Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 12/11/2012 - STUDENT HOUSING ACTION PLANDATE: December 11, 2012 STAFF: Beth Sowder, Laurie Kadrich, Seth Lorson Pre-taped staff presentation: available at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php WORK SESSION ITEM FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Student Housing Action Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this work session item is to discuss housing needs, data, and draft action items that were derived from several months of working with participating stakeholders regarding the Student Housing Action Plan. Council feedback will be sought regarding draft action items and the timeline to move forward. The Student Housing Action Plan project has involved working with Colorado State University, Front Range Community College, neighbors, students, developers, and other stakeholders to identify strategies and recommend action items to address the increasing need for multi-family student housing and the potential negative impacts and compatibility concerns to existing neighborhoods. Feedback received through the public engagement process has driven the proposed draft action items. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Does Council want staff to move forward with formal consideration of the Student Housing Action Plan on February 19, 2013? 2. Does Council generally agree with the proposed draft action items that are identified for near and long term processes? 3. Does Council want staff to move forward with the proposed draft action items that do not need formal Council consideration? 4. Are there any items that Council would like to add or change? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Mission and Purpose The mission of the Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP) is to develop community driven strategies that encourage and provide an adequate supply of quality student housing while maintaining neighborhood quality and compatibility. December 11, 2012 Page 2 The City, through the City Plan process, identified a need to address student housing now and into the future. Fort Collins is and has been experiencing an increase in population and student enrollment, a limited supply of multi-family housing, very low vacancy rates, and challenges with addressing neighborhood concerns with new multi-family development projects. These factors drove the need for the development of strategies and action items to help facilitate adequate housing supplies while addressing negative impacts upon existing neighborhoods. During the City Plan update (Plan Fort Collins), specific policies were adopted that are applicable to student housing: Policy LIV 7.2 – Develop an Adequate Supply of Housing – Encourage public and private for-profit and non-profit sectors to take actions to develop and maintain adequate supply of single- and multi-family housing, including mobile homes and manufactured housing. Policy LIV 7.7 – Accommodate the Student Population – Plan for and incorporate new housing for the student population on campuses and in areas near educational campuses and/or that are well-served by public transportation. Action Plan (Near Term Actions: 2011 and 2012) – Student Housing Plan – Coordinate with Colorado State University, Front Range Community College, and others to develop a plan that identifies future locations and other desirable characteristics of future student housing developments. Policy LIV 6.2 – Seek Compatibility with Neighborhoods – Encourage design that complements and extends the positive qualities of surrounding development and adjacent buildings in terms of general intensity and use, street pattern, and any identifiable style, proportions, shapes, relationship to the street, pattern of buildings and yards, and patterns created by doors, windows, projections and recesses. Compatibility with these existing elements does not mean uniformity. Policy LIV 6.3 – Encourage Introduction of Neighborhood-Related, Non- Residential Development – Encourage the addition of new services, conveniences, and/or gathering places in existing neighborhoods that lack such facilities, provided they meet performance and architectural standards respecting the neighborhood’s positive characteristics, level of activity, and parking and traffic conditions. Land Supply and Growth According to City Plan, growth within the city will be focused to promote a compact development pattern, by directing urban development to well-defined areas within the Growth Management Area (GMA). The compact form of the city will also contribute to preserving environmentally sensitive areas and rural lands, efficiently providing public services, and encouraging infill and redevelopment of existing urban areas. The City adopted the Transit-Oriented Development Overlay District (TOD) in 2007 after significant public debate and input. The TOD is aimed at reducing sprawl by incentivizing infill development in central areas of town near transit, particularly the Mason Corridor, and frequent December 11, 2012 Page 3 destinations. The provisions of the TOD 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, and provide for a desirable transition to the surrounding existing neighborhoods. Student Enrollment Data and Projections (See Attachment 1) The current total population of Fort Collins is 144,880 which include students who live within the City Limits. In the fall of 2000, Colorado State University (CSU) had approximately 23,000 students. The total enrollment for fall 2012 is 26,769. Approximately, 74% are undergraduate (traditional) students, 9% are undergraduate (non-traditional), and 16% are graduate and professional students. Approximately, 23% of students live on-campus in the 6,300 beds owned and operated by CSU; 77% require housing off-campus. Assuming that same rate, and with a continued strong market position for CSU in Colorado and around the nation, CSU projects enrollment that could be as high as 35,000 in the future (10 – 20 plus years). This would include graduate and undergraduate enrollment (does not include on-line enrollment), and will continually evolve based on funding levels, market conditions and other factors. Front Range Community College (FRCC) total enrollment for spring 2012 was 6,320. FRCC does not provide any on-campus housing, so all of their students live off-campus. Multi-Family Vacancy Rates in Fort Collins The graph below shows the declining vacancy rate for multi-family housing in Fort Collins over the past several years (Colorado Division of Housing). Multi-Family Average Rents in Fort Collins The graph below shows the increasing average rent for rentals in Fort Collins over the past several years (Colorado Division of Housing). December 11, 2012 Page 4 On and Off Campus Housing Supply According to a rental listing provided by CSU, there are approximately 57 off-campus complexes that rent to students and provide around 13,000 bedrooms. Many students also choose to rent single- family homes. CSU has approximately 6,300 beds on campus and they are currently building more. CSU plans to increase the total number of beds on campus by approximately 2,740 total net beds by 2020. (See Attachment 2) They are also committed to providing on-campus housing for all freshmen and a portion of international students as well as 25% of returning students. The private market has also responded to the demand for off-campus multi-family student housing projects; there are currently two large projects under construction and several more are either approved or in the development process. (See Attachment 3) Most, if not all, of the housing needs will be met in the next five to seven years by the increase in on-campus housing and the approximately 3,500 student-oriented multi-family bedrooms currently under construction or in the development process. This housing supply helps meet the need presented in the first part of the SHAP mission – to ensure an adequate supply of quality student housing. Much of the SHAP stakeholder discussions have concentrated on the second part of the mission – to maintain neighborhood quality and compatibility. Student Housing Preferences (See Attachment 4) In 2011 and 2012, CSU students were surveyed in an effort to better understand their rental housing preferences. The results from those surveys show the following: Living Arrangement – 84% currently rent in the following housing type: Apartment 38% House 34% Condo/duplex 16% Other 2% December 11, 2012 Page 5 Transportation – 82% brought a car to campus. Below is the method they use to get to campus: Drive 25% Bike 24% Walk 23% Bus 15% The most important factors when choosing a rental: 1. Price 96% 2. On-site parking 85% 3. Quality property management 81% 4. Number of bedrooms 80% 5. Type of amenities 79% 6. Proximity to campus 75% 7. Size of unit 63% 8. On-site bike parking 56% 9. Proximity to public transportation 53% Number of bedrooms preferred: One 12% Two 38% Three 37% Four+ 22% Process and Community Engagement The Student Housing Action Plan project has been diverse and in-depth and included a heavy emphasis on stakeholder engagement, background research, data collection, action item development, and implementation. The primary working group included CSU and City staff, stakeholders from CSU, FRCC, student government, students/tenants, neighbors, property owners, property managers, Fort Collins Board of Realtors, developers/designers, and more. The Center for Public Deliberation assisted with much of the public engagement process which included several focus groups (both with individual stakeholder groups and combined), surveys, and a large group deliberative dialogue. Additional engagement methods included a webpage with current information, presentations, important dates, and an on-line survey; social media; public open house; and meetings with Boards & Commissions and professional groups. Feedback received through the engagement process drove the development of draft action items for this project. (See Attachments 5 and 6) COUNCIL ACTION Adopted Action Items During the SHAP process, City Council directed staff to bring some action items for consideration on a faster track than the Student Housing Action Plan process in an effort to more quickly address December 11, 2012 Page 6 concerns raised by residents about the increasingly adverse impacts of larger multi-family developments that were occurring near existing single-family residential neighborhoods. As a result of this, the following items have already been adopted by City Council through the Land Use Code (LUC) Changes Phase 1 and 2: Action Item Process Date Adopted Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) zone standards – apply to all multi-family projects requiring mix of housing, larger setback, building variation and articulation, park or gathering space. LUC Changes Phase 1 9/18/12 Modify Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone to ensure commercial component. LUC Changes Phase 1 9/18/12 Type II Hearing for multi-family developments with 50 units or 75 bedrooms LUC Changes Phase 2 11/20/12 The benefit of the action items above relate directly to compatibility concerns. These changes will provide the public the opportunity to give input on a project while it is still in the early stages of development, to better ensure design compatibility and a proper mix of housing and commercial uses. Referred Items During the LUC Code Change Phase 1 and 2 discussions, Council directed staff not to define “student housing” or change the TOD boundary. Council did refer three items back to the SHAP process for further discussion: Operations, Security & Management Plan; Limit 4+ bedroom units in multi-family developments; and University District or Overlay. The SHAP stakeholders discussed these three items in detail and provide the following for Council consideration: Operations, Security and Management Plan Among stakeholders there was general agreement that the City should not try to regulate business models or items that have limited enforcement effectiveness. The group suggested trying to find ways to incentivize multi-family complexes to have on-site management and a thorough management plan. Suggested ideas included reduced fines for owners with on-site management and possibly increased fines to owners when they do not have professional on-site management. Limit 4+ Bedroom Units in Multi-family Developments During this discussion, it became clear that a limit or percentage restriction is not the best way to address concerns. Instead, stakeholders felt that directly tying mitigation factors to 4-bedroom units would be more beneficial. Examples include greater buffering and providing more parking. Current code requires 2.5 parking spaces for one 4-bedroom unit; however, it requires 1.75 spaces for each 2-bedroom unit (total of 3.5 spaces for two 2-bedroom units but only 2.5 spaces for one 4-bedroom unit). These mitigation requirements would be based on a combination of the number of units, number of bedrooms, or number of 4+ bedroom units and the proximity to single-family residential neighborhoods. December 11, 2012 Page 7 University District In talking with stakeholders there was no clear benefit of establishing a University District, although the discussion included the following distinctions: • Option 1: Non-Regulatory University District This could highlight the uniqueness and qualities of the area – it could be similar to UniverCity Connections or the University District recently created in Greeley. • Option 2: Regulatory University District Many of the regulations discussed seemed appropriate city-wide rather than just in a certain geographic area. The City currently focuses resources where they are needed, so the areas around campus currently receive greater attention from both Police Services and Code Compliance. The discussion did highlight potential areas where the City’s codes may be deficient in addressing concerns, such as repeat violations and exterior property maintenance. Staff will work directly with neighbors to better understand these issues and potentially make recommended changes at Council direction. Future Action Items Formal adoption of the Student Housing Action Plan is scheduled for discussion at City Council on February 5, 2013. The Plan is based on the feedback received throughout the SHAP process, and the following action items have been developed and will be included in the Plan. Action Items for Near-term (Spring 2013) The following action items can be brought to City Council Spring 2013 for formal Council consideration. Action Item Concern Addressed Better define and amend the LUC Sec. 3.8.16 (E) (2) requirement that 4+ bedroom developments need to provide additional open space, recreation areas, parking areas and public facilities as are necessary to adequately serve the development and excepting the TOD Overlay Zone. Intensity of 4+ bedroom units, compatibility Improve understanding of compatibility by modifying the LUC to include good examples (photos, drawings) of what is allowed in certain zones. Compatibility Amend MMN district development standards and LUC Sec. 3.8.30 multi-family standards to specify that no vehicular use area can be placed in the said setback from single- and two-family dwellings. Also, consider landscape requirements for this setback. Compatibility December 11, 2012 Page 8 Action Item Concern Addressed Confirm that the uses, development standards and density allowances in the NCB district are consistent with the intent and purpose of the district appropriate sub-area plans in that it provides a transition between residential neighborhoods and commercial-use areas. Compatibility Define different multi-family housing types (rather than just the broad multi-family definition). The requirement for multiple housing types could be used as a gradient of development between proposed multi- family and existing single-family. Compatibility Action Items for Council Consideration – Longer Term (2014 and beyond) The following action items would need further development if Council supports them. Action Item Concern Addressed Build an above- or below- grade pedestrian/bicycle crossing at or near Shields and Elizabeth Streets. • This item would need 2-3 years to develop and fund – it would require further involvement and development from Transportation Planning & Engineering and coordination with CSU. Traffic and Safety Consider requiring property managers/owners to provide City ordinance information to their tenants at lease signing. • This could be accomplished relatively quickly (1 year) – it would require additional public outreach. Accountability Form an on-going advisory committee made up of City, CSU, FRCC, neighbors, students, property managers, Police, and ASCSU to guide City Council on student housing issues. • This could be accomplished relatively quickly (1 year) – it would require staff support. Accountability and Education Consider a Rental Licensing Program to ensure health/safety of units, data regarding rentals, increased accountability of the rental business. Require all landlords to take the Landlord Training provided by the City. • Council has considered Rental Licensing and Registration Programs in the past. • This could be re-visited, if Council supports. • Would require 1-2 years for further research and significant public outreach. Accountability and Education December 11, 2012 Page 9 Action Items that do not need Formal Council Consideration The following action items do not need formal approval by City Council. Staff is planning to move forward with these items unless different direction is received from Council. Action Item Concern Addressed Increase enforcement of nuisance and noise ordinances in areas with a high concentration of complaints. Increased enforcement on repeat nuisance violations (requires code amendment – planned for March 2013) Accountability Increase education about enforcement so the community is more aware of the enforcement process and data related to enforcement. Education and Accountability Consider increasing proactive enforcement on noise and occupancy violations. Accountability Increase education efforts about Party Registration program and ensure it creates benefits to neighborhoods. Education Increase education to students based on current needs/concerns – students both on and off campus – include realistic information about what it means to move off campus and into a neighborhood. Education Provide information to parents of students so they are aware of local codes, ordinances, and responsibilities. Repeat messages often especially during peak housing decision times. Education Provide incentives for students to take Renting 101, an existing class that could offer a “preferred tenant” certificate that landlords could recognize. Education and Accountability Action Items Proceeding in other Processes The following action items are either moving forward in a separate process, or are the responsibility of CSU. CSU has discussed and agrees with the CSU items below. No Council action required. Action Item Concern Addressed CSU parking fees – CSU will assess as the academic year moves forward. CSU has not seen any downward trend in permit sales which indicates no increased impact on surrounding neighborhoods. CSU will conduct a parking and transportation study this fall. Spill-over parking City Parking Plan implementation – adopted in 2013 budget and proceeding in separate process Parking Update West Central Neighborhoods Plan – adopted in 2013 budget and proceeding in separate process Compatibility, housing, parking, transportation Work with CSU to develop enhanced transit service to surrounding neighborhoods with connection to MAX. Parking and Traffic Phase 3 of the Transit Plan - implementation Parking and Traffic CSU will strive to provide enough on-campus housing (either in halls or apartments) for all first year and international students as well as 25% of returning students, based on projections and actual CSU CSU On-Campus Housing Supply December 11, 2012 Page 10 Action Item Concern Addressed enrollment numbers. CSU will continue to explore options for public/private partnerships to provide student housing and to look at other examples and best practices. CSU On-Campus Housing CSU will continue to look at alternate sites for student housing as they refine their Master Plan. CSU On-Campus Housing CSU will present on-campus housing updates annually to the City/CSU Liaison committee and seek other opportunities to share this information with the community. CSU On-Campus Housing ATTACHMENTS 1. SHAP Data Snapshot 2. CSU On-Campus Master Plan Projections 2012-2020 3. Multi-Family Projects List and Map 4. Student Housing Preferences Survey Summary 5. Draft Action Items Survey Results 6. SHAP Outreach Meetings 7. PowerPoint Presentation ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 3 1 1 Student Housing Action Plan City Council Work Session December 11, 2012 Laurie Kadrich, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Director Beth Sowder, Neighborhood Services Manager Seth Lorson, City Planner 2 Purpose This Work Session Item will discuss: • Housing needs • Housing data • Community engagement process • Draft action items • Timeline ATTACHMENT 7 2 3 Direction Sought from City Council 1. Does Council want staff to move forward with formal consideration of the Student Housing Action Plan on February 19, 2013? 2. Does Council generally agree with the proposed draft action items that are identified for near and long term processes? 3. Does Council want staff to move forward with the proposed draft action items that do not need formal Council consideration? 4. Are there any items that Council would like to add or change? 4 Mission of SHAP The mission of the Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP) is to develop community driven strategies that encourage and provide an adequate supply of quality student housing while maintaining neighborhood quality and compatibility. 3 5 Identified Need • Through the City Plan update process: – Identified need to address student housing now and into the future • Other indicators: – Increase in population and student enrollment – Limited supply of MF housing – Very low vacancy rates – Challenges addressing neighborhood concerns 6 City Plan Policies • Action Plan – Student Housing Plan • Policy LIV 7.2 – Develop Adequate Supply of Housing • Policy LIV 7.7 – Accommodate the Student Population • Policy LIV 6.2 – Seek Compatibility with Neighborhoods • Policy LIV 6.3 – Encourage Introduction of Neighborhood-Related, Non-Residential Development 4 7 Land Supply & Growth According to City Plan, growth will be focused on: • Compact development pattern • Urban development to well-defined areas • Preserving environmentally sensitive areas and rural lands • Efficiently providing public services • Encouraging infill and redevelopment • Transit-Oriented Development Overlay District 8 CSU Student Enrollment Data & Projections • Fall 2012 total enrollment - 26,769 • 74% undergraduate, traditional • 9% undergraduate, non-traditional • 16% graduate and professional • 23% live on-campus (6,300 beds) • 77% require off-campus housing • CSU projecting 35,000 total enrollment in the future 5 9 Front Range Community College Enrollment • Spring 2012 total enrollment – 6,320 • FRCC does not provide any on-campus housing • All students live off-campus 10 Multi-Family Vacancy Rates 6 11 Multi-Family Average Rents 12 CSU On-Campus Housing • 6,300 beds on campus • CSU plans to increase by 2,740 net beds by 2020 • CSU committed to providing on-campus housing for: – All freshmen – A portion of international students – 25% of returning students 7 13 Off-Campus Multi-Family Housing • Approximately 57 off-campus complexes • Provide approximately 13,000 bedrooms • Single-family homes • Private market response • 3,500 – 6,000 additional bedrooms 14 8 15 Student Housing Preferences • 2011 and 2012 CSU student surveys conducted • Living arrangements – 82% rent • Transportation – 82% bring car to campus • Important factors when choosing rental – 96% price - 81% quality prop mgmt – 85% on-site parking • Number of bedrooms – 38% two - 37% three – 22% four - 12% one 16 Community Engagement Process Heavy emphasis on stakeholder engagement Stakeholders include: •CSU • FRCC • Students • Neighbors • Property Managers & Property Owners • Developers & Designers • Fort Collins Board of Realtors • Associated Students of Colorado State University 9 17 Engagement Methods • Center for Public Deliberation • Focus Group & Stakeholder meetings • Surveys • Large group deliberative dialogue • Webpage • Presentations • Social media • Public open house • Boards & Commissions • Professional Groups 18 Council Actions • Action items adopted by Council • MMN zone standards apply to all MF projects • Modify NC zone • Type II Hearings for MF projects • Benefits relate directly to compatibility concerns 10 19 Items Not Adopted or Referred • Items not adopted – Student Housing definition – TOD boundary • Items referred back to SHAP process – Operations, Security & Management Plan – Limit 4+ bedroom Units in MF – University District 20 Future Action Items • Student Housing Action Plan formal consideration – February 19, 2013 • Near-term Action Items – Spring 2013 • Longer-term Action Items – 2014 and beyond • Action Items that do not need formal Council consideration • Action items proceeding in other processes 11 21 Near-term Action Items Spring 2013 • Better define LUC requirements for 4+ bedroom developments • Modify LUC to include good examples • Amend MMN and LUC multi-family standards specifications • Confirm that uses, standards and density allowances in NCB are consistent with intent • Define different multi-family housing types and use as a gradient of development 22 Longer-Term Action Items (2014+) • Build an above- or below- grade ped/bike crossing at or near Shields & Elizabeth • Consider requiring property owners/mgrs to provide City ordinance information • Form an on-going Advisory Committee for student housing issues • Consider a Rental Licensing Program 12 23 Action Items – No Formal Council Action Needed • Increase enforcement of nuisance and noise ordinances • Increase education about enforcement • Consider proactive enforcement for noise and over-occupancy • Increase educational efforts about Party Registration • Increase education based on current needs • Provide information to parents of students • Provide incentives for students 24 Action Items in other Processes • CSU parking fees • Neighborhood Parking Permit Plan • West Central Neighborhoods Plan update • Phase 3 of Transit Plan • CSU on-campus housing • CSU options for public/private partnerships • CSU alternate sites for housing • CSU on-campus housing updates 13 25 Direction Sought from City Council 1. Does Council want staff to move forward with formal consideration of the Student Housing Action Plan on February 19, 2013? 2. Does Council generally agree with the proposed draft action items that are identified for near and long term processes? 3. Does Council want staff to move forward with the proposed draft action items that do not need formal Council consideration? 4. Are there any items that Council would like to add or change?