Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWORK SESSION SUMMARY-07/31/2023-Work SessionPage 1 of 3 Community Development & Neighborhood Services Planning & Development Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.221.6376 970.224.6111- fax MEMORANDUM Date: August 10, 2023 To: Mayor Arndt and City Councilmembers Through: Kelly DiMartino, City Manager Tyler Marr, Deputy City Manager Caryn Champine, Director of Planning, Development, and Transportation From: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, Sr. Policy & Project Manager Noah Beals, Development Review Manager Re: July 31, 2023 Work Session Summary – Land Use Code Extended Discussion __________________________________________________________________ At the July 31st Work Session, staff received feedback regarding potential code alternatives, and received guidance on next steps. The staff presentation was provided by Caryn Champine, Meaghan Overton, Noah Beals and Paul Sizemore. Councilmember Canonico joined remotely. All other Councilmembers were in attendance. Summary of Feedback Council discussed the content for this work session in multiple segments. The presentation began with a review of key topics of potential code changes, review of engagement events to date, previous Council feedback, and a review of current Housing Capacity across the community. Following the introduction and project grounding, Councilmembers reviewed a series of 33 potential code Alternatives organized into two buckets, including Zone Districts and Citywide Topics. Within those buckets, Alternatives within 3 different Zone Districts were discussed: Residential, Low Density (RL); Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density (NCL); Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density (NCM). Following the discussion of Zone District Alternatives, Councilmembers reviewed a series of Citywide Topics, including Affordable Housing, Private Covenants and HOAs, Parking & Infrastructure, the Development Review Process, and Short-Term Rentals (STRs). Specific Feedback Residential, Low Density (RL): Most Councilmembers expressed general support for Alternatives 1 through 4, accompanied by a discussion that included the following questions and requests:  Evaluation of existing multi-unit buildings in the Residential, Low Density (RL) zone district how those were reviewed and approved. Multi-unit buildings and duplexes that existed in a RL zone today were either approved through different zoning requirements at the time they were built such as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). There was a period of time when the City allowed over- under duplexes that were built without a permit to come through and be approved and establish safely and legally with minimum fees. Additionally, as the City becomes aware of unpermitted DocuSign Envelope ID: E8B92E3F-587E-4C3C-A763-B685C9B955E6 Page 2 of 3 dwelling units our inspectors engage with those property owners to bring the property into compliance.  Discussion of the Transit Oriented Development Overlay District (TOD ) and how that relates to Residential, Low Density zone district. The TOD does not overlap any RL zone district. However, the RL zone does abut areas where the TOD is located, as seen in the example below Several Councilmembers asked for clarifying information regarding Alternative Number 5 given the interactions between the “or” statements. Follow up requests regarding Alternative Number 5 include:  More detailed explanation of Alternative Number 5, including feasibility and how the different options may interact. Allow Duplexes on any of the following: Lots of 100ft width or Lots that integrate the existing structure or Lots that create an affordable housing development or Lots within .25 of high frequency transit Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density (NCL): Most Councilmembers expressed general support for Alternatives 6 through 8, accompanied by a discussion that included the following considerations and questions:  Interest in maintaining the height limit to 24 feet for residential structures to avoid nonconformities for existing homes.  Request to clarify allowance of 6 units on lot sizes between 4,500 and 6,000 square feet.  Review previous code regulations and historic context to explain how current conditions and proposed changes will complement existing character. Affordable Housing: Councilmembers expressed general support for Alternatives 15 and 16, with a request for an update to the Housing Capacity estimates to better understand how the proposed Alternatives affect housing capacity and current affordable housing goals. Councilmembers also requested more information regarding deed restriction requirements and what impact moving beyond the 20-year requirement will have on the creation of affordable housing. Private Covenants and HOAs: Councilmembers expressed general support for Alternatives 18 through 20, accompanied by a discussion regarding differential treatment of HOAs versus neighborhoods without HOAs. Councilmembers requested a comparison between implications of the Alternatives on HOA and non-HOA neighborhoods. Parking & Infrastructure: Councilmembers generally supported Alternatives 22 through 25, though there was a request to consider exempting corner lots from Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) parking requirements and to always count tandem parking spaces. DocuSign Envelope ID: E8B92E3F-587E-4C3C-A763-B685C9B955E6 Page 3 of 3 Development Review Process: Councilmembers were generally in agreement that no changes should be made to the Development Review Process regarding review types, neighborhood meeting requirements and current public hearing requirements. One exception discussed was to allow Affordable Housing projects to go through a Basic Development Review (BDR) process to expedite such projects. Short Term Rentals (STRs): Councilmembers generally supported Alternatives 32 and 33 to restrict new Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) from being used as STRs and allow existing ADUs to continue to operate under their current license. A request was made to follow up regarding how many STRs existing in accessory buildings. There are approximately 375 STRs City wide and 48 of those are in accessory buildings. Follow ups and Clarifications As follow-up from this work session, staff will share several additional analyses with Councilmembers now and in a future work session on August 22nd:  Where helpful for illustration, create a comparison for code Alternatives to compare current code, repealed code, and proposed code changes.  Clarify the proposed changes do include allowing Accessory Dwelling Units in the Urban Estate zone on all residential lots regardless of lot size.  Clarify proposed design changes (specifically articulation) to assess whether they will be better than current code.  Prepare a legal assessment of the approach that "opts out" of certain zoning regulations, (specifically ADU’s) practiced in Houston.  Prepare a list of all City Plan amendments.  Offer examples of common nonconformities and their consequences. Next Steps Council will continue to discuss the Land Use Code Updates at the August 22nd work session. The August work session will summarize feedback from the July 31st work session and discuss additional information requested on several of the Alternatives discussed above. DocuSign Envelope ID: E8B92E3F-587E-4C3C-A763-B685C9B955E6