HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 11/09/2021 - HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION: LAND USE CODATE:
STAFF:
November 9, 2021
Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning
Caryn Champine, Director of PDT
Jackie Kozak-Thiel, Chief Sustainability Officer
Meaghan Overton, Housing Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Housing Strategic Plan Implementation: Land Use Code Phase 1 Update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is to:
1. Provide updates on progress for the Land Use Code (LUC) Phase 1 Update, which implements several
Housing Strategic Plan strategies:
a. Assess displacement and gentrification risk (Strategy 1);
b. Remove barriers to the development of accessory dwelling units (Strategy 7);
c. Recalibrate existing incentives to reflect current market conditions (Strategy 13);
d. Create additional development incentives for affordable housing (Strategy 14);
e. Explore/address financing and other barriers to missing middle and innovative housing
development (Strategy 15); and
f. Remove barriers to allowed densities through code revisions (Strategy 16).
2. Seek input on draft guiding principles for the code update process.
3. Share initial findings from the diagnostic report of the current LUC
4. Seek input about the LUC approach considerations.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What feedback do Councilmembers have on the Guiding Principles for the Land Use Code Phase 1 Process?
2. What questions or additional ideas do Councilmembers have on the initial diagnostic report findings and code
approach considerations?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In March 2021 and in conjunction with the adoption of the Housing Strategic Plan (HSP), Council unanimously
approved an off-cycle appropriation to fund the Land Use Code (LUC) Phase 1 updates. These updates are
focused on housing-related changes to the code and a reorganization of the LUC to improve usability and clarity.
The LUC Phase 1 Update implements policy direction in City Plan, the Housing Strategic Plan, the Transit Master
Plan, and the Our Climate Future Plan.
Initial steps to share with Council at this work session include an overview of:
• Scope and Timeline for the LUC Phase 1 work;
• Summary of Community Engagement and the Policy Foundations for this work;
• Draft Guiding Principles that will shape the changes proposed; and
• An exploration of Initial Diagnostic Report Findings and LUC Approach Considerations.
November 9, 2021 Page 2
Scope and Timeline
The LUC Phase 1 project began in summer 2021 with project scoping, consultant selection, and development of
engagement and communications plans. The consultant team selected to support this work includes Metta Urban
Design (lead consultant), Peter J. Park City Planning and Design, Casca dia Partners, and Equity Policy Solutions.
Work completed to date includes policy analysis and synthesis, a series of community engagement events to
inform and seek input from community members, and a draft diagnostic report analyzing the City’s current la nd
use regulations. Code drafting is expected to be completed in early 2022 with a public review draft available in
February 2022. Staff expects to present LUC changes for consideration of adoption in early spring 2022.
The LUC Phase 1 updates are focused on housing-related changes and code reorganization. Staff is also
planning a LUC Phase 2 update, which will address remaining issues in commercial and industrial areas and will
also incorporate code changes that are not directly tied to housing (e.g ., landscape standards, site design). Staff
anticipates preparing a Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) offer to fund the LUC Phase 2 project for the 2023-24
budget cycle.
Community Engagement
Community members regularly identify housing affordability as a top priority for action in citywide engagement
efforts, with changes to land use regulation frequently mentioned as an area for improvement. The LUC Phase 1
Update will implement policy direction and respond to high-priority community recommendations identified over
the last several years.
• Community Survey Results (2021): In the most recent annual Community Survey (2021), housing affordability
was the lowest rated characteristic of our community. Only 8% of respondents (603 total responses) rated the
availability of affordable quality housing as ‘very good’ or ‘good,’ which is lower than both national and Front
Range benchmark data. The same survey also asked residents to identify one focus area the City should
improve upon in the next few years, and 23% of respondents who provided a written answer cited housing
affordability.
• Home2Health and Housing Strategic Plan Engagement (2019-2021): Home2Health was a two-year, grant-
funded project built around partnerships, community dialogue, and capacity buil ding. Approximately 700
people participated over a two-year period. Areas of focus for the HSP identified in the Housing Strategic
Plan: Fall 2020 Engagement Report included housing equity, choice, creativity, and affordability.
November 9, 2021 Page 3
• Our Climate Future Engagement (2020-2021): Engagement for the Our Climate Future (OCF) Plan shaped
the development of the plan’s “Big Moves” and “Next Moves.” Housing affordability and healthy housing were
key themes in OCF engagement, leading to Big Move 7 - Healthy Affordable Housing. Land Use Code
updates were included as one of the Next Moves for implementation to both address housing affordability and
help reduce carbon emissions, increase community resilience, and advance more equitable solutions for all
community members
• City Plan Engagement (2018-2019): During the extensive engagement effort for the most recent update to
City Plan - which included thousands of residents, more than 175 public events, and numerous Plan
Ambassador and Community Partner hours of small-group meetings - housing affordability was frequently
mentioned as a high priority for the future of Fort Collins, including the following:
o City Plan kickoff (400+ participants) - “Housing access” identified as the highest priority focus.
o Visioning (769 participants) - When asked what should be prioritized in the City Plan vision, “housing
choices, attainability, and affordability” was most frequently mentioned.
o Scenarios (1022 participants) - In general, 77.2% of respondents were open to “moderate” or “big”
changes to improve housing attainability and provide more housing choices. Community members also
supported a greater diversity of housing types in future neighborhoods (74.2%) and in existing
neighborhoods (58.7%).
The LUC Phase 1 Update also includes additional targeted community engagement to support the code drafting
process and confirm the priorities identified in previous engagement efforts. A selection of recent engagement
activities includes:
• Interviews with all Councilmembers and Planning and Zoning Commission members.
• Monthly advisory meetings with a Land Use Code Phase 1 Working Group of external stakeholders.
• A series of four virtual information sessions in mid-October to explore housing and demographic trends,
planning 101, housing capacity, and housing choice. Recordings of the information sessions are available for
all residents to review at fcgov.com/housing/lucupdates and fcgov.com/vivienda/usodesuelo.
• A series of three community input sessions in late October, in c ollaboration with the Center for Public
Deliberation at CSU. Each session focused on a specific place type - suburban neighborhoods,
neighborhoods with a mix of housing options, and mixed -use neighborhoods. Participants shared their
experiences with housing in these different place types and identified potential changes to consider with LUC
updates. A summary report from the workshops will be available in the coming weeks and will inform the code
drafting process.
Policy Foundation
Code updates are complex, multifaceted efforts that build on years of previous planning work. The LUC is the
City’s primary regulatory tool for implementing our community’s vision as described in various policies and
adopted plans. It is critical to establish a clear understa nding of the relationship between the City’s policy priorities
and the current LUC early in the process. The City has over 300 pages of adopted policies and information to
inform the LUC Updates that primarily come from the following documents:
• Housing Strategic Plan (HSP)
• City Plan
• Our Climate Future (OCF)
• Transit Master Plan
• Land Use Code Audit (which identified opportunities to align LUC with the newly-adopted City Plan)
• Council Priorities (affordable and achievable housing strategies; 15-minute communities)
These documents serve as primary inputs, which were augmented by a series of interviews with Council and
Planning and Zoning Commission Members held in July 2021. Questions focused on the primary policy
documents, and the discussions helped inform the project team about policies most relevant to the LUC Code
Updates.
November 9, 2021 Page 4
From Policies to Guiding Principles
Staff developed an initial list of adopted policies most relevant to the LUC updates. Building on that framework,
recommendations from the Land Use Code Audit, and interviews with Council and Planning and Zoning
Commission Members, the consultant team sorted the policies into categories, which then informed the following
Guiding Principles. (Attachment 1)
Guiding Principles:
1. Increase overall housing capacity (market rate and subsidized/deed restricted) and calibrate market -feasible
incentives for Affordable (subsidized/deed restricted) housing.
2. Enable more affordability, especially near high frequency/capacity transit and priority growth areas.
3. Allow for more diverse housing choices that fit in with the existing context and/or future priority place types.
4. Make the code easier to use and understand.
5. Improve predictability of the development permit review process, especially for housing.
Creating a more equitable code is also a critical priority for the LUC Phase 1 work and is integrated into each of
the guiding principles. An Equity and Opportunity Assessment (EOA) is being prepared as a parallel effort to the
LUC Phase 1 project. The EOA and will help shape and inform the proposed code changes. Analysis of
community vulnerability, gentrification and displacement risk, and access to opportunity will help staff evaluate
proposed changes with triple-bottom-line and equity lenses to ensure that the updated LUC advances the City’s
sustainability and equity goals. Staff anticipates sharing the results of this assessment with Council via
memorandum in November 2021.
The P2P Funnel Diagram summarizes how the project team has distilled hundreds of pages of policies into five
guiding principles that will inform the LUC Updates Diagnostic, Approach, and Revisions.
Initial Diagnostic Report Findings: Biggest Problems to Solve
The Diagnostic Report for the LUC Phase 1 project is centered around the place types identified in City Plan. The
consultant team analyzed each place type and conducted pro forma (development) analyses for a range of
different prototypes to determine potential future housing capacity, es timate a place type’s affordability range, and
identify barriers to affordability. (Attachment 2) Data sources for the analysis included:
• Interviews with local developers to inform assumptions about development costs, rents and housing prices,
and local rate of return targets, as well as barriers to development
November 9, 2021 Page 5
• Online data sources including CoStar (real estate database), RSmeans (construction estimates database),
and Redfin and Zillow (sales and rent prices)
• The City’s current fees and LUC require ments
Initial findings from the LUC Phase 1 diagnostic report suggest several areas of potential improvement, noting
that the current LUC:
1. Limits housing diversity
2. Does not support future place types
3. Does not prioritize housing capacity along transit investment corridors
4. Does not effectively use graphics to communicate building form and use standards
5. Has development standards that do not promote compatible infill
6. Requires a multi-layered approval process that creates uncertainty
The initial findings from the diagnostic analysis indicate that the current LUC does not support affordability or
diversity of housing as envisioned in City Plan’s place types. Data compiled for the HSP found that the housing
needs in Fort Collins are concentrated at the lower end of the income spectrum. For renters, the need is greatest
at 60% AMI and below ($57,540 for a 4-person household); for owners, the need is greatest at 120% AMI and
below ($115,000 for a 4-person household). The City’s current regulations and the cost to construct housing make
it infeasible to produce new housing that would be affordable at these income levels in nearly every zone district.
LUC Approach Considerations: Addressing the Initial Diagnostic Findings
To address the initial findings from the LUC Phase 1 diagnostic report, staff plans to approach code updates with
substantive changes to the content of the LUC, format changes to improve the clarity and effectiveness of code
standards, and procedural improvements to improve usability and adjust levels of review for housing.
November 9, 2021 Page 6
NEXT STEPS
Staff will share a memorandum summarizing the findings of the Equity and Opportunity Assessment by mid
November 2021.
If Council is supportive of the approach outlined at this work session, staff will finalize the diagnostic report and
approach, sharing with Council via memorandum by mid December 2021. The findings from the diagnostic report
will shape the content of draft code updates.
The project team anticipates beginning the code drafting process in early 2022, with a Council work session to
review the draft code prior to adoption.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Policies to Guiding Principles Table (PDF)
2. Diagnostic Report Methodology (PDF)
3. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF)
Policies 2 Principles TablePhase 1 Land Use Code Updates: ADOPTED POLICIES BY GUIDING PRINCIPLE DocumentPolicy #Policy Text19Advance Phase One of the Land Use Code (LUC) Audit with off‐cycle appropriation. Define additional housing types; create opportunity to increase overall supply; recalibrate incentives for affordable housing production; identify opportunities to add to existing incentives; refine and simplify development processes214Create additional development incentives for affordable housing. The city should evaluate and implement the following priority incentives315Explore/address financing and other barriers to missing middle and innovative housing development. 416Remove barriers to allowed densities through code revisions. 5General Policy DirectionContinue the City’s ongoing efforts to implement recommendations from current housing related studies and other City efforts, including but not limited to 2020 Land Use Code Audita. increase the inventory of affordable rental unitsb. preserve the long‐term affordability and physical condition of existing affordable housingc. increase housing and associated supportive services for people with disabilities6LIV 2PROMOTE INFILL AND REDEVELOPMENT7LIV 2.2 PRIORITY LOCATIONS FOR INFILL AND REDEVELOPMENT. Ensure appropriate use of the City’s public investments in infrastructure /improvements in the following areas to achieve the City’s strategic goals: Downtown District; Urban Mixed‐Use Districts; Mixed‐Employment Districts8LIV 2.3TRANSIT‐ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT. Require higher‐density housing and mixed‐use development in locations that are currently, or will be, served by BRT and/or high‐frequency transit in the future as infill and redevelopment occurs. Promote a variety of housing options for all income levels.9LIV 5.2SUPPLY OF ATTAINABLE HOUSING. Encourage public and private sectors to maintain and develop a diverse range of housing options, including housing that is attainable (30% or less of monthly income) to residents earning the median income. Options could include ADUs, duplexes, townhomes, mobile homes, manufactured housing and other “missing middle” housing types.10LIV 5.3LAND FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. Use density requirements to maximize the use of land for residential development to positively influence housing supply and expand housing choice.11LIV 5.5INTEGRATE AND DISTRIBUTE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Integrate the distribution of affordable housing as part of individual neighborhoods and the larger community.1. Increase overall housing capacity (market rate and subsidized) and calibrate market‐feasible incentivesfor "A"ffordable housingHousing Strategic PlanCity PlanATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1: Policies 2 Principles Table12LIV 6.4PERMANENT SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Create and maintain an up‐to‐date inventory of affordable housing in the community. Pursue policy and regulatory changes that will encourage the rehabilitation and r.etention of affordable housing in perpetuity.13LIV 6.5AGING IN PLACE Retain attainable housing options in existing neighborhoods so residents can “age in place.”14LIV 6.7INCENTIVES. Support and encourage the private development of affordable housing by offering incentives, such as special assistance to offset the costs of the City’s impact fees and development requirements, rebates for energy‐saving features, and reducing barriers to the construction and rehabilitation of long‐term affordable housing units.15T 5.2BRT AND HIGH‐FREQUENCY TRANSIT SERVICE. Implement BRT and high‐frequency transit service as shown in this document along major transportation corridors as land use densifies and mobility demands increase, providing links between major activity centers and transit‐oriented development.16MAPFuture Transit Network (pg 59)17MAPMobility Hubs and Future Bike Network (pg 77)18LWPN 4Increase density and mixed uses through the land use code as guided by City Plan19HAH 3Increase the number and diversity of housing types and allow more homes per lot (density) via an update to the City’s Land Use Code20HAH 9Strengthen incentives for mixed‐use development along the MAX corridor to encourage more housingDocumentPolicy #Policy Text19Advance Phase One of the Land Use Code (LUC) Audit with off‐cycle appropriation. Define additional housing types; create opportunity to increase overall supply; recalibrate incentives for affordable housing production; identify opportunities to add to existing incentives; refine and simplify development processes216 Remove barriers to allowed densities through code revisions. 3General Policy DirectionContinue the City’s ongoing efforts to implement recommendations from current housing related studies and other City efforts, including but not limited to 2020 Land Use Code Audita. increase the inventory of affordable rental unitsb. preserve the long‐term affordability and physical condition of existing affordable housingc. increase housing and associated supportive services for people with disabilities4LIV 2.3TRANSIT‐ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT. Require higher‐density housing and mixed‐use development in locations that are currently, or will be, served by BRT and/or high‐frequency transit in the future as infill and redevelopment occurs. Promote a variety of housing options for all income levels.2. Enable more affordability especially near high frequency/capacity transit and priority growth areasCity Plan Our Climate FutureTMPHousing Strategic Plan
ATTACHMENT 1: Policies 2 Principles Table5T 5.2BRT AND HIGH‐FREQUENCY TRANSIT SERVICE. Implement BRT and high‐frequency transit service as shown in this document along major transportation corridors as land use densifies and mobility demands increase, providing links between major activity centers and transit‐oriented development.6MAPFuture Transit Network (pg 59)7MAPMobility Hubs and Future Bike Network (pg 77)8Our Climate FutureHAH 9Strengthen incentives for mixed‐use development along the MAX corridor to encourage more housingDocumentPolicy #Policy Text17Remove barriers to the development of Accessory Dwelling Units.29Advance Phase One of the Land Use Code (LUC) Audit with off‐cycle appropriation. Define additional housing types; create opportunity to increase overall supply; recalibrate incentives for affordable housing production; identify opportunities to add to existing incentives; refine and simplify development processes315Explore/address financing and other barriers to missing middle and innovative housing development. 4General Policy DirectionContinue the City’s ongoing efforts to implement recommendations from current housing related studies and other City efforts, including but not limited to 2020 Land Use Code Audita. increase the inventory of affordable rental unitsb. preserve the long‐term affordability and physical condition of existing affordable housingc. increase housing and associated supportive services for people with disabilities5LIV 2PROMOTE INFILL AND REDEVELOPMENT6LIV 2.1REVITALIZATION OF UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTIESSupport adaptive reuse of existing buildings (especially those that have historic significance)7LIV 2.2 PRIORITY LOCATIONS FOR INFILL AND REDEVELOPMENT. Ensure appropriate use of the City’s public investments in infrastructure /improvements in the following areas to achieve the City’s strategic goals:• Downtown District;• Urban Mixed‐Use Districts;• Mixed‐Employment Districts3. Allow for more diverse housing choices that fit in with the existing context and/or future priority placetypesTMPHousing Strategic Plan
ATTACHMENT 1: Policies 2 Principles Table8LIV 2.3TRANSIT‐ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT. Require higher‐density housing and mixed‐use development in locations that are currently, or will be, served by BRT and/or high‐frequency transit in the future as infill and redevelopment occurs. Promote a variety of housing options for all income levels.9LIV 3Maintain and enhance our unique character and sense of place as the community grows.10LIV 3.4DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES. Maintain a robust set of citywide design standards as part of the City’s Land Use Code to ensure a flexible, yet predictable, level of quality for future development that advances the community’s sustainability goals, e.g., climate action. Continue to develop and adopt location‐specific standards or guidelines where unique characteristics exist to promote the compatibility of infill redevelopment.11LIV 3.5DISTINCTIVE DESIGN. Require the adaptation of standardized corporate architecture to reflect local values and ensure that the community’s appearance remains unique. Development should not consist solely of repetitive design that may be found in other communities12LIV 3.6 CONTEXT‐SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT. Ensure that all development contributes to the positive character of the surrounding area. Building materials, architectural details, color range, building massing, and relationships to streets and sidewalks should be tailored to the surrounding area.13LIV 4.2COMPATIBILITY OF ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT. Ensure that development that occurs in adjacent districts complements and enhances the positive qualities of existing neighborhoods. Developments that share a property line and/or street frontage with an existing neighborhood should promote compatibility by:• Continuing established block patterns and streets to improve access to services and amenities from the adjacent neighborhood;• Incorporating context‐sensitive buildings and site features (e.g., similar size, scale and materials); and • Locating parking and service areas where impacts on existing neighborhoods—such as noise and traffic—will be minimized14LIV 5CREATE MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR HOUSING CHOICES15LIV 5.1HOUSING OPTIONS. To enhance community health and livability, encourage a variety of housing types and densities, including mixed‐used developments that are well served by public transportation and close to employment centers, shopping, services and amenities.16LIV 5.2SUPPLY OF ATTAINABLE HOUSING. Encourage public and private sectors to maintain and develop a diverse range of housing options, including housing that is attainable (30% or less of monthly income) to residents earning the median income. Options could include ADUs, duplexes, townhomes, mobile homes, manufactured housing and other “missing middle” housing types.17LIV 5.3LAND FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. Use density requirements to maximize the use of land for residential development to positively influence housing supply and expand housing choice.18LIV 5.5INTEGRATE AND DISTRIBUTE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Integrate the distribution of affordable housing as part of individual neighborhoods and the larger community.City Plan
ATTACHMENT 1: Policies 2 Principles Table19LIV 5.6EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS. Expand housing options in existing neighborhoods (where permitted by underlying zoning) by encouraging:• Infill development on vacant and underutilized lots;• Internal ADUs such as basement or upstairs apartments; • Detached ADUs on lots of sufficient size; and• Duplexes, townhomes or other alternatives to detached single‐family homes that are compatible with the scale and mass of adjacent properties20LIV 6.4PERMANENT SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Create and maintain an up‐to‐date inventory of affordable housing in the community. Pursue policy and regulatory changes that will encourage the rehabilitation and r.etention of affordable housing in perpetuity.21LIV 6.5AGING IN PLACE Retain attainable housing options in existing neighborhoods so residents can “age in place.”22T 5.2BRT AND HIGH‐FREQUENCY TRANSIT SERVICE. Implement BRT and high‐frequency transit service as shown in this document along major transportation corridors as land use densifies and mobility demands increase, providing links between major activity centers and transit‐oriented development.23MAPFuture Transit Network (pg 59)24MAPMobility Hubs and Future Bike Network (pg 77)25LWPN 2Evaluate opportunities within the Land Use Code to better encourage the development of “complete neighborhoods” that include a variety of housing options, access to services and amenities, and proximity of housing to jobs26HAH 3Increase the number and diversity of housing types and allow more homes per lot (density) via an update to the City’s Land Use Code27Theme 1Align Zoning Districts and Uses with Structure Plan Place Types28Theme 2Create More Opportunities for a Range of Housing Options. 4. Make the code easier to use and understandDocumentPolicy #Policy Text1Theme 3Clarify and Simplify Development Standards 2Theme 4Enhance the Development Review Procedures 3Theme 5Create a More User-Friendly Document Our Climate FutureCode AuditCode AuditTMP
ATTACHMENT 1: Policies 2 Principles Table5. Improve predictability of the development review process especially for housingDocumentPolicy #Policy Text1Housing Strategic Plan9Advance Phase One of the Land Use Code (LUC) Audit with off‐cycle appropriation. Define additional housing types; create opportunity to increase overall supply; recalibrate incentives for affordable housing production; identify opportunities to add to existing incentives; refine and simplify development processes2City PlanLIV 3.4DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES. Maintain a robust set of citywide design standards as part of the City’s Land Use Code to ensure a flexible, yet predictable, level of quality for future development that advances the community’s sustainability goals, e.g., climate action. Continue to develop and adopt location‐specific standards or guidelines where unique characteristics exist to promote the compatibility of infill redevelopment.3Theme 3Clarify and Simplify Development Standards 4Theme 4Enhance the Development Review Procedures Code Audit
MEMORANDUM
Diagnostic Report Methods and Data Sources
Fort Collins Code Update
TO:Samantha Suter, Metta Urban Design
FROM:Jamin Kimmell, Julia Michel, and Lydia Ness, Cascadia Partners LLC
DATE:October 13, 2021
The purpose of this memo is to provide background information on the Diagnostic Report
prepared by Cascadia Partners for the Land Use Code Update for the City of Fort Collins. The
memo provides an overview of the pro-forma modeling process, outlines data sources used,
and provides a summary of all key assumptions.
Overview
What is a pro-forma?
Cascadia Partners applied a real estate pro forma modeling process to assess the market
feasibility and a fordability of a range of housing types in a range of zone districts across the
city. A real estate pro-forma is a financial model that estimates the return-on-investment of a
hypothetical development project given a set of inputs. These inputs include the physical
development program (number of units or square footage, unit or space types and sizes) as
well as financial inputs for the costs and revenues associated with the project. The output of
the model can be an estimate of the profitability of the project, the minimum sale price or
rent rate needed to meet a target level of profitability, or the maximum cost of land
acquisition to meet a target level of profitability.
What is a prototype?
Each pro-forma is built around a housing prototype. The prototype is intended to represent a
typical development that would be permitted in the zone district under current standards.
The prototypes were calibrated to comply with the applicable requirements of the Land Use
Code in each zone district, including minimum lot size, minimum setbacks, maximum height,
maximum density, and minimum parking requirements. The lot sizes assumed for each
prototype are based on a quantitative analysis of the existing lot sizes in each zone district as
well as a qualitative estimate of typical lot widths or depths using GIS data. For infill or
redevelopment prototypes, the team typically chose a lot size on the smaller end of the range
for the zone because zoning standards are o ten most di ficult to meet on smaller lots. The
ATTACHMENT 2
pro-formas also incorporate local market prices, rents, impact and permitting fees, taxes, and
construction costs.
A summary table with all the key data on each prototype is provided at the end of this memo.
The remainder of this memo details the data sources used in the analysis and key
assumptions used for pro-forma inputs.
Data Sources
The data sources, both qualitative and quantitative, provided an understanding of the market
conditions, development costs, and rent and sales prices for various residential development
types in Fort Collins.
Developer interviews
Six local developers were interviewed to understand development costs, market rents and
prices, and local rate of return targets, as well as barriers to development. The developers
interviewed have experience ranging from developing small single family homes in planned
unit developments to multi-unit mixed use projects.
○Landon Hoover,Hartford Homes
○Ceri Jones,Trailhead Homes
○Dave Phillips,Philgreen Construction
○David Jaudes,McWhinney
○Nikki Je fries,Sunrise Land Group
○Gino Campana,Bellisimo, Inc
Online data sources
Online data sources were used to estimate various market conditions and development costs.
CoStar, a real estate database, was used to determine the average rent price, rent per square
foot, and unit size for multifamily built a ter 2015 in residential and mixed use zones in Fort
Collins.
RSmeans, a construction estimating database, was used to determine average current
construction costs for various housing types, including single family homes, multifamily, and
townhouses.
Redfin and Zillow data were used to determine average sale prices per sq t, average unit size,
and average lot size for single-family homes and townhouses built a ter 2015 in various
residential and mixed use zones in Fort Collins. The data was also used to determine average
sale prices for vacant lots in various residential and mixed use zones in Fort Collins.
Key Assumptions
Construction Costs Cost (per sqft)
Single Family Detached $150
Townhouse $155
Multi-Family up to 4 stories (Wood frame)$175
Mixed-Use or Multi Family 5 or more
stories (podium construction)
$200
Land & Site Development Costs Land Cost
(per sqft)
Site Development
Cost (per sqft)
Demo Cost
(per sqft floor area)
Raw Land $5 $8 -
Finished Lots $25 --
Infill Lots $20 -$15
Market Prices & Unit Sizes Market Price
(per sqft)
Unit Size (sqft)
Urban Suburban
Single Family Detached $240 1,800 (3-bed)2,000 (4-bed)
Townhouse $270 1,500 (3-bed)1,800 (3-bed)
Condominium $290 750 (1-bed)1,000 (2-bed)
Market Rents &
Unit Sizes
Rent Price
(per sqft)
Urban Suburban
Unit Size (sqft)Mix Unit Size (sqft)Mix
3-Bedroom $1.80 1,100 10%1,200 20%
2-Bedroom $2.00 850 20%975 30%
1-Bedroom $2.20 650 30%725 30%
Studio $2.70 500 40%500 20%
Average -675 -850 -
Property Tax Residential Commercial
Tax Rate 9.40%9.40%
Assessment Ratio 7.15%29.00%
Target Returns
Internal Rate of Return 12%
Project Rate of Return 15%
Fort Collins Area Median Income $95,900 (4 Person Household)
Impact Fees
Fees below are calculated based on the number of units or loor area of each prototype.
System Development
Charges
Link to Fee Information Fee Formula
Water & Sewer Fort Collins - Loveland Water
District Tap Fee Schedule
See link
Electric Electric Development Fee
Estimator
Single Family and/or Townhome:
$1,374 per unit
Multifamily:
$2,172 per unit
Stormwater Fort Collins Stormwater Plan
Investment Fee
See link
Building Permit Building Services - How to
Calculate Building Permit Fees
See Link
Capital Improvement Fees Capital Improvement Expansion
Fees
See link
Larimer Regional Road Fees Engineering - Larimer County
Regional Road Fees
See Link
Poudre School District
Impact Fees
Building Permit Fee Schedule Single Family Detached or 2 - 4
Attached Units:
$1,710 per unit
5 or more Attached Units:
$855 per unit
Thompson School District
Impact Fees
Building Permit Fee Schedule Single Family Detached or 2 - 4
Attached Units:
$1,382 per unit
5 or more Attached Units:
$946 per unit
City and County Tax Building Permit Fee Schedule 4.65% on half of the total
construction valuation
Development Review Fees Transportation Development
Review Fees
Poudre Fire Authority
Development Review Fee
Estimate: $2,000
Prototype RL Infill SFD RL Large Site
SFD
NCL Infill SF
Detached
NCM Infill
Fourplex
NCM Infill
Fourplex
Zone(s)RL RL NCL NCM NCM
Access Front Front Front Alley Alley
Site Type Finished Lot Raw Land Infill Infill Infill
Unit Size/Mix Suburban Suburban Urban Urban Urban
Tenure Owner Owner Owner Owner Rental
Site Dimensions 60 x 100 200 x 218 50 x 140 50 x 140 50 x 140
Gross Site Area (sf)6,000 43,560 7,000 7,000 7,000
Right‐of‐Way (sf)0 10,890 0 0 0
Dedicated Open Space (sf)00000
Net Site Area (sf)6,000 32,670 7,000 7,000 7,000
Gross to Net Ratio 100% 75% 100% 100% 100%
Lot Size (sf, average)‐‐‐‐‐
Lot Dimensions (ft)‐‐‐‐‐
Bldg. Height (stories)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
# of Units 15144
Front Setback (ft)20 20 15 15 15
Rear Setback (ft)15 15 15 15 15
Side Setback (ft)55555
Unit Size (average)2,000 2,000 1,800 650 650
Bldg Footprint (%)15% 17% 14% 21% 21%
Parking Footprint (%)18% 6% 12% 34% 34%
OS/Landscape (%)67% 52% 74% 45% 45%
Density (units/ac)7 5 6 25 25
Parking Spaces 315266
Parking Ratio 3.0 3.0 2.0 1.5 1.5
Min Feasible Sale Price $707,287 $655,624 $639,647 $261,293 ‐
Broker Fees $35,364 $32,781 $31,982 $13,065 ‐
Total Purchase Price $742,651 $688,405 $671,629 $274,358 ‐
Upfront UFMIP $12,996 $12,047 $11,754 $4,801 ‐
Loan Amount $703,662 $652,264 $636,369 $259,954 ‐
Mortgage Payment $3,777 $3,501 $3,416 $1,395 ‐
Mortgage Insurance $498 $462 $451 $184 ‐
Property Taxes $396 $367 $358 $146 ‐
Utilities $300 $300 $300 $300 ‐
Total Housing Costs $4,972 $4,631 $4,525 $2,026 ‐
Min Feasible Rent (avg)‐$1,892
Utilities ‐‐‐‐$200
Total Housing Costs ‐‐‐‐$2,092
Annual Income Needed $198,872 $185,222 $181,001 $81,036 $83,664
AMI Level 207% 193% 189% 85% 87%
Market Price/Rent $480,000 $480,000 $432,000 $188,500 $1,430
IRR @ Market Price ‐‐7.5%
RoR @ Market Price ‐22.0%‐15.81%‐22%‐12%‐
RLV @ Market Price (sf)‐$4 ‐$12 ‐$5 ‐$8 ‐$11
Affordability
Renter
Financials
Investor
Financials
Physical
Form
Buyer
Financials
Prototype NCB Infill
Apartments
NCB Infill
Apartments
LMN Infill
Townhouses
LMN Large Site
Townhouses
LMN Large Site
Apartments
Zone(s)NCB NCB LMN LMN LMN
Access Alley Alley Front Front Front
Site Type Infill Infill Infill Raw Land Raw Land
Unit Size/Mix Urban Urban Urban Urban Suburban
Tenure Owner Rental Owner Owner Rental
Site Dimensions 50 x 140 50 x 140 70 x 140 436 x 550 436 x 550
Gross Site Area (sf)7,000 7,000 9,800 239,800 239,801
Right‐of‐Way (sf)0 0 0 59,950 59,950
Dedicated Open Space (sf)0 0 0 5,000 5,000
Net Site Area (sf)7,000 7,000 9,800 174,850 174,851
Gross to Net Ratio 100% 100% 100% 73% 73%
Lot Size (sf, average)‐‐4,900 2,500 ‐
Lot Dimensions (ft)‐‐35 x 140 25 x 100 ‐
Bldg. Height (stories)3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.5
# of Units 6 6 2 49 49
Front Setback (ft)15 15 15 15 15
Rear Setback (ft)15 15 8 8 8
Side Setback (ft)55555
Unit Size (average)650 650 1,500 1,500 850
Bldg Footprint (%)23% 23% 9% 21% 9%
Parking Footprint (%)40% 40% 17% 7% 14%
OS/Landscape (%)37% 37% 9% 45% 50%
Density (units/ac)37 37 9 9 9
Parking Spaces 9 9 4 98 83
Parking Ratio 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 1.69
Min Feasible Sale Price $246,117 ‐$578,591 $495,998 ‐
Broker Fees $12,306 ‐$28,930 $24,800 ‐
Total Purchase Price $258,423 ‐$607,521 $520,798 ‐
Upfront UFMIP $4,522 ‐$10,632 $9,114 ‐
Loan Amount $244,856 ‐$575,626 $493,456 ‐
Mortgage Payment $1,314 ‐$3,090 $2,649 ‐
Mortgage Insurance $173 ‐$408 $350 ‐
Property Taxes $138 ‐$324 $278 ‐
Utilities $300 ‐$300 $300 ‐
Total Housing Costs $1,926 ‐$4,122 $3,576 ‐
Min Feasible Rent (avg)$2,000 $2,813
Utilities ‐$200 ‐‐$200
Total Housing Costs ‐$2,200 ‐‐$3,013
Annual Income Needed $77,027 $88,000 $164,870 $143,048 $120,528
AMI Level 80% 92% 172% 149% 126%
Market Price/Rent $217,500 $1,430 $405,000 $405,000 $1,836
IRR @ Market Price ‐7.3%‐‐5.3%
RoR @ Market Price ‐11.9%‐‐19.5%‐6.1%‐
RLV @ Market Price (sf)‐$24 ‐$23 ‐$3 ‐$10 ‐$17
Affordability
Renter
Financials
Investor
Financials
Physical
Form
Buyer
Financials
Prototype MMN Infill
Apartments
MMN Large Site
Apartments
HMN Infill
Apartments
Downtown
Mixed Use
Downtown
Mixed Use
Zone(s)MMN MMN HMN D D
Access Alley Front Alley Alley Alley
Site Type Infill Raw Land Infill Infill Infill
Unit Size/Mix Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban
Tenure Rental Rental Rental Owner Rental
Site Dimensions 75 x 100 250 x 348 100 x 150 70 x 140 70 x 140
Gross Site Area (sf)7,500 87,120 15,000 9,800 9,800
Right‐of‐Way (sf)0 21,780 0 0 0
Dedicated Open Space (sf)0 0000
Net Site Area (sf)7,500 65,340 15,000 9,800 9,800
Gross to Net Ratio 100% 75% 100% 100% 100%
Lot Size (sf, average)‐ ‐‐‐‐
Lot Dimensions (ft)‐ ‐‐‐‐
Bldg. Height (stories)3.0 3.0 4.0 7.0 7.0
# of Units 6 70161010
Front Setback (ft)15 15 15 19 19
Rear Setback (ft)8 8855
Side Setback (ft)5 5500
Unit Size (average)675 675 675 625 675
Bldg Footprint (%)24% 24% 22% 19% 19%
Parking Footprint (%)40% 30% 54% 62% 60%
OS/Landscape (%)36% 11% 24% 19% 21%
Density (units/ac)35 35 47 49 44
Parking Spaces 10 112 26 18 19
Parking Ratio 1.67 1.60 1.63 1.80 1.90
Min Feasible Sale Price $339,672
Broker Fees ‐‐‐$16,984 ‐
Total Purchase Price ‐‐‐$356,656 ‐
Upfront UFMIP ‐‐‐$6,241 ‐
Loan Amount ‐‐‐$337,931 ‐
Mortgage Payment ‐‐‐$1,814 ‐
Mortgage Insurance ‐‐‐$239 ‐
Property Taxes ‐‐‐$190 ‐
Utilities ‐‐‐$300 ‐
Total Housing Costs ‐‐‐$2,544 ‐
Min Feasible Rent (avg)$2,298 $2,061 $2,096 $2,562
Utilities $200 $200 $200 ‐$200
Total Housing Costs $2,498 $2,261 $2,296 ‐$2,762
Annual Income Needed $99,909 $90,420 $91,851 $101,745 $110,480
AMI Level 104% 94% 96% 106% 115%
Market Price/Rent $1,566 $1,566 $1,566 $181,250 $1,566
IRR @ Market Price 6.0% 7.6% 7.4%‐4.6%
RoR @ Market Price ‐‐‐‐29.0%‐
RLV @ Market Price (sf)‐$45 ‐$39 ‐$43 ‐$98 ‐$89
Affordability
Renter
Financials
Investor
Financials
Physical
Form
Buyer
Financials
Prototype Commercial Infill
Mixed Use
Commercial Infill
Apartments
Harmony
Corridor Mixed
Use
Harmony
Corridor
Apartments
TOD Overlay
Mixed Use
TOD Overlay
Apartments
Zone(s)CC, CG, NC CC, CG, NC HC HC TOD TOD
Access Front Front Front Front Front Front
Site Type Infill Infill Infill Infill Infill Infill
Unit Size/Mix Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban
Tenure Rental Rental Rental Rental Rental Rental
Site Dimensions 100 x 150 100 x 150 100 x 150 100 x 150 100 x 150 100 x 150
Gross Site Area (sf)15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
Right‐of‐Way (sf)0 0 0 000
Dedicated Open Space (sf)0 0 0 000
Net Site Area (sf)15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
Gross to Net Ratio 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Lot Size (sf, average)‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐‐
Lot Dimensions (ft)‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐‐
Bldg. Height (stories)4.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 5.0 4.0
# of Units 17 15 21 14 27 23
Front Setback (ft)0 15 0 15 0 15
Rear Setback (ft)0 8 0 808
Side Setback (ft)0 5 0 505
Unit Size (average)675 675 675 675 675 675
Bldg Footprint (%)29% 22% 22% 27% 35% 34%
Parking Footprint (%)67% 50% 78% 47% 58% 41%
OS/Landscape (%)4% 28% 0% 26% 7% 25%
Density (units/ac)49 43 61 40 78 66
Parking Spaces 32 24 37 22 28 20
Parking Ratio 1.88 1.60 1.76 1.57 1.04 0.87
Min Feasible Sale Price
Broker Fees ‐‐ ‐‐
Total Purchase Price ‐‐ ‐‐
Upfront UFMIP ‐‐ ‐‐
Loan Amount ‐‐ ‐‐
Mortgage Payment ‐‐ ‐‐
Mortgage Insurance ‐‐ ‐‐
Property Taxes ‐‐ ‐‐
Utilities ‐‐ ‐‐
Total Housing Costs ‐‐ ‐‐
Min Feasible Rent (avg)$2,526 $2,108 $2,406 $2,122 $2,347 $2,012
Utilities $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200
Total Housing Costs $2,726 $2,308 $2,606 $2,322 $2,547 $2,212
Annual Income Needed $109,038 $92,337 $104,247 $92,893 $101,878 $88,500
AMI Level 114% 96% 109% 97% 106% 92%
Market Price/Rent $1,566 $1,566 $1,566 $1,566 $1,566 $1,566
IRR @ Market Price 4.8% 7.3% 5.5% 7.2% 5.8% 8.0%
RoR @ Market Price ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐‐
RLV @ Market Price (sf)‐$97 ‐$41 ‐$109 ‐$38 ‐$133 ‐$57
Affordability
Renter
Financials
Investor
Financials
Physical
Form
Buyer
Financials
Housing Strategic Plan Implementation:LUC Phase 1 Updates DiagnosticNovember 9, 2021Noah Beals | Senior City Planner Meaghan Overton | Housing ManagerATTACHMENT 3
Discussion21. What feedback do Councilmembers have on the Guiding Principles for the Land Use Code Phase 1 Process?2. What questions or additional ideas do Councilmembers have on the initial diagnostic report findings and code approach considerations?
3PURPOSE: What are we doing?
4PURPOSE: Implementing Our Plans!
LUC Updates Diagnostic Process5POLICIESCODE AUDITPRIORITIESPROBLEM STATEMENTSGUIDING PRINCIPLESInputsP2P MatrixREVISIONSAPPROACHMenuDIAGNOSTICINTERVIEWS WITH CITY COUNCIL AND P&Z STAFF WORKSESSIONSCOMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Five Priority Place Types6
Our Vision:“Everyone in Fort Collins has healthy, stable housing they can afford”Key Outcomes7
Transit Centers & Mobility Hubs8
Future Transit Demand (2040)9
Live Smaller10
An audit of our Land Use Code (adopted in 1997) was prepared upon adoption of City PlanLand Use Code Audit115 Themes:1. Align Zoning Districts and Uses with Structure Plan Place Types2. Create More Opportunities for a Range of Housing Options3. Clarify and Simplify Development Standards4. Enhance the Development Review Procedures5. Create a More User-Friendly Document
Guiding Principles Discussion121. Increase overall housing capacity (market rate and subsidized) and calibrate market-feasible incentives for Affordable housing2. Enable more affordability especially near high frequency/capacity transitand priority growth areas 3. Allow for more diverse housing choices that fit in with the existing contextand/or futurepriority place types4. Make the code easier to use and understand5. Improve predictabilityof the development permit review process especially for housing
13PROJECT UPDATE: Some Initial Findings
Initial Diagnostic Report Findings 141. LUC limits Housing Diversity2. LUC does not support Future Place Types 3. LUC does not prioritize housing capacity along transit investments4. LUC does not effectively use Graphics to communicate Building Form and Use Standards 5. Development standards do not promote compatible infill6. Multi-layered approval process creates uncertainty
15•Uncertainty:Most housing types are notallowed through basic development review and require administrative or P&Z review except in NCB Zone.•“Missing middle” housing types like triplex/fourplexes, townhouses, and cottage cluster housing are grouped with multi-family housing, even though they can fit inwith existing house-scale neighborhoods.• There are opportunities to allow a wider variety of housing types that fit inwith existing neighborhoods.The limited range of housing types allowed in each zone do not support housing diversity Finding 1: LUC Limits Housing Diversity
Finding 2: LUC does not support Place Types16
17Finding 2: LUC does not support Place Types
18Finding 2: LUC does not support Place TypesLMN zone districts comprise more than 40% of the land assigned as Mixed Neighborhood Place Type but the code standards discourage compact, lower cost housing like apartments and townhouses.• The maximum density of the LMN zone is 9 units per acre. On a lot this size, this constrains the site to 2 units.• The min feasible sale price for a 2-unit townhouse project on this lot size is about $580,000. This price is only affordable to households earning $164,000 a year (172% of AMI).• Nearly 75% of the lot is left undeveloped. More units cannot be added to the site due to the density limit. To make this project work, a developer would likely choose to build larger units and target higher end buyers.Case Study: LMN Zone Townhouses
19Finding 3: LUC does not prioritize housing capacity along transit
20Finding 3: LUC does not prioritize housing capacity along transitZone Districts that comprise Mixed-Use District Place Types
21Finding 3: LUC does not prioritize housing capacity along transitHousing Types allowed by Zone District
22Finding 4: LUC does not effectively use Graphics and Tables
23Finding 5: Development standards do not promote compatible infill
24Finding 6: Multi-layered approval process creates uncertainty
25LUC APPROACH CONSIDERATIONS
26REVISIONSAPPROACHDIAGNOSTIC
27SubstantiveFormat Process1. LUC limits Housing Diversity2. LUC does not support Future Place Types 3. LUC does not prioritize housing capacity along transit investments4. LUC does not effectively use Graphics to communicate Building Form and Use Standards 5. Development standards do not promote compatible infill6. Multi-layered approval process creates uncertainty 2456
28NEXT STEPS
Land Use Code Phase 1 Timeline29Mar-Apr 2022: AdoptJan-Mar 2022: ReviewDec-Jan 2021: DraftNov-Dec 2021: ProposeOct-Nov 2021: DiagnoseSept-Oct 2021: ExploreSummer 2021: Begin projectOct-Nov 2021: Diagnose
Next Steps301. Equity & Opportunity Assessment – Memo to Council mid Nov2. Diagnostic Report & Approach –Memo to Council mid Dec3. Draft Code –early 2022
31DISCUSSION
Discussion321. What feedback do Councilmembers have on the Guiding Principles for the Land Use Code Phase 1 Process?2. What questions or additional ideas do Councilmembers have on the initial diagnostic report findings and code approach considerations?
Guiding Principles Discussion331. Increase overall housing capacity (market rate and subsidized) and calibrate market-feasible incentives for Affordable housing2. Enable more affordability especially near high frequency/capacity transitand priority growth areas 3. Allow for more diverse housing choices that fit in with the existing contextand/or futurepriority place types4. Make the code easier to use and understand5. Improve predictabilityof the development permit review process especially for housing