Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 06/14/2011 - COMPLETE AGENDAKaren Weitkunat, Mayor Council Information Center Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West Ben Manvel, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3 Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Gerry Horak, District 6 on the Comcast cable system Darin Atteberry, City Manager Steve Roy, City Attorney Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. WORK SESSION June 14, 2011 6 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order. 2. Development Review Overview; Land Use Code Changes; Sustainable, Flexible, Predictable (SFP) - Zoning Tool. (staff: Karen Cumbo, Steve Dush, Ginny Sawyer, Ted Shepard, Megan Bolin; 90 minute discussion) The purpose of this work session is to address issues and concerns regarding the development review process. A number of concerns relate to perceptions and roles of City Planning Staff, and the outreach associated with the development review process. In an effort to ground the discussion, an overview of the development process and appeals is provided. This overview is followed by a discussion of the Land Use Code (LUC) and the proposed Sustainable, Flexible, Predictable (SFP) zoning tool, which is in its formative stages. The LUC discussion focuses on proposed changes to the development application processes resulting from concerns identified by staff and citizens. The SFP discussion is both a City Plan action item and a Planning and Zoning Board Work Plan item. The SFP tool is designed to address the unique needs of a more compact, urban, and infill development pattern by creating a zoning tool that is more responsive to adjacent development and to context sensitive designs. 3. System for Appealing Land Use and Other Board and Commission Decisions to the City Council. (staff: Steve Roy, Karen Cumbo; 30 minute discussion) Questions have recently been raised by members of the public about the Council’s process for hearing appeals in quasi-judicial matters such as land use decisions. The purpose of this work session item is to determine whether that appeal system should be changed. There are two basic kinds of appeal systems used by Colorado municipalities. Under the first kind of system, Council’s decision is based solely on the record of the proceedings before the original decision maker. Under the second kind of system, participants may present new evidence that was not presented to the original decision maker. The systems also differ in other respects, for example, some limit the parties who may file appeals or participate in appeal hearings, some specify the grounds upon which an appeal may be filed, some allow the City Manager or the City Council to appeal a decision, etc. Staff is seeking Council direction as to whether and how Council wishes to change the appeal process that the City currently uses. 4. 2011 Fee Study Recommendations. (staff: Ann Turnquist, Steve Dush; 45 minute discussion) On March 22, 2011, the Council Finance Committee and staff met to discuss a proposed change to the City’s cost recovery philosophy for Building Permit and Plan Check Fees and an increase to these fees. The Committee reviewed the detailed proposal and directed staff to bring the proposal to the full Council for review at a work session. This change of philosophy would move from a goal of collecting 80% of the cost of the Development Review Center through fees, toward recovering 100% of the cost of fee- related services. This approach would result in an increase of 0.5% to 6.5% in Building Permit and Plan Check fees, and yield an additional $714,098 in fee revenue to support the Development Review Center. 5. Other Business. 6. Adjournment. urban renewal authority Karen Weitkunat, President City Council Chambers Kelly Ohlson, Vice-President City Hall West Ben Manvel 300 LaPorte Avenue Lisa Poppaw Fort Collins, Colorado Aislinn Kottwitz Wade Troxell Gerry Horak Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 on the Comcast cable system Darin Atteberry, Executive Director Steve Roy, City Attorney Wanda Krajicek, Secretary The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY WORK SESSION June 14, 2011 (after the Council Work Session) 1. Call Meeting to Order. 2. Revisions to the Urban Renewal Authority Policies and Procedures. (staff: Mike Freeman, Christina Vincent; 45 minute staff discussion) In May 2010, the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board approved a thorough revision to the Policies and Procedures (Policies) from the original policies created in 2006. At the May 17, 2011 URA Board meeting, it was discussed that the Policies should have more detail regarding green building practices and therefore should come back to the URA Board for more revisions. Staff has prepared the requested revisions to the Policies. These Policies are intended to give guidance to the eligible developments and objectives of the URA to applicants, staff, citizens and the URA Board for decision making purposes. 3. Other Business. 4. Adjournment. DATE: June 14, 2011 STAFF: Karen Cumbo, Steve Dush, Ginny Sawyer, Ted Shepard, Megan Bolin Pre-taped staff presentation: available at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php WORK SESSION ITEM FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Development Review Overview; Land Use Code Changes; Sustainable, Flexible, Predictable (SFP) - Zoning Tool. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this work session is to address issues and concerns regarding the development review process. A number of concerns relate to perceptions and roles of City Planning Staff, and the outreach associated with the development review process. In an effort to ground the discussion, an overview of the development process and appeals is provided. This overview is followed by a discussion of the Land Use Code (LUC) and the proposed Sustainable, Flexible, Predictable (SFP) zoning tool, which is in its formative stages. The LUC discussion focuses on proposed changes to the development application processes resulting from concerns identified by staff and citizens. The SFP discussion is both a City Plan action item and a Planning and Zoning Board Work Plan item. The SFP tool is designed to address the unique needs of a more compact, urban, and infill development pattern by creating a zoning tool that is more responsive to adjacent development and to context sensitive designs. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. What feedback does Council have regarding the Development Process Improvement Strategies? 2. What feedback does Council have regarding the proposed LUC changes, specifically the three directly related to addressing neighborhood concerns? 3. What feedback does Council have regarding the general approach and methodology of the SFP? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION I. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OVERVIEW A Brief Recent History of Fort Collins Development Review In response to issues and concerns raised by the development community in 2003, the City engaged Zucker Systems, the nation’s leading consultant on development review processes, to conduct an organizational critique of the City’s development review process. At that time, the City also adopted June 14, 2011 Page 2 Resolution 2003-105 reaffirming that the intent of the City’s development review process is to be policy-neutral regarding growth. The Zucker Report provided more than 50 recommendations. Numerous changes, administrative as well as policy and standards, continue to be implemented. Some examples of improvements include a reduction of the level of engineering required prior to a development application being scheduled for a public hearing; a reduction in the amount of time City staff and referral agencies spend per cycle of review (from 5 weeks to 3 weeks for initial review); and various other procedural changes. The changes were intended to improve efficiency while maintaining a high quality review. How does the development review process work? The attached Development Review Guide (DRG – Attachment 1) outlines the process for a development application. Please note that this process does not include items such as home additions, or minor amendments to existing approved development. It is important to understand that the staff review and comments following a formal application is an iterative process, and comments initially made by staff can be amended and new comments can be made upon the receipt of additional information. For these reasons, the review process includes an interdepartmental staff team and affected stakeholders, i.e., Poudre Fire Authority, Ditch Companies, etc. to ensure that one City department’s comments do not conflict with other departments. Typically, before the process outlined in the DRG occurs, applicants with more complex development applications will meet with staff for several months regarding technical and policy issues to assess if a proposal will work or if it will comply with the regulations. During this time many projects are modified and only then enter the process as outlined in the DRG; some projects may not proceed at all. This “pre-DRG” process can range from a single meeting to several meetings and can last several months or years before an applicant is ready to submit a formal application. Variances and Modifications The development review process allows an applicant to request modifications or variances. Development standards can be changed using three methods: one type of modification and two types of variances. A modification to a standard in the Land Use Code (LUC) may be considered independently and in anticipation of a subsequent Project Development Plan (PDP), or in conjunction with a PDP application. The Code permits modifications pursuant to Division 2.8 of the LUC, provided at least one of the required specific findings are met: The decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or June 14, 2011 Page 3 (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city- wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. In other words, a modification can be granted if: • The resulting development is equal to or better than the standard requires; or • It does not negate the purpose and intent of the standard; or • A physical condition exists that results in unusual and exceptional difficulty/hardship; or • The standard diverged from is nominal and inconsequential. Examples of modifications include, but are not limited to, height, setbacks or landscaping. Not all LUC requirements are eligible for a modification such as a use or process. Appeals are made to City Council. There are two types of variances that may be part of a development application. The first is a technical engineering variance request related to the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). These variances are considered at a staff level and require that an applicant provide a Professional Engineer report/paper to address the specific request. That request and associated materials are then considered and approved or denied by the City Engineer upon consultation with applicable City staff. Examples of these types of variances include, but are not limited to, driveway width/spacing, curve radii or pavement requirements. There is not a public hearing process for these requests, nor an appeal process, unless the City Engineer denies a request. If a variance request is denied, the denial can be appealed to the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services. If the Director denies the request, the decision can be appealed to the City Council. June 14, 2011 Page 4 The second type of variance request is related to the LUC but applicable only to projects that are already approved and are considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals. These variances apply only to site specific development plans or to properties that were developed by a simple building permit or a use-by-right under the prior Code. The criterion that may be used to justify such a variance is similar to the modification process outlined above with the exception of the “community benefit” criterion. These variances are processed independently from the approval of the application in accordance with Division 2.10 of the LUC and require the following findings to be made: The Zoning Board of Appeals may grant a variance from the standards of Articles 3 and 4 only if it finds that the granting of the variance would neither be detrimental to the public good nor authorize any change in use other than to a use that is allowed subject to basic development review; and that: (1) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be varied would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the occupant of such property, or upon the applicant, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the occupant or applicant; (2) the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested; or (3) the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be varied except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Any finding above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the proposal, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph finding. In other words, a variance can be granted if: • The resulting development is equal to or better than the standard requires; or • A physical condition exists that results in unusual and exceptional difficulty/hardship; or • The standard diverged from is nominal and inconsequential. The Zoning Board of Appeals is the decision maker for a LUC variance. As with modifications, examples may include, but are not limited to, height, setbacks, and Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Appeals are made to City Council. June 14, 2011 Page 5 Variances and modifications are useful and critical tools for development within the confines of a prescriptive code. When modifications and variances are granted it can lead to a perception that the City is compromising its standards and allowing for sub-standard development. In most cases, developments with modifications/variances are actually better than they would have been with strict compliance. For example, Attachment 2 depicts a site that received a variance to a setback requirement to allow for a greenhouse because the lot and topography only permitted sunlight on a certain portion of the lot. Attachment 3 depicts a street that received 10 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) variances to achieve diagonal parking that allows for a design and streetscape to create a sense of place. In Attachment 4, the “green” street represents an example that would require numerous variances/modifications yet still provides a high quality streetscape while allowing for stormwater capabilities and water quality through innovative design. The ability to use modifications and variances allows for the flexibility to incorporate innovative street designs that are context sensitive, or building arrangement that considers form for compatibility. The growing number of infill and redevelopment projects that Fort Collins continues to see within redevelopment areas (such as Midtown and along the Mason Corridor) will likely require modifications and variances to achieve successful projects. Public Outreach Process Flawed In several projects over the last several months, strong concerns have been raised about the voice of the neighbors. These concerns including the timing of neighborhood meetings, the role of the staff planner, the ability of citizens to speak to elected officials on pending matters, and the format of public hearings. In addition, the increasing focus on infill and redevelopment that the City of Fort Collins is experiencing will require new methods for outreach and engagement. With this in mind, it is important to try and identify metrics that would indicate flaws. In an effort to identify such metrics, staff researched the number of appeals from 2003 through 2010. Appeals can be an indicator of an application process that did not result in mutual agreement or understanding. During this seven year period, there were 533 Type 1 and Type 2 hearings1 resulting in nine appeals (1.7%). The number of appeals is not the only measure of a good public outreach process, yet this data suggests the process is not inherently flawed. Nevertheless, there are always opportunities for improvement. Another useful metric is the comparison of citizen participation with the number of property owners contacted via the public notification process. Staff analyzed forty two projects for their level of citizen participation and compared attendance at neighborhood meetings and public hearings in relation to the number of affected property owners notified. The data reveals the following: • The average participation rate at neighborhood meetings is 5.5% • The average participation rate at public hearings is 1.45% • The vast majority of projects are non-controversial with low participation rates. A few projects are controversial with slightly higher participation rates. • The participation rates indicate that the notification area is sufficient. (The notification distances were expanded in 2006.) 1A Type 1 Hearing is a public hearing requiring notice and the decision maker is a hearing officer. A Type 2 Hearing is a public hearing requiring notice and the decision maker is the Planning and Zoning Board. The LUC specifies which type of hearing is required for each type of application (Sec. 2.2.1). June 14, 2011 Page 6 In an effort to better understand the process from the neighbors’ perspective, staff has met with neighborhoods that have been recently engaged in development applications. Many of the suggestions from these meetings and other citizen input resulted in the proposed Code changes outlined in Section II of this agenda item summary. Some of the other suggestions received have legal, procedural and management considerations that are outlined and analyzed below: 1. Using an applicant’s past performance as an evaluative criteria for a land use application. Some suggestions of past performance include financial ability; applicant’s criminal history and personal character; complaints from various sources and contractual relationships with land owners. Staff has considered past performance criteria from a procedural perspective and identified the following concerns: 1. What are the criteria upon which past performance is evaluated? 2. Who determines the criteria? 3. How is the evidence evaluated? 4. Are appeals to information allowed? 5. If appeals are allowed, how is this administered? 6. Who evaluates the evidence to ensure it is true and accurate? 7. What sources may the information come from? 8. When is past performance determined? 9. What if the applicant does not have any past performance? 10. Does a Past Performance Review Board need to be created? In addition to the above concerns, the evaluation of a land use application should and must be evaluated on the merits of the application, and its compliance with the Land Use Code, not the applicant. Additionally, there is no guarantee that an applicant who meets the past performance test wouldn’t sell the property to another developer who may not meet the test. For these reasons, staff does not support using a test of an applicant’s past performance as a criterion for approving a land use application. 2. Creating an Ombudsman position for neighbors. Concerns that staff’s role in the Development Review process may impede the effectiveness of the public input process resulted in the suggestion for an Ombudsman to represent neighbors’ concerns and interests. Council and staff heard statements from citizens that suggest staff is “in the pocket of developers”; that staff is working for the developer and not the neighbors; and that the neighborhood is in an unfair fight with both a development application and with staff. These comments and perceptions are troubling because it creates an adversarial atmosphere and portrays staff as being on the applicant’s side. These perceptions can foster an adversarial atmosphere, hinder productive dialogue, and genuine problem solving in the development review process. Staff has given these comments a great deal of thought to better understand their origin and identify how these misperceptions can be addressed. June 14, 2011 Page 7 Staff researched the ombudsman concept and found that various communities approach this role in different ways. Some communities use an ombudsman to assist an applicant through a development process while others use an ombudsman to solve problems. Eugene, Oregon uses its neighborhood services division to inform neighborhoods about proposed changes to their areas and help them understand planning and development processes. The research underscores the need for a local approach such as the Oregon example. Staff is proposing a variety of action steps entitled Development Process Improvement Strategies. (see below - page 8) • Change the Public Hearing Process Staff heard concerns that the public hearing process outlined in Section 2.2.7 of the LUC is unfair. The concerns are as follows: • the ability of the decision maker to exclude testimony deemed irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious; • the ability of the applicant to present any relevant information the applicant deems appropriate; • the public testimony is limited to relevant items; • the ability for the applicant to respond to the testimony; and • the inability for additional public testimony to respond to the applicant’s response to their testimony – (effectively “who gets the last word”.) Some of these concerns are related to the past performance issue analyzed above in section 1. There will likely always be debate as to what is and what is not relevant. The decision maker is responsible for choosing to either allow or not allow testimony they deem relevant to be submitted, as outlined in Section 2.2.7 (B)(2) of the LUC. With respect to the ability to respond to a prior response, the LUC could be amended to allow for multiple responses. Any change would have to address how many responses are allowed and which party speaks last. 3. Appeals Process Appeals of any final decision under the LUC shall be in accordance with Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code, unless otherwise provided in Divisions 2.3 through 2.11 of the LUC. This section of the Code outlines who can appeal, when and how. The item is scheduled and the appeal is “on the record” meaning only those items and evidence received/reviewed by the original decision maker may be presented to the City Council. Exceptions are outlined in section 2-57. Some citizens expressed a desire to modify this process, specifically the “no new information” criteria so that the Council would hold a new hearing and receive new evidence. This topic is the next item on this Agenda. June 14, 2011 Page 8 Development Process Improvement Strategies: • Host a Development Review Outreach (DRO) meeting with staff and the neighborhood. This meeting would come before the required neighborhood meeting with the purpose of establishing a relationship between the neighborhood and staff; identifying points of contact for communication and information; allowing staff to explain the development review process along with tips and techniques for effective communication and dialogue; and explaining the various roles of staff and the decision maker; etc. This approach will help explain the technical aspects of the process and will begin the formation of a relationship between the staff and the neighborhood that is issue oriented and allows for the focus to be on issues. The DRO would target the same notification area that would be produced from the Neighborhood Meeting. This meeting would be facilitated by Neighborhood Services and the Project Planner and would be designed to inform neighbors about proposed development while helping them understand the development process, providing tips for organization, and outlining the role of the various parties involved in the process. This process would help ameliorate the perception that staff is on the side of the developer and help foster effective, informed, and civil communications. • Modify the Land Use Code (Section II of this AIS): a. Establish a “Cooling Off Period” for denied applications; b. Require a minimum waiting period of five days from neighborhood meeting until a formal application submittal; c. Prohibit the same type of applications on the same parcel or portion thereof from being processed concurrently. • Develop educational materials such as handouts/packets for neighborhoods outlining the process. • Continue to enhance and update the Development Review flow chart website; • Develop post-process and post-development feedback tools • Develop new zoning tools that address infill development that is sustainable, flexible and predictable. (Section III of this AIS) II. LAND USE CODE CHANGES As a part of the ongoing efforts to improve the Land Use Code, staff proposes several changes. Three of the proposed changes specifically address concerns discovered in part through discussions with neighbors as well as anticipated concerns associated with more urban/infill development. These amendments include: • Item 877 – Amend 2.3.2(H)(1) O.D.P. Standards and 2.4.2(H)(1) – P.D.P. Standards – to address the potential of having overlapping concurrent submittals. June 14, 2011 Page 9 • Item 880 - Amend 2.2 – Procedures - to mandate a waiting period between a project denial and a re-submittal. • Item 883 – Amend 2.2.2 – Neighborhood Meetings – to establish a minimum of five calendar days between the neighborhood meeting and submittal of plans in order to consider or incorporate citizen input into the plan. The balances of the proposed LUC revisions address a wide variety of issues. A full description of each item is provided in Attachment 5. III. SUSTAINABLE FLEXIBLE PREDICTABLE (SFP) ZONING TOOL A more flexible zoning tool is necessary to accommodate the changing nature of community development. Development applications are trending towards more infill and less greenfield development. The Sustainable Flexible and Predictable (SFP) zoning tool was initially suggested by City Council and has subsequently become a City Plan action item. This new zoning tool is also a work plan item for the Planning and Zoning Board. Problem Statement The prescriptive nature of the existing Land Use Code (LUC) routinely hinders alternative approaches to creating high quality infill/redevelopment projects. As the City of Fort Collins matures in its development pattern and shifts from “greenfield” to more infill/redevelopment, new, unique, and more frequent challenges are presented that require greater innovation and flexibility. Background Before the City adopted the LUC in 1997, development was controlled by the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS). The LDGS was a performance-based system that used points to evaluate and negotiate development proposals. Highly regarded for its flexibility, the LDGS was nevertheless criticized for its lack of predictability. LDGS projects were appealed to City Council at a rate that necessitated a re-evaluation of the development process. The more prescriptive yet predictable LUC process was the result. The shift from flexible to prescriptive makes sense from the perspective of “greenfield” development, and the LUC produced successful, quality projects. However, the city’s supply of vacant land continues to diminish, causing development to be driven inward. Infill sites are inherently more complex than “greenfield” because lots are often small or irregularly shaped, and infill must respond to surrounding development and work within an existing infrastructure system. Such constraints make it difficult, if not impossible at times, to adhere to certain LUC standards. In these cases, the only option is to request a modification or variance of standards. This process may serve the purpose, but is not necessarily the most efficient method of processing a development application. The goal of the Sustainable, Flexible, Predictable (SFP) zoning tool is to incorporate elements related to performance-based standards with the LUC (predictable process) in order to more effectively address the needs of infill sites and produce sustainable, high-quality development. June 14, 2011 Page 10 Policy Foundation The need for an alternative, flexible zoning tool has been identified by multiple sources, including: • Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z) 2011 work program P&Z has discussed the need for a flexible zoning tool for quite some time. The Board believes the tool will be essential in ensuring that Fort Collins continues to develop in a high quality fashion, while also addressing the various issues and interests related to infill development. • City Plan update, 2011 Policy EH 4.2 – Reduce barriers to infill development and redevelopment: Develop new policies and modify current policies, procedures, and practices to reduce and resolve barriers to Infill development and redevelopment. Emphasize new policies and modifications to existing policies that support a sustainable, flexible, and predictable approach to infill development and redevelopment. • Midtown Redevelopment Study, 2010 Implementation Action A5: Evaluate and revise the existing zoning to promote and implement elements of the Midtown Study. Prepare design guidelines that reward quality development. In response to this identified need, a staff team was assembled early this year to research and develop the tool. The Planning and Zoning Board has received monthly updates on the project, and a final product is expected by August. What is the Sustainable, Flexible, Predictable (SFP) Zoning Tool? The SFP will be a new section within the Land Use Code that will provide an alternative to conventional land development, and permit a creative approach that takes the whole site and context of surrounding development into consideration. It will allow for flexibility in design, placement of buildings, use of open space, bicycle and pedestrian circulation, etc., to best utilize the potentials of a site. The SFP is intended to be an overlay zoning district and may be used instead of the underlying zoning requirements for eligible projects. This tool will be most appropriate when it may be necessary to deviate from zoning requirements due to site constraints such as lot shape, size, topography, etc. The flexibility is necessary in such cases to address special conditions that may otherwise prohibit cohesive and desirable development on the site. The following summarizes other key features of the SFP: • Optional –the SFP is not mandatory and will be an alternative option for an applicant. • Planned development approach – the SFP will allow for a flexible application of standards to achieve performance and take a holistic site-planning approach to development. However, June 14, 2011 Page 11 it will vary from the existing Project Development Plan process, including but not limited to outreach, standards and eligibility criteria to name a few. • Eligibility based on location – developments which are located within one of the City’s targeted redevelopment areas or targeted activity centers (as defined by City Plan, see Attachment 6) will be eligible to use the SFP. For those projects not located in a targeted area, additional criteria must be met in order to use the SFP, i.e., minimum size, extraordinary site constraints, etc. • Sustainable – projects that develop using the SFP will be held to stricter standards in terms of sustainability. Staff is developing a Sustainability Performance Matrix that will assign points to various site and building features in order to ensure that SFP projects are meeting the City’s environmental, social, and economic goals. • Inclusive – SFP projects will have a separate yet similar review process that will encourage dialogue early and often between applicants, affected property owners, and City staff. The focus of review will be on the front-end of a potential project to ensure appropriate site planning, neighborhood input, and compatibility considerations are incorporated into the ultimate design and layout of the development. • Incentivized – in addition to the flexible application of development standards, SFP projects will also benefit from having use flexibility and could also extended vesting. Other incentives such as a density bonus and impact fee delay are also being considered to encourage high performing projects. ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Review Guide (DRG) 2. Land Use Code Issues 3. Example of variance to site setback requirement 4. Example of variance to LCUASS standards 5. Example of variance for “green street” 6. Sustainable, Flexible, Predictable (SFP) Eligible Areas, as defined in City Plan 7. Powerpoint presentation ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 3 12 Variances Variances and and Modifications Modifications Example: Green Streets •Landscaping •Sidewalk •Vertical curb ATTACHMENT 4 Land Use Code Issues Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Issue Issue Name 822 Amend 4.27(D)(4)(a) - Employment Zone - Height - to allow a residential structure to be as high, 4 stories, as a non-residential or mixed-use building. 870 Amend 1.6.5(B) to add "or 5,000 square feet" in addition to the 25% threshold at which point an existing use-by-right development can expand before bringing the site up to Code/constructing public 871 Amend 4.6(E) - M-M-N Development Standards - to add the design standards for multi-family buildings that already exist in L-M-N 4.5(E)(4). 872 Amend 3.2.2(L) - Parking Stall Dimensions - to clarify that such dimensions refer to off-street parking areas, not on-street. 873 Amend 3.4.1(D) - Ecological Characterization Study - to codify that the E.C.S. has to be submitted 10 days prior to P.D.P. submittal. 874 Amend 3.5.1(H) - Land Use Transition - to add buffer yards to the list to address residential development in less urban situations. 875 Amend 4.2(D)(1)(a) U-E Density/Intensity - to fix the glitch between maximum allowable density of two units per net acre and the minimum required lot size of one-half acre. 876 Amend 4.2(E)(2)[c] - U-E Cluster Plan - to improve the language about the non-applicability of minimum required lot size within a Cluster Plan. 877 Amend 2.3.2(H) and 2.4.2(H) - O.D.P. and P.D.P. Standards - to nullify the potential of having overlapping submittals. 878 Amend 3.6.2(L) - Private Drives - to add flexibility so that a private drive can be tailored to unique circumstances, upgraded so that it meets urban design objectives and functions like a public or private 880 Amend 2.2.11(D) - Procedures - to mandate a waiting period between a project denial and a re-submittal. 881 Amend 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 - Accessory Buildings with Habitable Space - in NCL, NCM and NCB - to move from Type One review to Basic Development Review (B.D.R.) with affadavit to be recorded at County regarding dwelling unit prohibition. 882 Amend 2.3.2(H)(1) - Overall Development Plan Review Standards - to delete the reference to compliance with M-M-N, C-C, N-C block standards. 883 Amend 2.2.2(A) - Neighborhood Meetings - to establish a minimum of 5 calendar days between the neighborhood meeting and submittal of plans in order to consider or incorporate citizen input into the 884 Revise 5.1.2 - Defintion of Development - to remove ambiguity regarding the status of work in the public right-of-way done by the Downtown Development Authority. 885 Amend 3.8.11(D) - Fences - to clarify that the height of a fence is measured from grade as it existed at the time of construction. 887 Amend 2.2.11[C] & (D)(1) - Lapse - to clarify that time validity starts with the expiration of the appeal period for P.D.P. and to clarify that there is no appeal of a Final Plan. 888 Amend 3.4.1(D)(1)(e) - Ecological Characterization Study and Establishment of Buffer Zones - to clarify the point of measurement for streams. Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT 5 Issue Issue Name 889 Amend 3.4.7[C] - Determination of Landmark Eligibility - to delete the reference to forms being available from the Community Planning and Environmental Services department as it is not regulatory and that department no longer exists. 890 Amend 5.1.2 - Definition of Private Street - to allow such a street to connect to more than one other 891 Amend 4.16(D)(2)[c] - Downtown Building Standards - to replace a diagram, Measurement of Height Limits, for consistency and to improve graphic readability. 892 Amend 4.16(D)(4)(b)2. - Downtown Building Standards - to replace the diagram, Upper Floor Setbacks, to improve clarity and consistency. 893 Amend 4.7(D) and 4.8(D) to close the volume loophole in calculating allowable floor area for single family detached houses in the N-C-L and N-C-M zones. 894 Amend 4.7(E)(4) and 4.8(E)(4) - Measurement of Side Wall Height - to add a standard establishing the point of measurement for determining the height of a sidewall for single family detached houses in the N-C-L and N-C-M zones. Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 2 of 2 Land Use Code Maintenance Process Annotated Issue List 822 Amend 4.27(D)(4)(a) - Employment Zone - Height - to allow a residential structure to be as high, 4 stories, as a non-residential Problem Statement In the Employment Zone, there are two maximum height standards: • Non-residential and mixed-use buildings – four stories • Residential buildings – three stories. The original reasoning behind the 3-story limit may be related to the general idea of the E zone as a district where residential development is a secondary, supporting use. Higher-intensity urban housing may have been envisioned as more appropriate to other zone districts where such housing fits better with zoning purposes, such as the M-M-N zone. Staff, however, finds no clear harm in allowing residential buildings to be 4 stories in the E zone. The main issues are land use and community appearance and design. Land Use. As noted above, residential buildings are a secondary use in the E zone. Once a given piece of land within the Employment zone is approved for residential use, an additional story does not affect the availability of land for primary uses. In other words, there is no opportunity cost or impact on the purposes of the E zone in allowing an additional story of residential use. In addition, it may even be possible for residential units to be built on less land per unit because the additional story would increase the feasibility of locating parking within the structure. Community Appearance and Design. The design implications of a four stories residential building would be the same or better than for non-residential buildings. Residential buildings are more likely to have animating features, articulation, balconies and compatible character in general, with any surrounding residential land uses, which typically generate the sensitivity when juxtaposed with taller Proposed Solution Overview The proposed solution is to amend the standard so that the maximum allowable height for all buildings, regardless of occupancy, would be four stories. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 28 4.27(D)(4)(a) Allows residential buildings to be 4 stories. 870 Amend 1.6.5(B) to add "or 5,000 square feet" in addition to the 25% threshold at which point an existing use-by-right development can expand before bringing the site up to Problem Statement Section 3.8.20(B) of the LUC explains that a proposed addition to a building that was originally constructed as a use-by-right under the previous zoning regulations must comply with the requirements found in Section 1.6.5 of the Code. Section 1.6.5(B) requires that whenever a use-by-right building is proposed to be enlarged by more than 25% of the floor area that existed prior to the adoption of Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 1 of 14 Code/constructing public improvements. the LUC, the entire site must then be brought into compliance with the applicable standards in Articles 3 and 4 of the Code. There has been concern that large existing buildings are allowed to construct very sizeable additions without being required to make upgrades to the site. For example, a 12,500 square foot addition to a 50,000 square foot building could be constructed without the need to make any site upgrades. This results in an addition that can have a significant impact without the ability of the City to improve the safety and aesthetics of the property. Such things as improved pedestrian connections, bike racks, public sidewalks, additional handicap parking spaces, lighting and landscaping would not be addressed. Proposed Solution Overview In order to ensure that additions of a significant size will result in the ability to require beneficial upgrades and amenities consistent with the purposes of the LUC, staff recommends that an addition which increases the floor area by more than 25% OR exceeds 5000 square feet should require that the site be upgraded. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 1 1.6.5(B) Adds a new measure by which older projects must be brought up to Code. 871 Amend 4.6(E) - M-M-N Development Standards - to add the design standards for multi-family buildings that already exist in L-M-N Problem Statement The L-M-N zone already contains design standards for multi-family buildings containing more than eight dwelling units and for multi-family dwellings containing between four and eight dwelling units when three or more stories in height. But, in the M-M-N, there are no building design standards for multi-family housing. There is an indication that C.S.U. desires to keep growing its undergraduate enrollment and yet there is on-campus housing for only approximately 5,000 students. The balance of the student body, therefore, must find off-campus housing within the surrounding community. A significant number of new student housing dwelling units are expected to be located within apartment complexes that are financed, entitled, constructed and managed as large single entities that operate at the national level. There is a risk, therefore, that new student rental housing may end up looking formulaic and prototypical and undifferentiated from other college communities. To keep our community distinctive, adding building design standards to the M-M-N would contribute to the overall quality of our Proposed Solution Overview The proposed solution is to roll over the existing multi-family building design standards from the L-M-N zone into the M-M-N zone with adjustments that fit the appropriate scale of the allowable density in the M-M-N. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 16 4.6(E) Adds design standards for multi-family buildings in MMN. 872 Amend 3.2.2(L) - Parking Stall Dimensions - to clarify that such dimensions refer to off-street parking areas, not on-street. Problem Statement Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 2 of 14 The opening sentence simply says “parking areas for automobiles…” which could be interpreted to mean all parking areas including both parking lots and along a public street. In fact, this section was always intended to refer solely to off-street parking areas as on-street parking areas are already governed by LCUASS. Proposed Solution Overview The proposed solution is to add the descriptor “off-street” to avoid confusion. Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 7 3.2.2(L) Clarifies that the standard refers only to off-street parking lots. 873 Amend 3.4.1(D) - Ecological Characterization Study - to codify that the E.C.S. has to be submitted 10 days prior to P.D.P. Problem Statement An E.C.S. is required if the development site contains, or is within 500 feet of, a natural habitat or feature, or the site likely includes areas with wildlife, plant life and/or other natural characteristics in need of protection. Practically speaking, it makes sense for Staff to receive and evaluate an E.C.S. prior to submittal. Since the E.C.S. may have an impact on site planning, buffer zones, mitigation measures and the like, the review should occur such that its findings can be implemented in a timely manner. Ten working days prior to submittal is considered ample time for Staff to review and evaluate the E.C.S. and matches the condition of zoning of the recently annexed property at the southwest corner of I- 25 and Carpenter Road. This code revision was reviewed by City Council at their March 9, 2010 worksession and found favorable. Proposed Solution Overview The proposed solution is add a requirement that an E.C.S. be submitted 10 days prior to a P.D.P. submittal. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 8 3.4.1(D) Codifies submittal date of E.C.S. 874 Amend 3.5.1(H) - Land Use Transition - to add buffer yards to the list to address residential development in less urban situations. Problem Statement Presently, this section is clear and describes attributes that are oriented to urban environments. For example, the standard cites a number of characteristics that are to be evaluated to promote project compatibility between differing uses including scale, form, materials, colors, hours of operation, lighting, placement of noise generating activities and similar restrictions. The standard is silent, however, where residential projects of varying densities may need a design feature to promote compatibility that is not listed in the standard. For example, where a proposed L-M-N subdivision (minimum of 4.00 dwelling units per net acre) is adjoining an existing or future U-E subdivision (maximum of 2.00 dwelling units per net acre), the use of a buffer yard may be found to be an appropriate design solution. In a less dense residential context, simply responding to the existing attributes in the standard may not be sufficient. As the Growth Management Area begins to fill in, especially in the northeast quadrant of the City, adding “buffer yards” to the Land Use Transition standard would be beneficial for Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 3 of 14 all parties. Proposed Solution Overview The proposed solution is to add Buffer Yards to the standard. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 11 3.5.1(H) Adds buffer yards as a land use transition technique. 875 Amend 4.2(D)(1)(a) U-E Density/Intensity - to fix the glitch between maximum allowable density of two units per net acre and Problem Statement The problem is that the two density/intensity standards do not work in synchronization. This was not the original intent of these two standards and leads to confusion. When a development proposal complies with the minimum required one-half acre lot size across the entire project, then the NET density will come in over the maximum allowable 2.00 dwelling units per NET acre. This is because the standard, as written, requires that land must be netted out from the gross acreage. Land area that is netted out is typically dedicated to serve the development for a variety of purposes such as streets, fire access, utilities, stormwater conveyance and ponds, common areas, and the like. This lowers the acreage which increases density. This results in an applicant either seeking a modification to have a lot(s) come in slightly under one-half acre or seek a modification to come in slightly over 2.00 dwelling units per NET acre. In other words, complying with both one-half acre lot sizes and coming in at no higher than 2.00 dwelling units per NET acre is nearly impossible to accomplish. Currently, the two standards would require at least one lot to sufficiently exceed one-half acre in size to compensate for the loss of acreage due to netting out land. The effect is that the required minimum lot size of one-half acre is not really accurate in a defacto sense if a compensating lot is needed to achieve compliance. Or, the applicant would be obligated to seek a Modification to either the minimum lot size or the overall average density. As an example, let’s assume we have a parcel of land consisting of two gross acres. Simple arithmetic would allow a maximum of four units. This would be calculated at 2.00 dwelling units per GROSS acre. But, since land must be netted out to serve these four lots for a variety of purposes, as mentioned, this lowers the acreage which increases density. In the above example, if .25 acre is netted out, then the gross acreage is reduced to 1.75 net acres. With four lots, the resulting overall average density would increase to 2.28 dwelling units per net acre. Proposed Solution Overview The proposed revision would be to determine density in the U-E zone based on gross acreage versus net acreage. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 4 of 14 the minimum required lot size of one-half acre. 14 4.2(D)(1)(a) Allows the maximum density to work with required minimum lot size. 876 Amend 4.2(E)(2)[c] - U-E Cluster Plan - to improve the language about the non-applicability of minimum required lot size within a Problem Statement The standard states that the minimum lot size in the U-E of one-half acre may be waived by the Planning and Zoning Board for a Cluster Plan. In fact, the minimum lot size simply does not apply and no waiver is necessary. Proposed Solution Overview The solution is to clarify that there is no waiver per se and that the required minimum lot size is not applicable. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 15 4.2(E)(2)(c) Clarifies that a waiver is not needed for smaller lots within the Cluster Plan.. 877 Amend 2.3.2(H) and 2.4.2(H) - O.D.P. and P.D.P. Standards - to nullify the potential of having overlapping submittals. Problem Statement The code allows for the concurrent submittal of an O.D.P. and a first phase P.D.P. This requires a proper sequence in that the O.D.P. must be considered and approved prior to consideration of the P.D.P. The problem is a decision by the P & Z Board on the O.D.P. may be appealed to City Council and that it often takes several weeks for such an appeal to make it onto Council’s agenda. During the period between the P & Z decision and the City Council Appeal hearing, however, the P.D.P. is held in abeyance. But, the code does not address what level of planning activity may be associated with this P.D.P. during this timeframe. This leads to confusion as to the status of the P.D.P. and what may or may not be appropriate with regard to the further processing of the P.D.P. Proposed Solution Overview The proposed revision is intended to address this void by clearly stating that no action (neighborhood meeting, conceptual review, preliminary design review, stand-alone Request for Modification or formal re-submittal of plans) may occur. This quiet period is intended to provide City Council, and all other parties-in- interest, with clear and unambiguous record by which to consider an appeal of the O.D.P. Only after Council takes action on the Appeal of the O.D.P. may further planning activity take place on the P.D.P. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 5 2.3.2(H) There can be no overlapping submittals of an O.D.P. 6 2.4.2(H) There can be no overlapping submittals of a P.D.P. 878 Amend 3.6.2(L) - Private Drives - to add flexibility so that a private drive can be tailored to unique circumstances, upgraded so that it meets urban design objectives and functions like a public or Problem Statement Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 5 of 14 private street. The Land Use Code and LCUASS identify three kinds of roadways: Public Street - LCUASS Private Street - privately owned but constructed to LCUASS Private Drive – parking lot drive aisles and parking lots There may be circumstances where a public street may not always be necessary to serve a development project, or a portion of a development project. But, practically, we are not seeing the use of the private street and the private drive may be inadequate. This is primarily due to the reality that if a private street is constructed to LCUASS level, then in all likelihood, it will become a fully dedicated public street. There may be circumstances where a private street may have some benefit. But since a private street is rarely used, the upgrading of a private drive may be appropriate. The use of private drives has a place in the future development of our City. For example, two recent projects, Front Range Village (Council Tree - private drive) and Caribou Apartments (private street) are examples where private drives and streets fulfill a role in the community street network. There are sections of the Code that call for public or private streets in order to meet urban design objectives. Presently, the Code does not allow an upgraded, street- like private drive to accomplish these objectives. Proposed Solution Overview The proposed solution is to amend Section 3.6.2(L) to allow for an upgraded, street-like private drive where deemed appropriate in an urban context. The purpose and intent of street-like private drives is to allow more flexibility in the design of the facilities, while still providing the look, feel and function of streets Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 12 3.6.2(L) Adds Street-Like Private Drive as an option by which to provide access. 30 5.1.2 Adds a definition of a Street-Like Private Drive. 880 Amend 2.2.11(D) - Procedures - to mandate a waiting period between a project denial and a re-submittal. Problem Statement As an increasing amount of development is infill development, there will be more existing conditions to address. One of the existing conditions is the existing neighbors/neighborhoods that are potentially impacted. During a long development process, neighbors in our community are actively engaged, which takes time and energy to stay involved in and participate in the public outreach and hearing processes. In an effort to prevent a continual development review and public outreach/public meeting process upon a neighborhood/interested parties and provide the opportunity for more thoughtful design and incorporation of mitigation measures, Staff is proposing no application for a development plan or rezoning shall be accepted by the City within six (6) months following a final decision on a prior development plan or rezoning application relating to all or any portion of that same property. This provision is intended to run with the land, not any particular applicant. A “final decision” shall mean: For Project Development Plans: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 6 of 14 1. Denial of the Project Development Plan by the Planning and Zoning Board or Hearing Officer without an appeal to the City Council; 2. Denial by the City Council in the event of an appeal; For Rezoning Applications: 1. Withdrawal of the rezoning application occurring after the Planning and Zoning Board action. 2. A vote by the City Council denying the rezoning ordinance. Staff submits that this period preventing applications to be submitted will address the issues stated above. Proposed Solution Overview The solution is to establish a six-month delay period after a project is denied. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 4 2.2.11(D) Establishes a post denial delay period. 881 Amend 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 - Accessory Buildings with Habitable Space - in NCL, NCM and NCB - to move from Type One review to Basic Development Review (B.D.R.) with affadavit to be recorded Problem Statement In 2004, the Current Planning Department, in conjunction with an architectural consultant, undertook a public process to evaluate the policies related to the construction of detached dwelling units in the back yards of lots served by existing alleys. This effort built upon the existing body of work that was done in 1996 which resulted in recommended design guidelines. Known as alley houses or carriage houses, these dwellings proved to be controversial due to their design, size, height, increased traffic in alleys and the impact on privacy for adjoining properties. The 2004 process resulted in defining two distinct uses, each with their own set of unique characteristics. 1. Detached dwelling unit, solely or in combination with a garage, and codified as a Carriage House. 2. Detached structure with water or sewer services, solely or in combination with a garage - but not a dwelling unit. This is now known as an Accessory Building with Habitable Space and is typically used for a workshop, recreation room, studio or home office. What separates this from a regular garage is that there is a water fixture (sink, water line, toilet, hose bib). The relationship between the habitable space and the garage can be either over-under or side-by-side. Or, as mentioned, the building can stand alone without being attached to a garage. In all three zones, and in response to the concern about Carriage Houses, Accessory Buildings with Habitable Space were deemed to rise to the level of needing to be subject to Administrative (Type One) review. This process requirement was intended to address concerns expressed about the past and potential illegal conversions of to dwelling units. Since 2004, there have not been any appeals for Accessory Buildings with Habitable Space. The public hearings have revealed that attendance at these Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 7 of 14 at County regarding dwelling unit prohibition. hearings is extremely light and seldom include opposition. For those who do attend the Type One public hearing, staff has observed that their primary concern was to ensure that the new structure would not evolve into a residence. Staff finds that the current requirement for a Type One hearing for Accessory Buildings with Habitable Space is an example of over-process as it is labor intensive for an applicant and inefficient from a staff and city resource perspective. Staff is not proposing to modify the Type One hearing process for Carriage Houses. Rather, with regard to bringing water or sewer services to an accessory building, the public can be served by an available alternative which will also ensure that adding such services is not for a residential unit while eliminating the need to Proposed Solution Overview process as a Type One. Staff proposes eliminating the requirement for a Type One hearing for a water or sewer fixture in a building containing habitable space within the N-C-L, N-C-M and N-C-B zoning districts and proposes instead to move the use to a B.D.R. and require an affidavit be signed by the owner indicating that the water or sewer fixture is for a non-residential unit – simply for habitable space; recording the affidavit and conditioning the building permit accordingly. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 17 4.7(B)(1)(b) Moves the use to a B.D.R. in the N-C-L. 18 4.7(B)(2)[c] Move the use out of the Type One in the N-C-L. 19 4.7(D) Requires an affidavit in the N-C-L. 20 4.8(B)(1)(d) Moves the use to B.D.R. in the N-C-M. 21 4.8(B)(2)[c] Moves the use out of the Type One in the N-C-M. 22 4.8(D) Requires an affidavit in the N-C-M. 23 4.9(B)(1)(d) Moves the use to B.D.R. in the N-C-B. 24 4.9(B)(2)(d) Moves the use out of Tyep One in the N-C-B. 25 4.9(D)(3) Requires an affidavit in the N-C-B. 882 Amend 2.3.2(H)(1) - Overall Development Plan Review Standards - to delete the reference to compliance with M-M-N, C-C, N-C block Problem Statement Here are the block requirements for all three zones: Block structure. Development shall consist of a series of complete blocks bounded by streets (public or private). Natural areas, irrigation ditches, high-voltage power lines, operating railroad tracks and other similar substantial physical features may form up to two (2) sides of a block. Block size. All blocks shall be limited to a maximum size of seven (7) acres. In the C-C and N-C, blocks containing supermarkets shall be limited to 10 acres. Minimum building frontage. Forty (40) percent of each block side or fifty (50) percent of the block faces of the total block shall consist of either building frontage, plazas or other functional open space. (The block requirement may be waived if compliance is infeasible due to unusual topographic features, existing development, safety factors or a natural area or feature.) The problem is that the block features may not be knowable at the time of the O.D.P. For example, the City’s Master Street Plan is calibrated for arterial and Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 8 of 14 standards. collector streets only. The number and pattern of local streets (public or private), therefore, is deferred to the Project Development Plan phase. Similarly, the size of the block, which may be formed by local streets, may not be ascertained at the O.D.P. level. Finally, the number of buildings, and their exact locations, may not be specifically determined with sufficient accuracy until the P.D.P. phase. As presently stated, the standard calls for a level of review that is found to be more appropriate for the Project Development Plan versus the Overall Development Plan. The proposed revision does not dilute the block standards. Rather the standards are simple deferred to the proper venue. Proposed Solution Overview The proposed solution is to delete the reference to compliance with block standards in three zones from the requirements for an O.D.P. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 5 2.3.2(H)(1) Removes requirement for compliance with block standards for O.D.P.'s in M-M-N, C-C and N-C zones. 883 Amend 2.2.2(A) - Neighborhood Meetings - to establish a minimum of 5 calendar days between the neighborhood meeting and submittal of plans in order to consider or incorporate citizen input Problem Statement There is a concern that applicants have been compressing their schedules at the expense of taking the time to properly consider or incorporate the input derived from the neighborhood meeting. This diminishes the importance of the neighborhood meeting process. In order to address this issue, a five day mandatory interval between the neighborhood meeting and submittal of plans is Proposed Solution Overview The proposed solution is to require a minimum of five calendar days between the neighborhood meeting and submittal. This would have the effect of pushing the submittal into the following week allowing sufficient time to incorporate comments from those attending the neighborhood information meeting. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 2 2.2.2(A) Establishes five days between neighborhood meeting and submittal. 884 Revise 5.1.2 - Defintion of Development - to remove ambiguity regarding the status of work in the public right-of-way done by the Problem Statement The definition of Development contains two sections. The first section describes what Development is and the second describes what Development is not. In the second section, there is ambiguity as to the status of capital improvement work done by the City or the Downtown Development Authority. The D.D.A. is sponsoring an ongoing alley improvement project within their jurisdiction but the definition of Development does not specifically exempt them from the development review process. Both the City and D.D.A. have expressed an interest in continuing the alley improvement program and would like to put the D.D.A. on par with the City of Fort Collins. Just as the City’s capital improvement Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 9 of 14 Downtown Development Authority. projects do not go through the formal development review process, so too would D.D.A.’s alley improvement project. (Note that all capital improvement projects are reviewed by all affected departments and utilities and outside utility providers, but not taken through a public hearing process.) Proposed Solution Overview The proposed solution is to exempt the City and the D.D.A. from the formal development review process. As proposed, work by D.D.A. would still have to be approved by the City and geographically restricted to their service territory. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 29 5.1.2 Clarifies the definition of Development. 885 Amend 3.8.11(D) - Fences - to clarify that the height of a fence is measured from grade as it existed at the time of construction. Problem Statement The height of a fence is currently measured from the original finished grade of the lot directly under the fence. This is problematic because it is difficult, if not impossible in some cases, to determine where the grade was many years ago when the lot was first created. It is more realistic to expect that the height of a fence should be measured from the finished grade of the lot that existed at the time a fence was constructed, rather than guessing where the grade might have been 100 years Proposed Solution Overview In order to facilitate enforcement of our fence regulations and to create a regulation that is sensible and can be easily understood by fence contractors and occupants of dwellings, finished grade shall be defined as such grade that existing at the time Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 13 3.8.11(D) Clarifies how to establish grade for measuring fence height. 887 Amend 2.2.11[C] & (D)(1) - Lapse - to clarify that time validity starts with the expiration of the appeal period for P.D.P. and to Problem Statement The two standards need to be clarified. The first, referring to the Project Development and Plat, fails to account for period of time should there be an appeal to Council. The second, referring to the Final Plan and Final Plat and other site specific development plans (as defined) falsely accounts for a period of time for an appeal to Council because these plans are not subject to appeal. Proposed Solution Overview The proposed solution is to add in the time for an appeal for the former and delete the reference to the appeal period for the latter. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 3 2.2.11[C] Adds in the time period if there is an appeal to Council. 4 2.2.11(D) Deletes the time period for an appeal to Council. Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 10 of 14 888 Amend 3.4.1(D)(1)(e) - Ecological Characterization Study and Establishment of Buffer Zones - to clarify the point of measurement Problem Statement Conflicting language appears in Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code. In Section 3.4.1(D), subsection (e) requires data for the Ecological Characterization Study be collected on “the bank, shoreline, and high water mark of any perennial stream or body of water on the site.” However, in Section 3.4.1(E), footnote 3(c) requires that “stream corridors, lakes, reservoirs, and irrigation ditches buffer zones will be measured from the level of bankfull discharge toward the boundary of such lot, tract or parcel of land.” Section 1.7.2 of the Land Use Code provides guidance for resolving internal conflicts in the code. As bank (or top of bank) is both the more specific and more stringent of the two terms, top of bank is a more appropriate term for use in determining the point of measurement from which to begin the establishment of the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. In addition, the use of the term bankfull discharge is inappropriate for irrigation ditches, as they are unlikely to have bankfull, or channel-forming, discharge. Finally, the term top of bank is more consistently applied in the field than bankfull discharge and has been identified in Plan Fort Collins as the way to measure the buffer along the Poudre River (see Policy ENV 24.3 – Provide Natural Area Protection Buffers, which states “the buffer should be a minimum of three hundred (300) feet wide, beginning at the outer limits of the river Proposed Solution Overview The proposed solution is to remove the term “bankfull discharge” from Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code and instead use the term “top of bank.” In section 3.4.1(D) the term “bank” will be expanded for consistency to also say “top of bank.” Finally, a definition for “top of bank” will be added to Article 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code. These three, simple changes have the effect of providing a clearer, more accurate point of measurement for the protection of our stream and riparian resources and in no way dilutes the intent of the original code language. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 9 3.4.1(D)(1)(e) Deletes Level of Bankfull Discharge and adds Top of Bank. 32 5.1.2 Adds a definition of Top of Bank. 889 Amend 3.4.7[C] - Determination of Landmark Eligibility - to delete the reference to forms being available from the Community Planning and Environmental Services department as it is not Problem Statement As written, the standard contains a reference as to where to obtain a certain form. There are numerous other forms associated with a wide variety of activities related to items in the Land Use Code but there are no corresponding references in the actual code language. Since the reference to a form is not regulatory, it should be deleted from the Code. Finally, with the passage of time, references to certain department names run the risk of becoming obsolete as is the case with this standard. Proposed Solution Overview The revision is to strike the reference. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 10 3.4.7[C] Strikes unnecessary and obsolete language. Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 11 of 14 890 Amend 5.1.2 - Definition of Private Street - to allow such a street to connect to more than one other street. Problem Statement The problem is that the definition, as written, is too limiting by stipulating that a private street can intersect or connect with only one other street. The result is that such a street would, in effect, be a cul-de-sac or stub street. Other practical applications, such as a loop street, would not be allowed. Other circumstances may warrant the use of Private Street where the long term ownership and maintenance of a public street may not be desired. Since a Private Street must be constructed to the same standards as a public street, there is no risk to structural integrity, functionality or public safety. Finally, a definition cannot be modified so the use of a Private Street has proven to be extremely rare even though there is a place for a Private Street in the overall street network of the City. Proposed Solution Overview The proposed revision would delete the reference to connecting with only one other street. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 31 5.1.2 Broadens the ability to use a private street. 891 Amend 4.16(D)(2)[c] - Downtown Building Standards - to replace a diagram, Measurement of Height Limits, for consistency and to Problem Statement The existing diagram, labeled as Figure 18.6, is not clear nor graphically consistent with the height standards in the Downtown zone – Canyon Avenue and Civic Center Sub Districts. Proposed Solution Overview Revise the diagram by replacing the hand-drawn sketch in Figure 18.6 with a new graphic. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 26 4.16(D)(2)[c] Improves the diagram that illustrates the standard. 892 Amend 4.16(D)(4)(b)2. - Downtown Building Standards - to replace the diagram, Upper Floor Setbacks, to improve clarity and Problem Statement First, the existing graphic contains some incorrect labeling referring to setbacks being ¼ of the building height. These faulty labels date back to a draft concept that was not carried forward when the standards were originally developed and adopted in 2006. Second, the hand-drawn graphic is not as clear and graphically consistent with the Downtown Zoning District as the proposed replacement. Third, the graphic has a caption instead of a Figure number and title, and the caption is inconsistent with the Land Use Code format. Proposed Solution Overview Revise the diagram to improve the illustrative intent of the standard. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 12 of 14 27 4.16(D)(4)(b)(2) Improves the diagram that illustrates the standard. 893 Amend 4.7(D) and 4.8(D) to close the volume loophole in calculating allowable floor area for single family detached houses Problem Statement In 2010, the City of Fort Collins, along with a Citizen Advisory Committee, investigated various issues related to new construction and additions to single family detached homes in the East Side and West Side neighborhoods. The process resulted in Ordinance No. 003, 2011 being adopted by City Council on February 1, 2011. The Ordinance was later repealed in response to a citizen petition, with a commitment to further address the key issues. The Ordinance consisted of revised standards for maximum house size in the Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) and Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (NCL) zoning districts. Presently, the only metric regulating the size of a house in the relevant zoning districts is a floor area limit. There is no Code standard that effectively links the floor area limit to the actual size of a house in terms of volume. This was referred to as the “volume loophole”. The inadvertent result is that a one-story house could be virtually twice as large as a two-story house, covering twice the lot area with equal height, in the case of an unusual design with a tall single story. This possibility is contrary to the intent of the limits. Ordinance 003, 2011 included a section that closed the volume loophole by assigning second-floor equivalents to be counted as floor area in upper portions of high-volume houses. These particular standards did not generate as much controversy as the other aspects of the Ordinance that led to the repeal, and so it is Proposed Solution Overview The proposed solution is to revive two standards that would count space as a second floor equivalent, if the height exceeds that of a typical one-story house. One would assign second floor area to any interior space that exceeds 18-1/2 feet in height, and the other would assign second floor area to space if an exterior wall exceeds 13 feet in height. The latter standard includes a point of measurement for side wall height, to be at the side property line rather than the finished grade at the Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 19 4.7(D) Adds volume as a measure of floor area in the N-C-L. 22 4.8(D) Adds volume as a measure of floor area in the N-C-B. 894 Amend 4.7(E)(4) and 4.8(E)(4) - Measurement of Side Wall Height - to add a standard establishing the point of measurement for determining the height of a sidewall for single family detached Problem Statement This proposed revision is also a carry over from Ordinance 003, 2011, similar to Item 893. Existing standards require side wall setbacks based on the wall height, as measured from the finished grade at the base of the wall. Thus, if earth is piled up against the foundation, the wall height measurement is reduced. This is contrary to the intent of the side wall setback standards, which address the impact of wall height on neighboring properties. From the standpoint of a neighboring property, piling earth up against the base of a wall does not mitigate the height impacts and thus Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 13 of 14 houses in the N-C-L and N-C-M zones. Proposed Solution Overview should not be allowed to reduce the height measurement. The proposed solution is to establish the point of measurement for determining side wall height at the property line, rather than the base of the wall. Specifically, the point is the lowest point of the interior side lot line opposite the wall. This revision is consistent with the previous revision relating to the volume issue. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 19 4.7(E) Establishes the lowest point along an interior side lot line as the basis for determining sidewall height. 22 4.8(E) Establishes the lowest point along an interior side lot line as the basis for determining sidewall height. Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 14 of 14 Land Use Code Revisions Annotated Ordinance Index Ord. Section Code Revision Effect Issue 1 1.6.5(B) Adds a new measure by which older projects must be brought 870 Amend 1.6.5(B) to add "or 5,000 square feet" in addition up to Code. to the 25% threshold at which point an existing use-by- right development can expand before bringing the site up to Code/constructing public improvements. 2 2.2.2(A) Establishes five days between neighborhood meeting and 883 Amend 2.2.2(A) - Neighborhood Meetings - to establish a submittal. minimum of 5 calendar days between the neighborhood meeting and submittal of plans in order to consider or incorporate citizen input into the plan. 3 2.2.11[C] Adds in the time period if there is an appeal to Council. 887 Amend 2.2.11[C] & (D)(1) - Lapse - to clarify that time validity starts with the expiration of the appeal period for P.D.P. and to clarify that there is no appeal of a Final Plan. 4 2.2.11(D) Establishes a post denial delay period. 880 Amend 2.2.11(D) - Procedures - to mandate a waiting period between a project denial and a re-submittal. 4 2.2.11(D) Deletes the time period for an appeal to Council. 887 Amend 2.2.11[C] & (D)(1) - Lapse - to clarify that time validity starts with the expiration of the appeal period for P.D.P. and to clarify that there is no appeal of a Final Plan. 5 2.3.2(H) There can be no overlapping submittals of an O.D.P. 877 Amend 2.3.2(H) and 2.4.2(H) - O.D.P. and P.D.P. Standards - to nullify the potential of having overlapping submittals. 5 2.3.2(H)(1) Removes requirement for compliance with block standards for 882 Amend 2.3.2(H)(1) - Overall Development Plan Review O.D.P.'s in M-M-N, C-C and N-C zones. Standards - to delete the reference to compliance with M-M- N, C-C, N-C block standards. 6 2.4.2(H) There can be no overlapping submittals of a P.D.P. 877 Amend 2.3.2(H) and 2.4.2(H) - O.D.P. and P.D.P. Standards - to nullify the potential of having overlapping submittals. 7 3.2.2(L) Clarifies that the standard refers only to off-street parking lots. 872 Amend 3.2.2(L) - Parking Stall Dimensions - to clarify that such dimensions refer to off-street parking areas, not on- street. 8 3.4.1(D) Codifies submittal date of E.C.S. 873 Amend 3.4.1(D) - Ecological Characterization Study - to codify that the E.C.S. has to be submitted 10 days prior to P.D.P. submittal. Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 1 of 4 Ord. Section Code Revision Effect Issue 9 3.4.1(D)(1)(e) Deletes Level of Bankfull Discharge and adds Top of Bank. 888 Amend 3.4.1(D)(1)(e) - Ecological Characterization Study and Establishment of Buffer Zones - to clarify the point of measurement for streams. 10 3.4.7[C] Strikes unnecessary and obsolete language. 889 Amend 3.4.7[C] - Determination of Landmark Eligibility - to delete the reference to forms being available from the Community Planning and Environmental Services department as it is not regulatory and that department no longer exists. 11 3.5.1(H) Adds buffer yards as a land use transition technique. 874 Amend 3.5.1(H) - Land Use Transition - to add buffer yards to the list to address residential development in less urban situations. 12 3.6.2(L) Adds Street-Like Private Drive as an option by which to 878 Amend 3.6.2(L) - Private Drives - to add flexibility so that a provide access. private drive can be tailored to unique circumstances, upgraded so that it meets urban design objectives and functions like a public or private street. 13 3.8.11(D) Clarifies how to establish grade for measuring fence height. 885 Amend 3.8.11(D) - Fences - to clarify that the height of a fence is measured from grade as it existed at the time of construction. 14 4.2(D)(1)(a) Allows the maximum density to work with required minimum 875 Amend 4.2(D)(1)(a) U-E Density/Intensity - to fix the lot size. glitch between maximum allowable density of two units per net acre and the minimum required lot size of one-half acre. 15 4.2(E)(2)(c) Clarifies that a waiver is not needed for smaller lots within the 876 Amend 4.2(E)(2)[c] - U-E Cluster Plan - to improve the Cluster Plan.. language about the non-applicability of minimum required lot size within a Cluster Plan. 16 4.6(E) Adds design standards for multi-family buildings in MMN. 871 Amend 4.6(E) - M-M-N Development Standards - to add the design standards for multi-family buildings that already exist in L-M-N 4.5(E)(4). 17 4.7(B)(1)(b) Moves the use to a B.D.R. in the N-C-L. 881 Amend 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 - Accessory Buildings with Habitable Space - in NCL, NCM and NCB - to move from Type One review to Basic Development Review (B.D.R.) with affadavit to be recorded at County regarding dwelling unit prohibition. 18 4.7(B)(2)[c] Move the use out of the Type One in the N-C-L. 881 Amend 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 - Accessory Buildings with Habitable Space - in NCL, NCM and NCB - to move from Type One review to Basic Development Review (B.D.R.) with affadavit to be recorded at County regarding dwelling unit prohibition. Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 2 of 4 Ord. Section Code Revision Effect Issue 19 4.7(D) Requires an affidavit in the N-C-L. 881 Amend 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 - Accessory Buildings with Habitable Space - in NCL, NCM and NCB - to move from Type One review to Basic Development Review (B.D.R.) with affadavit to be recorded at County regarding dwelling unit prohibition. 19 4.7(D) Adds volume as a measure of floor area in the N-C-L. 893 Amend 4.7(D) and 4.8(D) to close the volume loophole in calculating allowable floor area for single family detached houses in the N-C-L and N-C-M zones. 19 4.7(E) Establishes the lowest point along an interior side lot line as the 894 Amend 4.7(E)(4) and 4.8(E)(4) - Measurement of Side basis for determining sidewall height. Wall Height - to add a standard establishing the point of measurement for determining the height of a sidewall for single family detached houses in the N-C-L and N-C-M zones. 20 4.8(B)(1)(d) Moves the use to B.D.R. in the N-C-M. 881 Amend 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 - Accessory Buildings with Habitable Space - in NCL, NCM and NCB - to move from Type One review to Basic Development Review (B.D.R.) with affadavit to be recorded at County regarding dwelling unit prohibition. 21 4.8(B)(2)[c] Moves the use out of the Type One in the N-C-M. 881 Amend 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 - Accessory Buildings with Habitable Space - in NCL, NCM and NCB - to move from Type One review to Basic Development Review (B.D.R.) with affadavit to be recorded at County regarding dwelling unit prohibition. 22 4.8(D) Requires an affidavit in the N-C-M. 881 Amend 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 - Accessory Buildings with Habitable Space - in NCL, NCM and NCB - to move from Type One review to Basic Development Review (B.D.R.) with affadavit to be recorded at County regarding dwelling unit prohibition. 22 4.8(D) Adds volume as a measure of floor area in the N-C-B. 893 Amend 4.7(D) and 4.8(D) to close the volume loophole in calculating allowable floor area for single family detached houses in the N-C-L and N-C-M zones. 22 4.8(E) Establishes the lowest point along an interior side lot line as the 894 Amend 4.7(E)(4) and 4.8(E)(4) - Measurement of Side basis for determining sidewall height. Wall Height - to add a standard establishing the point of measurement for determining the height of a sidewall for single family detached houses in the N-C-L and N-C-M zones. Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 3 of 4 Ord. Section Code Revision Effect Issue 23 4.9(B)(1)(d) Moves the use to B.D.R. in the N-C-B. 881 Amend 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 - Accessory Buildings with Habitable Space - in NCL, NCM and NCB - to move from Type One review to Basic Development Review (B.D.R.) with affadavit to be recorded at County regarding dwelling unit prohibition. 24 4.9(B)(2)(d) Moves the use out of Tyep One in the N-C-B. 881 Amend 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 - Accessory Buildings with Habitable Space - in NCL, NCM and NCB - to move from Type One review to Basic Development Review (B.D.R.) with affadavit to be recorded at County regarding dwelling unit prohibition. 25 4.9(D)(3) Requires an affidavit in the N-C-B. 881 Amend 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 - Accessory Buildings with Habitable Space - in NCL, NCM and NCB - to move from Type One review to Basic Development Review (B.D.R.) with affadavit to be recorded at County regarding dwelling unit prohibition. 26 4.16(D)(2)[c] Improves the diagram that illustrates the standard. 891 Amend 4.16(D)(2)[c] - Downtown Building Standards - to replace a diagram, Measurement of Height Limits, for consistency and to improve graphic readability. 27 4.16(D)(4)(b)(2) Improves the diagram that illustrates the standard. 892 Amend 4.16(D)(4)(b)2. - Downtown Building Standards - to replace the diagram, Upper Floor Setbacks, to improve clarity and consistency. 28 4.27(D)(4)(a) Allows residential buildings to be 4 stories. 822 Amend 4.27(D)(4)(a) - Employment Zone - Height - to allow a residential structure to be as high, 4 stories, as a non- residential or mixed-use building. 29 5.1.2 Clarifies the definition of Development. 884 Revise 5.1.2 - Defintion of Development - to remove ambiguity regarding the status of work in the public right- of-way done by the Downtown Development Authority. 30 5.1.2 Adds a definition of a Street-Like Private Drive. 878 Amend 3.6.2(L) - Private Drives - to add flexibility so that a private drive can be tailored to unique circumstances, upgraded so that it meets urban design objectives and functions like a public or private street. 31 5.1.2 Broadens the ability to use a private street. 890 Amend 5.1.2 - Definition of Private Street - to allow such a street to connect to more than one other street. 32 5.1.2 Adds a definition of Top of Bank. 888 Amend 3.4.1(D)(1)(e) - Ecological Characterization Study and Establishment of Buffer Zones - to clarify the point of measurement for streams. Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT 6 1 1 Development Review Overview City Council Work Session June 14, 2011 Steve Dush, Director Community Development and Neighborhood Services Megan Bolin, City Planner 2 City Council Work Session June 14, 2011 I. Development Review Overview II. Land Use Code Changes III. Sustainable, Flexible, Predictable (SFP) Zoning Tool ATTACHMENT 7 2 3 General Direction Sought What feedback does Council have regarding: •The Development Process Improvement Strategies? •The proposed Land Use Code Changes? •The general approach and methodology of the SFP zoning tool? 4 I. Development Review Overview 3 5 Development Review Background In 2003: •Zucker Systems did organizational critique of DRC •Zucker Report provided 50+ recommendations • Recommendation implementation is on‐going • Council adopted Resolution 2003‐105 stating: The intent of the City’s development review process is to be policy‐neutral as to growth 6 •The Development Review Process is well defined and outlined in the Development Review Guide • Development Review is an iterative process between staff and applicant •Project applicants routinely meet with staff multiple times before submitting an application Development Review Background 4 7 •Critical to development when operating under a prescriptive code •Code permits two types of variances and one type of modification •Variances and modifications can lead to more creative and practical outcomes than strict compliance Variances and Modifications 8 Application Variances & Modifications •Examples: –Height –Setbacks – Landscaping –Density • Appeals made to City Council Variances and Modifications 5 9 Variances and Modifications Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) Variances Examples: •Driveway width & spacing •Curve Radii • Pavement requirements • Street Width Appeals from City Engineer to CDNS Director to City Council 10 Variances and Modifications Example: Rigden Farm •10 LCUASS Variances; examples include: •sidewalk widths; •flowline to flowline widths •1.2% point grade breaks •Reduce vertical curve length 6 11 Variances and Modifications Example: •Heavily Treed Lot •Limited Sun •Setback Variance to Allow Greenhouse 12 Variances and Modifications Example: Green Streets •Landscaping •Sidewalk •Vertical curb 7 13 Outreach Feedback •Staff is on the applicant’s “side” • Neighbors don’t have enough say in the process • Applicant’s past performance should be considered • Frustration that neighbors cannot discuss certain development aspects with Council • Public Hearing Process changes are needed 14 Proposals in Response to Feedback Development Review Outreach Meeting: •Same notification area •Only staff and neighbors present •Discuss process, not application • Identify lead neighbors and communication tree 8 15 Potential Land Use Code Changes: • Establish a “Cooling Off Period” for denied applications • Require minimum of five days between neighborhood meeting and application submittal • Prohibit concurrent applications on the same parcel Proposals in Response to Feedback 16 Continue to create and improve education materials: – Handouts – Brochures – Development Review Flowchart – Develop Post Process and Post Development Feedback Tools –Website (fcgov.com/drg.com) – Educational Videos Proposals in Response to Feedback 9 17 II. Land Use Code Changes 18 Land Use Code Changes Land Use Code is evaluated annually for potential improvements •24 amendments are proposed for 2011 •Three are processed‐based in response to recent concerns 10 19 III. Sustainable, Flexible, Predictable (SFP) Zoning Tool 20 • Changing development patterns • Infill sites are constrained and complex •Land Use Code is prescriptive and lacks efficient flexibility • City Plan policy and Planning and Zoning Board workplan program Why do we need the SFP? 11 21 • Optional – zoning overlay option for constrained sites •Location‐based eligibility – projects within targeted redevelopment areas and activity centers •Planned Development Approach – flexible performance driven application of standards and holistic site‐planning What is the SFP? 22 •Sustainable – performance‐based metrics; sustainability matrix •Inclusive – dialogue early and often between applicant, affected property owners, and City staff What is the SFP? 12 23 SFP Eligible Areas Harmony Prospect Mulberry College Taft Hill N I‐25 24 General Direction Sought What feedback does Council have regarding: •The Development Process Improvement Strategies? •The proposed Land Use Code Changes? •The general approach and methodology of the SFP zoning tool? DATE: June 14, 2011 STAFF: Steve Roy Karen Cumbo Pre-taped staff presentation: none WORK SESSION ITEM FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION System for Appealing Land Use and Other Board and Commission Decisions to the City Council. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Questions have recently been raised by members of the public about the Council’s process for hearing appeals in quasi-judicial matters such as land use decisions. The purpose of this work session item is to determine whether that appeal system should be changed. There are two basic kinds of appeal systems used by Colorado municipalities. Under the first kind of system, Council’s decision is based solely on the record of the proceedings before the original decision maker. Under the second kind of system, participants may present new evidence that was not presented to the original decision maker. The systems also differ in other respects, for example, some limit the parties who may file appeals or participate in appeal hearings, some specify the grounds upon which an appeal may be filed, some allow the City Manager or the City Council to appeal a decision, etc. Staff is seeking Council direction as to whether and how Council wishes to change the appeal process that the City currently uses. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Should the current system for appealing land use and other quasi-judicial decisions to the City Council be changed? 2. If so, which parts of the system are problematic? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION For the last 25 years or so, Fort Collins has had a system for appealing land use and other quasi- judicial decisions1 to the City Council that is much like the system used by the courts. Under this system, the following rules apply: • The appeal is based on the record of the proceedings before the board or commission or hearing officer (“decision maker”) that made the initial decision. Therefore, the introduction of new evidence at the hearing is prohibited unless it is offered: 1 Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code establishes a procedure for appealing to the City Council “final decisions” of the following: the Building Review Board; the Fire Board of Appeals; the Landmark Preservation Commission; the Planning and Zoning Board; a “decision maker” under the provisions of Section 2.2.12 of the Land Use Code; the Water Board; and the Zoning Board of Appeals. June 14, 2011 Page 2 (1) to support or refute an allegation that the decision maker considered evidence relevant to its findings that was substantially false or grossly misleading; (2) by staff or parties-in-interest in response to questions presented by Councilmembers; or (3) by Councilmembers to explain any observations they made during an inspection of the property that is the subject of the appeal. • Except for appeals filed by Councilmembers, the grounds for the appeal must fit into either of two general categories—that the decision maker failed to conduct a fair hearing; or that the decision maker failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant provisions of the Code or Charter. • Participation in the appeal process is limited to “parties-in-interest” who are directly affected by the decision. These include the applicant; any person who has a legal interest in the property that is the subject of the appeal; any person to whom the City sent notice of the hearing before the decision maker; any person who sent written comments to the decision maker prior to the decision being made; any person who appeared at the hearing; and the Council itself, as represented by the request of a single Councilmember. • “Ex parte” communications (communications with the Council or individual Councilmembers prior to the hearing without notice to other parties) are to be avoided. • During the appeal hearing, the Mayor establishes certain time limits for presentations, and the parties-in-interest are given an opportunity to rebut one another’s comments. • At the conclusion of the appeal hearing, the Council has several options available to it. It may uphold, overturn or modify the decision, or it may remand the matter to the decision maker for consideration of any additional information about an issue raised on appeal. If the Council finds that the decision maker failed to conduct a fair hearing, then the Council must remand the matter for a new hearing. • The hearing process is concluded by Council’s adoption of a resolution formalizing its decision. The date of passage of the resolution is to be no later than the next regular meeting following the appeal hearing. Recently, some citizens who have participated in the appeal process have expressed frustration about the legalistic nature of the process and, in particular, their inability to communicate with their Councilmembers about the appeal prior to the hearing via email, letters, phone calls or comments under the citizen participation segment of the Council meetings. The constitutional principle of procedural due process requires that quasi-judicial proceedings such as appeal hearings be fundamentally fair to the parties whose rights will be directly affected by the outcome of the proceedings. The courts have held that the process used must include: June 14, 2011 Page 3 • notice to affected parties; • an opportunity to be heard at a hearing; • a decision based solely on evidence at the hearing and the relevant criteria established by existing law; • an impartial decision maker. Both the Land Use Code and the City Code discourage attempts to communicate with decision makers in quasi-judicial proceedings. (See Section 2.1.2(I) of the Land Use Code.) The reason for this is twofold. First, the Code states that new evidence should not be considered on appeal and off- the-record communications with the Council generally include “new evidence” that wasn’t in the record before the Board; and secondly the communications may compromise the Council’s impartiality by introducing considerations other than those listed as criteria with the Land Use Code. Some of the other municipalities in Colorado use a de novo hearing process for the appeal of quasi- judicial decisions to the City Council. A de novo hearing is simply a new hearing that is conducted as if the original hearing had not taken place. Attached are copies of appeal systems used by four other municipalities (Loveland, Telluride, Thornton, and Westminster), together with a matrix that illustrates some of the differences between those systems and the Fort Collins system. In staff’s view, the pros and cons of returning to a de novo hearing for land use decisions are as follows: Pros: 1. Letters sent to the Council by parties-in-interest prior to the hearing would be permissible, even if they contained new information, as long as they were made part of the record at the hearing. 2. The hearing process would be simpler and less legalistic. Cons: 1. The hearings before the Council would likely be considerably longer. 2. The hearings before the City Council may become more numerous if the hearing before the original decision maker is viewed as just a “stop along the way” to the “real” hearing before the Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff believes that either the existing system, a modified version of that system, or a de novo system would be acceptable from a management perspective and would be legally defensible if properly implemented. The choice between the two kinds of systems depends primarily upon the role that Council wishes to play in the decision making process. June 14, 2011 Page 4 ATTACHMENTS 1. Comparison of Appeals Systems Used by Four Colorado Municipalities 2. Fort Collins, Loveland, Thornton, Telluride and Westminster models 3. Powerpoint presentation DATE: June 14, 2011 STAFF: Ann Turnquist Steve Dush Pre-taped staff presentation: available at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php WORK SESSION ITEM FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION 2011 Fee Study Recommendations. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On March 22, 2011, the Council Finance Committee and staff met to discuss a proposed change to the City’s cost recovery philosophy for Building Permit and Plan Check Fees and an increase to these fees. The Committee reviewed the detailed proposal and directed staff to bring the proposal to the full Council for review at a work session. This change of philosophy would move from a goal of collecting 80% of the cost of the Development Review Center through fees, toward recovering 100% of the cost of fee-related services. This approach would result in an increase of 0.5% to 6.5% in Building Permit and Plan Check fees, and yield an additional $714,098 in fee revenue to support the Development Review Center. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Staff proposes changing the method used to calculate the portion of Development Review Center costs which should be recovered through Plan Check and Building Permit Fees. Does Council have questions or concerns regarding the proposed approach? 2. Staff discussed adjustments to Plan Check and Building Permit fees with the Finance Committee approximately 2 years ago, but the Committee concluded that the timing was inappropriate. Does the Council believe that the timing is more appropriate for implementation in January 2012? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION For many years, the City had a Land Use Code policy to recover 80% of the costs of development through the collection of fees on development. Though this official policy was eliminated in the adoption of a more recent Land Use Code, the organization has continued to operate with the expectation that it should recover a similar percentage of these development-related costs. In 2008, staff examined the City’s cost recovery performance and found that less than half of the cost of the Development Review Center is recovered through fees. A combination of a lower number of permits and development applications and a number of years without fee increases led to a lower cost recovery. Adjustments to Building Permit and Plan Check fees were discussed with the Council June 14, 2011 Page 2 Finance Committee at that time, but staff received direction to postpone any increases until the economic situation in the community improved. In 2010, Red Oak Consulting was engaged to review the City’s fee methodology and structure and to compare Fort Collins’ practices to those of other communities. Following the completion of that study in July 2010, staff began to address the issues that were identified in two phases: Phase 1: Development Review Center fees: August 2010 – April 2011 This study phase has been completed by staff and includes analysis of the cost recovery model for the Development Review Center. Phase 2: Capital Expansion and Impact Fees: June 2011 – October 2011 This portion of the study will begin in June and examine the City’s Capital Expansion fees in detail to re-evaluate their effectiveness in ensuring that new development pays its fair share of capital and infrastructure needed to serve new residents and businesses. Staff plans to complete this analysis prior to the next budget cycle. This report represents a summary of the work on Phase 1 of the project. ATTACHMENTS 1. 2011 Fee Study—Phase I: Building Permit and Plan Check Fees, City of Fort Collins, June 6, 2011 DATE: June 14, 2011 STAFF: Mike Freeman Christina Vincent Pre-taped staff presentation: available at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php WORK SESSION ITEM URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Revisions to the Urban Renewal Authority Policies and Procedures. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In May 2010, the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board approved a thorough revision to the Policies and Procedures (Policies) from the original policies created in 2006. At the May 17, 2011 URA Board meeting, it was discussed that the Policies should have more detail regarding green building practices and therefore should come back to the URA Board for more revisions. Staff has prepared the requested revisions to the Policies. These Policies are intended to give guidance to the eligible developments and objectives of the URA to applicants, staff, citizens and the URA Board for decision making purposes. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Does the URA Board have concerns with the revised Policies and Procedures? 2. Is the URA Board comfortable bringing these revisions back for consideration in July? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The URA Board approved the first version of Policies in August 2006. Originally, the URA Board formed an ad-hoc committee to create a mission statement and develop general policies. Those Policies have since guided the URA in the initial stages of preparing for future URA projects. There are now several approved URA projects that both the URA team and staff felt needed more clarification and direction when guiding applicants through the process. In 2010, the URA Board approved the Policies document that is used today. The changes from the original 2006 version were significant. Both versions are attached to this Agenda Item Summary for review (Attachments 2 and 3). 2010 changes from the 2006 version: • Clear introduction with explanation of the purpose of the Policies and Procedures. • Clear distinction of the objectives, goals, and eligible development and costs. • Inclusion of green building techniques. June 14, 2011 Page 2 • Establish evaluation criteria N Financial feasibility (establishment of a threshold for projects that need proforma analysis) N Policy assessment N Local ownership criteria changed from Larimer County to 40 mile radius from the City of Fort Collins Growth Management boundary. N All payments will be issued on a reimbursement basis at the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, unless otherwise determined by the URA Board. • Inclusion of the URA application questions. • Step-by-step process illustration. This document has been highly successful in setting clear expectations of the type of application and project the URA will consider. The 2011 revision (Attachment 1) contains the following changes: • Assuring development is consistent with City Plan and the Urban Renewal Plans. • Promote green building and energy efficiencies that are above Code requirements. • Green development which exceeds adopted Code minimums; using the various available rating systems. • Inclusion of revised mission statement from 2006. • Applicant must be in the City’s Development review process. • Applicant must state intended waste diversion and/or deconstruction methods of the project. Staff is seeking direction on the proposed revisions to be included in the 2011 revised Policies. ATTACHMENTS 1. 2011 Proposed URA Policies and Procedures 2. 2010 URA Policies and Procedures 3. 2006 URA Policies 4. URA Annual Report – 2010 5. Tax Increment Financing Memo 2008 6. Powerpoint presentation 1 DRAFT 2011 URA Policies with revisions/edits. SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION This policy is to provide guidance for the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (URA) staff, Citizen Advisory Group (North College), and URA Board (Board) in considering, reviewing and processing applications that seek to use Tax Increment Financing (TIF) assistance for development activities within the designated plan areas. The URA Board will have the option of amending or waiving sections of this document when determined necessary or appropriate. The mission of the URA is to remedy blight, using TIF, to leverage private capital investment and stimulate sustainable development and public improvements projects.  The fundamental purpose for application to the URA for TIF assistance is to facilitate desirable development/redevelopment projects within the URA plan that would not otherwise occur “but for” the assistance provided through TIF.  Examples of costs eligible for TIF assistance are listed in Section 4 – Eligible Costs.  It is the intent of the Board to provide the minimum amount of TIF assistance to make the project viable. The provision of financial assistance is at the sole discretion of the Board.  The Board reserves the right to reject or approve project on a case‐by‐case basis, taking into account: o Established policies; o Specific project criteria; and o Demand on City services in relation to the potential public benefit received from the proposed project.  Meeting policy guidelines and other criteria does not guarantee the award of TIF assistance. Furthermore, approval or denial of one project is not intended to set a precedent for approval or denial of another project. SECTION 2 ‐ OBJECTIVES The URA exists to accomplish the following objectives:  Eliminating blight.  Improving the public infrastructure (streets, storm drainage, sewer, utilities, etc.) in areas where deficiencies exist.  Creating a significant number of new primary jobs.  Removing impediments to development. 2  Retaining, expanding or attracting businesses for the purpose of improving the City’s economic base as demonstrated by increased jobs, creation of primary jobs, higher paying employment, installing manufacturing base, etc.  Encouraging development projects that enhance the streetscapes and pedestrian experience and improve the vitality of commercial corridors by adding interest and activity.  Providing a variety of quality affordable housing choices.  Encourage development that is consistent with City Plan and approved Urban Renewal Plans.  Providing Promote “green” building standards and/or “above code” energy efficiencies within buildings and developments.  North College Plan area priorities (specific to the North College Urban Renewal Plan area): o Enhancing transportation infrastructure; o Providing stormwater drainage or floodplain improvements; o Expanding or upgrading utility infrastructure; and o Providing amenities that benefit the public including but not limited to streetscapes, enhanced architecture and building materials, facade renovations, special site improvements, etc. that contribute to a positive identity and image for the North College area. SECTION 3 – ELIGIBLE DEVELOPMENT The Board may consider TIF funding for Projects that include the following:  Business Development: the retention, expansion, and attraction of business in the plan area.  Residential Development: new construction or rehabilitation of single family and/or multi‐family housing.  Affordable Housing (must meet the minimum City Code requirement of 20% 10% of the total units with 80% Area Median Income (AMI) or less).  Creation of a significant number of new primary jobs.  Development which employs “green” standards beyond adopted code minimums.  Student housing, defined as multi‐unit residential structures, whether publicly or privately owned, that are leased in whole or in part to students attending post‐ secondary educational institutions.  Creation of a destination location that will capture additional revenue to the area.  Historic preservation and adaptive reuse of historic structures.  Protection of natural habitats and features both on the development’s site and in the vicinity of that site. SECTION 4 – ELIGIBLE COSTS  Removal of hazardous materials or conditions (sites where remediation or mitigation are required). 3  Site clearance or site acquisition.  Land assemblage.  Parking/structured parking for the public.  Infrastructure that is extraordinarily costly to remedy (streets, stormwater, water/wastewater, light & power, gas, etc.)  Infrastructure that serves other development and redevelopment facilitating further improvements in the area.  Green development which exceeds adopted code minimums (e.g. design, construction, or retrofitting of buildings and sites to be certified through the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED rating program, Energy Star, Sustainable Sites Initiative, or through an equivalent green building rating system such as the International Green Construction Code; or completion of a Construction Waste Management Plan for the project detailing proposed recycling, reuse, and disposal of waste products not currently required to be recycled).  Public amenities such as parks, plazas, community gathering areas and streetscapes to enhance the aesthetics of the area.  Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) as identified by the City of Fort Collins.  Projects listed in Infrastructure Plans related to the Plan area, i.e. North College Infrastructure Funding Plan. SECTION 5 – EVALUATION CRITERIA The following basic evaluation criteria will be used to review applications seeking TIF funding. Since every project is unique, additional evaluation criteria may become necessary and will be determined on a case‐by‐case basis.  Financial feasibility: o TIF assistance will not be considered for projects that have the financial feasibility to proceed without TIF assistance. Assistance will not be provided solely to broaden the developer’s profit margin on the project. Prior to consideration of a TIF assistance request, the URA will undertake a financial analysis of the project costs to ensure that the request for assistance is appropriate. o For projects that will generate more than $1 million in TIF or create a project that is more than 10,000 sq. ft. in size there may be an independent financial analysis. The independent analysis will be contracted for by the URA and the cost will be paid for by the applicant. Additionally, if the project is seeking more than 50% of the property tax increment generated from the project, or if the applicant is asking for requesting a grant for more than $150,000, an independent financial analysis of the project may be required by the URA. o Individuals requesting TIF assistance must demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the URA, sufficient equity investment in the project prior to seeking TIF. Equity is 4 defined as cash or un‐leveraged value in land or prepaid costs attributable to the project. Examples of equity may include personal cash, letter of credit, personal investment, awarded grant monies, etc.  Policy assessment: o A qualitative and/or quantitative analysis should be completed in order to identify the costs associated with the project which benefit the public and achieve the broader community benefits and goals. Analysis of the benefits of the project will be measured against the expectations set in the relevant plans that may include, but not be limited by, City Plan, Urban Renewal Plan, and any community sub area plan. o Projects do not provide sufficient public benefits may, after review, be asked for revisions such as: – Greater Developer contribution; – Reduced TIF participation; and/or – Redefining the scope of the project. Revision may lead to approval of final denial of URA participant in the project.  The URA will give preference to funding projects that have local ownership, which is defined to mean any home location, business, developer located within a 40 mile radius from the City of Fort Collins Growth Management boundary.  The applicant must be able to demonstrate to the URA and Board’s satisfaction, an ability to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed project based upon past experience, general reputation, and credit history, and equity investment.  The level of TIF assistance will be determined on the merits of the project.  The URA will give preference to affordable housing projects that exceed the minimum City Land Use Code requirement of 10% of the total units for households earning 80% or less of AMI. Section 6 – Other General Policies  TIF assistance for land/property purchase costs will not be provided in an amount exceeding the fair market value of the property.  The fair market value will be determined by an independent appraiser hired by the Board or City of Fort Collins. The cost of the appraisal will be paid for by the applicant.  TIF will not be used to retroactively reimburse projects or make payments to cover costs associated with any actions already incurred by a development or redevelopment prior to a request for financial assistance being considered by the URA.  TIF assistance will be on a reimbursement basis and only after the project valuation is verified and the Certificate of Occupancy (CO) or Letter of Completion (LOC) is issued at completion of construction. The funds will be paid upon actual costs with verifiable 5 receipts. Consideration for payments prior to obtaining the CO or LOC and valuation may be made on a case‐by‐case basis and will require approval by the Board prior to commencement of construction.  To be eligible to apply for TIF, the applicant must have submitted the proposed project to the City as a Project Development Plan (PDP), Final Development Plan (FDP), or a major/minor amendment and completed the first round of review with comments from City staff. Section 7 – Application Requirements The applicant must complete the TIF application in its entirety, including the following documentation:  A location map  Site plans or project drawings/perspectives/elevations  Project Pro‐forma  Owner/Business resume  Executive Summary with the following questions answered:  What is the nature of the project?  Why is TIF assistance needed and how will the funds be used?  What sources of financing will the project secure other than TIF?  How will the project help improve/upgrade public infrastructure (streets, utilities, drainage, etc.)?  How will the project enhance the property tax base (and sales tax base, if applicable) of the area?  How will the project help achieve the goals of the North College Urban Renewal Plan and City Plan?  How will the project help eliminate slum and blight conditions?  How will this project help achieve the URA goals of sustainability through green building techniques? Please be specific how this project uses energy efficiency exceeding code required, renewable resources, natural resource conservation techniques, stormwater low impact design methods, or any other methods not listed recycles construction or deconstruction waste diversion/recycling techniques.  Please provide documentation and quantifiable results stating the proven methods and effectiveness of the proposed sustainable features within the project.  What is the proposed project timetable (what is the estimated time frame for major steps including the City’s planning decision, completion of financial commitments, start of construction, and issuance of Certificate of Occupancy (CO)? Section 8 – Process (see illustration for condensed version)  Applications may be submitted to URA staff at any time during regular business hours. 6  After URA staff has done a preliminary analysis and made suggested edits or modifications to the application, there will be a final submittal.  Additional community‐based input will be required. o If the application is for a project located within the North College Urban Renewal Plan, the North College Citizen Advisory Group (CAG) must make a recommendation by a majority vote. The CAG meets on a monthly basis and the proposed project/ o TIF application will be scheduled on the agenda once the financial analyses are completed and the URA staff has adequate information and achieved a staff recommendation to present. o Feedback from community‐based input may require modifications that delay approval and even require additional financial analysis. If the goals of the URA are not clearly met and staff doesn’t make a favorable recommendation to the Board, the application will be denied and will not move forward to the Board for approval. The applicant may apply again if the project changes financially, present a different project than previously submitted or with a change in the TIF calculation based on project differences.  Once the URA staff and any community‐based organization have recommended the application, URA staff will work with the applicant to create a project specific Redevelopment Agreement (RA) that will define the terms of the TIF assistance for the project.  Once a final RA is agreed to URA staff will schedule the application for consideration at a hearing before the Board. The Board typically meets bimonthly on Tuesday evenings after City Council meetings.  Approval of the project at any point in the process, short of the Board meeting, is no guarantee that the project will ultimately receive any TIF assistance.  The Board will consider the application at the scheduled meeting. The Board will decide whether or not to support the application. The support may include: o Adoption of the RA, o Denial of the application, or o Conditional approval of the RA and the Board will provide clear direction on suggested terms. The Board will also clearly indicate if the conditions are mandatory for approval or optional enhancements.  All Redevelopment Agreements are valid for a 12 month period beginning on the date the agreement was executed, unless otherwise stated in the agreement. 1 Policies & Procedures for APPlicAnts section 1 – introduction This policy is to provide guidance for the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (URA) staff, Citizen Advisory Group (North College), and URA Board (Board) in considering, reviewing and processing ap- plications that seek to use Tax Increment Financing (TIF) assistance for development activities within the designated plan areas. The URA Board will have the option of amending or waiving sections of this document when determined necessary or appropriate. 1 The fundamental purpose for application to the URA for TIF assistance is to facilitate desirable development/redevelopment projects within the URA plan that would not otherwise occur “but for” the assistance provided through TIF. 2 Examples of costs eligible for TIF assistance are listed in Section 4 – Eligible Costs. 3 It is the intent of the Board to provide the minimum amount of TIF assistance to make the project viable. The provision of finan- cial assistance is at the sole discretion of the Board. The Board reserves the right to reject or approve projects on a case-by-case basis, taking into account established policies, specific project criteria and the demand on City services in relation to the potential public benefit received from the proposed project. Meeting policy guidelines and other criteria does not guarantee the award of TIF assistance. Furthermore, the approval or denial of one project is not intended to set a precedent for approval or denial of another project. section 2 – oBJectiVes The URA exists to accomplish the following objectives: 1 Retaining, expanding or attracting businesses for the purpose of improving the City’s economic base as demonstrated by in- creased jobs, creation of primary jobs, higher paying employment, installing manufacturing base, etc. 2 Eliminating blight. 3 Improving the public infrastructure (streets, storm drainage, sewer, utilities, etc.) in areas where deficiencies exist. 4 Encouraging development projects that enhance the streetscapes and pedestrian experience and improve the vitality of com- mercial corridors by adding interest and activity. 5 Providing a variety of quality affordable housing choices. 6 Creating a significant number of new primary jobs. 7 Providing “green” building or energy efficiencies within buildings and developments. 8 North College Plan area priorities (specific to the North College Urban Renewal Plan area): a. Enhancing transportation infrastructure; b. Providing stormwater drainage or floodplain improvements; c. Expanding or upgrading utility infrastructure; and d. Providing amenities that benefit the public including but not limited to streetscapes, enhanced architecture and building materials, facade renovations, special site improvements, etc. that contribute to a positive identity and image for the North College area. MAY 18, 2010 2 section 3 – eliGiBle deVeloPMent The Board may consider TIF funding for Projects that include the following: 1 Business Development: the retention, expansion, and attraction of business in the plan area. 2 Residential Development: new construction or rehabilitation of single family and/or multi-family housing. 3 Affordable Housing (must meet the minimum City Code requirement of 20% of the total units with 80% Area Median Income (AMI) or less). 4 Creation of a significant number of new primary jobs. 5 Creation of a destination location that will capture additional revenue to the area. 6 Historic preservation and adaptive reuse of historic structures. 7 Protection of natural habitats and features both on the development’s site and in the vicinity of that site. section 4 – eliGiBle costs 1 Removal of hazardous materials or conditions (sites where remediation or mitigation are required). 2 Site clearance or site acquisition. 3 Land assemblage. 4 Parking/structured parking for the public. 5 Infrastructure that is extraordinarily costly to remedy (streets, stormwater, water/wastewater, light & power, gas, etc.) 6 Infrastructure that serves other development and redevelopment facilitating further improvements in the area. 7 Green development or Energy Efficiency features within a project. 8 Public amenities such as parks, plazas, community gathering areas and streetscapes to enhance the aesthetics of the area. 9 Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) as identified by the City of Fort Collins. section 5 – eVAluAtion criteriA The following basic evaluation criteria will be used to review applications seeking TIF funding. Since every project is unique, additional evaluation criteria may become necessary and will be determined on a case-by-case basis. 1 Financial feasibility: a. TIF assistance will not be considered for projects that have the financial feasibility to proceed without TIF assistance. Assistance will not be provided solely to broaden the developer’s profit margin on the project. Prior to consideration of a TIF assistance re- quest, the URA will undertake a financial analysis of the project costs to ensure that the request for assistance is appropriate. b. For projects that will generate more than $1 million in TIF or create a project that is more than 10,000 sq. ft. in size there may be an independent financial analysis. The independent analysis will be contracted for by the URA and the cost will be paid for by the applicant. Additionally, if the project is seeking more than 50% of the tax increment generated from the project, or if the applicant is asking for more than $150,000, an independent financial analysis of the project may be required by the URA. c. Individuals requesting TIF assistance must demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the URA, sufficient equity investment in the project prior to seeking TIF. Equity is defined as cash or un-leveraged value in land or prepaid costs attributable to the project. 3 Examples of equity may include personal cash, letter of credit, personal investment, awarded grant monies, etc. 2 Policy assessment: a. A qualitative and/or quantitative analysis should be completed in order to identify the costs associated with the project which benefit the public and achieve the broader community benefits and goals. Analysis of the benefits of the project will be mea- sured against the expectations set in the relevant plans that may include, but not be limited by, City Plan, Urban Renewal Plan, and any community sub area plan. b. Projects do not provide sufficient public benefits may, after review, be asked for revisions such as: i. Greater Developer contribution; ii. Reduced TIF participation; and/or iii. Redefining the scope of the project. Revision may lead to approval of final denial of URA participant in the project. 3 TIF assistance for land/property purchase costs will not be provided in an amount exceeding the fair market value of the property. The fair market value will be determined by an independent appraiser hired by the Board or City of Fort Collins. The cost of the appraisal will be paid for by the applicant. 4 TIF will not be used to retroactively reimburse projects or make payments to cover costs associated with any actions already incurred by a development or redevelopment prior to a request for financial assistance being considered by the URA. 5 The URA will give preference to funding projects that have local ownership, which is defined to mean any home location, busi- ness, developer located within a 40 mile radius from the City of Fort Collins Growth Management boundary. 6 The applicant must be able to demonstrate to the URA and Board’s satisfaction, an ability to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed project based upon past experience, general reputation, and credit history. 7 The level of TIF assistance will be determined on the merits of the project. 8 TIF assistance will be on a reimbursement basis and only after the project valuation is verified and the Certificate of Occupancy (CO) is issued at completion of construction. The funds will be paid upon actual costs with verifiable receipts. Consideration for payments prior to obtaining the CO and valuation may be made on a case-by-case basis and will require approval by the Board prior to commencement of construction. 9 The applicant must complete the TIF application in its entirety, including the following documentation: a. A location map b. Site plans or project drawings/perspectives/elevations c. Project Pro-forma d. Owner/Business resume e. Executive Summary with the following questions answered: i. What is the nature of the project? ii. Why is TIF assistance needed and how will the funds be used? iii. What sources of financing will the project secure other than TIF? iv. How will the project help improve/upgrade public infrastructure (streets, utilities, drainage, etc.)? v. How will the project enhance the property tax base (and sales tax base, if applicable) of the area? vi. How will the project help achieve the goals of the North College Urban Renewal Plan and City Plan? vii. How will the project help eliminate slum and blight conditions? viii. How will this project help achieve the URA goals of sustainability through green building techniques? Please be specific how this project uses energy efficiency, renewable resources, natural resource conservation techniques, stormwater low impact design methods, or any other methods not listed. ix. Please provide documentation and quantifiable results stating the proven methods and effectiveness of the proposed sus- tainable features within the project. x. What is the proposed project timetable (what is the estimated time frame for major steps including the City’s planning deci- sion, completion of financial commitments, start of construction, and issuance of Certificate of Occupancy (CO)? 4 section 6 – Process (see illustration for condensed version) 1 Applications may be submitted to URA staff at any time during regular business hours. 2 After URA staff has done a preliminary analysis and made suggested edits or modifications to the application, there will be a final submittal. 3 Additional community-based input will be required. a. If the application is for a project located within the North College Urban Renewal Plan, the North College Citizen Advisory Group (CAG) must make a recommendation by a majority vote. The CAG meets on a monthly basis and the proposed proj- ect/TIF application will be scheduled on the agenda once the financial analyses are completed and the URA staff has adequate information and achieved a staff recommendation to present. b. Feedback from community-based input may require modifications that delay approval and even require additional financial analysis. If the goals of the URA are not clearly met and staff doesn’t make a favorable recommendation to the Board, the application will be denied and will not move forward to the Board for approval. The applicant may apply again if the project changes financially, present a different project than previously submitted or with a change in the TIF calculation based on project differences. 4 Once the URA staff and any community-based organization have recommended the application, URA staff will work with the ap- plicant to create a project specific Redevelopment Agreement (RA) that will define the terms of the TIF assistance for the project. 5 Once a final RA is agreed to URA staff will schedule the application for consideration at a hearing before the Board. The Board typically meets bimonthly on Tuesday evenings after City Council meetings. 6 Approval of the project at any point in the process, short of the Board meeting, is no guarantee that the project will ultimately receive any TIF assistance. 7 The Board will consider the application at the scheduled meeting. The Board will decide whether or not to support the applica- tion. The support may include: a. adoption of the RA, b. denial of the application, or c. conditional approval of the RA and the Board will provide clear direction on suggested terms. The Board will also clearly indicate if the conditions are mandatory for approval or optional enhancements. 8 All Redevelopment Agreements are valid for a 12 month period beginning on the date the agreement was executed, unless otherwise stated in the agreement. 5 *Based on availability of 6 month calendar urA Board meeting scheduled* once redevelopment AGMt is negotiated steP 1 steP 2 steP 3 steP 4 steP 5 submit urA application Pls. allow 2 weeks for iterations staff review final submittal Pls. allow 4 weeks for completion financial analysis “But for” test Based on determination of eligible costs staff recommendation “CAG” Citizen Advisory Group meets once a month 1st Thursday cAG meeting = project introduction 2nd cAG meeting = recommendation APPlicAtion Process ATTACHMENT 3 2005-2010 overview of The firsT five Years Fort Collins UrA ATTACHMENT 4 Letter from the Mayor Welcome to the Fort Collins Urban Re- newal Authority (URA) Overview. It has been my pleasure to watch and guide the URA from its humble beginnings in 2005 through its current state of tre- mendous momentum. This annual report highlights the prog- ress made by the Fort Collins URA over the past five years. Without partnerships with the City, community, business owners, prop- erty owners and citizens, the URA would not be successful. We strive for ultimate excellence in projects that meet or exceed the objectives of the URA policies. We are proud to be the catalyst of change—to eliminate blight and foster redevelopment, creating jobs and inviting projects that are ul- timately for the public good. These long-term investments will result in more than $80 million in public/pri- vate partnerships in the North College Plan Area alone. We dare to think of the future and the possibilities ahead as we study potential plan areas in Midtown and Foothills Mall. As I exit my term as the President of the URA, and Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, I’d like to recognize the suc- cess of the Urban Renewal Author- ity and our community’s desire to be world-class, innovative and sustain- able. Through infrastructure invest- ments and redevelopment of our business corridors, we can achieve long-term economic vitality in Fort Collins together. Mayor Doug Hutchinson City of Fort Collins Mayor 2004-2011 Commitments $80M in public/private funds within North College Plan Area $14M in TIF granted, not all funded yet $26.4M predicted project TIF generation over next 20 years Granted TIF funds commited to: • Landscaping/trees/wetland enhancements • Stormwater improvements • Streetscapes • Sidewalks • Utilities • Sewer infrastructure • Green Building components • Demolition/site prep • Transportation infrastructure • Facade enhancements HICKORY ST. COLLEGE AVE. REDWOOD ST. WILLOX LN. Valley Steel Valley Steel and Wire Company The first project funded by URA financing, Valley Steel and Wire Company is a wholesale operation primarily receiving steel products by rail and then distributing those products to various construction companies and other users by truck. They built an additional 19,000-square-foot distribution and warehouse facility expansion at 280 Hickory Street, adjacent to their existing facility. The URA-funded sewer expansion also benefits adjacent property owners and future redevelopment projects along this block by eliminating a significant obstacle to redevelopment. FACT SHEET Project: Valley Steel and Wire Com- pany Developer: Valley Steel and Wire Total Project Cost: $900,000 URA Participation: $105,578 in TIF reimbursement Project Location: 200-280 Hickory S. Completion Date: October 2006 North College Marketplace Slated to open in June 2011, the North College Marketplace will bring a new King Soopers grocery store-anchored shopping center to the north gateway of Fort Collins. Originally approved by the URA Board in September 2008, North College Marketplace celebrated its groundbreaking in October 2009. Steady construc- tion through 2010 has kept this project on time and constantly moving forward. The URA granted its largest tax increment grant to date in the amount of $8 million to aid in the infrastructure require- ments, wetlands mitigation and site preparation. URA funds supported the intersection and roadway improvements on College Avenue and Willox Lane, including a landscaped me- dian on the north half of the intersection on College and a round- about on Willox. Improvements and development of the North College Marketplace will cost $40 million to construct and will gen- erate $15.5 million in property tax increment. Wetlands surrounding the development have been enhanced and replanted allowing native species to survive. When complete, a vacant 26-acre parcel will be transformed into a destination loca- tion for Fort Collins residents and visitors. FACT SHEET Project: North College Marketplace Developer: Loveland Commercial Total Project Cost: $40 million URA participation: $8 million Project Location: NE corner N. College and Willox Lane Completion Date: June 2011 Union Place Union Place is the first approved residential project for the URA. The development plans forecast 89 housing units with more than 40 percent of the units designated as affordable housing. Union Place broke ground in late 2009 and worked through 2010 to create buildable lots. In the past year, Union Place has made a tremendous effort to construct all needed infrastructure for this housing project to begin vertical home construction in 2011. Geothermal pumps, roadway improvements, new sidewalks and public utilities have been successfully installed. URA funding has enabled new bike lanes and landscaping on Willox Lane. Prior to these improvements, the site was a 10-acre alfalfa field. Using innovative building practices, with an eye toward energy effi- ciency and reduced waste, Union Place is slated to be a LEED-New Development community upon completion. The partnership be- tween the URA, Merten, Inc. and Habitat for Humanity contributes to the community enrichment and progress being made on Fort Collins’ northern gateway. FACT SHEET Project: Union Place Developer: Merten, Inc. Total Project Cost: $27 million URA participation: $2.2 million Project Location: SW corner Willox Lane and N. College Completion Date: Phased/End of 2012 Rocky Mountain Innosphere The Rocky Mountain Innosphere building is complete. Client companies and tenants moved in January 2011. The 31,000-square-foot, three-story office building is the new location for the regional technology incubator. The Innosphere was previ- ously known as the Rocky Mountain Innovation Initiative, and from 1998-2008 as the Fort Collins Technology Incubator. The $7.2 million project was granted $2.8 million from the URA for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) to help leverage other funding sourc- es. In keeping with building standards adopted by the City of Fort Collins and other major organizations in Fort Collins, the new build- ing incorporates green building practices in order to save energy and money, and to provide a healthy work environment for its staff and client companies. The Innosphere is seeking United States Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED Gold - New Building certification. The new facility provides ample office space at reduced lease rates. Startup companies within the Innosphere also have access to conference room space, a shared reception area, training rooms for educational and community events, and 3,000 square feet of wet laboratory space for bioscience companies. FACT SHEET Project: Rocky Mountain Innosphere Developer: RMI/Verde, LLC Total Project Cost: $7.2 million URA participation: Kaufman & Robinson Construction is underway of a new 10,000-square-foot building for existing business, Kaufman & Robinson, Inc.(KRI). Capitalizing on the opportunity to expand their operations on a nearby vacant parcel, KRI is using tax increment financing to fund their expansion, integrate green building techniques, and improve street and stormwater infrastructure along Blue Spruce Drive. Financing for the project will come from a loan from the City of Fort Collins to the URA in the amount of $269,000. The project allows a viable, growing business to build a new facility with sustainable features, expand their primary employment and retain jobs. KRI is leading by example by incorporating many green building methods in the new construction and utilizing water con- servation technology in their manufacturing process. FACT SHEET Project: Kaufman & Robinson, Inc. (KRI®) Developer: KRI Total Project Cost: $1.6 million URA participation: $269,000 Project Location: 1330 Blue Spruce Dr. Completion Date: Spring 2011 JAX Local outdoor outfitter, Jax Mercantile, applied for URA funding to assist with an expansion project in spring 2010. They completed the project just six months later; it was the first com- pleted project in the North College Urban Renewal Area in three years. The expansion project increases their retail capacity by 25 percent, allowing for more product lines and amenities for custom- ers. The URA participated by escrowing the funds needed for the local street improvements associated with the expansion, as well as the street design of the adjacent Jerome Street and its future street oversizing costs. JAX held its grand opening in late Novem- ber to showcase the improvements and additional space. FACT SHEET Project: JAX Developer: JAX Total Project Cost: $1.2 million URA participation: $172,000 Project Location: 1200 N. College Ave. Completion Date: November 2010 $172K ROAD ImpROVEmENTS jEROmE ST. & COLLEGE AVE. $50K $30K $120K $10K $59K uTILITIES, CuRb GuTTERS, Habitat for Humanity In 2010, the Fort Collins Habitat for Humanity received approval for URA funding to help purchase four single-family lots within the Union Place development. At the time of this publication, construc- tion details have not been determined, although all partners are interested in moving forward in the near future. For updates on this and all projects within the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority, visit renewfortcollins.com. Policies and Procedures In 2010, the URA Board and staff streamlined the URA Policies and Procedures process. The easy to follow, updated documents make applying for URA support even more user-friendly. The Policies and Procedures doc- ument, as well as the Step-by-Step process (as shown on right), encourages interested investors to participate in the URA applica- tion process and provides an improved decision-making tool for the URA Board. The Urban Renewal Authority is excited to partner with develop- ers, businesses, property owners and investors to revitalize the North College Urban Renewal Area, and other areas of town, where the need for redevelopment exists.. RenewFortCollins.com —URA projects and updates, just a click away The URA made significant revisions to its website in 2010 in order to showcase the amazing work in the North College Plan Area. Authority administrators refreshed the site to increase the visibil- ity of the URA and its mission to stimulate long-term investment and redevelopment in targeted areas for economic vitality. The site chronicles the progress of approved projects. It also serves as a cache of official Urban Renewal Authority documents. RenewFortCollins.com serves as the main information hub for de- velopers, real estate brokers, the media and general public for all things Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority. What’s Next? Midtown Existing Conditions Survey A Midtown Redevelopment Study was completed by the City of Fort Collins in 2010 to identify the current conditions of land use and ownership, and to offer potential redevelopment scenarios on College Avenue, between Prospect and Harmony Roads. The study has several recommendations and action items for moving forward. First: prepare an existing conditions report by the Urban Renewal Authority to evaluate any finding of blight and establish a basis for the formation of a plan area. The Urban Renewal Authority staff will begin this process in the first quarter of 2011. Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority Christina Vincent, Redevelopment Program Administrator 300 Laporte Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.416.2294 cvincent@fcgov.com renewfortcollins.com *Based on availability of 6-month calendar uRA board meeting scheduled* once Redevelopment AGmT is negotiated Submit uRA application Pls. allow 2 weeks for iterations Staff review Final submittal Pls. allow 4 weeks for completion Financial analysis “but For” test Advance Planning 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6376 970.224.6111 - fax fcgov.com/advanceplanning ATTACHMENT 5 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: JOE FRANK, DIRECTOR, ADVANCE PLANNING FROM: EMMA MCARDLE, PLANNING TECHNICIAN SUBJECT: TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DATE: 08/04/08 CC: Background Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is a finance tool utilized by Downtown Development Authorities (DDAs) and Urban Renewal Authorities (URAs) (§ 31-25-101 C.R.S). TIF captures the incremental property or sales tax revenue increase in designated areas, as properties in that area are redeveloped or developed. TIF districts typically last 25 years and revenue builds up in the area for redevelopment over time. The revenue generated from the TIF is used by the URA or DDA to finance redevelopment in the designated area. Once a DDA’s or URA’s 25-year period ends, the money generated from the TIF is transferred proportionally, based on mill levies, to the taxing entities in that area. Please see diagram clarifying TIF. The calculation of TIF has come into question as the Larimer County Assessor utilizes differing computations for the Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority and the Urban Renewal Authority. According to §31-25-107 C.R.S., authorities shall submit a statement setting forth the method of financing to their Board of County Commissioners prior to the public hearing for 2 the urban renewal plan. There is not set a formula to calculate TIF, so authorities and counties have flexibility in determining their tax increment calculation. Fort Collin’s DDA and URA only use the revenue generated from property tax, not sales tax, as other communities do, but they have very different computations to determine their tax increment. Downtown Development Authority Tax Increment Calculation To determine the DDA’s tax increment, the County Assessor subtracts the value of the new construction from the new assessed value of the DDA area and then adjusts it according to the previous year’s base and increment percentage. The adjusted increment is then added to the new construction value to determine the total new increment. To determine the change in one year’s increment to the next, the County subtracts one increment from the other. Please see the example calculation. Urban Renewal Authority Tax Increment Calculation To determine the URA’s tax increment, the County Assessor apportions “any change in valuation that occurs between reassessments to two categories: reappraisal and redevelopment. The change in valuation attributed to redevelopment will assign exclusively to the increment’s valuation” (AIS URA, December 5, 2006). This method excludes any increase in value due to appreciation from the increment. A summary of the URA calculation process is as follows: First the County subtracts the previous year’s assessed value from the total new assessed value of the URA area. Then the Countywide Market Appreciation of that value is deducted, equaling the value increase due to redevelopment. The second step is to break the appreciation value down by the previous year’s percent base and increment. The adjusted base appreciation is then combined with last year’s base to equate the new base. Then last year’s increment is added with the increase due to redevelopment and the percentage of increase due to reappraisal to equal the new increment. To determine the change in one year’s increment to the next the County subtracts one increment from the other. Please see the following example calculations for both the DDA and URA. Example Calculation Assumptions: URA or DDA Total Assessed Value (Hypothetical) 2005 $19,347,870 2006 $21,345,260 2007 2006 value +3% Countywide Market Appreciation (Hypothetical) 2007 5.27% Cost of New Construction/Redevelopment (Hypothetical) 2005 0 2006 0 2007 $100,000 3 Downtown Development Authority Calculation: 2006 Percentage of 2006 Assessed Value 2006 Assessed Valuation $21,345,260 (-)2005 base value - $19,347,870 90.64% (=)2006 Increment $1,997,390 9.36% 2007 Step 1: Calculate Increment Changes in value in current year due to redevelopment: New Construction – Buildings (+) $100,000 Previously Exempt, Now Taxable (+) 0 Demolition (-) 0 Prior Taxable, now Exempt (-) 0 Net increase/decrease due to redevelopment $100,000 Step 2: Percentages Attributed to Prior Base and Prior Increment 2006 Base Percentage 90.64% 2006 Increment Percent 9.36% Step 3: Determine Adjusted Base and Increment 2007 Total Valuation after Reappraisal $22,000,000 (-)Less Increase due to Redevelopment - $100,000 (=) 2007 Adjusted Reappraised Valuation $21,900,000 Step 4: Apportionment for Adjusted Reappraisal Valuation 2007 Adjusted Reappraised Valuation $21,900,000 Adjusted New Base (90.64%) of $21,900,000 $19,850,700 90.64% Adjusted Increment (9.36%) of $21,900,000 $2,049,300 9.36% Step 5: Determine Total Increment for 2007 Adjusted Increment (step 4) $2,049,300 (+)Plus Increase due to Redevelopment (step1) + $100,000 (=)Total Increment for 2007 $2,149,300 New Base for 2007 $19,850,700 (+)Increment for 2007 + $2,149,300 (=)Total TIF area valuation for 2007 $22,000,000 Change in Increment Value from Previous Year $151,910 Urban Renewal Authority Calculation: 4 2006 Percentage of 2006 Assessed Value 2006 Assessed Valuation $21,345,260 (-)2005 Base - $19,347,870 90.64% (=)2006 Increment $1,997,390 9.36% 2007 Step 1: Determine Value Increase Due to Redevelopment (2007) New Total Assessed Value of URA $22,000,000 (-)(2006) Last Year's Total Assessed Value of URA - $21,345,260 (=)Total Value Change $654,740 Total Value Change $654,740 (x) (2007)Countywide Market Appreciation 5.27% x 5.27% (=)Value Increase due to Reappraisal $34,505 Total Value Change $654,740 (-)Value Increase due to Reappraisal - $34,505 (=)Value Increase due to Redevelopment $620,235 Step 2: Apportion Reappraisal Increase & Calc New Base & Increment Value Increase due to Reappraisal $34,505 2005 Base Percentage of 2006 Base (90.64%) of $34,505 $31,276 90.64% 2006 Increment Percentage of 2006 Base (9.36%) of $34,505 $3,229 9.36% Last Year's Base (2005) $19,347,870 (+) Percentage of Increase due to Reappraisal + $31,276 (=) New Base $19,379,146 Last Year's Increment (2006) $1,997,390 (+) Increase due to Redevelopment $620,235 (+) Percentage of Increase due to Reappraisal + $3,229 (=) New Increment $2,620,854 2007 Base $19,379,146 2007 Increment $2,620,854 Change in Increment Value from Previous Year $623,464 1 2011 Policies & Procedures URA WWoorrkksseessssiioonn June 14, 2011 2 DIRECTION SOUGHT •• Does the URA Board have concerns with the revised Policies and Procedures? •• Is the URA Board comfortable bringing these revisions back for approval in July? ATTACHMENT 6 3 PAST ACTIONS •• 2006 –– Original Policies created by URA Board based on recommendations from ad hoc committee. Adopted August 2006 •• 2010 –– Complete revamp of URA policies and Procedures. Adopted May 2010 •• May 2011 -Direction given by URA Board to revisit Policies 4 2010 POLICIES: PURPOSE 1. Provide Guidance 2. State the Objectives 3. Specify Eligible Development 4. Identify Eligible Costs 5. Develop Specific Criteria 6. Formalize Process & Timeline 5 2006 vvss 2010 DIFFERENCES •• Clearly state the financial need •• Closer linkage to goals of Retention, Expansion, and Attraction •• Introduce a green building incentive •• Give direction and expectations to applicants •• Clearly state TIF is not an entitlement •• Develop an evaluation criteria 6 2010 POLICIES: EVALUATION CRITERIA •• Financial Feasibility ““But But For”” For test Financial analysis of the project pro forma Proven equity investment in the project •• Policy Assessment Project meets goals of various plans If goals are not met, additional criteria may be required •• Land purchase will not exceed fair market value 7 2010 POLICIES: EVALUATION CRITERIA ( con’’tt)con ) •• Cannot be retroactively reimbursed •• Application must be complete •• Local ownership preference (40 mi.) •• Applicant must provide past experience •• TIF is based on project merit •• TIF assistance on reimbursement basis 8 2010 POLICIES: 5 STEP PROCESS STEP 1 -Discuss with Staff/Negotiate/Submit Application STEP 2 -Financial analysis STEP 3 -Staff Recommendation STEP 4 –– CAG recommendation (if in North College) *Two separate CAG meetings STEP 5 –– Redevelopment Agreement/URA Board Action 9 2011 REVISIONS • Encourage the Development to be consistent with City Plan and the Urban Renewal Plans. • Promote green building and above code energy efficiencies. • Green Development which exceeds adopted code minimums; using the various available rating systems as a guide –LEED – Sustainable Sites – Energy Star 10 2011 REVISIONS ( con’’tt)con ) • Inclusion of revised mission statement. • Applicant must be in the City’s Development review process. – Specifically complete first round of review with staff comments • Track the waste diversion and/or deconstruction methods of the project or other project recycling techniques. • Clarify the Land Use code Affordable Housing minimum and suggest exceeding the requirement. 11 DIRECTION SOUGHT •• Does the URA Board have concerns with the revised Policies and Procedures? •• Is the URA Board comfortable bringing these revisions back for approval in July? 12 Questions? Based on determination of eligible costs Staff recommendation “CAG” Citizen Advisory Group meets the 1st Thursday each month CAG meeting = project introduction 2nd CAG meeting = recommendation SIDEWALK SITE pREp STORmWATER DRAINAGE & DETENTION CONSERVATION WATER SYSTEm GREEN buILDING FEATuRES $2.8 million Project Location: 320 E. Vine Dr. Completion Date: December 2010 $319K $350K $234K WILLOX LANE pubLIC ImpROVEmENT LANDSCApING upGRADES GREEN buILDING LEED CERTIFICATION CONSTRuCTION COSTS mASON ST. CONSTRuCTION & INFRASTRuCTuRE SuSTAINAbLE GEOTHERmAL, LEED, LIGHTING, STORmWATER SITE ImpROVEmENTS FACADE/ WINDOWS/ ROOFING LAND ACquISITION & SHARED DETENTION SITE pREp $1.295m $908K $299K $520K $250K $40K $781K DEmOLITION SITE CLEANup WETLANDS mITIGATION & ENHANCEmENT CONTINGENCY GATEWAY LANDSCApING/ pEDESTRIAN CONNECTION ON-SITE uTILITIES $1m $2.8m $1.76m $366K $322K $300K $1.4m OFF-SITE STREET INFRASTRuCTuRE COLLEGE/WILLOX INTERSECTION GRApE ST./NORTH SOuTH CIRCuLATION $105K SEWER EXpANSION VINE DR. CONIFER ST. Valley Steel Union Place Habitat for Humanity North College Marketplace Kaufman & Robinson, INC. Jax Mercantile Rocky Mountain Innosphere