HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 03/05/2013 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 041, 2013, AMENDINGDATE: March 5, 2013
STAFF: Seth Lorson
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 17
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 041, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code to Address Certain Recommendations
Contained in the Student Housing Action Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP), adopted by City Council on February 26, 2013, has identified both near-
term and long-term action items to address concerns with compatibility between multi-family development and existing
neighborhoods. This Ordinance will (1) improve understanding of compatibility by modifying the LUC to include good
examples (photos, drawings) of what is allowed in certain zones; (2) amend MMN district development standards and
LUC Sec. 3.8.30 multi-family standards to specify that no vehicular use area can be placed in the said setback from
single- and two-family dwellings. Also, consider landscape requirements for this setback; and (3) better define and
amend the LUC Sec. 3.8.16 (E) (2) requirement that 4+ bedroom developments need to provide additional open space,
recreation areas, parking areas and public facilities as are necessary to adequately serve the development and retain
the parking exemption in the TOD Overlay Zone.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Several LUC amendments have been adopted by Council during the last several months as a response to concerns
expressed by Council, citizens, and concerns identified during the Student Housing Action Plan process regarding
adverse impacts of multi-family developments adjacent to existing single-family neighborhoods. Thus far the following
LUC amendments have been adopted:
• Adding land use standards from the MMN Zone District to Article 3 (General Development Standards) to
enhance compatibility between multi-family developments with existing single-family neighborhoods.
• Eliminating a loophole in the NC zone district (which is intended to be a mixed-use commercial area) that
allowed for developments smaller than 10 acres to be entirely multifamily housing.
• Create a threshold of 50 dwelling units or 75 bedrooms for multi-family developments that will require a
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing (Type II) rather than an administrative hearing (Type 1).
Some of the more complex proposed LUC changes were reviewed during the October 9, 2012 Council Work Session
and moved into the SHAP process for further evaluation and public discussion. The near-term SHAP Action Items
have been divided into two phases. Phase 1 is being proposed with this report and Phase 2 consists of the following:
SHAP Action Items Phase 2:
4. Confirm that the uses, development standards and density allowances in the NCB district are consistent with
the intent and purpose of the district appropriate sub-area plans in that it provides a transition between
residential neighborhoods and commercial-use areas. This change will require incorporating the results of the
Eastside/Westside Neighborhood Character Study which is not yet complete.
Staff believes that this item (#4) warrants public processing and staff work beyond the scope of the current package
of Land Use Code changes.
For example, additional work may include the following tasks, all of which require effective public engagement with
stakeholders:
• Review the adopted vision, goals, and policies for the neighborhood
• Understand the context and existing character in the affected areas (including both physical data and
stakeholder issues, attitudes, and concerns)
• Analyze and understand the effects of current zoning, including variance requests
March 5, 2013 -2- ITEM 17
• Analyze and understand the effects of any ideas for changes to zoning allowances or geographic boundaries,
which likely will require some degree of graphic modeling
• Develop recommendations
The NCB Zone’s Purpose statement refers to adopted subarea plans as its basis. Three such plans provide the
specific policy basis for the zoning allowances and boundaries that have raised questions and issues. Ideally, this item
would be addressed in the context of larger neighborhood plan evaluations.
The three plans are also included in the 2013-2014 planning work program. The West Central Neighborhood Plan
is scheduled to be updated in 2013, and the East Side and West Side Neighborhood Plans are scheduled for updates
in 2014. NCB issues have always been anticipated to be addressed in these plan updates.
The NCB zone was created along with the NCL and NCM zones in 1991. In 2004, the three zones were updated with
“carriage house” standards. In the NCL and NCM zones, recent planning projects (the 2010 and 2012 Eastside and
Westside neighborhood Character studies) have highlighted the sensitivity of zoning changes.
5. Define different multi-family housing types (rather than just the broad multi-family definition). The requirement
for multiple housing types could be used as a gradient of development between proposed multi-family and
existing single-family.
In order to propose these revisions, a variety of housing types such as tri-plex, four-plex, and possibly 5-6-plexes will
need to be developed, defined, and applied to zone districts with corresponding review and approval procedures.
These proposed revisions should be presented to stakeholders such as neighborhood groups and developers. These
LUC revisions are anticipated to be proposed with the annual LUC package presented to the Planning and Zoning
Board in May.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its February 21, 2013 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 6–0 to recommend adoption of the Ordinance.
After considerable deliberation, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended removal of the TOD parking exception
for 4+ bedroom units as recommended by staff and outlined in the staff report on page 11. The Planning and Zoning
Board thought that there was not enough data regarding development in the TOD to warrant changes to the City’s
vision.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP) has done extensive outreach to stakeholders since summer 2011 and was
recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board on January 17, 2013. These proposed LUC revisions
were presented to stakeholders on February 4, 2013. Some of the attendees thought that the proposed revisions were
too restrictive while others thought they were not restrictive enough.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report and Attachments, February 21, 2013
2. Public Comments
3. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, February 21, 2013
PROJECT: Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP) Action Items Phase 1
APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP) - recommended for approval by Planning and
Zoning Board on January 17, 2013 - has identified both near-term and long-term action
items to address concerns with compatibility between multi-family development and
existing neighborhoods. Five items were identified for near-term Land Use Code (LUC)
amendments, of which, three items are being proposed in this first phase. The remaining
two items require further research and internal review; particularly legal oversight to
develop adequate code language and modify other areas of the code that would be
affected by the proposed changes and to engage stakeholders with the draft LUC
amendments. The LUC amendments proposed in this report are scheduled to be heard by
City Council on March 5, 2013 and March 19, 2013 for first and second reading
respectively.
SHAP Action Items Phase 1:
1. Improve understanding of compatibility by modifying the LUC to include good
examples (photos, drawings) of what is allowed in certain zones.
2. Amend MMN district development standards and LUC Sec. 3.8.30 multi-family
standards to specify that no vehicular use area can be placed in the said setback from
single- and two-family dwellings. Also, consider landscape requirements for this
setback.
3. Better define and amend the LUC Sec. 3.8.16 (E) (2) requirement that 4+ bedroom
developments need to provide additional open space, recreation areas, parking areas
and public facilities as are necessary to adequately serve the development and
excepting the TOD Overlay Zone.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
ATTACHMENT 1
Student Housing Action Plan Action Items Phase 1
Planning & Zoning Hearing February 21, 2013
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Several LUC amendments have been adopted by Council during the last several months
as a response to concerns expressed by Council, citizens, and concerns identified during
the Student Housing Action Plan process regarding adverse impacts of multi-family
developments adjacent to existing single-family neighborhoods. Thus far the following
LUC amendments have been adopted:
• Adding land use standards from the MMN Zone District to Article 3 (General
Development Standards) to enhance compatibility between multi-family
developments with existing single-family neighborhoods.
• Eliminating a loophole in the NC zone district (which is intended to be a mixed-
use commercial area) that allowed for developments smaller than 10 acres to be
entirely multifamily housing.
• Create a threshold of 50 dwelling units or 75 bedrooms for multi-family
developments that will require a Planning and Zoning Board Hearing (Type II)
rather than an administrative hearing (Type 1).
Some of the more complex proposed LUC changes were reviewed during the October 9,
2012 Council Work Session and moved into the SHAP process for further evaluation and
public discussion. The near-term SHAP Action Items have been divided into two phases.
Phase 1 is being proposed with this report and Phase 2 consists of the following:
SHAP Action Items Phase 2:
4. Confirm that the uses, development standards and density allowances in the NCB
district are consistent with the intent and purpose of the district appropriate sub-area
plans in that it provides a transition between residential neighborhoods and
commercial-use areas. This change will require incorporating the results of the
Eastside/Westside Neighborhood Character Study which is not yet complete.
Discussion:
Staff thinks that this item (#4) warrants public processing and staff work beyond the
scope of the current package of Land Use Code changes.
For example, additional work may include the following tasks, all of which require
effective public engagement with stakeholders:
• Review the adopted vision, goals, and policies for the neighborhood
• Understand the context and existing character in the affected areas (including both
physical data and stakeholder issues, attitudes, and concerns)
• Analyze and understand the effects of current zoning, including variance requests
2
Student Housing Action Plan Action Items Phase 1
Planning & Zoning Hearing February 21, 2013
• Analyze and understand the effects of any ideas for changes to zoning allowances
or geographic boundaries, which likely will require some degree of graphic
modeling
• Develop recommendations
The NCB zone’s Purpose statement refers to adopted subarea plans as its basis. Three
such plans provide the specific policy basis for the zoning allowances and boundaries that
have raised questions and issues. Ideally, this item would be addressed in the context of
larger neighborhood plan evaluations.
The three plans happen to be included in the 2013-2014 planning work program. The
West Central Neighborhood Plan is scheduled to be updated in 2013, and the East Side
and West Side Neighborhood Plans are scheduled for updates in 2014. NCB issues have
always been anticipated to be addressed in these plan updates.
The NCB zone was created along with the NCL and NCM zones in 1991. In 2004, the
three zones were updated with “carriage house” standards. In the NCL and NCM zones,
recent planning projects (the 2010 and 2012 Eastside and Westside neighborhood
Character studies) have highlighted the sensitivity of zoning changes.
5. Define different multi-family housing types (rather than just the broad multi-family
definition). The requirement for multiple housing types could be used as a gradient
of development between proposed multi-family and existing single-family.
Discussion:
In order to propose these revisions, a variety of housing types such as tri-plex, four-plex,
and 5-6-plexes will need to be developed, defined, and applied to zone districts with
corresponding review and approval procedures. These proposed revisions should be
presented to stakeholders such as neighborhood groups and developers. These LUC
revisions are anticipated to be proposed with the annual LUC package presented to the
Planning and Zoning Board in May.
PROPOSAL/DISCUSSION:
SHAP ACTION ITEMS PHASE 1:
1. SHAP Action Item: Improve understanding of compatibility by modifying the LUC
to include good examples (photos, drawings) of what is allowed in certain zones.
Problem Statement:
Compatibility between new development and existing neighborhoods is an ongoing
concern for the community. The LUC standards regarding compatibility could be more
clearly defined and user-friendly. A greater breadth of tools should be provided; to allow
decision makers to require adequate buffer areas between new development and existing
3
Student Housing Action Plan Action Items Phase 1
Planning & Zoning Hearing February 21, 2013
neighborhoods, and to more clearly explain, through graphic representation, expectations
for compatibility.
Amend 3.2.2(E)(1) to include “site elements” as a possible conflict that could be
mitigated by landscape buffering.
A. Proposed Solution Overview:
Landscape buffering: Landscape buffering is utilized to mitigate conflicts between
incompatible uses. Incompatibility can come in the form of site elements such as
swimming pools, vehicular use areas, outdoor recreation and gathering areas. The
addition of this provision provides the decision maker greater ability to identify and
mitigate conflicts through landscape buffering.
LUC Revision: (Strikethrough to be removed, bold and highlight to be added.)
3.2.1(E)(1)
(E) Landscape Standards. All development applications shall include landscape plans
that meet the following minimum standards:
(1) Buffering Between Incompatible Uses and Activities. In situations where the
Director determines that the arrangement of uses or design of buildings does not
adequately mitigate conflicts reasonably anticipated to exist between dissimilar uses,
site elements or building designs, one (1) or more of the following landscape
buffering techniques shall be used to mitigate the conflicts.
(a) Separation and screening with plant material: planting dense stands of
evergreen trees, canopy shade trees, ornamental trees or shrubs;
(b) Integration with plantings: incorporating trees, vines, planters or other
plantings into the architectural theme of buildings and their outdoor spaces to
subdue differences in architecture and bulk and avoid harsh edges;
(c) Establishing privacy: establishing vertical landscape elements to screen views
into or between windows and defined outdoor spaces where privacy is important,
such as where larger buildings are proposed next to side or rear yards of smaller
buildings;
(d) Visual integration of fences or walls: providing plant material in conjunction
with a screen panel, arbor, garden wall, privacy fence or security fence to avoid
the visual effect created by unattractive screening or security fences;
(e) Landform shaping: utilizing berming or other grade changes to alter views,
subdue sound, change the sense of proximity and channel pedestrian movement.
4
Student Housing Action Plan Action Items Phase 1
Planning & Zoning Hearing February 21, 2013
Amend 3.2.2(J) to allow the decision maker to increase the setback for vehicular use
areas.
B. Proposed Solution Overview:
Setbacks for vehicular use areas: Vehicular use areas (parking lots and roads/streets)
may create conflicts with abutting existing uses. This provision provides the decision
maker with the ability to require greater setbacks between vehicular use areas and
existing uses in order to enhance compatibility or match the contextual relationship of
adjacent or abutting vehicular use areas.
LUC Revision: (Strikethrough to be removed, bold and highlight to be added.)
3.2.2(J)
(J) Setbacks. Any vehicular use area containing six (6) or more parking spaces or one
thousand eight hundred (1,800) or more square feet shall be set back from the street right-
of-way and the side and rear yard lot line (except a lot line between buildings or uses
with collective parking) consistent with the provisions of this Section, according to the
following table:
Minimum average of
entire landscaped setback
area
(feet)
Minimum width of setback
at any point
(feet)
Along an arterial street 15 5
Along a nonarterial street 10 5
Along a lot line* 5 5
* Setbacks along lot lines for vehicular use areas may be increased by the
decision maker in order to enhance compatibility with the abutting use or
to match the contextual relationship of adjacent or abutting vehicular use
areas.
Amend 3.4.7(F)(2) Figure 6 by exchanging it with 3.5.1(C) Figure 7, and vice versa.
C. Proposed Solution Overview
Building Size Compatibility: The text referring to Figure 6 is more closely associated
with Figure 7, and vice versa.
LUC Revision: (Strikethrough to be removed, bold and highlight to be added.)
3.4.7(F)(2)
(2) New structures shall be designed to be in character with such existing historic
structures. Horizontal elements, such as cornices, windows, moldings and sign bands,
5
Student Housing Action Plan Action Items Phase 1
Planning & Zoning Hearing February 21, 2013
shall be aligned with those of such existing historic structures to strengthen the visual ties
among buildings. Window patterns of such existing structures (size, height, number) shall
be repeated in new construction, and the pattern of the primary building entrance facing
the street shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible. See Figure 6.
Figure 6
Building Patterns
Amend 3.5.1(C) by adding a Figure 7b and adding the language “abutting or
adjacent to the subject property”.
D. Proposed Solution Overview:
Building Size Compatibility: “Figure 7b” is proposed to clearly explain the expectations
outlined in the text of 3.5.1(C). To further enhance “building size, height, bulk, mass,
scale” compatibility, the relevant area for comparison to existing property is proposed to
be expanded to explicitly include structures “abutting or adjacent to the subject property”.
LUC Revision: (Strikethrough to be removed, bold and highlight to be added.)
3.5.1(C)
6
Student Housing Action Plan Action Items Phase 1
Planning & Zoning Hearing February 21, 2013
(C) Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale. . Buildings shall either be similar in size
and height, or, if larger, be articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to
the mass and scale of other structures, if any, on the same block face, abutting or
adjacent to the subject property, opposing block face or cater-corner block face at the
nearest intersection. (See Figure 7a & 7b.)
Figure 7a
Infill Buildings
Figure 7b
7
Student Housing Action Plan Action Items Phase 1
Planning & Zoning Hearing February 21, 2013
Amend 3.5.1(H) by removing redundant language and adding “buffer yards and
passive open space” as a transition between uses with significantly different visual
character.
E. Proposed Solution Overview:
Land Use Transition: The existing provision for “Land Use Transition” is entirely
redundant with sections 3.5.1(A) – (G) & (J). The proposed revision removes the
redundancies and provides the opportunity to require a greater buffer yard separation
between incompatible uses in order to mitigate the conflict.
LUC Revision: (Strikethrough to be removed, bold and highlight to be added.)
3.5.1(H)
(H) Land Use Transition. When land uses with significantly different visual character
are proposed adjacent to abutting each other and where gradual transitions are not
possible or not in the best interest of the community, the development plan shall, to the
8
Student Housing Action Plan Action Items Phase 1
Planning & Zoning Hearing February 21, 2013
maximum extent feasible, achieve compatibility through compliance with the standards
set forth in this Division regarding scale, form, materials and colors, the provision of
buffer yards and passive open space in order to enhance the separation between
uses. adoption of operational standards including limits on hours of operation, lighting,
placement of noise-generating activities and similar restrictions.
Discussion:
Portions of these LUC revisions were identified during the 2012 annual LUC revisions. It
was appropriate to first incorporate them into the greater SHAP policy discussion; during
which they were confirmed as a priority and added to the SHAP action items. At the
stakeholder outreach meeting regarding these LUC revisions, some concern was
expressed that the language of “improve understanding” in the action item does not
reflect the actual changes that enhance compatibility standards. Staff thinks that the
proposed revisions are aligned with the intent of the action item.
2. SHAP Action Item: Amend MMN district development standards and LUC Sec.
3.8.30 multi-family standards to specify that no vehicular use area can be placed in
the said setback from single- and two-family dwellings. Also, consider landscape
requirements for this setback.
Problem Statement:
The required setback between multi-family development and existing single- and two-
family neighborhoods allows for multiple elements including vehicular use areas, as
outlined in Sec. 3.8.19, which may generate a great deal of noise, light, and activity at
various times of the day and night. The intention of this area between properties is to
soften and buffer the impacts created by multi-family dwellings. By requiring a “buffer
yard” instead of a “setback”, the area shall be passive open space and other landscape
elements that will enhance compatibility between the uses.
Amend 3.8.30(F)(1) to require a “buffer yards” between multi-family dwellings and
single- and two-family dwelling instead of a setback.
A. Proposed Solution Overview:
Multi-family setbacks: By requiring a “buffer yard” instead of a “setback”, the area
shall consist of passive open space and other landscape elements that will enhance
compatibility between the uses. To ensure clarity of this standard the definitions for
“Buffer Yards” and “Passive Open Space” will be added to Article 5.
LUC Revisions: (Strikethrough to be removed, bold and highlight to be added.)
Sec. 3.8.30(F)(1)
Orientation and setbacks buffer yards. Setbacks Buffer yards along from the property
line of abutting property containing single- and two-family dwellings shall be twenty-five
(25) feet.
9
Student Housing Action Plan Action Items Phase 1
Planning & Zoning Hearing February 21, 2013
Article 5: Terms and Definitions
Buffer Yards shall mean land area devoted to providing separation between two
land uses of different intensity for the purpose of providing a transition in order to
promote neighborhood compatibility. Such area may consist of passive open space,
landscaping, fences, walls, earthen berms, topographic elevation changes or any
combination thereof used to physically separate or screen one use or property from
another to visually shield or block or mitigate noise, lights, or other aspects of the
urban environment.
Passive Open Space shall mean land area devoted exclusively for activities that
involve relatively inactive or less energetic activities, such as walking, nature walks,
wildlife observation, sitting, picnicking, card games, chess, checkers, and similar
table games and may be used in conjunction with buffer yards.
Discussion:
Phase 1 of the multi-family LUC changes (September 2012) applied the development
standards from the MMN District to all multi-family developments with the intent to
enhance compatibility and mitigate conflicts between proposed multi-family
developments and existing single-family neighborhoods. One cause of conflict was the
close proximity of vehicular use areas to the existing neighborhoods. The language in the
land use standards requires a 25 foot setback which does not meet the intent to mitigate
conflicts with vehicular use areas because LUC Sec. 3.8.19 specifically permits the
following features within the setback:
(1) trees, shrubbery or other features of natural growth;
(2) fences or walls, subject to permit approval, that do not exceed the standards
established in Section 3.8.11;
(3) driveways and sidewalks;
(4) signs, if permitted by the sign regulations of this Land Use Code;
(5) bay windows and similar sized cantilevered floor areas, and architectural design
embellishments of dwellings that do not project more than two (2) feet into the
required setback, provided they do not encroach on public easements;
(6) eaves that do not project more than two and one-half (2½) feet into the required
setback;
(7) open outside stairways, entrance hoods, terraces, canopies and balconies that do
not project more than five (5) feet into a required front or rear setback and/or not
10
Student Housing Action Plan Action Items Phase 1
Planning & Zoning Hearing February 21, 2013
more than two (2) feet into a required side setback, provided they do not encroach on
public easements;
(8) chimneys, flues and residential ventilating ducts that do not project more than two
(2) feet into a required setback and when placed so as not to obstruct light and
ventilation, provided they do not encroach on public easements;
(9) utility lines, wires and associated structures, such as power poles.
(10) decks which are not more than thirty (30) inches above ground.
Requiring “buffer yards” instead of “setbacks” limits the features permitted in this area to
passive open space and landscaping (see definitions above).
3. SHAP Action Item: Better define and amend the LUC Sec. 3.8.16 (E) (2)
requirement that 4+ bedroom developments need to provide additional open space,
recreation areas, parking areas and public facilities as are necessary to adequately
serve the development and excepting the TOD Overlay Zone.
Problem Statement:
Multi-family developments containing dwelling units with more than three bedrooms
may have a greater impact on surrounding neighborhoods in terms of a greater intensity
(housing a greater number of persons in a lesser number of dwelling units). The LUC
establishes density measures based on dwelling units per acre but does not address the
amount of bedrooms per dwelling unit with the exception of parking and the non-
prescriptive language in Sec. 3.8.16(E)(2). Therefore, additional requirements such as
increased parking requirements and expanded site amenities for multi-family
developments containing dwelling units with more than three bedrooms will serve to
mitigate the impacts created by greater intensity.
Amend 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) to increase the minimum required number of parking spaces
for dwelling units with more than three bedrooms from 2.5 to 3 parking spaces per
dwelling unit.
A. Proposed Solution Overview:
Parking areas: Currently, the minimum requirement is 2.5 parking spaces per dwelling
unit containing more than three bedrooms, with the exception of the TOD Overlay Zone
in which there is not a minimum requirement. The proposal is to increase minimum
required parking to 3 spaces and remove the TOD Overlay exception for dwelling units
with more than three bedrooms. The only minimum requirement for parking in the TOD
Overlay will be for dwelling units with more than three bedrooms (if proposed).
LUC Revision: (Strikethrough to be removed, bold and highlight to be added.)
11
Student Housing Action Plan Action Items Phase 1
Planning & Zoning Hearing February 21, 2013
Sec. 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)
(K) Parking Lots - Required Number of Off-Street Spaces for Type of Use.
(1) Residential and Institutional Parking Requirements. Residential and institutional
uses shall provide a minimum number of parking spaces as defined by the standards
below.
(a) Attached Dwellings: For each two-family and multi-family dwelling there
shall be parking spaces provided as indicated by the following table:
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 3.0
* Spaces that are located in detached residential garages (but not including parking
structures) or in attached residential garages, which attached garages do not provide
direct entry into an individual dwelling unit, may be credited toward the minimum
requirements contained herein only if such spaces are made available to dwelling unit
occupants at no additional rental or purchase cost (beyond the dwelling unit rental rate
or purchase price).
1. Multi-family dwellings and mixed-use dwellings within the Transit-
Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone shall have no minimum
parking requirements, with the exception of dwelling units containing
four (4) or more bedrooms which must comply with required parking
minimums contained in 3.2.2(K)(1)(a).
Amend 3.8.16(E)(2) to add additional elements to mitigate impacts of dwelling units
with more than three bedrooms.
B. Proposed Solution Overview:
Expanded site elements: Currently, Section 3.8.16 which permits the increase of the
occupancy limit requires that the development provide adequate open space, recreation
areas, parking areas and public facilities necessary to mitigate the impacts of the
increased intensity. Additional elements such as buffer yards, plazas, courtyards,
pedestrian facilities, on-site management etc.. have been identified to provide greater
opportunities to further mitigate the impacts of increased intensity.
12
Student Housing Action Plan Action Items Phase 1
Planning & Zoning Hearing February 21, 2013
LUC Revision: (Strikethrough to be removed, bold and highlight to be added.)
Sec. 3.8.16 (E) (2):
(E) Increasing the Occupancy Limit.
(2) With respect to multiple-family dwellings, the decision maker (depending on the
type of review, Type 1 or Type 2) may, upon receipt of a written request from the
applicant and upon a finding that all applicable criteria of this Land Use Code have
been satisfied, increase the number of unrelated persons who may reside in individual
dwelling units. The decision maker shall not increase said number unless satisfied
that that the applicant has provided such additional passive open space, buffer yards,
recreational areas, plazas, courtyards, outdoor cafes, limited mixed-use
restaurants, parking areas, sidewalks, bikeways, bus shelters, shuttle services or
other facilities and services, and public facilities as are necessary to adequately
serve the occupants of the development and to protect the adjacent neighborhood.
whether public or private, including on-site management, to sustain the activities
associated with multi-family residential development and as are otherwise
necessary to adequately serve the occupants of the development and to protect
the adjacent neighborhood.
Discussion:
The Planning and Zoning Board has requested more information regarding the impacts of
dwelling units with more than three bedrooms. To clarify some of the inconsistent
language in the text above, the proposed LUC language utilizes, “dwelling units with
more than three bedrooms” to be consistent with the existing LUC language; any
references in the text above to “4+ bedroom units” is derived from public outreach during
the SHAP process. For convenience, this discussion will refer to “dwelling units with
more than three bedrooms” as “4+ bedroom units”; there is no substantive difference.
4+ Bedroom Issue:
Two problems are perceived for compatibility of 4+ bedroom units with existing
neighborhoods; 1) intensity will be increased due to the efficiency of shared common
space such as kitchens, living rooms, and bathrooms which allows the absolute number of
occupants to increase beyond a multi-family development consisting of only 1, 2, and 3
bedroom units and the LUC is not specific enough to require adequate infrastructure to
serve the additional population; and, 2) more occupants living in the same unit will
encourage poor behavior in terms of more parties and greater incident of nuisance.
1) Staff has examined three multi-family developments with 4 bedroom units (Ram’s
Village, The Summit, and The Grove) to understand how many more bedrooms
are being provided with the assumed efficiency of 4 bedroom units. This exercise
calculated the average bedroom size and its proportion of common space for 4
bedroom units and 1 – 3 bedroom units. With this number we were able to
understand how many additional or fewer bedrooms could be provided within the
existing floor area of a development if 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of the floor
area was dedicated to 4-bedroom units. The intent is to provide an understanding
13
Student Housing Action Plan Action Items Phase 1
Planning & Zoning Hearing February 21, 2013
of the efficiency of 4-bedroom units. (See Attachment 2: 4+ Bedroom
Calculations.)
The study average is as follows:
• 25% S.F. Dedicated to 4-bd Units: 50 less bedrooms overall (-50)
• 50% S.F. Dedicated to 4-bd Units: 6 less bedrooms overall (-6)
• 75% S.F. Dedicated to 4-bd Units: 38 more bedrooms overall (+38)
• 100% S.F. Dedicated to 4-bd Units: 81 more bedrooms overall (+81)
Based on our limited sample size, the development will generate more overall
bedrooms when greater than 50% of overall square footage is dedicated to 4
bedroom units.
2) In the last year (June 2011 – June 2012) the City Police Department issued 516
citations or arrests for noise and nuisance complaints. Of those issued, 403 (78%)
were issued to single-family dwellings and 113 (22%) were issued to multi-family
dwellings. Of the 113 citations issued to multi-family dwellings, 18 (15.9%) were
in complexes with 4+ bedroom units. Of the 60 apartment complexes listed on the
Off-Campus Life rental housing list, 3 complexes contain 4+ bedroom units; and
these contain 12% of the total units (833/6,924 DUs); thus, the rate of incident is
1.32 times higher for dwelling units in complexes containing 4+ bedroom units
(15% of citations in 12% of the dwelling units). Please note that this is not a direct
indication of causation because the data for citations only references the
complexes receiving citations and does not indicate whether the cited unit was
actually a 4+ bedroom unit. Staff concludes that the greater likelihood for a
citation to be issued in a complex containing 4+ bedroom units is a negligible
increase (1.32 times) versus complexes with 1-3 bedroom units. (See Attachment
2: 4+ Bedroom Calculations.)
TOD Overlay
The proposal to increase the minimum parking requirement for 4+ bedroom units from
2.5 to 3 parking spaces also includes removing the parking exemption for 4+ bedroom
units from the TOD Overlay Zone. Currently, there are no minimum requirements for
parking in the TOD Overlay Zone. There are two developments containing 4+ bedroom
units that have been approved in the TOD Overlay Zone: The Summit and the District at
Campus West. Both developments have provided more parking than what would be
required with the advent of this proposed provision. (See Attachment 2: 4+ Bedroom
Calculations.)
Peer Communities
Peer communities have not provided hard data regarding the impacts of 4+ bedroom units
and the anecdotal information varies. Some communities believe that units with 4+
bedrooms encourage parties and undesirable behavior. Iowa City has even prohibited 4+
bedroom units. Conversely, Rams Village – one of the oldest apartment complexes with 4
14
Student Housing Action Plan Action Items Phase 1
Planning & Zoning Hearing February 21, 2013
bedroom units in Fort Collins – has not seen behavior problems associated with 4
bedroom units.
LUC Section 3.8.16 (E) (2)
The standard found in Section 3.8.16 (E) (2) is non-prescriptive and is evaluated on an
individual case basis. This section requires that to permit 4+ bedroom units, the decision
maker must find that the development has provided additional amenities (see above for
complete list) “to adequately serve the occupants of the development”. Most of the
amenities, such as passive open space and recreational areas, do not have a minimum
requirement. Although some of these amenities are typically provided with a
development proposal, it is difficult to require “additional” amenities when there are no
minimum requirements. Questions arose at the stakeholder outreach meeting as to
whether an adjacent or abutting public park could help satisfy this requirement. The
attendees were divided as to whether it should or not, but agreed that it is a topic that
should be considered. Should the Planning and Zoning Board think that the proposed
expansion of amenities that may be required is inadequate; other options could be
explored such as requiring minimum amenities and applying a metric based on the
number of proposed bedrooms.
PUBLIC OUTREACH:
The Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP) has done extensive outreach to stakeholders
since summer 2011 and was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning
Board on January 17, 2013. These proposed LUC revisions were presented to
stakeholders on February 4, 2013. Some of the attendees thought that the proposed
revisions were too restrictive while others thought they were not restrictive enough.
ATTACHMENTS
1 - Ordinance – SHAP Action Items, Phase 1
2 - 4+ Bedroom Calculations
15
Attachment 2: 4+ Bedroom Calculations
4+ Bedroom Issue: 1) 4 Bedroom Efficiency
# Bedrooms Provided by % of SF Devoted to 4 Bedroom Units
Complex (% SF 4-bd) Existing 25% 50% 75% 100%
Ram's Village (38.5%) 980 990 +10 1,021 +41 1,051 +71 1,081 +10
The Summit on College (47.1%) 680 591 -89 692 +12 792 +112 892 +212
The Grove (12.1%) 612 609 -3 604 -8 599 -13 594 -14
Study Average 757 707 -50 751 -6 795 +38 838 +81
Project Comparison
1 - 3 Bedroom Units 4 Bedroom Units
Square
Footage Units Bedrooms % Units
SF /
Bedrooms % Units
SF /
Bedrooms
Ram's Village 383,322 356 980 70.79% 399.38 29.21% 354.5
The Summit on College 279,756 221 680 52.49% 569.56 47.51% 313.5
The Grove 250,978 218 612 91.74% 408.47 8.26% 422.25
Study Average: 304,685 265 757 71.67% 459.14 28.33% 363.42
1
Ram's Village (1st & 2nd Filings)
Total Square Footage: 383,322 * *Includes clubhouse/office
Unit Composition Units % Total
Units Total Bedrooms
% Total
Bedrooms
Approx. Unit
Composition
SF
% Total
Square
Footage
SF/Bedrooms
1 - 3 BRs 252 70.79% 564 57.55% 225,248 58.76% 399.38
4 BR 104 29.21% 416 42.45% 147,472 38.47% 354.50
Total Units:
356 Total Bdrms: 980
The Summit on College (Choice Center)
Total Square Footage 279,756 * *Excludes existing stip retail
Unit Composition Units % Total
Units Total Bedrooms
% Total
Bedrooms
Approx. Unit
Composition
SF
% Total
Square
Footage
SF/Bedrooms
1 - 3 BRs 116 52.49% 260 38.24% 148,086 52.93% 569.56
4 BR 105 47.51% 420 61.76% 131,670 47.07% 313.50
Total Units:
221 Total Bdrms: 680
The Grove
Total Square Footage: 250,978 * *Residential only
Unit Composition Units % Total
Units Total Bedrooms
% Total
Bedrooms
Approx. Unit
Composition
SF
% Total
Square
Footage
SF/Bedrooms
1 BR 200 91.74% 540 88.24% 220,576 87.89% 408.47
4 BR 18 8.26% 72 11.76% 30,402 12.11% 422.25
Total Units: 218 Total Bdrms: 612
2
4+ Bedroom Issue: 2) Nuisance Citations
Nuisance Citations in Multi-family Complexes with 4-bedroom Units
Complexes % Dwelling Units Ave. DU/Complex % Citations % Citation likelihood
1-3 bd du complexes 57 95.0% 6,091 107 88.0% 95 84.1% 0.96
1-4+ bd du complexes 3 5.0% 833 278 12.0% 18 15.9% 1.32
Totals 60 100.0% 6,924 100.0% 113 100.0%
TOD Overlay
4-bd in TOD: Parking Provided v. Parking Required
Multi-family in TOD
4-bd
units
Parking -
Proposed Req.
(4-bd x 3)
Parking -
Provided Difference
Choice Center (The Summit) 101 303 336 33
The District at Campus West 123 369 495 126
3
Land Use Code Changes associated with SHAP
Affordable Housing Board Comments (AHB)
February 14, 2013
The Affordable Housing Board (AHB) heard an update presentation on the Student Housing Action Plan
(SHAP) by Beth Sowder, Neighborhood Services Manager, at the Board’s regular meeting on January 10,
2012. Unfortunately, the AHB did not have a quarem at the January meeting so we could not take any
formal votes on recommendations, but we wanted to provide input from the members to both the
Planning and Zoning Board and City Council. Regarding the Near-term (2013) action items proposed in
the draft SHAP Report, several individual AHB members have the following comments on the issue:
1. Comments from Board Member Terence Hoaglund:
• I am generally fine with these changes as they are intended to be targeted to those
projects that contain 4 bedrooms to be rented to 4 unrelated persons. However, this,
and the majority of the code, provides for little incentive or variances for affordable
housing projects. Most jurisdictions will relax their standards in order to encourage
affordable housing. Other than a bit of a density bonus on smaller projects, Fort Collins
does not provide for any incentives in the development code for affordable housing
projects.
2. Comments from Board Member Tatiana Martin:
• I support the improvement and understanding of what will be allowed in certain zones
by including good examples such as photos and drawings.
• I think that this limits the available footprint area for the developer to build on. One of
the points in the 2010-2014 City Plan is to work on infill land for development and
affordable housing. Infill land is not big open farm land that is getting developed, so
automatically you are working with a size restriction. By making the setback a larger
landscaped distance you are forcing buildings to build up, which might not be possible
after the new Eastside/Westside LUC happen. I think that in a SF neighborhood there
should be minimal setbacks for duplexes, tri-plexes and four-plexes but they should not
have to have the same requirements as buildings with 50 units.
• I think that it will still be important to hold to the current parking and LUC in the TOD
district. By increasing the number of parking spaces in the TOD district you are yet again
going against the current City Plan. I think that the TOD district should remain exempt,
when the City really starts to develop the TOD then there will have to be a great public
outreach and education program put into effect (long term goal).
• If the TOD zone has to add the additional parking spaces along with a proposed buffer
zone of 25feet, developers will start to have even smaller areas to be able to build,
which makes the cost more expensive and the units less affordable.
3. Comments from Board Member Troy Jones:
• Regarding the proposed change to Section 3.2.2(J), which adds a footnote to the parking
setback table that states, "Setbacks along lot lines for vehicular use areas may be increased by the
decision maker in order to enhance compatibility with the abutting use or to match the contextual
relationship of adjacent or abutting vehicular use areas." I am worried that there is no cap on this
ATTACHMENT 2
increase in setback in the name of compatibility. The more this setback, the less of the
property is available for parking, and thus the fewer units can be built on a property,
thus decreasing the ability developers to make any of the units to be affordable. The
fewer the units allowed on a developemnt, the less likely that a developer will be able to
afford to provide the units at the lower price range. Although compatibility is
important, this language is so vague that it creates a great deal of uncertainty, and puts
the ultimate determination of the setback into an unknown for the initial stages of a
concept layout, which would potentially deter developers from attempting to provide
lower cost units. My recommendation would be to limit the the setback that can be
imposed my the decision maker in this case to a maximum of 15 feet.
• Regarding the change to 3.8.30(F)(1), which is proposed to say, "Orientation and buffer yards.
Buffer yards along the property line of abutting property containing single- and two-family dwellings shall be
twenty-five (25) feet," in conjunction with the proposed added definition for "buffer yards,"
which states, "Buffer Yards shall mean land area devoted to providing separation between two land uses
of different intensity for the purpose of providing a transition in order to promote neighborhood
compatibility. Such area may consist of passive open space, landscaping, fences, walls, earthen berms,
topographic elevation changes or any combination thereof used to physically separate or screen one use or
property from another to visually shield or block or mitigate noise, lights, or other aspects of the urban
environment." An important distinction is that triplexes and 4-plexes are considered
multifamily. I agree that a 5-unit (or larger) apartment building next to a single family
home is an appropriate time to require a buffer yard on a development site. An
important distinction to note however, is that this 25 foot buffer yard would be required
between a tri-pex / 4-plex (considered multifamily) and a duplex (considered two-
family) for example, or a tri-plex / 4-plex and a single family. This would prevent many
properties that would have otherwise been allowed to build a new tripex or 4-plex from
doing so, just because they are next to an existing single family or duplex property,
simply because the potential development property wouldn't have 25 feet available for
this buffer yard. This would greatly reduce, if not eliminate the ability of old town
properties to convert the properties to 3-plexes and 4-plexes. Although 3-plex and 4-
plex dwelling units are typically not qualified affordable units, and typically have no
affordable restrictions to them, they are typically priced at the lower end of the market,
and would more often be affordable to working families earning around 80 to 100% of
the AMI. My recommendation would be have staff change the wording of this proposed
code change to allow proposed triplexes and 4-plexes to be exempt from this buffer
yard standard, and to have it imposed only on 5-unit and larger multi-family projects.
1
Seth Lorson
From: Angelina Sanchez-Sprague
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 6:15 AM
To: Seth Lorson
Cc: Laurie Kadrich; Sherry Albertson-Clark
Subject: FW: input for 02.21.13 P&Z Board Hearing - SHAP LUC changes
Attachments: Pages from PLANNING_AND_ZONING_BOARD_AGENDA_FEB-21-2013.pdf
FYI
__________________
Angelina | asanchezsprague@fcgov.com
City of Fort Collins CDNS Department
970 221 6525
From: Nick Haws [mailto:nick@northernengineering.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 5:03 PM
To: Laurie Kadrich; Andy Smith
Cc: Angelina Sanchez-Sprague
Subject: input for 02.21.13 P&Z Board Hearing - SHAP LUC changes
Laurie & Andy,
I will be out of town this upcoming week and will be unable to attend the February 21st Planning & Zoning Board
Hearing in person. Therefore, I’m providing my public testimony in advance via this e-mail.
I have two minor suggestions for Figure 6 and Figure 7a in an effort to help better assist Applicants, neighbors, and
other parties-in-interest when trying to wrestle the greased pig that is “compatibility” of new development. I have
attached a PDF with a few mark-ups. I realize my redlined sketches are extremely crude, but I think they convey the
gist of what I’m suggesting.
I think Figure 6 is too misleading in that it implies the “new” structure will be of the same size as the surrounding
(historic) structures. The code section speaks more to the architectural design, and not necessarily the size and
scale. As currently drawn, I believe Figure 6 sets the stage for future controversy. I strongly recommend showing a
new building slightly larger than the surrounding buildings in Figure 6. In the majority (if not all) of instances, the
underlying zoning would at least allow 2-story buildings. Perhaps the intent of the code section and the figure would
be better served if the graphic illustrated how a new 2 or 3-story building could take on the same architectural design
components of the surrounding 1 and 2-story buildings?
My recommendation for Figure 7a is similar; however, this code section specifically speaks to building size, height,
bulk, mass, and scale instead of architectural character and typology. I think the addition of Figure 7b is a great
improvement. It helps illustrate how even a 3-story building can be successfully integrated in relatively close
proximity to existing 1-story buildings. I suggest adding the same increased height to the “new” building in Figure
7a. This would illustrate the concept in both a section view and street elevation view, and will again help mitigate
potential false expectations.
Thank you for passing this information on for the Board’s consideration.
Nick Haws, PE, LEED AP
NORTHERN ENGINEERING
200 South College Avenue, Suite 10 | Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
2
O: 970.221.4158 ext. 5414 | D: 970.568.5414 | M: 970.690.0927
F: 970.221.4159 | nick@northernengineering.com | www.northernengineering.com
3
_______
Project: LUC (Land Use Code) – Student Housing Action Plan Phase I
Project Description: This is a request related to the Student Housing Action Plan Phase I near term
Land Use Code amendments related to compatibility between multi-family
development and existing neighborhoods.
Recommendation: Staff requests approval.
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
City Planner Seth Lorson said reviewed the following action items.
SHAP Action Items Phase 1:
1. Improve understanding of compatibility by modifying the LUC to include good examples (photos,
drawings) of what is allowed in certain zones.
2. Amend MMN district development standards and LUC Sec. 3.8.30 multi-family standards to specify
that no vehicular use area can be placed in the said setback from single- and two-family dwellings.
Also, consider landscape requirements for this setback.
3. Better define and amend the LUC Sec. 3.8.16 (E) (2) requirement that 4+ bedroom developments
need to provide additional open space, recreation areas, parking areas and public facilities as are
necessary to adequately serve the development and excepting the TOD Overlay Zone.
Lorson said changes suggested to improve understanding of compatibility by modifying the LUC to
include good examples (photos, drawings) of what is allowed in certain zones are: landscape buffering,
setbacks for vehicular use areas, building size compatibility, and land use transition.
Lorson said to amend MMN district development standards and LUC Section 3.8.30 multi-family
standards to specify that no vehicular use area can be placed in the setback from single- and two-
family dwelling. Staff believes multi-family requires a buffer yard instead of a “setback” and we need to
clarify intent to enhance compatibility. They would add definitions for buffer yards and passive open
space.
Lorson said to amend the LUC Section 3.8.16 (E)(2) requirement that 4+ bedroom developments need
to provide additional open space, recreation areas, parking areas and public facilities as are necessary
to adequately serve the development. In addition, parking areas increase 4+ bedroom minimum
parking requirements from 2.5 to 3 spaces per unit, remove the TOD (Transit Oriented District)
exception, and mitigate impacts created from greater intensity. With regard to site elements, expand
amenities that the decision maker may require in 4+ bedroom developments and mitigate impacts
created from greater intensity.
Public Input
None
ATTACHMENT 3
4
Board questions
Chair Smith said there were a couple of suggestions by a resident (Nick Haws) that he thought were
worth considering. He asked Lorson what were his thoughts relative to those suggestions. Lorson said
he suggested making the structures a different in size in figure 7b.
Smith asked about figure 6. Haws (in his email) said it implies the new structure be the size of the
surrounding historic structures and the code speaks more to the architectural design and not the size
and scale that’s currently drawn. Haws said he believes figure 6 sets the stage for future controversy.
Smith said he sees some validity in that because showing a new building slightly larger than a
surrounding building might make sense. Lorson said he appreciates what Haws is alluding to. The
drawing is quite rudimentary. It’s still showing a larger structure than the ones that are around it.
Lorson said what the figure does is articulate the building in the module size of the existing buildings
surround it to engage the pedestrian with a similar scale than what exists. Lorson said it is using
architectural elements and massing to try to meet the same scale.
Member Campana said the staff report has those figures switched. On page 6 we have figure 6 building
patterns with the big blocks crossed out and a new sketch on the bottom. Lorson said when it says
figure 6, that’s switching figures for the existing figure 6 and figure 7. Lorson said the way it reads on
page 6 and 7 of the staff report and the ordinance is accurate.
Campana said when he heard we were going to make code changes and start adding diagrams that
say “do this / not this”; he was envisioning more pictures or at least something not quite so rudimentary.
Is there a reason why we keep going back to this? Lorson said they exist in the code. Campana said
he thinks it would be a great idea to have real life examples. Lorson said at this point, we didn’t dig all
the way into being able to put those in. They’ve identified low hanging fruit. They’d be happy to look
into more figures.
Campana said when he creates design guidelines for neighborhoods, he uses actual photos. Is there
some legal reason we can’t do that in the Land Use Code? Maybe we can go to different states so
someone who lives in Fort Collins doesn’t see their house as what not to do.
Director Kadrich said with regard to the Board’s comments about actual photos, it is a discussion
they’ve been having in the context of historic preservation compatibility issues. They’re exploring how
they can provide better design guidelines. As they work more on that, they may be able as suggested
to substitute with photographs.
Board Discussion
Member Kirkpatrick said she has some reservations about taking out the exemption for TOD. She
thinks the Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone is specifically intended to do exactly that and
has the parking requirements as one of its primary tenants. Part of the reason we may be considering
that is because most of the developments that have come in have been building parking anyway. She
thinks we should still not be requiring it. She said right now we don’t have our transportation system
fully built out so we’re still seeing parking. Her hope is that once we have a fully functioning
transportation system with MAX, enhanced robust travel corridors, and ridership increases; we are
going to have more people utilizing our transit system for their transportation needs. She thinks it’s
early to be making that decision. She thinks we would be inhibiting what we’re hoping to see if we
exempt the TOD Overlay Zone.
5
Chair Smith said he fully agrees with her. He would hate to see us get weak knees when we’re talking
about the positive benefits of the overlay district and what it’s trying to encourage. He thinks you can
water it down until you no longer have a TOD and that’s pointless.
Member Hart said he has a slightly different point of view. He thinks many of the people who will be
living in the TOD may not use vehicles on a daily basis but they still have a place to park. When you
have three bedroom apartments with three students, you’re probably going to need 3 or 4 parking
places. The cars may only move on weekends but they need a place to put their cars. He said near the
university there is no parking for residents. He fully supports TOD and having the transit system move
people around but there is still a problem of people bringing cars to town.
Member Kirkpatrick said they absolutely do but there are many ways to address that issue. If we’re
regulating in our LUC that you have to have parking, we’re not incentivizing with a robust tool kit like CU
(University of Colorado) with car shares or external parking. She said she lives by campus and can
appreciate the issues. She said she also went to school at CSU and she had a car.
Member Campana said they’ve all supported TOD but while we’re in transition, it’s really uncomfortable
to add dwelling units without adding parking. He’s not sure what developers would do. He thinks if it
were him he’d limit his 4 bedroom units if he didn’t have a place to park cars. He thinks it waters down
our vision of having a TOD that functions properly. He’s thinking our recommendation should remove
that.
Member Hart said he doesn’t feel so strongly what we’re going to do affects what done because if
places don’t have parking, then people won’t go there. The market will determine it in the end.
Chair Smith said the project (outside the TOD) at Olive and Mathews was a missed opportunity given
the innovation ways they were trying to address parking. Member Kirkpatrick said had it been in the
TOD and we had parking requirements, we wouldn’t have been able to approve something like that.
Member Carpenter said she thinks that project, while innovative, failed because of the neighbors who
don’t want cars parked in front of their house and blocking their driveways. You really have to balance
it and until we really get to where we have a city in which you don’t have to have a car, we’re going to
have to make these kinds of compromises.
Chair Smith said with progress being made on MAX stations, we’re very close to seeing TOD gain
traction. He said there’s this idea that 4 bedroom units are terrible and how can you restrict them – let’s
burden them down with a little extra cost.
Member Kirkpatrick said she thinks ‘our job’ is to be stewards of the community’s long term vision. It’s
easy to get weak knees in the short term for political reasons but the Board is charged with making sure
that we achieve the vision we’ve set in City Plan. This is definitely not getting us there.
Member Elmore said she concurs. She really appreciates the comment that if we make compromises
now, then we don’t incentivize creativity.
Member Campana said he thinks we can do better as a city just educating and raising awareness with
the TOD. He said he’s touring colleges with his daughter. At CU the message is leave your car at
home. He thinks we can do a better job and encourage CSU to give a like message.
Member Campana made a motion to recommend to City Council to approve the Student
Housing Action Plan Phase I with the exception of the modification on page 12 of the staff
6
report and page 3 of the ordinance as amended striking out “with the exception of dwelling
units containing 4 or more bedrooms which must comply with required parking minimums
contained in 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)”. Member Kirkpatrick seconded the motion.
Member Hart said he will vote for this in the hope it works.
The motion passed 6:0.
1
ORDINANCE NO. 041, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE
TO ADDRESS CERTAIN RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED
IN THE STUDENT HOUSING ACTION PLAN
WHEREAS, based upon concerns that have been expressed by the community
surrounding the issue of student housing in the City, City staff prepared the Student Housing
Action Plan (SHAP) for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Board, the City Council and
various other boards and commissions of the City and other entities within the City; and
WHEREAS, on January 17, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended to the
City Council the adoption of the SHAP and the various action items contained therein; and
WHEREAS, three of the five action items proposed in the SHAP are items which call for:
(1) improving the understanding of compatibility by modifying the Land Use Code to
include examples of what is allowed in certain zones;
(2) amending the Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (M-M-N) District
development standards and Section 3.8.30 of the Land Use Code pertaining to
multi-family standards in order to specify that no vehicular use area can be placed
in the setback from single-family and two-family dwellings and to also include
certain landscape requirements for the setbacks; and
(3) amending Section 3.8.16(E)(2) of the Land Use Code to better define the
requirement that dwelling units containing four or more bedrooms need to provide
additional open space, recreational areas, parking areas and public facilities that
are necessary in order to adequately serve the development (except for those
developments that are located in the transportation overlay zone district); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that these proposed amendments to the
Land Use Code are in the best interests of the City and should be adopted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 3.2.1(E)(1) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
(E) Landscape Standards. All development applications shall include landscape
plans that meet the following minimum standards:
(1) Buffering Between Incompatible Uses and Activities. In situations where
the Director determines that the arrangement of uses or design of buildings
2
does not adequately mitigate conflicts reasonably anticipated to exist
between dissimilar uses, site elements or building designs, one (1) or more
of the following landscape buffering techniques shall be used to mitigate
the conflicts.
. . .
Section 2. That Section 3.2.2(J) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(J) Setbacks. Any vehicular use area containing six (6) or more parking spaces or one
thousand eight hundred (1,800) or more square feet shall be set back from the
street right-of-way and the side and rear yard lot line (except a lot line between
buildings or uses with collective parking) consistent with the provisions of this
Section, according to the following table:
Minimum average of
entire landscaped setback
area
(feet)
Minimum width of setback
at any point
(feet)
Along an arterial street 15 5
Along a nonarterial street 10 5
Along a lot line* 5 5
* Setbacks along lot lines for vehicular use areas may be increased by the decision maker
in order to enhance compatibility with the abutting use or to match the contextual
relationship of adjacent or abutting vehicular use areas.
Section 3. That Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(K) Parking Lots - Required Number of Off-Street Spaces for Type of Use.
(1) Residential and Institutional Parking Requirements. Residential and
institutional uses shall provide a minimum number of parking spaces as
defined by the standards below.
(a) Attached Dwellings: For each two-family and multi-family
dwelling there shall be parking spaces provided as indicated by the
following table:
Number of Bedrooms/Dwelling Unit Parking Spaces Per Dwelling Unit*
3
One or less 1.5
Two 1.75
Three 2.0
Four and above 2.5 3.0
* Spaces that are located in detached residential garages (but not including parking
structures) or in attached residential garages, which attached garages do not provide
direct entry into an individual dwelling unit, may be credited toward the minimum
requirements contained herein only if such spaces are made available to dwelling unit
occupants at no additional rental or purchase cost (beyond the dwelling unit rental rate
or purchase price).
1. Multi-family dwellings and mixed-use dwellings within the
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone shall have no
minimum parking requirements.
. . .
Section 4. That Figure 6 contained in Section 3.4.7(F)(2) of the Land Use Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
Figure 6
Building Patterns
4
. . .
Section 5. That Section 3.5.1(C) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(C) Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale. . Buildings shall either be similar in
size and height, or, if larger, be articulated and subdivided into massing that is
proportional to the mass and scale of other structures, if any, on the same block
face, abutting or adjacent to the subject property, opposing block face or cater-
corner block face at the nearest intersection. (See Figure 7a & 7b.)
Infill Buildings
Figure 7a
S
follows:
(H
ection 6.
H) Land
are pr
That Secti
Use Transit
roposed adja
F
ion 3.5.1(H)
tion. When l
acent to abutt
5
Figure 7b
of the Land
land uses wi
ting each oth
d Use Code i
ith significan
her and whe
is hereby am
ntly differen
ere gradual tr
mended to re
nt visual char
ransitions ar
ead as
racter
re not
6
possible or not in the best interest of the community, the development plan shall,
to the maximum extent feasible, achieve compatibility through compliance with
the standards set forth in this Division regarding scale, form, materials and colors,
adoption of operational standards including limits on hours of operation, lighting,
placement of noise-generating activities and similar restrictions the provision of
buffer yards and passive open space in order to enhance the separation between
uses.
Section 7. That Section 3.8.16(E)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(E) Increasing the Occupancy Limit.
. . .
(2) With respect to multiple-family dwellings, the decision maker (depending
on the type of review, Type 1 or Type 2) may, upon receipt of a written
request from the applicant and upon a finding that all applicable criteria of
this Land Use Code have been satisfied, increase the number of unrelated
persons who may reside in individual dwelling units. The decision maker
shall not increase said number unless satisfied that the applicant has
provided suchsufficient additional amenities, either public or private, to
sustain the activities associated with multi-family residential development,
to adequately serve the occupants of the development and to protect the
adjacent neighborhood. Such amenities may include, without limitation,
passive open space, buffer yards, on-site management, recreational areas,
plazas, courtyards, outdoor cafes, limited mixed-use restaurants, parking
areas, sidewalks, bikeways, bus shelters, shuttle services or other facilities
and servicesand public facilities as are necessary to adequately serve the
occupants of the development and to protect the adjacent neighborhood.
. . .
Section 8. That Section 3.8.30(F)(1) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
(1) Orientation and setbacks buffer yards. Setbacks from Buffer yards along the
property line of abutting property containing single- and two-family dwellings
shall be twenty-five (25) feet.
. . .
Section 9. That Section 5.1.2 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended by the addition of two new definitions “Buffer yards” and “Passive open space” which
read in their entirety as follows:
7
Buffer Yards shall mean land area devoted to providing separation between two land uses
of different intensity for the purpose of providing a transition in order to promote
neighborhood compatibility. Such area may consist of passive open space, landscaping,
fences, walls, earthen berms, topographic elevation changes or any combination thereof
used to physically separate or screen one use or property from another so as to visually
shield or block or mitigate noise, lights, or other aspects of the urban environment.
Passive Open Space shall mean land area devoted exclusively to activities such as
walking, nature walks, wildlife observation, sitting, picnicking, card games, chess,
checkers, and similar table games, which space may be used in conjunction with buffer
yards.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 5th day of
March, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 19th day of March, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 19th day of March, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk