HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 07/09/2013 - JOINT WORK SESSION-CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING AND ZAGENDA
JOINT WORK SESSION ‐‐ CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
July 9, 2013
The joint Work Session was suggested by the City Council liaison at the Planning and Zoning Board
retreat in April. The purpose is to discuss emerging policy issues such as Additional Permitted Uses and
Transit Oriented Development, examine the reasons behind recent appeals, and discuss some process for
addressing such issues with City Council
I. Development Review Process Overview
II. Appeals Process concerns
About 15% of the land use hearings were appealed in the last year (detailed analysis
provided). Staff is working on possible changes to the process.
III. Emerging Policy Issues
A. Additional Permitted Uses—During an appeal last November, Council asked staff and
the Planning and Zoning Board to follow up on possible changes to the APU process
B. Transit Oriented Development (TOD)—Concerns have been expressed by neighbors and
Councilmembers about the neighborhood impacts if adequate parking is not provided
and staff and P & Z have been discussing how to address these concerns in the context
of City Plan.
C. Mixed Use Development –There is some perception that the current approaches to
Mixed Use Development are not necessarily generating the desired outcome.
IV. Consideration of a process to jointly discuss emerging issues in the future.
DATE: July 9, 2013
STAFF: Laurie Kadrich
Pre-taped staff presentation: none
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Joint Work Session with the Planning and Zoning Board.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is for the Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z) to solicit
feedback from Council on policy issues: Additional Permitted Use (APU), Mixed-Use and
Transit Oriented Development (TOD); and discuss whether a more formal process should be
developed to address future emerging issues related to development applications.
During the April 5, 2013 P&Z Retreat, the Councilmember liaison suggested a joint meeting be
scheduled with Council to discuss emerging issues, examine the reasons behind recent appeals,
create a shared understanding of the development review process, and discuss any policy issues that
policy makers should address.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council support P&Z’s approach to clarify aspects of the APU process in order to
provide better protections in residential areas, and better identify how/when the APU can be
used?
2. Does Council support moving ahead with evaluating options to address parking capacity,
spillover parking, and parking demand associated with projects within the TOD or nearby
neighborhoods?
3. Does Council agree that further evaluation of mixed-use projects is warranted?
4. Does Council support developing a more formal process for the Planning and Zoning Boards
to discuss emerging issues with City Council?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Development Review Process
Staff was asked to provide an overview of the development review process. Briefly, the process
typically begins with property owner or developer making a phone call or visiting with a member
of the planning staff. Several “exploratory” meetings may be held with planners and other technical
staff to determine how a developer or owner’s idea of a project may fit into our community.
Discussions are held relative to compatibility with City Plan or sub-area plans, challenges with the
site, the zone district’s permitted uses and applicable sections of the Land Use Code (LUC). Based
on this information, the developer or owner may choose to no longer pursue the project, modify the
July 9, 2013 Page 2
project to better meet the vision of City Plan, or determine if the project is likely to match the vision
of City Plan.
Following these discussions the developer or owner submits plans for conceptual review and
receives initial feedback from all development review departments. These departments include
Historic Preservation, Environmental, and Development Review Planners and Engineers, who all
review projects for compliance with code provisions. Other technical staff members are also part
of the review process, including Stormwater, Utilities, Fire, and Zoning. Typical conceptual review
processes will last three to six (3-6) months depending upon the complexity of the project and
whether detailed plans were initially submitted for conceptual review, however it is not uncommon
to have larger projects in this informal review for twelve to eighteen (12-18) months prior to
submitting a formal application.
Prior to the formal submittal of an application, if required (as a Type 2 Review), and oftentimes at
the suggestion of staff, neighborhood meeting(s) will be held. After the neighborhood meeting,
additional staff and developer meetings may occur before an application will be submitted to
officially enter the development review process. Those meetings are oftentimes used to modify the
project in some way to respond to comments heard by neighbors. This submittal is reviewed by staff
to ensure compliance with the Land Use Code prior to scheduling a hearing. During this time
significant changes can occur to the design concept originally presented to staff during the
conceptual review meeting. Once a hearing is scheduled the project will either be reviewed by the
P&Z Board or a Hearing Officer and a decision will be rendered as to whether the project submitted
meets the requirements of the City’s LUC.
Appeals Recap
There have been a total of fourteen (14) appeals filed and heard by City Council since April of 2012.
Thirteen of the appeals were related to Planning, out of eighty-six (86) planning hearings that
occurred in the same timeframe. There was also one (1) appeal filed on a project heard before the
Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), out of thirty-seven (37) cases heard by the ZBA. Another appeal
was filed, although withdrawn by the appellant prior to hearing.
The first two appeals related to whether properties should or should not have been designated as
eligible under historic preservation codes and therefore allowed to be demolished. Following the
appeals, new code was adopted that provides a method for a property owner to appeal any
designation to the Landmark Preservation Commission and Council if necessary.
The remaining twelve (12) appeals were filed for a variety of reasons, ranging from sign posting to
the development being too large. There were three (3) appeals, District at Campus West, Regency
Lakeview and Max Flats, that were similar in nature as appellants were concerned about the size and
massing of buildings. Some code revisions were implemented during the Student Housing Action
Plan process to better respond to the compatibility and intensity issues that were being expressed.
The following is a breakdown of appeals based on hearing type:
• Six (6) of the appeals were filed on P&Z Hearings,
• Seven (7) on Hearing Officer decisions
• One (1) from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
July 9, 2013 Page 3
While there does not seem to be a pattern of why these appeals were filed, many of the appealed
projects proposed higher densities than are currently in the area. Of these projects, five are identified
as student housing projects, including Carriage House Apartments, Remington Annex, District at
Campus West, Aspen Heights, and Max Flats.
See Attachment 1 for a detailed summary of these appeals. Staff continues to work with many
interested stakeholders as well as the City Attorney’s and City Clerk’s office on possible changes
to the Appeals process.
Addition of a Permitted Use (APU) Discussion:
During the November 8, 2012 appeal of the Regency Lakeview Project, Council directed that staff
and the P&Z follow up on whether any changes were needed to the APU process. Council and
citizens had expressed concerns that the APU process was used inappropriately or should not be
used in residential areas.
The Addition of a Permitted Use (APU) process was adopted to introduce a measure of flexibility
on a parcel-specific basis subject to the requirements of a Type 2 review, i.e., Neighborhood
Meeting and P&Z Hearing. Without such a tool, the only options for evaluating a potential land use
that was not codified as a permitted use was to either rezone the parcel or add a text amendment (i.e.,
a new use) to the existing zone district. For both of these options, the result would have
ramifications on a zone district-wide or city-wide basis and not be limited to the individual parcel.
The existing process invites citizen participation and an analysis of the potential impact and possible
ways to mitigate the impact. The concept was established in the original version of the Land Use
Code in 1997 and expanded in 2008.
The P&Z requested that staff prepare information regarding the use of the APU process since it was
enacted. On June 20, 2013 P&Z held a public hearing regarding the process and discussed the
history of projects using the APU process. During the hearing the Board considered testimony from
four speakers and reviewed several e-mails from interested citizens. This discussion is summarized
as follows:
• There is a heightened concern when a use is proposed in close proximity to or within a
residential area. While some members are very concerned about the APU process in or near
neighborhoods, others indicated that such proximity is not the problem but that the process
could be improved. Compatibility and location are key variables to consider.
• Some Boardmembers expressed that there should be consideration of a size or scale
threshold beyond which an APU process could not be used. For example, if a defined
threshold is exceeded, then the applicant should be steered towards either a Text Amendment
(adding the proposed use to the zone district on a city-wide basis) or Zoning Map
Amendment (re-zoning the subject parcel to different zone district).
There seemed to be agreement that there is room for process improvements, particularly when
adjacent to residential areas. It was suggested that the Neighborhood Development Review Liaison
assist in these efforts.
See Attachment 2 for more information regarding the APU issue.
July 9, 2013 Page 4
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Discussion
Problem Statement
The vision expressed in City Plan and implemented in the Land Use Code (LUC) is for concentrated
higher density housing and mixed-use development supported by investment in infrastructure
including high-frequency transit, streetscape and urban design improvements, as well as pedestrian
and bicycling facilities. The removal of minimum parking requirements for multi-family
development within the TOD Overlay Zone is premised upon the availability and full
implementation of these infrastructure investments, especially transit service. While progress is
being made on those investments, the full system is not yet in place. In the meantime, the limited
parking for multi-family development, combined with commuter traffic, could cause spillover
parking into existing, adjacent neighborhoods.
To reduce the impacts from spillover on neighborhood on-street parking, address the demand for
parking capacity, and reduce parking demand, the following strategies could be implemented:
Parking Capacity
• Require minimum parking requirements in the TOD Overlay Zone.
• Require a Parking Impact Study for each development to determine parking demand as
identified in the Parking Plan.
• Create a parking district that would facilitate the creation of parking infrastructure as
recommended in the Midtown Plan.
• Require off-site parking storage.
• Create a parking impact fee or parking fee-in-lieu as identified in the Parking Plan.
Spillover Parking
• Create a Residential Parking Permit Program. (Implementation underway)
• Impose time limits for parking on public streets in affected areas as identified in the Parking
Plan and already implemented in the Mantz Neighborhood.
Parking Demand
• Require mitigation measures to reduce parking demand (e.g., require purchase of bus passes,
enhanced bike facilities, implement car share and bike share programs).
• Implement high-frequency transit.
• Support TOD with mixed-use development including residential, employment, and
commercial services.
See Attachment 3 for additional information.
Mixed-Use Developments
The Planning and Zoning Board has requested staff prepare information to discuss mixed-use
development as it relates to the Land Use Code (LUC). Specifically, P&Z wants to know if the
July 9, 2013 Page 5
provisions for Mixed-Use in the LUC are generating the desired outcome or is the City getting
mixed-use development that is token in nature. Some recent development proposals that met the
current definition of Mixed-Use provided a disproportionate mix of uses, e.g., a very high
percentage of residential with a small retail/commercial component. Therefore the question has been
posed that if the vast majority of a development is comprised of multi-family dwellings but has a
token retail space; does it have the same impact as a multi-family project or a mixed-use project?
See Attachment 4 for more details.
Emerging Issues
One of the purposes for this joint work session with Council is to discuss whether a more formal
process for discussing emerging policy issues should be established.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2012-2013 Appeals Matrix
2. APU Staff Report-updated 6-25-13
3. TOD Staff Report-updated 6-25-13
4. Mixed-Use Staff Report
5. Powerpoint presentation
ATTACHMENT #1
1
2012/2013 PLANNING PROJECT APPEALS
Project/Type Date of Appeal Reason(s) for Appeal Type 1 or 2 Outcome
Carriage House Apartments
Multi‐family housing
Modification of Standards
4/3/2012
Appealed by applicant –
The appellant alleges the Planning & Zoning Board
failed to conduct a fair hearing because it considered
evidence that was substantially false and grossly
misleading and failed to interpret the relevant
provisions:
Section 3.4.7(B) preservation of structures
deemed eligible for local landmark
designation and
Section 3.4.7(E)demolition of an individually
eligible structure) of the LUC
2 P&Z Decision Upheld**
**Denial of two standalone
modifications.
Remington Street Annex –
705, 711, 715 Remington St.
Multi‐family housing
Modification of Standards
4/17/2012
Appealed by applicant –
The appellant alleges the Planning & Zoning Board
failed to conduct a fair hearing because it considered
evidence that was substantially false and grossly
misleading and failed to interpret the relevant
provisions :
Section 3.4.7(B) preservation of structures
deemed eligible for local landmark
designation and
Section 3.4.7(E)demolition of an individually
eligible structure) of the LUC
2 P&Z Decision Upheld
**Denial of two standalone
modifications.
ATTACHMENT #1
2
District at Campus West PDP
Multi‐family housing
Modification of Standards
7/17/2012
There were (2) appellants for this project:
Appeal received 5/21/2012 by Zeta Tau Alpha
Fraternity Housing Corporation; Allegation that the
Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply
relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, specifically
Sections 3.2.3(A) and 3.5.1.
And appeal filed 5/19/13 by Robert M Meyer, which
was superseded by an Amended Notice of Appeal
5/29/13; containing allegations that the Hearing
Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant
provisions of the Land use Code, specifically Sections
3.2.3(D) and 3.5.1(B,C,D and G)
In summary, the appellant’s concerns were;
A) Issues with the impact of light and shadow of
buildings over 40 feet in height on the
adjacent properties.
B) The architectural character of the area, and
building size, height, bulk, mass and scale.
C) Privacy and security concerns for the sorority
located to the north of the proposed project
site.
D) That the new buildings would alter the
quality of desirable views of the neighbors.
1
Hearing Officer Decision Upheld with
the following conditions:
1. All three residential buildings
must achieve a LEED Silver
designation.
2. The north side of Building
Three must be reduced in
height from five to four stories
and feature a pitched roof
similar to the roof shown in
the approved PDP for Building
One, and
3. Along the entire north
property line, all new trees
must meet or exceed the
minimum size requirements as
specified in Section
3.2.1(F)(1).
Legacy Senior Residences PDP
Multi‐family housing
Modification of Standards
8/21/2012
7/9/2012 Save the Poudre (STP) filed a Notice of
Appeal seeking redress of Hearing Officer’s decision,
which was superseded by an Amended Notice of
Appeal was filed 7/27/12. The STP appeal asserts the
Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply
relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, specifically
Sections 2.82(H), 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1), Section
4.17(D)(3)(c)(4), Section 4.17(D)(1)(a), Section 3.2.4,
ATTACHMENT #1
3
misleading on two accounts:
The project’s Ecological Characterization
Study did not provide sufficient evidence to
support the statement that the project
would create no additional impacts to the
Poudre River Corridor, and
The applicants indicated at the Hearing there
was no other place in Fort Collins to build a
comparable project, and STP contends that
there are other sites in the City where this
project could be built.
The appeal included one of the Modifications of
Standard as well as the PDP
[there were three Modifications of Standard included
with the PDP review]
Aspen Heights PDP
Multi‐family housing
Modification of Standards
(1st) 7/24/2012
(2nd)10/30/2012
Appeals from (2) appellants were received after the
1st Administrative Hearing on 5/21/12;
Appeal received 6/19/12 by Eric Sutherland, which
was superseded by an Amended Notice of Appeal,
filed 7/10/12. Mr. Sutherland alleged that the
Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing based
on each of the four permissible “fair hearing”
grounds, including the allegation that the hearing
Officer substantially ignored its previously
established rules of procedure by failing to record
the hearing and provide a verbatim transcript [the 1st
hearing recording equipment failed]. Further, his
appeal alleges that the Hearing Officer failed to
properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of
the Land Use Code.
Appeal received 6/19/12 by Tom Lawton and Lori
Nitzel, which was superseded by an Amended Notice
of Appeal, filed 7/10/12. Tom Lawton and Lori Nitzel
alleged that the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a
fair hearing by substantially ignoring previously
established rules of procedure. This is because the
1 The 1st hearing (July 24, 2012) was
remanded to the Hearing Officer due
to lack of recording/verbatim
transcript.
Hearing Officer (2nd Hearing )Decision
Upheld with the following conditions:
1. The applicant must provide a
shuttle bus for the use of the
project residents, with the
understanding that if there is
insufficient ridership demand
to support the need for the
shuttle bus, the applicant may
apply for a minor amendment
to the approved Final Plan to
reduce or eliminate this
shuttle bus requirement.
ATTACHMENT #1
4
sign posted on the property was not upright for
some portion of the required time for posting of a
notice sign. Further, their appeal alleges that the
Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply
the standards relating to prairie dog colonies over 50
acres in size and replacement of the lost resource.
Appeal to the 2nd Administrative Hearing that was
held 8/7/12:
Appeal received 8/30/12 by Tom Lawton. Mr.
Lawton’s allegation was that the Hearing Officer failed
to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of
the Land Use Code and that the Hearing Officer failed
to conduct a fair hearing.
In summary, the appellant’s concerns were: A)
Posted Notice and Mailed Notice. B) Issues with the
fact that they would apply for a Modification to
allow Extra Occupancy Rental Houses (with more
than 3 unrelated) after the Certificate of Occupancies
had been issued, and this was not included in the
PDP. C) Stating that according to the Development
Review Guide, this project should have been a Type II
review. D) The Hearing Officer did not consider two
policies from City Plan. E) The Hearing Officer had
already made his decision based on the original
hearing.
the time of submittal of the
Final Plan and in consultation
with City staff: (a) enhance the
design of the naturalized
drainage channel transecting
the property in such a manner
as to provide an increased
width and/or vegetation
diversity provided that such
enhancement does not unduly
diminish the capacity of the
channel to carry the
anticipated storm water flow;
and (b) enhance the wetland
mitigation area through
increased size and/or
vegetation diversity.
Off‐Premise Sign (Billboard) in
the BNSF Railroad ROW; 190
West Prospect
11/6/2012
Variance to LUC Section 3.8.7(P) which prohibits the
construction of new‐off premise signs. The variance
would allow the existing off‐premise (billboard) sign
located on the BNSF railroad right‐of‐way at 1900 W.
Prospect Road to be removed and reinstalled at a new
location with the same railroad right‐of‐way (70 feet
from its current location).
ZBA ZBA Conducted a Fair Hearing**
**ZBA failed to properly interpret
and apply relevant provisions of
the Land Use Code
ATTACHMENT #1
5
Regency Lakeview Addition of
Permitted Use and PDP
Multi‐family housing
11/8/2012
The appellant alleges the Planning & Zoning Board
failed to conduct a fair hearing because the board
exceeded its authority as contained in the Code,
ignored it’s previously established rules of procedure,
and considered evidence that was substantially false
and grossly misleading and failed to interpret the
relevant provisions:
Section 1.3.4 (A) and (B) and
Section 3.6.4
2 P&Z Decision Overturned
which approved Addition of Permitted
Use for multi‐family dwellings.
Foothills Mall Redevelopment
PDP
Modification of Standards 3/19/2013
Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson – no reason
required.
2 P&Z Decision Upheld**
** overturned decisions re:
modification to 3.8.7(M)(4)(h) to allow
2 signs on College and decision re:
modification to 3.8.7(M)(4)(c) to allow
full color signs.
621 S Meldrum Street PDP
Multi‐family housing
Modification of Standards
5/7/2013
On 3/6/2013, a Notice of Appeal was filed by Eric
Skowron. An Amended Notice of Appeal was
received 3/19/2013 by Alan, Eric and Walter Skowron
with allegations that the Hearing Officer failed to
conduct a fair hearing because evidence which was
substantially false and grossly misleading and that
the Hearing Officer failed to receive all relevant
evidence offered by the appellant.
In summary, the appellant’s concerns were; A) The
possibility of rot/decay of the wood retaining wall
that would be placed on the property line, and B)
Issues with the proposed parking setbacks.
1 Hearing Officer Decision Upheld
Carriage House Apartments
PDP Multi‐family‐housing
5/21/2013
The appellant alleges the Planning & Zoning Board
failed to conduct a fair hearing because it considered
evidence that was substantially false and grossly
misleading related to trip generation values and fees.
2 P&Z Decision Upheld
ATTACHMENT #1
6
Max Flats PDP
Multi‐family housing
6/4/2013
The appellant alleges the Planning & Zoning Board
failed to conduct a fair hearing because it considered
evidence that was substantially false and grossly
misleading, and substantially ignored its’ previously
established rules of procedure when approving the
Project Development Plan application. They also
allege the Board failed to properly interpret LUC:
Sections 3.5.3 (D ) Variation in Massing
Section 3.5.3 (E) (2) Façade Treatments
Section 3.5.1.(B) General Standards ‐
Architectural Character
Section 3.5.1.(C) Building Size
2 P&Z Decision Upheld w/conditions:
1. Five trees must be planted
along the west side of the
building.
2. Juliet balconies must be
installed along the west side
of the building as shown on
the elevation presented to the
City Council on appeal.
3. The tower elements must be
added to the building as
shown on the elevation
present to City Council on
appeal.
4. All materials cladding the
building must be consistent on
all elevations around the
building
ATTACHMENT #2
1
Planning and Zoning Board Discussion
Addition of Permitted Use
June 20, 2013
After considering testimony from four speakers and reviewing several e-mails from
interested citizens, the Board discussed the Addition of Permitted Use process. This
discussion is summarized as follows:
There seems to be a heightened concern when a use is proposed in close proximity to
or within a residential area. While some members are very concerned about the A.P.U.
process in or near neighborhoods, others indicated that such proximity is not a huge
problem but that the process could be improved. Compatibility and location are key
variables to consider.
Some board members expressed that there should be consideration of a size or scale
threshold beyond which an A.P.U. process could not be used. For example, if a defined
threshold is exceeded, then the applicant should be steered towards either a Text
Amendment (adding the proposed use to the zone district on a city-wide basis) or
Zoning Map Amendment (rezoning the subject parcel to different zone district).
There seemed to be agreement that there is room for process improvements,
particularly when adjacent to residential areas. It was suggested that the Neighborhood
Development Review Liaison assist in these efforts.
The board acknowledged that for this type of process, just as there is in other
communities with Planned Unit Developments, there is a dilemma between flexibility
and predictability and that it is a challenge to find the regulatory sweet spot. The fact
that the board endorses the Planned Development Overlay District speaks to flexibility.
The fact that the Board is concerned about impacts on neighborhoods speaks to
predictability. The chairman concluded the discussion with an observation that since
2008, the community has collectively done a good job with administering the A.P.U
process and he graded the overall effort as an A-.
ATTACHMENT #3
1
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)
City Council Joint Work Session with Planning & Zoning Board
July 9, 2013
At the May 10 Work Session, the Planning and Zoning Board discussed multi-family
development and parking in the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone. More
specifically, they discussed whether the standards in the Land Use Code (LUC) are
providing an adequate capacity for the parking demand being generated by multi-family
development and how it relates to the City’s vision for the TOD Overlay Zone and the
Mason Corridor. The discussion formulated the following problem statement.
Problem Statement
The vision expressed in City Plan and implemented in the Land Use Code (LUC) is for
concentrated higher density housing and mixed-use development supported by investment
in infrastructure including high-frequency transit, streetscape and urban design
improvements, and pedestrian and bicycling facilities. The removal of minimum parking
requirements for multi-family development within the TOD Overlay Zone is premised upon
the full implementation of these infrastructure investments. While progress is being made
on those investments, the full system is not yet in place. In the meantime, the limited
parking for multi-family development, combined with commuter traffic, could cause
spillover parking into existing neighborhoods.
To reduce the impacts from spillover on neighborhood on-street parking, address the
demand for parking capacity, and reduce parking demand, the following strategies could
be implemented:
Parking Capacity
Require minimum parking requirements in the TOD Overlay Zone.
Require a Parking Impact Study (PIS) to determine parking demand as identified in
the Parking Plan.
Create a parking district that would facilitate the creation of parking infrastructure
as recommended in the Midtown Plan.
Require off-site parking storage.
Create a parking impact fee or parking fee-in-lieu as identified in the Parking Plan.
(To be discussed at November 26 Work Session.)
Spillover Parking
Create a Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP). (Ordinance scheduled for
July 16 City Council Hearing.)
Impose time limits for parking on public streets in affected areas as identified in the
Parking Plan and already implemented in the Mantz Neighborhood.
Planning, Development and
Transportation Services
Current Planning
281 North College Ave.
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov.com/currentplanning
ATTACHMENT #3
2
Parking Demand
Require mitigation measures to reduce parking demand (e.g., require purchase of
bus passes, enhanced bike facilities, implement car share and bike share
programs).
Expand support for high-frequency transit.
Support TOD with mixed-use development including residential, employment, and
commercial services.
Background
Summary of May 10 Discussion
The Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board expressed concern about the lack of minimum
parking requirements for multi-family dwellings in the TOD Overlay Zone. Members of the
Board felt that residential projects may not be providing adequate parking to meet the
anticipated demand and that there could be spillover impacts on residential
neighborhoods. While it was acknowledged that the infrastructure to support lower
parking ratios – including MAX, enhanced pedestrian and bicycle facilities, etc. – were
planned but not yet in place, Board members felt that the issue needed to be examined
further, and some felt that it was imperative for developers to secure additional parking
even with those future infrastructure improvements.
The vision for TOD, as expressed in City Plan and implemented in the Land Use Code
(LUC), is for denser infill redevelopment supported by high frequency transit, mixed-use,
and pedestrian facilities. The purpose behind the removal of minimum parking
requirements for commercial projects citywide was to acknowledge that the amount of
parking may be best determined by the private marketplace, rather than a one-size-fits-all
parking requirement. For residential projects in the TOD, the purpose for removing
parking minimums was based on the same premise, but was also intended to account for
increased transit usage, bicycling, walking, and convenience of services. In addition, it was
intended to lessen the amount of surface parking in order to increase land use intensity
and to ensure that these places are more pedestrian-friendly. The P&Z Board expressed
concern that, simply based on marketplace conditions, developers will rely on public
infrastructure such as on-street parking and thus be subsidized by other developments in
the area that were required to provide off-street parking. Additionally, the use of on-street
parking does not necessarily alleviate the lack of capacity for the anticipated parking
demand. Off-site parking and/or shared parking structures may be necessary to address
needed capacity.
The limited data, based on a one-day observation, provided by staff and reviewed by the
Board showed that there is not a current parking problem driven solely by multi-family
projects in the TOD. However, there is at least one area – north of CSU between Laurel
and Mulberry streets - where multi-family projects contribute to the parking issue with
commuter traffic and the high occupancies of single family homes. In addition, there may
be current and future projects that are unable to meet their parking demand, such as The
Summit (Choice Center). Further data will need to be collected in order to understand the
year-round impact that spillover and commuting traffic have on neighborhood streets.
ATTACHMENT #3
3
Parking for Multi-Family Projects in the TOD
Project Name Bedrooms
Parking
Provided
Required If
Outside TOD Difference
Percent
Difference
Willow Street Lofts 46 36 42 ‐6 ‐13%
Flats at the Oval 98 57 83 ‐26 ‐32%
Penny Flats 280 260 255 5 2%
Pura Vida Place 100 49 90 ‐41 ‐46%
318 W Myrtle 17 8 13 ‐5 ‐38%
Sherwood Forts 9 5 6 ‐1 ‐17%
Ram's Crossing K2 58 47 67 ‐20 ‐30%
The Summit
(Choice Center)*
676 217 471 ‐254 ‐54%
Legacy Senior
Apts* 112 52 118 ‐66 ‐56%
Average ‐46 ‐31%
Other Communities TOD Parking Requirements
o Denver Zoning Code: Maximum number of spaces shall not exceed 110% of the
minimum parking spaces required by context-specific ratios (Denver’s method of
calculating parking requirements everywhere). Parking in structures doesn’t count
toward the maximums.
o Aurora TOD Zoning Sub-District: Minimum 5 – 1.0 space per multi-family dwelling
unit depending on proximity to station compared to 1.0 – 2.5 spaces per unit
depending on number of bedrooms outside TOD.
o Lakewood Transit Mixed Use Zone District: Minimum 1 space per unit, maximum 2
spaces per unit. Parking in structures doesn’t count toward the maximums. The
parking requirements may be met on-site or off-site at a distance of up to 600 feet
from the use.
o Eugene, Oregon: Establishes parking exempt areas not subject to minimums
including Downtown and a couple other areas.
o Metro Portland recommends three actions when the parking ratio is below 1.0
space/unit:
Charge for all covered parking
Get flexcar (car-share) in your building or nearby
Provide first rate bicycle facilities (lockers, wash areas, secured bike parking,
etc.)
ATTACHMENT #4
1
Mixed-Use
City Council Joint Work Session with Planning & Zoning Board
July 9, 2013
At the June 14 Work Session, the Planning and Zoning Board discussed mixed-use
development as it relates to the Land Use Code (LUC). More specifically, whether the
provisions for Mixed-Use in the LUC are generating the desired outcome or is the city
getting mixed-use development that is token in nature. The discussion formulated the
following problem statement.
Problem Statement
Mixed-use developments are encouraged in City Plan and incentivized in the Land Use
Code (LUC) by permitting them administratively (Type 1). This is because mixed-use
developments are recognized as ideal for infill and redevelopment by creating compact
development and an active pedestrian environment that is less auto-dependent; yet they
are challenging to develop due to financing hurdles, market segmentation, and lack of
critical mass. Even with the procedural incentives in the LUC, the city is not receiving
mixed-use development proposals as envisioned in City Plan.
The LUC broadly defines Mixed-Use with no minimum mix of uses required. Accordingly,
recent development proposals that meet the current definition of Mixed-Use have provided
a disproportionate mix of uses. Typically, this has been a very high percentage of
residential with a small retail/commercial component.
The Mason Corridor and Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone call for
mixed-use development as a component of a walkable district that is anchored by high-
frequency transit. Without a significant commercial element in the mix of uses, the area
may become saturated in multi-family residential and not provide the commercial/retail
uses needed to fulfill the vision.
Background
Summary of June 14 Discussion
The Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board expressed concern that mixed-use developments
in the TOD Overlay Zone and the Mason Corridor (which significantly overlap) are not
providing a large enough commercial component along with the multi-family residential
component. The P&Z Board felt that without a significant mix of uses, including retail and
office, the Mason Corridor could no longer be a desired place to shop and values would
decrease.
Conversely, the Board acknowledged that a minimum residential density (typically around
15 dwelling units per acre throughout the corridor) is necessary to support the MAX Bus
Rapid Transit that will be introduced in 2014. Thus, the discussion focused on how to get
Planning, Development and
Transportation Services
Current Planning
281 North College Ave.
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov.com/currentplanning
ATTACHMENT #4
2
genuine mixed-use in the corridor that provides residents to support the transit line and
infill goals of the city, and the commercial to support those residents.
In order to achieve a genuine mixed-use product, the Board suggested that it become a
requirement in the TOD Overlay Zone. This could be implemented by revising the
definition of Mixed-Use to have a minimum mix of uses and/or simply not permitting multi-
family development without a mix of uses in the TOD Overlay Zone.
Land Use Code
The LUC defines Mixed-Use in two different ways: Mixed-Use, and Mixed-Use Dwelling.
Mixed-Use Dwelling is a residential use in the same building with another use; and is
considered a stand-alone land use which is permitted separately than Multi-Family
Dwelling (with one exception discussed below). Mixed-Use (without residential) is not
considered a stand-alone land use but is permitted according to the most stringent of the
proposed uses in the mix.
Mixed-Use Dwelling and Mixed-Use are broadly defined in the LUC with no minimum mix
of uses required. Nor does Mixed-Use (without residential) require the various uses to be
in the same structure but may be placed on the same lot.
Mixed-Use Dwelling is acknowledged as a desired land use through process incentive by
permitting it as a Type 1. However, the recent LUC revision that creates a threshold for
Multi-Family Dwellings (with more than 50 units or more than 75 bedrooms) to be
permitted through the Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2) has the following language
clause that requires Mixed-Use Dwellings to also comply with the threshold: “Any
residential use consisting in whole or in part of multi-family dwellings…”
Currently, the development standards in LUC Sec. 3.5.3 are being applied to all mixed-use
projects. The standards “promote the design of an urban environment that is built to
human scale to encourage attractive street fronts”. While the development standards in
LUC Sec. 3.8.30 are applied to multi-family projects. These standards “promote variety in
building form and product, visual interest, access to parks, pedestrian-oriented streets and
compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods.” These two sections of the LUC address
distinctly different forms of development. The mixed-use standards (3.5.3) seek to develop
a building that is dense, street/sidewalk fronted, and activates the pedestrian environment;
such as Max Flats or Prospect Station. Conversely, the multi-family standards (3.8.30)
seek to develop a pedestrian-oriented residential neighborhood that has open space and
housing variety; such as The Grove or The Crowne on Timberline.
ATTACHMENT #4
3
Recent Mixed-Use Projects in the Mason Corridor
Project Mix of Uses
Max Flats*
(Total: 77,000 s.f.)
Residential:
62,461 s.f.
(64 units) 81%
Retail:
1,439 s.f.
(1 unit) 1.9%
Parking:
13,100 s.f.
(39 spaces) 17%
Prospect Station*
(Total: 51,929 s.f.)
Residential:
39,622 s.f.
(47 units) 76%
Retail:
1,041 s.f.
(1 unit) 2%
Parking:
11,266 s.f.
(19 spaces) 12%
Choice Center (Summit)
(Total: 316,564 s.f.)
Residential:
270,434 s.f.
(223 units) 85%
Retail:
46,130 s.f.
15%
Parking:
Surface parking
(336 spaces)
Flats on the Oval
(Total: 56,940 s.f.)
Residential:
44,822 s.f.
(47 units) 79%
Retail:
7,476 s.f.
13%
Parking:
Surface/tucked
parking
(57 spaces)
Penny Flats Building 5
(Total: 38,933 s.f.)
Residential:
28,959 s.f.
(25 units) 74%
Commercial/Retail
7,399 s.f.
19%
Parking:
Underground
(35 spaces est.)
1
Joint Meeting
Planning and Zoning Board
&
City Council
Laurie Kadrich
Director, Community Development &
Neighborhood Services
July 9, 2013 Council Work Session
ATTACHMENT 5
2
Items for City Council
Consideration:
1. Development Review Process Overview
2. Appeals Process Concerns
3. Emerging Policy Issues
– Addition of a Permitted Use (APU)
– Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
– Mixed Use Development
4. Process for Future, Joint Discussions
3
1. Development Review Process:
Exploratory
Conceptual Review: will last 3-6 months
– Larger or more complex projects 12-18 months
Neighborhood meetings
Developer-owner meetings
Formal Application
Hearing
– P & Z Board
– Hearing Officer
.
4
Project submitted at Conceptual
5
Project at Hearing
6
Project at Conceptual
7
Project at Hearing
8
Project at Conceptual
9
Project at Hearing
10
Multi-family
11
2. Appeal Re-cap:
86 Hearings were held by planning since April
2012, of those projects 9 were appealed:
– Some projects were appealed more than once:
Aspen Heights, Carriage House and District at
Campus West (all Student Housing),
– Two were historic preservation eligibility issues
– Six (6) were P & Z, Seven (7) Hearing Officer
Some projects were appealed more than once
Code changes were made relative to the historic
preservation appeals and multi-family projects
.
12
3. Emerging Policy Issues - APU
Addition of a Permitted Use (APU):
Process used in the Regency Lakeview project that
was overturned by Council during appeal.
Question:
1. Does Council support P & Z’s decision to clarify
aspects of the APU process in order to provide
better protections in residential areas, and better
identify how/when the APU can be used?
13
3. Emerging Policy Issues - TOD
Transit Overlay District (TOD):
Area identified in main transit corridor that does not
have minimum parking requirements for
development.
Question:
2. Does Council support moving ahead with
evaluating options to address parking capacity,
spillover parking, and parking demand within the
TOD or nearby neighborhoods?
14
3. Emerging Policy Issues –
Mixed-Use
Mixed-Use:
The development of a lot, tract or parcel of land,
building or structure with two (2) or more different
uses designed, planned and constructed as a unit.
Intended to provide services near where people live
or work
15
Emerging Issue(s)
• Issue:
– Some recent developments, even though they
comply with code, may have a disproportionate
amount of residential use
Question:
3. Does Council agree that further evaluation of
mixed-use projects is warranted?
– If the vast majority of a development is
residential, are we building what was
intended?
16
4. Process for Future, Joint
Discussions
In light of recent issues related to infill, student
housing and multi-family development should
there be a consistent method of creating dialogue
between Council and P & Z prior to developing
LUC amendments?
Question:
4. Does Council support developing a more formal
process for the Planning and Zonings Boards to
discuss emerging issues with Council?
17
Items for City Council
Consideration:
Questions:
1. Does Council support P & Z’s decision to clarify
aspects of the APU process in order to provide
better protections in residential areas, and better
identify how/when the APU can be used?
2. Does Council support moving ahead with
evaluating options to address parking capacity,
spillover parking and parking demand within the
TOD or nearby neighborhoods?
18
Items for City Council
Consideration:
Questions:
3. Does Council agree that further evaluation of
mixed-use projects is warranted?
4. Does Council support developing a more formal
process for the Planning and Zonings Boards to
discuss emerging issues with Council?
*Project includes structured parking within the building.
2. To the extent reasonably
feasible, the applicant shall, at
Section 3.4.1(D)(1), and Section 3.4.1(D)(1)(k). In
addition, the STP appeal asserts that the Hearing
Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the
Hearing Officer considered evidence relevant to its
finding which was substantially false or grossly
1
Hearing Officer Decision Upheld (PDP
and three Modifications of Standard)