Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 06/05/2007 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 078, 2007, AMENDING ITEM NUMBER: 21 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: June 5, 2007 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Ted Shepard Anne Aspen SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2007, Amending the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code To Implement Transit Oriented Development. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. On May 17, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Board considered the proposed changes and voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the proposed changes to City Council. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff has identified Transit Oriented Development(T.O.D.) as a development pattern that supports compact urban growth,infill and re-development and multi-modal transportation. As a component of the Spring 2007 Land Use Code Update,T.O.D. represents a significant addition to the Code for a geographic specific area defined primarily as the Commercial zone south of Prospect Road. Key standards address land use, density, height and compatibility. This addition to the Land Use Code builds upon the establishment of the T.O.D. District and de-regulation of the required minimum number of parking spaces for multi-family adopted by Council in the Fall of 2006. BACKGROUND The Land Use Code was first adopted in March 1997. Subsequent revisions have been recommended on a biannual basis to make changes, additions,deletions and clarifications that have been identified in the preceding six months. The proposed changes are offered in order to resolve implementation issues and to continuously improve both the overall quality and"user-friendliness" of the Code. Since T.O.D. is a time-sensitive issue with regard to a Federal grant application,this item has been forwarded to Council independent of other more minor Land Use Code changes which will be considered by Council on June 19, 2007. June 5, 2007 -2- Item No. 21 ATTACHMENTS 1. Description ofthe proposed additions and changes,including Public Outreach follow-up and Planning and Zoning Update. 2. Notes from March 11, 2007 External Review Meeting: Developer Group. 3. Notes from May 23, 2007 External Review Meeting: Neighborhood Group. 4. Mason Street Corridor Brochure and DVD. 5. TOD Overlay Map. 6. TOD Overlay District Map (South of Prospect Only). 7. TOD Overlay Map with zoning. 8. PowerPoint presentation. ATTACHMENT Item 763 — Create design and compatibility standards for the Transit- Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone. In the Fall 2006 Land Use Code Change cycle, Council adopted a definition/map of Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone District to the Land Use Code. In addition to the map of the Overlay Zone, Council adopted one Land Use Code change to Section 3.2.2 (K)(1)(a), removing minimum parking requirements for multi-family housing in the TOD Overlay Zone. We promised additional standards in Spring 2007 to more comprehensively address land use planning in the TOD Overlay zone. This Land Use Code change cycle, we present Council with additional changes to the standards directed at tilling the soil for the creation of transit-oriented development and the Mason Corridor. These changes are aimed at getting the ingredients needed for successful transit-oriented development, including: • compact development, • high-quality, active and safe streetscapes, • a diversity of uses, especially mixed-use within one building, • a district orientation, and • civic spaces The proposed changes include a section in the General Standards aimed at ensuring that the TOD standards apply equally across the 16 zone districts encompassed by the Overlay Zone. Most of the proposed standards come from an existing zone district standard. Redevelopment and infill sites along the corridor come with substantial physical and financial challenges, so the standards are drafted with performance-based incentives to assist in achieving community objectives such as compact residential and employment uses, affordable housing, and structured parking. Standards to ensure compatibility between TODs and existing established neighborhoods and businesses are also proposed. Changes since Council Worksession on April 24th: Staff is eager to present a substantial package of Council-adopted Land Use Code standards to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as a part of our application for funding. If we are successful with this application, we will receive $54M in federal funding for the Mason Corridor. This would be the largest federal funding package Fort Collins has ever received. Given the opportunity to apply to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for substantial funding, and given the tight timeline we are working within for that application, staff has focused its efforts in the area most in need of changes to foster TOD development, which is south of Prospect. The zone districts north of Prospect already function very well to encourage TOD. Future Land Use Code cycles may address northern portion of TOD Overlay. Staff has identified a couple of housecleaning changes to the definition/map and parking standard adopted in Fall 2006, including: • adding a small area to the TOD Overlay to include the Cherry Street Station property and the neighboring site on Cherry which may house the new Discovery Museum. See the map in powerpoint presentation attachment, slide #8. • changing the parking standard in Section 3.2.2 (K)(1)(a) which currently reads: o Multi-family dwellings within Transit-Oriented Development(TOD) shall have no minimum parking requirements, to o Multi-family and mixed-use dwellings within Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) shall have no minimum parking requirements, Staff has made several updates and changes in the currently proposed standards: • Objective performance standards have been crafted for the height incentive in Section 3.10.5 (G)(1). This standard sets the bar high for achieving policy objectives such as residential and employment uses, affordable housing and structured parking, • Streetscape standards have been enhanced. Side parking has been removed from the standards, The proposed standards have been reviewed internally by several departments including the City Attorney's office and edited to be consistent with existing Land Use Code language. Public Outreach Follow-up: Before Worksession: • Mason outreach meetings March 8ch and 14th • Met with developer group on April 11 th (summary notes attached) • Met with auto dealers March 20 (no notes from meeting) Since Worksession: • Met with neighbors on May 22"d (summary notes attached) • Presented at Chamber of Commerce Local Legislative Affairs Committee on Friday May 18 (no notes from meeting) 2 Major topics that came up at outreach meetings: • Perceived broad support for Mason Corridor and TOD (developers, neighbors, and businesspeople) • Concerns about viability and maintaining affordability and attainability both for residential developments and commercial developments (developers, neighbors and businesspeople) • Non-Land Use Code tools for reducing or shifting fees (developers) • Non-Land Use Code tools for addressing parking issues (developers) Planning and Zoning Update: On May 17, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 7-0 to forward a recommendation of approval of the Spring Land Use Code changes to the Council. Some minor changes were suggested which are a part of the ordinance in this packet. They include: • Minor changes throughout to clarify language • Minor changes to Section 3.10.5 (C) Materials and Colors to clarify language and allow for a bit more architectural creativity, including prefabricated architectural metal panels • Change to Section 3.10.5 (1) Display Windows to allow windows in up to 90% of the ground floor facade—up from 75%. 3 ATTACHMENT TOD OVERLAY EXTERNAL REVIEW MEETING: DEVELOPER GROUP DATE: March 11, 2007 CITY STAFF: Anne Aspen, Timothy Wilder, David Averill ATTENDEES: Barb Siek Matt Robenalt, DDA Mike Jensen Rick Reider Eric Nichols Dan Bernth Pam Strawser Archie Solsky Robin Bachelet Christian Bachelet After showing the 3-D animated video showing the Mason Corridor facilities and associated Transit-Oriented Development changes anticipated, Anne presented some background on the proposed Land Use Code changes and then opened the discussion up to questions and comments. QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS, RESPONSES 1. Question: Are there utilities in the corridor? Answer: Mostly. Depending on the intensity of development, upgrades and upsizing may be needed. 2. Question: Will you cut Troutman through from Mason to neighborhood? Answer: This is planned as a part of the Master Street Plan, but there are no imminent plans to open it up. There will definitely be pedestrian and bike connections at least. 3. Comment: Within 1 mile of College, there are many high density projects that would benefit from incentives given for Transit-Oriented Development. Consider expanding the TOD Overlay boundary. 4. Comment: New building construction incurs about $10/sf in fees. If that were reduced by half it would make a huge difference for feasibility. 5. Question: Do stations have designated parking? Projects need parking for retail. Answer: Some stations have park `n' rides planned, we hope that there will be a variety of opportunities for shared parking. 6. Question: How do you re-program people to walk to parking? 7. Comment: In bigger cities, people desire secured garages and relief from traffic issues. We have some serious issues especially in the campus area. 8. Comment: Fee-in-lieu of providing parking could be a very good incentive depending on how it works. It would definitely help relieve parking issues around campus. Can the City initiate/continue to dialog with CSU to collaboratively resolve parking issues on and around Campus? They are interrelated. Fee-in-lieu would need to work for retailers—there are critical issues around timing and location of structured lots. The downtown lots work pretty well. But really, there should be a cost for parking: parking in front of the door should come at a premium while structured parking should be less expensive. 9. Comment: Consider allowing private parking lots as a use if combined with another vertical use. 10. Comment: If CSU provided enough parking, then there would be less pressure on private developers to provide parking. CSU will be reducing spaces by 700, 200 as a result of Mason Corridor. Answer: The City will reimburse CSU for the spaces needed for Mason Corridor. It is our hope that this reimbursement will go towards creation of some structured parking that is master planned for the University. 11. Question: If Mason is to be a commercial corridor, businesses need to face the corridor. What impacts does the railroad have on development in the corridor? Noise, procedural complications, Mason one-sided in places. Answer: The railroad/trains are like the elephant in the living room. Staff has discussed the issue and one approach that can help is to focus energy on the east-west connections between the stations, Mason and College, like we do downtown. 12. Question: What about transit connections along North College - no talk of transit there. We need to pay attention to that area. Answer: There are additional future Enhanced Travel Corridors (ETCs) planned as shown on the Structure Plan. Mason is one leg of an ETC circuit which runs on Mason, Harmony out to I-25, Timberline and from 2 North College out to Mountain Vista. Future ETCs will go through a process similar to the Mason Corridor project and will come online as funding is available. 13. Comment: I think the parcels north of the Vine re-alignment should be included in the TOD Overlay Zone. There are some other parcels that should be included near the Cherry Street Station site. 14. Question: Can you include NCM areas west of downtown? Answer: We certainly considered that, given the redevelopment interest in that area. Ultimately, we decided that a conservative approach around existing residential areas was best. For properties outside the TOD Overlay Zone that fit the TOD mold, the modification process is available. 15. Comment: Underground parking is necessary to make big projects work. It is also often prohibitively expensive. Consider an incentive program where developer pays for and builds 1 and gets another in a separate structure. Leveraged parking could be more expensive and it would still be attractive. Big questions will be timing of bringing structured parking online, whether interim surface parking is a possibility, etc. Can fees be staggered and paid as parking comes online? 16. Question: How does fee-in-lieu work if there are no minimum parking requirements? Answer: Good question.... We'll have to figure that out! Could structure it as a reimbursement program like Street Oversizing program. 17. Comment: Consider financial incentives like TIF, GID, URA or a DDA-type organization in the Overlay Zone. Robert Artolino is a TIF specialist who would be a good resource. Response: URAs produce more revenue but rely on political will, GIDs don't generate that much revenue. Mike Freeman, the City's Economic Development Advisor, is working on an economic generator study of the Mason Corridor which will analyze these options and others. 18. Question: Is it possible to have by-right language or something to ensure that height limits can't be reduced significantly because of public input? The project proposed at Steele's on Mountain got killed for this. Answer: The way we are considering structuring this is with objective performance standards, so if a developer meets the criteria (ie. at least 10% of the total residential units are affordable to someone at 80% of the area median income (AMI)), they will be eligible for 3 i the additional height. This is a policy objective for this community. That said, it is important that we work with neighbors to ensure that projects are compatible, have setbacks on upper levels, have high quality facades facing the neighborhoods, etc. These are also standards that are proposed. One fortunate thing about the majority of sites around the Mason Corridor Stations is that they are oriented north-south, so a taller building is not likely to shade existing buildings. 19. Question: How do you involve the public without obstructing the design process? Where do you draw the line on frivolous or self-serving comments? It would be interesting to create a truly effective process to work with neighbors. City could help support TOD by providing education about benefits of TOD projects. Response: These are good questions that we have heard before. City staff does our best to educate citizens at neighborhood meetings about policies and objectives from City Plan, etc. but we too are interested in fine- tuning that process to be more effective. 20. Comment: The City added time and expense by expanding the public notification area to 800 feet. 21. Comment: Generation of sales/sf aren't high enough to offset the costs of TOD development construction, parking etc. Conversely, local businesses largely cannot afford the leases for these new spaces. A TIF program or similar could help with that. Deferred payment of taxes could enable local businesses to move in. Response: There has been talk about providing some sort of shepherd for redevelopment and infill projects. Development Review planners are working very hard to tailor the review process towards this type of development and have had many successes. We have also made major changes to the development review process in the last few years—establishing a Development Review Center that is a one-stop shop, drastically reducing our review times and establishing a Preliminary Design Review process to complement the conceptual review process for complicated infill and redevelopment projects. 22. Comment: Would like to see lot of people living along corridor, would help support retail development along corridor. 23. Comment: It is critical that we have a connection between the Mason Corridor and the Mall. Mason is our Centerra only better. 4 Response: The City is working with GGP on the mall redevelopment and they are aware of the Mason Corridor and the value of it to their project. There will be some sort of connection like a shuttle but the details have yet to be determined. 24. Comment: I've been watching CSU parking for 30 years - there are way more cars now. I'd like to see the City & CSU have a dialog around parking issues. Maybe this would lead to a solution to dumping parking needs on individual developers. The UniverCity Connections project seems like a perfect opportunity. Involve the press so the University will be held accountable. Response: The City did a strategic transportation plan with/for CSU a number of years back where we assisted with master planning and cost estimation and it fell apart to the point where CSU had to give federal money back. We would like to see some coordination too. The UniverCity project and BFO are good opportunities. Also, the City is paying CSU for 200 parking spaces that will be lost due to the Mason Corridor. It is our hope to see that payment become seed money for a structured parking facility. 25. Question: Current max height in CC is 4 stories; proposal is 5 stories. Consider allowing greater height if certain standards are met. How will you define mixed-use, public amenities, etc? Answer: That will be the next phase of drafting that we will start on after the Council Worksession. 26. Comment: We need to start changing attitudes about parking in this community. And we need to design fee parking so that next to the front door, a parking spot costs $2, and three blocks away it's $.25. 27. Question: Parkland fees - why isn't there a credit for replacement of existing residential? Answer: We should address this in the fee analysis project. 28. Comment: During the fee analysis project, you should go through the entire structure of fees - re-adjust so that fees directly relate to those important elements for TOD, like collecting structured parking fees instead of street oversizing fees. 5 ATTACHMENT TOD OVERLAY EXTERNAL REVIEW MEETING: NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP DATE: May 23, 2007 CITY STAFF: Anne Aspen, David Averill, Kathleen Bracke, Nicole Hahn, Ginny Sawyer, Timothy Wilder ATTENDEES: Aaron and Wayne Cook Rich Shipman Bill and Carrie Ashley Mary Detweiler John and Linda Stewart Dan Gould Mark Carlson After Dave showed the 3-D animated video showing the Mason Corridor facilities and associated Transit-Oriented Development changes anticipated, Anne presented some background on the proposed Land Use Code changes and then opened the discussion up to questions and comments. Responses and answers are by City staff unless otherwise noted. QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS, RESPONSES 1. Comment: I am concerned about business viability on the Corridor. I don't want to see empty buildings or stealing business from downtown. Response: In terms of long range planning, we are looking primarily for employment and residential uses to populate the corridor, hence the performance-based incentive proposed. The viability of the Corridor is a market-driven issue. Downtown is likely to be enhanced as a result of the convenient access. 2. Question: Will higher height allowances squeeze out existing homes? In suburbs of D.C., I have seen big high rises built next to traditional residences. Answer: The TOD Overlay Zone was drawn to specifically exclude areas of built-out residential development. Height standards won't change in existing neighborhoods. Any development proposed anywhere in the community that is over 40 feet high is subject to a special height review including a visual analysis and shadow study. Also, our general design standards require compatibility between neighboring properties. 3. Question: How do company downsizings affect funding, sales tax and retail sales? 4. Question: Will there be a few large parking areas located along the Corridor? Answer: Park and Rides are planned for the long term. In the interim, we hope to meet the need with shared parking, perhaps at this church for example. 5. Question: How will residents in the southern part of town be encouraged to ride? Answer: There will be a grid system for the regular Transfort busses. Transfers will be available to interface with the MAX BRT. More information on the strategic operating plan is available at http://fcgov.com/transportation/ under "Topics". 6. Question: What if federal funds do not come through? Answer: We have secured funding to complete the Corridor from Downtown to CSU in 2008. The South Transit Center was also funded. If the federal money does not happen, the project may take longer to complete, but we will continue to seek funding from a number of sources. 7. Question: Will there be a stop at the mall? Answer: There will be some arrangement made for access to the mall but the details are not yet worked out: it may be a convenient station or a shuttle service. 8. Question: Will the mall redevelopment project utilize TOD concepts? Answer: Any major redevelopment project will be required to meet the standards or seek a modification. If the changes are less substantial, such as a facelift remodel, we may not have as much ability to enforce. There has been communication between the mall owner and City staff and early signs are good that the owner recognizes the benefits of the Mason Corridor and TOD development. 9. Question: Is there any way the mall can move further to the west to be closer to College and the Corridor? Any discussion of using air rights? Answer: We do not currently have a policy regarding air rights. Councilman David Roy brought this issue up at the last Council Worksession so staff will investigate to see if there are some tools we could take advantage of in Fort Collins. 10. Question: What kind of considerations are going into creating and encouraging affordable housing? 2 Answer: Affordability of both residential and commercial properties is very important. We have included affordable housing as an objective for the performance based standard in the Land Use Code. The Land Use Code is somewhat limited in what it can accomplish in this regard, however, so other efforts must be made to comprehensively address the issue. We have brought the Affordable Housing Board into the discussion as well as the affordable housing task force of UniverCity Connections. 11. Question: Is it possible to put the mall station closer to the mall than Swallow, perhaps at Foothills? Answer: This is certainly a possibility. 12. Question: What are the 10-year projections about demographics for Fort Collins? Is the corridor demographics driven? Answer: The student population generally will be stable over time. There is a nationwide shift in demographics as baby boomers hit retirement. The vehicles on the BRT will have level boarding which accommodates a diverse range of riders with special needs, strollers or bikes. 13. Question: Will fares be affordable? Is 10% affordable housing enough to meet community needs? Answer: Affordability is an important topic on everyone's minds these days just last week we met with a group of local businesspeople at the Chamber of Commerce and this was the hot topic there too. It is heartening to know so many are interested in this. The issue is outside of the scope of the Land Use Code but with so much energy in this direction, it seems likely we will figure out what tools we need to accomplish this in Fort Collins. 14. Question: There are so many empty stores in Fort Collins. Is there any way the City can help businesses stay open? Answer: The Corridor can help by bringing a lot of people through the area. 3 iry. 1!' ' .- ► . -.- 1 + . .I • s I • � � i AI f � 1 � tl •t - . �� � r t � I" Fri r sue- AN K . � 1 �l . 116 1 ant New, It • r rig t ;to � IF, 'y ItON It i r 0 )' 1� � / •� , 1 . MASON CORRIDOR ` L i •� PIN .� r �: Orr ifest le , & blinkin community , l usiness (awmalCity of Fort Collins THEVISIon i T. 1. IMAGINE. . . a modern, world-class community, continuing to transform from a small city to a progressive �j _ THE fact S .a a V t �4 � i�. metropolitan center, successfully channeling "growth" u into positive community development. 1 // I ` vehicle frienal The -tti 0 y 0 Easy access. Pwk-and Centered along the Mason Corridor, multiple modes of travel conveniently link vibrant activity centers = W? ' ^"" Mason corridor will continue Rides, east/west transit routes, to allow auto traffic on Mason bicycle and pedestrian bailheads within Fort Collins and the North Front Range region. and McClelland streets just as will provide people with easy =1 it does today. Converting Mason access to the Mason Corridor. Mfolle".., ....MAW.. and Howes streets downtown _ - - back to two-way buffic will make © Shared commitment. By it easier to drive the corridor. pursuing many different funding sources for the AT IS © Economic stimulation. Mason Corridor, including .yyvy�\ • • • • • Mason enhances grants and public and private opportunities for existing options, the costs will be ! Mason Corridor • to light rail The Mason • • • m property owners, businesses, spread over many different 6L� byway • , • , , and developers. sources. No one group will southStreet to just of Harmomy Road. The buses. The MAX service will operate faster it is about building on our existing Everyone shares the benefits bear the project's full cost. centeredcorridor is of a better transit system. 60% of Q Cast-effective technology. jobs in Fort Collins are located BRT is the most cost- Lb • ' • a few hundred feet west well as provide ' • •r future economic development al• within one mile of the Mason _ #9r Corridor, along with man effective technology for � � u � � • corridor.� � • � Corridor� • g Y the Mason Corridor, The Mason Corridor includes a new will incorporate high-quality amenities the foundation to encourage community neighborhoods and based on Fort Collins' commercial shopping current population pedestrianbicycle and centers. and ridership feature the MAX, or Mason Express, Fort time bus arrival information. living, and attractive, urban lifestyles. estimates. Collins' first planned Bus Rapid Transit _ 1I - information: 970-224-6058 fcgov.com/masoncorridor creating COMMUNITY CENTERS Envision the Mason Corridor station areas , in- The underlying theme to creating successful cluding entertainment, housing, workplaces , and thriving TODs is — people. The arrange- retail , dining and parks . This type of devel- ment of the buildings , the well-designed ar- I opment around station areas is often called chitecture, and the inclusion of amenities and _ Transit Oriented Development or TOD . TODs art combine to create an inviting community ' foster attractive and sustainable communities center designed for the people who live , work, that appeal to a variety of lifestyles . shop , play, and bring life to our community. '' 411ta Bill I Q © © STATIONS MASON CORRIDOR O N C z O a = LM N N m G CmCD G rm m m C C Nz s �o aIIIII w o c �O O O m m C Z m z r _< m MASON ST. MCCLELA D AVE. COLLEGE AVE. N ► SOUTH COLLEGE RETAIL FOOTHILLS MALL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY DOWNTOWN FORT COLLINS printed on recycled paper with soy-based ink mm :nurC ERRY ST � nnn_tianm �� MINE . =� .�� •n i1 jowl ` i III—III _ -- MORA ail 111 ' 'I'll r �w`�,,, ,� IIIIIIIICI ATTACHMENT 6 _ _ I -- J ,jr I �•.�� /r 1-7' Y'!'rr L�1' I Ilr,f N _ � f_..i 4-1 1 L D E RD mpr io T l r -- � I r 1 f sw . ti .- -I- a-- .✓� F . RD \ r 2 IT I �� 7 F ETROUt N w } TI i 1 1 N v -� 1 _ m Y L L7 � " i \ - 1 — v - J�) �1 + Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay District (South of Prospect Only) ^1 Legend ® 'V Multi-family Q TOD Overlay 0 0.25 0.5 Single family Primarily Commercial Use Gn of eon Colun.. e r; �Miles _ Railroad and/or Street Right of Way • ■ • �i IL nFW t I i1�"1 JIN 'arm I -Mal NEW call fl a 1181n 1: 1111 Q �113l111 m,,,� liars 4cm - -INN - [��J �� ITT IT Illp jlL -i", mozwft 141 '.. t � . III ErnplwmaIII �■z al t A l A.,. Y. CRY I* asul Spring 2007 Land Use Code Changes ■Transit- Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone TOD Overlay Zone Goals ■ Facilitate Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) ■ Implement existing policies to encourage redevelopment and infill ■ Till the soil for successful Mason Corridor TOD Overlay Zone Goals ■ Facilitate Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) ■ compact development ■ district orientation ■ diversity of uses , especially mixed-use within one building ■ priority on pedestrians ■ ample civic spaces Changes since Worksession 4 / 24 / 07 ■ Conducted more public outreach ■ New TOD standards South of Prospect only - a �!■ I I.i . '1119�►'lluloi�ll'gl r��Q •,• nl 1. � un.n + ����iIPP!li/l " II-11111lIllt 'IIi CIPIILI_ . Itills p�F�IJr T IIIIIIIhILI RVI CA lig 1 . ..AM 1a�it� ��r l JIavn I4_ ML :v 1. 6i j Wks T .,,C/ris. r6VGg 9 �� y ••,� Y Roat Y \lam a gI ad or Transit-Odented D - • 1 Oveday District (South of Prospect Only) 1 Other changes since Worksession ■ A few housecleaning issues from Fall 2006 : ■ Add a couple of parcels to TOD Overlay map ■ Add mixed-use to parking exception for TOD Overlay 1 cal�llul_ ,f _I m ��� �c. Il lrlc,�• P �� . nun Inlnn �t� ulUlll 37mm1� � 1 n ` -m - � 1 � �`ami 1 Illlli�� II r l� FI Ili i■1111. r ���llll II^'nn vr1 111 1�111111. *� ml nl n �r o nzunnn. 1 A� ICE IILII I:IG�■I iII�11111111C. �- I eu III �:�'j�'•� I All !IIIIlnup�-4 11llll a■� •�■ � linneal IN W a y ►�' i I I � m <JIn r 1 1111111F`'. ;� D11 _ " �;��Igll rl�'�' �3 ILA �'ii�•� T1 1 ORDINANCE NO , 078 , 2007 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE TO IMPLEMENT TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS , on March 18 , 1997, by Ordinance No. 051 , 1997, the Council of the City of Fort Collins adopted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code") ; and WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the understanding of staff and Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors, but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic document capable of responding to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and citizens of the City; and WHEREAS , the staff of the City and the Planning and Zoning Board have reviewed the Land Use Code and identified and explored various issues related to the implementation of Transit Oriented Development and have made recommendations to the Council regarding such issues; and WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the Land Use Code amendments which have been proposed for the implementation of Transit Oriented Development are in the best interest of the City and its citizens . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the Land Use Code is hereby amended as follows : Section 1 . That Article 3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new Division 3 . 10 which reads in its entirety as follows : DIVISION 3. 10 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE TRANSIT- ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) OVERLAY ZONE 3 . 10. 1 Applicability and Purpose (A) Applicability. These standards apply to applications for development within the boundary of the TOD Overlay Zone, south of Prospect Road. (B) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to modify the underlying zone districts south of Prospect Road to encourage land uses, densities and design that enhance and support transit stations along the Mason Corridor. These provisions allow for a mix of goods and services within convenient walking distance of transit stations ; encourage the creation of stable and attractive residential and commercial environments within the TOD Overlay Zone south of Prospect Road; and provide for a desirable transition to the surrounding existing neighborhoods . Accordingly, in the 1 event of a conflict between the provisions contained in this Division and the provisions contained in Article 4, this Division shall control . 3 . 10.2 Permitted Uses (A) Enclosed mini-storage. Ground-floor enclosed mini-storage shall be prohibited. Enclosed mini-storage shall be allowed either below grade or on upper levels of a building. 3 . 10.3 Site Planning (A) Building Orientation. Primary commercial and residential building entrances shall face streets, connecting walkways, plazas, parks or similar outdoor spaces, but not parking lots . Buildings shall face all street frontages to the maximum extent feasible, with highest priority given to east-west streets that lead from transit stations to destinations. (B) Central Feature or Gathering Place. At least one ( 1 ) prominent or central location within each transit station area shall include a convenient outdoor open space or plaza with amenities such as benches, monuments, kiosks or public art. This feature and its amenities shall be placed adjacent to a transit station, to the extent reasonably feasible . (C) Outdoor spaces. To the extent reasonably feasible, buildings and extensions of buildings shall be designed to form outdoor spaces such as courtyards, plazas, arcades, terraces, balconies and decks for residents ' and workers ' use and interaction, and to integrate the development with the adjacent physical context. To the extent reasonably feasible, a continuous walkway system linking such outdoor spaces shall be developed, and shall include coordinated linkages between separate developments . 3. 10.4 Streetscape and Pedestrian Connections (A) Streetscape. Developments shall provide formal streetscape improvements which shall include sidewalks having street trees in sidewalk cutouts with tree grates, planters, or other appropriate treatment for the protection of pedestrians, and shall provide seating and pedestrian light fixtures . Specific design details shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer in accordance with the design criteria for streets . (B) On-street parking. On-street parking shall be defined by landscaped curb extensions or bulb-outs . Conventional or enhanced crosswalks shall be provided at all intersections. 2 (C) Off-street parking. Off-street parking shall be located only behind, above or below street-facing buildings . No parking will be allowed between the street and the front or side of a building. (D) Parking Structure Design. To the extent reasonably feasible, all parking structures shall meet the following design criteria: ( 1 ) Where parking structures face streets, retail and other uses shall be required along at least fifty (50) percent of the ground level frontage to minimize interruptions in pedestrian interest and activity. The decision maker may grant an exception to this standard for all or part of the ground level frontage on streets with low pedestrian interest or activity. (2) Awnings, signage and architectural elements shall be incorporated to encourage pedestrian activity at the street-facing level. (3 ) Auto entrances shall be located and designed to minimize pedestrian/auto conflicts . Where service entries or parking structure entries are needed, the following standards shall be met: (See Figure (a) the crown of the underground parking access ramp shall be at least four (4) feet behind the back edge of the sidewalk; (b) the beginning of the ramp for an above-ground parking garage shall be at least four (4) feet behind the back edge of the sidewalk; (c) the entry to the parking structure shall be separated from the sidewalk by low planters or a low wall; (d) no blank walls shall be allowed on either side of the entry; (e) the sidewalk pavement shall be continuous across the drive aisle. Any break in the paving surface or scoring shall be in the drive surface and not in the pedestrian surface; and (f) appropriate cautionary signage shall be used to alert pedestrians to the presence of entering and exiting vehicles and to inform drivers that pedestrians have priority. Figure _ Clear sight lines for pedestrian safety 3 i I IL t � Y1z, . (E) Bicycle parking. A minimum number of bicycle parking spaces shall be provided, equal in number to ten ( 10) percent of the total number of automobile parking spaces provided by the development, but not less than four (4) spaces . 3 . 10.5 Character and Image (A) Articulation. Exterior building walls shall be subdivided and proportioned to human scale, using projections, overhangs and recesses in order to add architectural interest and variety and avoid the effect of a single, massive wall with no relation to human size . (B) Rooflines. Flat-roofed buildings shall feature three-dimensional cornice treatment on all walls facing streets or connecting walkways, or a rail at the top of the wall of a usable rooftop deck, unless the top floor is stepped back to form a usable roof terrace area. A single continuous horizontal roofline shall not be used on one-story buildings . Accent roof elements or towers may be used to provide articulation of the building mass . To the maximum extent feasible, a minimum pitch of 6 : 12 shall be used for gable and hipped roofs . Where hipped roofs are used alone, the minimum pitch shall be 4 : 12 . 4 (C) Materials and colors. ( 1 ) Predominant exterior building materials shall be high quality materials, including but not limited to brick, sandstone, other native stone, tinted/textured concrete masonry units, stucco systems or treated tilt-up concrete systems . (2) All building facades shall incorporate stone, stone veneer, brick, brick veneer, stucco, corrugated metal, wood and/or equivalent accent material in a manner that highlights the articulation of the massing or the base and top of the building. An all-brick building does not need to incorporate an accent material, though soldier courses and banding or other brick, stone, or metal detailing are encouraged in order to subdivide masses and establish human scale . (3 ) Predominant or field colors for facades shall be low reflectance, subtle, neutral or earth tone colors . The use of high-intensity colors, black or fluorescent colors shall be prohibited. (4) Building trim and accent areas may feature brighter colors, including primary colors, and black, but neon tubing shall not be an acceptable feature for building trim or accent areas . (5 ) Exterior building materials shall not include smooth-faced concrete block, untreated or unpainted tilt-up concrete panels or prefabricated steel panels . (D) Multiple storefronts. Buildings with multiple storefronts shall be unified though the use of architecturally compatible features, such as colors, details, awnings, signage and lighting fixtures . (E) Walls, fences and planters. Walls, fences and planters shall be designed to match or be consistent with the quality of materials, style and colors of the development. (G) Building Height. All buildings shall have a minimum height of twenty (20) feet, measured to the dominant roof line of a flat-roofed building, or the mean height between the eave and ridge on a sloped-roof building. In the case of a complex roof with different, co-dominant portions, the measurement shall apply to the highest portion. ( 1 ) All buildings shall be limited to the maximum height allowed in the underlying zone district unless : 5 (a) the development is mixed-use and contains at least one- seventh ( 1 /7) of its total building square footage as either residential or office use, in which case the maximum allowable height shall be the base height plus one ( 1 ) story; or (b) the development is mixed-use and contains at least one- seventh ( 1 /7) of its total building square footage as residential use and at least ten ( 10) percent of the residential units are either affordable housing units for rent or affordable housing units for sale as defined in Article 5 or structured parking (underground, interior to the site or above ground), in which case the maximum allowable height shall be the base height plus two (2) stories ; or (c) the project is mixed-use and contains at least one-seventh ( 1 /7) of its total building square footage as residential use and at least ten ( 10) percent of the residential units are either affordable housing units for rent or affordable housing units for sale as defined in Article 5 , and the project contains structured parking (underground, interior to the site or above ground), in which case the maximum height shall be the base height plus three (3) stories . (2) Buildings allowed under subsections (G)( 1 )(a), (b) or (c) of this section shall have a base portion consisting of one ( 1 ) or two (2) stories . The base portion shall be clearly defined by a prominent, projecting cornice or roof, fenestration, different material, and different color from the remainder of the building. If the base portion is two (2) stories, the ground floor shall be further differentiated by fenestration and other detailing. (3) Buildings allowed under subsections (G)( 1 )(a), (b) or (c) of this section shall also be designed so that upper portions of the building are stepped back from the base . The adequacy of upper floor step- backs shall be determined by the extent to which they advance the following objectives : (a) providing pedestrian scale along sidewalks and outdoor spaces ; (b) enhancing compatibility with the scale and massing of nearby buildings ; (c) preserving key sunshine patterns in adjacent spaces ; and (d) preserving views . (H) Windows. Standard storefront window and door systems may be used as the predominant style of fenestration for buildings as long as the building facade visually establishes and defines the building stories and establishes human scale and proportion. Minimum glazing on pedestrian oriented facades of buildings shall be sixty (60) percent on the ground floor and 6 forty (40) percent on upper floors . Projects functionally unable to comply with this requirement shall mitigate such non-compliance with ample, enhanced architectural features such as a change in massing or materials, enhanced landscaping, trellises, arcades or shallow display window cases . (I) Display windows. Ground floor retail, service and restaurant uses shall have large-pane display windows. Such windows shall be framed by the surrounding wall and shall not exceed ninety (90) percent of the total ground level facade area. Section 2 . That Section 4 . 18 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph (F) which reads in its entirety as follows : (F) Development Standards for the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone. Development located within the TOD Overlay Zone shall be subject to the requirements of Division 3 . 10 . Section 3 . That Section 4 .21 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by a new Section (G) which reads in its entirety as follows : (G) Development Standards for the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone. Development located within the TOD Overlay Zone shall be subject to the requirements of Division 3 . 10 . Section 4 . That Section 4.27 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph (G) which reads in its entirety as follows : (G) Development Standards for the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone. Development located within the TOD Overlay Zone shall be subject to the requirements of Division 3 . 10 . Section 5 . That the definition of "Transit facility" contained in Section 5 . 1 .2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows : Transit facility shall mean bus stops, bus terminals, transit stations, transfer points or depots without vehicle repair or storage. 7 Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 5th day of June, A.D . 2007, and to be presented for final passage on the 19th day of June, A.D . 2007 , Mayor ATTEST : City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 19th day of June, A.D . 2007 . Mayor ATTEST : City Clerk s