Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 07/24/2012 - REQUEST BY CITIZENS TO CONSIDER IMPLEMENTING A STUDATE: July 24, 2012 STAFF: Karen Cumbo, Laurie Kadrich, Seth Lorson, Beth Sowder Pre-taped staff presentation: available at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php WORK SESSION ITEM FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Request by Citizens to Consider Implementing a “Student Housing” Moratorium. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At City Council’s direction, the Community Development & Neighborhood Services Department analyzed the concerns expressed by some citizens about the impacts of multi-family housing (primarily intended as student housing) in areas adjacent to single family neighborhoods. Staff also prepared geographic information locating current and proposed developments in the city and the West Central Neighborhood area to analyze whether the intensity of this development is greater than what was planned for in City Plan. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Moratorium: are there problems occurring that put the health, safety and/or welfare of those concerned at risk that may be remedied by a moratorium? If so, in what geographic location, for what type (s) of development, and how long should a moratorium be in effect? 2. If no moratorium is enacted, what changes does City Council want staff to further research? Should those changes be added to the current Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP), or should they be addressed in a separate process and in what time frame? SHAP Project Timeline and Outreach: • June to October 2012 – Public engagement and issues analysis • October 23, 2012 - City Council work session BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Beginning in April 2012, residents from a “Coalition of Neighborhoods” provided staff and Council with information suggesting that the cumulative effect of newer multi-family developments in the City’s West Central Neighborhood is creating an adverse impact on existing neighborhoods that is not mitigated by current Land Use Code (LUC) provisions. Residents suggested that the intensity of development (bedrooms per dwelling unit) is a more realistic measure of the potential impact in neighborhoods rather than the current LUC density measures. Residents also expressed concern about parking overflow from multi-family developments into other neighborhoods, and compatibility of development with existing single-family neighborhoods. The information provided by neighbors since April was added to the Student Housing Action Plan effort. Staff also followed July 24, 2012 Page 2 up with the communities highlighted in the citizen proposal that considered implementing moratoriums. The information staff found includes: • Iowa City, IA N 60 day moratorium – to give staff time to draft new regulations for consideration at a public hearing N Do not allow 4 and 5 bedroom apartments in certain zones N Lot size requirements to limit density in certain zones N Require 1 parking space per bedroom in certain zones N Require on-site management and security plans for certain project types. • Houston/Pearland, TX N 120 day moratorium on all multifamily projects N Moratorium gave them time to figure out what the community wanted – no longer wanted traditional style apartment complexes N Changed zoning to not allow apartment complexes as a “use by right” N New mixed-use multifamily projects are desired and done as a Planned Development N Buffering requirements and staff looks at how well it blends in with the existing neighborhood. • Kent/Akron, OH N One Council member recommended a Council discussion on enacting a moratorium, and it was rejected with a 6-1 vote. • Hartford/Manchester, CT N Six month moratorium on multifamily housing imposed by Planning & Zoning Commission because of influx of market rate/affordable multifamily developments N Gave them time to review underdeveloped parcel map and future development N Resulted in minor changes but alleviated perceptions and provided better understanding N Decided to regulate residential development in business zones N Decided mixed-use development is good but should have some regulations to ensure it fits the location and surrounding uses N Require design overlay zone apply to Neighborhood Business zone. • St. Paul, MN N Moratorium preventing conversion of existing owner-occupied single-family homes and duplexes to college student rentals within a specified geographic area for a period of one year or until a zoning study has been completed (moratorium expected to last until August 2012) N City Council directed the Planning Commission to conduct a formal zoning study and report options to regulate student housing in the defined area N Possible recommendations include: July 24, 2012 Page 3 P Establish a Student Housing Neighborhood Impact Overlay District P Define a “student dwelling” P Require minimum distance between student dwellings of 150 feet P Create zones for higher density student housing near or connected to transit P Provide more on-campus housing or requirements P Deal with student behavior through lease terms, education and outreach, and enforcement P Housing buy-back or incentive program to convert student housing back to owner-occupied N Expecting Council to review proposed ordinances in June 2012 N Both opposition and support for proposed actions. The examples provided in the proposal of regulatory actions taken by other communities to preserve single-family residential character are very similar to actions already taken by the City of Fort Collins. Fort Collins has an Occupancy Ordinance that limits the number of unrelated people who live in a dwelling unit to no more than three. The Occupancy Ordinance also requires a disclosure statement to be signed by the property owner and the tenants at the time of lease signing and available on premise when requested, and Neighborhood Services has a full time inspector whose primary duty is to investigate over-occupancy complaints. Since January 2007, when the revised Occupancy Ordinance went into effect, 454 occupancy cases have been reported. Fines are calculated based on the number of people over-occupied and for how long. Significant fines ($31,000 and $38,000 per property) were levied in 2011. Property owners, managers and tenants can be held liable for over-occupancy violations. Landlords often utilize “rent by the room” leasing measures for some multi-family developments and in single-family rental units. This method of leasing addresses concerns that landlords have if some of the tenants are not responsible while others are. There is no physical difference between units that are rented by the room or by the unit. Extra occupancy rental space is approved through the same process, regardless of whether the landlord is leasing by the room or by the unit. Pending Multi-family Projects: Pending Multi-family Projects: City of Fort Collins Project “Stage” Type Number of Projects Number of Parking Sp. Number of Bedrooms Number of Units Conceptual (since January 2012) 8 N/A N/A 982 units Submitted PDP 0 0 0 0 Approved PDP 6 1,338 1,514 670 Submitted FP 0 0 0 0 Approved FP (Under Construction) 7 1,401 1,992 891 City of Fort Collins Total 21 2,543 units total July 24, 2012 Page 4 Multi-family Projects: West Central Neighborhoods Plan Area (WCNP) (see Attachment 3 for boundaries) Project “Stage” Type Number of Projects Number of Parking Sp. Number of Bedrooms Number of Units Conceptual (since January 2012) 4 N/A N/A 229 units Submitted PDP 0 0 0 0 Approved PDP 3 649 808 259 units Submitted FP 0 0 0 0 Approved FP (Under Construction) 2 542 670 254 units West Central Total 9 742 units total N/A = During conceptual review this information is not available. PDP = Project Development Plan FP = Final Plan Enacting a moratorium on multi-family projects, either citywide or just in the West Central Neighborhoods area, would not affect any approved developments. It would however, prevent any that have been discussed in concept (38% of total units identified) from moving forward during the time the moratorium was in effect. Currently, a moratorium would result in the delay of four projects in the WCNP (229 units total), or 982 units in 8 projects citywide. STUDENT HOUSING ACTION PLAN (SHAP) In 2011, the City, in conjunction with CSU and other stakeholders, undertook a study of housing needs attributable to increased student enrollment and the impacts on existing neighborhoods. This project includes consideration of exactly the kinds of issues being raised now – intensity, compatibility, parking, and neighborhood expectations. A meeting was held last week with a working group (including residents, developers, CSU, and other interested citizens) on intensity and on compatibility, including both site characteristics such as buffering (distance and type) as well as bulk, height, architecture, and lighting, as well as operational compatibility. Additional work group discussions on parking, transportation, and accountability will convene in the next few weeks. A subsequent action plan is scheduled for public feedback and board/commission consideration in August and September, and a Council work session on October 23. This is the logical venue for consideration of the evolving discussion of the SHAP study, as well as the concerns and contributions of the neighbors that were raised again this spring. Land Use Code changes might include, but not be limited to, the following: • Create a more extensive compatibility buffer area between multi-family developments that abut or are adjacent to existing single-family neighborhoods. For example, a buffer distance could be established; development height within the buffer shall be no taller than the tallest of the adjacent single-family dwellings. Another method would be to enact reduced density requirements within the buffer or adjacent to single-family residences resulting in smaller structures next to the single-family neighborhoods. July 24, 2012 Page 5 • Currently multi-family dwellings are defined as any residence with three or more dwellings. Additional definitions of multi-family dwellings could be included to add more requirements to those developments that have a more intense impact on the adjoining neighborhoods. For example, the impact of large apartment complexes versus triplexes. • Further evaluate the concerns expressed by neighbors regarding parking and consider implementing other parking programs to reduce demand and address parking spillover impacts. A parking study is currently underway and options such as parking reduction measures, expansion of Transfort pass programs, and unbundling the parking from development where parkers pay for parking separately from rent are concepts being considered. A neighborhood permit program to address parking spillover is also being evaluated as part of the study. MORATORIUM CONSIDERATIONS Neighbors have requested that City Council enact a moratorium to prevent any further multi-family projects from developing for a period of time in order that concerns related to the cumulative impacts to single family residential areas could further be studied and options presented to mitigate adverse impacts to single family neighborhoods. The moratorium could be limited geographically or applied citywide. It would apply to projects that are not yet approved. Although concerns have been expressed about the impacts of some multi-family projects outside of the West Central Neighborhoods area, there is not a concentration of projects in other neighborhoods as there is in the West Central Neighborhood. To date, no moratorium has been requested in other areas. It is not clear that there is data to support a moratorium. To date, work completed by staff includes extensive research and evaluation of existing and proposed multi-family developments, intensity of current and proposed developments, neighborhood compatibility, parking impacts, noise-nuisance violations, and possible LUC changes. Data was then developed for activities within the WCNP. This detailed information is found in Attachment 1, Planning Analysis. A citywide moratorium would affect 982 units in 8 projects; a moratorium in the West Central Neighborhoods area would limit 229 units in four projects. STAFF RECOMMENDATION With or without a moratorium staff recommends all options to be folded into the following processes for public engagement, feedback, recommendations to correspond with the process checked in the following table: July 24, 2012 Page 6 Source Issues Suggested Methods for Addressing Issues SHAP Parking Plan WCNP Update NC* Intensity vs. Density T NC* Mitigation of increased density with parks T NC* Evaluate cumulative impacts of development including traffic, noise, and parking TTT NC* Compatibility and buffering T NC* Parking overflow T Staff/ Community Evaluate prescriptive standards for 4+ per unit development T Staff/ Community Define a variety of multi-family housing types, compatibility T *NC = Neighborhood Coalition ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Analysis, prepared by staff 2. Resident Concern Letters – April, May, June 3. Map-Multi-Family Projects, Existing and Proposed – WCNP 4. Map-Zone Districts Permitting Multi-Family – WCNP 5. Map-Single-Family Lots and Vacant-Developable Land – WCNP 6. Map-Single Dwellings, Multi-Family Dwellings and Noise-Nuisance Violations – WCNP 7. Map-Single-Family Dwellings, Multi-Family Dwellings and Noise-Nuisance Violations- citywide 8. Conceptual and Entitled Multi-Family Development Projects 9. WCNP SAR Response, prepared by staff 10. Student Housing Action Plan Update, June 14, 2012 11. Powerpoint presentation 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 Memorandum Staff: Seth Lorson, City Planner Laurie Kadrich, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Director RE: PLANNING ANALYSIS: Citizen’s concerns regarding the proliferation of multi- family development in the West Central Neighborhoods area. Introduction Concerned citizens from “Coalition of Neighborhoods” have provided information suggesting an over-proliferation of student-oriented and/or multi-family housing and a petition for a twelve month moratorium on this type of development, specifically in letters dated April 4, 2012, May 1, 2012 and June 5, 2012 (see Attachment 2). The requested moratorium is to provide the City with the opportunity to study the topics of concern and implement regulatory mechanisms to mitigate negative impacts of multi-family housing. The principal topics of concern that have been raised are as follows: I. Intensity of development (bedrooms per dwelling unit). II. Areas in which the development is being proposed and its cumulative effects. III. Parking overflowing from multi-family developments into other neighborhoods. IV. Compatibility of development with existing neighborhoods. Student housing or student-oriented housing is not defined in the Land Use Code (LUC). The closest definitions found in LUC are dormitory and dwelling, multi-family. Section 5.1.2.: Dormitory shall mean a building used as group living quarters for students or religious adherents as an accessory use for a bona fide college, university, boarding school, seminary, convent, monastery or other similar institutional use. Dwelling, multi-family shall mean a dwelling containing three (3) or more dwelling units, not including hotels, motels, fraternity houses and sorority houses and similar group accommodations. Colorado State University has a list of apartment complexes that market to students but none rent exclusively to students. One could speculate that the rent-by-the-room model of housing would appeal only to students but again this model does not rent exclusively to students. The definition for multi-family dwelling seems to most accurately describe the housing type of concern for citizens. 1 ATTACHMENT 1 2 I. Intensity of Development Concerns have been expressed that the Land Use Code (LUC) does not adequately address intensity of development and limits its focus to density. Density is measured as dwelling units per acre (DU/Ac) per Sec. 3.8.18. Intensity is not currently defined in the LUC, however it could be measured by the number of bedrooms per dwelling unit (Bd/DU) which could then be applied to the density measure (Bd/DU/Ac). A. Current Status of Proposed Multi-family Development Projects: Below are tables with information about multi-family projects* in various stages in development: Conceptual Review, Project Development Plan (PDP), or Final Plan (FP). Please note that the Conceptual Review projects do not usually provide the number of parking spaces or bedrooms, due to the very preliminary and speculative nature of the Conceptual Review at which time many aspects of a project are not yet determined (see Attachment 3). Pending Multi-family Projects: City of Fort Collins Project “Stage” Type Number of Projects Number of Parking Sp. Number of Bedrooms Number of Units Conceptual (since January 2012) 8 N/A N/A 982 units Submitted PDP 0 0 0 0 Approved PDP 6 1,338 1,514 670 Submitted FP 0 0 0 0 Approved FP (Under Construction) 7 1,401 1,992 891 City of Fort Collins Total 21 2,543 units total Multi-family Projects: West Central Neighborhoods Plan Area (See Attachment 3) Project “Stage” Type Number of Projects Number of Parking Sp. Number of Bedrooms Number of Units Conceptual (since January 2012) 4 N/A N/A 229 units Submitted PDP 0 0 0 0 Approved PDP 3 649 808 259 units Submitted FP 0 0 0 0 Approved FP (Under Construction) 2 542 670 254 units West Central Total 9 742 units total * The Legacy Senior Housing project has been omitted because the proposal is exclusively for senior citizens. 3 Concern has also been expressed about the proliferation of four bedroom units and the possible negative impacts associated. Out of the projects recently approved and currently under construction (noted in the above charts) 15.5 % (242 DU/1,561 DU) of the units have four bedrooms. B. Land Use Code: Below are the density standards for the zone districts which permit multi-family dwellings in the West Central Neighborhoods Plan area (see attachment 4). According to the Land Use Code, per unit occupancy is limited to three unrelated occupants in multi-family dwellings. In order to increase the number of occupants allowed in a unit, the decision maker (Planning and Zoning Board or Hearing Officer) must make the finding that adequate open space, parking, recreational areas, and public facilities are provided. The LUC is silent on what amount of the aforementioned elements of a project are required to be considered “adequate” with the exception of parking (addressed later in this report). Zone Districts in the WCNP Area Permitting Multi-Family Dwellings Zone District Decision Maker Density Employment (E) Planning and Zoning Board Minimum average: 7 DU/Ac. (Mix of housing types required) No maximum. High Density Mixed- Use Neighborhood (HMN) Hearing Officer Minimum average: 20 DU/Ac. No maximum. Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) Hearing Officer Minimum average: ≤ 20 acre development: 7 DU/Ac., > 20 acre development: 12 DU/Ac. (Mix of housing types required) No maximum. Low Density Mixed- Use Neighborhood (LMN) Hearing Officer (< 8 units per building) Planning and Zoning Board (> 8 units per building) ≤ 20 acre development: 3-9 DU/Ac., > 20 acre development: 4- 9 DU/Ac. (Mix of housing types required) Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) Hearing Officer (< 4 units per building) Planning and Zoning Board (> 4 units per building) 24 DU/Ac subject to P&Z hearing. No maximum. Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Planning and Zoning Board Considered a secondary use with a mix of uses required. No maximum. 4 development, as measured by bedrooms per dwelling unit, by limiting occupants of a dwelling unit to three unrelated people. The occupancy can be increased through an application and approval process. All of the zone districts that permit multi-family dwellings within the West Central Neighborhoods Plan area, with the exception of LMN, do not have maximum densities. A de-facto limit on density is created by site constraints and building size limitations. D. Possible Code Changes: 1. Change the measure of density (DU/Ac) to intensity (Bd/DU): In order to implement this change, we would need to research other communities utilizing this measure, figure out what the equal standard would be in intensity from our current density standards (e.g. 7 DU/Ac = (x) Bd/DU), and conduct extensive public outreach to stakeholders to understand the need and the impact of current conditions and proposed changes. If this is a preferred direction, the LUC would need to be updated to include corresponding mitigation standards. 2. Define adequate open space, recreational areas, & public facilities: This would provide prescriptive standards for mitigating the impacts of adding extra occupants (4+ per unit). For example, these standards could require a certain number of square feet of open space for each extra occupant. II. Areas of Development The citizens’ letters of concern have specified the areas of multi-family impact as being “neighborhoods near CSU”, “south and west of campus”, and that the concerned citizens are all residents of the area bound by College Avenue, Drake Road, Shields Street, and Prospect Road. These areas coincide with the West Central Neighborhoods Plan area, and therefore is the principal area of discussion. The letters also suggest that the cumulative affect of multiple multi-family developments in an area should be considered when reviewing proposed projects. A. Current Status of the Areas Multi-Family Developments are Proposed: The existing multi-family dwellings in the West Central Neighborhoods Plan area are located in the HMN, MMN, CC, E, and NC zone districts (see Attachment 3). Multi-family dwellings are permitted in the zone districts shown in the table on page three (3). According to the zone district’s purpose statements, HMN is intended for “higher density multi-family housing”, MMN is intended for “concentrated housing”, CC is intended for a mix of uses including “higher density housing”, E is intended for “workplaces”, and NC is intended as a neighborhood commercial core. The multi-family developments being proposed in the West Central Neighborhood Plan area are in zone districts that permit such development. The City Structure Plan Map which, through community input during the Plan Fort Collins process, “provides direction for how the city will change over time.” Within the West Central Neighborhoods Plan area, the City’s Structure Plan Map and the City’s Zoning Map do not substantially vary. This suggests that the current zoning in place has been informed and implemented based on the Plan Fort Collins community process. Concerns have been expressed about the “cumulative effect” of multiple multi-family housing developments on the West Central Neighborhoods Plan area. This area has been 5 zoned, according to City Plan and the West Central Neighborhoods Plan, to provide for higher density housing (see section V of this report). As various multi-family projects are proposed, traffic studies and corresponding infrastructure improvements are required based on the cumulative traffic counts at affected intersections. Attachment five (5) shows the remaining vacant-developable property within the West Central Neighborhoods Plan area. This property is defined as parcels or lots that are currently vacant, do not have an approved project, are not owned by a public entity (CSU, CSURF, Department of Agriculture, City of Fort Collins etc…), and are located in zone districts that permit multi-family dwellings. Of particular interest are the parcels (in green) on the southeast corner of Shields Street and Prospect Road. These parcels directly abut the Sheely neighborhood and are comprised of two different zone districts: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN). Due to the NC zoning, these parcels cannot be developed entirely as multi-family but must include a substantial commercial component. B. Summary: The zoning map is consistent with the West Central Neighborhoods Plan and City Plan. Therefore, we are seeing multi-family development proposed and constructed in the areas envisioned through the community process for both the West Central Neighborhood Plan and City Plan. C. Possible Code Changes: 1. Rezoning to lower density zone districts: This change would be inconsistent with current adopted land use plans and policies, as shown in the structure plan, and would require community input and an amendment to City Plan. 2. Lowering the density in existing zone districts: This would be inconsistent with City Plan’s envisioned density and the Zoning Map, and have ramifications for other areas of the City with the same zoning designations. 3. Provide for a lower density transition area between multi-family developments and single-family neighborhoods: This change would require changes to the Land Use Code, and would also need community input. 4. Update the West Central Neighborhoods Plan: This change would require changes to the Land Use Code, and would also need community discussion. The recommendations could inform changes in the LUC regarding this area. III. Parking Citizens have expressed concern that multi-family housing projects have not provided adequate parking and therefore have overflowed into adjacent neighborhoods. A. Current Status of Parking for Proposed Multi-family Developments: The City does not have sufficient information to evaluate this concern. Without parking occupancy data, it is difficult to attribute parking on public streets to spillover from a multi- family development or any other adjacent land use. Some neighborhoods close to CSU are impacted by students and employees commuting to the campus. 6 Below are the parking statistics for multi-family projects that are currently in the development process (conceptual review omitted due to incomplete data), recently approved or are under construction: City of Fort Collins: Multi-family under Development or Construction Dwelling Units Bedrooms Parking Spaces 1,561 3,506 2,739 (Please see Attachment 7) The City of Fort Collins provides 1.8 parking spaces per unit and 0.78 parking spaces per bedroom. West Central Neighborhoods Area: Multi-family under Development or Construction. Dwelling Units Bedrooms Parking Spaces 513 1,478 1,191 (Please see Attachment 7) The West Central Neighborhoods Plan area provides 2.3 parking spaces per unit and 0.81 parking spaces per bedroom. B. Land Use Code: Parking requirements for multi-family housing are addressed in the Land Use Code based on the amount of bedrooms per unit as follows: Number of Bedrooms/Dwelling Unit Parking Spaces Per Dwelling Unit* One or less 1.5 Two 1.75 Three 2.0 Four and above 2.5 These standards are based on achieving a balance between too little parking and too much parking. Units with one or fewer bedrooms are required to provide more than 1 parking space per bedroom while 2+ bedroom units are required to provide less than one parking space per bedroom. A study done in 2004 as part of the Atrium Suites Project found that the City parking requirements were in alignment with other communities of similar size and context. In the Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone (TOD), there are no minimum parking requirements for residential uses. The purpose of this overlay is to encourage infill and redevelopment that relies on high frequency transit in concert with City Plan (see section V of this report). C. Summary: For current development in the City, 78% of bedrooms in multi-family dwellings have a (one) parking space provided and in the West Central Neighborhoods Plan area 81% of 7 bedrooms have a (one) parking space provided. According to the 2011 Student Housing Rental Survey, 81% of students brought a car with them for use during the academic year. According to this data, the Land Use Code regulations provide sufficient parking for the developments that are being proposed yet not excessive as City Plan suggests. There is currently no evidence of spillover parking from existing developments, although this issue needs to be studied more thoroughly. D. Possible Code Changes: 1. Require higher minimum parking requirements for residential development: This direction is not supported by City Plan policies per Policy LIV. 30.6 (see section V of this report). Additional data collection and analysis would be needed to verify whether or not the existing minimums are working. 2. Institute minimum parking requirements in the TOD: Again, this action is not supported by current City Plan policies per Policy LIV. 30.6 (see section V of this report). Development projects within the TOD near CSU to date have provided parking despite that lack of minimums. 3. Institute other parking programs to reduce demand and address parking spillover impacts: Parking reduction measures are the least expensive way to address parking demand. Free Transfort passes are a form of parking reduction and enable students to live without having a vehicle. Other programs, such as unbundling the parking from development where parkers pay for parking separately from rent, have been effectively applied in other communities to reduce parking demand. In addition, a neighborhood permit program to address parking spillover is being considered as part of the draft Parking Plan and suggested in the West Central Neighborhoods Plan (see section VI of this report). IV. Compatibility Concerned citizens have expressed that the Land Use Code does not adequately address compatibility between new multi-family development and existing single-family neighborhoods. A. Current Status of Compatibility Between Single and Multi-family Dwellings: Compatibility between land uses is typically pertains to two aspects: physical and operational. Physical compatibility is the consistency with the pattern of an existing neighborhood in characteristics such as lot size, placement of a structure on the lot (setbacks), structure massing, height and scale, and architecture. Operational compatibility of a development would ensure that the use does not impose noise, glare, light, odor or any other nuisance activities on adjacent uses. A combination of the two aspects is necessary to achieve harmonious infill development. Further research will need to be done to establish current conditions of physical compatibility, but aspects of operational compatibility partially can be measured by records of noise and nuisance complaints and code violations. In the last year (June 2011 – June 2012) the City Police Department issued 516 citations or arrests. Of those issued, 403 (78%) were issued to single-family dwellings and 113 (22%) were issued to multi-family 8 dwellings (see Attachment 6). Of the 113 citations issued to multi-family dwellings, 18 (15%) were in complexes with 4-bedroom units. B. Land Use Code: The purpose of Section 3.5.1 (Building and Project Compatibility) is to “ensure the physical and operational characteristics of proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered within the context of the surrounding area.” This section is applicable to all multi-family development proposals. Specifically, Section 3.5.1 addresses architectural character (subsection B), building size, height, bulk, mass, and scale (C), privacy considerations (D), building materials (E) and color (F), building height for buildings exceeding 40’ (G), land use transitions (H), outdoor storage areas/mechanical equipment (I), and operational/physical compatibility (J). Although these standards have the intent to ensure new development is compatible with existing neighborhoods, the language used is not prescriptive. Many of the standards utilize language such as “shall be similar” or “shall be compatible”. Language like “similar” and “compatible” are subjective by nature. Non-prescriptive standards may be advantageous as they are able to respond to on-site conditions and to avoid imposing unnecessary or arbitrary restrictions on development. C. Summary: City Plan (see section V of this report) and the West Central Neighborhoods Plan (see section VI of this report) strongly emphasize infill and adjacent land use compatibility with existing neighborhoods (see sections V & VI of this report). The Land Use Code dedicates and entire section to compatibility, but the tools are non-prescriptive. D. Possible Code Changes: 1. Create a more extensive compatibility buffer and gradation area: This would be a buffer area between multi-family developments that abut existing single-family neighborhoods. a. A certain, non-arbitrary, buffer distance would have to be established. Within this buffer area no structures shall be developed. b. A gradation area just beyond the buffer would require development to be no taller than the tallest of the adjacent single-family dwellings, then increase in height with distance from the single-family neighborhood. c. A reduced density could also be established but that would most likely be a de facto result of smaller structures. d. A portion of the buffer area could be dedicated to dense landscaping to reduce the operational impacts. These code change could be implemented in a short amount of time (three months). 2. Define a variety of multi-family housing types: Currently, multi-family dwellings are defined as any residence with three or more dwellings. Additional definitions of multi-family dwellings could be established to recognize the differences between tri-plexes, four-plexes, row homes, and, small and large apartment complexes. This could provide the land use tools to create better gradients between high density and low density development. In order to implement this change, a catalog of different multi-family product types would have to be created, zone district standards based on a prescriptive gradient of product types would have to be introduced, and extensive public outreach to stakeholders is necessary to understand the need and impact of current conditions and proposed changes. 9 V. City Plan City Plan, the City of Fort Collins comprehensive plan, was adopted in February, 2011. This section provides excerpts from City Plan that are relevant to the above discussion. City Plan addresses housing and density as being needed in a variety of types and locations, and for a variety of people and income levels.  Policy LIV 5.3 – Identify Additional Redevelopment and Infill Areas as Appropriate: Utilize subarea plans to help designate areas for redevelopment and infill that are not identified on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map. Within these plans, support the development of appropriate design standards to protect the character of neighborhoods and to ensure conformance with City Plan.  Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area.  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. City Plan speaks to the importance of residential uses amongst the necessary mix of uses on and around CSU campus.  CAMPUS DISTRICTS. Purpose: Campus Districts include the various campuses of Colorado State University and Front Range Community College, which serve as centers of higher education in the City. In addition to being education, research and employment centers, these Campus Districts also include supporting retail and residential areas either on or adjacent to the campus. The location and surrounding development context of each Campus District varies; therefore, unique urban design and environmental concerns will need to be addressed for each.  Principle LIV 37: The campuses of Colorado State University and Front Range Community College will be integrated into the community structure, and treated as prominent community institutions and major destinations served by the City’s multi- modal transportation system.  Policy LIV 37.3 - Supporting Uses and Housing: Include student-oriented housing, retail, services, and entertainment designed to function as part of the Campus District. Form strong pedestrian and bicycle linkages throughout the district and provide connections to city systems beyond the campus. City Plan calls for minimizing the impacts of parking on the urban environment. Policies support the elimination of minimum parking ratios, and the establishment of maximum ratios, in order to support transit, bicycling and walking. The concept is premised upon development determining its individual parking needs rather than a “one-size-fits-all” approach with more general City-mandated minimums. The purpose is also to ensure that developments do not over park their sites, and create large expanses of parking that is infrequently used. 10  Policy LIV 30.4 – Reduce Visual Impacts of Parking: Reduce the visual impacts of parking lots from primary pedestrian streets, plazas, and public spaces and promote a more pedestrian-friendly environment by: o Locating lots behind buildings, in side yards, or in the interior of blocks. o Softening and screening their visual impacts with a perimeter landscape buffer. o Breaking large lots into smaller blocks of parking separated by landscaped islands. o Allowing appropriate small businesses (e.g., carts, kiosks) to foster human activity. All parking must provide for visibility, personal safety, and security.  Policy LIV 30.6 – Reduce Land Devoted to Surface Parking Lots: To support transit use and a more pedestrian-friendly environment, reduce land devoted to surface parking lots as infill and redevelopment occur. Adhere to maximum parking ratios for commercial uses and reduce or eliminate minimum parking requirements for transit-supportive uses. Encourage alternatives such as structured parking, angled or parallel on-street parking, shared parking, and others as appropriate. City Plan explicitly says that infill development shall be compatible with existing neighborhoods.  Principle LIV 6: Infill and redevelopment within residential areas will be compatible with the established character of the neighborhood. In areas where the desired character of the neighborhood is not established, or is not consistent with the vision of City Plan, infill and redevelopment projects will set an enhanced standard of quality.  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 37.4 – Campus District Edges: Development within Campus Districts should be compatible with surrounding uses and their design characteristics. Mitigate negative impacts on surrounding areas as development occurs. VI. West Central Neighborhoods Plan The West Central Neighborhoods Plan, adopted in March 1999, is the sub-area plan for the area to which this report refers. This section provides excerpts from the report that are relevant to the above discussion. The West Central Neighborhoods Plan speaks to measuring impacts of development based on intensity as opposed to density. Goals:  LU 13: Clarify the differences between “density” (housing units per acre) and “intensity” and the related impacts of each.  LU 14: Develop a measurement of intensity of use in residential zoning. 11  HO 8: Differentiate between permitted densities of housing units and the type of occupancy (“intensity”) that can be expected in the units so that a more accurate accounting of potential impacts can be made. Implementation Actions:  Land Use, F.: The City should evaluate the effectiveness of the current dependence on the definition of “family” (which limits occupancy of dwellings to no more than 3 unrelated individuals)as a deterrent to overcrowding and its effects on evaluating the “density” (housing units per acre) and “intensity” of development and redevelopment proposals. The West Central Neighborhoods Plan takes a closer look at the areas south and west of CSU campus. It focuses on neighborhood character, housing, and transportation goals. The plan identifies areas for conservation, development and redevelopment; and land use and housing densities. Maps can be found in the West Central Neighborhoods Plan: http://www.fcgov.com/advanceplanning/pdf/w-central-neighborhood-doc.pdf. The West Central Neighborhoods Plan suggests ways to limit “overflow parking” from adjacent uses onto residential streets. Goals:  PK 1: The provision of adequate parking, in both single-family and multi-family residential areas and in commercial/business areas within the context of the City’s Congestion Management Plan’s goals, is critical to maintaining the character of the West Central Neighborhoods.  PK 3: Overflow parking from Colorado State University, shopping areas, and events at Rolland Moore Park along residential streets should be limited to the extent practical to permit reasonable access to street parking for area residents. Implementation Actions:  Parking, E.: The establishment of a parking permit program whereby each resident would receive a limited number of permits for on-street parking should be evaluated.  Parking, F.: Parking time limit restrictions for some streets (i.e., 2 hour limits) should be evaluated. The West Central Neighborhoods Plan speaks to the need for multi-family and student housing being compatible with existing single-family neighborhoods. Goals:  LU 7: Insure that high density infill development is sensitive to existing neighborhoods, preserves appropriate open space, and creates or maintains a desirable character for the neighborhoods.  SD 1: Provide landscape screening/buffering between streets and residential neighborhoods and between adjacent land uses. Implementation Actions:  Current and Future Student Housing Needs. B.: New development intended for student housing should be designed to be compatible to the surrounding neighborhoods by being evaluated from the perspectives of both density (housing units per acre) and intensity. 12  Future Housing Needs. B.: Certain areas consistent with the land use and housing densities policies presented in this Plan should be designated to buffer high traffic volume streets, commercial or high density multi-family areas from single-family neighborhoods, with the intent of mitigating traffic, noise, and other issues. These buffer areas could be made up of lower density multi-family housing, such as town homes and other attached single-family residences and small-scale apartment buildings or professional and service office uses. Targeted areas include: areas which have been converted to rentals; areas which may be in considerable disrepair; areas which adjoin vacant land; or areas where well-maintained neighboring areas are being adversely impacted. The following should be designated as buffer areas (see Map 3): o the property located between the properties fronting on Westward Drive and the properties fronting on University Avenue, to buffer residences on Westward Drive o south side of Prospect Road, between “Young’s Pasture” and Shields Street o the west side of Shields Street ATTACHMENT 2 From: Ann Hunt [mailto:arh4@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 5:11 PM To: City Leaders; Karen Cumbo Subject: Proposal for multifamily housing moratorium/code and policy review To: Madam Mayor Weitkunat City Councilmembers Horak, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell Darrin Atteberry Karen Cumbo From: Jana Brandes Sarah Burnett Per Hogestad Colleen Hoffman Ann Hunt Date: May 1, 2012 RE: Proposal for multifamily housing moratorium/code and policy review We are all neighbors who live in the square mile bounded by College, Shields, Prospect and Drake and we have been meeting regarding increasing pressures on our neighborhoods from newly approved and proposed “student housing” projects, the proposed CSU stadium, and increasing traffic congestion. We are very concerned about the future of our central Fort Collins area. We communicated our concern to you at the first Council meeting in April and followed up with a letter to you on 4/4/2012 regarding the use of the West Central Neighborhoods Plan as a guide for dealing with neighborhood pressures from rapid development. We have met with both Kelly Ohlson and Gerry Horak regarding this matter and have done follow‐up investigations to determine how similar problems have been handled in other college communities in other states. Our findings are presented here in 5 different attachments, one of which (Moratorium pdf) is a summary of our findings and proposal that pausing student housing development would allow time to reassess multifamily standards, to learn about CSU’s stadium plan, and to consider the Student Housing Action Plan recommendations due in the fall of 2012. We know new developments will come, but we hope that our central neighborhoods can continue to exist side by side with these new projects and not be overcome by them because we lack the tools to deal with the numbers and types of developments encouraged by the current economy. Thank you for your service to all the neighborhoods of Fort Collins and for your attention to our concerns. Ann Hunt 1800 Wallenberg Dr. 970‐484‐5242 Need  for  Multifamily  Housing  Code  and  Policy  Review  /  Moratorium Background A  s many  CSU  new  grows,  efforts  there  to  meet  is  an  increasing  this  need  with  need  very  for May  housing  large,  1,  2012  single-­‐  for  the purpose  students.  “student  Recently,  housing”  there  projects,  have  been  in contrast demographic housing”  to  projects  the  groups.  more  will  typical  Unlike  not  be  multifamily  traditional  appealing  to  multifamily 2 Why  A  Moratorium?  -­  Relevant  Data  Shows  Quick  Action  Is  Needed T  he year “student  assumption  for  the  housing”  next  of  10  complexes,  the  years.  Student  This  without  Housing  assumption  considering  Action  presumes  Plan  actual  group  that  numbers  is  15,  that 000  1,  people  and 500  demographics  “beds”  will  want  should  to  be  of  live  the  added  in  CSU  each student A  ctual •  Increase Overall Fall Fall 3 Examples  of  Regulatory  Actions  to  Preserve  the  Single-­Family,  Residential  Character  of Campus  Neighborhoods  from  other  cities • Implementing having (More  examples  adequate  moratoriums  of  standards  cities  that  for  have  to  this  allow  implemented  new  staff  type  time  of  multifamily  moratoriums  to  address  housing  concerns  available  –  arising  typically  on  request.  from  120  not  days. ) From  Akron,  OH  (2011):  "We’ve  got  three  very 4 Measures • Immediate policies neighborhoods,  to  Consider  and  moratorium  to  assess  streets,  in  Fort  impact  bike  on  Collins  student  lanes,  of  the  and  housing  thousands  governmental  projects  of  beds  to  services.  already  allow  time  under  to  assess  development  and  implement  on  our • Policies o o Develop (Review works (  to one Our  be  option:  compatibility  assessed  in  how  intensity  the  the  per  many  could  interpretation  bedroom  measures  codes  recently  include:  do 5 1 Completed/Flats CSU  (  on completed)  the  Oval Approved:  1,583 100 643 (Aspen  Hall,  Academic  Village) CSU CSU  (  (planned planned  net  net  increases  increases  by  by  2012/  2014) 13) 240 600 ((Parmalee, Lory  Redevelopment  Braiden)  net  increase) Under Capstone The  Grove/  Construction: Campus  Crest  1,410 700 612 Pura Proposed/  Vida Under  Consideration  (likely  not 100  a  complete  list):  1,942 The Landmark Parcel  District  SE  of  Expansion  Prospect/Shields 732 150 200  (estimate) Aspen Shields/Gilgalad/  Heights Springfield Hill  Pond 712 100 48  (  (estimate) estimate) 2 Number 71% T  ype  of  prefer  Community:  of  Roommates:  0,  1, To: City Leaders From: Coalition of Neighborhoods (contact person: Colleen Hoffman at cohoff@comcast.net) Date: June 5, 2012 Re: WORK SESSION AND MORATORIUM REQUEST Problem Statement: Our Land Use Code does not have provisions for evaluating the very different impacts of a new, more intense, type of multi‐family housing, facilities that are designed exclusively for college students. These projects are rented by the bedroom and require parental signatures on lease contracts. Thousands of “beds” are being built in this new type of housing for which we have no standards. Neighborhood plans recommend steps to buffer and mitigate the impacts of high‐density projects, but even this guidance has not been integrated into our Land Use Code, let alone these high‐intensity developments. Furthermore, while existing planning documents recognize the cumulative impact of development projects on an area, the Land Use Code and the development review process do not take such overarching area effects into consideration. The new, high‐intensity model of multifamily housing, which excludes non‐students, exacerbates these effects on the community. A moratorium on the development of such multi‐family projects would allow the City time to develop and implement appropriate codes that ensure our infrastructure and neighborhoods against the negative effects of the current rush to build these facilities. By taking the time to adequately plan for such developments, the City would maintain the quality of our central neighborhoods for short‐term and for long‐term residents. Specific Objectives:  Develop standards specific to rent‐by‐the‐room and other high‐intensity multi‐family projects. o Review and change parking requirements if needed. Staff has not yet evaluated housing projects completed within and outside of the Transportation Overlay District to determine if parking supplied was adequate and not impacting nearby businesses and residents. This evaluation should be completed before approving more projects. o Measures of intensity, not just density, should be developed as planned in the West Central Neighborhoods Plan. Currently there are perverse incentives to build very large units to save construction costs, minimize city fees, and to artificially reduce density calculations. Larger units are less desired by students (according to the CSU Housing Study) and more likely to create a party atmosphere than smaller units and will require increased fire, emergency and police services. o Review, modify if necessary, and enforce compatibility standards, including operational as well as physical compatibility provisions. o Review newly implemented provisions for street‐like drives (that create driveways through parking lots and designate them as "streets"); there are no standards for the street‐like drive widths, requirements for islands or landscaping, etc.  Implement specific ways to better integrate the development review process with existing City Plan and subarea plans in order to honor the direction and promises made in City Plan and its subarea plans. The cumulative effect of multiple high‐intensity developments on an area should be considered in the development review process, not just mentioned in planning documents. (This is especially important in a period of rapid growth where impacts of uncompleted large projects cannot be assessed before yet more large projects are proposed.) Moratorium Duration: 12 months. This will allow time to develop new standards, to learn the recommendations of the Student Housing Action Plan, and to hear the plans for the proposed CSU stadium and assess its impacts on the infrastructure of the areas close to CSU and on the neighborhoods that are already under significant development pressure. The City Attorney would need to advise Council on whether the moratorium would apply to projects “in the pipeline” (with a submitted PDP) or on all projects without vested rights to develop. S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD S COLLEGE AVE W DRAKE RD W MULBERRY ST W PROSPECT RD REMINGTON ST W ELIZABETH ST W LAUREL ST W MOUNTAIN AVE S MASON ST S HOWES ST West Central Multi-Neighborhoods family Projects Plan Area Legend © Multi-Family West Development Central Neighborhoods Projects Plan type Conceptual review since Jan. 1, 2012 Approved Under construction PDP Existing Multi-Family - includes condos; excludes duplex/triplex ATTACHMENT 3 RL E CSU NCL D CG MMN POL LMN D RL POL CC CSU NCM CC UE RL D MMN MMN MMN HMN E LMN CSU UE NC NC NCB NC POL MMN NC RL NC MMN NCB NCL POL MMN MMN CSU POL NC LMN LMN LMN T NCB LMN NCB RL HMN NCB NCB LMN LMN LMN LMN LMN LMN S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD S COLLEGE AVE W DRAKE RD W MULBERRY ST W PROSPECT RD REMINGTON ST W LAUREL ST W ELIZABETH ST W MOUNTAIN AVE S MASON ST S HOWES ST West Central Single-Neighborhoods Family Lots and Plan Area Vacant-Developable Land © Legend West Vacant-Central Developable* Neighborhoods Plan Single-Family Residences * Vacant-or lots that Developable are vacant, land do are not the have parcels an public approved entity (project, CSU, Dept. are not of Ag. owned etc..by .), a and are located multi-in family zone districts dwellings. that permit ATTACHMENT 5 S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD S COLLEGE AVE W DRAKE RD W MULBERRY ST W PROSPECT RD REMINGTON ST W LAUREL ST W ELIZABETH ST W MOUNTAIN AVE S MASON ST S HOWES ST Single-West Family Central Dwellings, Neighborhoods Multi-Family Plan Dwellings, Area & Noise-Nuisance Violations © Legend West Noise-Central Nuisance Neighborhoods Citations & Arrests Plan 6-21-11 - 6-21-12 Single-ExistingDwellings Family Multi-Family - includes condos; excludes duplex/triplex ATTACHMENT 6 S LEMAY AVE S SHIELDS ST LAPORTE AVE S TAFT HILL RD E VINE DR W DRAKE RD N OVERLAND TRL S COLLEGE AVE S TIMBERLINE RD N SHIELDS ST E DRAKE RD W MULBERRY ST W PROSPECT RD S OVERLAND TRL E DOUGLAS RD E PROSPECT RD E LINCOLN AVE N TAFT HILL RD RIVERSIDE AVE W HORSETOOTH RD TURNBERRY RD N COLLEGE AVE E HORSETOOTH RD W ELIZABETH ST N LEMAY AVE COUNTRY CLUB RD REMINGTON ST TERRY LAKE RD COUNTY ROAD 54G W VINE DR E MULBERRY ST E WILLOX LN GREGORY RD N US HIGHWAY 287 W WILLOX LN W LAUREL ST W DOUGLAS RD W MOUNTAIN AVE N COUNTY ROAD 17 N TAFT HILL RD N LEMAY AVE W VINE DR Single-Family Dwellings, City of Fort Multi-Collins Family Dwellings, & Noise-Nuisance Violations © Legend City West Limits Central Neighborhoods Plan Noise-Single-Nuisance Family Dwellings Citations & Arrests 6-21-11 - 6-21-12 Existing Multi-Family - includes condos; excludes duplex/triplex ATTACHMENT 7 Conceptual & Entitled Multi-Family Development Projects Project “Stage” Type Number of Projects Number of Parking Sp. Number of Bedrooms Number of Units Conceptual 8 ? ? 982 units Submitted PDP 0 0 0 0 Approved PDP 6 1,338 1,514 670 Submitted FP 0 0 0 0 Approved FP (Under Construction) 7 1,401 1,992 891 West Central Total 21 2,543 units total Four Bedroom Units:  242 4-bd units out of 1,561 total units (conceptual not included as the information is incomplete)  15.5 % of units Stage of Project Project Name Location Parking Spaces Units Density Beds Proposal Under Construction Choice Center 1609-1717 S. College, near SW corner of College & Prospect 336 219 20.85 DU/Acre No Max. 18 1-bd 52 2-bd 50 3- bd 101 4- bd Total: 676 Existing 58,252 sq ft strip retail buildings along S. College proposed to be remodeled and updated. Two new four-story buildings proposed, one on the west side and one at NW corner of Stuart & College – total of 219 student housing units. Under Construction Pura Vida 518 W. Laurel St. 49 52 25 DU/Acre Under 24 DU/Acre = Type 1, Over Stage of Project Project Name Location Parking Spaces Units Density Beds Proposal 24DU/Acre = Type 2 in the NCB Under Construction The Grove SW corner of Centre Ave & Rolland Moore Drive 495 218 7.9 DU/Acre (Gross) and 12.5 DU/ acre (Net). Minimum average density of 12DU/acre (net). 60 2-bd 140 3-bd 18 4- bd Total: 612 218 units Under Construction Penny Flats Building 4 311 North Mason 38 30 62 DU/Acre No Max. 18 1-bd 8 2-bd 4 3-bd Total: 46 30 units Building Permits Pulled July 2011 Presidio Apartments North of Rock Creek Drive between Lady Moon and Cinquefoil 436 240 17.7 DU/Acre. No Stage of Project Project Name Location Parking Spaces Units Density Beds Proposal 2012 Rd and Caribou Drive and 36 one-bedroom units for a total of 156 bedrooms. Type 1 hearing held on May 29, 2012 Approved Spring Creek Farms North (The Trails at Timberline) S. Timberline Rd. & W. Drake Rd 485 314 19.6 DU/Acre, no maximum density in MMN, minimum density 7/DU acre 18 studios 144 1-bd 133 2-bd 19 3-bd Total: 485 The applicant/developer (McWhinney, LLC) is proposing a 3 story multi-family project consisting of 314 dwelling units on 16 acres located on the corner of South Timberline Road and East Drake Road. The dwelling units would be distributed among twelve buildings and include 18 studio units, 144 one-bedroom units, 133 two-bedroom units and 19 three-bedroom units for a total of 485 bedrooms, leased by the unit and 536 on-site parking spaces. The project includes amenities such as a pool, fitness center, outdoor yoga room and community and kitchen gardens. Hearing to be held May 2012 Approved Penny Flats Stage of Project Project Name Location Parking Spaces Units Density Beds Proposal decrease the number of parking spaces by seven. Administrative Hearing held April 23, 2012, Approved Appealed The District at CSU W. Plum St, from City Park to Aster also Scott Ave. 495 (structure) 193 57.78 DU/Acre No density standards in the CC Zone 28 2-bd 42 3-bd 123 4-bd Total: 674 193 unit student housing development on approximately 4.48 acres. The project consists of Building 1 – a 5-story, multi-use building that steps down to 4 stories on the north side, to contain dwelling units and the clubhouse with outdoor pool. Building 2 – a 4-story parking structure with 3- story townhome-type dwelling units. Building 3 – a 5-story residential building with interior courtyard. Two dead-end streets, Columbine and Daisy, will be vacated and removed as part of the development of this project. Approved Appealed Aspen Heights South of Conifer Street, west of Redwood Street and north of Old Town North subdivision. Stage of Project Project Name Location Parking Spaces Units Density Beds Proposal dwellings, there would be a mix of two and three bedroom options. The multi-family row houses will have two and three bedroom options, as well. There would be a total of 712 bedrooms, each of which would be individually leased to students in Fort Collins. All buildings would be two stories. All internal drives are proposed to be private. Major Amendment Approved, expires in July 2012 Hellenic Plaza Northwest corner of Shields St. and Birch St. 91 39 23.35 DU/Acre Zoned MMN and NCB; no maximum density in MMN, minimum density 7/DU acre, 25 DU/Acre Under 24 DU/Acre = Type 1, Over 24DU/Acre = Type 2 in the NCB 34 2-bd 5 3-bd Total: 83 This project is a major amendment requesting a change in use to convert 7 of the 9 retail units into two bedroom apartments similar to the apartments on the 2nd floor located north west of CSU campus. 39 units proposed. Hearing Scheduled for Stage of Project Project Name Location Parking Spaces Units Density Beds Proposal the CC Zone Total: 51 Conceptual Review held June 2012 223 West Prospect 223 West Prospect 47 36 ? This project proposes a 4 story, 35,000 s.f., mixed-use building with 3 - 5,000 s.f. of commercial on the ground floor and the remainder as 36 multi-family dwelling units and 47 parking spaces between surface and "tuck under" parking. The site is a 0.73 acre lot in the Community Commercial (CC) and TOD Overlay Districts. The proposed uses are permitted subject to administrative review (Type I). The site is not in any specific plan area but is directly adjacent to the railroad and the Mason Corridor/MAX. Conceptual Review held January 2012 2300 West Elizabeth 2300 W. Elizabeth St. 18 Not provided This is a request to demolish the existing structures at 2260 and 2300 West Elizabeth Street, replat the lots and construct a new 3 story, 18 unit multifamily development on the new .6acre lot. The site is zoned Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (M-M-N), and the use is permitted subject to an Administrative (Type 1) hearing. Conceptual Review held February 2012 Landmark Apartments 920 Hobbit St. 78 156 Stage of Project Project Name Location Parking Spaces Units Density Beds Proposal Mixed Use and the use is permitted. Conceptual held March, 2012. Not yet submitted Yovanoff Property Multifamily 910 Hill Pond Road ? 24 ? The applicant (John Barnett and Associates) are proposing to remove the existing single family home and build a 24 unit multifamily development on 2.2 acres. The net density is 11 units per acre. Conceptual held June, 2012 301, 315 North Howes ? 20 +/- ? Remodel existing office building at 301 North Howes and construct at 20 +/- unit, 3 story multifamily building directly to the north at 315 North Howes. The multifamily site is .44 acres and located in the Downtown district (civic center subdistrict) This is a Planning and Zoning Board (type 2) review and public hearing. 3rd Neighborhood Meeting held April 2012, submittal pending, likely July Regency at Parkwood Lake 2700 S. Lemay Ave. 292 175 91 1-bd 68 2-bd 16 3-bd Total: 275 New request for an addition of a permitted use for a new 175 unit, 3-story, multi-family development. The site is zoned R-L, Low Density Residential District and this would be a Type 2, Planning 8 Stage of Project Project Name Location Parking Spaces Units Density Beds Proposal The current site is single-family rental houses two of which are more than 50 years old. The proposed site is zoned High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (H-M-N) in which multi-family dwellings are a permitted use subject to an administrative review (Type I). Preliminary Design Review (Conceptual) Held May 2012 Lincoln and Lemay Apartments Lincoln and Lemay 889 540 ? As proposed, the applicant (McWhinney) is looking to rezone three parcels located along Lincoln Avenue, between Lemay Avenue and 12th Street, from Industrial Zone to Medium Density Mixed- Use Neighborhood Zone District. The three parcels, approximately 14 Acres, are adjacent to a 15.79 Acre MMN parcel. The applicant is proposing a multifamily development with 540 units total with 889 parking spaces (including garages). Project totals Total Parking Spaces Total Units Total Bedrooms 21 DK (conceptual projects provide incomplete information) 2,686 DK (conceptual projects provide incomplete ATTACHMENT 9 ATTACHMENT 10 1 1 Request to Implement a Student Housing Moratorium • Laurie Kadrich Director, Community Development & Neighborhood Services • Karen Cumbo Director, Planning Development and Transportation • Seth Lorson City Planner • Beth Sowder Neighborhood Services Manager City Council Work Session July 24, 2012 2 Feedback Sought From City Council: • Are there problems occurring that threaten to put the health, safety and/or welfare of those concerned at risk that may be remedied by a moratorium? – If so, in what geographic location, for what type (s) of development, and how long should a moratorium be in effect? • If no moratorium is enacted, what changes do you want staff to further research? – If any, should those be addressed in the current Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP) or addressed separately and in what time frame? ATTACHMENT 11 2 3 Overview • AIS – Information from Coalition of Neighbors and neighborhood input received through hearings and SHAP process • Planning Analysis – Specific data related to LUC, existing conditions, potential development, nuisance and noise violations • Note: – Student Housing is not defined separately from multi- family housing; further inquiry was made to distinguish in data 4 ““Coalition Coalition of Neighborhoods”” Neighborhoods • Assertion: Cumulative effect of newer multifamily developments has not been adequately addressed in Land Use Code (LUC): – Intensity of Development should be measured and mitigated (rather than density of development) – Parking overflow is creating an adverse impact to adjoining neighborhoods – Current standards insufficient to mitigate the adverse impacts of traffic, noise, and parking on existing single-family neighborhoods 3 5 Three Primary Areas of Research 1. Is there a proliferation of 4 or 5 bedroom developments creating an adverse impact? 2. Are there unanticipated cumulative impacts resulting in adverse impacts to existing neighborhoods (specifically in the WCNP)? If so, would a moratorium be helpful to address solutions? 3. Does current LUC mitigate adverse impacts to existing neighborhoods? If not, would a moratorium, be helpful to address solutions? 6 Multi-Multi -Family Development: Proposed, Recently Approved and Under Construction 2,543 units 21 total City of Fort Collins Total 7 1,401 1,992 891 Approved FP (Under Construction) Submitted FP 0 0 0 0 Approved PDP 6 1,338 1,514 670 Submitted PDP 0 0 0 0 Conceptual 8 N/A N/A 982 units (since 1-2012) Number of Bedrooms Units Parking Spaces Number of Projects Project “Stage” Type 4 7 Multi-Multi -Family Development in WCNP: Proposed, Recently Approved and Under Construction West Central 9 742 units total Total 2 542 670 254 units Approved FP (Under Construction) Submitted FP 0 0 0 0 Approved PDP 3 649 808 259 units Submitted PDP 0 0 0 0 Conceptual 4 N/A N/A 229 units (since 1-2012) Number of Bedrooms Units Parking Spaces Number of Projects Project “Stage” Type 8 Existing and Proposed Multi-Multi -family West Central Neighborhood Plan Area (Attachment 3) 5 9 Current or Proposed Single Family Developments with 4+ Bedrooms Single-Family Homes Current: • 37,694 eligible • 43 Extra Occupancy Permits granted • 4 in 2011; 2 for 4-5 BR • 4 BR is most commonly approved Proposed: • None to date in 2012 – Aspen Heights (78 pending) 10 Current or Proposed Multi-Multi -Family Developments with 4+ Bedrooms Apartment Complexes Recently approved and under construction: • 242 4 BR of 1561 total units • 15.5% of those built or approved to be – 8.7% in WCNP area Proposed: • 5 complexes • Some 4 BR Units • No complex totally 4+ under development, none @ 5 BR 6 11 West Central Neighborhood Plan Area –– Current Development • What percent are 4-bedroom? – 141, 4 BR (27.5%) units recently approved or under construction 12 Are There More Problems in 4 or 5 Bedroom Units Than 3 Bedroom? Noise & Nuisance Map • June 2011 to June 2012 • 516 Citations or arrests • 403 (78%) issued to single-family dwellings • 113 (22%) issued to multi-family – 18 of 113 (15%) in complexes with 4-bedroom units 7 13 Noise & Nuisance Violations (Attachment 7) • Citywide –Noise & Nuisance Violations –SF & MF Dwellings 14 What about the West Central Neighborhood Plan Area? Noise & Nuisance Activity, June 2011 – June 2012 • Single-Family versus Multi-Family – 157 total nuisance violations – 117 (74.5%) single-family – 40 (25.5%) multi-family 8 15 Noise & Nuisance Violations (Attachment 6) • West Central Neighborhood Plan Area –Noise & Nuisance Violations –SF & MF Dwellings 16 Potential Development-Development - West Central Neighborhood Plan Area How much vacant land could be developed for multi-family? • Out of 1,925 total available acres, • Only 1.2% of available land (22.9 gross acres) for multi-family development 9 17 How Close is the Vacant Land to Existing Single-Single -Family? • 20 acres are located in the parcels along Shields, adjacent to Sheely Neighborhood. – About half of the available land is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and requires a substantial commercial component to develop. 18 West Central Neighborhood Plan Area –– Single-Single -Family Lots and Vacant Developable Land (Attachment 5) 10 19 West Central Neighborhood Plan Area-Area - Zone Districts Permitting Multi-Multi -Family (Attachment 4) 20 Moratorium Review • Staff researched several communities suggested by “Coalition of Neighbors” as potential models when considering a moratorium. – 5 communities looked at a moratorium – 60 to 120 days in length – 4 of 5 authorized a moratorium • Issues considered in these communities are very similar to actions already taken in Fort Collins. 11 21 Similarities to Fort Collins • Limit 4 & 5 bedrooms in certain zones • Lot size requirements • Require on-site management • Mixed use multi-family desired • Buffer requirements • Regulate residential in business zones • Limits on single-family residential/rentals 22 Potential LUC Changes • Use an intensity measure rather than density • Increase parking required for multi-family • Implement other parking programs • Create prescriptive compatibility standards • Add prescriptive standards for 4+ unit development 12 23 Use an Intensity Measure (rather than density) • Change the measure of density (DU/Ac) to Intensity (Bd/DU): – Looks at number of bedrooms per dwelling unit instead of dwelling units per acre 24 Increase Parking for Multi-Multi -Family • Citizens expressed concern that multi-family does not provide enough spaces for tenant and guest use – Creates a spillover impact to adjacent neighborhoods. • Insufficient data to evaluate this concern. – 78% of multi-family bedrooms have a parking space (citywide); 81% of multi-family in the WCNP – multi-family may be impacting single-family neighborhoods however impact may be from commuter traffic as well. 13 25 Implement Other Parking Programs • Parking Plan is currently drafting measures that may assist with the neighbor’s concerns • Ideas under consideration include: – Permit parking in neighborhoods – Unbundling the parking from development – Expansion of parking pass program 26 Prescriptive Compatibility Standards • Create a more extensive compatibility buffer between single-family and multi-family – No structures within the buffer – Add height restrictions in the next layer • Define multi-family housing types – More specific than “3 or more dwellings” – Add land use tools to better mitigate the impacts to existing single-family. 14 27 Council Feedback? • Are there problems occurring that threaten to put the health, safety and/or welfare of those concerned at risk that may be remedied by a moratorium? – If so, in what geographic location, for what type (s) of development, and how long should a moratorium be in effect? • If no moratorium is enacted, what changes do you want staff to further research? – If any, should those be addressed in the current Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP) or addressed separately and in what time frame? information) and Zoning Board Review and Public Hearing. Conceptual May 2012 615 W. Lake St. 615 W. Lake St. 71 91 Total: 113 The project proposes a 3 ½ story multi-family apartment building with 91 units containing 113 beds and 71 parking spaces. The site is on 3 parcels between W. Lake St and W. Prospect Rd: 615 W. Lake, 626, 628 and 634 W. Prospect Rd. 7 This is a request to add 78, two bedroom units to the landmark apartment completed. The site is zoned MMN- Medium Density 6 June 26, 2012 1409 W. Elizabeth Lofts 1409 W. Elizabeth St. 63 27 39.7 DU/Acre, No density standards in 6 studios 6 1-bd 6 2-bd 9 3-bd Apartment lofts – convert existing fraternity into 27 unit Student Housing project. 5 142 78 7.12 DU/Acre proposed, No less than 5 DU/Acre minimum 40 2-bd 38 3-bd Total: 194 This is a request to develop a student housing complex on 31 acres south of Conifer Street, west of Redwood Street and north of Old Town North subdivision. The development features 221 dwelling units divided between 81 single family detached units; 62 two-family dwellings (duplexes); and 78 multi-family units ("row houses"). All single family detached dwellings would include 4-5 bedrooms and would be classified as Extra Occupancy Rental Houses. For the two-family 4 Building 3 311 N. Mason 23 21 62 DU/Acre No Max. 15 1-bd 6 2-bd Total: 27 Request for a Major Amendment to revise Building Three of the previously approved Project Development Plan; Penny Flats First Replat, from a 6 story building with a maximum height of 65' to a 4 story building with a maximum height of 50'. The new building configuration will increase the number of units to 21 (an increase of 2 units), decrease the habitable square footage of the building to 16,602 sq ft, and 3 maximum in the HC zone 120 1-bd 120 2-bd Total: 360 240 unit multi-family complex divided among three-story buildings, located on 13.6 acres. A 4,500 sq ft two-story clubhouse with pool is included along with eight mixed-use dwelling units. There would be 436 parking spaces. Development Construction Permit issues 5/9/12 -Under Construction Ram’s Crossing K2 914 W. Lake 47 36 Not a separate platted lot. Part of a larger project. 32 1-bd 4 2-bd 6 3-bd Total: 58 Addition of a new 3-story, 40 unit student housing apartment with ground level connection to the existing NW stair access. Phase II – new 2 or 3 story student housing with 20-30 units. Pulling Building permits April Phase Two Caribou Apartments Southwest corner of Horsetooth 124 96 10.25 DU/Acre No Max. 36 1-bd 60 2-bd Total: 156 Three new buildings – total of 96 units. The units will be divided between 60 two-bedroom units 2 6 studio 14 1-bd 16 2-bd 16 3-bd Total: 100 52 units – 6 studio, 14 one bedroom, 16 two bedroom, 16 three bedroom. 1 ATTACHMENT 8 S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD S COLLEGE AVE W DRAKE RD W MULBERRY ST W PROSPECT RD REMINGTON ST W ELIZABETH ST W LAUREL ST S HOWES ST West Zone Central Districts Neighborhoods Permitting Multi-Plan Family Area © Legend Zone ZONEFamily Districts Permiting Multi- Community Employment Commercial (E) (CC) High Low Density Density Mixed-Mixed-Use Use Neighborhood Neighborhood ((LMN) HMN) Medium Neighborhood Density Commercial Mixed-Use (Neighborhood NC) (MMN) Neighborhood West Central Neighborhoods Conservation Buffer Plan (NCB) City ZONEZoning Community CSU Commercial (CC) Employment High Density (Mixed-E) Use Neighborhood (HMN) Low Medium Density Density Mixed-Mixed-Use Use Neighborhood Neighborhood (LMN)(MMN) Neighborhood Neighborhood Commercial Conservation (NC) Buffer (NCB) Public Low Density Open Lands Residential (POL) (RL) ATTACHMENT 4  or  2  roommates;  45%  prefer  0  or  1  roommate 1st 2nd 3rd Type 1st 2nd 3rd  –  –  –  –  –  –  living  house  living  off-­‐  living  off-­  of  Residence: campus campus  in  in  in  in  neighborhood/  neighborhood  neighborhood/  neighborhood/  condo/  apartment duplex/complex complex complex townhome  with  with  with  students  students,  only  students  and  faculty,  long-­‐  and term  staff  residents  rather  approved  rather  address  of  than  compatibility  than  compatibility  projects;  per  density  unit  standards)  revise  standards  measures  of  use  if  needed.  as  and  well  transition  as  compatibility  standards  of o size, Review (the Calculations  impact  scale,  parking  etc.  of  student  currently  Is  standards,  this  being  housing  are  traffic  based  considered  projects  on  study  per  that  in  standards,  unit  the  have  metrics;  review  more  etc.  process?  this  occupied  practice )  beds  underestimates  per  unit  than  a o typical Review have (Some  adequate  options:  multifamily  ways  to  parking.  permit  ensure  development.  parking  neighborhoods  in )  neighborhoods,  are  not  impacted  2-­‐hour  if  time  new  limits,  developments  prohibiting  do  not Conclusion overnight  parking.) T  he extraordinary proposed  neighborhoods  is  near  pressure  5,000,  in  Central  from  concentrated  student  Fort  Collins,  housing  just  south  and  developments.  particularly  and  west  of  the  campus.  The  ones  number  near  The  delicate  campus,  of  beds  approved  balance  are  under  of  and/  short-­‐ or term permanently  renters  and  damaged  long  term  if  the  residents  race  to  build  is  changing  “beds”  continues  rapidly,  and  unabated.  our  central  neighborhoods  could  be Student rentals, being  built  though,  rentals  in  Fort  in  can  single  Collins  swing  family  will  back  not  homes  to  be  owner-­‐  appealing  can occupied  present  to  other  problems  homes  demographic  in  the  to  a  future.  neighborhood.  groups  The  “student  if  market  These  housing”  conditions  types  of  now change. not  done  And,  well  because  (parking,  they  traffic,  are  infill  noise,  projects,  compatibility  they  are  of  likely  scale  and  to  create  use).  other  long-­‐term  problems  if As  in  Iowa  City  and  other  university  communities,  we  need  to  quickly  place  a  moratorium  on additional until assessed,  more  and  is  student  known  until  standards  housing  about  the  projects  for  stadium  this  new  until  plans,  type  the  impact  of  Student  housing  of  approved  Housing  can  be  Action  implemented.  projects  Plan  on  can  neighborhoods  be  completed,  can  be  large  projects  going  on  right  now,"  Kuhar  said. "And  I  think  we  need  some  time  for  those  projects  to  be  completed  and  gel  to  see  what  effect  it has  on  the  housing  market  and  the  community,  so  we  don’t  end  up  with  a  bunch  of  empty facilities  around  town  because  we  have  more  housing  than  people." Iowa  City,  IA  (2012):  Councilor  Jim  Throgmorton  described  efforts  there  to  address  concerns about  what  he  termed  a  "tsunami  wave"  of  student  housing  projects.  Five  large  complexes  were approved  or  proposed  and  the  City  is  taking  action  in  response  to  citizen,  Council,  and  staff concerns.  Former  Iowa  City  Councilor  Mike  Wright  said:  "It  (the  moratorium  and  proposed code  charges)  does  get  at  many  neighborhood  concerns.  Stabilization  of  core  neighborhoods  is a  goal  of  this  council  and  this  is  an  opportunity  to  frankly,  put  your  money  where  your  mouth is.P  earland, ”  TX  (2004):  "The  moratorium  would  give  the  city  sufficient  time  to  analyze  the situation  and  propose  a  solution,"  said  Tobin  Maples,  the  city's  executive  director  for • community Limiting bedroom F  rom  Iowa  new  units  City  services.  apartments  in  (2012)  each :  development.  “According  to  a  maximum  to  city  of  documents,  3  bedrooms,  the  and  proposals  limiting  would  the  proportion  control  some  of  of  3-­‐  the problems  caused  by  high  densities  of  large  apartments  —  which  Davidson  (Iowa  City’s Planning  Director)  said  are  often  used  by  students.  "I  think  that  [the  three-­bedroom  units]  don't have  the  vandalism  and  party  atmosphere  associated  with  them  that  the  four-­  and  five-­ • bedroom Replacing number F  rom  Iowa  of  units  density  bedrooms  City  have  (2012)  calculations  associated  (: an  They  intensity  had  with  based  seen  measure)  them,  on  a  lot  the "  he  of  number  4 .  said.  and ”  5  of  bedroom  units  with  units,  calculations  which  proved  based  to  be  on  the  the most  problematic  and  most  unmanageable  by  the  operators.  They  are  trying  to  remove  the incentives  for  builders  to  build  these  problematic  units.  They  also  cited  the  inflexibility  for • • future Increasing projects, With protect  few  use  neighborhoods  and  parking  of  parking  the  other  very  spaces  to  steps  large  a  should  ratio  being  to  units  minimize  of  be  required  1:  for  explored. 1  (  other bedrooms  impacts  with  types  Transit  on  to  of  surrounding  tenants  parking  Oriented  in  spaces)  the  neighborhoods.  Development  future.  for  student  (  housing TOD),  ways  to  population.  2007  2011  Resident  in  CSU  Enrollment  Enrollment  (  from excludes  Fall  online  2007 24,26,  to 983 735  students)  Fall  2011 • Increase Increase Traditional Fall Fall  2007  2011  (  (#%  Undergraduate ) )  over  over  the  the  4  4  years  years  Enrollment  (<  age 1,7% 17,18,752 559 728  23;  excludes  online  students) Increase Increase  (  (#%) )  over  over  the  the  4  4  years  years 1,6.169 7% The increased  traditional  by  1,169  undergraduate  since  2007.  enrollment  (the  target  market  for  “student  housing”  projects)  has Source: www.I  ncrease ir.  CSU colostate.  in  Supply  enrollment edu/  since enrollment.  database  Fall  2007 html (Estimated  –  staff  will  have  more  accurate  info.  Detail  in  footnote  on  last  page) T  he • • •  supply 2,1,4,942 887 993  of  increase  increase  proposed  housing  in  in  for  or  built  beds  the  under  traditional  or  (built,  consideration  approved  approved,  undergraduate  beds  proposed)  population 1  is  increasing  by  4,487  beds (S  tudent The the 3,318  most  current  more  Housing  recent  trend  than  (and  Survey  the  toward  prior  increase  Results  large,  surveys)  in  student-­‐  the  from  indicates  traditional  CSU: only  What  complexes  that  undergraduate  students  type  of  is  housing  not  prefer  responsive  population  to  do  live  students  in  to  since  mixed  student  want?  2007.  demographic  preferences: ) communities, S  ource:  CSU  Spring  with  fewer,  2011  Housing  rather  than  Study  more,  results:  roommates.  2 http://www.fcgov.com/advanceplanning/pdf/shap-­‐survey-­‐results.pdf  developments  a  variety  of  developments,  demographic  that  accommodate  the  groups  new  people  if  crop  supply  of  of  “student  varied  exceeds demand. M  any  of  the  new  ones  are  rent-­‐by-­‐the-­‐room  projects.  Increasingly,  new  projects  are  including  3-­‐ and marketability as  hoped  4-­‐bedroom  by  CSU.  issues  units  Market  if  (  the and  shifts  on-­‐  even campus  do  5-­‐  occur bedroom  younger  over  extra-­‐  time.  undergraduate occupancy  Changes  in  houses)  population  the  student  –  potentially  does  loan  not  market,  causing  grow  continuing  as  rapidly shifts populations,  to  community  etc.,  could  colleges  negatively  or  on-­‐  impact line  programs,  the  student  or  lower  housing  than  market  projected  as  well.  international  student Not apartment, groups  many  mentioned  young  though  couples,  above,  a  complex  young  including  with  working  mostly  students.  people,  2-­‐bedroom  or  retirees  apartments  will  want  would  a  4-­‐  be bedroom,  appealing  4-­‐  to bathroom  all  of  the F  urther that  are  increasing  the  focus  of  the  rapid  concern  student  is  CSU’s  housing  plan  development.  to  build  a  stadium  The  City  near  does  the  not  very  have  same  control  neighborhoods  over  the impact help reassess  our  that  central  multifamily  CSU’s  neighborhoods  stadium  standards,  plan  will  to  by  learn  pausing  have  about  on  the  the  CSU’s  student  neighborhoods  stadium  housing  plan,  near  boom.  and  CSU.  This  to  consider  However,  would  allow  the  the  Student  City  time  can  to Housing C  oncerns  Action  Plan  recommendations  (due  in  fall  2012). • Lack measure differences  of  adequate  of  in  intensity  impacts  measures  has  on  been  adjacent  of  impacts  developed;  neighbors  on  the  current  and  community  on  density  streets/  for  standards  student sidewalks/  do  housing  not bike  reflect  lanes.  projects.  No • Review  Land  Use  Code  provisions  regarding  compatibility  and  transitions. • Cumulative multifamily  effects  projects  on  with  existing  short-­‐  neighborhoods, term  tenancy  and  city  high  infrastructure,  intensity  usage.  and  on  city  resources  of • Potential is future  incompatible  (consider  over-­‐response  with  the  “Silver  other  to  demographic  short  Tsunami”  term  programs  market  groups  pressure;  that  that  may  are  may  being  need  result  held  rental  in  to  housing  too  provide  much  now  a  housing  community  and  in  that  the vision  for  our  growing  elderly  population). • Future groups.  quality  of  life  and  stability  of  our  central  neighborhoods  for  a  variety  of  demographic Community Commercial (CC) Hearing Officer Considered a secondary use with a mix of uses required. No maximum. C. Summary: The above information suggests that multi-family projects in the West Central Neighborhoods Plan area are being located and built consistent with the West Central Neighborhoods Plan (see section VI of this report) and the Land Use Code. In particular, projects are meeting the density requirements of the Code. The LUC addresses intensity of