HomeMy WebLinkAboutWORK SESSION SUMMARY-08/22/2023-Work SessionPage 1 of 3
Community
Development &
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.221-6376
970.224.6111 - fax
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 29, 2023
To: Mayor Arndt and City Councilmembers
Through: Kelly DiMartino, City Manager
Tyler Marr, Deputy City Manager
Caryn Champine, Director of Planning, Development, and Transportation
From: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, Sr. Policy & Project Manager
Noah Beals, Development Review Manager
Re: August 22, 2023, Work Session Summary – Land Use Code Extended Discussion
__________________________________________________________________
At the August 22nd Work Session, staff received feedback regarding potential code alternatives, and
received guidance on next steps. The staff presentation was provided by Caryn Champine, Paul
Sizemore, and Noah Beals. Mayor Arndt joined remotely. All other Councilmembers were in attendance.
Summary of Feedback
Council discussed the content for this work session in multiple segments. The presentation began with a
review of key topics of potential code changes, review of engagement events to date, previous Council
feedback, and a review of updated Housing Capacity across the community.
Following the introduction and project grounding, Councilmembers reviewed 9 potential code Alternatives
identified as requiring more information for decision-making after initial review at the July 31st Council
Work Session. These alternatives were organized into two buckets, including Zone Districts and Citywide
Topics. Within those buckets, Alternatives in 3 different Zone Districts were discussed: Residential, Low
Density (RL); Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density (NCL); Neighborhood Conservation, Medium
Density (NCM). Following the discussion of Zone District Alternatives, Councilmembers reviewed several
Citywide Topics, including Affordable Housing, Private Covenants and HOAs, and the Development
Review Process. Staff then confirmed status of all 33 potential alternatives with Councilmembers.
While Councilmembers discussed each alternative in depth, there are still several outstanding details to
be sorted out at first reading on October 3, 2023.
Specific Feedback
Residential, Low Density (RL): Most Councilmembers expressed general support for Alternative 5,
regarding duplexes in RL, accompanied by a discussion that included the following comments:
Interest in supporting existing single-family neighborhoods to preserve existing character.
An interest in better understanding whether Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are supported
across the community, especially in neighborhoods with large residential lots.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C7CA213-F58E-48C0-B3E6-41E2C43AF644
Page 2 of 3
Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density (NCL): Several Councilmembers expressed general support for
Alternative 9, regarding three units on lots greater than 6,000 square feet, accompanied by a discussion
that included the following comments and requests:
The criteria for 3 units should integrate the existing structure or require affordable housing unit.
Request to further coordinate tree preservation on single unit lots with the update to landscape
standards being presented later this year.
Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density (NCM): Councilmembers had significant discussion
regarding Alternatives 12 (allowing five units maximum on lots larger than 6,000 square feet), 13 (allow
six units on 6,000 square feet with conditions), and 14 (allow a Cottage Court on lots 9,000 square feet or
larger). The discussion included the following:
Interest in allowing 5 units if those should be integrated into an existing structure.
Allowing a 6th unit only if it is dedicated as deed-restricted Affordable Housing.
Request for photographs of existing Cottage Courts and 6-unit apartment buildings on 9,000
square foot lots within the community.
Affordable Housing: Councilmembers expressed general support for Alternative 17 (extending the
affordability term to 50, 60, or 99 years), with discussion surround what differences there might be
between 50, 60, and 99 years for terms of deed restriction. There was also a request to receive
information regarding right of first refusal after 50 years.
Private Covenants and HOAs: Councilmembers asked several questions related to Alternatives 20 and
21 with several expressing concern regarding differential treatment of HOAs versus neighborhoods
without HOAs. Generally, Councilmembers expressed a desire to continue discussions regarding
Alternative 20 (allow HOAs to regulate site placement) and generally did not support Alternative 21 (allow
an HOA to regulate whether a lot can be further subdivided).
Development Review Process: Councilmembers were generally in agreement that Basic Development
Review (BDR) should only be allowed for projects designated as deed-restricted affordable housing. All
other development review processes, including neighborhood meetings and public hearings, received
support from Councilmembers to remain as-is in the existing Land Use Code.
NCL
NCM
NCM
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C7CA213-F58E-48C0-B3E6-41E2C43AF644
Page 3 of 3
Following the discussion of the Alternatives above, staff summarized feedback and confirmed the
feedback given on all 33 of the potential code Alternatives.
Follow ups and Clarifications
As follow-up from this work session, staff will share several additional analyses with Councilmembers at a
regular Council meeting, intended for first reading of the Land Use Code (LUC) on October 3, 2023:
Provide photographs of existing Cottage Court developments on larger lots from across the
community for the purposes of illustration and discussion.
Provide information regarding “right of first refusal” for buildings after 50 years as deed-
restricted affordable housing.
When the proposed ordinance comes before Council present these topics one at a time to
allow discussion and individual action on these topics.
Next Steps
Staff will present the draft Land Use Code at the October 3, 2023, regular Council meeting with the
accompanying follow-ups and clarifications mentioned above.
Attachment
Summary of Council feedback on potential Code Alternatives (Red, Yellow, Green)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C7CA213-F58E-48C0-B3E6-41E2C43AF644
SUMMARY OF FEEDBACK FROM COUNCIL WORK SESSION
DATE: AUGUST 22, 2023
Green = General agreement and will be included in the proposed the ordinance
Yellow = Including in the proposed ordinance and provide additional information
Red = Will not be included in the proposed ordinance
RL (Residential, Low Density) RYG
1 Limit ADUs to one story when there is no alley
2 Allow ADU with single unit dwelling, not with a duplex
3 Require ADU properties to be owner occupied (meaning owner has to reside
in one of the units)
4 Allow two units maximum (house + ADU or duplex only)
5 Allow duplexes ONLY IF 1) a lot is 100ft width or wider or 2) one unit is an
affordable housing unit or 3) the duplex converts and integrates an existing
structure or 4) a lot is within 1/4 mile of current or future high-frequency
transit
NCL (Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density) RYG
6 Decrease minimum lot size to 4,500 sf
7 Allow two units maximum on lots 4,500 - 6,000 sf (house + ADU or duplex)
8 Restrict ADU height to the height of the primary building.
9 Allow three units maximum on lots 6,000+ sf ONLY IF 1) a duplex + ADU or
triplex converts and integrates an existing structure OR 2) a triplex or 3-
unit cottage court includes one affordable unit
NCM RYG
10 Decrease minimum lot size to 4,500 sf
11 Allow three units maximum on lots 4,500 - 6,000 sf (single unit, duplex, row
house and ADU only)
12 Allow five units maximum on lots larger than 6,000 sf
13 Allow six units on 6,000 sf or larger ONLY IF the development converts and
integrates an existing structure (single unit, duplex, row house and ADU
only) AND one unit is affordable
14 Allow a Cottage Court (minimum 3 units, maximum 6 units) on lots 9,000 sf
or larger
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C7CA213-F58E-48C0-B3E6-41E2C43AF644
City-wide alternatives
Affordable Housing RYG
15 Expand affordable housing incentives citywide and calibrate market-feasible
incentives for ownership and rental
16 Update definitions of affordable housing to match market needs for
ownership and rental
17 Extend required affordability term to 99 years (50-60 years)
Private Covenants/HOAs RYG
18 Allow an HOA to regulate the option for detached or attached ADU
19 Specify that HOA's can continue regulate aesthetics (color, window
placement, height, materials, etc.) within the bounds of their existing rules
20 Add language to allow HOA's to regulate site placement (additional setbacks,
separation requirements)
21 Allow an HOA to regulate whether a lot can be further subdivided
Parking/Infrastructure RYG
22 Reduce parking requirements for multi-unit developments: 1 bedroom =
from 1.5 to 1, 2 bedroom = from 1.75 to 1.5
23 Reduce parking requirements for affordable housing ONLY if the
development has 7 or more units
24 Require 1 parking space for an ADU
25 Allow a tandem parking space to count ONLY IF an ADU or extra occupancy
Input in Development Review RYG
26 Allow residential projects to be reviewed under Basic Development Review
27 Require a neighborhood meeting for some projects (larger, more complex,
etc.)
28 Require a pre-application conceptual review meeting for projects over 6
units
29 Establish a defined comment period for public comments on Basic
Development Reviews
30 Require projects with Modifications go to P&Z when it involves a
modification for certain code sections (such as parking, height, density) or;
31 Require projects with Modifications go to P&Z when it involves more than a
certain number of modifications
Short Term Rentals RYG
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C7CA213-F58E-48C0-B3E6-41E2C43AF644
32 Restrict new ADUs from being used as STR
33 Allow existing ADU or Accessory Structures with STR license to continue
operating under current license
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C7CA213-F58E-48C0-B3E6-41E2C43AF644
Engineering Department
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.221.6605
970.221.6378 - fax
fcgov.com/engineering
Planning, Development & Transportation
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 24, 2023
To: Mayor and City Councilmembers
Through: Kelly DiMartino, City Manager
Tyler Marr, Deputy City Manager
Caryn Champine, PDT Director
From: Brad Buckman, City Engineer
Subject: Aug 22, 2023 Work Session Summary: 10-year Transportation Capital Improvement Program
(TCIP) and Transportation Capital Projects Prioritization Study (TCPPS)
The purpose of this memo is to document the summary of discussions during the Aug. 22, 2023 Work
Session. All Councilmembers were present and Mayor Arndt attended remotely.
1. The E. Prospect Road corridor project was discussed in terms of needed environmental study to
minimize environmental impacts and facilitate wildlife crossings. This corridor contains sensitive
environmental conditions such as wildlife habitat, raptor nest presence, and Waters of the US likely
present. A Jurisdictional Determination will be needed, and further extensive study will be pursued as
the design progresses.
2. The list of the 15 TCPPS projects contained both a ranked list and an unranked list in different areas
of the Council materials, which was confusing. The AIS for the upcoming Council meeting September
19th was updated with the ranked list of projects for consistency.
3. There was a discussion about roadway deaths, referencing a recent article that shows a 33% rise
across the country, and the public health crisis that exists. City staff reiterated the priority goal for the
10-year TCIP and TCPPS to meet Vision Zero of “by 2032, no one dies or has a serious injury while
traveling on Fort Collins’ streets”.
4. There was discussion about roadway safety, in particular the Harmony corridor, and if any traffic
calming or protected bicycle infrastructure projects are being planned. City staff recently applied
through the Safe Streets for All (SS4A) program to address these infrastructure safety measures
along the Harmony corridor.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A632204-2BA7-47BA-BE25-53B1121A0A75
5. The question was raised about the Harmony and Timberline intersection project, and if adding more
vehicle capacity is necessary. The capacity addition for that project is being re-evaluated, and the
project will likely focus more on the protected infrastructure design elements for bike/pedestrian
movement.
6. A traffic accident at Harmony and Snow Mesa prompted discussion on the operation of existing traffic
signals with respect to utilization of permissive vs. protective left turn movements and extending more
signal time for left turn movements at certain intersections. Traffic Operations indicated they are
converting many permissive left turn movements to protective, including at Harmony and Snow Mesa.
Traffic Operations is receptive to looking at intersections and adjusting the allocation given towards
left turn movements, but in general additional allocation for turn movements comes at the expense at
the other through movements.
7. There was a question raised on whether all road projects moving forward will be implementing
protected/raised bike lanes. City staff indicated the need to consider case-by-case considerations but
in general support for implementing protected/raised bike lanes moving forward.
8. There was a question raised on a report from NACTO on concerns with safety to pedestrians and
cyclists from large size vehicles and whether the City would formalize a position in support of this
concern. City staff indicated its legislative liaison would be an outlet to further this concern at the state
level.
This item is on the September 19th Regular Council meeting agenda for adoption into City Plan. City staff
will be prepared with a short presentation to answer any remaining questions, if necessary.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A632204-2BA7-47BA-BE25-53B1121A0A75