HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 02/12/2013 - COMPLETE AGENDACITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Karen Weitkunat, Mayor Council Chambers
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 Nelson, 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.
ADJOURNED MEETING
February 12, 2013
6 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Roll Call.
3. First Reading of Ordinance No. 023, 2013, Amending the City Code to Prohibit the Disposal of
Cardboard in the Community's Waste Stream and to Amend Requirements for Recycling
Applicable Solid Waste Collection. (staff: Susie Gordon; 10 minute staff presentation; 30 minute
discussion)
This Ordinance will prohibit placing corrugated cardboard boxes/packaging in trash containers for
disposal in landfills by any type of waste generator in Fort Collins, including commercial, industrial,
and residential customers.
4. Items Relating to the Planned Development Overlay District Pilot.Items Relating to the Planned
Development Overlay District Pilot. (staff: Megan Bolin; 10 minute staff presentation; 30 minute
discussion)
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code by the Addition
of a Temporary Planned Development Overlay Zone District.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code to Add or
Clarify Certain “General Standards” and “Purpose” Statements Related to the Planned
Overlay Development District.
The Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) is a new zoning tool designed to provide
contextual land use and design flexibility for infill development and redevelopment projects. Since
February 12, 2013
it is new and unique, a pilot is being proposed as a way to test the PDOD prior to considering
permanent adoption. The pilot would establish a six-month application period allowing up to five
application submittals; only projects within the PDOD pilot boundary would have the option to
apply. Based on public outreach, the PDOD pilot boundary has been modified since originally
proposed to include commercial areas along College Avenue, east Mulberry, and west Elizabeth.
Properties within 1,000 feet of the Poudre River or that are within a designated historic district
have been removed from the pilot.
Ordinance No. 025, 2013 makes several amendments to Article 3 of the Land Use Code (LUC).
These amendments are directly related to the PDOD, but would be permanent amendments to the
LUC and thus require a separate Ordinance.
5. Other Business.
6. Adjournment.
Karen 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 Nelson, 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
February 12, 2013
after the Adjourned Meeting
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Capital Improvements Expansion Fee Update. (staff: Jessica Ping-Small, Mike
Beckstead; 1 hour discussion)
Capital Improvement Expansion Fees were first implemented in 1996. In the fall of 2012,
staff initiated a comprehensive review of the original study. The goal of the review was
to ensure that the methodology first implemented was still applicable and to assess the
fee structure to confirm that it was consistent with the current level of service. To assist
with the review, Finance staff contracted with Duncan Associates, a nationally known
firm that specializes in impact fees.
3. Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study. (staff: Pete Wray, Sherry
Albertson-Clark; 1 hour discussion)
The Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study process included extensive
public outreach that identified neighborhood objectives and issues, and defined the
character and context of the neighborhoods. The Study process and findings are
summarized in a final Strategy Report, dated November 15, 2012. This report also
includes staff recommendations to implement five strategy options that were presented to
February 12, 2013
City Council at the work session on November 27, 2012. The staff recommendations at
that time did not include revising existing Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards, because it
did not reflect a mutually agreeable solution from the public. City Council directed staff
to proceed with implementation of the five strategy options, including development of a
formula to revise the existing maximum FAR standard.
In preparation for this work session, staff prepared two alternatives for Council to
consider for the proposed package of potential Land Use Code (LUC) amendments
included in the Ordinance:
1. Option A reflects a package of Land Use Code amendments that implement the
five recommended strategy options as well as a revision of existing FAR
standards using a new formula.
2. Option B reflects a package of Land Use Code amendments that implement the
five recommended strategy options, but does not include a revision to existing
FAR standards.
4. Other Business.
5. Adjournment.
DATE: February 12, 2013
STAFF: Susie Gordon
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 3
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 023, 2013, Amending the City Code to Prohibit the Disposal of Cardboard in the
Community's Waste Stream and to Amend Requirements for Recycling Applicable Solid Waste Collection.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance will prohibit placing corrugated cardboard boxes/packaging in trash containers for disposal in landfills
by any type of waste generator in Fort Collins, including commercial, industrial, and residential customers.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The proposal to restrict cardboard from being placed in the waste stream originated as a strategy in 2005 to increase
the Fort Collins community’s ability to meet our goal of diverting 50% of trash from landfill disposal, as well as to help
meet goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Over time, as waste diversion rates in Fort Collins have risen,
so has public interest in recovering even more materials of value that continue to be discarded, and the idea of taking
a regulatory approach continued to be discussed.
The City’s 2008 Climate Action Plan included the regulation of cardboard disposal as an implementation strategy that
will reduce trash by an estimated 12,000 tons/year, which represents 9% of the waste stream that Fort Collins sends
for landfill disposal. These 12,000 new tons of recycling per year will also eliminate the emission of 42,000 short
tons/year of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), a greenhouse gas, based on the emissions factor for cardboard
recycling used in US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Waste Reduction Model (WARM). This ordinance is
estimated to quadruple the amount of cardboard (currently 4,200 tons/year) captured through the community’s
recycling efforts.
Two main issues drive the discussion towards cardboard restrictions. First is the long and active history of education,
outreach, and incentive programs already conducted by the City to increase recycling. For twenty years, local efforts
have been abundant and varied, from publicity campaigns and advertising, requirements for trash hauling companies
to offer curbside recycling, to a City-sponsored drop-off facility and community recognition for businesses that integrate
recycling as part of their Climate Wise membership. With only about 25% of the cardboard in the community currently
being recycled, arriving at a decision to place a ban on cardboard in the waste stream is a logical “next step” for local
government to realize community goals and values.
The second issue is the relative magnitude of cardboard in the waste stream. Despite being a highly recyclable
commodity, many trash dumpsters around town are routinely full of cardboard boxes and packaging. Landfill
managers concur, stating they observe that cardboard seems to continue to stream into local landfills. Waste
characterizations conducted by Larimer County every 5-10 years measure cardboard and other discarded paper at
35% of the Larimer County landfill’s contents. Among all the recyclables that are collected in the City’s programs,
cardboard is perhaps the most easily recognized. It doesn’t require lengthy explanations about “chasing arrow” code
numbers to identify cardboard, and it is also one of the most ubiquitous discards that are generated by nearly every
type of business, or residence.
Local Building Code Green Amendments that became effective in 2012 now require cardboard recycling at building
sites; awareness and successful implementation by the Fort Collins construction industry has grown steadily.
Disposal of cardboard is banned by nine states, a number of communities and counties in the U.S., as well as
Washington D.C. Fort Collins has had the experience of enacting a local disposal restriction, with a ban on electronic
waste that was adopted in 2006.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
From an economic standpoint, restrictions on cardboard disposal will add more state and local revenue from the sales
of cardboard for recycling and by creating more jobs in the collection/processing industry. Burying discarded
February 12, 2013 -2- ITEM 3
cardboard in landfills, on the other hand, permanently squanders a resource that is valued at $50/ton or more in
today’s commodity markets.
Diverting more discarded material into the recycling system avoids filling up local landfills unnecessarily, including the
Larimer County Landfill, which is partly owned by the City. Lengthening the life of Larimer County Landfill is a prudent
financial approach that will save taxpayers, at minimum, an estimated $35 million in construction costs for a new
landfill in the future.
Costs to implement a cardboard disposal ban are not anticipated to be excessively burdensome. No-cost recycling
opportunities exist that allow both residents and businesses to recycle. Due to Fort Collins’ Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT)
Ordinance, residential customers do not pay extra for curbside recycling – which includes cardboard – because the
cost for recycling services is required to be bundled into the costs for trash service. Residents and businesses alike
utilize free public drop-off recycling centers operated by the County (co-located at the Larimer County Landfill), and
the City of Fort Collins (1702 Riverside; open seven days a week during daylight hours).
Additionally, many entities already subscribe to recycling services. Any customer, residential or commercial, who
already receives recycling services that is described as “single stream” collection will be unaffected by new trash
restrictions because the single-stream recycling program in Fort Collins includes cardboard. For commercial types
of customers that generate large amounts of cardboard, such as grocery stores and “big box” retailers, it has been
standard practice for the past 15-20 years to subscribe to cardboard recycling services. Often these generators use
compacting units to save on costs, or even bale their cardboard themselves for delivery to buyers in Denver.
The PAYT Ordinance, however, does not apply to commercial or multi-family (MFU) accounts. While haulers are
obliged to provide recycling to these customers whenever it is requested, they are allowed to charge a fee for the
service. Prices vary among haulers and among types of clients; often the price is considered proprietary information.
City staff estimates it costs $15-30 per month to pay a hauler for cardboard recycling at a small or mid-sized business.
By separating cardboard from the trash dumpster or bin, however, customers may be able to reduce the size and/or
collection frequency of their trash dumpsters and therefore can offset recycling costs through lower trash bills.
Compliance with a new ordinance is the responsibility of the generator of the materials. However, hauling companies
will also be required to take initiative in meeting the intent of the Code by declining to remove trash from customers
when a trash container/bin is found to be more than 25% full of cardboard by volume. The City will rely on service
providers to inform customers about the ordinance and urge them to sign up for recycling services offered by the
hauler. Haulers’ employees are not expected to remove cardboard materials from trash containers, as a matter of
safety; this is a specific concern expressed to the City, in light of ever-rising insurance costs for the trash industry.
Enforcement will be carried out on a complaint basis or when City employees observe cardboard in a generator’s
waste stream. With an emphasis placed on warnings and education about the importance of recycling cardboard
during the first 12 months, enforcement will occur gradually, and only in the face of egregious or repeat offenses.
Costs that will accrue to the City as a result of establishing cardboard disposal restrictions largely fall into the
enforcement category; Code Enforcement staff will be trained to take appropriate enforcement actions by writing either
a warning ticket or citation for violation of the Code. However, no additional Code Enforcement staff hiring will be
necessary.
Environmental Services staff will expand outreach to businesses and MFUs through the City’s Waste Reduction and
Recycling Program (WRAP). Assistance will be available for new-to-recycling companies and MFUs in developing
their recycling capabilities. Analyses of MFU recycling programs were recently completed by staff showing that among
Fort Collins’ mid-to-large sized apartment complexes, 72% already provide recycling services to their tenants. This
leaves about 20 of the larger multi-family complexes that do not yet have recycling, which will be a priority group for
staff in conducting outreach activities. Staff will also actively work with those customers for whom physical barriers -
space constraints, too-small trash enclosures, and tight alley access – make it especially challenging to initiate
cardboard recycling.
Costs for expanded outreach services will be absorbed in WRAP’s existing program budget for 2013-14. After
conducting assessments for specific customers, staff will help prepare tailored on-site plans, offer training for business’
employees, and potentially locating funds to expedite the transition to recycling. For instance, if tenants at a cluster
of businesses are willing to collaborate, a good choice might be to lease compacting equipment that makes it easier
to store cardboard for collection/recycling.
February 12, 2013 -3- ITEM 3
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
An ordinance that prohibits disposal of cardboard in the community’s waste stream will reduce the amount of trash
that is sent to landfills from Fort Collins. An initial result, therefore, will be an extension to the life spans of several
landfills in the area. Of particular interest is the stewardship of the Larimer County Landfill, jointly owned by the City
of Fort Collins (50% of the original site of the Larimer County Landfill, located on the north half of Section 9, T6N,
R69W on South Taft Hill Road), Larimer County (25%), and the City of Loveland (25%). Postponing the need to
replace the aging landfill is an important consideration for regional taxpayers, who, in the future may be faced with a
decision whether to allocate money (minimum $35 million in today’s dollars) to construct new facilities for waste
disposal.
As the cardboard ordinance becomes fully realized, an estimated 12,000 tons/year of cardboard will be diverted from
the trash and into the recycling stream. This diverted material will reduce the amount of trash generated in Fort Collins
by 9% (from 130,000 tons, down to 118,000 tons per year). Fort Collins’ waste diversion will therefore rise by an
estimated 6%, accelerating our progress toward meeting the adopted goal of 50% diversion.
Additionally, using formulae provided by the US EPA for modeling greenhouse gases that are avoided through
recycling activities, the cardboard ordinance will have the ultimate effect of preventing 42,000 short tons/year of carbon
dioxide equivalents (CO2e) from being emitted to the atmosphere. By taking this action, Fort Collins will also
accelerate progress at meeting the community’s goals for greenhouse gas reductions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Support for cardboard restrictions was voted on by the Natural Resources Advisory Board, and by the Air Quality
Advisory Board at their respective meetings in November, 2012.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
During fall of 2012, meetings were held with members of the trash/recycling hauling industry, Chamber of Commerce
members and staff, and a variety of City staff to discuss the implications of new restrictions on cardboard disposal.
Newspaper articles and columns, television bulletins, and spotlights on City webpages and utility bill inserts were
published, and a public Open House was conducted on November 8, 2012, to introduce the proposal to the
community. Comments from citizens and from specially affected interests were reported during a work session with
the City Council on November 27.
A roundtable meeting was recently held in January that was attended by a cross-section of 15 members of Fort Collins’
business community, including small-to-medium-sized businesses, property management companies, the Downtown
Development Authority, and managers of multi-family housing. A summary of comments and questions raised by this
“focus group” is provided in Attachment 3.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Work Session Summary, November 27, 2012
2. Roundtable meeting with members of the Fort Collins business community, January 16, 2013
3. Air Quality Advisory Board minutes, November 19, 2012
4. Natural Resources Advisory Board minutes, November 27, 2012
5. Powerpoint presentation
Page 1 of 2
Environmental Services
215 N. Mason
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221-6600
970.224-6177 - fax
fcgov.com
MEMO
DATE: November 29, 2012
TO: Mayor Weitkunat and Councilmembers
THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer
Lucinda Smith, Environmental Services Director
FROM: Susie Gordon, Sr. Environmental Planner
RE: Follow-up from November 27 Council Worksession: Increase Cardboard Recycling
The City Council reviewed an initiative to increase the amount of cardboard that gets diverted from
the waste stream and into the recycling system at their November 27 meeting.
1. Staff was directed to prepare an ordinance for the Council’s review that would prohibit the
disposal of corrugated cardboard in the community’s waste stream (trash), including
requiring trash haulers to refuse collection of trash bins or Dumpsters that on visual
inspection are estimated to contain more than 25% corrugated cardboard, by volume.
2. Staff understands that current expectations for the program to enforce the new ordinance
would generally be as follows:
a. After an initial transition period of 12 months after Council’s adoption, Code
Enforcement staff would primarily use warnings to enforce the prohibition.
b. After 6 months of enforcement primarily by warning, Code Enforcement staff would
focus efforts on enforcement against persons who have received warnings, and
particularly those who have received multiple warnings.
3. The enforcement program would be accompanied by a robust education, outreach, and
assistance program for trash customers to help them transition to a cardboard recycling
program. Staff will explore opportunities to:
a. Provide zero- or low-interest loans or grants to commercial customers to assist them
in purchasing or leasing recycling equipment, and
b. Purchase specialized equipment such as cardboard collection bins that the City could
make available on loan to small businesses for up to 12 months.
4. Staff understands that it is important to recognize the role of the private trash/recycling
businesses in Fort Collins in helping their customers achieve compliance with the City
ordinance. The City would expect to support:
a. Economic development opportunities for Larimer County and for private businesses
that occur as a result of capturing more cardboard out of the waste stream, and
ATTACHMENT 1
2
b. Outreach to businesses that deliver large items such as appliances and furniture to
encourage them, after completing the delivery, to bring cardboard packing/boxes
from these items back to the store for recycling.
Staff will provide a draft ordinance for first reading at the first meeting in February for the
Council’s further consideration.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 1
Notes from a Round‐table Meeting – January 16, 2013
Comments on Proposed City Ordinance to Restrict Disposal of Cardboard in the Waste Stream
City of Fort Collins, CO
Attendees: Susan Kirkpatrick (Savory Spice Shop), Carrie Ann Gillis (owner of multi‐family complexes and business,
Northern Colorado Rental Housing Association), Derek Getto and Hannah Baltz‐Smith (Downtown Development
Association), Pat Purvis (Waste Management, Inc.), Becca Walkinshaw, Kari Gallegos‐Doering and Levi Gallegos (Gallegos
Sanitation, Inc.), Ray Meyer and John Puma (Ram Waste Systems, Inc.), Dwight Hall (Coopersmiths’s), Mark Mayfield
(Crescent Electric Supply), Scott McKelvey (Front Range Community College), Jamie Gormley (Centennial Recycling), and
Lucinda Smith, Caroline Mitchell, Susie Gordon, and Matt Gibbs (City staff)
1. What happens when contaminants are placed in the cardboard recycling by our tenants? It’s not easy when
you’ve got a 220‐unit complex that houses 700 people to get them to follow recycling guidelines.
2. The main issue is education, and being pro‐active is very important. Our hauling company goes to the managers
of complexes and works with them to achieve better recycling by their residents.
3. Illegal dumping is an issue for apartment managers because it increases trash costs, but also, because we see
contamination in our recycling bins from non‐residents dumping their trash on us.
4. At the Opera Galleria, recycling dumpsters are often over full. A cardboard ordinance could make this happen
even more frequently. Would we need to have more dumpsters in the alley, which is already crowded?
Merchants can’t fix the problem because the trash/recycling account is handled by the property management
company for Opera Galleria.
5. At my business, we changed the size of the dumpsters for both recycling and trash and changed the frequency of
how often they’re emptied. It ended up costing $15 less per month. But it’s true that if/when the recycling
dumpster is full, cardboard will end up going into trash.
6. Having enough space to add dumpsters is an issue, especially in alley ways.
7. Will it be appropriate to stay with single‐stream recycling, in which the cardboard is allowed (YES)? Businesses
many not yet be sure if it they will go to a cardboard‐only program or use the single stream option of putting
cardboard in with other recyclables. People are less likely to recycle if materials have to be separated rather
than go into a single stream recycling bin.
8. Why does the City want to jump to an ordinance? Should be looking at the additional opportunities that exist,
like providing more education. At Front Range Community College, we get dumped on regularly by the public
with trash, couches, mattresses, etc. We don’t want to be penalized for problems created by illegal dumpers.
9. Businesses are scared of anything “mandatory”; it creates the fear of costs being jacked up and new services
that are cost prohibitive for the business to absorb. One idea for a business is to put in dumpsters with a fixed
lid that have only a slotted opening, for putting in cardboard, and make it available for neighboring businesses to
use, too. Maybe the haulers could make it cheaper to provide cardboard recycling services if they know they’re
getting a reliably clean stream of cardboard.
10. Cardboard is a commodity that fluctuates in price. Lately prices have been stagnant because China has stopped
buying recyclables. Does the City plan to look at getting some share of the money for cardboard recycled in Fort
Collins (NO)? Is the City going to suggesting residents get another bin that would be dedicated to cardboard
(NO)? Sometimes it’s difficult to get cardboard into recycling carts.
11. Can haulers incentivize cardboard recycling by charging more for trash service and lowering costs for recycling?
12. If a cardboard ordinance is passed, our hauling company will have to go out to purchase new recycling
containers for cardboard, which affects prices. That means costs will go up for our customers. Plus, it’s going to
take a while for us to get new containers ordered and delivered.
13. Cardboard is a more valuable commodity when it’s collected separately, instead of mingled with other
recyclables in the single‐stream collection program.
14. We (haulers) see new buildings going up where the architects are still not doing a good job of making the
enclosures big enough to fit both trash and recycling containers. Recycling bins end up having to sit outside the
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 2
enclosures. Speaking for my company, we want to see cardboard recycling happen, and to respond to our
customers’ desire for more recycling. Increasingly, business customers want to be able to recycle as a way to
reduce their carbon footprint.
15. Taking this regulatory approach seems disappointing ‐ and worrisome that it will cost money for my small
business. The City’s Waste Reduction & Recycling program (NOTE: WRAP started in 2011) hasn’t had enough
time to let a program have an impact. The City needs to work with organizations like the DBA, DDA, and
Chamber to find solutions.
16. It’s surprising to hear that cardboard is being singled out ‐ I didn’t know it was such an issue.
17. Old Town merchants and businesses need to be able to have a place to recycle. When the DDA redeveloped the
Old Firehouse Alley and the Montezuma‐Fuller Alley, they installed new trash/recycling enclosures. Before, only
6 of 21 businesses on Firehouse Alley, and 19 of 37 businesses on Montezuma‐Fuller were recycling. Now all of
them have access to recycling stations; we’ve seen that if it’s there, businesses will use it. The hauler has
increased collection services to 7 days/week to keep up with the recycling. The DDA further supports recycling
by paying to lease privately owned spots in Old Town where there is space to place more recycling bins.
18. Why is the City again singling out MFU residents? Multi‐family residents don’t generate a lot of cardboard
except during move‐ins, and we provide an exchange program for boxes during move‐in, move‐out. As costs go
up, they get passed on to the residents, which contradict City goals for providing affordable housing. Dumpster
size is an issue; if we have to add a cardboard bin into the enclosure, it forces us to get a smaller trash dumpster
that has to be emptied more frequently. This creates more trash trucks in our parking lots and the extra wear
causes more repaving costs for the apartment manager. It seems like the City is targeting MFUs. Apartment
managers don’t want to have the vicarious liability of their tenants’ bad behavior. It seems punitive to us.
19. It’s too soon to pass an ordinance; the City should provide more drop‐off centers, especially in the neighborhood
of CSU.
20. What is the estimated cost per customer (NOTE: staff provided an estimate of $20/month for a small‐to‐mid‐
sized business to add regular cardboard recycling services)?
21. True, there will need be more containers out there for collecting cardboard, in a variety of sizes but from the
perspective of this hauler, there won’t be a lot more cost incurred for purchasing containers because they have
a good inventory of bins. Our accounts, like the community, are very culturally diverse; from one MFU to the
next, there is a different culture. The success of each MFU’s success at recycling differs depending on that
cultural among residents.
22. Education is the key, and “carrots” are better than sticks.
23. We have an electronics ban, but from the perspective of this hauler, folks don’t abide by it and 40% of the
population doesn’t know the e‐waste ban exists.
24. It would be best to give the community more opportunity to recycle cardboard without having to pay extra. For
instance, use grant money to buy large cardboard compactors and set them up around the community.
Businesses could host a bin at their location in exchange for advertising on the side of the bin.
25. The DDA can cite an example of a merchant that initiated recycling but didn’t see cost savings on their trash bill.
26. Buy‐in from the top of an MFU or biz makes a huge difference. If managers don’t want to do it, they won’t do
the education or make the recycling easy or part of the norm. Last summer a large student MFU worked with
the City’s WRAP program to successfully develop a hybrid recycling program – the same complex that had
discontinued its recycling program five years previously because of contamination problems.
27. Consider recommending businesses and homes look at installing built‐in compactors for trash or recycling.
28. Our restaurant tries hard to recycle. A neighboring business made progress by making it hard to thrown trash
away and making recycling easy. Need to make it easier for people to comply than to not.
29. Just because east and west coasts are using a punishment philosophy and bans, doesn’t mean we have to do it.
30. If we make recycling available and affordable, people will do it. Under the right conditions, 6 out of 10
businesses in Old Town will recycle, so there is no need to mandate it.
31. In Old Town, 35‐40% of downtown businesses recycle. But from the perspective of this hauler, people don’t like
to share dumpsters, they don’t want to lose parking spaces, and they don’t have space.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 3
32. It would be disappointing if the time we spent at this meeting today, providing our input didn’t get well reported
in staff’s AIS materials for Council at their February hearing.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 4
33. (Written commenter, after the meeting) Stated barriers to the ban’s implementation are very real, but not
new…that includes everything from physical space to behavior change and education. Of course explicit
solutions will follow a decision on the ordinance, but it was obvious that people saw these as important enough
barriers to pre‐empt concerns.
The perception of punitive action by the City, especially on landlords/property owners (i.e., non‐users), needs to
be explored further. The range of responses fluctuated between, ‘no big deal’ and ‘deal breaker.’ Second, the
broad application of owner responsibility doesn’t appear to be properly applied in this case (e.g. , the owner
isn’t responsible for a tenant who has a car that leaks oil, so why should it extend to other types of negligence
out of the landlords control? I could be wrong here.) Exploring the application of punitive action further could,
for instance, include what steps need to be taken by a landlord (i.e. , supply education with support of the City)
to meet some requirement and get them off the hook for tenant incompliance. Bottom line for me is there
needs to be flexibility here or else there’s no chance of getting more recycling bins on the ground.
Three big questions I was left with: 1) The fostering of fear around increased cost was overblown. How can a
better message be crafted to address this? My two cents ‐ tenant lease increases would be fractional (if any),
hauler costs were unformulated & hyperbolic depending on the hauler, and individual cost assumptions of
infrastructure measures (totes, bins, space) were too subjective and imprecise to be taken seriously, at least
until further defined. 2) What does a carbon balance look like considering increased transport? See the graph
below...this could be used as a defense against an ordinance. The immediate climate impact of methane isn’t
understood by citizens and is currently under represented. 3) What are the economic impacts of an alternative
to the ordinance (i.e., the proposed non‐ordinance actions taken by the City)? For me, in the absence of an
ordinance, the use of tax dollars for some other (or enhanced) effort is still a ‘cost’ to all these businesses.
ATTACHMENT 3
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mayor Weitkunat and Councilmembers
FROM: Greg McMaster, Chair, Air Quality Advisory Board
CC: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
DATE: November 19, 2012
SUBJECT: AQAB Cardboard Disposal Recommendation
______________________________________________________________________________
The AQAB has been aware of the idea of banning cardboard from landfill disposal since the
adoption of the 2008 Climate Action Plan. In 2012, the Board received a memo from staff in
October and a presentation on the topic in November. Keeping cardboard out of the landfill will
reduce the greenhouse gas emissions and support the City’s Climate Action Plan goals, and it
will increase the life of the landfill and deliver other environmental and air quality benefits. For
these reasons the Board voted unanimously to recommend that Council adopt an ordinance
banning cardboard from landfill disposal.
Please contact me if you have any questions or want additional detail on the recommendation.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input.
David Dietrich moved and Scott Groen seconded a motion to recommend that Council adopt an
ordinance to prohibit cardboard from being placed in the waste stream.
Vote 7-0-0; motion passed unanimously on November 19, 2012.
ATTACHMENT 4
2
MEMORANDUM
FROM THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
Date: November 27, 2012
To: Fort Collins Mayor and City Council
From: City of Fort Collins Natural Resources Advisory Board
Subject: Cardboard Recycling Initiative
At the meeting of the Natural Resources Advisory Board on Monday night, November 26, staff
provided a presentation on an initiative to prohibit the disposal of cardboard in Fort Collins’
waste stream.
Harry Edwards moved and Joe Piesman seconded a motion to make the following
recommendation to Council:
The NRAB supports prohibiting disposal of cardboard in the municipal solid waste
stream.
A vote was taken and Dr. Edward’s motion passed 4 – 1. Board member Paul Nastu explained
that he did not support the motion out of concern that paying for cardboard recycling services
would be too much of a financial hardship and resource burden on businesses.
Please feel free to contact me regarding the NRAB’s recommendation on this issue.
Respectfully Submitted,
Joe Piesman, Vice-Chair
Natural Resources Advisory Board
cc: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer
Lucinda Smith, Environmental Services Director
1
City Council Adjourned Meeting
February 12, 2013
Susie Gordon, Sr. Environmental Planner
An Ordinance to
Restrict Disposal of
Cardboard in the Waste
Stream
ATTACHMENT 5
2
November 27, 2012: Council directed staff to
draft an ordinance for adoption
Prohibiting Cardboard from
Being Placed in the Trash
as a strategy to divert more discarded material
from being sent to landfills for disposal
3
As recommended in the City’s
2008 Climate Action Plan, regulations to
restrict cardboard in the trash would:
• reduce greenhouse gas emissions
• increase the life of the landfill
• help meet our waste diversion goals
4
Why Cardboard? Why Now?
• Even though cardboard is recyclable, a lot continues
to end up in landfills
– Cardboard makes up the bulk of the “paper fiber”
category of waste in landfill inventories (~35%)
• After 20 years of recycling education, outreach and
incentives, the logical next step in Fort Collins is to try
a regulatory approach for cardboard
5
Cardboard’s Significance
12,000 tons of cardboard discarded yearly in Fort
Collins; only 4,200 tons/year currently get recycled
• These 12,000 un-recycled tons represent:
– 9% of community’s overall trash stream
– potential to increase Fort Collins’ waste
diversion level another 6%, helping reach
adopted community waste reduction goals
6
Benefits of Cardboard Ordinance
• Recycling bulky cardboard reduces trash bills for
many customers (although not all)
• 42,000 short tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(GHG) emissions avoided, contributing to
community goals to slow climate change
• Potential $500,000/year from sale of cardboard
commodities
– revenue benefits state, local economy
7
Benefits of Cardboard Ordinance
• Extends lifespan at landfills
– postpones $35+ million costs for future
replacement of Larimer County landfill (partly
owned by City of Fort Collins)
• Saves $216,000/year in landfill fees ($18/ton) that
will accrue to customers/haulers
• Creates > 10 times more jobs than handling
cardboard as trash for landfill disposal
8
Concerns Expressed by Businesses
• Recycling services average $15-30 per month;
new costs will get passed on to customers
• Property managers, landlords don’t want to be
penalized for tenants’ non-compliance
• Space constraints for recycling bins in alleys,
trash enclosures
• Before taking regulatory approach, City could
provide more education and incentives
9
Ordinance to Prohibit Disposal of
Corrugated Cardboard in Waste Stream
• Restrictions apply to all trash accounts
– Single-family and multi-family residential
– Business and commercial generators
• Compliance is responsibility of owner or occupant
of the property which generates the cardboard
• Relies on hauling companies to explain new
cardboard disposal restrictions to customers and
provide recycling services
10
Ordinance (continued)
• Haulers may not collect trash from customers
when containers hold > 25% cardboard by volume
– Haulers’ workers will not handle trash to
remove cardboard for recycling
– No lost payment for refusing to remove trash
containing > cardboard (Pay-as-you-throw
Ordinance)
• Compliance for 12 months after adoption oriented
to education/outreach; Code Enforcement will
primarily issue warnings to enforce the ordinance
11
Ordinance (continued)
• Environmental Services will actively provide
education and outreach to community as well as:
– Special assistance program for cardboard
recycling start-ups
– Training for businesses’ employees
– Help resolving individual sites’ unique barriers
to recycling
– Public recognition to businesses for successful
recycling efforts
12
“How to Collapse a Box”
video and other user-friendly
tools will be added to City
outreach materials, website
13
QUESTIONS?
ORDINANCE NO. 023, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TO PROHIBIT THE DISPOSAL OF CARDBOARD IN THE
COMMUNITY'S WASTE STREAM AND TO AMEND REQUIREMENTS
FOR RECYCLING APPLICABLE SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
WHEREAS, in 1964, the City first enacted licensure requirements for solid waste collection
services with the adoption of Ordinance No. 42, 1964, which licensure provisions have since been
modified, and repealed and reenacted, and are now set out in Chapter 15, Article XV of the City
Code; and
WHEREAS, in 1985, the City first began to investigate programs to educate the public about
recycling and solid waste reduction; and
WHEREAS, in December 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution 1999-139, which set
goals for diverting 35% of the community’s waste stream from landfill diversion by 2004, and 50%
of the waste stream by 2010; and
WHEREAS, in 2005, the City Council directed staff to develop comprehensive plans for
reaching waste diversion goals, during which the City calculated that 12,000 tons/year of cardboard
were entering local landfills from Fort Collins as part of the waste stream; and
WHEREAS, the disposal of 12,000 tons/year of cardboard material from Fort Collins’ waste
stream contributes an estimated 42,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, a damaging greenhouse
gas, to the earth’s atmosphere; and
WHEREAS, the City’s 2008 Climate Action Plan sets a goal of reducing Fort Collins’
greenhouse gas emissions by 20% below 2005 levels by 2020, and 80% below 2005 levels by 2050;
and
WHEREAS, the monetary value of 12,000 tons/year of cardboard that is sent to landfills for
disposal from the Fort Collins community is currently $600,000 in commodity markets; and
WHEREAS, the number of jobs in the recycling industry that it takes to process cardboard
is calculated to be ten times as great as the number of jobs that it takes to bury cardboard in landfills,
so that recycling results in economic benefit and greater revenue for communities, including Fort
Collins; and
WHEREAS, in addition to lost commodity rebates and fewer jobs, the landfill disposal of
12,000 tons/year of cardboard costs $216,000 in current landfill gate fees; and
WHEREAS, the disposal of 12,000 tons/ year of cardboard in landfills that could otherwise
be recycled reduces the lifespan of local landfills, including the Larimer County landfill; and
WHEREAS, the ownership of the Larimer County landfill is shared by the City; and
WHEREAS, the need to build a new landfill to serve the community’s future needs will
create significant new costs for taxpayers; and
WHEREAS, residential customers of trash hauling companies who live in single-family
homes or in multi-family complexes of fewer than eight units are able to receive curbside cardboard
recycling services at no additional cost on their trash bills; and
WHEREAS, all businesses and residential generators of waste cardboard may take cardboard
to be recycled at no cost at the City’s recycling drop-off facility; and
WHEREAS, in addition to the licensure provisions for solid waste haulers in Chapter 15 of
the City Code, Article II of Chapter 12 of the City Code also addresses generally the collection and
disposal of solid waste, currently referred to in those provisions as “garbage and refuse”; and
WHEREAS, in light of the foregoing, the City Council has considered the proposed
amendments to Chapter 12 and Chapter 15 described below, and has determined that the
amendments will promote the policy objectives and public purposes described above.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the foregoing recitals are hereby incorporated herein as findings of the
City Council.
Section 2. That Section 12-16 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
by the addition of a new definition “Recyclable cardboard” which reads in its entirety as follows:
Recyclable cardboard shall mean corrugated cardboard, and shall include, but not be
limited to, materials used in packaging or storage containers that consist of three or
more layers of Kraft paper material, at least one of which is rippled or corrugated.
Cardboard shall be considered recyclable cardboard regardless of whether it has
glue, staples or tape affixed, but not if it is permanently attached to other packing
material or a non-paper liner, waxed cardboard, or cardboard contaminated with oil,
paint, blood or other organic material.
Section 2. That Section 12-22 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 12-22. Required Recycling of Electronic Equipment.
(a) No person shall place electronic equipment in refuse containers for collection,
nor shall any person or bury or otherwise dispose of electronic equipment in or on
private or public property within the City. All electronic equipment must either be
-2-
stored and presented or delivered to a licensed solid waste collector for recycling in
accordance with the provisions of Subsection 15-413(e), or delivered directly to a
qualified recycling facility for electronic equipment.
(b) No person shall place recyclable cardboard in refuse containers for
collection, nor shall any person bury or otherwise dispose of recyclable cardboard in
or on private or public property within the City. All recyclable cardboard must either
be stored and presented or delivered to a licensed solid waste collector for recycling
in accordance with the provisions of Subsection 15-413(e), or delivered directly to
a qualified recycling facility appropriate for recyclable cardboard.
(c) It shall be the duty of any owner or occupant of any premises to ensure that
bags or containers do not contain materials required to be recycled under this Section
when such bags or containers are offered for solid waste collection.
Section 3. That Section 12-26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
by to read as follows:
Sec. 12-26. Violations and penalties.
Any person who violates § 12-18 of this Article, or who violates § 12-22(b), or § 12-
22(c) as it relates to § 12-22(b), commits a civil infraction and is subject to the
penalty provisions of Subsection 1-15(f). Any person who violates any other
provision of this Article also commits a misdemeanor. All such misdemeanor
violations are subject to a fine or imprisonment in accordance with § 1-15.
Section 4. That Section 15-411 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
by the addition of a new definition “Recyclable cardboard” which reads in its entirety as follows:
Recyclable cardboard shall mean corrugated cardboard, and shall include, but not be
limited to, materials used in packaging or storage containers that consist of three or
more layers of Kraft paper material, at least one of which is rippled or corrugated.
Cardboard shall be considered recyclable cardboard regardless of whether it has
glue, staples or tape affixed, but not if it is permanently attached to other packing
material or a non-paper liner, waxed cardboard, or cardboard contaminated with oil,
paint, blood or other organic material.
Section 5. That Section 15-412 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to add a new subsection (e), to read as follows:
(e) Refusal of recyclable materials. In the event that a collector refuses to collect
any bag or container because it contains materials required to be recycled under
Section 12-22, the collector shall not be required under this Section to credit the
customer for such refused bag or container. A collector shall not collect materials
required to be recycled under Section 12-22, except that, with respect to recyclable
-3-
cardboard, a collector may, but shall not be obligated to, accept any bag or container
that has reasonably been determined, based upon visual inspection, to contain no
more than twenty-five (25) percent recyclable cardboard by volume.
Section 6. That Section 15-413 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
by the deletion of subparagraph (e) as follows:
Sec. 15-413. Recycling requirement.
. . .
(e) Recycling only of electronic equipment.
(1) No collector shall collect for disposal any electronic equipment, regardless
of whether such electronic equipment has been placed or set out for disposal.
(2) Collection of electronic equipment for recycling shall be at each collector's
option; provided, however, that no collector providing collection services for
electronic equipment may dispose of any such electronic equipment. Instead, each
such collector must deliver any collected electronic equipment for recycling at a
qualified recycling facility for electronic equipment.
Section 7. That Section 15-414 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 15-414. Designation of recyclable materials.
(a) The City Manager shall, on or before the 30th day of November of each year,
after consultation with the Larimer County Board of Commissioners, the Natural
Resources Advisory Board and representatives of the licensed solid waste collectors
operating within the City, determine which items shall be designated for recycling
collection based upon the following criteria:
(1) Local, state and federal laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, the
requirements of this Article;
(2) Potential for waste stream reduction;
(3) Availability of markets;
(4) Market price;
(5) Safety factors and risks of transportation; and
(6) Risks of commingling of liquid wastes.
-4-
(b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, collection for recycling of electronic
equipment shall be at each collector’s option; provided, however, that no collector
providing collection services for electronic equipment may dispose of any such
electronic equipment, but instead shall deliver any collected electronic equipment for
recycling at a qualified recycling facility for electronic equipment.
(bc) All collectors shall be responsible for notifying their customers of the items
identified to be recycled.
(cd) The City Manager is authorized to promulgate such rules and regulations as
are necessary to effectuate the implementation and enforcement of this Article.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 12th day of
February, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 19th day of February, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 19th day of February, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-5-
DATE: February 12, 2013
STAFF: Karen Cumbo, Laurie Kadrich,
Megan Bolin
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 4
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the Planned Development Overlay District Pilot.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code by the Addition of a Temporary
Planned Development Overlay Zone District.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code to Add or Clarify Certain “General
Standards” and “Purpose” Statements Related to the Planned Overlay Development District.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) is a new zoning tool designed to provide contextual land use and
design flexibility for infill development and redevelopment projects. Since it is new and unique, a pilot is being
proposed as a way to test the PDOD prior to considering permanent adoption. The pilot would establish a six-month
application period allowing up to five application submittals; only projects within the PDOD pilot boundary would have
the option to apply. Based on public outreach, the PDOD pilot boundary has been modified since originally proposed
to include commercial areas along College Avenue, east Mulberry, and west Elizabeth. Properties within 1,000 feet
of the Poudre River or that are within a designated historic district have been removed from the pilot.
Ordinance No. 025, 2013 makes several amendments to Article 3 of the Land Use Code (LUC). These amendments
are directly related to the PDOD, but would be permanent amendments to the LUC and thus require a separate
Ordinance.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Development of a flexible zoning tool for infill development and redevelopment is listed as a “near-term action” in the
2011 City Plan update and was a priority project in the Planning and Zoning Board’s 2011 work program. Staff has
worked closely with stakeholders and the Planning and Zoning Board throughout 2011-2012 to assess the challenges
associated with infill/redevelopment in terms of the existing Land Use Code (LUC) and review process. Based on
these discussions, staff has crafted the Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD), a new regulatory approach
that offers performance-based development flexibility.
What is the PDOD?
The Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) is intended to provide an alternative to conventional land
development regulations and permit a creative, holistic approach that takes the context of surrounding development
into consideration. It blends the planning concept of Planned Unit Developments (also known as “PUDs”) with
performance-based zoning to provide flexibility to infill development or redevelopment projects challenged by existing
site constraints. A unique aspect of the PDOD is how it infuses the principles of City Plan into private sector
development using a performance matrix. The matrix is a menu of site and building considerations that encourage
an applicant to think beyond minimum LUC regulations and incorporate the community’s broad sustainability goals
into the project. Additional detail about the purpose of the PDOD and how it is designed can be found in Attachment
1.
Pilot Details
Until spring 2012, the intention was to consider adopting the PDOD permanently as a new, optional zoning overlay.
However, because the PDOD is a new and unique tool for Fort Collins in terms of regulating infill/redevelopment
projects, staff is proposing that it first be tested on a temporary basis as a pilot. The benefits of pursuing the pilot
include the following:
• Allows for real-life project test-cases that will provide staff and stakeholders the opportunity to make a valuable
evaluation of the review process.
February 12, 2013 -2- ITEM 4
• Provides time to consider any necessary changes to the PDOD that would improve it.
• Determines whether the PDOD is a viable tool for infill/redevelopment.
Adopting the pilot Ordinance allows for temporary implementation of the PDOD. Projects that are within the defined
boundary area would have six months to submit a Detailed Development Plan (DDP - the PDOD equivalent to a
Project Development Plan). The ability to submit a DDP would end after the six month period and, at that point, the
focus would be on completing the review process for those projects and evaluating whether the PDOD process worked
as intended. Six months was chosen because it is a reasonable timeframe for eligible projects to submit but, at the
same time, is restrictive enough that the City would not be overwhelmed with PDOD projects. Furthermore, the pilot
limits the number of applications accepted within the six month pilot. Only five DDP applications will be accepted, and
the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director has the ability to no longer accept applications if
staff’s capacity to adequately review the projects is reached.
Additional highlights of the Ordinance include:
• Establishes the option for City Council to extend the pilot should there be an insufficient number of projects
submitted to properly evaluate the PDOD.
• Commits staff to report to City Council after the pilot projects are evaluated on the effectiveness of the PDOD.
Pilot Evaluation
The primary purpose of pursuing the pilot would be to evaluate whether the PDOD is functioning as intended, and staff
is proposing to create a task force of stakeholders to meet and evaluate all PDOD pilot projects. While a specific time
period of six months is proposed for up to five DDP applications, the evaluation period will not have a specific end date
primarily because it is unknown how long it will take projects to complete the review process. However, staff will
commit to providing a preliminary report to City Council by first quarter 2014. The task force will work with staff to
collect as much information as necessary to draw reasonable conclusions about the viability of the PDOD. If
necessary, the task force will make recommendations for ways to improve PDOD and would report to City Council.
Evaluation of the PDOD pilot would be inclusive of those applicants who choose the PDOD and those who do not.
It will be valuable to understand what reasons, if any, eligible PDOD projects choose the standard review process.
For those projects that do choose the PDOD, evaluation would include quantitative and qualitative data from the
perspective of staff, P&Z, the applicant, and residents/affected property owners. A list of potential evaluation questions
is provided in Attachment 2. These questions will be further refined with the task force.
In summary, key features of the proposed PDOD pilot include:
• Only projects within the boundary can apply.
• Up to five Detailed Development Plan (Project Development Plan equivalent) submittals will be accepted
during the six-month pilot period.
• The term of vested rights upon approval of a Detailed Development Plan (Final Plan equivalent) would be 3
years, which is the same term as any standard development.
• While some flexibility is afforded for certain Sections of Article 3 (General Development Standards), three
specific Sections must be complied with in their entirety:
N 3.4.1 Natural Habitat and Features
N 3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources
N 3.6.2 Streets, Streetscapes, Alleys, and Easements
• PDOD projects do not have to comply with Article 4 (Districts).
• In addition to compliance with Article 3 standards, PDOD projects must achieve a total of 45 points within 4
out of 7 categories on the performance matrix.
• The modification of standards process will not apply to PDOD projects.
• City Council could extend the pilot if an insufficient number of projects submit during the six-month application
period.
Pilot Boundary
Prior to the proposed pilot, the PDOD was originally intended to apply to any project within a specified boundary area
(the original boundary was drawn to be consistent with the City’s targeted infill and redevelopment areas and the
February 12, 2013 -3- ITEM 4
Transit Oriented Development Overlay); additionally, it allowed for properties outside the boundary to “opt-in” provided
certain site criteria was met.
During public outreach meetings, concerns were raised by some over certain areas that were included in the originally
proposed PDOD boundary. Specific concerns include the potential negative impacts on historic resources, established
residential neighborhoods, and the Poudre River. Although PDOD projects are required to meet the majority of
existing standards, it is unknown how the flexibility provided in terms of land use and dimensional regulations, e.g.,
height, setbacks, would affect the project itself and surrounding properties. The primary intent of the pilot is to allow
for real projects to use the PDOD to examine whether these concerns are justified. Thus, certain areas specifically
raised as concerns are proposed to be removed from the pilot, and the “opt-in” feature would not be offered.
The following areas would be excluded from the Pilot:
• The Laurel School Historic District
• The Old Town Historic District
• Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density Zone District
• Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Zone District
• 1,000 feet on both sides of the Poudre River; and
• Properties owned by the State of Colorado and Colorado State Research Foundation located south of
Prospect Road and west of South College Avenue.
While this limited boundary is proposed for the pilot, the evaluation will explore whether this tool should be expanded
to other areas of Fort Collins. See Attachment 3 for a map of the proposed PDOD pilot boundary.
Ordinance Amending Article 3 “General Standards”
Ordinance No. 025, 2013, amends several Sections of Article 3 of the Land Use Code (LUC). These amendments
are directly related to the PDOD, but would be permanent amendments and thus require a separate Ordinance. The
PDOD provides some flexibility from existing Article 3 standards by requiring that only the “General Standards” of
certain Sections apply. Upon close examination of Article 3, staff found that not all Sections have a “General
Standard”. Therefore, to provide consistency and also to create the proper development standards for potential PDOD
projects, the amendments in this Ordinance create “General Standards” where they were missing, and make some
revisions to existing “General Standards” for clarification purposes.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The purpose of the PDOD is to reduce barriers for infill and redevelopment projects, which directly implements
Economic Health Policy 4.2 from City Plan. Additionally, the performance matrix provides the opportunity for the
economic benefits of a project to be considered; this is unique and not something that existing development review
can take into consideration.
Concern was raised during public outreach that complying with the PDOD (specifically, the performance matrix) may
add cost to a development project. While it is true that the performance matrix rewards projects for going beyond
minimum LUC standards, it is very difficult to provide an accurate analysis of costs for a PDOD project because of the
trade-offs and variety of options an applicant has to comply with the performance matrix. Financial impact is
something the pilot will evaluate to determine whether the concerns raised are justified.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Implementing the PDOD pilot would facilitate infill development and redevelopment projects throughout the boundary
area, which may or may not have environmental issues to address. Article 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code, Natural
Habitats and Features, must be complied with in its entirety, which maintains existing environmental protections from
development activity. Additionally, the performance matrix provides the opportunity to reward projects that go beyond
code minimums in terms of environmental protections and green/sustainable building/site design; this is a unique
feature of PDOD that the existing development review process does not consider.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
February 12, 2013 -4- ITEM 4
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On June 21, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend that Council adopt both
Ordinances (Attachment 4). In terms of the boundary for the PDOD pilot, the Board recommends removing the
following from the boundary area:
• Laurel School Historic District
• Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) zoned land
• Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) zoned land
• Properties owned by the State of Colorado and Colorado Research Foundation at Prospect and College.
At its June 13, 2012, meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) voted unanimously to recommend that
Council adopt the PDOD Pilot (Attachment 5). With regard to the boundary, the LPC recommends removing the
following from the boundary area:
• Laurel School Historic District
• Old Town Historic District
• Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) zoned land
• Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) zoned land
• Properties owned by the State of Colorado and Colorado Research Foundation at Prospect and College
• Properties within a 1,000 foot buffer of the Poudre River
On June 20, 2012, the Economic Advisory Commission voted unanimously to recommend that Council adopt the
PDOD Pilot (Attachment 6). With regard to the boundary, the Commission recommends maintaining the boundary
as originally proposed by staff.
At its meeting on May 16, 2012, the Transportation Board voted unanimously to recommend the PDOD Pilot. At the
time of this meeting, boundary revisions were not being considered; therefore, the Transportation Board did not have
the opportunity to make a recommendation regarding changes to the boundary (Attachment 7).
On May 21, 2012, the Air Quality Advisory Board voted 5-1 (one member abstained) to recommend the PDOD Pilot.
Like the Transportation Board, boundary revisions were not being considered at the time of this meeting; therefore,
the Board did not have the opportunity to make a recommendation regarding changes to the boundary (Attachment
8).
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Over the past year, input has been solicited on the PDOD from a variety of stakeholder groups. General sentiments
of support and concerns are summarized below. Note that whether an item reflects support or concern may vary
depending on the perspective of the stakeholder.
Support
• Does not restrict land use to the underlying zoning.
• Provides flexibility from prescriptive, metric standards.
• Allows the context of sites to be taken into consideration during design.
• Considers and rewards projects that incorporate public benefits or go beyond code minimums.
• Removes the need to apply for separate modifications of standards or an addition of a permitted use.
• Encourages infill development and redevelopment in targeted areas.
• Provides developers the option to meet with P&Z prior to submitting an application.
Concerns
• Reduces predictability in terms of land use.
• Relies on subjective verses metric interpretations of development standards.
February 12, 2013 -5- ITEM 4
• Requires all projects to be processed as a Type 2 (Planning and Zoning Board) review.
• Mandates that projects go beyond minimum standards and include public benefits which may add cost.
• Diminishes the effectiveness of existing regulations, e.g., historic preservation or river buffers, by providing
a flexible application of other development standards.
• Developers can “game” the point system on the performance matrix.
A public open house was held on May 7, 2012 in order to solicit input on the PDOD and introduce the pilot concept.
A summary of comments received is included in Attachment 9.
Additionally, the following stakeholders were consulted in the development of the PDOD:
• City Council
• Planning and Zoning Board
• Developers/Brokers via the Urban Renewal Authority luncheon
• South Fort Collins Business Association
• Landmark Preservation Commission
• Air Quality Advisory Board
• Local Planning Consultants
• Climate Wise Business Partners
• Natural Resources Advisory Board
• Chamber of Commerce Local Legislative Affairs Committee
• Fort Collins Board of Realtors
• Transportation Board
• Save the Poudre, see letter to City leaders (Attachment 10)
• North Fort Collins Business Association
• Economic Advisory Commission
• City staff
ATTACHMENTS
1. Detailed PDOD Background Information
2. PDOD Pilot Evaluation Questions
3. PDOD Pilot Boundary Map
4. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, June 21, 2012
5. Landmark Preservation Commission minutes, June 13, 2012
6. Economic Advisory Commission minutes, June 20, 2012
7. Transportation Board minutes, May 16, 2012
8. Air Quality Advisory Board minutes, May 21, 2012
9. Public Meeting Feedback, May 7, 2012
10. Save the Poudre letter, June 5, 2012
11. City Council Work Session Summary, June 14, 2011
12. City Council Work Session Summary, January 31, 2012
13. Powerpoint presentation
ATTACHMENT 1
Planned Development Overlay District – Overview
February 2013
1
Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD)
Problem Statement
The prescriptive nature of the Land Use Code (LUC) routinely hinders infill development and/or
redevelopment. As Fort Collins matures in its development pattern and shifts from greenfield
(previously undeveloped sites) to infill development, unique and more frequent design
challenges are presented that require greater innovation and flexibility to achieve desirable, high-
quality projects.
Why is PDOD Needed?
The Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) originated from the desire to provide an
alternative, flexible development review process for infill development and redevelopment.
Infill and redevelopment projects tend to be more complex than greenfield projects due to unique
engineering and design challenges created by existing infrastructure, buildings, and an
established neighborhood context. While a prescriptive LUC works well for greenfield sites,
often times infill/redevelopment projects simply can not meet quantitative standards because of
existing site conditions. The Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z) has recognized the need for
flexibility for some time, as evidenced by the Board’s 2011 work plan item, which states: “The
Board believes a flexible zoning tool would be useful in ensuring that Fort Collins continues to
develop in a high quality fashion while addressing the various issues and interests related to infill
development that presents unique challenges.” City Council also recognized the need for
flexibility and adopted policy EH 4.2 in City Plan which speaks to the need to develop a new,
flexible tool for infill/redevelopment.
What is the PDOD?
The PDOD would be a new overlay zone district within the LUC that would provide an
alternative to conventional land development and permit a creative, holistic approach that takes
the context of surrounding development into consideration. The PDOD blends the planning
concept of Planned Unit Developments (also known as “PUDs”) with performance-based zoning,
and emphasizes collaboration between applicants, affected property owners, neighbors and City
staff during development review processing.
This tool would be most effective in infill/redevelopment areas that are challenged by existing
site constraints such as irregular lot shape or size, topography, and/or context. The PDOD
boundary was drawn to include areas previously identified as targeted infill and redevelopment
areas in City Plan, as well as the area defined as the Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
overlay because of its emphasis on creating a more urban and less auto-oriented environment
along the spine of the city. For the pilot, an applicant within the PDOD boundary would have
the option to use the PDOD process; the pilot period would be six months long, and up to five
Detailed Development Plan (the PDOD Project Development Plan equivalent) applications
would be accepted.
How is the PDOD Different?
There are several characteristics of the PDOD that set it apart from standard LUC development
review.
ATTACHMENT 1
Planned Development Overlay District – Overview
February 2013
2
Development Standards
One difference is the design flexibility afforded to PDOD development. Design flexibility is
sometimes needed for infill/redevelopment due to pre-existing conditions, such as existing
infrastructure, buildings, and neighborhood context. In some cases, it can be next to impossible
to fit a new project into a well established area; and certainly more difficult than to “start fresh”
on a greenfield site.
Currently, projects must comply with Article 4, Districts, which regulates permitted uses, and
Article 3, General Development Standards. Article 4 contains the majority of the prescriptive,
metric/dimensional standards that can create challenges for infill/redevelopment because no
consideration is given for the context or constraints of a site. In order to provide maximum
design flexibility, PDOD projects would be exempt from complying with Article 4 standards.
Article 3 covers all of the basic elements of development and provides standards for
considerations such as site planning and design, buildings, environment, natural areas, and
transportation, among others. Within each of the Article 3 Sections is a “General Standard”,
typically followed by more prescriptive standards that specify exactly how to meet the “General
Standard”.
The following is an example of an Article 3 “General Standard” and prescriptive standard from
Section 3.5.2, Residential Building Standards:
General Standard: Development projects containing residential buildings shall place a
high priority on buildings’ entryways and their relationship to the street. Pedestrian
usability shall be prioritized over vehicular usability. Buildings shall include human
scaled elements, architectural articulation and, in projects containing more than one
building, design variation.
Prescriptive Standard: A minimum lot width of 50 feet shall be required for any single-
family detached dwelling if the garage and/or driveway is served by access from the
abutting street, unless such lot also adjoins an alley or is located at the corner of two
public streets.
PDOD projects will be required to comply with Article 3; however, to provide additional design
flexibility, projects will only need to comply with the “General Standard” of certain Sections.
Specific Sections to be complied with in their entirety include:
3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources;
3.4.1 Natural Habitats and Features; and
3.6.2 Streets, Streetscapes, and Alleyways.
A unique aspect of the PDOD is how it would infuse the principles of City Plan into private
sector development. In addition to meeting the “General Standards” in Article 3, PDOD projects
must achieve at least 45 points in 4 out of 7 categories on a performance matrix. The matrix was
modeled after several examples of similar tools being used in other communities and
ATTACHMENT 1
Planned Development Overlay District – Overview
February 2013
3
sustainability-focused organizations. It is designed to provide a quantifiable aspect of PDOD
projects to supplement the broad, qualitative “General Standards”.
The matrix is a menu of site and building features/techniques that would requires applicants to
incorporate public benefits into their project. It is divided into seven categories that mirror the
seven components of City Plan. The following describes the general concepts for
encouragement for each category:
Culture, Parks and Recreation – public art, historic preservation, recreation opportunities
Economic Health – job creation, targeted redevelopment
Environmental Health – energy efficiency, natural resource protection/conservation
High Performing Community – civic engagement, participation in City programs
Livability – mixed-use, building form/design
Safety and Wellness – community gardens, floodplain and fire safety
Transportation – connectivity, multi-modal options, parking
Each item within the categories is weighted depending on its value in terms of accomplishing the
goals of City Plan. Items that are less valuable may receive 1 or 2 points; more valuable items
may receive 2 or 4 points. Within each category is a blank criterion that is designed to reward
applicant innovation or outstanding performance. The applicant innovation component is
intended to acknowledge that staff, at the time of the PDOD pilot, could not possibly have
included every potential design/process technique that provides a benefit to the community. As
such, the blank criterion was created to allow the applicant to be creative and incorporate
something new/different than what is available to choose from within the matrix. Furthermore,
points may be rewarded for outstanding performance. This component is intended to provide
extra points for an applicant that goes above and beyond within a particular category; for
example, an applicant that provides all residential units to low income households could gain an
extra 8 points for outstanding performance in terms of providing affordable housing.
Land Use
An additional distinction of the PDOD is that applicants would have flexibility in the land uses
they include in their project. There are currently 25 distinct zone districts, each with a list of
permitted uses. PDOD projects would be able to include any use that is allowed within the
underlying zone district where it is located, but would also be able to include uses that are
permitted in other zone districts throughout the city. This is not intended to allow for any use
anywhere; uses not expressly permitted by the underlying zone district must meet additional
criteria to be added by PDOD projects to ensure it is designed and/or mitigated appropriately.
Review Process
A final variation that distinguishes the PDOD relates to the review process. PDOD projects
would have a similar, yet separate process with different names for each of the plan types. The
PDOD plan types would be called a Detailed Development Plan and Complete Development
Plan. The table below shows how the nomenclature compares:
ATTACHMENT 1
Planned Development Overlay District – Overview
February 2013
4
Table 1: Comparison of Plan Type Nomenclature
PDOD All Other Districts
Detailed Development Plan Project Development Plan
Complete Development Plan Final Plan
There are several steps in the current review process for each plan type. Generally, those steps
include:
1. Conceptual Review/Preliminary Design Review
2. Neighborhood Meeting
3. Application Submittal
4. Type 1 Review (decision-maker is a hearing officer) or Type 2 Review (decision-maker
is P&Z)
PDOD projects would not be subject to any additional review steps other than what is already
required; however, these projects would have the option to participate in a pre-application
informational session with the Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z). The optional session with
P&Z would provide the applicant the opportunity to present basic concepts of the project and
receive feedback from the Board. This is modeled after the existing pre-application hearing that
applicants can have with City Council for certain development applications. The intent is to
provide the applicant with preliminary feedback about the project in hopes of identifying any
major concerns that can be addressed before the formal submittal.
Another difference is that all PDOD projects would be processed as Type 2 reviews, meaning
that P&Z would decide whether or not to approve the project. Type 2 reviews are typically
reserved for more complex development projects, and staff anticipates that infill development
and redevelopment projects using PDOD would benefit from this level of review.
ATTACHMENT 2
1
Planned Development Overlay District Pilot – Evaluation Questions
For all eligible PDOD applicants within the six-month pilot:
1. How did you first hear about PDOD?
2. Based in Fort Collins?
3. How long have you been in business?
4. Are you or your client interested in trying PDOD? If not, please explain.
5. If PDOD isn’t appropriate for this project, could you see you pursuing it for a different
project?
6. What seems most appealing about PDOD?
7. What seems most concerning?
For submitted PDOD pilot projects:
1. What is the gross acreage of the site?
2. What is the total square footage of building space proposed?
3. What is the floor area ratio (FAR)?
4. What uses are being considered?
5. How tall is the building(s) being proposed (measured in feet)?
6. What are the characteristics of the site that make it challenging to develop?
7. Describe the surrounding development/context of the site.
8. What modifications of standards would be required for this project if the standard review
process was used?
9. Which matrix items are sought and how many points are anticipated?
10. How long did the development review process take from Detailed Development Plan
(DDP) submittal to public hearing?
a. If there were unanticipated delays, describe the causes.
11. Did the project take advantage of the pre-submittal meeting with P&Z? Why or why not?
12. Did the project add land uses not otherwise permitted by the underlying zoning?
13. Was it challenging to apply Article 3 to the project, e.g. were there significant
discrepancies in how the developer and staff interpreted compliance with a general
standard?
For affected property owners:
1. Did you have an opportunity to provide feedback on the project at the neighborhood
meeting?
2. Do you feel that your feedback was taken into consideration by staff or the developer and
incorporated into the project?
3. Do you think the project will be a benefit or detriment to the neighborhood? Please
explain.
4. If applicable, did you attend the pre-submittal meeting with P&Z and voice your
feedback on the project?
5. What, if anything, would you like to change about the project?
ATTACHMENT 2
2
For staff:
1. What worked well?
2. What were the most challenging aspects of reviewing a PDOD project?
3. Did you feel you had greater leverage/flexibility to negotiate with the applicant?
4. What, if anything, would you change about the PDOD review process?
5. Was it challenging to agree on the interpretation of matrix points and general standard
compliance?
6. Was reviewing a PDOD project easier or harder than standard development review?
Please explain.
For PDOD applicants:
1. Were you satisfied with the PDOD? Please explain why or why not.
2. What were the biggest challenges?
3. What worked well?
4. Did PDOD save time and/or money?
5. Would you use PDOD again or recommend it to another developer? Why or why not?
6. What would you change/improve about the process?
For the Planning and Zoning Board:
1. If the applicant participated in the pre-submittal meeting with P&Z, did you find that
opportunity helpful to give feedback to the applicant?
2. What were the most challenging aspects of reviewing a PDOD project?
3. What worked well?
4. Was it challenging to implement PDOD development standards (Article 3 and the
Performance Matrix)?
5. Did you receive more, less, or the same amount of input from adjacent property owners?
6. Would you change anything to help in your decision-making process?
INTERSTATE 25
S SHIELDS ST
E VINE DR
S TAFT HILL RD
S COLLEGE AVE
S TIMBERLINE RD
E PROSPECT RD
E DRAKE RD
E HORSETOOTH RD
N SHIELDS ST
N TAFT HILL RD
W DRAKE RD
LAPORTE AVE
ZIEGLER RD
E HARMONY RD
RIVERSIDE AVE
W HARMONY RD
W MULBERRY ST
N COLLEGE AVE
N LEMAY AVE
W HORSETOOTH RD
W VINE DR
KECHTER RD
MOUNTAIN VISTA DR
S LEMAY AVE
Planned Development Overlay District - Pilot Boundary
Major Streets
Planned Development Overlay District Pilot Boundary O
1 inch = 3,250 feet
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
June 21, 2012
Page 4
Member Campana said the enrollment seems quite small compared to a typical charter school. He
thinks because this is a commercial site and the roads have been designed to handle the traffic, it’s
far better than having the school embedded in a neighborhood.
Member Schmidt made a motion that the Planning & Zoning Board approve Mountain Sage
Community School, 2170 W. Drake Rd, SPAR, #SPA120004 based on findings of facts and
conclusions on page 6 of the staff report. Member Campana seconded the motion. The
motion passed 7:0
_______
Project: Planned Development Overlay District Pilot with Related LUC
Amendments
Project Description: The Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z) is asked to make a recommendation
to City Council regarding an Ordinance to adopt the Planned Development
Overlay District (PDOD) pilot. The pilot would establish a six-month
application period providing developers the option to use the PDOD. The
PDOD is a new zoning tool designed to provide contextual land use and
design flexibility for infill development and redevelopment projects. Since it
is new and unique, the pilot is being proposed as a way to test the PDOD
prior to considering adopting it on a permanent basis. Concerns have been
raised during recent public outreach, however, regarding the boundary area
for the PDOD pilot. As a result, several boundary options are being
presented to P&Z in order to provide a recommendation to City Council.
A second Ordinance is also presented for a recommendation which would
make several amendments to Article 3 of the Land Use Code (LUC). These
amendments are directly related to the PDOD, but would be permanent
amendments and thus require a separate Ordinance. The PDOD provides
some flexibility from existing Article 3 standards by requiring that only the
“General Standards” of certain Sections apply. Upon close examination of
Article 3, staff found that not all Sections have a “General Standard”.
Therefore, to provide consistency and also to create the proper development
standards for potential PDOD projects, the amendments create “General
Standards” where they were missing, and make some revisions to existing
“General Standards” for clarification purposes.
Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
City Planner Megan Bolin said the prescriptive nature of the LUC hinders infill development and
redevelopment. As Fort Collins matures in its development pattern and shifts from greenfield to
infill, unique and more frequent design challenges are presented that require greater innovation
and flexibility to achieve desirable, high-quality projects. She said the challenges were: policy
which encourages infill/redevelopment, reality that infill/redevelopment is challenging, and the
existing LUC. Bolin said the solution may be PDOD (Planned Development Overlay District) which
ATTACHMENT 4
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
June 21, 2012
Page 5
is an optional zoning overlay. It provides design and land use flexibility and is performance based.
PDOD will have several differences from the current process. Those differences are primarily in
land use, the review process, and development standards and she provided a comparison of
current practices to PDOD. Bolin said with PDOD, all of Land Use Code Article 3, General
Standards would apply, although some are given flexibility by only having to comply with the
“General Standard” of certain Sections. only some sections apply. Most sections apply in entirety
including natural habitat, historic and streets/alleys.
In addition to Article 3, the Performance Matrix quantifies sustainable principles and offers a points-
based menu of items in seven categories that are aligned with City Plan. The applicant must
achieve 45 points total in at least 4 categories. The matrix rewards public benefits and projects
that go beyond Code minimums.
The pilot allows test-cases which provide an opportunity for evaluation of the system. It provides
time to make improvements and helps us determine how viable PDOD could be as a tool.
Pilot details are:
• 6-month application period to submit Detailed Development Plan (Project Development
Plan equivalent)
• 3-year term of vested rights
• Council has opportunity to extend application period
• Open-ended evaluation period
• Must be within boundary
Bolin reviewed the 7 boundary options:
• Option 1 – Boundary – no change
• Option 2 – No Laurel School Historic District Inclusion
• Option 3 – Includes the entire Laurel School Historic District
• Option 4 – No Historic Districts
• Option 5 – No NCM and NCB Zoned Land
• Option 6 – No CSU Land at Prospect/College
• Option 7 – Remove 1000 feet on either side of the Poudre River
She outlined other board and commission feedback and asked the Planning and Zoning Board to
make a recommendation to City Council on the following items related to the Planned
Development Overlay District (PDOD):
1. Ordinance establishing the pilot. This would provide a six-month application period where
developers within the PDOD boundary can submit PDOD projects;
2. Ordinance adopting several amendments and additions to the “General Standards” within
several Sections of Article 3 of the Land Use Code; and
3. Preferred boundary option.
Board Questions
Chair Smith complimented staff. He thinks they’ve done a great job with the outreach and in
getting so many different stakeholders to weigh in.
Member Schmidt asked if we’re creating a section in Article 4 (Section 4.29) that will be the PDOD
section, that it’s not technically true that PDOD is exempt completely from Article 4– is that correct?
ATTACHMENT 4
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
June 21, 2012
Page 6
Bolin said correct, because PDOD is an overlay district, placing it in Article 4 with the other Districts
made the most sense, but that none of the other Sections of Article 4 would apply to PDOD.
Member Schmidt said Bolin mentioned something about the evaluation period being open ended
but will City Council do some sort of evaluation before they consider making PDOD permanent.
Bolin said there is nothing formal in the ordinance as it reads now. Council has an option to extend
the 6 month application period. We do anticipate that staff would bring it forward to City Council.
Public Input
Mark Anderson lives at 704 Mathews. He believes there are many significant problems with this
proposal. He thinks it totally “guts” section 4 which means a person that lives in the PDOD district
could have a 10 story apartment building pop up across the street. He said if you’re in the NCM
zone and it doesn’t allow for a bar; you could take a section of zoning anywhere else and you can
apply that. His second concern is the matrix has some serious logic problems. He said you’re also
allowed as a developer to write in your own test questions. He thinks the scoring is really
subjective. Sometimes you get 2 points, sometimes you get 4. He thinks this opens the city up to
litigation problems
Anderson said his last concern has to do with relying on neighborhood meetings. He’s found that
neighborhood meetings don’t work. Twenty five people might show up for a meeting and they may
feel like they’ve been heard. But really, they are just talking to a city staff person. He said the
problem is people think they’ve been heard so they don’t show up for the planning and zoning
meeting. He thinks there’s a systematic problem with neighborhood meetings.
Bill Jenkins lives at 710 Mathews Street. He’s read some of the materials and from the
presentation he thinks there may be an extra layer added to the process. He said flexibility is not
really defined here—which standards (height, etc). He said it would be interesting if you could
come up with examples of a current project that had gone through PDOD. It’s hard for him to tell
what the real differences are. He thinks there should be some extra time assigned to public input.
He said this looks like a possible way to get around some rules. He likes the option where the
Laurel Historic District is left out.
Lisa Demberg lives at 425 E. Laurel Street. She said it wouldn’t make sense to take the “jewel of
Fort Collins” – old town and other historic districts and put to them into a pilot program in which
nobody quite knows how it’s going to work. There are issues about preserving the character of
those neighborhoods that take a greater understanding. She thinks the other problem to keeping
them in the pilot program is the fact that the Eastside/Westside groups are just starting to be
reconvened. To people participating, it becomes a worthless process if this happens before that
has even gotten underway. It seems like a lot of decisions will be getting made. She thinks it’s
disingenuous to continue with that input because it really won’t matter anymore. She would
encourage the board if they recommend the pilot that they also keep the historic districts out of it.
Steve Mack lives at 420 E. Laurel Street. He said he has properties on both the east and west
sides of College. His concern is boundaries. His concerns relate to that we have two concomitant
processes in the system at the same time. We’re looking at reinitiating Eastside/Westside Study—
looking at the desirable aspects to the two neighborhoods. At the LPC, he recommended they put
forward a proposal to exclude historic districts from PDOD. His concern is with historic district is
why would you have two boundaries—one the Laurel School Historic District and another for
PDOD which overlaps. It allows for the potential to “gut” some of the momentum that the historic
ATTACHMENT 4
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
June 21, 2012
Page 7
district is now gaining. If you do go ahead and recommend PDOD with the historic districts
included, it could cause irreparable harm on what is really a pilot project.
Charles Clarke lives at 327 E. Magnolia. He said it seems silly to say we are not weakening the
standards, they aren’t required to use PDOD, and minimums are becoming maximums. He thinks
they are weakening the standards—they are being allowed to pick and choose what they want.
He’d like to know why a developer would use the new “stuff”.
Doree DuFresan lives at 325 E. Olive Street. One of her concerns is that she hadn’t heard of this
before and she lives in an area that would be impacted. One of the aspects of this project
appeared to be public input to the modification of standards. It seems public input has not been
adequately been asked for this process. She’d like to ask the board to consider further public
input.
Nick Haws lives at 2221 Sandbur Drive. He’d like to discuss the boundaries. He thinks the original
boundary was very thoughtful. It took into consideration multiple boundaries that had evolved over
time with the TOD (Transit Oriented District) and targeted infill and redevelopment areas from City
Plan and Fort Collins updates. Perhaps some subtleties such as the floodways, CSU properties,
and splitting a historic district were inadvertently missed. A couple of options that really disturb him
are the NCB and NCM area and particularly the Poudre River. With the underlying Article 3
standards remaining, particularly the natural features area, he doesn’t see how PDOD would offer
any addition jeopardy or compromise to the Poudre River. He thinks an additional 1000 foot buffer
is completely unwarranted when we’re already protected with the underlying Article 3 standards.
He said the downtown river corridor is already particularly a targeted infill redevelopment area.
PDOD further incentivizes and raises the bar to insure what might redevelop there is to the highest
standard. He thinks there are some good points about the historic districts but as he’s
understanding it, all the Article 3 historic preservation standards would still remain in place.
Craig Russell lives at 4524 Skyline Drive. He said this has been an ongoing problem in Fort
Collins—how to accommodate and encourage redevelopment and infill. In 2005 he worked on a
project with the city planning office called Refill Fort Collins. The objective of that was to identify
barriers to redevelopment and infill. This notion is getting toward something he thinks can work for
the city overall. He used an example of a project at the corner of Drake and Lemay that was
developed using the Land Use Guidance System (LDGS). Under that system there was a lot more
creativity and flexibility. It represents how PDOD could really result in some fantastic projects.
End of Public Input
Bolin said she’d like to correct an incorrect perception of the point system on the matrix. It has
always been proposed that a project has to receive a total of 45 points in at least 4 of the 7
categories. Bolin said in the matrix there is a place where you can get points if you have an
eligible historic structure that you are preserving or establishing as a designated landmark. It also
rewards projects that have historic buildings that go through the Landmark Preservation
Commission design review process.
Bolin said in terms of public involvement, an applicant can also receive points if they hold extra
neighborhood meetings or hold a workshop. If that route is taken, they would also provide an
assessment of what the outcomes of those meetings had been.
ATTACHMENT 4
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
June 21, 2012
Page 8
Chair Smith noted one citizen’s reference to sufficient public outreach. He asked about what type
of neighborhood outreach took place for this process. Bolin said they held a public open house on
May 7 advertised through standard communication processes: the city’s web site, a press release,
and social media (Facebook/Twitter). It was intended to be community wide (beyond the PDOD
boundary).
Member Carpenter asked if in the amount of time this has been going on, it seems like there has
been more than one public meeting. Bolin said not a full open house—there was only the one in
May. Carpenter asked if the other meetings were for stakeholders. Bolin said yes. In the
beginning there were meetings with focus groups.
Member Schmidt asked if there had been any mailings to people who live within the boundary.
Bolin said no there have not been any mail notifications. Member Stockover said that is basically
how government works. We don’t take the entire population of Fort Collins to the capitol building to
make our laws. We rely on citizen participation and our elected officials. Many have been
working on this including the Planning & Zoning Board and City Council, developers, brokers,
South Fort Collins Business Association, Landmark Preservation, Air Quality Advisory Board – and
that’s not even half the list. He said he thinks city staff has reached out. Government doesn’t work
if you have 140,000 people voting on every decision.
Chair Smith said notice under a policy discussion is very different from when a project is proposed.
He asked what the notice requirement is once there is a sign in the yard that something’s going to
happen. Bolin said the notification notice is an 800 foot perimeter around the project.
Bolin said we will be hiring a Development Review Outreach Coordinator –essentially a liaison
who’ll provide that connection between neighbors and affected property owners and the
development process. She said we’ve also established a development review outreach meeting in
which staff works with affected property owners without the applicant present. It’s their opportunity
to talk about the process at different stages of development review. We also have a citizen’s guide
to development review.
Member Schmidt said relative to Mr. Anderson’s comments about the performance matrix 45 points
and then you win; we have tried very hard to show that once you establish the 45 points you’d be
allowed to start using the PDOD system. You’d then have to meet all the standards in Article 3. It
gives you an idea of where you would fit in using that system. She just wants to dispel the myth
that getting 45 points does not require any further effort by the applicant to develop a good project
Member Campana said he’d like to follow up on that. It just sets the stage for the discussion that
staff and the board would have in reviewing it. He said this is a big change for people who haven’t
been involved in the process for as long as the board has. He said three retreats back they
identified infill and redevelopment as a potential challenge moving forward. He said they’ve been
involved in these discussions for several years and have had at least 6 presentations as the policy
has evolved. He said the board does not write the code, staff does-- they advise staff and make
recommendations to City Council. The board then applies it. He said we are pretty well vested in
this process.
Campana said the Land Use Code is pretty prescriptive. It’s good in that you know what to expect
but you could almost end up with the very same development on each corner. Creativity may be
handcuffed at some level. He thinks using the LUC as the basis and then adding PDOD makes a
lot of sense.
ATTACHMENT 4
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
June 21, 2012
Page 9
Director Kadrich said a citizen testified earlier that if the code has been weakened, why would a
developer want to use it? She said the answer to that is the tradeoff with the matrix. There are
sections of the code, if this is adopted and we move forward, that someone with a PDOD project
would not have to comply. But the matrix then requires additional standards to be met in the hopes
that the community receives a benefit if portions of the code are not followed. She believes that is
what we’re trying to say when we state it does not weaken the code. She said it’s just a different
benefit the community receives for a developer not having to follow all elements of Article 4.
Board Discussion
Member Schmidt said she thinks it is possible to do really great things under the current code
evidence the recent Bucking Horse development but it did require some modifications and some
additions of a permitted use which if PDOD would have been in place, we may have gotten the
same thing without having to go through those extra steps. She said an applicant would be
allowed more creativity and could think outside the box. We’d like to know this is taking us to the
next level so when we’re doing infill; we’re really getting something that meets the needs of the
citizens and the community.
Schmidt said relative to the comment that developers can write their own test questions. She said
we don’t know every new thing that is coming up. We want to leave it open for people to come to
the table and say “x” is a good idea and get some credit for it. She’s glad we’re doing a pilot
project so hopefully citizens will continue to be active and use that time to make comments as to
the process.
Member Carpenter said as relates to public input under PDOD. She was around when we had
LDGS and she would have to say there was really a lot more public input given under LDGS than
under City Plan. One of the reasons we went to more prescriptive was that it also gave developers
a sense of what they could expect/do. She’s hopeful that what will happen with PDOD is that we
get to have more public input. She knows the board and staff will be looking very carefully into
getting the outcome we want. She said it is a pilot project so we’ll have the opportunity to make
adjustments along the way. For that reason she does feel a little uncomfortable about having the
historic district included. She thinks when we start applying to our historic districts we should have
it down pat and know what we’re doing. For that reason she’d feel more comfortable if we pull the
historic districts out.
Member Kirkpatrick said she’s the newest member and was not here at PDOD’s inception. She
can see from a public standpoint how the process can look enormously complicated and a little
subjective. She thinks it’s really important that we are being a little more nuanced in the things that
we’re wanting above and beyond for creativity and flexibility. She also thinks that LUC has not
quite caught up to what has been outlined in our policies. This allows us a tool to bridge what we
as a community have said we want. She agrees with Member Carpenter that Laurel School District
should be excluded from the boundary.
Member Schmidt said she attend the May 7th Open House and some of the neighbors there were
very concerned about PDOD in their neighborhoods. She said since this is a pilot, she’s with the
Landmark Preservation Commission. She thinks we should leave the boundary in the area where
we’d like to see a lot of creativity – maybe the Midtown Corridor and some of North College. She’d
vote for keeping a pretty firm boundary until we see exactly how this is going to work. She would
support the requests from all the groups that asked for exclusions from the PDOD boundary.
ATTACHMENT 4
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
June 21, 2012
Page 10
Chair Smith said in reviewing Bolin’s June 14th memo there is a statement, “while the PDOD would
adhere to the entire Section of Article 3 that governs Natural Habitats and Features (3.4.1), there is
concern that the flexibility afforded to other standards would put the river at risk. Of particular
concern is the waiving of floor area ratios and density standards contained in Article 4 of the Land
Use Code.” He asked what other types of risks would we be talking about. Bolin said the primary
concerns were density and height. Not having the metrics standards that would be established by
the Article 4 districts was the concern. There is also concern about intense development that could
be perceived as inappropriate.
Chair Smith said so in and of itself density that is restricted now would be seen as being bad for
the river—is that the basis of the risk? Bolin said the concern is if the standards would be applied
differently with PDOD. Director Kadrich said what we’re trying to say is that is what the testimony
was; we are not stating that is a fact. Smith said he’s just trying to get to what staff heard. He
asked if there were any representatives of Save the Poudre present. There were none.
Chair Smith said he doesn’t want to put anyone (stakeholder or staff) on the hot seat. He said we
have a proud history of being data driven.
Smith said he doesn’t want to say it’s “scary” unless we can get to some concrete examples of
what might happen. Then go a little further to evaluate if it’s bad in the context of other things that
might be coming along that are good in a project that no longer has minimums and maximums.
Staff member Lindsay Ex said she was at the meeting when staff met with the Board of Save the
Poudre. She said their concerns related to the river and were like the concerns the Landmark
Preservation Commission had relative to historic preservation. She said there is an uncertainty
with the pilot surrounding the density, the land uses, and the intensity. They supported being
conservative on how it’s applied.
Member Schmidt said if someone wanted to do a project in that corridor they could still use the
current code and ask for modifications or addition of permitted use. They could go through the
process we have now. She said she doesn’t think we’re cutting off potential development in that
corridor. Smith said the Poudre River through town is not a natural state where no development
occurs at all and then all of a sudden we’re going to have “hog rendering facilities on the banks”.
He just wants to get this to a reality check. He said it doesn’t seem to be a scary as it might be for
some folks.
Member Campana asked how we would evaluate a height modification any differently than we’d
evaluate height that would come in on a PDOD project. We’d have the same discussion as a
Board—we’d still have shadow analysis and we’d still look at compatibility. He just doesn’t see the
watering down factor by not having all that criteria in Article 4. We’d still be evaluating it the same
way. It just gives us a broader scope to evaluate.
Bolin said you’d have the ability to evaluate the project based on context with Article 3. She said
the main evaluation tool then is the performance matrix—there are places where you could
increase habitat buffer or planting more native trees, etc.
Member Campana said the risk to a developer is that the board could deny a project using PDOD
without having criteria to deny but with the standard LUC it’s basically check the box. He thinks it
gives the board a lot more flexibility. He said he personally does not any issue with the originally
proposed overlay district.
ATTACHMENT 4
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
June 21, 2012
Page 11
Member Carpenter asked to view the consolidated options map that Bolin mentioned. She wants to
be sure we don’t hamper being able to evaluate the pilot if we make the area too small. Bolin
reviewed the map. Member Stockover asked if there was copy of the map in the materials
distributed to the Board. Bolin said no. Stockover indicated it appears that it’s showing the
consolidated options 4 – 7 (no historic districts, no NCM and NCB zoned land, no CSU land at
Prospect/College, and remove 1000 feet on either side of the Poudre River).
Chair Smith said if there’s a concern the historic preservation sections in the Municipal and Land
Use Code are not adequate on their own, is this a PDOD issue or should we be revising our
historic preservation standards. Director Kadrich said her understanding comes from the many
hours of conversation with the LPC. They believe their standards are very strong particularly in the
historic districts. What they feel would happen if part or all of the district is left in is they would
become the group that has to say no (as appropriate) to folks looking to make application for a
PDOD project. They were thinking, particularly for the pilot project, they wouldn’t feel comfortable
being in that position to get this process off to a good start.
Chair Smith asked what is the makeup of commercial versus residential in the downtown historic
district. Bolin indicated on a map that the downtown and river areas were primarily commercial.
Smith said with residences over some businesses in the downtown he thinks it’s purely mixed use
and commercial. Staff agreed. Smith said it goes beyond Jefferson to areas slated for
redevelopment. Bolin said correct. Smith asked would that be a prime place for PDOD to be
tested because of the character of that district. Bolin said it could be beneficial.
Member Campana asked when studies were done on the targeted infill redevelopment areas; how
many of those areas were in the Laurel School Historic District. Bolin said the targeted infill and
redevelopment areas weren’t drawn precisely so they don’t follow zoning or parcel lines. It does
follow the commercial corridor all the way down. She doesn’t know specifically how far it goes into
the Laurel School Historic District but it does extend east on Mulberry. Member Campana said
he’d be okay with removing Laurel School Historic District but he thinks we should leave everything
else.
Member Stockover said he thinks the Boards should consider removing the historic districts. He
said he’s on the fence about the sliver on College Avenue on the west side of the historic district.
He’d be okay with staying away from that for the pilot. With regard to the Poudre River, more than
half of that area is public owned open space with the exception of the golf course. He said there
are a lot of properties along East Mulberry which could benefit from this pilot. When he looks at
that whole area he can’t think of a project that would really be that controversial. He thinks there
are a lot of opportunities there. He has no problem with excluding the CSU land because it is
predominately floodplain. He said with regard to NCB and NCM it indicates to him that if they
started taking everybody out that we have the wrong project. He thinks we have enough protection
that this really should work city wide. He doesn’t think those zones (NCB and NCM) have made a
case like the historic districts and he thinks they should not be excluded.
AMENDED: Member Schmidt made a motion to recommend to City Council the approve the
Planned Development Overlay District Pilot and related Land Use Code amendments with a
vote on boundary options to be considered separately and a recommendation that the
ordinance would be in effect as long as it is needed for PDOD projects submitted in the six
month period to complete the review/approval process. Member Campana seconded the
motion
ATTACHMENT 4
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
June 21, 2012
Page 12
Member Schmidt said she doesn’t understand the motion because staff is requesting
recommendations related to establishing the pilot, adopting several amendments and additions to
the LUC, and supporting the preferred boundary option. She asked if it was Member Stockover’s
intent to put everything into one pot. Stockover said his motion is to recommend approval of the
ordinance related to the pilot, the LUC amendments, and the preferred boundary option. He’s
thinking that combination of Options 4 and 6. Member Schmidt suggested the Board separate the
boundary options because she can’t support the motion. She thinks we’d have a different vote on
the boundaries.
Member Stockover said he’d accept a friendly amendment to vote on boundary options separately.
Member Campana seconded the amendment.
Member Stockover said he thinks the board should come to a consensus on which boundary
options we’d like to recommend. Member Carpenter asked if they could separate the elements
and vote separately on the boundary options. Member Stockover said he’d like to put the first two
elements “to bed” and then vote separately on the options.
Member Schmidt asked Bolin if it says anywhere in the ordinance about how once the pilot is
adopted, City Council will progress to reviewing. She’s not had a chance to review the document
distributed with the presentation and she just wants to know if there’s verbiage that addresses that.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman said it’s in Section 18 near the last page. “This ordinance should
terminate and be of no further force and effect at close of business on January 18, 2013 unless
extended by ordinance of the City Council.” Eckman had a question with regard to the motion. He
wondered if the motion is to recommend both ordinances. Board members said yes.
Member Stockover said an applicant can apply up to that date. Bolin said yes. Eckman said it’s
become a bit of dilemma. Eckman said the state statute regarding vesting rights provides you get
the law in effect at the time you filed your application for a site specific development plan. In Fort
Collins, we have defined it as the final plan. He said once you get a PDP (Project Development
Plan) approved under the current code, you must move forward with your final plan to be fully
vested.
Eckman said technically we could change our LUC prior to the approval of a PDP and the
developer would have to comply with the new changes—even though they had a plan in process.
He’s not sure that’s the way we’ve always handled it in the past. He said a legal argument could
be made as to why you should get the law in effect at the time the PDP was approved. He said we
may need to do a little changing of our LUC in general if that’s not the policy we’d like. He thinks
that something we should be discussing with staff.
Member Schmidt said she’s now totally confused. She thought there was an obligation to follow
through when you have the approval. If someone in these times for financial reasons could not
follow through; they would have been approved under the PDOD but nothing ever happens and the
pilot program goes away. Eckman said if they have an approved DDP (Detailed Development
Plan) that is good for 3 years. They can move to final plan (Complete Plan in PDOD) within that 3
year period. If the final plan is approved that is then vested for another 3 years under state law.
Member Campana said the challenge is you’re in the middle of an application and the code
changes; the code that was being applied at the time of application stays in effect. Eckman said
he’s not sure that’s what the code says and we’ve not always been consistent on that.
ATTACHMENT 4
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
June 21, 2012
Page 13
Member Carpenter said if we only have 6 months in this pilot, is there going to be enough time for
people to get a plan in and get it to approval in that amount of time. Are we so constricted here
that the pilot will not really tell us much? Member Stockover said he believes City Council has the
right to extend if an insufficient number of projects are submitted in that six month application
period. Bolin said it was never their intention that a project would have to be approved within six
months. The six months is the application period. Eckman said you could recommend a longer
application period or change the code so that it’s more clear that you can use the law in effect at
the time you file an application.
Member Schmidt said we basically want PDOD to stay in effect through the period of review; we
just want the submittals to terminate. Deputy Kadrich said rather than the six months ends the
ordinance, the six months should end the application period. The ordinance would be in effect as
long as needed to complete the pilot projects. Eckman said they would need to re-craft some of
the words in the ordinance to say that before we go to City Council. Member Campana said that
would be in line with what we’ve been thinking.
Member Stockover said he’d accept a friendly amendment to recommend the ordinance would be
in effect as long as is needed for PDOD projects submitted in the six month period to complete the
review/approval process. Member Campana seconded the amendment.
The amended motion was approved 7:0.
Options
Option 1 – Boundary – no change
Option 2 – No Laurel School Historic District Inclusion
Option 3 – Includes the entire Laurel School Historic District
Option 4 – No Historic Districts
Option 5 – No NCM and NCB Zoned Land
Option 6 – No CSU Land at Prospect/College
Option 7 – Remove 1000 feet on either side of the Poudre River
Chair Smith summarized what he perceived was consensus on how the board wanted to proceed.
Member Stockover said the board is in agreement that Option 1 (no change) is out. Chair Smith
thinks all agreed Option 3 (Laurel School Historic District) and Option 6 (CSU land at
Prospect/College) would be excluded from the overlay district. He thinks the options to discuss
and debate are options 2, 4, 5, and 7.
Member Schmidt said if the board recommends Option 4 (no historic districts) that would cover
Option 2. Chair Smith said he’d like to get a read on whether that’s what the board wants to
recommend.
Member Stockover made a motion to recommend to City Council that Option 1 and Option 3
are not desirable. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7:0.
Member Stockover said it might be a good idea to get the read on how the board feels about
Options 2 (no Laurel School Historic District) and 4 (no historic district).
Member Carpenter said she can go with either option. She does not see the reason for the
Downtown Historic District because it was developed under LGDS (Land use Guidance
ATTACHMENT 4
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
June 21, 2012
Page 14
Development System). It had much more flexibility than PDOD. It’s commercial but she can go
either direction.
Member Kirkpatrick said she’d like to see the old town historic district kept in the PDOD boundary
because of the site east of Riverside would potentially have some good applications. Smith agreed
for the same reasons.
Member Stockover made a motion that Option 4 not be recommended to City Council.
Member Campana seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7:0.
Member Stockover made a motion to recommend to City Council that Option 6 be included
in the final map -- that would disallow CSU land at Prospect and College. Chair Smith
seconded the motion.
Member Schmidt wanted to make sure there’s an understanding that it doesn’t matter who owns
the land--CSU or the foundation. Bolin said there’s a mixture of both the state and the research
foundation owning land there.
Motion was approved 6:1 with Member Hatfield dissenting.
Member Stockover made a motion to recommend to City Council that they consider Option
2 as one portion of the final map. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Motion was
approved 7:0.
Member Stockover said relative to removing 1000 feet on either side of the Poudre River; he
believes all the pristine areas are already protected by open space and city owned lands. Most of
what is not city owned lands is already a concrete irrigation ditch. It’s not really pristine river. He
thinks if we eliminate these areas we take too much of what would be a great representation of this
project off the Mulberry Street Corridor and Jefferson Street.
Member Stockover made a motion to recommend to City Council Option 7 not be
considered. Member Carpenter seconded the motion.
Member Schmidt said she’s against the motion because of the years she’s been on the board,
she’s been burnt by this kind of thing. She used an example of the small scale event center and
UE. She doesn’t feel comfortable going with it on a pilot. Once we have things worked out, then
certainly because we have some protections in place; we’d have a better chance of enforcing what
we want to enforce.
Member Stockover understands Member Schmidt’s concerns but he thinks the protections are
there.
Member Kirkpatrick said with the Article 3 standards and our Environmental Planner on staff; she
thinks it would be difficult to do something that would have a negative impact. She thinks if we
don’t include it, it would be difficult to evaluate the pilot. She thinks it will help to do a better job of
infill in that area--being sensitive to the river and ecological needs. Kirkpatrick said she would
support keeping it in.
ATTACHMENT 4
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
June 21, 2012
Page 15
Member Carpenter said while it would make a very long meeting, a project would be Type II and
would come before the board. Anything that would have a negative impact on the river would be
scrutinized.
Member Smith said he agrees. He thinks we have the protections in Article 3. He thinks this
process will promote innovation and in having better projects than might normally occur. The fact
is development has been occurring along the river corridor. It has a lot of great protections as it is.
There is prime opportunity for signature projects that do nothing but enhance the river corridor and
protect the resource that it is.
Member Schmidt said that if someone wanted to do a signature project we could do it under the
current code because she thinks the board would support it.
Motion was approved 5:2 with Members Hatfield and Schmidt dissenting.
Member Stockover thinks we have adequate protections for NCM and NCB.
Member Schmidt said she doesn’t see what protections NCM and NCB zones have except for
compatibility. They are not like a historic district or the river which have some basic protections in
Article 3. From her perspective, the public outreach was somewhat limited. That was the main
concern expressed by citizens who attended the open house. She thinks she needs to support
those concerns. In a pilot they would rather not see the neighborhoods included.
Chair Smith said simply because the Eastside/Westside neighborhood discussions are coming
back up; he’s okay with excluding these two zone districts.
Member Carpenter agreed.
Member Kirkpatrick said she thinks its also interesting if we take out the Laurel School Historic
District, that takes out almost all of the NCM and NCB residential sections except for a tiny pocket
north of CSU on the outskirts of the TOD (Transit Oriented Development) where you are already
having development pressure regardless of whether we do PDOD or not.
Member Schmidt agrees with the pressure – concern about multi family development. She thinks
we’re telling people on the west side it’s okay to leave them in even though the east side had been
excluded.
Member Stockover made a motion to recommend to City Council Option 5 (no NCM or NCB).
Member Schmidt seconded the motion.
Member Campana said he doesn’t think it needs to be removed nor does he think it would be
detrimental to the pilot if it was. It’s a pretty small area.
Motion was approved 7:0
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 9
1
Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD)
Feedback from Public Meeting on May 7, 2012
Questionnaire Reponses
1. Do you support the City’s pursuit of a flexible zoning tool for infill/redevelopment?
Yes – infill development has unique constraints where a one size code does not
fit all circumstances. Great idea!
Yes
Yes – allowing for flexibility not only encourages healthy development, but also
acts as a great tool for economic development.
Maybe – it sounds like P&Z feels they can’t get a good project downtown
because of the inflexibility of the LUC. The LUC does well for 95% and PDOD
would help with the last 5% ‐ is this to force a square project through a round
hole? Is that really a good thing?
Yes, with conditions – refine the overlay zone and no opt‐in feature.
Maybe – if it doesn’t infringe on the adjoining property use!
Maybe – I support infill and redevelopment in general, but zoning changes
adjacent to residential neighborhoods should have a higher level of scrutiny.
People buy their homes with the expectation that residential zones will continue
into the future. When and if PDOD changes the zoning adjacent to especially
single family residential, it creates big problems and I wouldn’t support PDOD.
Maybe – like to hear more about where problems exist with specific examples.
Maybe – this process increases uncertainty for residents. It makes it possible to
build developments that were not previously allowed. For the developer, this
uncertainty presents increased opportunity. For neighbors, this uncertainty
introduces terror; single, lifetime i?? in houses are threatened. The charette
style invariably diffuses citizen input further.
No – we need to focus on problems that exist. PDOD is a response to
hypothetical problems.
Yes – the only reasonable way to accommodate and manage a growing city.
We’ll enliven and renew downtown.
2. Do you think that testing PDOD through a pilot program is appropriate?
Yes – what better way to work out the bugs than try it out.
Maybe
Yes – in hope that there is more than 1 project submitted to analyze, the six‐
month period seems appropriate.
Yes – seeing the intent in action will help see why this is needed, and make sure
no group or community is trampled.
Yes
Yes – you won’t know if it will work unless you test it.
Maybe – limit it to redevelopment that is the same sue as the current zoning.
Have flexibility but don’t change the zoning.
ATTACHMENT 9
2
Yes
Maybe – the pilot program will be construed as a land rush.
Yes
3. Any additional comments about PDOD?
It seems likely that this tool will promote better infill projects with less brain
damage for the developer.
Expand the flexibility even more. I support the effort to provide more flexible
City review processes.
One additional component to think of is an added incentive cost incentive for the
developers. The flexibility component is an incentive, but how are you attracting
development? How much influence will the public input component have on the
outcome/future progress of development?
The community (neighborhood) is primary – it’s imperative the community is
brought in close to the beginning. The points have to show better thresholds –
too subjective. Are we encouraging development of historical areas incorrectly?
That this end up being an abuse of power?
You should include parking standards in flexible zoning.
For roughly 20 years the city had the land development guidance system that
was an alternative to traditional zoning. It basically stated that any land use
could be anywhere as long as it could be “mitigated”. It was a points for
performance similar to what’s proposed by PDOD. The problem was that the
residential neighborhoods had to consistently battle proposed non‐residential
uses and both neighborhoods and developers found the system was not
predictable, which is why the City Council in the 1990’s changed to City Plan and
a more prescriptive approach to bring more predictability. Residential land
owners should not have to be continuously vigilant to have to protect their
property values from “unplanned/unknown” uses that aren’t in the zoning and
land use code.
Very complicated if you are not involved in process on day‐to‐day basis. Is
getting points in four categories a good thing? Should require points in all if they
are important.
There is a clear impression that this process is being implemented to serve
development and developers and reign in neighborhood efforts. This may not be
true, but the “loosening” of codes will make more of the impression that citizens
are going to be cut out.
You don’t follow the LUC and City Code as written now –why worry about
changing it?
I think it exemplifies the City’s desire to get out in front of a density issue that
without proper planning could cause a beautiful downtown area to continue to
deteriorate.
What’s the notice distance for neighborhood meetings?
Will neighborhoods be given notice of the pre‐application meeting with P&Z?
Will this apply to scrape offs and existing single family historic homes?
ATTACHMENT 9
3
General Comments
You don’t follow the LUC as written, why bother changing it?
Distinction between high and low quality design.
‐ Concerned we don’t know what high quality is.
‐ Problem is we don’t have a good way to incentivize quality
‐ We don’t observe our existing LUC
Section 4…pick and choose?
‐ Staff comment: Article 4 does not apply to PDOD projects.
Centennial High School – hesitant to rely on neighborhood meetings.
Need to improve neighborhood engagement
Better feedback early on – where are the controls?
More neighborhood notice
Instead of opening up for six months, open up for 3‐4 projects.
6‐month window is seen as a potential land rush.
Elected officials – excused from…?
‐ Staff should be representing the needs of the citizens
‐ Citizens put in a position of defense
‐ Really control this process to the “gold standard”
What if nobody applied?
Can you limit the # of projects that use the pilot?
Why aren’t we working on providing student housing?
This process could be exactly what we need
‐ Having 4‐5 modifications just seems like it’s too far off
Finds that the City Plan and LUC sometimes conflict
Wants more assurances we’ll get great projects.
Is the LUC not fast enough? Projects not good enough? What is the problem?
‐ Staff comment: we are not evading, all projects still meet general standards,
eliminates need for modifications
So, I could propose a mall outside of a zone where it’s currently allowed?
Does the map cover the residential districts?
‐ Staff comment: yes.
What’s the flexibility?
‐ Staff comment: you don’t have to adhere to Article 4 (Zone District); only adhere
to the General Standards in Article 3, and some you only have to comply with the
“General Standard” within certain Article 3 Sections.
Is the opt‐in still being considered? Questions why you would include residential
districts.
‐ Staff comment: no; opt‐in is not available for the pilot.
Post‐denial re‐submittal delay; there will not be a delay during the pilot. Does not agree
that the post‐denial delay be removed if a project is denied.
How much would it take to re‐submit if you were denied?
‐ Staff comment: could take up to two months
ATTACHMENT 9
4
This is a powerful tool; in certain cases, zoning standards should apply, especially with
residential zones.
Where is compatibility?
‐ Staff comment: Article 3 has standards for compatibility.
Who assigns the points?
‐ Staff: the applicant submits and scores themselves; staff reviews the points; P&Z
is ultimate decision‐maker.
So the points are more subjective? The thresholds aren’t clear, e.g. what is a 2 vs. 4?
What criteria was used to draw the boundary and why wasn’t Riverside included?
LEED, evolution, LUC has evolved – it needs to be handled carefully.
Define an area, stick with the LUC and say there will be more modifications in these
areas. Concerned with subjectivity of measurements.
Neighbors, community, demo/alt notifications– bring the neighbors in early before
significant investment. Need to bring in neighbors from a different context. We need to
get better at this.
PDOD & CSU Stadium?
Informing people – subarea plans, where is this in the matrix? We need to be clearer as
staff about emphasizing subarea plans.
PDOD is a good idea; it’s for the other 5% cases because modifications aren’t always the
right tool.
What about parking? LUC is already very flexible in parking; maximum standards for
commercial projects. There is concern with overcrowding, especially in Downtown.
TOD Overlay south of Prospect – concerned with off‐site parking impacts. No parking
minimums externalize parking issues to the neighborhoods.
CSURF – is their floodplain property in the PDOD boundary? Yes – why?
‐ We should not be making it more flexible for people to build in the floodplain.
‐ Asks that that parcel be removed from the PDOD boundary.
Bike parking – it’s too low (the current standard).
‐ Staff comment: the City is in the process of reviewing the bike parking standard.
TOD minimum parking – good idea, but?
Generally supportive of the pilot:
‐ Like the taskforce and open ended evaluation period
‐ Like that opt‐in is not an option for the pilot
What would happen if we got 20 applications?
Concerned with less predictability
Reminds him of a planned unit development (PUD); see LIV 5.2 – does this conflict?
Subarea plans – should we revisit these? Go to the neighborhoods and ask if it’s
compatible with the subarea plan.
Concerned with preserving Old Town and neighborhoods. Doesn’t want the quality of
life ruined.
Doesn’t address whether “growth is good”.
This is a responsible development plan for the City. If we’re going to grow, this is where
it should be.
We could adjust the boundary based on feedback.
ATTACHMENT 9
5
‐ We could illustrate the zoning districts better.
One way to refine – look at the plans and see where it’s appropriate
The structure of the pilot program for PDOD seems reasonable. In particular the focus
on only the defined overlay district is appropriate. It should be made clear that the six
month pilot period is only to receive proposals. Processing these will likely take longer
than that time line. In addition, making revisions to the matrix and evaluating the pilot
means that City Council will not vote on adoption of PDOD for some time. Creating a
stakeholder evaluation team for the pilot program is a very good idea as all perspectives
can be heard with the likely result of a better final product.
Refine the boundaries of the overlay district. Presently the boundary is based on two
layers‐TOD and activity centers. Add more layers to further define the boundary: 1)
remove unbuildable sites due to floodplain issues and environmentally sensitive areas
along the Poudre river; 2) remove any areas in conflict with City Plan policy LIV 5.2‐this
could include the areas north of Mulberry and east of College.
City Plan encourages targeted infill and redevelopment and is meant to focus along the
community spine. It specifically states that it is not intended to target established
residential neighborhoods adjacent to the community spine.
Strengthen the matrix. City Plan emphasizes that redevelopment must follow the
Community and Neighborhood Livability Chapter (Principle E4, Policy EH4.1 and LIV 5.1).
Neighborhood compatibility regarding redevelopment is referenced in City Plan
(Principle LIV 6 and Policy LIV 6.2. The matrix should more closely reflect the ideas in
this chapter. The elements in the matrix and the categories should more strongly
emphasize neighborhood preservation.
The use of Neighborhood (sub area) Plans as articulated in the Principles and Policies of
City Plan should be more clearly articulated as an absolute criteria in application of
PDOD. The idea is to highlight the existence of sub area plans and the requirement that
they be referenced in developing and reviewing a PDOD proposal.
When final adoption of PDOD occurs, maintain the Post Denial Re‐Submittal Delay. This
feature was recently added to the design review process after careful consideration.
There is no basis for exempting PDOD from this requirement.
June 5, 2012
To: City of Fort Collins
From: Save the Poudre: Poudre Waterkeeper
RE: PDOD (Planned Development Overlay District)
Hello City of Fort Collins,
We previously sent you a letter about PDOD, which was on the Council agenda back on
1/31/2012.
Since that time, we have had the opportunity to meet with your staff regarding PDOD. We’d
like to provide the following input as PDOD works its way through your policy process.
1. Save the Poudre strongly opposes PDOD because it:
a. Eliminates zoning and allows developers to propose any size or type of building on any
property within the PDOD boundary, including along the Poudre River. (PDOD
eliminates Article 4 – “Districts” of the Land Use Code, and instead relies on subjective
interpretations of other City building standards.)
b. Eliminates current density standards and allows developers to propose any amount of
buildings containing any amount of people on any property within the PDOD boundary,
including along the Poudre River. (PDOD eliminates Article 4 – “Districts” of the Land
Use Code, and instead relies on subjective interpretations of other City building
standards.)
c. Places extremely onerous requirements on the public (including public interest groups
such as Save The Poudre) to keep track of and evaluate every proposal through the
development review process. Because prescriptive development requirements for
zoning and density would be eliminated, PDOD would require extreme vigilance on the
part of the public for every proposal to ensure community involvement.
ATTACHMENT 10
d. Essentially negates the Poudre River buffer and natural function of floodplain, both of
which could be proposed to be filled with buildings of any size and density.
e. Relies on a “Performance Matrix” scoring system which requires 45 points on 4 of 7
performance categories for approval. This system flies in the face of the City’s formerly
adopted “Triple Bottom Line” approach. In this new matrix, the “environment health”
category could score a “0” and the development could still be approved. We cannot
accept a new development system that potentially completely sacrifices our
community’s environmental health at the expense of other goals.
2. Save the Poudre requests that a 1,000-foot buffer along the Poudre River corridor be omitted
from PDOD in order to preserve the ecological health of the Poudre River. This buffer will help
ensure that the river is not thrown into the shadows of tall buildings or overwhelmed by dense
buildings and inhabitants. Inside this buffer, current zoning and development regulations
should be maintained.
Thank you for considering our input. Respectfully,
Gary Wockner, PhD, Director
Save the Poudre: Poudre Waterkeeper
http://savethepoudre.org
970-218-8310
ATTACHMENT 10
ATTACHMENT 11
ATTACHMENT 11
ATTACHMENT 12
ATTACHMENT 12
1
Planned Development Overlay District
(PDOD) Pilot
City Council
February 12, 2013
ATTACHMENT 13
2
Action Items
• Ordinance establishing the PDOD pilot
• Ordinance making amendments to Land Use
Code (LUC) Article 3 “General Standards”
3
What’s our Challenge?
• Policy – encourage infill/redevelopment
• Reality – infill/redevelopment is constrained
• LUC – prescriptive, difficult to respond to context
4
PREDICTABILITY
REVIEW PROCESS
What
Citizens
Want
What
Developers
Want
LAND USE
CODE
L.D.G.S.
PDOD
Discretion/Neighbor Input
LEAST MOST
Prescriptive zoning
MOST
Flexible zoning
LEAST
5
How Does PDOD Work?
Flexible application of LUC
development standards
Performance
Matrix
Foundation – existing
Land Use Code
Rewards public
benefits and projects
that exceed
minimum Code
requirements
6
Review Process
Existing
• Project Development Plan
• Final Plan
Conceptual Review
Neighborhood Meeting
Submittal
Type 1 or Type 2
PDOD
• Detailed Development Plan
• Complete Development Plan
Conceptual Review
Neighborhood Meeting
Optional Pre-Submittal Meeting
with P&Z
Submittal
Type 2
7
Land Use
Existing
• Use determined by zoning
• If a use is not permitted:
– Apply for Addition of a
Permitted Use; or
– Re-zone the property
PDOD
• Uses permitted by
underlying zoning
• Other uses considered as
part of review process
8
Development Standards
Existing
• Article 3, General Standards
• Article 4, Districts
• Modifications required if a
standard can not be met
PDOD
• Article 3, General Standards
– Some Sections, only
“General Standards”
apply
– Most Sections apply in
entirety
• Natural Habitat
•Historic
• Engineering
• Performance Matrix
– Minimum 45 points
9
PDOD
What it is…
• Alternative option for
infill/redevelopment
• Grounded by existing
Code
• Considers context and
compatibility
• Encourages creative
solutions
• Rewards public benefits
What it isn’t…
• Mandatory
• Fast-track for approval
• Solely points-based
• Abandonment of
fundamental standards
• A proven concept
10
Pilot Details
• 6-month application period (Mar-Sep 2013)
• Up to 5 applications accepted
• Council may extend application period
• Evaluation during and after pilot with taskforce,
report to Council first quarter 2014
• Must be within boundary
11
Pilot
Boundary
• Green = original
proposal
• Red = pilot
boundary
Prospect
Harmony
Vine
Lemay
Shields
Horsetooth
12
Board/Commission Recommendations
• Adopt PDOD Pilot
– Planning & Zoning Board
– Economic Advisory Commission
– Transportation Board
– Landmark Preservation Commission
– Air Quality Advisory Board
13
Staff Recommendation
• Adopt Ordinance establishing the PDOD pilot
• Adopt Ordinance making amendments to Land
Use Code (LUC) Article 3 “General Standards”
14
Thank You
1
ORDINANCE NO. 024, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE BY THE ADDITION OF A TEMPORARY
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on March 18, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 051, 1997, the
City Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and
WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the
understanding of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be
subject to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of
errors, but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic
document capable of responding to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals
and citizens of the City; and
WHEREAS, in February 2011, City Council adopted City Plan Policy EH 4.2
which directs staff to develop new policies, procedures, and practices to reduce and
resolve barriers to infill development and redevelopment with emphasis on a sustainable,
flexible, and predictable approach to such development; and
WHEREAS, in furtherance of the Planning and Zoning Board’s 2011/2012 Work
Program, which identifies a need for a flexible zoning tool, primarily for redevelopment,
City staff has prepared the Planned Development Overlay Zone District (“PDOD”),
which provides such flexibility while also ensuring that the City’s broader sustainability
goals are met; and
WHEREAS, the PDOD is being proposed as a pilot program to give the City an
opportunity to analyze its viability and, accordingly, is limited to a period of six months
for projects applying for the equivalent of a Project Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council will have the opportunity to extend the proposed
PDOD in the event that, during the six-month term of its existence, there have been
insufficient development proposals presented to the City within the boundaries of the
PDOD map to adequately inform the City Council as to the viability of the District; and
WHEREAS, City staff will evaluate the pilot program during and after its
existence and will report the outcomes to City Council; and
WHEREAS, based on City staff’s report, City Council will determine whether the
PDOD should be continued, amended, or terminated; and
WHEREAS, City staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have reviewed the
proposed Land Use Code changes regarding the PDOD and have recommended to the
City Council that they be adopted; and
2
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use
Code amendments are in the best interest of the City and its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 1.4.9 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new subsection (M) which reads in its entirety as follows:
(M) Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) References. In applying
the provisions of Division 2.15 and Division 4.29 of this Land Use Code,
the term project development plan shall be deemed to mean a detailed
development plan, and the term final plan shall be deemed to mean a
complete development plan. This Land Use Code shall be administered
accordingly unless, with respect to a specific provision, the subject matter
or context requires a different interpretation.
Section 2. That Section 2.2.11(D)(9) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(D) Final Plan and Plat and Other Site Specific Development Plans.
. . .
(9) Post denial re-submittal delay. Property that is the subject of an
overall development plan or a project development plan that has been
denied by the decision maker or denied by City Council upon appeal,
or withdrawn by the applicant, shall be ineligible to serve, in whole or
in part, as the subject of another overall development plan or project
development plan application for a period of six (6) months from the
date of the final decision of denial or the date of withdrawal (as
applicable) of the plan unless the Director determines that the
granting of an exception to this requirement would not be detrimental
to the public good and would: (a) substantially alleviate an existing,
defined and described problem of City-wide concern; or (b) 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. The provisions of this section shall not apply to
applications filed under Division 2.15.
Section 3. That Section 2.8.1 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
3
2.8.1 Purpose and Applicability
The decision maker is empowered to grant modifications to the General
Development Standards contained in Article 3 and the Land Use Standards and
Development Standards contained in Article 4 and any separation or proximity
standards that are established as a specific measurement of distance in the District
Permitted Uses contained in Article 4, either for: (1) overall development plans
and/or project development plans which are pending approval at the time that the
request for proposed modification is filed; (2) overall development plans and/or
project development plans which the applicant intends to file, provided that such
plans are in fact filed with the Director as development applications within one
(1) year following the determination of the decision maker on the request for the
proposed modification; or (3) development plans approved under prior law and
which are sought to be amended (either as a minor or major amendment) pursuant
to Section 2.2.10. This modification of standards process shall not apply so as to
allow any modification of the requirements contained in Division 4.29 of this
Land Use Code.
Section 4. That Article 2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new Division 2.15 which reads in its entirety as follows:
DIVISION 2.15 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT
(PDOD) REVIEW PROCEDURES
2.15.1 Detailed Development Plan
(A) Purpose. The detailed development plan shall contain descriptions of the
uses of the land, the layout of landscaping, circulation, architectural
elevations and buildings and shall include the plat (when such plat is
required pursuant to Section 3.3.1 of this Code). Approval of a detailed
development plan does not establish any vested right to develop property
in accordance with the plan.
(B) Applicability. Upon completion of the conceptual review and preliminary
design review meetings and after the Director has made written comments,
and after a neighborhood meeting has been held, an application for a
PDOD detailed development plan review may be filed with the Director.
(C) Process. A detailed development plan shall be processed according to, in
compliance with, and subject to the provisions contained in Division 2.1
and Steps 1 through 12 of the Common Development Review Procedures,
as follows:
(1) Step 1 (Conceptual Review/Preliminary Design Review):
Applicable.
4
(2) Step 2 (Neighborhood Meeting): Applicable.
(3) Step 3 (Development Application Submittal): All items or
documents required for detailed development plans as described in
the development application submittal master list shall be
submitted. The Director may waive or modify the foregoing
submittal requirements if, given the facts and circumstances of the
specific application, a particular requirement would either be
irrelevant, immaterial, redundant or otherwise unnecessary for the
full and complete review of the application.
(4) Step 4 (Determination of Sufficiency): Applicable.
(5) Step 5 (Staff Report): Applicable.
(6) Step 6 (Notice): Applicable.
(7) Step 7(A) (Decision Maker): All detailed development plans will
be processed as Type 2 reviews.
Step 7(B)-(G) (Conduct of a Public Hearing, Order of Proceedings
at Public Hearing, Decision and Findings, Notification to
Applicant, Record of Proceedings, Recording of Decisions and
Plats): Applicable.
(8) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. A detailed development plan shall
be consistent with Division 4.29; and, when a detailed
development plan is within the boundaries of an approved general
development plan, the detailed development plan shall be
consistent with the general development plan.
(9) Step 9 (Conditions of Approval): Applicable.
(10) Step 10 (Amendments): Applicable.
(11) Step 11 (Lapse): Applicable. Except that the term “detailed
development plan” is referred to as “project development plan”,
and except that the law in effect at the time of filing of the
application shall govern, unless the director determines that it is in
the best interest of the City that this provision be waived.
(12) Step 12 (Appeals): Applicable.
(13) Optional Step A (Pre-application session). Applicants for
approval of detailed development plans in the PDOD are
5
encouraged to participate in the following optional review
procedure:
This optional review is available to applicants that have completed
their conceptual review and neighborhood meeting. Such review is
intended to provide an opportunity for applicants to present
conceptual information to the Planning and Zoning Board about
the ways in which they intend to deal with site constraints, issues
of controversy or opportunities related to the development project.
Applicants participating in such review procedure should present
specific plans showing how, if at all, they intend to address any
issues raised during the initial comments received from staff and
the affected property owners. All pre-application sessions under
this provision will be held in accordance with the provisions
contained in Steps (6), (7)(B), and (7)(C) of the Common
Development Review Procedures, except that the signs required to
be posted under Step (6)(B) shall be posted subsequent to the
scheduling of the session and not less than fourteen (14) days prior
to the date of the session. The Board may, but shall not be required
to, comment on the proposal. Any comment, suggestion, or
recommendation made by any Board member with regard to the
proposal does not bind or otherwise obligate any City decision
maker to any course of conduct or decision pertaining to the
proposal. Only one (1) optional review session may be requested
for any detailed development plan.
2.15.2 Complete Development Plan
(A) Purpose. The purpose and applicability of a complete development plan is
contained in Section 2.1.3(D).
(B) Process. A complete development plan may only be submitted after
approval of a detailed development plan for the subject property or
concurrently with a detailed development plan for the subject property.
For consolidated applications for a detailed development plan and a
complete development plan, the applicant shall follow both the detailed
development plan and complete development plan review procedures.
A complete development plan shall be processed according to, in
compliance with and subject to the provisions contained in Division 2.1
and Steps 1 through 12 of the Common Development Review Procedures
(Sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.12, inclusive) as follows:
(1) Step 1 (Conceptual Review): Not applicable.
(2) Step 2 (Neighborhood Meeting): Not applicable.
6
(3) Step 3 (Development Application Submittal): All items or
documents required for complete development plans as described
in the development application submittal master list shall be
submitted. The Director may waive or modify the foregoing
submittal requirements if, given the facts and circumstances of the
specific application, a particular requirement would either be
irrelevant, immaterial, redundant or otherwise unnecessary for the
full and complete review of the application.
(4) Step 4 (Determination of Sufficiency): Applicable.
(5) Step 5 (Staff Report): Not applicable.
(6) Step 6 (Notice): Not applicable.
(7) Step 7(A)-(C) (Decision Maker, Conduct of Public Hearing, Order
of Proceeding at Public Hearing): Not applicable, and in
substitution therefore, the Director is hereby authorized to, and
shall, review, consider and approve, approve with conditions or
deny the development application for a complete development plan
based on its consistency with a valid detailed development plan for
the subject property and its compliance with all of the standards
established in Step 8 of this Section. The Director may, but is not
obligated to, confer with the applicant or other city staff to obtain
clarification or explanation, gain understanding, suggest revisions,
or otherwise discuss or learn about the development proposal and a
complete development plan, all for the purpose of ensuring a fully
consistent and compliant complete development plan.
Step 7(D) (Decision and Findings): Not applicable, except that
Step 7(D)(3) shall apply.
Step 7(E) (Notification to Applicant): Applicable.
Step 7(F) (Record of Proceedings): Not applicable, except that
Step 7(F)(2) shall apply.
Step 7(G) (Recording of Decisions and Plats): Applicable.
(8) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. A complete development plan
shall comply with Division 4.29 and be consistent with the detailed
development plan.
(9) Step 9 (Conditions of Approval): Applicable.
(10) Step 10 (Amendments): Applicable.
7
(11) Step 11 (Lapse): Applicable. Except that the term “complete
development plan” is referred to as “final plan”.
(12) Step 12 (Appeals): Not applicable. The Director’s decision shall
be final and no appeal of the Director's decision will be allowed;
however, the Director may refer the decision to the Planning and
Zoning Board when the Director is in doubt as to the compliance
and consistency of the complete development plan with the
approved detailed development plan. If the Director refers the
decision to the Planning and Zoning Board, the decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board shall be final and shall not be
appealable to the City Council, notwithstanding any provision of
the City Code to the contrary.
Section 5. That the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new
Division 4.29 which reads in its entirety as follows:
DIVISION 4.29 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT (P-D-O-D)
(A) Purpose and Applicability.
(1) Purpose. The Planned Development Overlay District
(“PDOD”) is a district within certain areas of the City designed to
provide an optional process for reviewing an applicant’s
compliance with the applicable land use, design and development
standards established by underlying zone districts and Article 3 of
this Land Use Code. The district is intended to further the City’s
sustainability goals as set forth in City Plan, and to provide
flexibility in the design of development to best utilize the potential
of sites that are characterized by exceptional geographic features,
topography, size, shape and/or the constraints of existing
development. The district is intended to provide a development
review process that encourages heightened dialogue and
collaboration among applicants, affected property owners,
neighbors and City staff.
(2) Applicability. Any property located within the PDOD (Figure 22)
shall be eligible to develop according to the standards set forth in
Section D at the option of the developer. This Division 4.29 shall
be applicable only to an application for approval of a detailed
development plan which has been filed with the City on or before
September 1, 2013, unless said deadline has been extended by
subsequent ordinance of the City Council. No more than five (5)
applications shall be received and accepted for processing during
the effective term of this ordinance, which term ends on September
1, 2013; and the Director may determine to close the acceptance of
8
applications prior to September 1, 2013, if necessary in order to
properly and adequately process and administer the applications
received.
(a) In order to utilize the PDOD zone district regulations, the
proposed development must be under single ownership or
control to ensure that there is a single entity responsible for
completing the project. The applicant shall provide
sufficient documentation of ownership or control to
indicate the development will be completed in its entirety
by a signal entity as proposed.
9
Figure 22
(B) Permitted Uses.
(1) Any use permitted in the underlying zone district is permitted in
the PDOD.
10
(2) Any use permitted in any other zone district of the City will be
permitted, but only if such use conforms to all of the following
conditions:
(a) Such use is designed compatibly with the other listed
permitted uses in the underlying zone district to which it is
added;
(b) The impacts of such use will be mitigated to the maximum
extent feasible; and
(c) Such use, whether a use permitted in the underlying zone
district or a use permitted in any other zone district of the
City, complies with the land use standards contained in
paragraph (D) of this Section.
(C) Prohibited Uses. There are no expressly prohibited uses in the PDOD
zone district except those uses listed in Section 4.28(C)(1 through 9) of
this Land Use Code, and uses that are not listed as permitted uses in any
zone district of the City.
(D) Land Use Standards. Development in the PDOD shall comply with the
following:
(1) Divisions 3.3 and 3.7 through 3.11 of Article 3 of this Land Use
Code in their entirety;
(2) The “General Standards” of all Sections in Divisions 3.2, and 3.4
through 3.6;
(3) Section 3.4.1 Natural Habitat and Features in its entirety;
(4) Section 3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources in its entirety;
(5) Section 3.6.2 Streets, Streetscapes, Alleys, and Easements in its
entirety; and
(6) Any development in the PDOD must also score at least forty-five
(45) points from at least four (4) categories as established on the
PDOD performance matrix (Figure 23).
Figure 23
11
Application of the Planned Development Overlay District
(PDOD) Performance Matrix
The following provides clarification as to the way in which projects will be evaluated
under the Planned Development Overlay District Performance Matrix and provides more
detailed definitions for the performance criteria contained in the matrix.
The performance criteria established in this performance matrix are not intended to
supersede any requirements established in other documents governing public rights-of-
way such as the Municipal Code, Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, and the
City’s Streetscape Design Standards and Guidelines. Any proposal to implement
performance criteria within public rights-of-way is subject to additional review under the
criteria previously established within the appropriate other documents.
Performance Matrix Evaluation
An applicant may choose which of the performance criteria to incorporate within the
development project and will be assigned a score. A minimum of forty-five (45) points
must be obtained from at least four (4) of the seven (7) performance categories in order
for the development project to be approved.
An applicant may receive a score of 0, 2, or 4 if a particular criterion has been established
in the matrix as being of significant value to the City. The numerical score is assigned
based upon the following:
0 Failure to implement the criterion.
2 Minimal implementation and/or quality of the criterion given the constraints and
opportunities of the site.
4 Standard implementation and/or quality of the criterion given the constraints and
opportunities of the site.
An applicant may receive a score of 0, 1, or 2 if a particular criterion has been established
in the matrix as being of lesser value to the City. The numerical score is assigned based
upon the following:
0 Failure to implement the criterion.
1 Minimal implementation and/or quality of the criterion given the constraints and
opportunities of the site.
2 Standard implementation and/or quality of the criterion given the constraints and
opportunities of the site.
Some of the criteria are worded such that they will either be implemented or not.
Therefore, there are no degrees of implementation for these criteria. Depending upon the
12
value of the criterion to the City, the numerical score is assigned based upon the
following:
0 Failure to implement the criterion.
1/2/4 Implementation of the criterion given the constraints and opportunities of the
site.
Applicant Innovation or Outstanding Performance
Within each performance category is a criterion that is intentionally left blank and can be
completed by the applicant. The purpose of this criterion is to encourage innovative
techniques not otherwise identified within the performance matrix. An applicant must
clearly describe the proposed technique and how it will promote established City policies
relevant to the particular category. Furthermore, an applicant may receive points for
performing exceedingly well in a particular category. There is no limit to the number of
“applicant innovations” within each category. The numerical score for an innovation or
outstanding performance is assigned based upon the following:
0 Failure to implement the criterion.
2 Minimal implementation and/or quality of the criterion given the constraints and
opportunities of the site.
4 Standard implementation and/or quality of the criterion given the constraints and
opportunities of the site.
8 Maximum implementation and/or outstanding performance in the category given the
constraints and opportunities of the site.
Definitions:
Environmental Health
3.5 See Section 3.2(E)(3) of the Land Use Code that details the considerations
associated with waterwise, or xeriscape, landscaping.
3.15
See the Land Use Code definitions in article V: Tree, significant shall mean any
tree with a DBH of six (6) inches or more. Section 3.2.1(F) describes in detail
what a significant tree is within the City of Fort Collins.
Economic Health
2.2
&
2.3
Primary job shall mean a job that derives fifty (50) percent or more of its income
and purchases outside of the City and sells fifty (50) percent or more of its
products or services outside of the City.
2.8 Underdeveloped or underutilized – shall mean a parcel/lot with less than twenty-
five (25) percent of its total land area developed or utilized.
Culture, Parks, and Recreation
1.4
Natural play area shall mean a natural playground, natural playscape, green
playground or natural play environment is an area where children can play with
natural elements such as sand, water and wood. Natural play areas must be
13
designed for active play and preferably by a landscape architect.
Safety and Wellness
7.7
Floatable material shall mean any material that is not secured in place or
completely enclosed in a structure, so that it could float off site during the
occurrence of a flood and potentially cause harm to downstream property owners,
or that could cause blockage of a culvert, bridge or other drainage facility. This
includes, without limitation, lumber, vehicles, boats, equipment, trash dumpsters,
tires, drums or other containers, pieces of metal, plastic or any other item or
material likely to float. Floatable material shall not include motor vehicles parked
temporarily on property for the purpose of customer or employee parking, or a
business's temporary outdoor display of inventory during its usual hours of
operation.
7.8 Fill shall mean a deposit of materials of any kind placed by artificial means.
7.9
Dryland Access shall mean a gravel, paved or concrete access route that connects
a structure to a Dry Public Street, that is constructed above the base flood
elevation, and that is of sufficient width to accommodate both emergency vehicles
and other emergency access during evacuation of the site, considering the
estimated number of people using the site and the expected mode (car, walking) of
evacuation.
Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD)
Performance Matrix
Applicant must score 45 points at minimum from at least 4 categories.
* Definitions are available in the Appendix. Points
Culture, Parks, Recreation
1.1 Incorporates art, sculpture or fountains viewable to the public. 0 1 2
1.2
Designates the site, structure(s) or object(s) determined to be
individually eligible as a local landmark designation or for
individual listing in the State or National Register of Historic
Places.
0 2 4
1.3
Provides a plaza, pedestrian mall, public square, park or other
similar public open space within the project. 0 2 4
1.4
Rather than creating play spaces dominated by turf/sod grasses,
incorporates natural play opportunities into the site.* 0 2 4
1.5
Site is located within ¼ mile of an existing (4 points) or planned
(2 points) bike or other recreational trail and provides a
pedestrian/bike connection to the trail.
0 2 4
1.6
If the site/building is eligible for local landmark designation,
participate in a complementary design review with the Landmark
Preservation Commission, and incorporate feedback into the
design.
0 2 4
14
1.7
If the site/building is eligible for local landmark designation,
participate in the Design Assistance Program administered
through the Historic Preservation Department, and incorporate
feedback into the design.
0 2 4
1.8
Demonstrates innovation or outstanding performance to promote
the City’s culture, parks, and recreation policies: 0 2 4 8
Economic Health
2.1
Creates or retains at least one locally-owned business, meaning a
business enterprise (sole proprietorship, partnership, limited
liability company, corporation, or other similar business entity)
with headquarters located within a 40 mile radius from the City's
Growth Management boundary.
0 1 2
2.2 Retains existing primary jobs.* 0 2
2.3 Creates at least 5 new primary jobs.* 0 2 4
2.4
At least one (1) business created or retained by the project is
associated with one of the City’s established Targeted Industry
Clusters (Bioscience, Water, Clean Energy, Software/Hardware,
Uniquely Fort Collins).
0 1 2
2.5
At least ten (10) percent of residential units are affordable to
households earning between sixty (60) -eighty (80) percent of
Area Median Income (AMI).
0 1 2
2.6
At least ten (10) percent of residential units are affordable to
households earning less than sixty (60) percent of Area Median
Income (AMI).
0 2 4
2.7
Employs at least one (1) local contractor for
design/construction/deconstruction work, meaning a City-
licensed contractor with headquarters located within a forty (40)
mile radius from the City's Growth Management boundary.
0 1 2
2.8 Site is undeveloped, underdeveloped, and/or underutilized.* 0 2
2.9 Site is located within the boundary of an Urban Renewal Plan
Area or the Downtown Development Authority. 0 2
2.10
Locates site within one quarter (¼) mile of an existing (4 points)
or funded (2 points) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stop along the
Mason Corridor.
0 2 4
2.11 Assembles two (2) or more lots/parcels. 0 2 4
2.12 Demonstrates innovation or outstanding performance in
promoting the City’s economic health policies: 0 2 4 8
Environmental Health
3.1 Designs and builds at least one (1) principal building to be
eligible for LEED certification. 0 2 4
3.2
Designs and builds all buildings to exceed the City’s Building
Energy Code by at least ten (10) percent. 0 2 4
15
3.3
Uses runoff from small rainfall events (total rainfall of .5 inches
or less) for landscape irrigation and/or onsite infiltration to
exceed minimum standards in the City’s Stormwater Criteria
Manual. Exceeds minimum standards by 25% (2 points);
exceeds minimum standards by 50% (4 points).
0 2 4
3.4 Uses paving materials with a Solar Reflective Index (SRI) of at
least twenty-nine (29). 0 1 2
3.5 Uses at least fifty (50) percent waterwise landscaping materials.* 0 1 2
3.6 Uses native plants for landscaping as defined in the Fort Collins
Native Plants guide. 0 1 2
3.7
In mixed-use and non-residential developments, includes recycle
containers adjacent to other waste collection receptacles in areas
accessible to the public.
0 1 2
3.8
Implements a three (3)-bin waste system by providing space for
trash, recycling, and composting accessible to residents and/or
tenants.
0 2
3.9
Restores preexisting degraded natural resources area on or
adjacent to the site, e.g. wetlands, native grasslands, riparian
forests, streams.
0 2 4
3.10
If the site is contiguous with a natural area or natural habitat or
feature, creates internally contiguous habitat opportunities on a
minimum of ten (10) percent greater than the requirements
specified in 3.4.1.
0 1 2
3.11
Designs and incorporates on-site renewable energy for at least
five (5) percent of total energy generation using technologies
such as solar, wind, geothermal, or biomass.
0 2 4
3.12
Designs and builds at least one (1) building so that it will readily
accommodate the installation of solar photovoltaic panels or solar
thermal hot water heating devices, including all necessary
conduit, chases, roof penetrations, roof pitch, and orientation.
For projects with multiple buildings, designs and builds at least
twenty (20) percent to be solar ready as described.
0 1 2
3.13
Uses any combination of solar reflective index (SRI) compliant
and vegetated roofing materials, provided they collectively cover
at least seventy-five (75) percent of the total project roof area.
0 2 4
3.14
Specifies and installs high efficiency equipment such as water
heaters, appliances, furnaces or air conditioning units in any
newly constructed or renovated buildings.
0 2
3.15
Protects valuable features including creeks, significant trees and
wetlands and, to the maximum extent feasible, integrate such
16
removal.
3.17
Re-uses deconstructed materials in the construction of new
buildings and/or other site features. 0 2 4
3.18
Provides and retrofits water quality treatment beyond minimum
requirements established in the City's Stormwater Criteria
Manual, including treatment for the original developed site, the
redeveloped portion, and any newly developed area.
0 1 2
3.19
Detains off-site runoff (identify source and provide adequate
volume of storage) beyond minimum requirements established in
the City's Stormwater Criteria Manual.
0 1 2
3.20
Coordinates with adjacent property owners to share water quality
and detention systems and/or facilities. 0 2 4
3.21 Provides on-site composting system(s) to process the site’s
organic waste. 0 1 2
3.22
Develops and implements a long-term vegetation management
plan that ensures proper training for staff, addresses weed
management and native plant establishment, and provides a
funding mechanism to address problems when they occur.
0 4
3.23
Demonstrates innovation or outstanding performance in
promoting the City’s environmental health policies: 0 2 4 8
High Performing Community
4.1
Implements citizen engagement best practices throughout their
development review process such as an extra neighborhood
meeting, design-charrette with neighbors, or interactive project
blog. Provides the City with a written assessment of the needs
and concerns of the adjacent area, and indicates how those needs
and concerns are being addressed by the project design.
0 4
4.2
The business(es) occupying the development is (1 point) or will
become (2 points) a City of Fort Collins Climate Wise partner. 0 1 2
4.3
Participates in the City’s Integrated Design Assistance Program
(IDAP) administered through the Utilities Department using the
Prescriptive Approach.
0 2
4.4
Participates in the City’s Integrated Design Assistance Program
(IDAP) administered through the Utilities Department using the
Whole Building Approach.
0 4
4.5
Utilizes alternative dispute resolution processes, e.g. mediation,
to engage surrounding neighbors in the project design process and
provide the City with a written assessment of the identified
concerns, and address how those are being addressed by the
project.
0 4
4.6 Demonstrates innovation or outstanding performance to promote 0 2 4 8
17
the City’s high performing community policies:
Livability
5.1
Includes two (2) or more use types. No one use shall amount to
less than ten (10) percent or more than eighty (80) percent of the
total development gross floor area. Individual phases of projects
may have a lesser mix if the applicant provides assurances
acceptable to the City that later phases will produce the required
overall mix.
0 2 4
5.2
Locates any residential component of the project within one-half
(½) mile of at least four of the following community facilities:
school, library, childcare or daycare, health care facilities,
community centers, family and human services, community
assembly use, park, recreation facility, public safety, public
buildings.
0 2
5.3 Adapts or re-uses at least one (1) existing non-accessory building
on the site. 0 2 4
5.4 Incorporates a mix of two (2) or more uses vertically. 0 4
5.5
Uses natural stone, synthetic stone, brick and/or concrete
masonry units (solely or in combination) to cover the first floor
elevation on exterior buildings that are visible to the public.
0 1 2
5.6
Adapts and incorporates prominent or distinctive design elements
from neighboring structures, e.g. rooflines, recesses, projections. 0 1 2
5.7
Designs the first floor of mixed-use building(s) so it can
accommodate commercial/retail and residential uses. 0 2
5.8
Includes neighborhood-serving retail in the project, e.g. grocery
store, dry cleaner. 0 1 2
5.9
Demonstrates innovation or outstanding performance in
promoting the City’s community and neighborhood livability
policies:
0 2 4 8
Transportation
6.1 Site is located within one-quarter (¼) mile of existing (4 points)
or planned (2 points) transit stop. 0 2 4
6.2
Provides or enhances an existing pedestrian connection from the
site to an existing or funded transit stop. 0 2 4
6.3
Provides at least one (1) preferred parking space for carpool,
shared-use, and/or other alternatively-fueled vehicles along street-
like private drives and/or parking lots for every twenty-five (25)
parking spaces.
0 1 2
6.4
Uses street-like private drives for internal roadway connections
where connections are not necessary to be public streets. 0 1 2
18
6.5
Establishes pedestrian and bicycle Level Of Service (LOS) A as
defined in the Fort Collins Multimodal Transportation Level of
Service Manual.
0 1 2
6.6
Provides at least one (1) charging station (“plug-in”) along street-
like private drives and/or parking lots for electric/hybrid vehicles. 0 2 4
6.7 Provides secured and covered bicycle storage spaces for residents
or employees. 0 2 4
6.8
Provides or enhances an existing public area and/or facility on
site for awaiting transit passengers. 0 1 2
6.9
Provides bicycle parking spaces greater than ten (10) percent of
the requirements specified in 3.2.2. 0 2 4
6.10 Provides structured or below-ground parking (reduced parking
footprint). 0 2 4
6.11
Provides employees with at least one (1) shower per gender on-
site for every thirty (30) bicycle parking spaces. 0 2 4
6.12 Devotes less than twenty-five (25) percent of site to surface
parking. 0 1 2
6.13 Site is located within one-quarter (¼) mile of a vehicle share
station (auto and/or bike share). 0 2 4
6.14
Coordinates with adjacent property owners to provide shared auto
parking facilities for the development. 0 2 4
6.15 Demonstrates innovation or outstanding performance in
promoting the City’s transportation policies: 0 2 4 8
Safety and Wellness
7.1
Provides at least twenty (20) percent of the total landscaping with
plants that are edible or produce edible material, e.g. fruit or nut-
bearing trees.
0 1 2
7.2
Provides managed open space for a community garden or
composting activity with fencing and/or irrigation as needed. 0 2 4
7.3 Installs fire sprinkler systems in all single-family residential units. 0 4
7.4
Provides an emergency evacuation plan which identifies
important safety features of all buildings, such as exit routes and
internal shelter locations (in case of tornados), safety equipment
such as fire escape ladders or extinguishers, and locations of
shutoffs for gas, water, and electricity.
0 2
7.5 Locates development outside of the flood fringe. 0 4
7.6
If the site is adjacent to a culvert or bridge, relocates buildings
and/or raises the elevation of the lowest floor (including basement
and crawlspace) to minimize flood damage should the culvert or
bridge become blocked by debris during a 100-year flood.
0 2 4
7.7
Refrains from putting floatable materials on a site in the
floodplain fringe of any FEMA or City floodplain.* 0 2 4
19
7.8 Does not put fill in the 100-year flood fringe.* 0 4
7.9 Provides dryland access for 100-year flood.* 0 2 4
7.10 Demonstrates innovation or outstanding performance in
promoting the City’s safety and wellness policies: 0 2 4 8
Section 6. This Ordinance shall terminate and be of no further force and
effect at the close of business on September 1, 2013 unless extended by ordinance of the
City Council.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 12th
day of February, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 19th day of
February, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 19th day of February, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
1
ORDINANCE NO. 025, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE TO ADD OR CLARIFY CERTAIN
“GENERAL STANDARDS” AND “PURPOSE” STATEMENTS
RELATED TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on March 18, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 051, 1997, the City
Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and
WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the understanding
of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject to future
amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors, but also for the
purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic document capable of responding
to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and citizens of the City; and
WHEREAS, in February 2011, City Council adopted City Plan Policy EH 4.2 which
directs staff to develop new policies, procedures, and practices to reduce and resolve barriers to
infill development and redevelopment with emphasis on a sustainable, flexible, and predictable
approach to such development; and
WHEREAS, in furtherance of the Planning and Zoning Board’s 2011/2012 Work
Program, which identifies a need for a flexible zoning tool, City staff has prepared a Planned
Development Overlay District, which provides such flexibility while also ensuring that the City’s
broader sustainability goals are met; and
WHEREAS, in the development of the Planned Development Overlay District, certain
discrepancies were noticed within the Land Use Code regarding missing “General Standards”
within Article 3; and
WHEREAS, in order to properly implement the Planned Development Overlay District
and to provide overall consistency within the Land Use Code, City staff has prepared “General
Standards” where ones were missing or made amendments to existing “General Standards” for
clarity;
WHEREAS, City staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have reviewed the proposed
Land Use Code changes regarding the Planned Development Overlay Zone District and have
recommended to the City Council that they be adopted; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use Code
amendments are in the best interest of the City and its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
2
Section 1. That Section 3.2.3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new subparagraph (C) which reads in its entirety as follows:
3.2.3 Solar Access, Orientation, Shading
. . .
(C) General Standard. All development shall be designed throughout to
accommodate active and/or passive solar installations to the extent reasonably
feasible.
Section 2. That Section 3.2.5 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
3.2.5 Trash and Recycling Enclosures
(A) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to ensure the provision of areas,
compatible with surrounding land uses, for the collection, separation, storage,
loading and pickup of trash and recyclable materialsby requiring that adequate,
convenient space is functionally located at multi-family residential, commercial
and industrial land use sites.
. . .
(C) General Standard. All development, to the extent reasonably feasible, shall
provide adequately sized, conveniently located, accessible trash and recycling
enclosures to accommodate the specific needs of the proposed use.
Section 3. That Section 3.4.3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
3.4.3 Water Quality
The development shall comply with all applicable local, state and federal water quality
standards, including, but not limited to, those regulating erosion and sedimentation, storm
drainage and runoff control, solid wastes, and hazardous substances. Projects shall be
designed so that precipitation runoff flowing from the site is treated in accordance with
the criteria set forth in the Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards.
Treatment measures may include, but shall not be limited to:
minimization of impervious surfaces
runoff spreaders
infiltration devices
extended detention
constructed wetlands
sand filters
3
water quality inlets
General Standard. Projects shall be designed so that precipitation runoff flowing from
the site is treated in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Stormwater Criteria
Manual.
Section 4. That Section 3.4.4 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
3.4.4 Noise and Vibration
The proposed land uses and activities shall be conducted so that any noise generated on
the property will not violate the noise regulations contained in the city’s Noise Control
Ordinance (Chapter 20, Article II of the City Code), and so that any vibration created by
the use of the property will be imperceptible without instruments at any point along the
property line. Noise generated by emergency vehicles and airplanes shall be exempted
from the requirements of this provision.
General Standard. Proposed land uses and activities shall be conducted so that any noise
generated on the property will not violate the noise regulations contained in the City’s
Noise Control Ordinance (Chapter 20, Article II of the City Code), and so that any
vibration caused by the use of the property will be imperceptible without instruments at
any point along the property line.
Section 5. That Section 3.4.8 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
3.4.8 Parks and Trails
(A) Establishment of Parks and Recreation Policy Plan Master Plan. In order to
accomplish the purposes of this Land Use Code, the location, size and
characteristics of parks and trails have been established on a plan entitled "City of
Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan Master Plan" dated December
1996, as amended, which plan is hereby made a part of this Land Use Code by
reference. The Parks and Recreation Policy Plan Master Plan is on file with the
City Clerk.
(B) Purpose. The compliance of development plans with the Parks and Recreation
Policy Plan ensures that the community will have a fair and equitable system of
parks, trail and recreation facilities as the community grows. Establishment of the
facilities in the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan shall generally provide the same
level of service to new portions of the community as the existing community
enjoys.
(BC) Compliance with Parks and Recreation Policy Plan Master Plan General
Standard. All development plans shall provide for or accommodate the parks and
4
trails identified in the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan Master Plan that are
associated with the development plan.
Section 6. That Section 3.5.1(B) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility
. . .
(B) Architectural Character General Standard. New developments in or adjacent to
existing developed areas shall be compatible with the established architectural
character of such areas by using a design that is complementary. In areas where
the existing architectural character is not definitively established, or is not
consistent with the purposes of this Land Use Code, the architecture of new
development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or
redevelopment in the area. Compatibility shall be achieved through techniques
such as the repetition of roof lines, the use of similar proportions in building mass
and outdoor spaces, similar relationships to the street, similar window and door
patterns, and/or the use of building materials that have color shades and textures
similar to those existing in the immediate area of the proposed infill development.
Brick and stone masonry shall be considered compatible with wood framing and
other materials. Architectural compatibility (including, without limitation,
building height) shall be derived from the neighboring context.
. . .
Section 7. That Section 3.5.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows with all remaining subsections relettered accordingly:
3.5.2 Residential Building Standards
(A) Purpose/Applicability. The following standards in this Section are intended to
promote variety, visual interest and pedestrian-oriented streets in residential
development.
(B) General Standard. Development projects containing residential buildings shall
place a high priority on building entryways and their relationship to the street.
Pedestrian usability shall be prioritized over vehicular usability. Buildings shall
include human-scaled elements, architectural articulation, and in projects
containing more than one (1) building, design variation.
. . .
Section 8. That Section 3.5.3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows with all remaining subsections relettered accordingly:
5
3.5.3 Mixed-Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings
(A) Purpose. These standards are intended to promote the design of an urban
environment that is built to human scale. to encourage attractive street fronts and
other connecting walkways that accommodate pedestrians as the first priority,
while also accommodating vehicular movement.
(B) General Standard. Mixed-use and non-residential buildings shall provide
significant architectural interest and shall not have a single, large, dominant
building mass. The street level shall be designed to comport with a pedestrian
scale in order to establish attractive street fronts and walkways. Walkways shall
be designed principally for the purpose of accommodating pedestrians and
pedestrian connections while secondarily accommodating vehicular movement.
Buildings shall be designed with predominant materials, elements, features, color
range and activity areas tailored specifically to the site and its context.
. . .
Section 9. That Section 3.5.4 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition
of a new subparagraph (B) which reads in its entirety as follows with all remaining subsections
relettered accordingly:
3.5.4 Large Retail Establishments
. . .
(B) General Standard. Large retail buildings shall provide a high level of
architectural interest by utilizing high quality materials and design and shall be
compatible with the character of the surrounding area. Large retail buildings shall
have pedestrian and bicycle access and connectivity, and shall mitigate any
negative impacts. Buildings shall be designed with predominant materials,
elements, features, color range and activity areas tailored specifically to the site
and its context.
. . .
Section 10. That Section 3.5.5 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new subsection (B) which reads in its entirety as follows and all remaining
subsections relettered accordingly:
3.5.5 Convenience Shopping Center
. . .
(B) General Standard. Neighborhood convenience shopping centers shall be
compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood utilizing high
6
quality materials and finishes, and shall be internally compatible and harmonious
with respect to quality design, aesthetics and materials, tailored specifically to the
site and its context.
. . .
Section 11. That Section 3.6.1 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of new subsections (A) and (B) which read in their entirety as follows with the current
subsections (A) through (C) relettered accordingly:
3.6.1 Master Street Plan
(A) Purpose. This Section is intended to ensure that the transportation network of
streets, alleys, roadways and trails is in conformance with adopted transportation
plans and policies established by the City.
(B) General Standard. The transportation network of any proposed development shall
be in conformance with the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan, as well as
City adopted access control plans and the Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards.
. . .
Section 12. That Section 3.6.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of new subsections (A) and (B) which reads in their entirety as follows
with the current subsections (A) through (M) renumbered accordingly:
3.6.2 Streets, Streetscapes, Alleys and Easements
(A) Purpose. This Section is intended to ensure that the various components of the
transportation network are designed and implemented in a manner that promotes
the health, safety, and welfare of the City.
(B) General Standard. Public streets, public alleys, private streets, street-like private
drives, and private drives shall be designed and implemented in a manner that
establishes a transportation network that protects the public health, safety, and
welfare. Rights-of-way and/or easements for the transportation system shall be
sufficient to support the infrastructure being proposed. The transportation
network shall clearly identify construction and maintenance responsibilities for
the proposed infrastructure. All responsibilities and costs for the operation,
maintenance and reconstruction of private streets, street-like private drives, and
private drives shall be borne by the property owners. The City shall have no
obligation to operate, maintain or reconstruct such private streets, street-like
private drives, and private drives nor shall the City have any obligation to accept
such private streets, street-like private drives, and private drives.
7
. . .
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 12th day of
February, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 19th day of February, A.D.
2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 19th day of February, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Karen 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 Nelson, 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
February 12, 2013
after the Adjourned Meeting
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Capital Improvements Expansion Fee Update. (staff: Jessica Ping-Small, Mike
Beckstead; 1 hour discussion)
Capital Improvement Expansion Fees were first implemented in 1996. In the fall of 2012,
staff initiated a comprehensive review of the original study. The goal of the review was
to ensure that the methodology first implemented was still applicable and to assess the
fee structure to confirm that it was consistent with the current level of service. To assist
with the review, Finance staff contracted with Duncan Associates, a nationally known
firm that specializes in impact fees.
3. Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study. (staff: Pete Wray, Sherry
Albertson-Clark; 1 hour discussion)
The Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study process included extensive
public outreach that identified neighborhood objectives and issues, and defined the
character and context of the neighborhoods. The Study process and findings are
summarized in a final Strategy Report, dated November 15, 2012. This report also
includes staff recommendations to implement five strategy options that were presented to
February 12, 2013
City Council at the work session on November 27, 2012. The staff recommendations at
that time did not include revising existing Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards, because it
did not reflect a mutually agreeable solution from the public. City Council directed staff
to proceed with implementation of the five strategy options, including development of a
formula to revise the existing maximum FAR standard.
In preparation for this work session, staff prepared two alternatives for Council to
consider for the proposed package of potential Land Use Code (LUC) amendments
included in the Ordinance:
1. Option A reflects a package of Land Use Code amendments that implement the
five recommended strategy options as well as a revision of existing FAR
standards using a new formula.
2. Option B reflects a package of Land Use Code amendments that implement the
five recommended strategy options, but does not include a revision to existing
FAR standards.
4. Other Business.
5. Adjournment.
DATE: February 12, 2013
STAFF: Jessica Ping-Small
Mike Beckstead
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Capital Improvements Expansion Fee Update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Capital Improvement Expansion Fees were first implemented in 1996. In the fall of 2012, staff
initiated a comprehensive review of the original study. The goal of the review was to ensure that the
methodology first implemented was still applicable and to assess the fee structure to confirm that
it was consistent with the current level of service. To assist with the review, Finance staff contracted
with Duncan Associates, a nationally known firm that specializes in impact fees.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What feedback or questions does City Council have related to the draft study regarding:
a. Methodology
b. Fee calculations
c. Factors driving fee adjustments
2. Is there additional information that City Council would like provided prior formal
consideration on March 5, 2013?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Capital Improvement Expansion fees are used to require new developments to pay a proportionate
share of infrastructure costs. The City’s Capital Improvement Expansion fees were originally
prepared and adopted in 1996. The fees included in the study are:
• Neighborhood Parks
• Community Parks
• Fire
• Police
• General Government
Although the fees have been updated annually for inflation according to the Denver-Boulder-
Greeley Consumer Price Index, there has not been a comprehensive review of the study since
implementation.
Staff worked with the Duncan Associates to review the methodology and update the fees. The
February 12, 2013 Page 2
outcome of the study retains the basic methodology of incremental expansion but recommends
minor changes to some of the inputs. The fees have all been updated based on current level of
service which factors in current capital assets for all fees.
Key Updates from 1996 Study
• Neighborhood Parks and Community Parks: Changes have been made in this update in
determining the service units for parks. A service unit is the standard measure of demand
used in calculating capital expansion fees. Per the study conducted by Duncan Associates,
the park fees continue to be based on population, but rather than using population directly,
the number of people is translated into equivalent dwelling units, based on the average
number of residents in an occupied single-family detached unit. This approach has the
advantage of eliminating the need to consider occupancy rates, which can be quite variable
over time.
• Community Parks: A new Trail fee is included in the Community Parkland fee. The fee
will provide funding to help build out our paved trail system. The City is planning to build
an additional 30.7 miles of trail at an estimated cost of 24 million dollars. The Conservation
Trust Fund from the state Lottery provides about 1.2 million dollars annually. Of this
amount, $470,000 is allocated in the budget for new trails and $730,000 is allocated to parks
and trail maintenance. The Natural Areas program also provides $350,000 annually for new
trails, but this funding may not be available after 2014 because it may be needed for Natural
Area operations. This means, without the Trail fee, or other new funding, it will take 50
years to complete the trail system. It should also be noted that the Conservation Trust Fund
is scheduled to sunset in 2024 unless it is extended.
Based on expected population growth rates, staff anticipates collecting $450,000 annually
from the new Trail fee, on average. This revenue, together with the $470,000 from
Conservation Trust would provide $920,000 annually for new trails. This reduces the
time to build out the trail system from 50 years to 25 years.
• Fire, Police and General Government: Functional Population was retained as the service
unit or measure for Fire, Police and General Government. Nonresidential functional
population was simplified from the previous study using a typical weekday versus separate
calculations for weekends.
• General Government: The Streets facilities and equipment was included as part of the
infrastructure for the updated fee calculations. As the Streets facilities and equipment serve
the purpose of General Government, it was appropriate to include them in the current update.
Streets capital was not included in the original 1996 fee calculations.
Updated Fee Structure – What is driving the increase?
• Updated inventory of capital assets which includes facilities and vehicles
• Current level of service has increased based on updated infrastructure information
• Updated household data which resulted in less variation between small and large units then
previous study
February 12, 2013 Page 3
Per the updated fee study, the fees are going up almost across the board. Although the increase may
seem substantial, the calculations are based on the current level of service using up to date capital
asset information and housing data from the American Housing survey which was adjusted for Fort
Collins.
The attached study is in draft form; however, the methodologies and inputs are not likely to change
significantly.
Current Fund Balance Information
1. Neighborhood Parkland Fees
Expenditures shall be made for approved purposes for the acquisition, development and
administration of neighborhood parks, including purchases of new or replacement park site
equipment and plantings.
February 12, 2013 Page 4
• Fund Balance as of December 31, 2012: $5,580,000
• Offers Funded in 2013 Budget: $750,000
• Offers Funded in 2014 Budget: $1,050,000
2. Community Parkland Fees
Expenditures shall be made for the acquisition, construction and development of capital
improvements related to the provision of community parklands.
• Fund Balance as of December 31, 2012: $8,750,000
• Offers Funded in the 2013 Budget: $1,270,000
3. Fire Protection Capital Improvement Expansion Fees
Expenditures shall be made for the acquisition, construction and development of capital
improvements related to the provision of fire protection services to City residents, as
described in the capital improvements plan for fire protection.
• Fund Balance as of December 31, 2012: $190,000. The balance is being used by
Poudre Fire Authority to pay debt service on Station #4.
4. Police Capital Expansion Fees
Expenditures shall be made for the acquisition, construction and development of capital
improvements related to the provision of police services as described in the capital
improvements plan for police services.
• Fund Balance as of December 31, 2012: $960,000. The balance is being used to pay
debt service on new Police Facility.
5. General Government Capital Expansion Fees
Expenditures shall be made for the purpose of funding capital improvements related to the
provision of general governmental services.
• Fund Balance as of December 31, 2012: $6,030,000 of which $5,000,000 has been
loaned to the URA for North College Marketplace and JAX, leaving only $1,030,000
in liquid investments, it was not anticipated this money was needed before the loan
will be repaid.
NEXT STEPS
City Council will formally consider the recommended updates to the Capital Improvement
Expansion Fees at the March 5, 2013 Regular Meeting.
February 12, 2013 Page 5
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Fee Study
2. Power Point Presentation
Capital Expansion Fee Study
for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado
prepared by
February 2013
ATTACHMENT 1
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 1
Background....................................................................................................................................... 1
Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 1
Demand Factors .............................................................................................................................. 1
Comparative Fees ............................................................................................................................ 2
PARKS .................................................................................................................................................. 4
Service Units ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Cost per Service Unit ...................................................................................................................... 5
Net Cost per Service Unit .............................................................................................................. 7
Potential Fees ................................................................................................................................... 7
FIRE ...................................................................................................................................................... 9
Service Units ..................................................................................................................................... 9
Cost per Service Unit ...................................................................................................................... 9
Net Cost per Service Unit ............................................................................................................ 10
Potential Fees ................................................................................................................................. 10
POLICE .............................................................................................................................................. 12
Service Units ................................................................................................................................... 12
Cost per Service Unit .................................................................................................................... 12
Net Cost per Service Unit ............................................................................................................ 13
Potential Fees ................................................................................................................................. 14
GENERAL GOVERNMENT ....................................................................................................... 15
Service Units ................................................................................................................................... 15
Cost per Service Unit .................................................................................................................... 15
Net Cost per Service Unit ............................................................................................................ 16
Potential Fees ................................................................................................................................. 16
APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ................................................................................. 18
Average Household Size by Housing Types ............................................................................. 18
Average Household Size by Unit Size ........................................................................................ 19
Existing Housing Units by Type ................................................................................................. 21
APPENDIX B: FUNCTIONAL POPULATION ...................................................................... 22
Residential Functional Population .............................................................................................. 22
Nonresidential Functional Population ....................................................................................... 23
Total Functional Population ........................................................................................................ 24
List of Tables
Table 1. Current and Updated Capital Expansion Fees ................................................................ 3
Table 2. Park Service Unit Multipliers ............................................................................................. 4
Table 3. Park Service Units, 2012 ..................................................................................................... 4
Table 4. Existing Park and Trail Facilities ....................................................................................... 5
Table 5. Neighborhood Park Development Cost per Acre .......................................................... 5
Table 6. Community Park Development Cost per Acre ............................................................... 6
Table 7. Park Cost per Service Unit ................................................................................................. 7
Table 8. Potential Park Capital Expansion Fees............................................................................. 8
Table 9. Comparative Park Capital Expansion Fees ...................................................................... 8
Table 10. Existing Fire Stations ........................................................................................................ 9
Table 11. Existing Fire Cost per Service Unit .............................................................................. 10
Table 12. Potential Fire Capital Expansion Fees ......................................................................... 10
Table 13. Comparative Fire Fees .................................................................................................... 11
Table 14. Existing Police Vehicles .................................................................................................. 12
Table 15. Existing Police Cost per Service Unit ........................................................................... 13
Table 16. Police Debt Credit ........................................................................................................... 13
Table 17. Police Net Cost per Service Unit .................................................................................. 14
Table 18. Potential Police Capital Expansion Fees ...................................................................... 14
Table 19. Comparative Police Fees ................................................................................................ 14
Table 20. Existing General Government Facilities ...................................................................... 15
Table 21. General Government Cost per Service Unit ............................................................... 15
Table 22. General Government Debt Credit ................................................................................ 16
Table 23. General Government Net Cost per Service Unit ....................................................... 16
Table 24. Potential General Government Capital Expansion Fees ........................................... 16
Table 25. Comparative General Government Fees ..................................................................... 17
Table 26. Average Household Size, 2000 and 2010 ..................................................................... 18
Table 27. Average Household Size by Housing Type, 2000 ...................................................... 18
Table 28. Average Household Size by Housing Type, 2006-2010 ............................................ 19
Table 29. Change in Average Household Size, 2000-2010 ......................................................... 19
Table 30. Current Average Household Size by Housing Type .................................................. 19
Table 31. Average Household Size by Dwelling Unit Size, Western U.S., 2011 ..................... 20
Table 32. Dwelling Units by Housing Type, Fort Collins, 2000-2010 ...................................... 21
Table 33. Dwelling Units by Housing Type, Fort Collins, 2012 ................................................ 21
Table 34. Functional Population per Unit for Residential Uses ................................................ 23
Table 35. Functional Population per Unit for Nonresidential Uses ......................................... 24
Table 36. Existing Functional Population ..................................................................................... 24
Prepared by Duncan Associates
360 Nueces St., Suite 2701, Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 258-7347 x204, clancy@duncanassociates.com
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 1 February 1, 2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study provides the analysis required to update the City’s capital expansion fees for
neighborhood park, community park, fire, police and general government facilities. The City’s
capital expansion fees are impact fees that assess new developments for the proportionate share of
the cost of new capital facilities required to serve them at the same level of service provided to
existing development.
Background
The City’s capital expansion fees were originally adopted in June 1996, based on a study prepared by
City staff.1 The fees have been updated periodically to account for inflation, but have not been
comprehensively reevaluated in 16 years. The current community park fees are about 82% higher
than the ones originally calculated in 1996, while the fire, police and general government fees are
about 50% higher than originally calculated. The park fees were increased by 14% in 2000 to
include the cost of irrigation water and required Americans with Disabilities Act improvements.
Excluding this adjustment, the park fees were increased by 68% over the 16 year period to account
for inflation. By way of comparison, the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index increased
by 66% from June 1996 to June 2012.
Methodology
The same basic methodology employed in the 1996 study is retained in this update. The overall
methodology is known as “incremental expansion.” The incremental expansion methodology bases
the fees on the existing level of service. The concept behind the incremental expansion
methodology is simple: as a community grows, capital facilities and equipment will need to be
expanded proportional to the growth. The existing level of service, whether measured directly in
terms of cost per service unit or indirectly in terms of an intervening variable, such as acres of
parkland, is assumed to be adequate to serve existing development, but with little or no excess
capacity to serve growth (an exception in this update is that the new police station is estimated to
have about 25% excess capacity to serve future development).
Demand Factors
In impact fee analysis, the demand for services generated by different types of development must be
expressed in terms of a common measure, known as a service unit. For example, residential
population is a commonly-used service unit for park impact fees. For each land use type, the
number of service units expected to be generated by a unit of development is specified in what is
often called a demand equivalency table. In this table, for example, a new single-family detached
home may be determined to house an average number of residents.
Some changes have been made in this update in determining the service units and demand
equivalency tables. The park fees continue to be based on population, but rather than using
population directly, the number of people is translated into equivalent dwelling units, based on the
1 City of Fort Collins, Capital Expansion Cost Study, May 21, 1996.
Executive Summary
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 2 February 1, 2013
average number of residents in an occupied single-family detached unit. This approach has the
advantage of eliminating the need to consider occupancy rates, which can be quite variable over
time. Functional population is retained as the service unit for fire, police and general government
fees. Functional population represents the number of people present at a land use, expressed in full-
time equivalents.
While the service units are relatively unchanged, the methodology used to calculate the demand
equivalency tables have been modified somewhat in this update. The park fees are based on
dwelling unit size, expressed in square footage and divided into five size ranges (up to 700 square
feet, for example). To determine persons per unit by unit size, the 1996 study relied on census data,
which does not include information on the size of the dwelling unit. Since the census does provide
data on the number of bedrooms, bedrooms were used as an indicator of unit size. Building permit
data were analyzed to determine the relationship between bedrooms and square footage, and
regression analysis was used to determine persons by unit size ranges. This update relies on a single
data source, the American Housing Survey, that provides information on both number of residents
and unit size. Since the data provided by the American Housing Survey are regional (western United
States), the results have been adjusted to match the overall average household size in Fort Collins.
The basic functional population methodology used in the 1996 study was also used in this update. A
minor change was to simplify the calculation of functional population multipliers for nonresidential
land uses. The 1996 study calculated nonresidential functional population on a weekly basis, with
separate calculations for weekdays and weekends, while this update uses a daily approach based on a
typical weekday.
Comparative Fees
Current and updated capital expansion fees are shown in Table 1. As noted, this is the first
comprehensive update of the City’s capital expansion fees in 16 years. All of the inputs into the
calculation of fees were updated. This update included an inventory of existing capital facilities,
determination of current costs and identification of existing levels of service. Changes in costs and
levels of service, however, would cause fees to go up or down uniformly for all land use types.
Changes to inputs that would affect fees differently by land use type are related to the demand
equivalency tables discussed above. Changes to residential fees by unit size for all the fee types are
the result of utilizing a more direct data source for linking residents and unit size. This resulted in
less variation between the number of residents in the smallest and largest size ranges than was found
in the 1996 study. Consequently, the updated fees for smaller units increase more than fees for
larger units.
Fire and police tend to increase less for nonresidential than for residential units, while the opposite
is true for general government fees. This reflects changes in the functional population multipliers.
While the calculation of residential functional population is simple and unchanged from the previous
study, the calculation of nonresidential functional population requires many inputs, including trip
generation rates, average vehicle occupancy, employee density and average time spent at a land use.
Since the 1996 study did not specify what inputs were used, it is not possible to determine precisely
what input changes were responsible for the residential/nonresidential variability in the updated fees
compared to the current fees.
Executive Summary
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 3 February 1, 2013
The total of all five fees is higher than current fees for all land uses except for the largest residential
units. It should be kept in mind while that the percentage increases for nonresidential look high, the
nonresidential fees are relatively low. For example, the 89% increase for commercial equates to only
$0.56 more per square foot.
Table 1. Current and Updated Capital Expansion Fees
N'hood Comm. Gen.
Land Use Type Unit Park Park Fire Police Gov't Total
Current Fees
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $920 $1,023 $110 $74 $139 $2,266
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,302 $1,451 $157 $107 $197 $3,214
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,531 $1,704 $183 $127 $231 $3,776
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,759 $1,961 $211 $145 $267 $4,343
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,142 $2,385 $257 $177 $324 $5,285
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $0 $0 $225 $157 $252 $634
Industrial 1,000 sq. ft. $0 $0 $62 $43 $70 $175
Updated Fees
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,181 $1,475 $260 $128 $300 $3,344
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,515 $1,893 $331 $162 $384 $4,285
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,674 $2,091 $366 $180 $423 $4,734
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,744 $2,179 $381 $187 $443 $4,934
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,868 $2,333 $408 $200 $475 $5,284
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $0 $0 $314 $154 $730 $1,198
Industrial 1,000 sq. ft. $0 $0 $75 $37 $171 $283
Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $261 $452 $150 $54 $161 $1,078
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $213 $442 $174 $55 $187 $1,071
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $143 $387 $183 $53 $192 $958
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling -$15 $218 $170 $42 $176 $591
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling -$274 -$52 $151 $23 $151 -$1
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $0 $0 $89 -$3 $478 $564
Industrial 1,000 sq. ft. $0 $0 $13 -$6 $101 $108
Percent Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 28% 44% 136% 73% 116% 48%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 16% 30% 111% 51% 95% 33%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 9% 23% 100% 42% 83% 25%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling -1% 11% 81% 29% 66% 14%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling -13% -2% 59% 13% 47% 0%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. n/a n/a 40% -2% 190% 89%
Industrial 1,000 sq. ft. n/a n/a 21% -14% 144% 62%
Source: Current fees from City of Fort Collins, Annual Report of Development Impact Fees, Reported as of June 30, 2012;
updated fees from Table 8 (parks), Table 12 (fire), Table 18 (police) and Table 24 (general government).
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 4 February 1, 2013
PARKS
The City provides a number of public park facilities for the benefit of residents. This section
calculates updated community and neighborhood park capital expansion fees.
Service Units
The demand for City park facilities is generated by people. However, it is preferable to base the
service unit on housing units, since the number of housing units can be more easily determined than
the number of people, which is affected by highly variable occupancy rates. The proposed service
unit for the park impact fee update is an equivalent dwelling unit or EDU. An EDU represents the
average number of people living in a single-family detached dwelling unit. A single-family home is
by definition one park service unit. The number of service units associated with other types and
sizes of dwelling units is determined by dividing average household size of that housing type by the
average household size of a single-family unit. The resulting service unit multipliers are presented in
Table 2.
Table 2. Park Service Unit Multipliers
Average Single-Family EDUs/
Housing Type Unit HH Size Avg. HH Size Unit
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 2.76 2.76 1.00
Multi-Family Dwelling 1.85 2.76 0.67
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.86 2.76 0.67
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.38 2.76 0.86
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.62 2.76 0.95
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.73 2.76 0.99
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.93 2.76 1.06
Source: Average household size from Table 30 and Table 31 in Appendix A; EDUs/unit is average
household size divided by single-family average household size.
The existing number of service units can be determined by multiplying the estimated number of
housing units by the service unit multipliers for each housing type and summing. Existing service
units (EDUs) in the City of Fort Collins are calculated in Table 3.
Table 3. Park Service Units, 2012
Existing EDUs/ Existing
Housing Type Unit Units Unit EDUs
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 35,838 1.00 35,838
Multi-Family Dwelling 25,846 0.67 17,317
Total 53,155
Source: Existing units from Table 33 in Appendix A; EDUs per unit from Table 2.
Parks
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 5 February 1, 2013
Cost per Service Unit
The City of Fort Collins provides a variety of parks and recreation facilities for it residents. Existing
park and trail facilities are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4. Existing Park and Trail Facilities
Park Facility Type Number Acres
Developed Community 6 507.65
Developed Neighborhood 27 352.48
Developed Pocket 11 14.83
Total Developed Acres 874.96
Undeveloped Parks/Natural Features 75.75
Total Park Acres 950.71
Trails 4 121.24
Source: City of Fort Collins Park Planning, December 4, 2012 and
January 8, 2013.
The cost per acre to develop a neighborhood park is shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Neighborhood Park Development Cost per Acre
General conditions, mobilization $60,000 Site survey and plat $7,000
Traffic control $7,000 Envirionemntal studies $10,000
Adjacent street improvements $15,000 Landscape architecture firm $6,000
Access drive and parking lot $20,000 Architect $30,000
Domestic water system $17,000 Engineering firm $15,000
Sanitory sewer system $25,000 Soils evaluation/testing $8,000
Demolition $7,000 Irrigation design $6,000
Topsoil management $25,000 As-built stormwater survey $5,000
Storm drainage improvements $15,000 Stormwater analysis/floodplain $15,000
Earthwork $70,000 Subtotal, Consultant Fees $102,000
Electrical service $15,000
Underground irrigation system $70,000
Lined irrigation pond $65,000 Street oversizing and local $5,000
Irrigation pump house and pumps $85,000 Light & Power charges $7,000
Raw water delivery system $15,000 Water plant investment fee $15,000
Restroom $200,000 Raw water fee $10,000
Picnic shelter(2) $55,000 Sewer plant investment fee $3,500
Playground infrastructure $25,000 Plan check and permit fees $2,000
Playground equipment/surface $70,000 Stormwater drainage fees $6,000
Sidewalks - concrete $20,000 Subtotal, Development Fees $48,500
Plaza area $20,000
Special feature - multi-use pad $35,000
Ballfield $30,000 Administration $80,000
Site lighting $5,000 Park mainteance facility $30,000
Landscape, trees, etc. $45,000 APP $11,781
Soil prep, and seeding $45,000 Raw water for irrigaiton $80,000
Bike racks, picnic tables, etc. $10,000 Total Development Cost $1,530,381
Contingency and change orders $107,100 ÷ Acres 6.8
Subtotal, Construction $1,178,100 Development Cost per Acre $225,056
Source: City of Fort Collins Park Planning, December 4, 2012 (2011 pricing).
Parks
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 6 February 1, 2013
The cost per acre to develop a community park is shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Community Park Development Cost per Acre
General conditions $250,000 Bike racks, picnic tables, entry, etc. $250,000
Traffic control $10,000 Signage $50,000
Adjacent street improvements $100,000 Maintenance facility $200,000
Access drive and parking lots $840,000 Contingency and change orders $783,800
Domestic water system $60,000 Subtotal, Construction $7,338,000
Sanitary sewer system $55,000
Demolition $40,000 Site survey and plat $10,000
Topsoil removal/replacement $50,000 Environmental studies $15,000
Earthwork $475,000 Landscape Architecture firm $300,000
Strom drainage improvements $100,000 Architecture $80,000
Electrical & telecomm. service $300,000 Engineering firm $100,000
Underground irrigation system $500,000 Soils engineer site evaluation $35,000
Lined irrigation pond $60,000 Soils eningeer construction testing $40,000
Irigation pumphouse & pump $80,000 Irrigation design $70,000
Raw water delivery system $25,000 As-built survey w/stormwater need $15,000
Restrooms $470,000 Stormwater analysis $10,000
Picnic shelter (4) $350,000 Subtotal, Consultant Fees $675,000
Playground infrastructure $300,000
Playground equipment $500,000 Street oversizing and local $70,000
Sidewalks concrete/gravel paths $220,000 Light & Power charges $140,000
Plaza areas $163,000 Water plant investment fee $5,000
Special features, bike trials, etc. $10,000 Raw water fee- domestic $7,000
Ballfield (2) $80,000 Sewer plant investment fee $2,500
Skate park $200,000 Plan check and permit fees $45,000
Dog park with pond $120,000 Public R.O.W. inspection fees $45,000
Tennis courts $80,000 Storm drainage fee $15,000
Basketball courts $120,000 Subtotal, Development Fees $329,500
Splash park complete $150,000
Site features, walls, etc. $240,000 Administration $160,000
Site trail bridges, culverts, etc. $90,000 Art in Public Places $95,000
Site fencing $100,000 Raw water $300,000
Site lighting: ball fields, tennis, etc. $300,000 Total Development Cost $8,897,500
Landscape, trees, etc. $500,000 ÷ Acres 74.6
Soil prep and seeding $400,000 Development Cost per Acre $119,269
Source: City of Fort Collins Parks Department, December 2012 (2011 pricing).
The existing level of service can be expressed in terms of the current cost per service unit, as shown
in Table 7. The total cost represents the expenditure that would be required to acquire the amount
of existing developed park land and to develop that land as parks and trails at today’s prices. The
total cost is divided by the existing number of service units to determine the cost per service unit to
provide the same level of service to future residents.
Parks
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 7 February 1, 2013
Table 7. Park Cost per Service Unit
Neighborhood/ Community
Pocket Parks Parks/Trails
Developed Acres 367.31 507.65
x Development Cost per Acre $225,056 $119,269
Existing Park Facility Cost $82,665,319 $60,546,908
Total Acres 367.31 628.89
x Land Cost per Acre $30,000 $30,000
Existing Park Land Cost $11,019,300 $18,866,700
Miles of Trails na 34.00
x Construction Cost per Mile na $1,104,626
Existing Trail Cost na $37,557,284
Total Existing Facility Cost $93,684,619 $116,970,892
÷ Existing EDUs 53,155 53,155
Cost per EDU $1,762 $2,201
Source: Developed and total acres from Table 4; development cost per acre from
Table 5 and Table 6; land cost per acre, miles of trails and trail cost per mile from
Park Planning, December 5, January 18, 2013 and February 1, 2013; existing EDUs
from Table 3.
Net Cost per Service Unit
Impact fees should be reduced in order to account for other types of revenues that will be generated
by new development and used to fund capacity-expanding improvements of the same type as those
to be funded by the impact fees. Cases in which such a credit is warranted include funding of
existing deficiencies and outstanding debt payments on existing facilities. Since the fees are based
on the existing level of service, there are no deficiencies. The City has no outstanding debt on past
park improvements. Consequently, no credits against the park impact fee are required based on
these criteria, and the net cost per service unit is the same as the cost per service unit calculated
above.
Potential Fees
The maximum neighborhood and community park capital expansion fees that may be adopted by
the City based on this study are determined by multiplying the number of service units generated by
a dwelling unit by the net cost per service unit. The resulting fee schedules are presented in Table 8.
Parks
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 8 February 1, 2013
Table 8. Potential Park Capital Expansion Fees
EDUs/ Net Cost/ Net Cost/
Land Use Type Unit per Unit EDUs Unit
Neighborhood Parks
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.67 $1,762 $1,181
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.86 $1,762 $1,515
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.95 $1,762 $1,674
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.99 $1,762 $1,744
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.06 $1,762 $1,868
Community Parks
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.67 $2,201 $1,475
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.86 $2,201 $1,893
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.95 $2,201 $2,091
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.99 $2,201 $2,179
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.06 $2,201 $2,333
Source: EDUs per unit from Table 2; net cost per EDU is cost per EDU from Table 7.
The updated park fees are compared to current fees in Table 9. In general, the updated fees are
higher for smaller units and lower for larger units. This reflects the fact that this study found that
larger units have fewer residents than was found in the 1996 study.
Table 9. Comparative Park Capital Expansion Fees
Current Fee Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type Unit per Unit per Unit Change
Neighborhood Parks
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $920 $1,181 28%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,302 $1,515 16%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,531 $1,674 9%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,759 $1,744 -1%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,142 $1,868 -13%
Community Parks
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,023 $1,475 44%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,451 $1,893 30%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,704 $2,091 23%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,961 $2,179 11%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,385 $2,333 -2%
Total Parks
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,943 $2,656 37%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,753 $3,408 24%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $3,235 $3,765 16%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $3,720 $3,923 5%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $4,527 $4,201 -7%
Source: Current fee from City of Fort Collins, Capital Improvement Expansion Fees, Effective January 2,
2012; updated fees from Table 8.
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 9 February 1, 2013
FIRE
Fire protection and rescue service is provided in Fort Collins by the Poudre Fire Authority. The
City owns the fire stations and apparatus that are located within the city limits. This section
calculates updated fire capital expansion fees.
Service Units
The two most common methodologies used in calculating public safety (fire and police) service units
and impact fees are the “calls-for-service” approach and the “functional population” approach. The
1996 study used the functional population approach, and this update retains this methodology. This
approach is a generally-accepted methodology for both fire and police impact fee types, and is based
on the observation that demand for public safety facilities tends to be proportional to the presence
of people. This approach generates service unit multipliers that are similar to those based on call
data, but are more stable over time.2 The service unit is functional population. The description of
the functional population methodology, the calculation of the service unit multipliers and the
determination of existing fire and police service units are presented in Appendix B.
Cost per Service Unit
The cost per service unit to provide fire protection to new development is based on the current level
of service provided to existing development. The level of service is quantified as the ratio of the
replacement cost of existing fire capital facilities to existing fire service units. The existing fire
stations within the city limits are summarized in Table 10.
Table 10. Existing Fire Stations
Building Building
Facility Address Acres Sq. Feet Cost
Fire Station #1 Peterson 505 0.54 8,516 $1,672,835
Fire Station #2 S. Bryan 415 0.31 4,376 $729,125
Fire Station #3 Mathews 2000 0.55 6,500 $688,295
Fire Station #4 1945 W. Drake 3.54 15,380 $2,616,461
Fire Station #5 Hogan 4615 1.18 8,773 $1,431,268
Fire Station #6 Donella Ct. 2511 1.69 11,603 $1,635,268
Fire Station #7 N. Overalnd Trail 2817 0.24 5,627 $706,413
Fire Station #10 Vermont 2067 0.62 9,830 $1,213,549
Fire Station #12 E. Country Club Rd. 321 1.09 9,800 $1,308,246
Fire Station #14 2109 Westchase Rd. 0.89 10,800 $1,236,189
Total 10.65 91,205 $13,237,649
Source: City of Fort Collins and Poudre Fire Authority, December 3 and 5, 2012.
2 See Clancy Mullen, Fire and Police Demand Multipliers: Calls-for-Service versus Functional Population, proceedings of the
National Impact Fee Roundtable, Arlington, VA, October 5, 2006 http://growthandinfrastructure.org/proceedings/
2006_proceedings/fire%20police%20multipliers.pdf
Fire
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 10 February 1, 2013
The fire stations and equipment serving existing development in Fort Collins have a total estimated
replacement cost of $31 million, as summarized in Table 11. Dividing the total cost of existing
capital facilities and equipment by the existing functional population results in a cost of $208 per
service unit.
Table 11. Existing Fire Cost per Service Unit
Fire Facility Building Replacement Cost $13,237,649
Fire Facility Land Cost $319,500
Fire Vehicle Replacement Cost $17,607,388
Total $31,164,537
÷ Existing Functional Population (24-Hour) 149,740
Net Cost per Functional Population $208
Source: Existing building cost from Table 10; land cost based on acres from
Table 10 and $30,000 cost per acre; vehicle replacement cost from City of
Fort Collins, December 5, 2012; existing 24-hour functional populaiton from
Table 36.
Net Cost per Service Unit
Impact fees should be reduced in order to account for other types of revenues that will be generated
by new development and used to fund capacity-expanding improvements of the same type as those
to be funded by the impact fees. Cases in which such a credit is warranted include funding of
existing deficiencies and outstanding debt payments on existing facilities. There are no existing
deficiencies, since the fees are based on the existing level of service. The City does not have any
debt on existing fire stations or capital leases on fire vehicles. Consequently, the net cost per service
units is the same as the cost per service unit calculated above
Potential Fees
The maximum fire capital expansion fees that may be adopted by the City based on this study are
determined by multiplying the number of service units generated by a unit of development by the
net cost per service unit. The resulting fee schedule is presented in Table 12.
Table 12. Potential Fire Capital Expansion Fees
Func. Pop. Net Cost/ Net Cost/
Land Use Type Unit per Unit Func. Pop. Unit
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.25 $208 $260
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.59 $208 $331
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.76 $208 $366
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.83 $208 $381
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.96 $208 $408
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. 1.51 $208 $314
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 0.36 $208 $75
Source: Functional population per unit from Table 34 and Table 35 in Appendix B; net cost per
functional population is cost per functional population from Table 11.
Fire
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 11 February 1, 2013
Table 13 compares the current fire fees with the updated fire fees. The updated fees increase more
for residential than for nonresidential uses, and more for smaller residential units than larger ones.
Table 13. Comparative Fire Fees
Current Fee Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type Unit per Unit per Unit Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $110 $260 136%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $157 $331 111%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $183 $366 100%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $211 $381 81%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $257 $408 59%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $225 $314 40%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $62 $75 21%
Source: Current fees from City of Fort Collins, Capital Improvement Expansion Fees, Effective January 2,
2012; updated fees from Table 12.
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 12 February 1, 2013
POLICE
The City provides police protection throughout the town. This section calculates updated police
capital expansion fees.
Service Units
The two most common methodologies used in calculating public safety (fire and police) service units
and impact fees are the “calls-for-service” approach and the “functional population” approach. The
1996 study used the functional population approach, and this update retains this methodology. This
approach is a generally-accepted methodology for both fire and police impact fee types, and is based
on the observation that demand for public safety facilities tends to be proportional to the presence
of people. This approach generates service unit multipliers that are similar to those based on call
data, but are more stable over time. The service unit is functional population. The description of
the functional population methodology, the calculation of the service unit multipliers and the
determination of existing fire and police service units are presented in Appendix B.
Cost per Service Unit
The cost per service unit to provide police protection to new development is based on the existing
level of service provided to existing development. The level of service is quantified as the ratio of
the replacement cost of existing police capital facilities to existing police service units.
The replacement cost of existing police vehicles is shown in Table 14.
Table 14. Existing Police Vehicles
Vehicle Type Number Unit Cost Total Cost
Bearcat 1 $233,554 $233,554
Car 24 $22,000 $528,000
Mini-Bus 1 $77,313 $77,313
Motorcycle 3 $20,841 $62,523
Patrol Car 105 $33,845 $3,553,725
Patrol Pickup 1 $75,845 $75,845
Patrol SUV 28 $40,025 $1,120,700
Patrol Van 13 $32,950 $428,350
Pickup 6 $26,923 $161,538
Police Car 1 $18,967 $18,967
Police Van 1 $29,125 $29,125
SUV 14 $37,727 $528,178
Van 9 $29,125 $262,125
Total 207 $7,079,943
Source: City of Fort Collins, December 5, 2012.
The City’s recently-completed new police station was built with some excess capacity to serve future
growth. According to the City, approximately 25% of the building represents excess capacity.
Consequently, only 75% of the cost will be included in determining the current level of service (cost
per service unit) for existing development. Including vehicles and equipment, the portion of the
City’s existing police facilities serving existing development has a total estimated replacement cost of
Police
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 13 February 1, 2013
$34.7 million, as summarized in Table 15. Dividing the cost of existing capital facilities and
equipment serving existing development by existing service units results in a cost of $231 per
functional population.
Table 15. Existing Police Cost per Service Unit
Police Station Building Square Feet 99,878
Police Station Land Acres 7.53
Police Station Building/Land Value (75%) $20,294,687
Police Firing Range Value $351,930
Police Facility Contents Value $6,937,981
Police Vehicle Replacement Value $7,079,943
Total Police Facility/Equipment Value $34,664,541
÷ Existing Functional Population (24-Hour) 149,740
Police Cost per Functional Population $231
Source: Building square feet, acres and replacement values from City of
Fort Collins, December 5, 2012 (75% of police station deemed to serve
existing development); existing functional population from Table 36.
Net Cost per Service Unit
Impact fees should be reduced in order to account for other types of revenues that will be generated
by new development and used to fund capacity-expanding improvements of the same type as those
to be funded by the impact fees. Cases in which such an offset is warranted include funding of
existing deficiencies and outstanding debt payments on existing facilities. Since the updated fees are
based on the existing level of service, there are no existing deficiencies.
The City has some outstanding debt on the police station, as well as outstanding capital lease
payments on some vehicles. A relatively simple way to calculate a credit for outstanding debt is to
divide the debt by the number of existing service units. This places new development on an equal
footing with existing development in terms of the proportion of their costs that are funded through
debt. Since 25% of the new police station represents excess capacity available to serve, only 75% of
the debt is eligible for credit. The other 25% of the debt represents the cost of facilities that will
serve future development, and this portion of the debt service could be retired with police capital
expansion fees. As shown in Table 16, the police debt credit is $129 per functional population.
Table 16. Police Debt Credit
Outstanding Debt on Police Station (75%) $18,900,000
Outstanding Vehicle Capital Lease Payments $453,578
Total Police Facility Debt $19,353,578
÷ Existing Functional Population (24-Hour) 149,740
Police Debt Credit per Functional Population $129
Source: Outstanding debt and capital lease payments as of December 31,
2012 from City of Fort Collins, December 3, 2010; existing functional
population from Table 36 in Appendix B.
The credit for outstanding debt is subtracted from the cost per service unit to determine the net cost
per service unit (see Table 17 below).
Police
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 14 February 1, 2013
Table 17. Police Net Cost per Service Unit
Police Cost per Functional Population $231
– Police Debt Credit per Functional Population -$129
Net Police Cost per Functional Population $102
Source: Cost per functional population from Table 15; debt credit from
Table 16
Potential Fees
The maximum police capital expansion fees that may be adopted by the City based on this study is
the product of the number of service units generated by a unit of development and the net cost per
service unit calculated above. The resulting fee schedule is presented in Table 18.
Table 18. Potential Police Capital Expansion Fees
Func. Pop. Net Cost/ Net Cost/
Land Use Type Unit per Unit Func. Pop. Unit
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.25 $102 $128
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.59 $102 $162
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.76 $102 $180
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.83 $102 $187
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.96 $102 $200
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. 1.51 $102 $154
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 0.36 $102 $37
Source: Functional population per unit from Table 34 and Table 35 in Appendix B; net cost from Table
17.
Table 19 compares the current police fees with the updated fees. The updated fees are higher for
residential uses and lower for nonresidential uses.
Table 19. Comparative Police Fees
Current Fee Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type Unit per Unit per Unit Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $74 $128 73%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $107 $162 51%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $127 $180 42%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $145 $187 29%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $177 $200 13%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $157 $154 -2%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $43 $37 -14%
Source: Current fees from City of Fort Collins, Capital Improvement Expansion Fees, Effective January 2,
2012; updated fees from Table 18.
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 15 February 1, 2013
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
The City provides a number of administrative facilities that will need to be expanded as the
community grows. To ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of these facilities,
the City charges a general government capital expansion fee. This section calculates updated general
government capital expansion fees.
Service Units
One of the most common methodologies used in calculating general government impact fees is the
“functional population” approach. This allocates the cost of growth to different types of new
development based on the presence of people at the site of the land use. The description of the
functional population methodology, the calculation of the service unit multipliers and the
determination of existing general government service units are presented in Appendix B.
Cost per Service Unit
The City’s existing general government facilities and replacement costs are summarized in Table 20.
Table 20. Existing General Government Facilities
Land Building Building
Facility Address Acres Value Sq. Feet Cost
City Hall 300 Laporte Ave 2.00 $60,000 31,553 $8,968,435
Main Administration Bldg. 281 N. College 0.75 $22,500 37,603 $6,689,347
City Office Building 215 N. Mason 2.00 $60,000 71,500 $12,731,810
OPS Service Facility 2.50 $75,000 26,564 $5,647,145
Streets Storage 625 Ninth St 3.24 $97,200 48,400 $4,125,256
Streets Office/Shop 625 Ninth St 8.48 $254,400 14,287 $763,936
Total 18.97 $569,100 229,907 $38,925,929
Source: City of Fort Collins, January 4, 2013 (land value based on $30,000 per acre).
The existing level of service (cost per service unit) is determined by dividing the replacement cost of
existing facilities by the existing service units being served by those facilities. As shown in Table 21,
the cost per service unit for general government facilities is $328 per functional population.
Table 21. General Government Cost per Service Unit
Building Replacement Value $38,925,929
Land Value $569,100
Vehicle/Equipment Value $9,753,022
Total Replacement Cost $49,248,051
÷ Existing Functional Population (16-Hour) 150,354
Cost per Functional Population $328
Source: Building and land replacement costs from Table 20; vehicle-
equipment value is sum of original costs from City fixed asset listings,
January 2, 2013; existing functional population from Table 36 in Appendix B.
General Government
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 16 February 1, 2013
Net Cost per Service Unit
Impact fees should be reduced in order to account for other types of revenues that will be generated
by new development and used to fund capacity-expanding improvements of the same type as those
to be funded by the impact fees. Cases in which such an offset is warranted include funding of
existing deficiencies and outstanding debt payments on existing facilities. Since the updated fees are
based on the existing level of service, there are no existing deficiencies.
The City has some outstanding debt on the main administration building. A relatively simple way to
calculate a credit for outstanding debt is to divide the debt by the number of existing service units.
This places new development on an equal footing with existing development in terms of the
proportion of their costs that are funded through debt. As shown in Table 22, the police debt credit
is $5 per functional population.
Table 22. General Government Debt Credit
Outstanding Debt on Main Administration Bldg. $745,745
÷ Existing Functional Population (16-Hour) 150,354
Cost per Functional Population $5
Source: Outstanding debt from City of Fort Collins, December 3, 2010;
existing functional population from Table 36 in Appendix B.
The credit for outstanding debt is subtracted from the cost per service unit to determine the net cost
per service unit, as shown in Table 23.
Table 23. General Government Net Cost per Service Unit
Cost per Functional Population $328
– Debt Credit per Functional Population -$5
Net Cost per Functional Population $323
Source: Cost per functional population from Table 15; debt credit from
Table 16
Potential Fees
The maximum general government capital expansion fees that may be adopted by the City based on
this study is the product of the number of service units generated by a unit of development and the
net cost per service unit calculated above. The resulting fee schedule is presented in Table 24.
Table 24. Potential General Government Capital Expansion Fees
Func. Pop. Net Cost/ Net Cost/
Land Use Type Unit per Unit Func. Pop. Unit
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.93 $323 $300
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.19 $323 $384
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.31 $323 $423
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.37 $323 $443
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.47 $323 $475
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. 2.26 $323 $730
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 0.53 $323 $171
Source: Functional population per unit from Table 34 and Table 35 in Appendix B; net cost per
functional population from Table 23.
General Government
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 17 February 1, 2013
Table 25 compares the current general government capital expansion fees with the updated fees.
The updated fees increase more for nonresidential than for residential uses, and more for smaller
residential units than larger ones.
Table 25. Comparative General Government Fees
Current Fee Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type Unit per Unit per Unit Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $139 $300 116%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $197 $384 95%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $231 $423 83%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $267 $443 66%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $324 $475 47%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $252 $730 190%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $70 $171 144%
Source: Current fees from City of Fort Collins, Capital Improvement Expansion Fees, Effective January 2,
2012; updated fees from Table 24.
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 18 February 1, 2013
APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
Average Household Size by Housing Types
A key input into impact fee analysis is the average number of people residing in different types of
dwelling units. This statistic, known as average household size, is the ratio of household population
to households (which is the same as occupied dwelling units).
The most reliable data on average household size comes from the decennial census counts.
However, these 100%-count data are only available for all housing units, with no distinction by
housing type. Overall, the trend between the 2000 and 2010 census was one of a slight decline in
overall average household size, as can be seen in Table 26.
Table 26. Average Household Size, 2000 and 2010
Total Occupied Household Average
Housing Type Units Units Population HH Size
All Housing Types, 2000 47,755 45,882 112,597 2.45
All Housing Types, 2010 60,503 57,829 136,901 2.37
Source: 2000 and 2010 US Census for Fort Collins, CO, SF1 (100% counts).
The 2000 census provided data on average household size by housing type for a 1-in-6 sample
(about 17%). Those data are shown in Table 27.
Table 27. Average Household Size by Housing Type, 2000
Total Occupied Household Average
Housing Type Units Units Population HH Size
Single-Family Detached 26,706 25,941 73,943 2.85
Single-Family Attached 3,613 3,464 7,031 2.03
Multi-Family 16,163 15,190 28,522 1.88
Mobile Home 1,267 1,216 2,840 2.34
RV/Other 17 17 40 2.35
Total 47,766 45,828 112,376 2.45
Multi-Family/SF Attached 19,776 18,654 35,553 1.91
Source: 2000 US Census for Fort Collins, CO, SF-3 data (1-in-6 sample)
Unfortunately, the Census Bureau has discontinued providing robust sample data as part of the
decennial census, and instead conducts annual data from 1% samples, which has been aggregated
into a 5% sample for the 2006-2010 period. These data are based on a much smaller sample than the
2010 census, and also collapse single-family detached and attached housing into the same category.
They are shown in Table 28.
Appendix A: Demographic Data
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 19 February 1, 2013
Table 28. Average Household Size by Housing Type, 2006-2010
Total Occupied Household Average
Housing Type Units Units Population HH Size
Single-Family, Det./Att. 38,434 36,779 96,923 2.64
Multi-Family 19,441 17,747 31,168 1.76
Mobile Home 1,414 1,350 3,383 2.51
Other 13 13 21 1.62
Total 59,302 55,889 131,495 2.35
Source: US Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey data (5%
sample), Fort Collins, CO.
Comparing the data from 2000 and 2006-2010, it is clear that the decline in average household size is
not due to a change in the mix of housing, but rather to a more general decline in household size
among all housing types. While mobile home units show an increase, the sample sizes are too small
for this housing type for the results to be reliable.
Table 29. Change in Average Household Size, 2000-2010
Percent
Housing Type 2000 2006-10 Change
Single-Family, Detached/Attached 2.75 2.64 -4.00%
Multi-Family 1.88 1.76 -6.38%
Mobile Home 2.34 2.51 7.26%
Total 2.45 2.35 -4.08%
Average HH Size
Source: Table 27 and Table 28.
An estimate of current average household size by housing type starts with the data from the 2000
census, since these numbers are based on the most robust sample. The average household sizes
from the 2000 census are adjusted downward for all housing types by the overall decline, as shown
in Table 30.
Table 30. Current Average Household Size by Housing Type
Ratio of
Avg. HH Size 2010/2000 Current
Housing Type 2000 Census Avg. HH Size Avg. HH Size
Single-Family Detached/MH 2.85 0.9673 2.76
Multi-Family/SF Attached 1.91 0.9673 1.85
Total 2.45 0.9673 2.37
Source: 2000 average household size from Table 27; ratio derived from Table 26.
Average Household Size by Unit Size
In the 1996 study, average household size by dwelling unit size was estimated using census
microdata for Larimer County to determine average household size by bedrooms, and City building
permit data to determine average dwelling unit size by bedrooms using linear regression analysis.
The two results were combined to estimate average household size by dwelling unit size.
While the approach used in the original study has the advantage of relying solely on local (city and
county level) data, its weakness is that it is indirect – neither the census data nor the building permit
data contain information on both the number of persons in the unit and the size of the unit.
Appendix A: Demographic Data
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 20 February 1, 2013
Consequently, the 1996 analysis had to utilize an intervening variable of the number of bedrooms in
the unit.
A simpler and more direct approach is to utilize national data from the American Housing Survey,
sponsored by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and conducted by the U.S.
Census Bureau. The most recent survey was done in 2011. This survey provides data on the
number of residents and the square footage of a sample of individual housing units. The data from
the Western Census Region, which includes Colorado, was used. Average household sizes by
dwelling unit size from the western U.S. were converted to Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs), with
one EDU representing the average number of persons residing in an occupied single-family
detached unit. These EDU multipliers were then multiplied by the average household size of a
single-family unit in Fort Collins to estimate local average household sizes by dwelling unit size, as
summarized in Table 31.
Table 31. Average Household Size by Dwelling Unit Size, Western U.S., 2011
Ft. Collins
House- Avg. EDUs/ Avg. HH
Housing Type/Size Sample HH Pop. Holds HH Size Unit Size
0-700 sf 4,726 3,943,814 2,046,482 1.93 0.675 1.86
701-1,200 sf 11,845 13,908,874 5,631,663 2.47 0.864 2.38
1,201-1,700 sf 8,570 11,753,334 4,320,515 2.72 0.951 2.62
1,701-2,200 sf 6,218 8,824,060 3,112,727 2.83 0.990 2.73
2,200 sf + 7,686 11,545,664 3,793,080 3.04 1.063 2.93
All Units 39,045 49,975,747 18,904,467 2.64 0.923 n/a
All Single-Family Det. 23,453 34,517,546 12,053,378 2.86 1.000 2.76
American Housing Survey, 2011
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Housing Survey, 2011, Western Census
Region; Fort Collins average household size by unit size based on average household size for a single-family
detached unit in Fort Collins from Table 30 and EDUs/unit from the American Housing Survey.
The updated average household sizes confirm the tendency of larger units to have more residents,
but the difference between the smallest and largest units is less pronounced than it was found to be
in the 1996 analysis, as illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Average Household Size by Unit Size, 1996 and 2012
Appendix A: Demographic Data
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 21 February 1, 2013
Existing Housing Units by Type
The mix of housing units by type in Fort Collins has not changed significantly over the last decade,
as shown in Table 32. Because of its larger sample size, the housing shares from the 2000 census
will be used.
Table 32. Dwelling Units by Housing Type, Fort Collins, 2000-2010
Housing Type 2000 2006-10 2000 2006-10
Single-Family Detached 26,706 33,525 55.9% 56.5%
Single-Family Attached 3,613 4,909 7.6% 8.3%
Multi-Family 16,163 19,441 33.8% 32.8%
Mobile Home 1,267 1,414 2.7% 2.4%
RV/Other 17 13 0.0% 0.0%
Total 47,766 59,302 100.0% 100.0%
Single-Family Det./Mobile Home 27,973 34,939 58.6% 58.9%
Total Units % of Total Units
Source: 2000 data from 2000 US Census, SF3 (1-in-6 sample); 2006-2010 data from US
Census, American Community Survey (5% sample).
The current number of dwelling units in Fort Collins by housing type is estimated based on the total
number of units enumerated in the 2000 census, the share of units by housing type from the 2000
census, and the number of building permits issued over the last two years, as shown in Table 33.
Table 33. Dwelling Units by Housing Type, Fort Collins, 2012
Housing Est. 2010 2010-2011 Est. 2012
Housing Type Share Units Permits Units
Single-Family Detached/MH 58.6% 35,432 406 35,838
Multi-Family/SF Attached 41.4% 25,071 775 25,846
Total 100.0% 60,503 1,181 61,684
Source: Housing share based on 2000 Census from Table 32; 2010 total units from 2000 Census (Table
26), 2010 units by housing type based on housing share; 2010-2011 permits are number of permits
issued by City in 2010 and 2011 calendar years from City of Fort Collins, December 3, 2012.
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 22 February 1, 2013
APPENDIX B: FUNCTIONAL POPULATION
A common methodology used in calculating public safety (fire and police) and general government
service units and impact fees is the “functional population” approach. This approach is a generally-
accepted methodology for these impact fee types and is based on the observation that demand for
public safety and general government facilities tends to be proportional to the presence of people at
a particular site.
Functional population is analogous to the concept of “full-time equivalent” employees. It
represents the number of “full-time equivalent” people present at the site of a land use, and it is
used for the purpose of determining the impact of a particular development on the need for
facilities. For residential development, functional population is simply average household size times
the percent of time people spend at home. For nonresidential development, functional population
is based on a formula that factors trip generation rates, average vehicle occupancy and average
number of hours spent by visitors at a land use.
Two types of functional population are used in impact fee analysis: “24-hour” functional population
and “daytime” functional population. 24-hour functional population is most appropriate for
services, like fire and police protection, that operate on a 24-hour per day basis. Daytime functional
population is more appropriate for general government facilities, which do not operate around the
clock.
Residential Functional Population
For residential land uses, the impact of a dwelling unit on the need for capital facilities is generally
proportional to the number of persons residing in the dwelling unit. This can be measured for
different housing types in terms of either average household size (average number of persons per
occupied dwelling unit) or persons per unit (average number of persons per dwelling unit, including
vacant as well as occupied units). In this analysis, average household size is used to develop the
functional population multipliers, as it avoids the need to make assumptions about occupancy rates.
Determining residential functional population multipliers is considerably simpler than the
nonresidential component. It is estimated that people, on average, spend 16 hours, or 67 percent, of
each 24-hour weekday at their place of residence and the other 33 percent away from home. For
daytime functional population, a 16-hour day is used, and it is estimated that people spend half of
the 16-hour day at home. The functional population per unit for residential uses is shown in Table
34.
Appendix B: Functional Population
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 23 February 1, 2013
Table 34. Functional Population per Unit for Residential Uses
Average
Housing Type Unit HH Size 24-Hour Daytime 24-Hour Daytime
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 2.76 0.67 0.50 1.85 1.38
Multi-Family Dwelling 1.85 0.67 0.50 1.24 0.93
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.86 0.67 0.50 1.25 0.93
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.38 0.67 0.50 1.59 1.19
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.62 0.67 0.50 1.76 1.31
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.73 0.67 0.50 1.83 1.37
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.93 0.67 0.50 1.96 1.47
Occupancy Func. Pop. Per Unit
Source: Average household size from Table 30 (housing type) and Table 31 (unit size).
Nonresidential Functional Population
The functional population methodology for nonresidential land uses is based on trip generation and
employee density data. Functional population per 1,000 square feet is derived by dividing the total
number of hours spent by employees and visitors during a week day by 24 hours (16 hours for
daytime functional population). Employees are estimated to spend 8 hours per day at their place of
employment, and visitors are estimated to spend one hour per visit. The formulas used to derive the
nonresidential functional population estimates are summarized in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Nonresidential Functional Population Formulas
24-HR FUNCPOP/UNIT = (employee hours/1000 sf + visitor hours/1000 sf) ÷ 24 hours/day
Where:
Employee hours/1000 sf = employees/1000 sf x 8 hours/day
Visitor hours/1000 sf = visitors/1000 sf x 1 hour/visit
Visitors/1000 sf = weekday ADT/1000 sf x avg. vehicle occupancy – employees/1000 sf
Weekday ADT/1000 sf = one-way avg. daily trips (total trip ends ÷ 2)
DAILY FUNCPOP/UNIT = (employee hours/1000 sf + visitor hours/1000 sf) ÷ 16 hours/day
Where:
Employee hours/1000 sf = employees/1000 sf x 8 hours/day
Visitor hours/1000 sf = visitors/1000 sf x 1 hour/visit
Visitors/1000 sf = weekday ADT/1000 sf x avg. vehicle occupancy – employees/1000 sf
Weekday ADT/1000 sf = one-way avg. daily trips (total trip ends ÷ 2)
Appendix B: Functional Population
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 24 February 1, 2013
Using this formula and information on trip generation rates, vehicle occupancy rates from the
National Household Travel Survey and other sources and assumptions, nonresidential functional
population estimates per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area are calculated in Table 35.
Table 35. Functional Population per Unit for Nonresidential Uses
Trip Persons/ Employee/ Visitors/
Land Use Unit Rate Trip Unit Unit 24-Hour Daytime
Retail 1,000 sq. ft. 21.47 1.96 1.02 41.06 2.05 3.08
Office 1,000 sq. ft. 5.51 1.24 2.31 4.52 0.96 1.44
Industrial 1,000 sq. ft. 3.48 1.24 1.05 3.27 0.49 0.73
Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 1.78 1.24 0.43 1.78 0.22 0.33
Func. Pop. Per Unit
Source: Trip rates based on one-half of average daily trip rate from ITE, Trip Generation, 8th ed., 2008 (retail based
on shopping center, office based on general office, industrial based on light industrial); persons/trip is average
vehicle occupancy from Federal Highway Administration, Nationwide Household Travel Survey, 2009;
employees/unit from U.S. Department of Energy, Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey, 2003;
visitors/unit is trips times persons/trip minus employees/unit; functional population/unit calculated based on
formula from Figure 2.
Total Functional Population
The total functional population of Fort Collins is determined by multiplying the number of existing
units of development by the functional population per unit, as shown in Table 36.
Table 36. Existing Functional Population
Existing
Land Use Unit Units 24-Hour Daytime 24-Hour Daytime
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 35,838 1.85 1.38 66,300 49,456
Multi-Family Dwelling 25,846 1.24 0.93 32,049 24,037
Commercial/Institutional 1,000 sq. ft. 32,533 1.51 2.26 49,125 73,525
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 6,295 0.36 0.53 2,266 3,336
Total Functional Population 149,740 150,354
Func. Pop./Unit Functional Pop.
Source: Existing dwelling units from Table 33; existing nonresidential building square footage from Larimer
County Assessor’s Office, December 4, 2012; functional population per unit from Table 34 and Table 35
(commercial/institutional is average of retail and office; industrial/warehouse is average of industrial and
warehouse).
1
Capital Improvement
Expansion Fee Update
City Council Work Session
February 12, 2013
2
Capital Improvement Expansion
Fee Overview
• Background
• Definitions
• Methodology
• Fee Overview
• Fees by type
• Revenue Analysis
• Public Outreach
• Conclusions
3
Fees Included in Update
• Neighborhood Parks
• Community Parks
• Fire
• Police
• General Government
4
Background
• Capital Improvement Expansion Fees are used to
require new developments to pay a proportionate share
of infrastructure costs
• First implemented at the City of Fort Collins in 1996
• Fees updated annually according to the Denver-
Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index
• In 2012, City contracted with Duncan Associates to:
Analyze methodology
Update Fees
Draft Study – Basis for presentation
5
Definitions
• Incremental Expansion: Methodology used for calculating
capital expansion fees based on current level of service
• Level of Service (LOS): Ratio of the replacement cost of
existing facilities to existing service units
• Service Unit: A common or standardized measure of the
demand for the type of facility in question
• Functional Population: The number of people present at a
land use expressed in full time equivalents – the service unit
used for fire, police and general government
• Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU): The ratio of the average
household size of a dwelling type to the average household
size of the typical single-family detached unit – the service
unit used for parks
6
Methodology
• Largely unchanged from 1996 study – retained incremental
expansion approach
• Continued use of functional population for Police, Fire and
General Government but simplified formula
• Updated Park fees to be based on average # of residents in a
dwelling unit vs. population directly – eliminates need to
consider vacancy rates
• Updated household size data
• Updated all formula inputs including current asset info
Current update retains overall methodology of 1996 study.
7
Fees – Overview
What’s Driving the Changes?
• Inputs to the calculations that include:
Updated inventory of existing capital facilities
Updated determination of current costs
Updated identification of existing levels of service
• Updated data source for household size which
resulted in less variation between small and
large units than previous study
Although methodology remains similar – the inputs to fee calculations changed,
resulting in a variation in updated fees – both positive and negative.
8
Fees – Overview
• Neighborhood and Community Park fees are
increasing for smaller units and decreasing for
larger units
• Fire, Police and General Government fees are
increasing
• Net residential fees increasing except for largest
units
• Net Commercial/Industrial fees are increasing
9
Updated Fee Schedule
• Parks fees have been updated since the January 14th
Council
Finance Meeting
• Trail portion of fees have been updated to include:
Design
Engineering
Construction Management
Land acquisition
• Cost per acre of raw parkland has been updated from $20K per
acre to $30K per acre
• Updated fees changing from a 5% average increase to a 15%
average increase.
10
Fee Overview
N'hood Comm. Gen.
Land Use Type Unit Park Park Fire Police Gov't Total
Current Fees
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $920 $1,023 $110 $74 $139 $2,266
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,302 $1,451 $157 $107 $197 $3,214
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,531 $1,704 $183 $127 $231 $3,776
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,759 $1,961 $211 $145 $267 $4,343
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,142 $2,385 $257 $177 $324 $5,285
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $0 $0 $225 $157 $252 $634
Industrial 1,000 sq. ft. $0 $0 $62 $43 $70 $175
Updated Fees
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,181 $1,475 $260 $128 $300 $3,344
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,515 $1,893 $331 $162 $384 $4,285
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,674 $2,091 $366 $180 $423 $4,734
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,744 $2,179 $381 $187 $443 $4,934
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,868 $2,333 $408 $200 $475 $5,284
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $0 $0 $314 $154 $730 $1,198
Industrial 1,000 sq. ft. $0 $0 $75 $37 $171 $283
Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $261 $452 $150 $54 $161 $1,078
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $213 $442 $174 $55 $187 $1,071
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $143 $387 $183 $53 $192 $958
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling -$15 $218 $170 $42 $176 $591
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling -$274 -$52 $151 $23 $151 -$1
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $0 $0 $89 -$3 $478 $564
Industrial 1,000 sq. ft. $0 $0 $13 -$6 $101 $108
Percent Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 28% 44% 136% 73% 116% 48%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 16% 30% 111% 51% 95% 33%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 9% 23% 100% 42% 83% 25%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling -1% 11% 81% 29% 66% 14%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling -13% -2% 59% 13% 47% 0%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. n/a n/a 40% -2% 190% 89%
Industrial 1,000 sq. ft. n/a n/a 21% -14% 144% 62%
11
Neighborhood & Community
Park Fees
• Key Factors:
Service Units based on housing units or equivalent
dwelling units (EDU) – the average # of people in a
dwelling unit
Fees are increasing for smaller units
Fees are decreasing for larger units due to findings
that larger units have fewer people than 1996 study
• Trails – included in fee calculations which is a
change from original study
Basing fee structure on equivalent dwelling units eliminates
the need to consider occupancy rates which are variable.
12
Neighborhood/Community Park Fees
Change in number of people in larger units driving down fees.
Current Fee Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type Unit per Unit per Unit Change
Neighborhood Parks
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $920 $1,181 28%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,302 $1,515 16%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,531 $1,674 9%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,759 $1,744 -1%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,142 $1,868 -13%
Community Parks
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,023 $1,475 44%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,451 $1,893 30%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,704 $2,091 23%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,961 $2,179 11%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,385 $2,333 -2%
Total Parks
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,943 $2,656 37%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,753 $3,408 24%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $3,235 $3,765 16%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $3,720 $3,923 5%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $4,527 $4,201 -7%
13
Fire Capital Improvement Fees
• Two most common methodologies:
Calls for Service
Functional Population – current and recommended
method
• Fees increasing for both residential and commercial
units
• Service Unit calculated by dividing total cost of existing
facilities and equipment by functional population or
$208 per service unit
Fees increasing due to updated inputs to functional population
calculations and updated asset information.
14
Proposed Fire Fees
Fee Comparison
Func. Pop. Net Cost/ Net Cost/
Land Use Type Unit per Unit Func. Pop. Unit
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.25 $208 $260
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.59 $208 $331
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.76 $208 $366
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.83 $208 $381
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.96 $208 $408
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. 1.51 $208 $314
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 0.36 $208 $75
Current Fee Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type Unit per Unit per Unit Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $110 $260 136%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $157 $331 111%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $183 $366 100%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $211 $381 81%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $257 $408 59%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $225 $314 40%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $62 $75 21%
15
Police Capital Improvement Fees
• Functional population methodology retained –same as
Fire
• Fees increasing for residential with a slight decrease for
commercial and industrial units
• Service Unit calculated by dividing total cost of existing
facilities and equipment by functional population or
$102 per service unit
• Facility assets assumes 25% excess capacity for police
facility
Fees increasing due to updated inputs to functional population
calculations and updated asset information.
16
Proposed Police Fees
Fee Comparison
Func. Pop. Net Cost/ Net Cost/
Land Use Type Unit per Unit Func. Pop. Unit
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.25 $102 $128
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.59 $102 $162
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.76 $102 $180
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.83 $102 $187
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.96 $102 $200
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. 1.51 $102 $154
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 0.36 $102 $37
Current Fee Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type Unit per Unit per Unit Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $74 $128 73%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $107 $162 51%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $127 $180 42%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $145 $187 29%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $177 $200 13%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $157 $154 -2%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $43 $37 -14%
17
General Government Fees
• Retained Functional Population methodology
• Service Unit calculated by dividing total cost of existing
facilities and equipment by functional population or
$323 net cost per service unit (includes existing debt
credit)
• Fees increasing for both residential and commercial
• Streets capital inventory included in updated fee study
Fees increasing more for commercial and smaller residential units.
18
Proposed General Government Fees
Fee Comparison
Func. Pop. Net Cost/ Net Cost/
Land Use Type Unit per Unit Func. Pop. Unit
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.93 $323 $300
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.19 $323 $384
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.31 $323 $423
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.37 $323 $443
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.47 $323 $475
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. 2.26 $323 $730
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 0.53 $323 $171
Current Fee Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type Unit per Unit per Unit Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $139 $300 116%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $197 $384 95%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $231 $423 83%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $267 $443 66%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $324 $475 47%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $252 $730 190%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $70 $171 144%
19
Single-Family Building Permit Data
Larger unit permits have steadily declined in the last 10 years.
20
Annual Revenue Impact Analysis – 10 yr. Avg.
Unit Type*
Current Fees
Based
on 10 Year
Permit
Average
Proposed Fees Based
on 10 Year Permit
Average
Percent
Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. $28,098 $41,465 48%
Residential, 701‐1,200 sq. ft. 755,932 1,007,832 33%
Residential, 1,201‐1,700 sq. ft. 1,046,707 1,312,264 25%
Residential, 1,701‐2,200 sq. ft. 692,274 786,479 14%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. 873,082 872,916 0%
Commercial 271,292 512,632 89%
Industrial 4,249 6,872 62%
Total $3,671,637 $4,540,463 24%
*Units include both single and multifamily dwellings for residential
21
Annual Revenue Impact Analysis – 2012 Actuals
Unit Type*
Current Fees
Based on
2012 Permit
Data
Proposed Fees Based
on 2012 Permit Data
Percent
Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. $0 $0 0%
Residential, 701‐1,200 sq. ft. 1,099,188 1,465,470 33%
Residential, 1,201‐1,700 sq. ft. 1,989,952 2,494,818 25%
Residential, 1,701‐2,200 sq. ft. 929,402 1,055,876 14%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. 317,100 317,040 0%
Commercial 10,398 19,647 89%
Industrial 21,829 35,301 62%
Total $4,367,869 $5,388,152 23%
*Units include both single and multifamily dwellings for residential
22
Fee Comparison – Residential
pp
Neighborhood and Community Park fees are the most common
and substantial of the Capital Expansion fee mix in Northern Colorado.
*Fort Collins Fees based on a 1201-1700 sq. ft. unit
$‐ $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000
Loveland
Longmont
Fort Collins Proposed*
Windsor
Fort Collins Current*
Greeley
Boulder
Neighborhood Park
Community Park
Fire
Police
General Government
23
Fee Comparison - Commercial/Industrial*
Commercial
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Industrial
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
$‐
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
$2,000
General Government
Police
Fire
$‐
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
General Government
Police
Fire
*Longmont’s General Government fee is a flat $375
*Commercial/Industrial fees approximated based on varied
multipliers and unique city classifications
24
Fund Balance Analysis
Fund Balance As of 12/31/12
Neighborhood Parks $5,580,000*
Community Parks $8,750,000**
Fire $190,000
Police $960,000
General Government $6,030,000***
*Neighborhood Parks - $1.8M in offers funded in the 2013-2014 budget
**Community Parks - $1.3M in offers funded in the 2013-2014 budget
***General Government - $5.0M on loan to the URA for N. College Marketplace
and JAX
25
Public Outreach
ENTITY DATE
Council Finance Committee January 14
Chamber of Commerce January 25
Affordable Housing Board February 7
Board of Realtors February 12
Economic Advisory
Committee
February 20
Building Review Board February 28
Homebuilders Association TBD*
City Council Regular Meeting – March 5
*Working with Homebuilders on preferred level of outreach
26
Conclusions
• Fee update retains basic methodologies of original
study
• Inputs to formula and asset information updated for all
fees
• Reduction household size driving partial fee change
• Staff will recommend codifying comprehensive review
every 3-5 years
DATE: February 12, 2013
STAFF: Pete Wray
Sherry Albertson-Clark
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study process included extensive public
outreach that identified neighborhood objectives and issues, and defined the character and context
of the neighborhoods. The Study process and findings are summarized in a final Strategy Report,
dated November 15, 2012. This report also includes staff recommendations to implement five
strategy options that were presented to City Council at the work session on November 27, 2012. The
staff recommendations at that time did not include revising existing Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
standards, because it did not reflect a mutually agreeable solution from the public. City Council
directed staff to proceed with implementation of the five strategy options, including development
of a formula to revise the existing maximum FAR standard.
In preparation for this work session, staff prepared two alternatives for Council to consider for the
proposed package of potential Land Use Code (LUC) amendments included in the Ordinance:
1. Option A reflects a package of Land Use Code amendments that implement the five
recommended strategy options as well as a revision of existing FAR standards using a new
formula.
2. Option B reflects a package of Land Use Code amendments that implement the five
recommended strategy options, but does not include a revision to existing FAR standards.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What comments or direction does Council have on options for revising existing Floor Area
Ratio standards?
2. What additional comments or feedback does Council have on other proposed
implementation actions prior to Hearing?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
At the November 27, 2012 City Council work session, Council directed staff to proceed with
implementation of five strategy options. Some of these strategies involve Land Use Code changes
that are the subject of the Ordinance, and others are administrative or involve future actions as
follows:
February 12, 2013 Page 2
• Promote the City's existing Design Assistance Program. This involves ongoing
administrative actions, including such measures as a marketing brochure, newsletter,
neighborhood mailings, and posting program information online.
• Expand neighborhood notification of variance requests.
• Create voluntary design handbooks/guidelines to provide specialized information for
interested owners and builders on compatible development in unique character areas throughout
the neighborhoods. These products would be developed as part of future planning efforts that
will need to be budgeted and incorporated into the staff work program. Staff recommends
implementation of this action concurrent with neighborhood plan updates for the Eastside and
Westside neighborhoods in 2014.
• Adjust existing height-at-setback and FAR measurement methods in the Land Use Code for
the N-C-L and N-C-M zoning districts.
• Address building mass and solar access, including revisions to existing FAR standards, and
new design standards to address mass and solar impacts.
• Illustrate the effect of potential standards on new construction.
I. Description of Ordinance Option A (with new FAR formula)
This option reflects a package of Land Use Code amendments that implements the five
recommended strategy options as well as a revision to existing FAR standards using a new formula.
More specifically, it includes clarifying Code terminology and formatting, expanded notice for
variance requests, revising the existing FAR standard using a new formula, adding new adjustments
to FAR measurement method for calculating building square footage, and incorporating new design
and solar access standards. A more detailed description of each standard is included in the attached
draft Ordinance options (Attachments 3 and 4). Following is a brief summary of potential Land Use
Code changes contained in the proposed Ordinance (Option A).
1. Expand notification area for variance requests.
This LUC change would add a new standard regarding neighborhood notification for Zoning Board
of Appeals (ZBA) variance requests exceeding a certain project size threshold. Staff recommends
that the notice area for ZBA hearings be extended from 150 feet to 500 feet for variance requests
for certain size construction and other thresholds (see Attachment 3).
2. Address building massing and scale (Revised FAR Standard).
The staff recommendation outlined in the strategy report did not include a revision to the existing
FAR standards because other recommended tools were seen to sufficiently address the identified
objectives and issues, and because many residents and other stakeholders feel that FAR is an overly
restrictive tool that limits flexibility for expansion. However, FAR reductions were presented as a
possible alternative tool for addressing identified issues with overly large new construction and loss
of green space.
Based on Council direction, the staff and consultant team evaluated potential revisions to the
maximum permitted FAR, including modeling of a variety of reduced FARs on projects that have
been identified as appearing overly large in relation to their context. The proposed FAR formula
was selected because it:
February 12, 2013 Page 3
• Addresses projects that have been identified as appearing overly large in relation to their
context while allowing flexibility for new construction and home expansion;
• Promotes the scale of new construction that was most often identified as compatible in
community workshops and the online visual survey;
• Works in concert with other recommended tools such as reduced wall heights for solar
access and additional building design standards to address front and side facade character;
and
• More directly targets identified issues than the FAR revisions included in the repealed 2011
ordinance.
Overall, the new formula provides greater flexibility through less substantial FAR reductions
because it would work in combination with other tools that also address identified issues with new
construction that appears to be overly large in relation to its context, building walls that appear to
loom over neighbors and reduced solar access.
New FAR Formula
The first proposed FAR change revises the minimum lot area standards that currently relate lot area
to the total floor area of buildings on the lot in the N-C-L and N-C-M zoning districts. This would
apply new or adjusted design standards to address the scale and solar access impacts of larger new
construction and additions. The potential revised standard would reduce the maximum FAR from
the currently permitted 0.40 in the N-C-L district and 0.50 in the N-C-M district according to a
sliding scale as summarized in the table below.
For example, the formula above would limit floor area on a 7,000 square foot lot in the N-C-M
district to 2,750 square feet ((7,000x0.25)+1,000=2,750) with an additional allowance for 250 square
feet in a detached rear accessory (acc.) structure on a lot of 6,000 square feet or more, for a total of
3,000 square feet. The sliding scale would generally result in reductions of allowed floor area for
larger lots in both districts.
New FAR Measurement Method
The second change incorporates adjusted measurement methods for calculating floor area, which
was recommended in the Strategy Report. These proposed measurement method adjustments would
address the issues of high volume spaces not being counted as floor area (which created the potential
for single-story homes being twice as large as a two-story home); including basement floor area in
calculation where the new construction raises the finish floor elevation above a certain threshold;
and providing some allowance for accessory structures to promote separate building masses.
Option A further addresses building mass and scale impacts by combining a reduction in overall
building size (reduced FAR), with new design standards to shape building facade features.
February 12, 2013 Page 4
3. Adjust measurement method for building wall height and reduced height for solar
access.
The first part of this Code change would adjust the method for measuring building height at the
minimum side yard setback, to better account for the impact of tall walls on raised grade. Staff
recommends implementation of a revised measurement method for maximum height (18 feet) at the
minimum side yard to better account for potential looming impacts related to grade changes on a
property. The building side wall height is proposed to be measured from the existing grade at the
interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, rather than at the improved grade.
A second new standard is proposed to reduce the potential solar access impacts of large new houses
or additions on neighboring property to the north. The staff and consultant team decided not to
develop a complicated “solar ordinance” limiting shading on neighboring lots. Instead a simple
solar standard is proposed for building wall height to promote solar access. The side wall height
would be reduced to14 feet from the currently allowed 18 feet and the side wall height could
increase by 1 foot for each 1 foot of additional setback.
4. Add new standards for building facades over certain size thresholds.
Facade design standards are proposed to provide a menu of options to shape the character of front
and side building facades for compatibility. At least one facade feature from a design menu would
be required to promote pedestrian orientation and compatibility with the character of the structures
on the block face.
The front facade options would promote pedestrian orientation and the appearance of compatible
mass and scale as viewed from the street by using one-story elements, front porches, etc. The
proposed options for side building facades are intended to reduce potential looming and privacy
impacts on adjacent lots.
II. Description of Ordinance Option B (Retain Existing FAR formula)
Option B reflects a package of Land Use Code amendments that implements the five recommended
strategy options but does not include a revision to existing FAR standards. It includes clarifying
Code terminology and formatting, expanded notice for variance requests, retaining the existing FAR
standard formula, adding new adjustments to FAR measurement method for calculating building
square footage, and incorporating new design and solar access standards. Ordinance Option B
contains the same standards as Option A, except for the FAR formula. A more detailed description
of each standard is included in the attached draft Ordinance options.
This option reflects the staff recommendation described in the Strategy Report, and presented to
Council at the November 27, 2012 Work Session. The staff and consultant team concluded in the
report that the proposed package of new design standards, without a reduction in FAR, would
address most identified mass and scale issues with larger new construction while allowing flexibility
for home expansion.
New construction that appears to be overly large in relation to its context was often cited by
residents as a key issue in the neighborhoods. Many residents also felt that FAR reductions would
be the most effective tool for addressing this issue. However, when presented with alternative design
February 12, 2013 Page 5
scenarios in community workshops and surveys, many participants selected alternatives that
incorporate design elements other than floor area reductions. This indicates that design elements
apart from overall size contribute significantly to neighborhood compatibility. The recommended
design standards within Ordinance Option B address these key design elements while allowing
flexibility for home expansion.
ATTACHMENTS
1. November 27, 2012 Council Work Session Summary
2. Summary of January 2013 public comments
3. Proposed draft Ordinance, Option A
4. Proposed draft Ordinance, Option B
5. Tables comparing 2011 FAR formula with proposed 2013 FAR formula
6. PowerPoint presentation
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
Long Range Planning
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.221.6376
970.224.6111- fax
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 30, 2012
To: Mayor Weitkunat and City Councilmembers
Thru: Darin A. Atteberry, City Manager
Karen Cumbo, Planning, Development and Transportation Director
From: Laurie Kadrich, Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director
Sherry Albertson-Clark, Interim Planning Manager
Pete Wray, Senior City Planner
Re: November 27, 2012 Work Session Summary – Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study
Councilmembers present: Mayor Weitkunat, and Councilmembers Manvel, Troxell, Poppaw, and Ohlson. Staff
present: Karen Cumbo, Laurie Kadrich, Mark Jackson, Sherry Albertson-Clark, Pete Wray, Peter Barnes, Karen
McWilliams.
Consultants present: Nore Winter, Abe Barge.
Staff presented an overview of Phase 2 activities that are summarized in the draft strategy report, and highlighted
recommended strategy options for Council feedback.
Specific questions considered by Council were:
1. What comments or feedback does Council have on the recommended strategy options, or any others not
recommended?
Main points of discussion:
Council acknowledged the information summarized in the Phase 2 Strategy Report and the level of work
it represents.
Council noted that most neighbors expressed issues and concerns with large building size impacts and
asked why the FAR strategy option was not recommended by staff.
Council provided feedback to staff to make sure what we are trying to solve is addressed in recommended
options to ensure we fix the problem for the most recognized project examples that negatively affect
compatibility.
Council directed staff to proceed with five recommended strategy options including 1-4, and 5c.
Council also directed staff to include strategy option 5a, and 5b in some form, other than what was
originally suggested in 2011, to further address issues associated with building massing/scale, and solar
access.
2. What comments or direction does Council have for staff on proceeding to implementation in the third
phase of the study?
Council directed staff to proceed with Phase 3 of the study to implement recommended strategy options.
Council suggested staff coordinate future Council Hearing dates with the Leadership Team.
ATTACHMENT 1
The
form
prov
new
Wes
Sum
1. &
3. W
W
I
P
p
E
C
A
A
O
4. D
st
J
final public
mat of the me
vide written a
Code chang
tside Neighb
mmary of all w
& 2. Where d
Of the 52
two neigh
Which action
Westside ne
Implementa
Promote the
program
Expand notif
Create volun
Adjust side w
Adjust floor
Other Potent
Count ba
No furthe
Promote
Big impr
Caveat; s
lean-to a
FAR alre
Do you have
tandards?
Clever w
Maybe ch
Page 2
fine. But to say the garage does not count towards the floor area ration is just not appropriate. The
biggest issue to the neighborhood is the move to the densely populated, fully built out, suburban to
urban, change, that will profoundly change the character of old town. To a large degree, the rights of
homeowners, and the nature of the real estate market will move in that direction, without regard to any
changes government can make. But floor area ratio is the best, most objective, least subject to
discrimination, easiest to administer tool.
I support the new, proposed FAR standards. Regarding balconies needing to be counted as part of FAR
standards, please reference house at 122 S Whitcomb with its second story balcony which extends
beyond neighbor’s garages, uses majority of lot and reduces/diminishes neighbor’s privacy.
I think the changes (if approved) will help resolve some of the concerns presented by citizens in the
workshops. Will definitely be an improvement.
Not sure they go far enough to meet objectives.
I like what I hear. It sounds like it has the potential to close loopholes.
I am sure the potential revisions will upset larger lot owners.
It is a thinly veiled attempt to reinstate the FAR standards that were repealed by the public in ’11. It
should not be passed and it has been a gross waste of City time and resources and Council is out of line
in trying to push it through on short notice before an election.
Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes!!! The projects that are maxing out the standards or getting “variance” in (is
that a word?), are obtrusive, greedy, obsessive, completely against the character of the neighborhoods of
Old Town.
I like these suggestions. I think you’ve creatively allowed for growth without allowing for obscenity in
terms of size.
Please do not make additional restrictions on building standards. We are right back to what was
repealed before. This will damage the development of our growing neighborhood. People will leave or
decide to go elsewhere. This will financially impact our neighborhood and home values.
FAR!! 003 repealed this issue.
No adjustment to floor area ration (FAR) measurement. Petition in 2011 was successful and 003 was
repealed and City Council stated that if this issue came back, it would not be based on “FAR” . The
people of Fort Collins spoke via that petition in 2011.
Looks intelligent, fair, forward-looking.
Differentiation of NCL & NCM seems arbitrary. Use the NCL standard for both zones. Sliding scale by
lot size is good, but the FAR is still too high. It should be .30 for a 10,000 sq.ft. lot in both zones and
without the 250 sq. ft. accessory building exception.
New plan looks very positive in being able to place some limits without prohibiting reasonable
expansion of house sizes in the neighborhood.
Good idea to include elevated basements in the FAR. Should point out in presentations and to City
Council that non-elevated basements do not count in FAR thus possible to have more finished square
feet than what is listed in the tables presented.
If the new unit fits the lot it should be ok. Each lot design is different.
Using a sliding scale by lot size makes sense now. Yes, differentiate between the NCL and NCM zone
districts. OK – provide a 250 sq.ft. exception for detached rear accessory structures. Yes, work with a
revised floor area measurement method that considers high volume spaces.
Too restricted, limits creating decent sized family homes with garages. Prohibits diversity and value of
property.
I like them, particularly adding 3’ above ground basements and high ceiling rooms to the FAR.
Yes, differentiate between the NCL and NCM zone districts. Yes, provide a 250 sq.ft. exception for
detached rear accessory structures. No to: Work with a revised floor area measurement method that
considers high volume spaces.
Page 3
Check to see what Boulder is going to do about slanting roofs. Concerned about odd setbacks different
on north and south side.
Include balcony measurements into accounting the FAR requirements/calculations. I think the proposed
FAR standards are overly restrictive. Should have existing FAR the same. Limits to side wall height.
Should be on a case by case basis. One size does not fit all . . . especially in Old Town. The example
used for the NCL zone of a lot of 7,000 sq.ft. seemed like an extreme result. What good is a 250 sq.ft.
accessory building.
There is NO current problem.
5. Do you have comments on the potential side wall height standards for solar access?
Will this result in homes that do not fit into the overall character of the neighborhood?
Protecting neighbor’s light & sun is one of the most important requirements. Measurements taken at
12:00 noon, winter solstice. No loss of sun to neighbor needs to be the standard.
Not really – I think it’s a great idea to make the proposed changes.
Good idea
It’s only fair, for both solar & gardening.
Solar access is important so 18’ is generous.
At this time, I believe the proposal is too vague and should be studied further before a final proposal is
put forth for adoption.
The value of these Old Town lots and yards is greatly reduced as these extreme projects get taller and
closer to lot boundaries.
My only concern here is that we might end up with funky, lop-sided houses.
No more standards! Solar access can be blocked by planting a tree and everyone supports tree planting.
Standards do not address this without negatively effecting home values.
For our property it’s not a large impact but larger lots are greatly impacted. Large houses are not out of
place in Old Town, just need to be done in character.
What about landscaping – trees grow – is that an issue? Old Town has big trees – do you want them cut
down!?
Limit wall height at the minimum side setback on the north side of the lot to preserve solar access.
I am strongly in favor of the standards as defined
Applying only to large additions or new construction is a huge loophole. Somebody could build a 250
sq.ft addition on a roof and significantly shade a neighbor to the north. Is there a sliding scale so
houses/additions built at a 5’6” setback can’t move up to 18’? Also, the 1:1 height increase for lots
narrower than 40’ seems overly generous. A tall house on a narrow lot has a greater potential to impact
neighbors, so maybe buying a narrow lot should limit what you can do. A height increase of 6” for each
foot narrower than 40’ with a maximum of 16’ would be better.
North-south impact is addressed well without being overly prohibitive. East-west impacts may need to
be considered as well.
Good idea for north facing wall heights restrictions.
Doesn’t apply to my lot, but it is an important issue. Yes, apply only to large additions and new
construction adjacent to a neighbor to the north. Yes, limit wall height at the minimum side setback on
the north side of the lot to preserve solar access.
Properties are in flux. A single story home may become a two story in the future. South properties are
always subject to a northern neighbor . . . which may also change height in the future.
I like the concept although I’m concerned about asymmetrical roofs.
OK, apply only to large additions and new construction adjacent to a neighbor to the north. Yes, limit
wall height at the minimum side setback on the north side of the lot to preserve solar access.
Solar access protection needs to be set at winter solstice rather than spring equinox.
Needs to have a variance for homes that are forced to raise their base elevations due to flood plains.
Page 4
6. Do you have comments on the potential additional building design standards to address front and side
façade character?
The illustrations I saw on the poster do not reflect the character of homes in the area. I think it’s a good
idea but designs need to be tweaked.
I am in favor!
This should be approached with caution. Jackson Hole did it and now it looks like a Disney theme park.
Variety is good.
Compatibility with other buildings important.
Tightening up the standards will ensure that the character of a neighborhood will evolve gracefully.
I love that you’re not only looking at FAR but you’re considering design as well. Thank you.
No more standards! This will negatively impact our neighborhoods.
This design standard alone could address many of the out of place renovations.
Provide a menu of options to address the character of front and side facades.
Positive
Can’t legislate accounting for task. It is a diverse neighborhood. That’s part of the flavor of Eastside.
Save the cookie-cutter mindset for the “burbs”.
New plan offers good options. Design assistance will help achieve better outcomes.
Good ideas
An important issue to maintain the character of the neighborhoods. I enjoyed judging the various
facades at the Lopez Elementary workshop. OK, apply only to large additions and new construction – it
saves time and effort spent on small projects. OK, provide a menu of options to address the character of
front and side facades.
They are ok
No to: Apply only to large additions and new construction. Yes, provide a menu of options to address
the character of front and side facades. Develop standards for front setback to align with others on the
block. Address porches, trim, etc. to mimic nearby older homes.
Are porches the only way to create a more friendly façade in character? I think the standards are narrow
and will create a cookie cutter effect and most likely unintended consequences.
Why should the City get involved in how people design their homes? It’s all subjective.
7. Do you have other comments and feedback?
These neighborhoods are the jewels of Fort Collins, and their character needs to be preserved. It’s what
makes them so popular.
Please do not make the building process (permits, notifications, etc.) expensive. Voluntary design
guidelines and example designs – Great!
“Neighborhood Contexts??” On one hand they do seem to assign a label to neighborhoods. But so
what! I see this as a first step in an unannounced hidden agenda towards mandating HOA. Folks can
see the context of the neighborhoods without a government definition.
Consultation with neighbors before building may reduce disharmony and help create a neighborly
feeling. In the case of a builder/developer building a spec house to be sold in near future, hold these
houses to the standards & insist on neighborhood meeting for guidance. City needs to be proactive in
designating historic home protection recognizing the desirability of living in these neighborhoods and
the fact that some people have so much money they can buy, scrape & build anything.
Keep doing this. I hope City Council will enforce these changes. Keep our neighborhood’s historic
character.
Pleased that you have a significantly involved those of us living in the areas. Hope City council has
same approach vs. only interests of developers.
Page 5
I don’t believe there is enough evidence of a problem caused by the current FAR standards that will be
solved by the proposed new standards. Furthermore, I feel that Council is attempting to railroad through
new standards that the community has shown they do not support (i.e. the 2011 repeal of an extremely
similar FAR standard to the one now being proposed). Additionally, the graphs and presentation is
misleading (i.e. the 250 sq.ft. exemption for detached structures).
The market does an excellent job of monitoring the developing and maintaining the market. This
tinkering isn’t going to do anything except screw up the market and leave some properties that should be
address without a suitor. Your building size is ratcheted down so that no one will buy the old houses
and fix them up – not profitable. You are seriously messing with the market which is the best control.
Thanks for all your hard work in this lengthy and difficult process. Even if we pretend not to like you!!
We still appreciate your time.
Great job so far, we need change for the better!
I really appreciate how well you all have listened to the community. I feel like you’ve done a good job
at considering all sides of these issues. I also think you’ve come up with some creative solutions that
have the potential to work well. I especially liked being able to see how a newly built house might look
different under your new proposals. This really helped to solidify in my mind what exactly the
proposals would mean. Thanks for all your hard work.
The redevelopment and growth of our neighborhood will be stunted with these standards being
implemented again. These changes were repealed once before but the agenda of the Council is being
pushed. Not the voice of the community. These last minute explanations and last minute finalization of
suggestions leading to meetings where decisions will be made is exactly what happened last time. This
is not ok. No more standards.
I worry if we get too prescriptive, young families will not look to move/reinvest in Old Town. Without
flexibility, many people will get priced out of the Old Town market. The neighborhood will eventually
grow stagnant and start to decline.
I believe the new construction is good for the neighborhood. Keep the current standards. I thought this
was sealed a couple of years ago. The people of Fort Collins have spoken by repealing 003.
Grade is required to be raised in some of the area because of a high water table, so home owners are
being penalized with height restrictions, based on existing City imposed restrictions. In considering
financial impacts, both positive and negative impacts should be considered. Improvement of
neighboring properties improves the neighborhood as a whole . . . property values go up, and this is what
causes taxes to go up. Property value increase only benefits the community.
Great job. Wonderful outreach. Cooperative approach. Nicely phased. Good communication. Kudos
to City, Winter, other support staff.
Case by case – some projects are more disappointing in their choices than others. Don’t punish the
many for the disappointments of the few. Happy that due to additions, new builds, etc. that families are
able to thrive in Old Town.
1. Thank you for finally listening to citizens and council by addressing solar access. It’s a good start,
but it needs to directly protect solar access (e.g. regardless of lot size or width, or building size, additions
or new houses would not be allowed to cast a shadow higher than 5’ on a house to the north built at the
5’ setback, at noon on Dec. 21). This would allow maximum flexibility for construction without
allowing a negative environmental or economic impact (by shading windows) on neighbors to the north.
2. Why do the standards kick in at 2,500 sq. ft. for new construction, but 3,000 total sq.ft. for additions?
2,000 sq. ft. would be a good threshold for both. Remember, it’s not saying a house can’t be bigger – it
just says you have to consider your neighbors.
Thanks for the good work.
Didn’t we go through this two years ago? Things are working ok now – no action is needed.
It appears from this information and my discussion with Abe that converting my one-car garage to a
two-car garage will not exceed the potential FAR standard.
Page 6
It always seems to go back to the City Council’s agenda of changing the FAR and creating restrictive
standards that were vetoed last year!!! I feel that these changes affect the property values and
desirability of Old Town. WATCH OUT!! Is this even legal? Put it to a vote, not a Council that
determines citizen’s outcome! Washed A LOT of resources $$ to get this FAR changed again. Outrage.
Provide for neighbors consultation on new building and in some cases remodels. Work toward
neighborhood harmony.
It might be helpful to make a table that shows total FAR by lot size with an assumed addition of a full
basement to estimate total possible finished square footage. For example, a NCL lot of 7,000 sq.ft.
could allow a 2,650 sq.ft. FAR. If that 2,650 is two floors of 1,200 sq.ft. each plus a detached garage,
then a full basement could be 1,200 sq.ft. and usable space would really be closer to 3,600 sq.ft.
City Council is once again creating a mountain out of a mole hill. Fort Collins is land locked and in one
breath the “City” promotes infill projects and building up not out, and in the other breath they restrict
future building and improvements by making regulations over restrictive. Fort Collins (City Council)
needs to figure out what they really want and they need to listen to all the people – not just the loud few.
Regarding high volume space being counted as two floors – why would that matter? This will
financially impact the home.
Can we please finally allow the FAR conversation to die? The citizens spoke in 2011, and they don’t
want it. Just because there are two City Council members who are so arrogant as to believe that their
opinions are more important than the thousands of citizens who signed on to repeal the last FAR
proposal doesn’t make it right.
Two
for th
impl
Stud
Sum
1. &
3. D
(F
o neighborho
he meetings
lementation
dy.
mmary of all w
& 2. Where d
Of the 23
residents
Do you have
FAR) standa
Allow ho
mother-in
Overall,
some of t
Look for
and build
Like the
Like mea
character
Moving i
lots over
When fig
considera
What is t
How is ir
How muc
Clarify h
How is th
no time f
What abo
for adjac
How man
You’ve r
Page 2
The two hits for implementing less FAR based on .25 + 1000 sf AND counting ceiling over 14' is
excessive. I suggest adopting one or the other. For example on a 10,000 sq ft lot w/ a cathedral ceiling
over 14' for a 400sq ft home, the allowable FAR is roughly 60% of current standards. 10,000 (.25) +
1000 = 3500 -400 (cathedral greater than 14') = 3100 sq ft. Current standard (NCM) is 5000sq
ft. 3100/5000 = roughly 60%
4. Do you have comments and feedback on the potential standards for solar access?
Suggest a lower front home and put more sq.ft. in a back unit/addition or detached carriage house.
For the most part, I like this one as well. Case study four freaks me out a little because the folks to the
north keep their sunshine, but the folks to the south lose privacy and have a big wall along their yard. I
also don’t want a bunch of awkward, slanty houses in the neighborhood.
Looks good – like the setback/height adjustment plan.
Great ideas! There should be a standard for lots under 40 ft. wide such as 15 ft. max height at min. side
yard setback and 12 ft. at 40 ft. and over. Keep 1 ft. to 1 ft. increase in max height for each additional
setback. Not 2 ft. for 1 ft. setback. Second story additions that result in over 2,500 sq.ft. should fall
under the new façade standards for solar access, not 3,000 sq.ft.
Access to light/sun is a key criteria for a livable space for me.
I like access rules but don’t want lots of asymmetrical roof lines or asymmetrical side lot setbacks.
Do solar access requirements apply to major remodels as well as new construction? Will this create
asymmetrical buildings (rooflines)?
Does solar access address or include trees (evergreens)? They also shade adjacent buildings; should also
look at evergreen placement in new landscaping
Does solar access address or require solar panels or collectors?
Would solar apply to narrow lots? Would apply only those lots less than 40’ wide?
Concerned about solar with corner lots because they have wider setbacks so lot is more difficult to build
on, especially when lot is also narrow...
What is side wall height limit for solar access?
Solar access will push houses to the south side – this is one solution, but there may be other ways to
address on lots
Could a variance be requested to solar access?
Keep the exception to the offset standards for the lot's w/ 40' or less of street frontage, only measure the
40' as "build able lot area" - The portion of the lot remaining after subtracting required offsets. For an
interior lot, this would be 30' in this example: 40 - 2(5 (side setbacks)) = 30' For a corner lot: 40 - 15
(street side setback) - 5 (interior side setback). Also, does a house w/ street frontage on a northern road
have to comply w/ this standard. If so, why? Are we trying to ensure the street has sufficient solar
access? An exception should be made to corner lots or alley lots w/ streets and alleys on their northern
side. Lastly, neighbors should be able to come to consensus on when to apply these standards. This is an
agreement between two individual property owners. The City's blanket approach to solar protection will
not consider the intricacies of each situation. Two interested parties are much better at realizing an
appropriate solution than cookie cutter standards.
5. Do you have comments and feedback on the potential additional façade standards?
This all looks good to me.
Looks good.
Generally these standards are an improvement.
How about apply in relation to the specific buildings on adjacent lots – be sure to apply to major
remodels.
Can a façade/porch encroach into the setback?
This seems like good regulation. Changing the facade every 40' is adequate.
Page 3
6. What additional evaluation do you feel is necessary?
A second story deck is a different animal from a first floor deck. I think it should be counted somehow.
Open decks need to be counted in FAR and /or the impacts on neighbor’s privacy.
To reiterate the 40' lot frontage exception to solar access. A 50' corner lot is just as prohibitive as a 40'
interior lot regarding buildable area. 40 - two 5' side setbacks = 30 buildable dimension and 50 (corner
lot) - 15' setback on street and 5' setback on interior lot = 30 buildable dimension.
7. Do you have other comments and feedback?
There should be notification for neighbors for new building and demolition even when it doesn’t require
a variance. These can be “big deals” even when they follow the current rules. Neighbors shouldn’t be
taken by surprise. I think you all have done a great job. You seem to be thorough, considerate and fair.
I really appreciate all you’ve done.
Expand notification in a timely manner for variance requests and especially for
demolition/deconstructions.
Please don’t use flat roof houses for examples in your case studies – they aren’t realistic. Can you
provide photos of Boulder or other places where solar access standards apply? Also, what Boulder is
doing to respond to solar access problems that result in asymmetrical roof lines? We’ll have some
problems – might as well address it now.
How to get information out about requirements like these – maybe through REALTORS – so people
know before they buy.
Suggest city modify requirements for elevations to be submitted on projects to require elevations that
show context (block face where house is and opposite block face) – would be more useful.
Suggest looking at building permits from past 5 years to see how many would/would not meet these
standards (like what Ben Manvel did before).
How were houses on Wood Street allowed? Variances?
Compare previous proposal to current proposal and show how they are different and similar or the same.
Standards only apply to single-family not multi-family. Why does NCM have greater allowance?
Does City Council attend these meetings (open house, etc.) on this project?
Suggest a comparison table be made to show what was passed before and what is proposed now.
These standards don’t completely address compatibility – the future design guidelines/standards will
also help with compatibility.
Suggest that input with your neighbors can help reduce surprises and result in better design (mentioned
variance for the turret on Whitcomb Street).
Like the use of “privacy” as a term for what we’re trying to protect.
If you want to retain the "neighborhood character" provisions should be made to consider adjoining
properties in all directions that border a house. For example maximum height should be based on the
highest adjoining property. Provisions should be in place for many of these variables, i.e. setbacks,
FAR, maximum building height.
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
1
OPTION A
ORDINANCE NO. ___, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
LAND USE CODE PERTAINING TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
EASTSIDE AND WESTSIDE NEIGHBORHOODS CHARACTER STUDY
WHEREAS, in 2010, City staff conducted an Eastside/Westside Neighborhood Study
which resulted in an ordinance being approved by the City Council which was later repealed in
response to a citizen petition; and
WHEREAS, in June 2011, City staff initiated a new Eastside/Westside Neighborhood
Character Study (the “Study”) after receiving direction from City Council to take a fresh look at
neighborhood compatibility and character issues in the neighborhoods near downtown; and
WHEREAS, the basis of the Study is to respond to continued concerns with respect to
potential impacts of building additions and new construction in the City’s oldest neighborhoods;
and
WHEREAS, the Study process included extensive public outreach and the consideration
of the proposed Code changes arising from the Study by the Planning and Zoning Board, the
Landmark Preservation Commission, the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Building Review
Board; and
WHEREAS, the direction from the Study is to amend the Land Use Code in the
following particulars:
1. Expand the existing notification distance for some Zoning Board of Appeals
variance requests;
2. Revise the existing Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards using a new formula to
lower the largest allowable house sizes, and adjust the method for calculating allowable floor
area;
3. Adjust the method for measuring the height of a new wall along a side lot line;
4. Incorporate a new solar access standard; and
5. Incorporate new design standards with a menu of options for front and side
building façade features; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed changes to the Land Use
Code are in the best interests of the City.
ATTACHMENT 3
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
2
NOW, THERFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 2.10.2(F) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(F) Step 6 (Notice): Section 2.2.6(A) only applies, except that “5800 feet” shall be
changed to “150 feet”, and for single-family houses in the NCL and NCM zone
districts, eight hundred (800) feet shall be changed to five hundred (500) feet for
variance requests for:
(a) Construction that results in a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house
previously existed and where there is at least one (1) lot abutting the side of
the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story; or
(b) Construction of a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred
(2,500) square feet; or
(c) Construction of an addition that results in a total square footage of more than
three thousand (3,000) square feet;
and "14 days" shall be changed to "7 days," everywhere they occur in Section
2.2.6.(A). Section 2.2.6(B)-(D) shall not apply.
Section 2. That Section 4.7(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(D) Land Use Standards.
(1) Density Required Lot Area. Minimum lot area shall be equivalent to at least two
and one-half (21/2) times the total floor area of the building(s), but not be less
than six thousand (6,000) square feet. For the purposes of calculating density,
"total floor area" shall mean the total gross floor area of all principal buildings as
measured along the outside walls of such buildings and including each finished or
unfinished floor level plus the total gross floor area of the ground floor of any
accessory building larger than one hundred twenty (120) square feet, plus that
portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least
seven and one-half (71/2) feet located within any such accessory building located
on the lot. (Open balconies and basements shall not be counted as floor area for
purposes of calculating density).
(2) Allowable Floor Area on Lots.
(a) The allowable floor area shall be as follows:
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
3
(1) On a lot of less than five thousand (5,000) square feet, the
allowable floor area for single-family dwellings and buildings
accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed forty (40)
percent of the lot area.
(2) On a lot that is between five thousand (5,000) square feet and ten
thousand (10,000) square feet, the allowable floor area for single-
family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family
dwellings shall not exceed twenty (20) percent of the lot area plus,
one thousand (1,000) square feet. On a lot that is between six
thousand (6,000) square feet and ten thousand (10,000) square feet,
an additional two hundred-fifty (250) square feet shall be added for
a detached accessory structure.
(3) On a lot that is more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, the
allowable floor area for single-family dwellings and buildings
accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed thirty (30)
percent, plus two hundred-fifty (250) square feet for a detached
accessory structure.
(4) The allowable floor area for buildings containing permitted uses
other than single-family dwellings and buildings accessory to
single-family dwellings shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the
lot area.
(b) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, one hundred (100)
percent of the floor area of the following spaces and building elements
shall be included:
(1) The total floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the
outside walls of such buildings and including each finished or
unfinished floor level plus the total floor area of the ground floor
of any accessory building larger than one hundred twenty (120)
square feet, plus that portion of the floor area of any second story
having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7-1/2) feet
located within such accessory building on the lot.
(2) Basement floor areas where the exterior basement walls are
exposed by more than three (3) feet above adjacent finished grade.
(3) Roofed porches, balconies and breezeways that are enclosed on
more than two sides.
(c) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the
following spaces and building elements shall be counted at two hundred
(200) percent:
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
4
High volume spaces on the first or second floor where the distance
between the floor and the ceiling or roof rafters directly above is greater
than fourteen (14) feet.
(d) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the
following spaces and building elements shall not be included:
The first two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of a detached accessory
building, provided that it is located behind a street-fronting principal
building and is separated from such principal building by at least ten (10)
feet.
(3) Allowable Floor Area on Rear Half of Lots. The allowable floor area on the rear
half of a lot shall not exceed twenty five (25) percent of the area of the rear fifty
(50) percent of the lot.
(24) Residential. Any new single-family dwelling that is proposed to be located behind
a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of eight hundred
(800) square feet of floor area unless such new single-family dwelling contains a
two-car garage, in which case it shall contain a maximum of one thousand (1,000)
square feet of floor area, including the garage. Floor area shall include all floor
space within the basement and first floor plus that portion of the floor area of any
second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet. A
new single-family dwelling may be located in any area of the rear portion of such
lot, provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and
there is at least a ten-foot separation between structures. The building footprint for
such single-family dwelling shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet.
(35) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future Habitable Space).
Any accessory building with water and/or sewer service shall be considered to
have habitable space. Any person applying for a building permit for such a
building shall sign and record with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder an
affidavit stating that such accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit.
All applicable building permits issued for such buildings shall be conditioned
upon this prohibition. Any such structure containing habitable space that is
located behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of six
hundred (600) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space
within the basement and ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any
second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet. Such
accessory building may be located in any area of the rear portion of a lot,
provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and there
is at least a ten-foot separation between structures.
(46) Accessory Buildings Without Habitable Space. Any accessory building without
water and/or sewer service, which has not been declared to contain habitable
space by the applicant, shall not exceed a total floor area of six hundred (600)
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
5
square feet. Floor area shall include all floor space (including basement space)
within the building having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½)
feet.
(5) Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Lots are subject to a maximum FAR of twenty-five
hundredths (0.25) on the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot as it existed on October
25, 1991. The lot area used as the basis for the FAR calculation shall be
considered the minimum lot size within the zone district.
Section 3. That Section 4.7(E) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(E) Dimensional Standards.
. . .
(4) Minimum Side Yard and Maximum Wall Height. Minimum side yard width shall
be five (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a building wall
or building along a side lot line exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, as measured
from the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, such
portion of the building wall or building shall be set back from the interior side lot
line an additional one (1) foot, beyond the minimum required, for each two (2)
feet or fraction thereof of building wall or building height that exceeds eighteen
(18) feet in height, except as provided in “a” below. Minimum side yard width
shall be fifteen (15) feet on the street side of any corner lot. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, minimum side yard width for schools and places of worship shall be
twenty-five (25) feet (for both interior and street sides).
(a) Solar Access Setbacks. For building construction that results in:
1. a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously
existed, or
2. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
3. an addition that results in a total square footage of more than three
thousand (3,000) square feet, and
4. construction on a lot where there is a lot abutting the north side of
the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story,
buildingheight shall be reduced to preserve solar access on adjacent lots such that
whenever any portion of a north-facing side building wall that adjoins a lot to the
north exceeds fourteen (14) feet in height, as measured from the existing grade at
the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, such portion of the building wall
shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot beyond
the minimum required, for each one (1) foot, or fraction thereof, of building wall
that exceeds fourteen (14) feet in height. For lots that are forty (40) feet or less in
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
6
width, the fourteen (14) foot starting height may be increased by one (1) foot for
each one (1) foot of decreased lot width up to a maximum starting height of
eighteen (18) feet.
Figure XX: Minimum Side Yard Width and Maximum Building Wall Height
*Applies only to north-facing building walls adjoining a property to the north for
building construction that results in a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house
previously existed, or when the construction is for a new house that is greater than two
thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, or for an addition that results in a total square
footage of more than three thousand (3,000) square feet, and where there is a lot abutting
the north side of the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story.
(5) Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case of carriage
houses, and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be a
maximum of one and one-half (1-1/2) stories.
Section 4. That Section 4.7(F) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(F) Development Standards.
(1) Building Design.
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
7
. . .
(h) Front Façade Character. When building construction results in:
1. a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously
existed and where there is at least one (1) lot abutting the side of
the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story,
or
2. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
3. a second-story addition that results in a total square footage of
more than three thousand (3,000) square feet
at least one (1) front façade feature from the menu below shall be included
to promote pedestrian orientation and compatibility with the character of
the structures on the block face:
Figure XX: Menu of Design Options for Front Façade Character
Limited Two Story Façade
Two-story front-façade width is no more than 40’,
with any remaining two-story front façade set back
an additional six (6) feet from the street.
One Story Element
The portion of the façade closest to the street is
one-story, with any two-story façade set back an
additional six (6) feet from the street.
Covered Entry Feature
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
8
A covered entry feature such as a front porch or
stoop is located on the front façade. The feature
shall have a minimum depth of at least six (6) feet.
(as measured from the building façade to the posts
and railings) and a minimum length of eight (8) feet.
(i) Side Façade Character. When building construction results in:
1. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
2. a second-story addition that results in a total square footage of
more than three thousand (3,000) square feet
at least one (1) side façade feature from the menu below shall be included to
address potential looming and privacy impacts on neighbors:
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
9
Figure XX: Menu of Design Options for Side Façade Character
Wall Offset
Two-story façade width at the minimum side yard is no
more than forty (40) feet, with any remaining two-story
façade set back an additional six (6) feet beyond the
minimum required side yard.
Step Down in Height
Two-story façade width at the minimum side
yard is no more than forty (40) feet, with any
remaining façade width at the minimum side
yard reduced to one-story.
One Story Element
A one-story building element with a minimum depth of
six (6) feet is located at the minimum side yard.
Additional Setback
Any two-story façade is set back an additional
six (6) feet beyond the minimum required side
yard.
. . .
Section 5. That Section 4.8(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(D) Land Use Standards.
(1) Density/Intensity of Development Required Lot Area. Minimum lot area shall be
equivalent to at least two (2) times the total floor area of the building(s), but not
be less than the following: five thousand (5,000) square feet for a single-family or
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
10
two-family dwelling and six thousand (6,000) square feet for all other uses. For
the purposes of calculating density, "total floor area" shall mean the total gross
floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the outside walls of such
buildings and including each finished or unfinished floor level plus the total gross
floor area of the ground floor of any accessory building larger than one hundred
twenty (120) square feet, plus that portion of the floor area of any second story
having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (71/2) feet located within
any such accessory building located on the lot. (Open balconies and basements
shall not be counted as floor area for purposes of calculating density).
(2) Allowable Floor Area on Lots.
(a) The allowable floor area shall be as follows:
(1) On a lot of less than four thousand (4,000) square feet, the
allowable floor area for single-family dwellings and buildings
accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed fifty (50)
percent of the lot area.
(2) On a lot that is between four thousand (4,000) square feet and ten
thousand (10,000) square feet, the allowable floor area for single-
family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family
dwellings shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the lot area
plus one thousand (1,000) square feet. On a lot that is between six
thousand (6,000) square feet and ten thousand (10,000) square feet,
an additional two hundred-fifty (250) square feet shall be added for
a detached accessory structure.
(3) On a lot that is more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, the
allowable floor area for single-family dwellings and buildings
accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed thirty-five
(35) percent of the lot area, plus two hundred-fifty (250) square
feet for a detached accessory structure.
(4) The allowable floor area for buildings containing permitted uses
other than single-family dwellings and buildings accessory to
single-family dwellings shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the
lot area.
(b) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, one hundred (100)
percent of the floor area of the following spaces and building elements
shall be included:
(1) The total floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the
outside walls of such buildings and including each finished or
unfinished floor level plus the total floor area of the ground floor
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
11
of any accessory building larger than one hundred twenty (120)
square feet, plus that portion of the floor area of any second story
having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7-1/2) feet
located within such accessory building located on the lot.
(2) Basement floor areas where the exterior basement walls are
exposed by more than three (3) feet above adjacent finished grade.
(3) Roofed porches, balconies and breezeways that are enclosed on
more than two (2) sides.
(c) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the
following spaces and building elements shall be counted at two hundred
(200) percent:
High volume spaces on the first or second floor where the distance
between the floor and the ceiling or roof rafters directly above is greater
than fourteen (14) feet.
(d) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the
following spaces and building elements shall not be included:
The first two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of a detached accessory
building, provided that it is located behind a street-fronting principal
building and is separated from such principal building by at least ten (10)
feet
(3) Allowable Floor Area on Rear Half of Lots. The allowable floor area on the rear
half of a lot shall not exceed thirty-three (33) percent of the area of the rear fifty
(50) percent of the lot.
(24) Residential. Any new single-family dwelling that is proposed to be located behind
a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of eight hundred
(800) square feet of floor area unless such new single-family dwelling contains a
two-car garage, in which case it shall contain a maximum of one thousand (1,000)
square feet of floor area, including the garage. Floor area shall include all floor
space within the basement and first floor plus that portion of the floor area of any
second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet. A
new single-family dwelling may be located in any area of the rear portion of such
lot, provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and
there is at least a ten-foot separation between structures. The building footprint for
such single-family dwelling shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet.
(35) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future Habitable Space).
Any accessory building with water and/or sewer service shall be considered to
have habitable space. Any person applying for a building permit for such a
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
12
building shall sign and record with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder an
affidavit stating that such accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit.
All applicable building permits issued for such buildings shall be conditioned
upon this prohibition. Any such structure containing habitable space that is
located behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of six
hundred (600) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space
within the basement and ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any
second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet. Such
accessory building may be located in any area of the rear portion of a lot,
provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and there
is at least a ten-foot separation between structures.
(46) Accessory Buildings Without Habitable Space. Any accessory building without
water and/or sewer service, which has not been declared to contain habitable
space by the applicant, shall not exceed a total floor area of six hundred (600)
square feet. Floor area shall include all floor space (including basement space)
within the building having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½)
feet.
(5) Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Lots are subject to a maximum FAR of twenty-five
hundredths (0.25) on the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot as it existed on October
25, 1991. The lot area used as the basis for the FAR calculation shall be
considered the minimum lot size within the zone district.
Section 6. That Section 4.8(E) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(E) Dimensional Standards
. . .
(4) Minimum Side Yard and Maximum Wall Height. Minimum side yard width shall
be five (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a building wall
or building along a side lot line exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, as measured
from the natural grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, such portion
of the building wall or building shall be set back from the interior side lot line an
additional one (1) foot, beyond the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or
fraction thereof of building wall or building height that exceeds eighteen (18) feet
in height, except as provided for in “a” below. Minimum side yard width shall be
fifteen (15) feet on the street side of any corner lot. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, minimum side yard width for schools and places of worship shall be
twenty-five (25) feet (for both interior and street sides).
(a) Solar Access Setbacks. For building construction that results in:
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
13
1. a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously
existed, or
2. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
3. an addition that results in a total square footage of more than three
thousand (3,000) square feet, and
4. construction on a lot where there is a lot abutting the north side of
the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story
building height shall be reduced to preserve solar access on adjacent lots
such that whenever any portion of a north-facing side building wall that
adjoins a lot to the north exceeds fourteen (14) feet in height, as measured
from the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall,
such portion of the building wall shall be set back from the interior side lot
line an additional one (1) foot beyond the minimum required, for each one
(1) foot, or fraction thereof, of building wall that exceeds fourteen (14)
feet in height. For lots that are forty (40) feet or less in width, the fourteen
(14) foot starting height may be increased by one (1) foot for each one (1)
foot of decreased lot width up to a maximum starting height of eighteen
(18) feet.
Figure XX: Minimum Side Yard Width and Maximum Building Wall Height
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
14
*Applies only to north-facing building walls adjoining a property to the north for
building construction that results in a two (2) story where a one (1) story previously
existed, or when the construction is for a new house that is greater than two thousand five
hundred (2,500) square feet, or for an addition that results in a total square footage of
more than three thousand (3,000) square feet, and where there is a lot abutting the north
side of the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story.
(5) Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case of
carriage houses, and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which
shall be a maximum of one and one-half (11/2) stories.
Section 7. That Section 4.8(F) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
(F) Development Standards
(1) Building Design.
. . .
(h) Front Façade Character. When building construction results in:
1. a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously
existed and where there is an abutting house on either side that is
one (1) story, or
2. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
3. a second-story addition that results in a total square footage of
more than three thousand (3,000) square feet
at least one (1) front façade feature from the menu below shall be included
to promote pedestrian orientation and compatibility with the character of
structures on the block face:
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
15
Figure XX: Menu of Design Options for Front Façade Character
Limited Two Story Façade
Two-story front-façade width is no more than 40’,
with any remaining two-story front façade set back
an additional six (6) feet from the street.
One Story Element
The portion of the façade closest to the street is
one-story, with any two-story façade set back an
additional six (6) feet from the street.
lCovered Entry Feature
A covered entry feature such as a front porch or
stoop is located on the front façade. The feature
shall have a minimum depth of at least six (6) feet
(as measured from the building façade to the posts
and railings) and a minimum length of eight (8) feet.
(i) Side Façade Character. When building construction results in:
1. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
16
2. a second-story addition that results in a total square footage of
more than three thousand (3,000) square feet
at least one (1) side façade feature from the menu below shall be included to
address potential looming and privacy impacts on neighbors:
Figure XX: Menu of Design Options for Side Façade Character
Wall Offset
Two-story façade width at the minimum side yard is no
more than forty (40) feet, with any remaining two-story
façade set back an additional six (6) feet beyond the
minimum required side yard.
Step Down in Height
Two-story façade width at the minimum side
yard is no more than forty (40) feet, with any
remaining façade width at the minimum side
yard reduced to one-story.
One Story Element
A one-story building element with a minimum depth of
six (6) feet is located at the minimum side yard.
Additional Setback
Any two-story façade is set back an additional
six (6) feet beyond the minimum required side
yard.
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
17
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of
February, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 5th day of March, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 5th day of March, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
1
OPTION “B”
ORDINANCE NO. ___, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
LAND USE CODE PERTAINING TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
EASTSIDE AND WESTSIDE NEIGHBORHOODS CHARACTER STUDY
WHEREAS, in 2010, City staff conducted an Eastside/Westside Neighborhood Study
which resulted in an ordinance being approved by the City Council which was later repealed in
response to a citizen petition; and
WHEREAS, in June 2011, City staff initiated a new Eastside/Westside Neighborhood
Character Study (the “Study”) after receiving direction from City Council to take a fresh look at
neighborhood compatibility and character issues in the neighborhoods near downtown; and
WHEREAS, the basis of the Study is to respond to continued concerns with respect to
potential impacts of building additions and new construction in the City’s oldest neighborhoods;
and
WHEREAS, the Study process included extensive public outreach and the consideration
of the proposed Code changes arising from the Study by the Planning and Zoning Board, the
Landmark Preservation Commission, the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Building Review
Board; and
WHEREAS, the direction from the Study is to amend the Land Use Code in the
following particulars:
1. Expand the existing notification distance for some Zoning Board of Appeals
variance requests;
2. Adjust the method for calculating allowable floor area;
3. Adjust the method for measuring the height of a new wall along a side lot line;
4. Incorporate a new solar access standard; and
5. Incorporate new design standards with a menu of options for front and side
building façade features; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed changes to the Land Use
Code are in the best interests of the City.
ATTACHMENT 4
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
2
NOW, THERFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 2.10.2(F) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(F) Step 6 (Notice): Section 2.2.6(A) only applies, except that “5800 feet” shall be
changed to “150 feet”, and for single-family houses in the NCL and NCM zone
districts, eight hundred (800) feet shall be changed to five hundred (500) feet for
variance requests for:
(a) Construction that results in a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house
previously existed and where there is at least one (1) lot abutting the side of
the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story; or
(b) Construction of a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred
(2,500) square feet; or
(c) Construction of an addition that results in a total square footage of more than
three thousand (3,000) square feet;
and "14 days" shall be changed to "7 days," everywhere they occur in Section
2.2.6.(A). Section 2.2.6(B)-(D) shall not apply.
Section 2. That Section 4.7(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(D) Land Use Standards.
(1) Density Required Lot Area. Minimum lot area shall be equivalent to at least two
and one-half (21/2) times the total floor area of the building(s), but not be less
than six thousand (6,000) square feet. For the purposes of calculating density,
"total floor area" shall mean the total gross floor area of all principal buildings as
measured along the outside walls of such buildings and including each finished or
unfinished floor level plus the total gross floor area of the ground floor of any
accessory building larger than one hundred twenty (120) square feet, plus that
portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least
seven and one-half (71/2) feet located within any such accessory building located
on the lot. (Open balconies and basements shall not be counted as floor area for
purposes of calculating density).
(2) Allowable Floor Area on Lots.
(a) The allowable floor area shall be as follows:
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
3
(1) The allowable floor area for all buildings shall not exceed forty
(40) percent of the lot area.
(b) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, one hundred (100)
percent of the floor area of the following spaces and building
elements shall be included:
(1) The total floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the
outside walls of such buildings and including each finished or
unfinished floor level plus the total floor area of the ground floor
of any accessory building larger than one hundred twenty (120)
square feet, plus that portion of the floor area of any second story
having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7-1/2) feet
located within such accessory building on the lot.
(2) Basement floor areas where the exterior basement walls are
exposed by more than three (3) feet above adjacent finished grade.
(3) Roofed porches, balconies and breezeways that are enclosed on
more than two sides.
(c) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the
following spaces and building elements shall be counted at two hundred
(200) percent:
High volume spaces on the first or second floor where the distance
between the floor and the ceiling or roof rafters directly above is greater
than fourteen (14) feet.
(d) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the
following spaces and building elements shall not be included:
The first two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of a detached accessory
building, provided that it is located behind a street-fronting principal
building and is separated from such principal building by at least ten (10)
feet.
(3) Allowable Floor Area on Rear Half of Lots. The allowable floor area on the rear
half of a lot shall not exceed twenty five (25) percent of the area of the rear fifty
(50) percent of the lot.
(24) Residential. Any new single-family dwelling that is proposed to be located behind
a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of eight hundred
(800) square feet of floor area unless such new single-family dwelling contains a
two-car garage, in which case it shall contain a maximum of one thousand (1,000)
square feet of floor area, including the garage. Floor area shall include all floor
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
4
space within the basement and first floor plus that portion of the floor area of any
second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet. A
new single-family dwelling may be located in any area of the rear portion of such
lot, provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and
there is at least a ten-foot separation between structures. The building footprint for
such single-family dwelling shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet.
(35) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future Habitable Space).
Any accessory building with water and/or sewer service shall be considered to
have habitable space. Any person applying for a building permit for such a
building shall sign and record with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder an
affidavit stating that such accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit.
All applicable building permits issued for such buildings shall be conditioned
upon this prohibition. Any such structure containing habitable space that is
located behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of six
hundred (600) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space
within the basement and ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any
second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet. Such
accessory building may be located in any area of the rear portion of a lot,
provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and there
is at least a ten-foot separation between structures.
(46) Accessory Buildings Without Habitable Space. Any accessory building without
water and/or sewer service, which has not been declared to contain habitable
space by the applicant, shall not exceed a total floor area of six hundred (600)
square feet. Floor area shall include all floor space (including basement space)
within the building having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½)
feet.
(5) Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Lots are subject to a maximum FAR of twenty-five
hundredths (0.25) on the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot as it existed on October
25, 1991. The lot area used as the basis for the FAR calculation shall be
considered the minimum lot size within the zone district.
Section 3. That Section 4.7(E) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(E) Dimensional Standards.
. . .
(4) Minimum Side Yard and Maximum Wall Height. Minimum side yard width
shall be five (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a building wall or
building along a side lot line exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, as measured from the existing
grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, such portion of the building wall or
building shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot, beyond the
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
5
minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of building wall or building height
that exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, except as provided in “a” below. Minimum side yard
width shall be fifteen (15) feet on the street side of any corner lot. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, minimum side yard width for schools and places of worship shall be twenty-five (25)
feet (for both interior and street sides).
(a) Solar Access Setbacks. For building construction that results in:
1. a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously
existed, or
2. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
3. an addition that results in a total square footage of more than three
thousand (3,000) square feet, and
4. construction on a lot where there is a lot abutting the north side of
the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story,
building height shall be reduced to preserve solar access on adjacent lots such that
whenever any portion of a north-facing side building wall that adjoins a lot to the
north exceeds fourteen (14) feet in height, as measured from the existing grade at
the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, such portion of the building wall
shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot beyond
the minimum required, for each one (1) foot, or fraction thereof, of building wall
that exceeds fourteen (14) feet in height. For lots that are forty (40) feet or less in
width, the fourteen (14) foot starting height may be increased by one (1) foot for
each one (1) foot of decreased lot width up to a maximum starting height of
eighteen (18) feet.
Figure XX: Minimum Side Yard Width and Maximum Building Wall Height
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
6
*Applies only to north-facing building walls adjoining a property to the north for
building construction that results in a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house
previously existed, or when the construction is for a new house that is greater than two
thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, or for an addition that results in a total square
footage of more than three thousand (3,000) square feet, and where there is a lot abutting
the north side of the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story.
(5) Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case of carriage
houses, and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be a
maximum of one and one-half (1-1/2) stories.
Section 4. That Section 4.7(F) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(F) Development Standards.
(1) Building Design.
. . .
(h) Front Façade Character. When building construction results in:
1. a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously
existed and where there is at least one (1) lot abutting the side of
the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story,
or
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
7
2. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
3. a second-story addition that results in a total square footage of
more than three thousand (3,000) square feet
at least one (1) front façade feature from the menu below shall be included
to promote pedestrian orientation and compatibility with the character of
the structures on the block face:
Figure XX: Menu of Design Options for Front Façade Character
Limited Two Story Façade
Two-story front-façade width is no more than 40’,
with any remaining two-story front façade set back
an additional six (6) feet from the street.
One Story Element
The portion of the façade closest to the street is
one-story, with any two-story façade set back an
additional six (6) feet from the street.
Covered Entry Feature
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
8
A covered entry feature such as a front porch or
stoop is located on the front façade. The feature
shall have a minimum depth of at least six (6) feet.
(as measured from the building façade to the posts
and railings) and a minimum length of eight (8) feet.
(i) Side Façade Character. When building construction results in:
1. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
2. a second-story addition that results in a total square footage of
more than three thousand (3,000) square feet
at least one (1) side façade feature from the menu below shall be included to
address potential looming and privacy impacts on neighbors:
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
9
Figure XX: Menu of Design Options for Side Façade Character
Wall Offset
Two-story façade width at the minimum side yard is no
more than forty (40) feet, with any remaining two-story
façade set back an additional six (6) feet beyond the
minimum required side yard.
Step Down in Height
Two-story façade width at the minimum side
yard is no more than forty (40) feet, with any
remaining façade width at the minimum side
yard reduced to one-story.
One Story Element
A one-story building element with a minimum depth of
six (6) feet is located at the minimum side yard.
Additional Setback
Any two-story façade is set back an additional
six (6) feet beyond the minimum required side
yard.
. . .
Section 5. That Section 4.8(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(D) Land Use Standards.
(1) Density/Intensity of Development Required Lot Area. Minimum lot area shall be
equivalent to at least two (2) times the total floor area of the building(s), but not
be less than the following: five thousand (5,000) square feet for a single-family or
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
10
two-family dwelling and six thousand (6,000) square feet for all other uses. For
the purposes of calculating density, "total floor area" shall mean the total gross
floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the outside walls of such
buildings and including each finished or unfinished floor level plus the total gross
floor area of the ground floor of any accessory building larger than one hundred
twenty (120) square feet, plus that portion of the floor area of any second story
having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (71/2) feet located within
any such accessory building located on the lot. (Open balconies and basements
shall not be counted as floor area for purposes of calculating density).
(2) Allowable Floor Area on Lots.
(a) The allowable floor area shall be as follows:
(1) The allowable floor area for all buildings shall not exceed fifty
(50) percent of the lot area.
(b) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, one hundred (100)
percent of the floor area of the following spaces and building elements
shall be included:
(1) The total floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the
outside walls of such buildings and including each finished or
unfinished floor level plus the total floor area of the ground floor
of any accessory building larger than one hundred twenty (120)
square feet, plus that portion of the floor area of any second story
having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7-1/2) feet
located within such accessory building located on the lot.
(2) Basement floor areas where the exterior basement walls are
exposed by more than three (3) feet above adjacent finished grade.
(3) Roofed porches, balconies and breezeways that are enclosed on
more than two (2) sides.
(c) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the
following spaces and building elements shall be counted at two hundred
(200) percent:
High volume spaces on the first or second floor where the distance
between the floor and the ceiling or roof rafters directly above is greater
than fourteen (14) feet.
(d) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the
following spaces and building elements shall not be included:
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
11
The first two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of a detached accessory
building, provided that it is located behind a street-fronting principal
building and is separated from such principal building by at least ten (10)
feet
(3) Allowable Floor Area on Rear Half of Lots. The allowable floor area on the rear
half of a lot shall not exceed thirty-three (33) percent of the area of the rear fifty
(50) percent of the lot.
(24) Residential. Any new single-family dwelling that is proposed to be located behind
a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of eight hundred
(800) square feet of floor area unless such new single-family dwelling contains a
two-car garage, in which case it shall contain a maximum of one thousand (1,000)
square feet of floor area, including the garage. Floor area shall include all floor
space within the basement and first floor plus that portion of the floor area of any
second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet. A
new single-family dwelling may be located in any area of the rear portion of such
lot, provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and
there is at least a ten-foot separation between structures. The building footprint for
such single-family dwelling shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet.
(35) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future Habitable Space).
Any accessory building with water and/or sewer service shall be considered to
have habitable space. Any person applying for a building permit for such a
building shall sign and record with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder an
affidavit stating that such accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit.
All applicable building permits issued for such buildings shall be conditioned
upon this prohibition. Any such structure containing habitable space that is
located behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of six
hundred (600) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space
within the basement and ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any
second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet. Such
accessory building may be located in any area of the rear portion of a lot,
provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and there
is at least a ten-foot separation between structures.
(46) Accessory Buildings Without Habitable Space. Any accessory building without
water and/or sewer service, which has not been declared to contain habitable
space by the applicant, shall not exceed a total floor area of six hundred (600)
square feet. Floor area shall include all floor space (including basement space)
within the building having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½)
feet.
(5) Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Lots are subject to a maximum FAR of twenty-five
hundredths (0.25) on the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot as it existed on October
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
12
25, 1991. The lot area used as the basis for the FAR calculation shall be
considered the minimum lot size within the zone district.
Section 6. That Section 4.8(E) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(E) Dimensional Standards
. . .
(4) Minimum Side Yard and Maximum Wall Height. Minimum side yard width shall
be five (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a building wall
or building along a side lot line exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, as measured
from the natural grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, such portion
of the building wall or building shall be set back from the interior side lot line an
additional one (1) foot, beyond the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or
fraction thereof of building wall or building height that exceeds eighteen (18) feet
in height, except as provided for in “a” below. Minimum side yard width shall be
fifteen (15) feet on the street side of any corner lot. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, minimum side yard width for schools and places of worship shall be
twenty-five (25) feet (for both interior and street sides).
(a) Solar Access Setbacks. For building construction that results in:
1. a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously
existed, or
2. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
3. an addition that results in a total square footage of more than three
thousand (3,000) square feet, and
4. construction on a lot where there is a lot abutting the north side of
the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story
building height shall be reduced to preserve solar access on adjacent lots
such that whenever any portion of a north-facing side building wall that
adjoins a lot to the north exceeds fourteen (14) feet in height, as measured
from the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall,
such portion of the building wall shall be set back from the interior side lot
line an additional one (1) foot beyond the minimum required, for each one
(1) foot, or fraction thereof, of building wall that exceeds fourteen (14)
feet in height. For lots that are forty (40) feet or less in width, the fourteen
(14) foot starting height may be increased by one (1) foot for each one (1)
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
13
foot of decreased lot width up to a maximum starting height of eighteen
(18) feet.
Figure XX: Minimum Side Yard Width and Maximum Building Wall Height
*Applies only to north-facing building walls adjoining a property to the north for
building construction that results in a two (2) story where a one (1) story previously
existed, or when the construction is for a new house that is greater than two thousand five
hundred (2,500) square feet, or for an addition that results in a total square footage of
more than three thousand (3,000) square feet, and where there is a lot abutting the north
side of the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is one (1) story.
(5) Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case of
carriage houses, and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which
shall be a maximum of one and one-half (11/2) stories.
Section 7. That Section 4.8(F) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
(F) Development Standards
(1) Building Design.
. . .
(h) Front Façade Character. When building construction results in:
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
14
1. a two (2) story house where a one (1) story house previously
existed and where there is an abutting house on either side that is
one (1) story, or
2. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
3. a second-story addition that results in a total square footage of
more than three thousand (3,000) square feet
at least one (1) front façade feature from the menu below shall be included
to promote pedestrian orientation and compatibility with the character of
structures on the block face:
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
15
Figure XX: Menu of Design Options for Front Façade Character
Limited Two Story Façade
Two-story front-façade width is no more than 40’,
with any remaining two-story front façade set back
an additional six (6) feet from the street.
One Story Element
The portion of the façade closest to the street is
one-story, with any two-story façade set back an
additional six (6) feet from the street.
lCovered Entry Feature
A covered entry feature such as a front porch or
stoop is located on the front façade. The feature
shall have a minimum depth of at least six (6) feet
(as measured from the building façade to the posts
and railings) and a minimum length of eight (8) feet.
(i) Side Façade Character. When building construction results in:
1. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, or
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
16
2. a second-story addition that results in a total square footage of
more than three thousand (3,000) square feet
at least one (1) side façade feature from the menu below shall be included to
address potential looming and privacy impacts on neighbors:
Figure XX: Menu of Design Options for Side Façade Character
Wall Offset
Two-story façade width at the minimum side yard is no
more than forty (40) feet, with any remaining two-story
façade set back an additional six (6) feet beyond the
minimum required side yard.
Step Down in Height
Two-story façade width at the minimum side
yard is no more than forty (40) feet, with any
remaining façade width at the minimum side
yard reduced to one-story.
One Story Element
A one-story building element with a minimum depth of
six (6) feet is located at the minimum side yard.
Additional Setback
Any two-story façade is set back an additional
six (6) feet beyond the minimum required side
yard.
DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING
17
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of
February, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 5th day of March, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 5th day of March, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Lot Size Lot Size
Max.
FAR
Additional
Accessory
Structure
Floor Area
Allowance
Total
Allowed
Floor
Area
Max.
FAR
Additional
Accessory
Structure
Floor Area
Allowance
Total
Allowed
Floor
Area
Max.
FAR
Additional
Accessory
Structure
Floor Area
Allowance
Total
Allowed
Floor
Area
Max.
FAR
Additional
Accessory
Structure
Floor Area
Allowance
Total
Floor
Area
Max.
FAR
Additional
Accessory
Structure
Floor Area
Allowance
Total
Allowed
Floor
Area
Max.
FAR
Additional
Accessory
Structure
)
Lot Size Lot Size
Max.
FAR
Additional
Accessory
Structure
Floor Area
Allowance
Total
Allowed
Floor
Area
Max.
FAR
Allowed
Floor
Area
Additional
1,000 sf Floor
Area Lots ≥
5,000 sf & <
10,000 sf
Additional
Accessory
Structure
Floor Area
Allowance
Total Floor
Area
Actual
FAR
Max.
FAR
Additional
Accessory
Structure
Floor Area
Allowance
Total
Floor
Area
Max.
FAR
Allowed
Floor
Area
Additional
1,000 sf Floor
Area Lots ≥
5,000 sf & <
10,000 sf
Additional
Accessory
Structure
Floor Area
Allowance
Total Floor
Area
Actual
Table 2. 2011 Proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Standards
Lot Size (sf) First 3,000 sf
@ .45
Remainder @
.25
Accessory
Structure
Allowance
Total Floor
Area (sf)
Floor Area
Ratio
3,000 1,350 0 0 1,350 0.45
4,000 1,350 250 0 1,600 0.40
5,000 1,350 500 0 1,850 0.37
6,000 1,350 750 250* 2,100 0.35
7,000 1,350 1,000 250* 2,350 0.34
8,000 1,350 1,250 250* 2,600 0.33
9,000 1,350 1,500 250* 2,850 0.32
10,000 1,350 1,750 250* 3,100 0.31
11,000 1,350 2,000 250* 3,350 0.30
12,000 1,350 2,250 250* 3,600 0.30
13,000 1,350 2,500 250* 3,850 0.30
14,000 1,350 2,750 250* 4,100 0.29
15,000 1,350 3,000 250* 4,350 0.29
* Allowance of 250 square feet for detached accessory structure on lots 6,000 square feet or greater in size
1
City Council Work Session
February 12, 2013
Eastside & Westside Neighborhoods
Character Study
ATTACHMENT 6
2
General Direction Sought and Specific
Questions to be Answered
1. What comments or direction does Council have
on options for revising existing Floor Area Ratio
standards?
2. What additional comments or feedback does
Council have on other proposed implementation
actions prior to Hearing?
3
Eastside & Westside Neighborhoods Character Study
www.fcgov.com/eastwestneighborhoods
4
Staff Recommended Strategy Options
1.Promote Ex. Design Assistance Program
2.Expand Notification for Variances
3.Create Design Handbooks/Guidelines
4.Adjust Measurement Methods
5.Address Building Massing/Solar Access
a. Address Building Scale/Size Directly
b. Address Solar Access Directly
c. Address Building Massing/Solar Impacts
with Design Tools (Indirectly)
6.No Action/Limited Action
5
Direction from City Council (11/27/12)
1. Develop a strategy to promote design assistance
2. Expand notification of variances
3. Create voluntary design guidelines
4. Adjust measurement methods
5. Address building massing/solar access:
5a. Address building scale/size - Revise (FAR)
5b. Address Solar Access Impacts - directly
5c. Address building massing/solar impacts
indirectly with new design standards
6
Planning Process Consists of Three Phases:
Phase 1 Understand character/context in
different parts of neighborhoods
Phase 2 Develop Strategies for potential
solutions
Phase 3 Develop tools, systems, and actions to
implement strategies
7
Public Process for Implementation - 2013
• Working Group Meetings (January 16)
• Public Open House Meeting (January 30)
• Boards/Commissions Recommendation to
Council (February)
• City Council Hearing (1st Reading – February 19)
• City Council Hearing (2nd
Reading – March 5)
8
Study Area
9
Study Area
10
Proposed Options for Land Use Code
Amendments
Option A
• Reflects package of revised and new standards - including
revision of the existing FAR standard formula
Option B
• Same as Option A - except retains existing FAR standard
formula
11
Option A
Proposed Land Use Code Amendments
• Expand existing notification distance for variance
requests
• Revise Ex. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards
• Adjust Ex. Standard for measuring height of new
building wall along side lot line
• New solar access standard
• New standards for building front/side façade
design
12
Expand the notification distance for some Zoning
Board of Appeals (ZBA) variance requests (New
Land Use Code Amendment)
13
Revise Existing Maximum Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) Standards
Clarifying Code terminology and
formatting
Reduces maximum FAR according
to a sliding scale by lot size
FARs differ for the N-C-L and
N-C-M districts
14
Revise Existing Maximum Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) Standards
Adjust measurement method
for calculating maximum
permitted FAR
Count large volume
spaces as two floors
Count square footage
of elevated
basements
Not count up to 250
square feet of
detached rear
accessory structure
15
Revise Existing Maximum Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) Standards
Potential FAR Formula
Additional allowance for 250 square feet in detached
accessory structure on lots 6,000 SF or larger
16
17
18
Adjust measurement method for height of a new
wall along a side lot line
Proposed System –
Existing Grade at Property Line
Current System –
Finished Grade at Wall
19
Façade Standard for Solar Access
Lower maximum wall height facing a one-story neighbor to the
north
Would only apply to large new houses or new two-story
houses
20
Additional Building Design Standards
Provides a menu of design options for the building
front façade of large new homes
21
Additional Building Design Standards
Provides a menu of design options for the building
side façade of large new homes
22
Standards Comparison
Existing: All Standards Combined
Potential: All Standards Combined
23
Case Study 1 (existing conditions)
24
Page 11: Case Study 1 (before/after)
25
Case Study 1 (solar access)
26
Case Study 2 (existing condition)
27
Case Study 2 (before/after)
28
Case Study 3 (existing condition)
29
Case Study 3 (before/after)
30
Case Study 3 (solar access)
31
Option A
Main Issues Addressed
• Expands notification for variance requests , increasing
awareness for affected neighbors
• Reduces FAR to limit largest house sizes
• Adjusts side wall height measurement to account for raised
grading relative to neighboring properties
• Addresses compatibility issues and solar impacts of some
larger new construction
32
Option B
Proposed Land Use Code Amendments
• Expand existing notification distance for variance
requests
• Retain Ex. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards
• Adjust Ex. Standard for measuring height of new
building wall along side lot line
• New solar access standard
• New standards for building front/side façade
design
33
Option B
Main Issues Addressed
• Expands notification for variance requests , increasing
awareness for affected neighbors
• Adjusts side wall height measurement to account for raised
grading
• Addresses compatibility issues and solar impacts of some
larger new construction
34
Comparison of Ordinances
2011 Ordinance (Repealed):
• Lowering current limit for building FAR applied the
same for all lots in both NCL/NCM districts
• Require recommendation from Landmark
Preservation Commission to Zoning Board of
Appeals on variance requests for FAR
• Adjust measurement method for maximum side
wall height
35
Comparison of Ordinances
Proposed 2013 Ordinance – Option A:
• New standard for expanded notice for variance
requests
• Lowering current limit for building FAR applied
differently for both NCL/NCM districts based on lot
size (Option B does not include this standard)
• Adjust measurement method for maximum side
wall height (similar)
• New solar access standard
• New building façade design standards
36
General Direction Sought and Specific
Questions to be Answered
1. What comments or direction does Council have
on options for revising existing Floor Area Ratio
standards?
2. What additional comments or feedback does
Council have on other proposed implementation
actions prior to Hearing?
FAR
3,000 0.40 0 1200 0.40 1,200 0 0 1,200 0.40 3,000 0.50 0 1,500 0.50 1,500 0 0 1,500 0.50
4,000 0.40 0 1600 0.40 1,600 0 0 1,600 0.40 4,000 0.50 0 2,000 0.25 1,000 1,000 250 2,250 0.56
5,000 0.40 0 2000 0.20 1,000 1,000 250 2,250 0.45 5,000 0.50 0 2,500 0.25 1,250 1,000 250 2,500 0.50
6,000 0.40 0 2400 0.20 1,200 1,000 250 2,450 0.41 6,000 0.50 0 3,000 0.25 1,500 1,000 250 2,750 0.46
7,000 0.40 0 2800 0.20 1,400 1,000 250 2,650 0.38 7,000 0.50 0 3,500 0.25 1,750 1,000 250 3,000 0.43
8,000 0.40 0 3200 0.20 1,600 1,000 250 2,850 0.36 8,000 0.50 0 4,000 0.25 2,000 1,000 250 3,250 0.41
9,000 0.40 0 3600 0.20 1,800 1,000 250 3,050 0.34 9,000 0.50 0 4,500 0.25 2,250 1,000 250 3,500 0.39
10,000 0.40 0 4000 0.30 3,000 0 250 3,250 0.33 10,000 0.50 0 5,000 0.35 3,500 0 250 3,750 0.38
11,000 0.40 0 4400 0.30 3,300 0 250 3,550 0.32 11,000 0.50 0 5,500 0.35 3,850 0 250 4,100 0.37
12,000 0.40 0 4800 0.30 3,600 0 250 3,850 0.32 12,000 0.50 0 6,000 0.35 4,200 0 250 4,450 0.37
13,000 0.40 0 5200 0.30 3,900 0 250 4,150 0.32 13,000 0.50 0 6,500 0.35 4,550 0 250 4,800 0.37
14,000 0.40 0 5600 0.30 4,200 0 250 4,450 0.32 14,000 0.50 0 7,000 0.35 4,900 0 250 5,150 0.37
15,000 0.40 0 6000 0.30 4,500 0 250 4,750 0.32 15,000 0.50 0 7,500 0.35 5,250 0 250 5,500 0.37
All Lots: All Lots:
Lot < 5,000 sf: Lot < 4,000 sf:
2013 FAR Option for N‐C‐L
Existing FAR Standard for N‐C‐L
Lot Size * 0.40 = Max Floor Area
Existing FAR Standard for N‐C‐M
Lot Size * 0.50 = Max Floor Area
2013 FAR Option for N‐C‐M
Lot ≥ 5,000 and
< 10,000 sf
Lot ≥ 10,000 sf
Lot Size * 0.20 + 1,000 (+250 sf in detached rear accessory structure on
lots ≥ 5,000 sf) = Max. Floor Area
Lot Size * 0.30 (+250 sf in detached rear accessory structure) = Max. Floor
Area
Lot Size * 0.40 = Max. Floor Area
Lot ≥ 4,000 and
< 10,000 sf
Lot ≥ 10,000 sf
Lot Size * 0.50 = Max. Floor Area
Lot Size * 0.25 + 1,000 (+250 sf in detached rear accessory structure on
lots ≥ 5,000 sf) = Max. Floor Area
Lot Size * 0.35 (+250 sf in detached rear accessory structure) = Max. Floor
Area
Table 1. Comparison of Existing and Potential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Standards
Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density Zone District (N‐C‐L)
Existing Standard Existing Standard
Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density Zone District (N‐C‐M)
2013 Standard 2013 Standard
Floor Area
Allowance
Total
Allowed
Floor
Area
3,000 0.40 0 1200 0.40 0 1,200 0.45 0 1,350 3,000 0.50 0 1,500 0.50 0 1,500 0.45 0 1,350
4,000 0.40 0 1600 0.40 0 1,600 0.40 0 1,600 4,000 0.50 0 2,000 0.50 0 2,000 0.40 0 1,600
5,000 0.40 0 2000 0.40 0 2,000 0.37 0 1,850 5,000 0.50 0 2,500 0.45 0 2,250 0.37 0 1,850
6,000 0.40 0 2400 0.41 250 2,450 0.39 250 2,350 6,000 0.50 0 3,000 0.46 250 2,750 0.39 250 2,350
7,000 0.40 0 2800 0.38 250 2,650 0.37 250 2,600 7,000 0.50 0 3,500 0.43 250 3,000 0.37 250 2,600
8,000 0.40 0 3200 0.36 250 2,850 0.36 250 2,850 8,000 0.50 0 4,000 0.41 250 3,250 0.36 250 2,850
9,000 0.40 0 3600 0.34 250 3,050 0.34 250 3,100 9,000 0.50 0 4,500 0.39 250 3,500 0.34 250 3,100
10,000 0.40 0 4000 0.33 250 3,250 0.34 250 3,350 10,000 0.50 0 5,000 0.38 250 3,750 0.34 250 3,350
11,000 0.40 0 4400 0.32 250 3,550 0.33 250 3,600 11,000 0.50 0 5,500 0.37 250 4,100 0.33 250 3,600
12,000 0.40 0 4800 0.32 250 3,850 0.32 250 3,850 12,000 0.50 0 6,000 0.37 250 4,450 0.32 250 3,850
13,000 0.40 0 5200 0.32 250 4,150 0.32 250 4,100 13,000 0.50 0 6,500 0.37 250 4,800 0.32 250 4,100
14,000 0.40 0 5600 0.32 250 4,450 0.31 250 4,350 14,000 0.50 0 7,000 0.37 250 5,150 0.31 250 4,350
15,000 0.40 0 6000 0.32 250 4,750 0.31 250 4,600 15,000 0.50 0 7,500 0.37 250 5,500 0.31 250 4,600
All Lots: All Lots:
Lot < 5,000 sf: Lot < 4,000 sf:
2011 Standard
Comparison of Existing and Potential Floor Area Standards
2011 Standard Existing Standard 2013 Standard
N‐C‐L N‐C‐M
Existing Standard 2013 Standard
Lot Size * 0.50 = Max. Floor Area
Lot ≥ 4,000 and
< 10,000 sf
Lot Size * 0.25 + 1,000 (+250 sf in detached rear accessory
structure on lots ≥ 5,000 sf) = Max. Floor Area
Lot ≥ 10,000 sf
Lot Size * 0.35 (+250 sf in detached rear accessory structure) =
Max. Floor Area
Lot ≥ 5,000 and
< 10,000 sf
Lot ≥ 10,000 sf
Lot Size * 0.20 + 1,000 (+250 sf in detached rear accessory
structure on lots ≥ 5,000 sf) = Max. Floor Area
Lot Size * 0.30 (+250 sf in detached rear accessory structure) =
Max. Floor Area
Lot Size * 0.40 = Max. Floor Area
2013 FAR Option for N‐C‐L
Existing FAR Standard for N‐C‐L Existing FAR Standard for N‐C‐M
Lot Size * 0.40 = Max Floor Area Lot Size * 0.50 = Max Floor Area
2013 FAR Option for N‐C‐M
ATTACHMENT 5
impact on
Overall F
Should th
Do large
Easts
Janua
ood working
included a s
of the recom
written and v
do you live?
3 people atte
or owners w
comments
ards?
ome owner to
n-law unit fo
I really like
the crazy wi
ward to calc
d a two car g
proposed fo
asurements f
r of adjacent
in right direc
5,000 sq.ft.
guring ratios
ation?
the height of
rregular lot s
ch flexibility
how the garag
his different
for review.
out shifting m
ent propertie
ny lots woul
reduced FAR
n smaller lot
FARs are low
he FAR of 0
patios and d
side and We
ary 16,
Summ
group meeti
staff overvie
mmended stra
verbal comm
Do you ow
ending the m
within the tw
and feedba
o distribute m
or lots under
this change.
illy nilly stuf
culating how
garage.
r std’s
from ground
t homes.
ction – looks
to table.
, is preserva
f a basement
sizes/lot con
y is allowabl
ge is counted
from the pre
more square
es than havin
ld fit into the
R, which is p
ts, especially
wer, but con
.33 for the b
decks count t
stside Neigh
2013 W
mary of
ings were he
ew presentati
ategy option
ments receive
wn or rent?
meeting, two
wo neighborh
ck on the po
more of the
r 10,000 sq.f
It seems to
ff that’s been
w new standa
d level vs. rai
s good to me
ation of solar
t that is inclu
nfigurations h
le?
d – would ge
evious FAR
e footage to t
ng a larger h
e under 40’ w
probably ok o
y when you a
struction stil
back half of t
toward FAR
hborhoods C
Working
Public
eld on Janua
ion of potent
ns from the E
ed by staff:
did not own
hoods.
otential rev
sq.ft. to the
ft.
o be still very
n going on.
ards would af
ised. Apprec
e but photo e
r access of ad
uded in FAR
handled?
et a 250 SF e
? Concerne
the back of th
house or addi
width except
on larger lot
add in the im
ll tends to fa
the lot be ret
R?
Character St
g Grou
Comm
ary 16, 2013
tial new Lan
Eastside & W
n or live in th
visions to exi
back of the
y gracious to
ffect my pla
ciate the rev
examples wo
djacent prop
R measureme
exception fo
d about proc
the lot (i.e. in
ition near th
tion?
ts of 9,000 sf
mpacts of the
all within thi
tained or rem
tudy
up Meet
ments
with 22 in a
nd Use Code
Westside Nei
he two neigh
isting maxim
lot such as a
o new builde
ans to demoli
vision to FAR
ould be nice.
perties (rear y
ent?
or a detached
cess and this
nto carriage
he front of th
f or 10,000 s
e solar acces
is formula.
moved – give
ting
attendance. T
e changes rel
ighborhoods
hborhoods an
mum floor a
a carriage ho
ers while reig
ish my one c
R in keeping
. Add actual
yards) taken
d garage.
s being done
house) – ma
he lot
sf but concer
ss requireme
en these low
The agenda
lating to
s Character
nd 21 are
area ratio
ouse or
gning in
car garage
g with the
l FAR for
n into
too quickly
ay be better
rned about
ents.
wer FARs?
,
A change
fill dirt h
than plen
logic beh
Easts
Januar
open house
eeting reflect
and verbal c
ges relating t
borhoods Ch
written and v
do you live?
2 people who
hborhoods a
ns should be
eighborhood
ation Action
existing des
fication of va
ntary design
wall height m
area ratio (F
tial Actions:
alconies as p
er action on
discussions
rovements fr
see if you ca
symmetrical
eady remove
comments
with the new
hange 250 sq
e to the floor
hauled in to i
nty. GARAG
hind the addi
side and We
y 30, 20
Summ
meeting wa
ted an inform
omments. S
to implemen
haracter Stud
verbal comm
Do you ow
o signed our
and 28 are re
e adopted to
ds? (Numbe
n
sign assistanc
ariances
guidelines
measurement
FAR) measur
art of FAR
any non-vol
among neig
rom previous
an tweak lim
l roofs. Ask
ed by commu
on the pote
ways of mea
q.ft. to 500 s
r area ratio c
ncrease grad
GES SHOUL
itional 600 s
stside Neigh
013 Pub
mary of
s held on Jan
mal “drop in
Staff also pro
tation of the
dy.
ments receive
wn or rent?
r roster, 33 c
esidents or ow
o address th
ers in Table
ce
t
rement
luntary issue
ghbors prior t
s (2010?) pro
ited side wa
k Boulder how
unity. Help
ntial revisio
asuring FAR
sq.ft.
calculation, t
de, inappropr
LD COUNT
q.ft. garage!
hborhoods C
blic Op
Public
nuary 30, 20
n” style for ci
ovided two b
e recommend
ed by staff:
ompleted a c
wners within
he identified
represent #
Imple
19
Revis
standa
19 Limit
21 Addre
19 Addre
17 Take n
es
to large prop
oposal
ll height to p
w they will f
folks with d
ons to existi
R & sliding s
to count high
riate. I feel
T TOWARD
If someone
Character St
pen Hou
Comm
013 with an e
itizens to rev
brief overvie
ded strategy
comment sh
n the two ne
d objectives
# of people r
ementation
e maximum
ards
side wall he
ess front faça
ess side faça
no action
posed chang
promote sola
fix this prob
design!!
ing maximu
scale by lot s
h ceilings, is
that 40% an
S THE PER
e wants a sm
tudy
use Me
ments
estimated 60
view the pro
ew presentati
options from
heet. Five di
ighborhoods
and issues
responding
Action
m floor area ra
eight to prom
ade characte
ade character
ges
ar access so
blem.
um floor are
size
s appropriate
nd 50% floor
RCENTAGE
maller house
eeting
0-70 in atten
oject informa
ions of the p
m the Eastsid
d not own or
s.
for the East
to question
atio (FAR)
mote solar ac
er
r
we don’t ge
ea ratio (FA
e. The chang
r area ratios
. I never un
and a larger
ndance. The
ation and
proposed
de &
r live in the
tside and
)
16
ccess 19
17
13
8
t a bunch of
AR)
ge to address
are more
nderstood the
r garage,
6
9
7
3
8
f
s
e
ATTACHMENT 2
features into the overall design of the site as shared amenities.*
0 1 2
3.16
Provides space and equipment for shared
trash/recycling/composting activities and coordinates with
adjacent property owners to establish service sharing for waste
0 2 4