancy for the project that is the subject of the waiver request. Section 5. That Section 10-28(h) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 10-28 Appeals/variance procedure. … (h) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Council may, by ordinance, waive the imposition of any fee imposed by the provisions of this Article for an affordable housing project wholly or partially owned by a housing authority formed pursuant to the provisions of C.R.S. Section 29-4-101, et. seq, if the City Council, in its sole discretion, determines that: (1) the affordable housing project is intended to house homeless or disabled persons, as such terms are defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or households with an annual income that does not exceed thirty (30) percent of the area median income for the applicable household size in the Fort Collins-Loveland metropolitan statistical area, as published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development; and Attachment 4 (2) the proposed waiver will not jeopardize the financial interests of the City or the timely construction of the capital improvements to be funded by the fees for which a waiver is sought. Any waiver of fees hereunder must be applied for in accordance with City application requirements prior to the City’s issuance of any certificates of occupancy for the project that is the subject of the waiver request. Section 6. That Section 2.2.3 (D)(3) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2.2.3 Step 3: Development Application Submittal . . . (D) Development Review Fees. … (3) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Council may, by ordinance, waive the imposition of any fee imposed by the provisions of this Chapter for an affordable housing project wholly or partially owned by a housing authority formed pursuant to the provisions of C.R.S. Section 29-4-101, et. seq, if the City Council, in its sole discretion, determines that: (a) the affordable housing project is intended to house homeless or disabled persons, as such terms are defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or households with an annual income that does not exceed thirty (30) percent of the area median income for the applicable household size in the Fort Collins-Loveland metropolitan statistical area, as published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development; and (b) the proposed waiver, if approved by the City Council, will not jeopardize the financial interests of the City. Any waiver of fees hereunder must be applied for in accordance with City application requirements prior to the City’s issuance of any certificates of occupancy for the project that is the subject of the waiver request. Section 7. That Section 2.13.3(E) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.13.3 Application … Attachment 4 (E) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Council may, by ordinance, waive the imposition of any fee imposed by the provisions of this Chapter for an affordable housing project wholly or partially owned by a housing authority formed pursuant to the provisions of C.R.S. Section 29-4-101, et. seq, if the City Council, in its sole discretion, determines that: (1) the affordable housing project is intended to house homeless or disabled persons, as such terms are defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or households with an annual income that does not exceed thirty (30) percent of the area median income for the applicable household size in the Fort Collins-Loveland metropolitan statistical area, as published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development; and (2) the proposed waiver, if approved by the City Council, will not jeopardize the financial interests of the City or the timely construction of the capital improvements to be funded by the fees for which a waiver is sought. Any waiver of fees hereunder must be applied for in accordance with City application requirements prior to the City’s issuance of any certificates of occupancy for the project that is the subject of the waiver request. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 7th day of November, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of November, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 21st day of November, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Attachment 4 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 1 STAFF REPORT November 16, 2017 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME 2017 THREE-MILE PLAN UPDATE STAFF Ryan Mounce, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Draft 2017 update of the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Board forward a recommendation to City Council to approve the 2017 update to the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins (Plan) is a policy document for coordinating potential future annexations and provision of services. Colorado State Statutes Section 31-12-105 requires cities to complete a plan within three miles in any direction of their municipal boundary to describe the general location, character, utilities, and infrastructure for areas of potential annexation. These plans must also be updated on an annual basis. The 2017 update to the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins is routine and recurring and highlights newly-adopted or revised plans and documents applicable to those areas defined in the State Statutes. This draft 2017 update of the Plan is presented for Planning and Zoning Board review. After reviewing the Plan, the Planning and Zoning Board will forward a recommendation to the City Council. COMMENTS Section 31-12-105 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires the City to complete a plan within three miles in any direction from any point of such municipal boundary as follows: Prior to the completion of any annexation within the three-mile area, the municipality shall have in place a plan for that area, that generally describes the proposed location, character, and extent of streets, subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds, squares, Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 2 parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds, open spaces, public utilities, and terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation, and power to be provided by the municipality and the proposed land uses for the area. The Plan describes each of the items listed in the State Statute in four categories as follows: • Transportation-related Items • Parks, Natural Areas and Open Lands-related Items • Utilities and Related Items • Proposed Land Uses The Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins lists the plans, policies, maps, and other documents that have been adopted by the City of Fort Collins which generally describe the proposed location, character, and extent of the specific characteristics listed above. In addition, several plans and policies listed have been adopted by other jurisdictions such as Larimer County, Colorado State University, or adjoining municipalities, as they are also located within the boundaries of the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins. As Fort Collins limits future annexations to areas within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA), the Plan is less applicable to lands within the three-mile area beyond the boundary of the Fort Collins GMA. There have been few changes to the documents described in the Plan since the previous update in 2016. This annual update to the Plan represents a routine and recurring action, to ensure the City complies with the State Statute requirements. Section II of the Plan highlights in bold newly-adopted or revised plans and documents since the last update. A summary of newly-adopted or revised plans and documents is presented below: • Downtown Plan • Old Town Neighborhoods Plan • Fort Collins Structure Plan • Fort Collins-Larimer County Intergovernmental Agreement for the Growth Management Area • Fort Collins Utilities Water and Wastewater Design Criteria Manual • Fort Collins-Windsor Intergovernmental Agreement for Development of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange City Plan and related elements of the Comprehensive Plan provide sufficient guidance for managing growth within the GMA, and to some degree outside the GMA for contextual purposes. More specifically, the City Structure Plan map shows future land use designations to provide direction for potential annexation and zoning within the GMA. City Plan takes into account all land that is functionally related to the growth of the municipality, not just land within three miles of the municipal boundary. Although the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins is similar to City Plan, it goes further in requiring the location, character, and extent of future utilities and infrastructure as well as proposed land uses for the area. As such, the Plan takes a broader approach to the annexation and development of land. The four maps that are included in the Plan reflect the general resources, infrastructure for significant waterways and airports, and future land uses within the three-mile boundary of City limits. Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 3 FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSION A. The 2017 update of the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins generally and accurately describes the proposed location, character, and extent of street, subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds, open spaces, public utilities, and terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation, and power to be provided by the City of Fort Collins and the proposed land uses for the area. B. The Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins is in compliance with regulations set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes Section 31-12-105. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the 2016 update to the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft 2017 Three-Mile Plan Update (PDF) Attachment 1 City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2017 Update Page 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ 2 I. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3 What is the Purpose of the Three-Mile Plan? ........................................................... 3 What Does the Three-Mile Plan Describe? .............................................................. 3 II. Elements of the Three-Mile Plan .............................................................................. 5 Transportation-related Items .................................................................................... 5 Parks, Natural Areas, and Open Lands-related Items .............................................. 6 Utilities and Related Items ....................................................................................... 8 Proposed Land Uses ................................................................................................ 8 ATTACHMENT A: Three-Mile Plan Boundary .............................................................. 10 ATTACHMENT B: Significant Waterways and Waterfronts within the Three-Mile Plan Boundary ....................................................................................................................... 11 ATTACHMENT C: Airports within the Three-Mile Plan Boundary ................................ 12 ATTACHMENT D: Land Uses within the Three-Mile Plan Boundary……………………13 Attachment 1 City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2017 Update Page 3 I. Introduction What is the Purpose of the Three-Mile Plan? The Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, is a policy document for coordinating future annexation and provision of services, required to be updated annually per Colorado Revised Statutes Section 31-12-105. The Three-Mile Plan describes the general location, character, utilities, and infrastructure for the areas of potential annexation within three miles in any direction of the municipal boundary. In comparison to a specific annexation impact report, the Three-Mile Plan takes a broader approach to the annexation and development of land. A proposed annexation should be consistent with the municipality’s Comprehensive Plan and Three-Mile Plan, in addition to other policies. Section 31-12-105 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires that the City complete a plan within three miles in any direction from any point of such municipal boundary as follows: Prior to the completion of any annexation within the three-mile area, the municipality shall have in place a plan for that area that generally describes the proposed location, character, and extent of streets, subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds, open spaces, public utilities, and terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation, and power to be provided by the municipality and the proposed land uses for the area. Updates to the Three-Mile Plan are routine and occur on an annual basis. The 2017 update highlights the changes to approved plans and other documents applicable to those areas defined in the State Statutes since the prior year’s update. What Does the Three-Mile Plan Describe? This Three-Mile Plan describes each of the items listed in the Statute in four categories, as follows: Transportation-related Items: Streets Subways Bridges Parkways Aviation Fields Other Public Ways Terminals for Transportation Attachment 1 City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2017 Update Page 4 Parks, Natural Areas and Open Lands-related Items: Waterways Waterfronts Playgrounds Squares Parks Grounds Open Spaces Utilities and Related Items: Public Utilities Terminals for Water, Light, Sanitation, and Power Provided by the Municipality Proposed Land Uses: Inside Growth Management Area (GMA) Outside Growth Management Area (GMA) For each of these four categories, the plans, policies, maps, and other documents are identified that have been adopted by the Fort Collins City Council, which generally describe the proposed location, character and extent of the specific characteristics listed above. In addition, there are some plans and policies that have been adopted by other jurisdictions such as Larimer County, Colorado State University, or adjoining municipalities, that are also located within the boundaries of the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. There have been relatively few changes to existing plans or newly-adopted plans within the three-mile study area since the previous year. Section II highlights newly-adopted or revised plans and documents adopted in the preceding year in bold. Attachment 1 City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2017 Update Page 5 II. Elements of the Three-Mile Plan Transportation-related Items 1. Streets: Capital Improvement Plan City Plan City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan City of Fort Collins Street Standards City of Fort Collins Bicycle Plan City of Fort Collins Bicycle Safety Education Plan City of Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan Colorado State University Parking and Transportation Master Plan Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan Harmony Road ETC Master Plan Harmony Road Access Control Plan I-25/392 Interchange Improvement Plan Larimer County Transportation Master Plan Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards Mason Corridor Master Plan North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan North College and Highway 14 Access Control Plan Northern Colorado Regional Planning Study Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-25 Corridor Plan Downtown Parking Plan South College Access Control Plan Fort Collins Streetscape Design Standards Subarea Plans o CDOT US392 Environmental Overview Study o CDOT North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement o CDOT US287 Environmental Overview Study o Downtown Plan o Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Summary Report o Downtown Strategic Plan o East Mulberry Corridor Plan o East Side Neighborhood Plan o Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan o Harmony Corridor Plan o I-25 Subarea Plan o Lincoln Corridor Plan o Midtown in Motion o Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update o North College Corridor Plan o Northside Neighborhood Plan o Northwest Subarea Plan o Old Town Neighborhoods Plan o Prospect Road Streetscape Program o South College Corridor Plan Attachment 1 City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2017 Update Page 6 o State Highway 392 Access Control Plan o West Central Neighborhoods Plan Transfort Strategic Operating Plan Transit Plan: Fort Collins, Loveland, and Larimer County (1996-2002) Transit Oriented Development Parking Study West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan 2. Subways: None 3. Bridges: Master Street Plan North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan 4. Parkways: Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards 5. Aviation Fields: Airport Master Plan Update The attached map entitled “Airports within the Three-Mile Area Plan Boundary” locates all the airports within the plan area 6. Other Public Ways: None 7. Terminals for Public Transportation: Mason Corridor Master Plan Parks, Natural Areas, and Open Lands-related Items 1. Waterways: Cache La Poudre River Landscape Opportunities Study Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Poudre River Downtown Master Plan Stormwater Master Plan and Floodplain Regulations Watershed Approach to Stormwater Quality The attached map entitled “Significant Waterways and Waterfronts within the Three-Mile Area Plan Boundary” locates all significant waterways within the plan area 2. Waterfronts: The attached map entitled “Significant Waterways and Waterfronts within the Three-Mile Area Plan Boundary” locates all significant waterways within the plan area 3. Playgrounds, Squares, Parks: City Plan Larimer County Comprehensive Parks Master Plan Parks and Recreation Policy Plan Poudre School District Master Plan Attachment 1 City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2017 Update Page 7 Subarea Plans o Campus West Community Commercial District Planning Study Report o CDOT US392 Environmental Overview Study o CDOT North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement o CDOT US287 Environmental Overview Study o Downtown Plan o Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Summary Report o Downtown Strategic Plan o East Mulberry Corridor Plan o East Side Neighborhood Plan o Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan o Harmony Corridor Plan o I-25 Subarea Plan o Lincoln Corridor Plan o Midtown in Motion o Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update o North College Corridor Plan o Northside Neighborhood Plan o Northwest Subarea Plan o Old Town Neighborhoods Plan o Prospect Road Streetscape Program o South College Corridor Plan o State Highway 392 Access Control Plan o West Central Neighborhoods Plan Thompson School District Master Plan Trails Master Plan 4. Grounds, Open Spaces: Bobcat Ridge Natural Area Management Plan – outside Growth Management Area (GMA) Cache La Poudre River Natural Areas Management Plan City Plan City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Program Land Conservation and Stewardship Master Plan Foundation for a New Century, Colorado State University (CSU) Master Plan Foothills Natural Areas Management Plan Foothills Study Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plans Fossil Creek Natural Areas Management Plan Fossil Creek reservoir Regional Open Space Management Plan Larimer County Open Lands Master Plan Larimer County Comprehensive Parks Master Plan Northern Colorado Regional Planning Study Natural Areas Master Plan Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland Regional Community Separator Study Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Management Plan – outside GMA Wellington Community Separator Study Windsor Community Separator Study Attachment 1 City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2017 Update Page 8 Utilities and Related Items 1. Public Utilities: 2007 East Larimer County Water District (ELCO) Master Plan Update 208 Plan Boxelder Sanitation District Wastewater Utility Plan City Plan Drinking Water Quality Policy Fort Collins-Loveland Water District Master Plan Fort Collins Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Fort Collins Wastewater Master Plan Update Fort Collins Revised Water Treatment Facility Master Plan Fort Collins Utilities Energy Policy 2016 Update Fort Collins Utilities Water and Wastewater Design Criteria Manual South Fort Collins Sanitation District Master Plan for Wastewater Collection and Treatment Stormwater Criteria Manual Stormwater Master Plan and Floodplain Management Water Conservation Plan Water Efficiency Plan 2. Terminals for Water, Light, Sanitation, Transportation, and Power Provided by the Municipality: 208 Plan City Plan City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan City of Fort Collins Electric Long Range Plan Drinking Water Quality Policy Fort Collins-Loveland Water District Master Plan Fort Collins Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Fort Collins Wastewater Master Plan Update Fort Collins Revised Water Treatment Facility Master Plan Fort Collins Utilities Energy Policy 2016 Update Fort Collins Utilities Water and Wastewater Design Criteria Manual South Fort Collins Sanitation district Master Plan for Wastewater Collection and Treatment Stormwater Criteria Manual Stormwater Master Plan and Floodplain Management Water Conservation Plan Water Efficiency Plan Proposed Land Uses 1. Land Uses Defined within the Growth Management Area (GMA): City Plan City of Fort Collins Structure Plan Fort Collins and Larimer County Intergovernmental Agreement Fort Collins and Windsor Intergovernmental Agreement Attachment 1 City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2017 Update Page 9 Fort Collins and Timnath Intergovernmental Agreement Seventh Amendment Foundation for a New Century, Colorado State University (CSU) Master Plan Foundation for a New Century CSU Campus Master Plan, 2004, including: o Agricultural Research Development and Educational Center (ARDEC) Master Plan o Foothills Campus Master Plan o South Campus Master Plan City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements (Town of Timnath, South Fort Collins/Loveland Water District) Subarea Plans o Campus West Community Commercial District Planning Study Report o CDOT US392 Environmental Overview Study o CDOT North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement o CDOT US287 Environmental Overview Study o Downtown Plan o Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Summary Report o Downtown Strategic Plan o East Mulberry Corridor Plan o East Side Neighborhood Plan o Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan o Harmony Corridor Plan o Harmony Road ETC Master Plan o I-25 Subarea Plan o Midtown Plan o Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update o North College Corridor Plan o Northside Neighborhood Plan o Northwest Subarea Plan o Old Town Neighborhoods Plan o Prospect Road Streetscape Program o South College Corridor Plan o State Highway 392 Access Control Plan o West Central Neighborhoods Plan 2. Land Uses Outside the GMA: A Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland City of Loveland Three-Mile Area Plan Fort Collins-Windsor Intergovernmental Agreement for Development of the Interstate 25 / State Highway 392 Interchange LaPorte Area Plan Larimer County Master Plan Larimer County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Loveland Comprehensive Master Plan Loveland Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan Northern Colorado Community Separator Study Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-25 Corridor Plan Town of Windsor Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Town of Timnath Comprehensive Plan Town of Wellington Comprehensive Master Plan Attachment 1 City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2017 Update Page 10 ATTACHMENT A: Three-Mile Plan Boundary Attachment 1 City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2017 Update Page 11 ATTACHMENT B: Significant Waterways and Waterfronts within the Three-Mile Plan Boundary Attachment 1 City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2017 Update Page 12 ATTACHMENT C: Airports within the Three-Mile Plan Boundary Attachment 1 City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2017 Update Page 13 ATTACHMENT D: Land Uses within the Three-Mile Plan Boundary Attachment 1 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 1 STAFF REPORT November 16, 2017 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME SPRING CREEK MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT REZONING, REZ170001 STAFF Ted Shepard, Chief Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Spring Creek Mixed-Use Development Rezoning, REZ170001 This is a request to adjust the location, size and boundary between two zone districts within a 19.55 parcel located at the southeast corner of South Shields Street and Hobbit Street. The result of the shift is that the Neighborhood Commercial (N-C) zone is shifted south and reduced by 2.88 acres while the Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (M-M-N) zone is shifted north and gains a corresponding amount of land area. As proposed, the N-C zone would be reduced to 6.42 acres and the M-M-N zone would be enlarged to 13.13 acres. There is no formal development plan currently in the review process. There is, however, a Concept Plan that is associated with the rezoning that helps to inform all interested parties as to the development potential of the parcel based on the adjusted zone districts, and forms the basis for the staff recommendation and the six conditions of approval. The site is undeveloped and vacant. APPLICANT: North Spring Creek Properties, LLC c/o Ripley Design 419 Canyon, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 OWNER: North Spring Creek Properties, LLC c/o Mr. Steve Schroyer 401 W. Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 RECOMMENDATION: Approval with six conditions Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The request to shift the location, size and boundary of the two zone districts is being submitted in conjunction with a Concept Plan. The purpose of the rezoning is to facilitate a future mixed-use development that would consist of commercial uses, multi-family apartments and two-family dwellings (duplexes). Adjusting the two zone district boundaries allows for a smaller scale commercial development than the current zoning envisions with a corresponding increase in the residential component of the mixed-use development. Staff finds that the request to rezone portions of the two zone districts complies with the standards and criteria of Section 2.9(H). In addition, and in compliance with Section 2.9(I), staff is recommending six conditions of approval to ensure that all aspects of future development comports with the principles and policies of the West Central Area Plan and City Plan. 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: M-M-N Multi-Family (Landmark Apartments) S: M-M-N Spring Creek S: M-M-N Hill Pond Townhomes E: R-L Sheely Addition and Wallenberg Neighborhoods W: M-M-N Multi-Family (Foothills Apartments) W: N-C Convenience Center (Spring Creek Plaza) In 1987, Pulse O.D.P. and Final P.U.D. were approved for a health club on the subject site. Pulse ended up not pursuing development and moved to Raintree Village where a subsequent entity maintains a current operation. In conjunction with the 1987 Pulse P.U.D., the size and shape of the health club dictated the proposed curved alignment of West Stuart Street. This alignment, and dedication of public right-of-way, became the basis for the current zone district boundary between N-C and M-M-N. Now, with no large structure to determine the West Stuart Street alignment, the current zone district boundary line is found to be obsolete. 2. Summary of the Review Criteria for Rezoning of Parcles Less Than 640 Acres: Any amendment to the Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning of 640 acres of land or less (quasi- judicial versus legislative) shall be recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board or approved by the City Council only if the proposed amendment is: • Consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and/or • Warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 3 Additional considerations for rezoning parcels less than 640 acres (quasi-judicial): • Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the appropriate zone district for the land; • Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. • Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. 3. Consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan: A. The parcel is located in the West Central Area Plan an element of the City’s comprehensive plan known as City Plan. The WCAP specifically addresses the subject parcel: B. “Significant New Development or Redevelopment” “Vacant 20-Acre Parcel South of Prospect Road and East of Shields Street.” “This site is the largest undeveloped tract in the West Central area and includes two zone districts, Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN). The NC zone is approximately ten acres in size and acts as the core of the parcel, with exposure along Shields Street. This area is expected to develop in an urbanized commercial manner. Opportunities exist for dwelling units above commercial space. The MMN zone surrounds the commercial core and is intended to offer a variety of housing options, as well as a land use transition for the Sheely neighborhood to the east. There is potential for a well-designed cohesive development that creatively addresses both the market potential and neighborhood desires for the site.” (Page 23.) Neighborhood Character: “LU 1.8 Maintain established, mature neighborhood areas as areas of stability.” (Page 31.) “LU 1.9 Provide guidelines to ensure new development is compatible with adjacent neighborhoods.” (Page 31.) “LU 1.10 Emphasize and respect the existing heritage and character of neighborhoods through a collaborative design process that allows for a neighborhood dialogue.” (Page 33.) “LU 1.11 Encourage a variety of housing types so that residents from all socio-economic levels may find suitable housing in the area. • Single family attached should act as a transition to adjacent established neighborhoods; • Housing types should be designed to accommodate a range of tenants over time. • Housing variety is encouraged in order to attract and retain families and allow seniors to age in place. • A diverse mix of occupants contributes to neighborhood stability. Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 4 • Housing relying solely on four-bedroom units should be discouraged, as a diverse mix of bedrooms per unit provides greater flexibility, serves a broader range of tenants, and may allow an easier conversion to owner-occupied units should the demand arise.” (Page 34.) Taken together, these descriptions and policies establish an expectation that development of this parcel will factor in neighborhood input and achieve compatibility through project design. In addition to the neighborhood information meeting, the applicant and representatives of the Sheely and Wallenberg neighborhoods have engaged in a dialogue to address issues related to the rezoning and potential land development. One result of these discussions is that the placement of two-family dwellings (duplexes) along the eastern portion of the site should be included as a condition to provide a land use transition and contribute to neighborhood compatibility in conjunction with stormwater facilities, landscaping, walkways and trails. Regarding respecting heritage and neighborhood character, proximity to the Sheely Drive Historic Landmark District will require subsequent development to comply with Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code – Historic and Cultural Resources. Finally, requiring two distinct housing types as a condition, along with commercial uses, the future project would not be a one-dimensional, student-oriented apartment complex. In order to implement W.C.A.P. policies LU 1.8 – LU 1.11, staff recommends condition number one that any future development plan must include a housing type that offers variety besides multi-family dwellings and promotes neighborhood compatibility (two-family dwellings in this case). Further, in order to minimize the impacts associated with relying on the business model that calls for rent-by-the bedroom, which often results in four-bedroom units or greater, and tends to narrow the market served by the housing, staff recommends condition number two. Condition Number One: Development of the M-M-N parcel, as adjusted and enlarged to 13.13 acres by this request, must include two-family dwellings along the entire eastern perimeter forming a buffer and transition between any multi-family buildings and houses in the adjoining neighborhoods as generally indicated on the applicant’s Concept Plan (applicant’s exhibit 6) with exceptions made for stormwater facilities, private parks, landscaping and walkways. Condition Number Two: Multi-family development on the M-M-N parcel, as adjusted and enlarged to 13.13 acres by this request, must not contain any dwelling units that feature the rent-by-the-bedroom leasing model. C. City Plan - Design Principles and Policies for Existing Neighborhoods: “Principle LIV 26: Neighborhood Stability should be maintained and enhanced. Most existing residential developments will remain largely unaffected by these Principles and Policies.” (Page 77.) The request to adjust the location, size and boundary between two zone districts results in a reduction in the size of the N-C zone by 2.88 acre. Also, the location of the N-C zone, in terms of transitioning land use intensity, is being shifted slightly further away from the neighborhoods to the east. D. City Plan – Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods: “Purpose: Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods are intended to function together with surrounding Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods and a centrally located Neighborhood or Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 5 Community Commercial District, providing a more gradual transition in development intensity and use.” (Page 80.) Principal LIV 29: Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods include a mix of medium density housing types, providing a transition and link between lower density neighborhoods and a Neighborhood, Community Commercial or Employment district.” (Page 80.) The request to rezone continues to fulfill this Principle. Because the M-M-N zone district includes permitted uses that are not residential, and in order to promote land use compatibility, and compliance with the applicant’s Concept Plan, staff recommends condition number three. Also, because the purpose and policy for the M-M-N calls for gradual transitions versus mid-rise apartment buildings, staff recommends establishing a maximum number of multi-family dwelling units as condition number four. Condition Number Three: Development of the M-M-N zone district parcel, as adjusted and enlarged to 13.13 acres by this request, shall be limited to residential permitted uses and accessory uses only. Condition Number Four: The maximum number of multi-family dwelling units shall be 365. E. City Plan – Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods: “Principal LIV 29-3: Neighborhood or Commercial District. Integrate the design of a Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood with a Neighborhood Commercial or Community Commercial District. Residents should be able to easily get to the Commercial District without the need to use an arterial street.” (Page 80.) The request continues to promote this Principle. A street connection between the two neighborhoods to the east and the subject parcel is precluded by decisions made in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s which specifically called for not connecting Hobbit Street to Farm Tree Road, later renamed to Wallenberg Drive. Instead, the connection linking the neighborhoods to the proposed N-C zone is made by the existing bike trail system along the Canal Importation Basin Channel and Spring Creek and proposed connections anticipated with future development. F. City Plan – Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods: “Principle LIV 29-5: Transitions. Encourage non-residential uses and larger buildings of attached and multiple-family housing near the commercial core, with a transition to smaller buildings, such as duplex and detached houses, closer to surrounding lower density neighborhoods.” (Page 80.) The request continues to promote this Principle. As noted, two family dwellings (duplexes) must be placed along the eastern edge of the parcel per the aforementioned condition number one. In order to implement this principle in this location, staff recommends condition number five. Condition Number Five. The maximum allowable building height of the two-family dwellings shall be two stories. G. City Plan – Neighborhood Commercial Districts: Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 6 “Principle LIV 36: Neighborhood Commercial Districts will provide everyday goods and services for nearby residents, and will be pedestrian-oriented places that serve as focal points for the surrounding neighborhoods.” (Page 89.) While the shifted N-C zone will be slightly further away from the single family neighborhoods to the east, it will remain within one-quarter mile (acknowledged to be a comfortable walking distance) of existing residential neighborhoods including portions of the Shelly and Wallenberg neighborhoods as well as neighborhoods to the north, south and west. H. City Plan – Neighborhood Commercial Districts: “Policy LIV 36.1: Mix of Uses. Neighborhood Commercial Districts may include a mix of neighborhood serving uses, as follows: • Principal uses: Grocery store, supermarket, or other type of anchor, such as a drugstore. • Supporting uses: Retail, professional office, day care (adult and child) along with live-work and residential units, civic/institutional uses, pocket parks, and other outdoor gathering spaces and other supporting uses.” (Page 89.) This policy is the basis for the list of permitted uses allowed in the N-C zone as found in Section 4.23 of the Land Use Code. In order to allow for a mix of intended primary and supporting uses, but not at the expense of the primary uses, the Code sets a limit on the extent of residential uses, up to 30%, for parcels larger than five acres (Section 4.23(D)(2) – Secondary Uses.) The rezone would result in a parcel of 6.42 acres which, theoretically, could consist of 30%, or 1.9 acres, of residential uses. Per the N-C zone district permitted use list, a variety of residential uses are permitted ranging from single family detached up to multi-family. Staff is concerned that allowing up to a maximum of 30% residential uses in combination with the overall effect of the rezoning, would dilute the primary purpose of the N-C zone district. This concern is amplified given the proximity of 13.13 acres of M-M-N zoning which could be increased by 1.9 acres in the N-C zone. In order to ensure that the Concept Plan results in a mixed-use development consistent with City Plan Principles and Policies, Staff recommends condition number six: Condition Number Six: Development of the N-C zone district parcel, as adjusted and reduced to 6.42 acres by this request, shall be limited to the primary and supporting uses as envisioned by Principle LIV 36.1 of City Plan and Section 4.23(B) of the Land Use Code, and that residential permitted uses are limited to Accessory Uses, Two-Family Dwellings and Mixed-Use Dwellings in accordance with Section 4.23(D)(2) of the Land Use Code. I. City Plan – Neighborhood Commercial Districts: “Policy LIV 36.2: Location. Locate Neighborhood Commercial Districts near Low Density and Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods. Access for pedestrians should be a priority.” (Page 89.) The adjusted N-C zone will continue to be bordered on three sides by M-M-N zoning. J. City Plan – Neighborhood Commercial Districts: “Policy LIV 36.4: Relationship to Surrounding Neighborhoods. Integrate the Neighborhood Commercial District into the surrounding neighborhood using a connected pattern of streets and blocks that Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 7 contributes to the neighborhood’s positive identity and image and allows residents to reach the District without the need to use an arterial street.” (Page 89.) As mentioned, the N-C zone lacks a connection between Hobbit Street to Wallenberg Drive which is an existing condition that is not the fault of the applicant. Due to existing natural features and development, extending streets into surrounding neighborhoods is infeasible. Connectivity is provided by other modes with the existing network of trails and public sidewalks. Future development will be required to make connections to this network. K. City Plan – Neighborhood Commercial Districts: “Policy LIV 36.5: Integrate a Transit Stop. Integrate transit stop facilities into the design of the District and directly connect the transit stop to transportation corridors that serve other districts and the rest of the City.” (Page 89.) There is an existing northbound transit stop slightly north of where West Stuart Street tees into Shields Street. With the adjustment in the zone districts, the N-C will continue to be conveniently served by Transfort with direct connections to the West Elizabeth Street Enhanced Travel Corridor and the C.S.U. Transit Center. 4. Warranted by Changed Conditions Within the Neighborhood Surrounding and Including the Subject Property: The applicant has provided documentation that the primary change in condition is that since the zoning was placed on the property in 1997, existing grocery stores and drug stores have been constructed and adequately serve the area. As a result, the market will not support comparable uses as an anchor to a commercial site that is 9.34 acres at this location. These existing stores include: • King Soopers at 2325 South College Avenue • Whole Foods at 2201 South College Avenue • Rite Aid at 1103 West Prospect Road • King Soopers at 1015 South Taft Hill Road In addition to these stores, the applicant has provided an exhibit showing other commercial centers in the area that provide a variety of goods and services. These include: • Spring Creek Plaza (Shields and Stuart) • Fox Center (College and Prospect) • Campus West (Shields and Elizabeth) • Cimarron Plaza (Shields and Drake) • Poudre Valley Plaza (Shields and Horsetooth) • Drake Crossing (Shields and Drake) Staff has evaluated the applicant’s justification and agrees that the general area west of South College Avenue is well-served with grocery and other retail stores that were originally intended to anchor the N- C district at the current size of 9.34 acres. It is interesting to note that Steele’s Market at the Drake Center is no longer in business. Since 1997, it has become apparent to staff that a grocery store- anchored center is not realistic or feasible from a market perspective within the foreseeable planning Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 8 timeframe at this location. Staff finds that this negates the reason for the nine-plus acre designation, which was done with the goal of such a center and represents a change in condition over time that justifies the rezoning request. (Please see applicant’s exhibit 3, N-C Zoning Study.) 5. Whether and the Extent To Which the Proposed Amendment is Compatible With Existing and Proposed Uses Surrounding the Subject Land and is the Appropriate Zone District for the Land. As noted, the request only shifts the location, size and boundary of the two existing zones such that the N-C zone is reduced by 2.88 acres and the M-M-N zone is increased by the same amount. The location of the N-C acreage is moved closer to the Stuart Street signalized intersection. Both Spring Creek on the south and the Canal Importation Basin Channel on the east provide effective buffers for the benefit of the existing neighborhoods. The proposed request does not create any additional impact or cause any diminution in compatibility than that which exists under current zoning. Therefore, staff finds that the request is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and the adjustment to the two zone districts is appropriate. 6. Whether and the Extent to Which the Proposed Amendment Would Result in Significantly Adverse Impacts on the Natural Environment, Including, But Not Limited to Water, Air, Noise, Stormwater Management, Wildlife, Vegetation, Wetlands and the Natural Functioning of the Environment. The Land Use Code contains provisions that protect the natural environment no matter what the underlying zoning may be. In terms of the current request, there is no up-zoning to a more intense zone district. Therefore, there would be no new permitted uses or any additional adverse impacts on the natural environment that would need to be mitigated in order to comply with the Land Use Code. 7. Whether and the Extent to Which the Proposed Amendment Would Result in a Logical and Orderly Development Pattern. The result of the request shifts the location of the N-C zone to the south closer to the extension of West Stuart Street which improves the access to the commercial center and reduces traffic on Hobbit Street and the internal street system. Also, the size and shape of the M-M-N parcel along the eastern edge is enlarged which contributes to neighborhood compatibility. Staff finds that the request improves the development pattern on the subject parcel for the benefit of traffic circulation and land use transition between M-M-N and R-L zone district to the east. 8. Neighborhood Information Meeting. Per Section 2.9(B), a neighborhood meeting is not required except that with respect to a quasi-judicial amendments (rezoning) only, the Director may convene a neighborhood meeting to present and discuss a proposal of known controversy and/or significant impacts. A neighborhood meeting was held on September 26, 2017. A summary of this meeting is attached. The result of the neighborhood information meeting is the recommendation of six conditions of approval. 9. Conclusion and Findings of Fact: In reviewing the request to adjust the location, size and boundary of the two zone districts on the subject parcel, staff makes the following findings of fact: Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 9 A. Within the 19.55 acre parcel, the request to rezone 2.88 acres from N-C, Neighborhood Commercial, to M-M-N, Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood complies with the standards and criteria of Section 2.9(H) of the Land Use Code. B. In order to encourage and facilitate the orderly development of the 19.55 acres and to ensure compliance with the policies and principles of the West Central Area Plan and City Plan, six conditions of approval are recommended as allowed by Section 2.9(I). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that City Council approve Spring Creek Rezoning, #REZ170001, based on the Findings of Fact of the Staff Report, subject to the following conditions: Condition Number One: Development of the M-M-N parcel, as adjusted and enlarged to 13.13 acres by this request, must include two-family dwellings along the entire eastern perimeter forming a buffer and transition between any multi-family buildings and houses in the adjoining neighborhoods as generally indicated on the applicant’s Concept Plan (applicant’s exhibit 6) with exceptions made for stormwater facilities, private parks, landscaping and walkways. Condition Number Two: Multi-family development on the M-M-N parcel, as adjusted and enlarged to 13.13 acres by this request, must not contain any dwelling units that feature a rent-by-the-bedroom leasing model. Condition Number Three: Development of the M-M-N zone district parcel, as adjusted and enlarged to 13.13 acres by this request, shall be limited to residential permitted uses and accessory uses only. Condition Number Four: The maximum number of multi-family dwelling units shall be 365. Condition Number Five. The maximum allowable building height of the two-family dwellings shall be two stories. Condition Number Six: Development of the N-C zone district parcel, as adjusted and reduced to 6.42 acres by this request, shall be limited to the primary and supporting uses as envisioned by Principle LIV 36.1 of City Plan and Section 4.23(B) of the Land Use Code, and that residential permitted uses are limited to Accessory Uses, Two-Family Dwellings and Mixed-Use Dwellings in accordance with Section 4.23(D)(2) of the Land Use Code. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map (PDF) 2. Applicant's Justification and Exhibits 1 - 7 (PDF) 3. Neighborhood Meeting Summary (DOCX) Attachment 1 City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2017 Update Page 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ 2 I. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3 What is the Purpose of the Three-Mile Plan? ........................................................... 3 What Does the Three-Mile Plan Describe? .............................................................. 3 II. Elements of the Three-Mile Plan .............................................................................. 5 Transportation-related Items .................................................................................... 5 Parks, Natural Areas, and Open Lands-related Items .............................................. 6 Utilities and Related Items ....................................................................................... 8 Proposed Land Uses ................................................................................................ 8 ATTACHMENT A: Three-Mile Plan Boundary .............................................................. 10 ATTACHMENT B: Significant Waterways and Waterfronts within the Three-Mile Plan Boundary ....................................................................................................................... 11 ATTACHMENT C: Airports within the Three-Mile Plan Boundary ................................ 12 ATTACHMENT D: Land Uses within the Three-Mile Plan Boundary……………………13 Attachment 1 City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2017 Update Page 3 I. Introduction What is the Purpose of the Three-Mile Plan? The Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, is a policy document for coordinating future annexation and provision of services, required to be updated annually per Colorado Revised Statutes Section 31-12-105. The Three-Mile Plan describes the general location, character, utilities, and infrastructure for the areas of potential annexation within three miles in any direction of the municipal boundary. In comparison to a specific annexation impact report, the Three-Mile Plan takes a broader approach to the annexation and development of land. A proposed annexation should be consistent with the municipality’s Comprehensive Plan and Three-Mile Plan, in addition to other policies. Section 31-12-105 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires that the City complete a plan within three miles in any direction from any point of such municipal boundary as follows: Prior to the completion of any annexation within the three-mile area, the municipality shall have in place a plan for that area that generally describes the proposed location, character, and extent of streets, subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds, open spaces, public utilities, and terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation, and power to be provided by the municipality and the proposed land uses for the area. Updates to the Three-Mile Plan are routine and occur on an annual basis. The 2017 update highlights the changes to approved plans and other documents applicable to those areas defined in the State Statutes since the prior year’s update. What Does the Three-Mile Plan Describe? This Three-Mile Plan describes each of the items listed in the Statute in four categories, as follows: Transportation-related Items: Streets Subways Bridges Parkways Aviation Fields Other Public Ways Terminals for Transportation Attachment 1 City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2017 Update Page 4 Parks, Natural Areas and Open Lands-related Items: Waterways Waterfronts Playgrounds Squares Parks Grounds Open Spaces Utilities and Related Items: Public Utilities Terminals for Water, Light, Sanitation, and Power Provided by the Municipality Proposed Land Uses: Inside Growth Management Area (GMA) Outside Growth Management Area (GMA) For each of these four categories, the plans, policies, maps, and other documents are identified that have been adopted by the Fort Collins City Council, which generally describe the proposed location, character and extent of the specific characteristics listed above. In addition, there are some plans and policies that have been adopted by other jurisdictions such as Larimer County, Colorado State University, or adjoining municipalities, that are also located within the boundaries of the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. There have been relatively few changes to existing plans or newly-adopted plans within the three-mile study area since the previous year. Section II highlights newly-adopted or revised plans and documents adopted in the preceding year in bold. Attachment 1 City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2017 Update Page 5 II. Elements of the Three-Mile Plan Transportation-related Items 1. Streets: Capital Improvement Plan City Plan City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan City of Fort Collins Street Standards City of Fort Collins Bicycle Plan City of Fort Collins Bicycle Safety Education Plan City of Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan Colorado State University Parking and Transportation Master Plan Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan Harmony Road ETC Master Plan Harmony Road Access Control Plan I-25/392 Interchange Improvement Plan Larimer County Transportation Master Plan Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards Mason Corridor Master Plan North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan North College and Highway 14 Access Control Plan Northern Colorado Regional Planning Study Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-25 Corridor Plan Downtown Parking Plan South College Access Control Plan Fort Collins Streetscape Design Standards Subarea Plans o CDOT US392 Environmental Overview Study o CDOT North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement o CDOT US287 Environmental Overview Study o Downtown Plan o Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Summary Report o Downtown Strategic Plan o East Mulberry Corridor Plan o East Side Neighborhood Plan o Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan o Harmony Corridor Plan o I-25 Subarea Plan o Lincoln Corridor Plan o Midtown in Motion o Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update o North College Corridor Plan o Northside Neighborhood Plan o Northwest Subarea Plan o Old Town Neighborhoods Plan o Prospect Road Streetscape Program o South College Corridor Plan Attachment 1 City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2017 Update Page 6 o State Highway 392 Access Control Plan o West Central Neighborhoods Plan Transfort Strategic Operating Plan Transit Plan: Fort Collins, Loveland, and Larimer County (1996-2002) Transit Oriented Development Parking Study West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan 2. Subways: None 3. Bridges: Master Street Plan North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan 4. Parkways: Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards 5. Aviation Fields: Airport Master Plan Update The attached map entitled “Airports within the Three-Mile Area Plan Boundary” locates all the airports within the plan area 6. Other Public Ways: None 7. Terminals for Public Transportation: Mason Corridor Master Plan Parks, Natural Areas, and Open Lands-related Items 1. Waterways: Cache La Poudre River Landscape Opportunities Study Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Poudre River Downtown Master Plan Stormwater Master Plan and Floodplain Regulations Watershed Approach to Stormwater Quality The attached map entitled “Significant Waterways and Waterfronts within the Three-Mile Area Plan Boundary” locates all significant waterways within the plan area 2. Waterfronts: The attached map entitled “Significant Waterways and Waterfronts within the Three-Mile Area Plan Boundary” locates all significant waterways within the plan area 3. Playgrounds, Squares, Parks: City Plan Larimer County Comprehensive Parks Master Plan Parks and Recreation Policy Plan Poudre School District Master Plan Attachment 1 City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2017 Update Page 7 Subarea Plans o Campus West Community Commercial District Planning Study Report o CDOT US392 Environmental Overview Study o CDOT North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement o CDOT US287 Environmental Overview Study o Downtown Plan o Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Summary Report o Downtown Strategic Plan o East Mulberry Corridor Plan o East Side Neighborhood Plan o Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan o Harmony Corridor Plan o I-25 Subarea Plan o Lincoln Corridor Plan o Midtown in Motion o Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update o North College Corridor Plan o Northside Neighborhood Plan o Northwest Subarea Plan o Old Town Neighborhoods Plan o Prospect Road Streetscape Program o South College Corridor Plan o State Highway 392 Access Control Plan o West Central Neighborhoods Plan Thompson School District Master Plan Trails Master Plan 4. Grounds, Open Spaces: Bobcat Ridge Natural Area Management Plan – outside Growth Management Area (GMA) Cache La Poudre River Natural Areas Management Plan City Plan City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Program Land Conservation and Stewardship Master Plan Foundation for a New Century, Colorado State University (CSU) Master Plan Foothills Natural Areas Management Plan Foothills Study Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plans Fossil Creek Natural Areas Management Plan Fossil Creek reservoir Regional Open Space Management Plan Larimer County Open Lands Master Plan Larimer County Comprehensive Parks Master Plan Northern Colorado Regional Planning Study Natural Areas Master Plan Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland Regional Community Separator Study Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Management Plan – outside GMA Wellington Community Separator Study Windsor Community Separator Study Attachment 1 City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2017 Update Page 8 Utilities and Related Items 1. Public Utilities: 2007 East Larimer County Water District (ELCO) Master Plan Update 208 Plan Boxelder Sanitation District Wastewater Utility Plan City Plan Drinking Water Quality Policy Fort Collins-Loveland Water District Master Plan Fort Collins Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Fort Collins Wastewater Master Plan Update Fort Collins Revised Water Treatment Facility Master Plan Fort Collins Utilities Energy Policy 2016 Update Fort Collins Utilities Water and Wastewater Design Criteria Manual South Fort Collins Sanitation District Master Plan for Wastewater Collection and Treatment Stormwater Criteria Manual Stormwater Master Plan and Floodplain Management Water Conservation Plan Water Efficiency Plan 2. Terminals for Water, Light, Sanitation, Transportation, and Power Provided by the Municipality: 208 Plan City Plan City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan City of Fort Collins Electric Long Range Plan Drinking Water Quality Policy Fort Collins-Loveland Water District Master Plan Fort Collins Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Fort Collins Wastewater Master Plan Update Fort Collins Revised Water Treatment Facility Master Plan Fort Collins Utilities Energy Policy 2016 Update Fort Collins Utilities Water and Wastewater Design Criteria Manual South Fort Collins Sanitation district Master Plan for Wastewater Collection and Treatment Stormwater Criteria Manual Stormwater Master Plan and Floodplain Management Water Conservation Plan Water Efficiency Plan Proposed Land Uses 1. Land Uses Defined within the Growth Management Area (GMA): City Plan City of Fort Collins Structure Plan Fort Collins and Larimer County Intergovernmental Agreement Fort Collins and Windsor Intergovernmental Agreement Attachment 1 City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2017 Update Page 9 Fort Collins and Timnath Intergovernmental Agreement Seventh Amendment Foundation for a New Century, Colorado State University (CSU) Master Plan Foundation for a New Century CSU Campus Master Plan, 2004, including: o Agricultural Research Development and Educational Center (ARDEC) Master Plan o Foothills Campus Master Plan o South Campus Master Plan City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements (Town of Timnath, South Fort Collins/Loveland Water District) Subarea Plans o Campus West Community Commercial District Planning Study Report o CDOT US392 Environmental Overview Study o CDOT North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement o CDOT US287 Environmental Overview Study o Downtown Plan o Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Summary Report o Downtown Strategic Plan o East Mulberry Corridor Plan o East Side Neighborhood Plan o Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan o Harmony Corridor Plan o Harmony Road ETC Master Plan o I-25 Subarea Plan o Midtown Plan o Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update o North College Corridor Plan o Northside Neighborhood Plan o Northwest Subarea Plan o Old Town Neighborhoods Plan o Prospect Road Streetscape Program o South College Corridor Plan o State Highway 392 Access Control Plan o West Central Neighborhoods Plan 2. Land Uses Outside the GMA: A Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland City of Loveland Three-Mile Area Plan Fort Collins-Windsor Intergovernmental Agreement for Development of the Interstate 25 / State Highway 392 Interchange LaPorte Area Plan Larimer County Master Plan Larimer County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Loveland Comprehensive Master Plan Loveland Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan Northern Colorado Community Separator Study Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-25 Corridor Plan Town of Windsor Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Town of Timnath Comprehensive Plan Town of Wellington Comprehensive Master Plan Attachment 1 City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2017 Update Page 10 ATTACHMENT A: Three-Mile Plan Boundary Attachment 1 City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2017 Update Page 11 ATTACHMENT B: Significant Waterways and Waterfronts within the Three-Mile Plan Boundary Attachment 1 City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2017 Update Page 12 ATTACHMENT C: Airports within the Three-Mile Plan Boundary Attachment 1 City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2017 Update Page 13 ATTACHMENT D: Land Uses within the Three-Mile Plan Boundary Attachment 1 Colorado State University Bennett Elementary RollandUniversity Moore Community Park Colorado State Lilac Park Spring Creek Rolland Moore Pond W Pitkin St Sheely Dr Shire Ct Birky Pl S Whitcomb St Springfield Dr H i l l P o n d R d Bennett Rd Juniper Ln H o bbi t S t Balsam Ln Wallenberg Dr G i l galad W a y City Park Ave Perennial Ln Del Mar St Heri t a g e C ir Ellis Dr Waters Edge N a tiv e Pla n t W a October 31, 2017 REZONE JUSTIFICATION Spring Creek Mixed Use Development Blue Ocean is seeking a shift in the zone district boundary lines within a 19.55 acre tract of land situated at the southeast corner of Hobbit Drive and Shields Street on the western side of Fort Collins. This site is in close proximity to the intersection of Prospect Road and Shields Street. Despite being completely surrounded by existing development and primed for development, this infill tract of land has remained vacant for years. The existing zoning is NC (9.3 acres) and MMN (10.25 acres). Blue Ocean is not proposing a change from one zoning category to another nor introducing a completely new zone district category. Rather, the proposal intends to transfer 2.88 acres of the existing NC Zone to MMN. This would result in 13.131 acres of MMN and 6.42 acres of NC. Blue Ocean investigated every NC zoned area on the west side of College Avenue (a total of 14). Our analysis determined that the NC zoned areas ranged between 1.43 and 9.34 acres with an average of 4.5 acres and a median of 5.8 acres. It was noted that this property was the largest NC area at 9.34 acres with the next closest at 5.8 acres. Blue Ocean would like to change the NC zoned area from 9.3 acres to 6.42 acres to be more realistic with the 4.5 acre average. The following site characteristics make it difficult to develop a 9.3 acre neighborhood retail center on the site: No hard corner: The site is not located at the intersection of two arterial streets, which is often a prerequisite for large retailers such as grocery stores. Many of the successful neighborhood commercial centers in Fort Collins are situated at arterial/arterial or arterial/collector hard corners. Limited access: After an analysis of surrounding commercial centers was conducted, one of the common features of their success was multiple access points off of an arterial street. The site under review has only one access point along Shields Street. The other access point will need to come off of Hobbit Street which is a local street. Typically the second point of access to a retail center comes off of an arterial or collector street not a local street. Poor circulation potential: The site has inherently poor circulation for a large retail center. In its current configuration, the NC zone is placed up against the northern boundary placing much of the traffic flow on Hobbit Street adjacent to existing Landmark Apartments. Market saturation: There are currently six commercial centers within 2 miles of the site. Five of those centers have a large grocery store as an anchor. Two of the centers (South College Whole Foods/ King Soopers and Rain Tree Village) are within one mile of the site. The existing proximity of large retail centers makes the viability of a successful large retail center at this location difficult. Attachment 2 By lowering the acreage of the NC zone to a more marketable, practical and functional acreage (as referenced above) and placing it so that it will flank the access from Shields Street, the site will be in a better position to successfully develop as a small neighborhood center. In addition, by placing the NC zone at the southwest corner of the site, the development can achieve a classic land use transition from commercial, to higher density housing, to lower density attached housing and then to the existing single family neighborhood. See the attached concept plan (exhibit 6) which presents a site layout that illusterates the benefits of relocating the NC zone. The justification of the rezoning request addressing the review criteria contained in Section 2.9.4(H) of the Land Use Code follows: CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE 2.9.4(H) (1) Text Amendments and Legislative Zonings or Rezonings. Amendments to the text of this Code, and amendments to the Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning of more than six hundred forty (640) acres of land (legislative rezoning), are matters committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council, and decisions regarding the same are not controlled by any one (1) factor. (2) Mandatory Requirements for Quasi-judicial Zonings or Rezonings. Any amendment to the Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning of six hundred forty (640) acres of land or less (a quasi-judicial rezoning) shall be recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board or approved by the City Council only if the proposed amendment is: (a) consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; and/or (b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. (3) Additional Considerations for Quasi-Judicial Zonings or Rezonings. In determining whether to recommend approval of any such proposed amendment, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council may consider the following additional factors: (a) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the appropriate zone district for the land; (b) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment; (c) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The rezoning request proposes to shift acreage between the NC and MMN zones on the site. The resulting zone district acreages will remain consistent with the Principles and Policies of City Plan in regard to: Economic Health EH1 supporting economic health of the community; EH 4.2 reducing barriers to infill development Having a smaller acreage dedicated to commercial development and a larger proportion dedicated to residential development will increase the economic viability of the neighborhood center. Locating the neighborhood center at the signalized intersection will make the center more convenient to access and will reduce conflicts with adjacent residential development. Attachment 2 Community and Neighborhood Livability LIV L6.2 Seek compatibility with neighborhoods; LIV 6.3 encourage neighborhood related, non‐residential development; LIV 15.2 – Commercial compatibility with surrounding development; LIV 28.4 and LIV 29.3 ‐ incorporate a Neighborhood Center as a focal point within low and medium density neighborhoods; LIV 29.2 Mix of uses LIV 29.5 – Transitions The MMN District is incorporated within and alongside the NC District. The NC District is positioned at the full movement intersection with MMN areas transitioning from the NC to the adjacent low density residential areas. Highest density is placed along the western side of the property at the signalized intersection, along the arterial street and adjacent to other multi‐family housing. The lowest density product (duplex units) is situated along the eastern side of the property near the adjacent low density Sheely Neighborhood. When the mixed‐use project is developed many more Principles and Policies having to do with a compact development pattern; cohesive, safe, vibrant and attractive neighborhoods; appealing activity centers; variety in housing types and densities; adequate supply of housing; safe, functional and visually attractive streetscapes; walkable blocks; pedestrian and bicycle access and low maintenance attractive landscapes will be achieved. WEST CENTRAL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN (Guiding Principles) 1. Sensitive to general context and overall character of neighborhood. The neighborhood consists of existing multi‐family, townhomes, commercial/retail and low density single family housing. This project will not deviate from these uses and will use the architecture from the low density housing as the style for architectural compatibility. 2. Compatibility through site planning, appropriate mass/scale. Compatibility is achieved by (1.) Placing the lowest density product near the eastern, adjacent single family residential homes. (2.) Increasing mass/scale as the project moves towards other areas of higher density homes and the arterial roadway. (3.) Orienting the commercial uses along Shields Street and the signalized intersection. 3. Building entrances towards public streets. Building entrances are situated towards public streets and adjacent sidewalks. 4. Heights should be stepped back Heights of buildings are the tallest near Shields Street, the main access to the site, commercial uses and the signalized intersection. Building heights decrease towards and along the low density Sheely Neighborhood. 5. Parking to side and rear of buildings Parking is to the side and rear of multi‐family and commercial buildings. 6. Building forms to be responsive to individual context of the site Building design and forms are situated to follow the patterns of the Spring Creek Trail system and the existing roadways. Large interior underground utilities that traverse the property also add to the context of the site. 7. Each site to relate to the street with a plaza, entry feature to enliven public interest. At final design, the development will include an entry feature that will enliven public interest. Attachment 2 NATURE IN THE CITY 1. Easy Access to Nature ‐ 10 minute walk to nature. The Spring Creek Trail system is interior to and runs along two sides of the development. Maximum walk to accessible nature is estimated at one minute. 2. High Quality Natural Spaces ‐ Conserve, create and enhance. The development will leave the Spring Creek Trail area in its natural state. The only anticipated development in this corridor will be the addition of a few trail connections to the development. The development will use berming and plant material screening to help mitigate the effects on the natural areas. If warranted additional plantings could be introduced into the natural area. 3. Land Stewardship ‐ Support healthy environments for people and wildlife. This development will further and promote the retention of the natural area while introducing the future residents by providing access to the existing trail system. WARRANTED BY CHANGED CONDITIONS The rezoning request is warranted due to Hobbit Street not connecting to Wallenberg Drive to the east or to Prospect Road to the north. Most successful neighborhood centers in the City have access from two arterial or collector streets. No internal roadway connecting Shields Street to Prospect Road creates a poorly designed vehicular circulation system for amount and location of the property currently zoned NC. Commercial and retail users desire adequate visibility and circulation. The new zoning situates the NC zoned area at the signalized intersection of Shield Street and Stuart Street. It also reduces the NC acreage to a size more compatible with the current access and site restraints. COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING AND PROPOSED SURROUNDING USES The Rezoning request is not adding additional zoning categories. The rezone will simply change the boundary lines of the existing zoning. Existing zoning categories are appropriate for the development. ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT The rezone would not result in any significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. The proposed uses would meet the City’s standards for water, storm water, and noise and air quality. It is anticipated that the limits of construction will be contained to the top of the slope of the Spring Creek channel and the eastern drainage channel. These two channels comprise the open natural areas to be retained. Minimal connections to the existing trail system will occur. LOGICAL AND ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT PATTERN The proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern by: (1.) Placing the lowest density product near the adjacent single family homes (2.) Increasing density as the project moves towards other areas of higher density homes and the arterial street. (3.) Orienting the commercial uses along Shields Street and the signalized intersection. A plan is attached (see exhibit 6) to illustrate a potential site design of the re‐allocated zone acreage. This plan is conceptual and not intended for approval with this rezone. It is provided to assist the decision makers with understanding the potential a shift in zoning can provide. Attachment 2 EXHIBITS: 1. Site Context 2. Walkability 3. NC Zoning Study 4. Adjacent Zoning 5. Zoning Request 6. Concept Site Plan 7. Zoning Plat Attachment 2 “Exhibit 1: SITE CONTEXT” Attachment 2 “Exhibit 2: WALKABILITY TO AND FROM SITE” Attachment 2 “Exhibit 3: NC ZONING STUDY” Attachment 2 “Exhibit 4: ADJACENT ZONING” Attachment 2 “Exhibit 5: ZONING REQUEST” Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 1 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: Spring Creek Rezoning LOCATION: East Side of Shields Street at West Stuart Street DATE: September 26, 2017 APPLICANT: Steve Schroyer, Blue Ocean Enterprises, Inc. CONSULTANTS: Russ Lee, Ripley Design, Inc. CITY STAFF: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner Nicole Hahn, Traffic Engineer Project Description This is a request to shift the zone district boundary line between two zones within the subject site. The site is 19.55 acres in size and divided between 10.25 acres zoned Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood .M-M-N, and 9.3 acres zoned Neighborhood Commercial, N-C. The request is to shift the zone district boundary line such that the M-M-N gains 2.88 acres and the N-C correspondingly loses 2.88 acres. The result is that is the M-M-N ground would be enlarged to 13.13 acres and the N-C ground would be reduced to 6.42 acres. Also, the result is that the N-C ground is moved further south in order to be bisected by the future extension of West Stuart Street. This proposal to shift the boundary line between two zone districts is in anticipation of a land development project. It is important to emphasize that a land development project has not yet been submitted to the City’s Planning Department. Unless otherwise noted, all responses are from the applicant. Questions, Concerns, Comments 1. Will you be providing connections to the Spring Creek Trail? A. Yes, bike and pedestrian connections are planned for both the Spring Creek Trail and the Canal Importation Basin Channel Trail. 2. The Spring Creek Trail underpass at Shields Street is very dangerous with a blind curve and steep ramps connecting to the sidewalk on Shields. Will this condition be addressed by your project? A. We are aware of this condition as is the City’s Parks Planning and Development Department. We do not see this improvement as being part of our project. We suggest that you take this issue up with the City. Attachment 3 2 Response from City Traffic Engineer: We will forward this concern to our Parks Planning and Development Department. 3. Why even develop this property? This City does not need more land development. Why not just keep it as is – open space? Enough is enough. A. The City was approached years ago about acquisition for a city park. The City stated then, as they consistently do now, that Rolland Moore Park is the open space and park for this part of our community and the park system does not call for an additional 20 acres at this location. In addition, the Parks Department prefers to not place parks along an arterial street such as Shields. The land is privately owned and was purchased in anticipation of land development as being the highest and best use for the site. It was not purchased to be privately owned open space. Blue Ocean sees the market for multi-family apartments and supporting commercial services as being the highest and best use. 4. What is the size of the N-C parcel? A. We would like to reduce the size of the parcel to 6.42 acres. 5. This plan is the best plan I’ve seen since 1985. Thanks for reaching out to the neighborhood over the last year to work out some key design principles such as placing two-story duplexes along the eastern edge. My primary concern is that I would like to see this request tied to the schematic plan that you are showing us tonight. The existence of the N-C zoning is the neighborhood’s protection against an out-of-scale apartment complex that has a negative impact on the neighborhood. Reducing this N-C acreage is acceptable but only up to a point. The neighborhood still needs an N-C parcel that results in a viable commercial center that provides desirable goods and services that will benefit the neighborhood. By linking the rezoning request to a concept plan, the neighborhood is offered better protection in the event that Blue Ocean sells the parcel to a new developer. A. Thank you for acknowledging our efforts over the past year. We have had four meetings with neighborhood representatives with good faith conversations resulting in the concept plan that is being presented. We agree that by reducing the N-C, and moving it closer to Stuart Street, increases the chances of creating an activated neighborhood center. We will explore ways with the City on how best to associate the rezoning request with our concept plan. As you would expect, we do not want to submit a fully formed P.D.P. (Project Development Plan) in order to tie the rezoning request to a site specific development plan. 6. I agree with the previous speaker. It appears to me that the concept plan may be sufficient in that it shows the primary access points, the internal framework of streets, the location of the multi-family, clubhouse, commercial center and the duplexes as well as the multiple trail connections. This concept plan should be adequate to convey the overall design intent versus a P.D.P. Attachment 3 3 7. I think the M-M-N zoning is too dense. A. The M-M-N zoning has been in place for decades and was reaffirmed by the recently adopted West Central Area Plan. It is a logical zone district given the parcel’s location along an arterial street and proximity to both the C.S.U. main campus and south campus – Veterinary Teaching Hospital. The duplexes are designed to mitigate the density of the multi-family. 8. I like the fact that you have put the two-story duplexes along the east side. A. This is designed to transition the scale of the buildings from east to west as a land use transition for the neighborhood. 9. What other projects has Blue Ocean completed? A. Two recent examples include the a multi-family project at the northwest corner of E. Drake Road and S. Timberline Road called The Trails at Timberline. We have also completed two office buildings in the Downtown along Meldrum Street. 10. Are you planning any new crossings of the Canal Importation Basin channel onto Wallenberg Drive? A. No, we plan on relying only on the one existing crossing that links Wallenberg Drive to Hobbit Drive. 11. I’m concerned about the amount of bike and pedestrian traffic in the general area. The Prospect / Shields intersection is already very congested and dangerous. Now, with this proposal, we will be adding a high number of bikes and pedestrians traversing the neighborhood to get to C.S.U. A. We are aware of this concern. Please note that the West Central Area Plan calls for a mid-block crossing of Prospect Road between Shields and Whitcomb. This should help with getting bikes and pedestrians over to the main campus. 12. Where will this crossing be located? Response from the City Traffic Engineer: The exact location has not been determined yet but will be close to where Prospect Lane intersects with Prospect Road. This is because we want to place it near where north-south connections can be made to allow bikes and pedestrians to bike and walk all the way to Lake Street. Such connections are being provided by both the Apex (The Slab) and future The Standard Apartments and both are approximately midway between Shields and Whitcomb. y James Ct Prospect Ln T orin o C i r Lakewood Dr Burton Ct Bridgefield Ln Winfi e l d Dr Meridian Ave Summer St Blevins Ct Shadowmere Ct Mirrormere Cir Sundering Dr Northerland Dr W Lake St W Stuart St Rolland Moore Dr Centre Ave S Shields St W Prospect Rd © Spring Creek Mixed Use Rezone These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts same AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. 1 inch = 600 feet Attachment 1