HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-02/26/2013-AdjournedFebruary 26, 2013
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Adjourned Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, February 26,
2013, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell, and
W eitkunat.
(Secretary's note: Councilmember Kottwitz arrived at 6:02 p.m.)
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy.
Resolution 2013-015
Accepting Advisory Opinion and Recommendation No. 2013-01
of the Ethics Review Board, Adopted
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Under City Code Section 2-569, City Councilmembers may present to the Council Ethics Review
Board inquiries regarding the application ofstate or local ethical rules to actual or hypothetical
situations involvingpotential conflicts ofinterest. On February 25, 2013, the Ethics Review Board
met for the purpose of responding to an inquiry submitted to the Board by Councilmember Wade
Troxell. The question submitted is whether, in the Board's opinion, Councilmembers Ben Manvel
and Gerry Horak have a conflict of interest in participating in an upcoming decision of the City
Council. pertaining to the ordinances implementing the Eastside and Westside Neighborhood
Character Study, as both Councilmembers live within the area ofaffected by the Study. As required
by the Code, the Board has met, reached an opinion, and forwarded its opinion to the full Council
for its consideration. Adoption of the Resolution would indicate that the majority of the Council
agrees with the Board's opinion. "
City Attorney Roy stated the Ethics Review Board was convened to consider a question raised by
Councilmember Troxell as to whether Councilmembers Horak and Manvelhave a conflict of interest
regarding the Eastside/Westside Neighborhoods Character Study. The Board rendered the opinion,
after receiving input from staff, that they do not have a conflict. Council must now consider the
opinion and decide whether or not to adopt the opinion.
Councilmember Poppaw stated the Ethics Review Board found there would be no direct or
substantial detriment or benefit to either Councilmember.
370
February 26, 2013
Councilmember Poppaw made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Resolution
2013-015.
Councilmembers Horak and Manvel recused themselves from voting on the matter.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw and Troxell.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 033, 2013,
Making Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code Pertaining to
Implementation of the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study
(Option A or Option B), Adopted Option A on First Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study represents an assessment of
neighborhood compatibility issues related to impacts of larger new construction projects. In
comparison to the previous 201012011 Study, which focused on building size impacts, this Study
takes a broader look at the character and context of the neighborhoods including building size and
design compatibility.
Staff has prepared two options for Council to consider for the proposed package of potential Land
Use Code (LUC) amendments to be included in the Ordinance at First Reading.
Option A reflects a package of Land Use Code amendments implementingfive recommended
strategy options as well as a revision of existing FAR standards using a new formula.
Option B reflects a package ofLand Use Code amendments implementingfive recommended
strategy options, but does not include a revision to existing FAR standards.
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
Staff initiated the Study in June 2011, after receiving direction from City Council to take a new and
broader look at neighborhood compatibility and character issues in the core area neighborhoods
near downtown. The Study is in response to continued concerns with potential impacts of larger
additions and new construction in the city's oldest neighborhoods.
A similar study was conducted in 2010for the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods with a resulting
Ordinance approved by City Council that was later repealed in response to a citizen petition. While
the previous effort led to a primaryfocus on building size aspects, the current study emphasizes a
broader perspective to understand the character, larger context ofcompatibility, and threshold for
change in these neighborhoods.
371
February 26, 2013
The initial directionfor the new study began with a goal developed by a Council Ad Hoc Committee
to:
Retain and enhance the unique character and context of the neighborhoods as
they continue to change with renovations, additions, and new housing
construction, with a well -supported and effective public process resulting in
appropriate and mutually agreeable solutions.
The Study is summarized in a highly illustrated Strategy Report with information on the character
and context of the neighborhoods, community engagement, issues, and strategy options for City
Council consideration(www.fcgov.comleastwestneiehborhoods).
The Study identified and clarified a number of key issues with ongoing changes that affect existing
residents and the unique character and context of the neighborhoods. These issues led to the
strategy options. Key issues include:
New construction that appears to be overly large in relation to its context
Building walls that appear to loom over neighbors
Reduced solar access/shading issues
Incompatible design features
Loss of older/more affordable houses that make the neighborhoods unique
Loss ofgreen space and mature trees
The Study process included extensive public outreach that included identification ofneighborhood
objectives and issues, and defining. The Study process and findings are summarized in a final
Strategy Report. This report also includes staffrecommendationstoimplementfivestrategy 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 the team concluded the proposed design standard sufficiently addressed neighborhood
compatibility issues, and revising the FAR did not reflect a mutually agreeable solution from the
public. City Council subsequently directed staff to proceed with implementation of those strategy
options, including development of the formula to revise the existing maximum FAR standard.
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:
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 offuture planning efforts that
will need to be budgeted and incorporated into the staff work program. Staff is
recommending implementation of this action concurrent with neighborhood plan updates
for the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods in 2014..
Adjust existing height -at -setback and floor area ratio (FAR) measurement methods in the
Land Use Code for the N-C-L and N-C-M zoning districts
372
February 26, 2013
• 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.
A series of public meetings were held in January 2013 to present a draft potential package of Land
Use Code amendments to implement the strategy options. Staff received a mix of opinions from the
public on the proposed standards, especially relating to revisions to the Far standards. An
additional Council work session was held on February 12, 2013 to discuss options for FAR
standards, which included direction for staff to describe these options for Council to consider on
First Reading.
L DESCRIPTION OF ORDINANCE OPTION A (WITH NEW FAR FORMULA)
This option reflects a package of Land Use Code (LUC) 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 new formula, adding new adjustments
to the FAR measurement method for calculating building square footage, and incorporating new
design and solar access standards. 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 (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 su.ficient[y 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:
• Addresses projects 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;
373
February 26,.2013
Works in concert with other recommended tools such as reduced wall heights for solar
access and additional buildingdesign 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 works 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 firstproposed 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.
N-C-L N-C-NI
Lot<5,000 sf = 0,40 Lot<4,000 Sf = 0.50
Lot? 5,000 sf and<10,000 sf = 0.20 + 1,000 sf I Lot24,000 sf and<10,000 sf = 0.25 + 1,000 sf
Lot>_ 10,000 sf = 030 1 Lot>_ 10,000 sf =
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 (ace.) 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
This change incorporates adjusted measurement methods for calculating floor area, as.
recommended in the Strategy Report. These proposed measurement method adjustments 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). This includes basementfloor area in
calculation where the new construction raises the finish floor elevation above a certain threshold,
and provides 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.
374
February 26, 2013
3. Adjust ineasurementinethodfor building wallheight and reduced heightfor solar access.
The firstpart of this Code change adjusts 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 ofa revised measurement method for maximum height (18feet) 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 thepotential solar access impacts oflarge 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 to 14 feet from the currently allowed 18 feet and 'the side wall height could
increase by one foot for each 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 offront
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 ofthe 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.
IL DESCRIPTION OF ORDINANCE OPTION B (RETAINEXISTING 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 formatti ng, 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.
Option B 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 scenarios in community workshops and surveys, many participants selected alternatives that
incorporate design elements other than floor area reductions. This indicates that design elements
375
February 26, 2013
apart from overall size contribute significantly to neighborhood compatibility. The recommended
design standards within Ordinance Option B address these key design elements while allowing
flexibilityfor home expansion.
Comparison of 2011 Ordinance and proposed 2013 Ordinance
At the November 27, 2012 work session, Council directed staff to develop the proposed 2013
Ordinance. Staffprovided a comparison of the previous 2011 Ordinance that was repealed, with
the proposed 2013 Ordinance (Attachment 4). Staff believes the proposed 2013 Ordinance, as a
package of proposed changes, is noticeably different from the previous 2011 Ordinance. The key
changes include:
No requirement for Landmark Preservation Commission recommendations on variance
requests
• New expanded notification area for some variance requests
• New thresholds for applying all new standards in both districts
Different formula for calculating maximum Floor Area Ratios (FARs)
• FARs applied separately to the N-C-L and N-C-M districts
• FARs applied on a sliding scale, based on lot size
• More generous FAR allowance in the N-C-M district, and
• New standards for solar- access and buildingfront and side_fagade design.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACIS
Urban Advisors was contracted as a sub -consultant to analyze the economic impacts ofrevising the
existing FAR standards as described in Option A. The analysis and findings are included in a report
(Attachment 6). The summarized conclusions from the report include:
While overall values increase with house size, the value per square foot tends to decline,
especially for houses with more than 2,000 square feet of/loor area or FARs above 0.30.
Based on existingproperty values, and the potential sales prices ofnew or expanded homes,
most redevelopment is likely to occur on small to average sized lots (4,000 to 10,000 square
feet) in the N-C-Mzone district (115 to 125 such properties present prime redevelopment
opportunities under current market conditions).
The proposed reduction in maximum permitted FAR (Ordinance Option A) would not
significantly affect redevelopment opportunities in the neighborhoods because the most
profitable opportunities tend to be at FARs lower than the proposed limits.
The proposed reduction in the maximum permitted FAR (Ordinance Option A) is not likely
to have a significantly positive or negative- impact on.the affordability of housing in the
neighborhoods.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Staff finds no direct or definable impact "on environmental resources with any of these
implementation items.
376
February 26, 2013
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its regular meeting on February 7, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 4-1 to recommend
adoption of Ordinance No. 33, 2013, Option B.
The Landmark Preservation Commission is scheduled for a regular meeting on February 13„2013.
Minutes from this meeting will be forwarded to Council prior to Second Reading on March 5.
The Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for a regular meeting on February 14, 2013. Minutes
from this meeting will be forwarded to Council prior to Second Reading on March 5.
The Building Review Board is scheduled for a regular meeting on February 28, 2013. Minutes from
this meeting will be forwarded to Council prior to Second Reading on March 5.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The following activities were included in the public process used for this study:
Phase I — Understand the character and context of the neighborhoods (May — July 2012)
• Email notice for meetings, post card mailingfor workshops
• Posted project information on web page
• Initial working group meetings (June)
• 2 public work shop meetings (July 10112)
• Online questionnaire
• Updates to boards and commissions
• City Council work session (July 24)
Phase 2—Develop a Strategy (August —November 2012)
• Series of working group meetings (August/September)
• On-line survey
• Public workshop meeting (November 5)
• Updates to boards and commissions
• City Council work session (November 27)
Phase 3 —Implementation of Strategy Options (December 2012 — February 2013)
• Series of working group meetings (January 16, 2013)
• Public Open House meeting (January 30)
• Updates to boards and commissions
• Planning and Zoning Board Hearing —Recommendation (February 7)
• City Council Work Session (February 12)
• Landmark Preservation Commission Hearing — Recommendation (February 13)
• Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing - Recommendation (February 14)
• City Council First Reading of Ordinance (February 19)
• Building Review Board Hearing —Recommendation (February 28)
• City Council Second Reading of Ordinance (March 5) "
377
February 26, 2013
Pete Wray, City Planner, reviewed the Ordinance which would adopt five recommended strategy
options for implementing the Eastside/Westside Neighborhoods Character Study. Option A would
include a revision to the existing floor area ratio formula, option B would leave the current formula
in place.
Mayor Weitkunat asked about the complexity of the floor area ratio changes. Wray replied the
intent of reducing the floor area ratio formula was to address the recognized largest building projects
in the neighborhoods and to limit the total size of additions and new construction slightly, while still
providing enough flexibility for most other projects.
Mayor Weitkunat asked why staff has proposed a possible change in the floor area ratio formula.
Abe Barge, Winter & Company, stated Council has the option to leave the floor area ratio as is. it
was determined there are certain interior designs that result in more extensive exterior massing; the
new floor area ratio formula would aid in accounting for those types of designs.
Councilmember Troxell asked how many properties would be affected by the change. Barge replied
the vast majority of properties are below the maximum floor area ratio limit.
Nore Winter; Winter & Company, replied there was never a clear line where FAR always resulted
in good projects below a certain number, because other aspects of mass, scale, wall height, and
articulation also affect the perception of buildings. These tools were designed to work in concert
with one another.
Councilmember Troxell noted the citizen petition which repealed the previous Eastside/Westside
regulations was primarily due to the FAR ratio. He questioned its inclusion in this package.
Barge stated staff would not make a recommendation between the two options as they both address
the issues and objectives which resulted from the public process. Option A does go further in
addressing the issues, but it does include the FAR tool that has some controversial history.
Councilmember Troxell asked about lot sizes and shapes. Winter replied most of the lots in these
areas are basically rectangular; however, there are areas with odd -shaped lots.
Councilmember Troxell asked how the FAR would take into account, for example, a long, slender
aspect ratio of a lot. Barge replied the FAR does not specifically address the lot configuration; it
is about overall mass and scale.
Councilmember Troxell noted these neighborhoods are diverse rather than uniform and asked how
the FAR addresses block faces. Barge replied the FAR is only differentiated based on lot size and
zone district and noted none of these tools will impact diversity.
Councilmember Troxell asked how trees are addressed in solar access. Winter replied they are not
addressed and noted this is typical of solar access standards nationwide.
Councilmember Troxell asked about east -west solar access. Winter replied the proposed standard
would only address north -south solar issues.
378
February 26, 2013
Mayor Weitkunat noted the sliding FAR deals with the outlying, overly large construction projects.
She asked if another tool would accomplish this goal. Winter replied the tools that are part of
Option B also address those objectives; however, some participants have felt that option is not direct
enough, particularly when looking at the overly large projects.
Councilmember Manvel noted the majority of citizen input showed size was a more major concern
than design when looking at these neighborhoods.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked about capital impact fees being higher for smaller homes. Mayor
Pro Tern Ohlson stated the impact fee process has been examined and the increases, not the fees
themselves, would be higher for smaller houses as it was discovered there are more individuals, on
average, in smaller homes than once thought. Winter noted the issues are not related.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked when the Planning and Zoning Board had received this information.
Wray replied they received their initial packets as usual and then received the amendment with the
two options prior to the meeting.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked about the staff recommendation. Winter replied staff is
recommending adoption of the Ordinance, but is not making a recommendation related to the
Options.
Councilmember Horak asked how balconies or decks are included. Winter replied the Ordinance
is written so as to not count balconies or decks as floor area, unless they are roofed and enclosed on
more than two sides. The goal with this is to mitigate mass and scale issues.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 033, 2013, Option A, on First Reading.
Councilmember Manvel cited the examples shown by staff and discussed a spreadsheet he created
which illustrated that some of the homes which are looked at negatively would still be allowed under
the existing FAR. He stated the proposed new FAR is quite different and less strict than the FAR
which was put in place two years ago. He supported Option A as a reasonable change.
Councilmember Troxell noted there are other issues related to properties, such as floodplain, which
are neglected as part of Option A. He stated he would not support the option.
Councilmember Kottwitz expressed concern Council would not have had input from boards and
commissions had the First Reading occurred as scheduled. She expressed appreciation for the
diversity of the Old Town neighborhoods and disagreed that these standards are appropriate.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson stated he would support Option A as it is a miniscule tweaking of the FAR.
Councilmember Kottwitz requested information related to shading in other neighborhoods prior to
Second Reading.
Councilmember Manvel asked if staff and the consultant team is of the opinion that the rules without
the FAR are sufficient to prevent the extra -large houses. Winter replied the team had been
379
February 26, 2013
instructed to look at mutually -agreeable solutions. The initial recommendations were softer as the
team knew it would receive some direction from Council.
Councilmember Horak stated the FAR change makes sense and the overall process did result in
addressing citizen concerns.
Mayor Weitkunat stated all parties agree on the majority of the regulations; however, the FAR has
been a point of controversy, and therefore may not be the correct solution.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Marvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak. Nays:
Weitkunat, Kottwitz and Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2013-013
Adopting the Student Housing Action Plan, Adopted
The following is the staff recommendation for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the direction of City Council and with the adoption of City Plan, staff initiated a Student Housing
Action Plan (SNAP or the Plan) project to address the increasing need for multi family student
housing and the potential negative impacts to and compatibility concerns of existing single-family
neighborhoods. The project has involved working with Colorado State University (CSU), Front
Range Community College (FRCC), neighbors, students, developers, and other stakeholders to
identify strategies and recommend action items.
The feedback received throughout the public engagement process drove the development of the
proposed action items within the Plan. The Plan provides a mechanism to achieve the mission of
SHAP by identifying needs and concerns, evaluating existing conditions and future projections, and
proposing action items on a variety of housing and behavioral issues related to student housing.
The Plan will serve as a guidefor addressing student housing issues by City staff, City Council, and
the community.
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
The SNAP project began in March 2011 and was most recently discussed at the City Council Work
Session on December 11, 2012. City Council directed staff to bring the Plan to City Council for
formal consideration on February 19, 2013, and to move forward with the identified action items.
Updates were provided to the Affordable Housing Board, the Landmark Preservation Commission,
the Air Quality Advisory Board, the Building Review Board, and the Planning&Zoning Board_ The
Planning and Zoning Board voted to recommend adoption of the Plan.
The Plan provides a vision to achieve the overall SHAP mission of developing community driven
strategies that encourage quality student housing while maintaining neighborhood quality and
compatibility.
380
February 26, 2013
The City, through the City Plan process, identified a need to address student housing now and into
the future. Fort Collins is experiencing an increase in population and student enrollment, very low
vacancy rates, a limited supply ofmulti family housing, and challengesinaddressing neighborhood
concerns with new multi family development projects. These factors drove the need for the
development of strategies and action items to help facilitate housing supplies while addressing
negative impacts upon existing single-family neighborhoods.
The Plan provides background information and data including:
• Applicable City Plan policies
• Land Supply and Growth policies for Fort Collins
• Student Enrollment Data and Projections
• Multi family Vacancy Rates in Fort Collins
• Multi family Average Rents in Fort Collins
• CSU On -Campus Housing Supplies (now and into the future)
• Off -Campus Housing Supplies and Developments
• Student Housing Preferences
SHAP implemented a diverse and in-depth process that included a heavy emphasis on stakeholder
engagement, background research, data collection, and action item development and
implementation time frames.
The primary working group included CSU and City staff, stakeholders from CSU, Front Range
Community College (FRCC), student government, students/tenants, neighbors, property owners,
Fort Collins Board of Realtors, developers/designers, and others. The Center for Public
Deliberation assisted with much of the public engagement process including several focus groups
(both individual stakeholder groups and combined), surveys, and a large deliberative dialogue.
Additional engagement methods included a webpage with current information, presentations and
important dates, an on-line survey, use ofsocial media, an open house, and meetings with Boards
& Commissions and professional groups. Feedback received through the engagement process
shaped the development of the action items in the Plan.
Action Items
In the spring and summer of 2012, while the SHAP process was underway, City Council directed
staffto bring specific action items forward for immediate consideration in an effort to more quickly
address concerns raised by residents about the adverse impacts oflarger multi family developments
occurring near existing single-family neighborhoods. As a result, some Land Use Code (LUC)
amendments that address compatibility concerns were adopted in the fall of 2012.
During these discussions, Council referred three items back into the SHAP process for further
discussion: Operations, Security and Management Plans; Limit 4+ bedroom units in multi family
developments; and University District or Overlay. SHAP stakeholders discussed these items, and
some of their recommendations are included in the identified action items.
The action items included in the Plan are split into four categories:
Near -term Action Items (2013)
930
February 26, 2013
Longer -term Action Items (2014 and beyond)
Action Items that do not need Formal Council Consideration
Action Items Proceeding in other Processes
Near -Term Action Items (2013)
The following action items will be brought to City Council and the Planning and Zoning Board for
formal consideration in 2013. The first three items can be prepared relatively quickly and will be
brought to City Council on March 5, 2013. The last two items need more time fully develop, so
formal consideration will happen during the annual Land Use Code (LUC) update in June.
Near Term Action Itent
Concern Addressed
Improve understanding of compatibility by modifying the LUC to Compatibility
include clear examples (photos, drawings) of what is allowed in
certain zones.
2. Amend Medium -density Mixed Use Neighborhood (MMN) district Compatibility
development standards and LUC Sec. 3.8.30 multi -family standards
to specify that no vehicular use area can be placed in the said setback
from single- and two-family dwellings. Also, consider landscape
requirements for this setback.
3. Better define and amend the LUC Sec. 3.8.16 (E) (2) requirement that Intensity of 4+
4+ bedroom developments need to provide additional open space, bedroom u n i is,
recreation areas, parking areas and publicfacilities as are necessary compatibility
to adequately serve the development and excepting the Transit -
Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone.
4. Define different multi family housing types (rather than just the broad Compatibility
multi family definition). The requirement for multiple housing types
could be used as a gradient ofdevelopment between proposed multi-
family and existing single-family.
5. Confirm that the uses, development standards and density allowances Compatibility
in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) district are
consistent with the intent and purpose of the district appropriate sub-
area plans in that it provides a transition between residential
neighborhoods and commercial -use areas.
Longer -Term Action Items (2014 and beyond)
The following action items need further development and public outreach before bringing them to
Council for formal consideration.
Longer Tern: Action Item Concern Addressed
1. Build an above- or below -grade pedestrian/bicycle crossing at or near Traffic and Safety
Shields and Elizabeth Streets.
This item would need two to three years to develop and fund —
Requiresfurther involvement and developmentfrom Transportation
Planning and Engineering and coordination with CSU.
2. Consider requiring property managers/owners to provide City Accountability
382
February 26, 2013
ordinance information to their tenants at lease signing.
• This could be accomplished relatively quickly (one year) — it would
require additional public outreach.
Form an on -going advisory committee made up of City, CSU, FRCC, Accountability and
neighbors, students, property managers, Police, and Associated Education
Students of CSU (ASCSU) to guide City Council on student housing
issues.
• This could be accomplished relatively quickly (one year) —it would
require staff support.
Consider a Rental Licensing Program to ensure health/safety of units, Accountability and
data regarding rentals, increased accountability ofthe rental business. Education
Require all landlords to take the Landlord Training provided by the
City.
• Council has considered Rental Licensing and Registration
Programs in the past and could be revisited.
• Would require one to two years forfuriher research and significant °
outreach
The Plan also includes a number of action items that do not require formal Council consideration
that staff will begin implementing. These include increased education about the enforcement
process and data related to enforcement, increased enforcement of nuisance and noise ordinances
in areas with a high concentration of complaints, increased education to parents of students, and
incentives for students to attend educational programs.
Lastly, the Plan has several action items that are either moving forward in a separate process or
are the responsibility of CSU. CSU has been involved in the SHAP process and is committed to
implementing these items. The City's Parking Plan, West Central Neighborhoods Plan update, and
Phase 3 ofthe Transit Plan are all supported by the Plan and include SHAP recommendations. The
items that are the responsibility of CSU include on -campus parking and fees, on -campus housing,
options for public/private partnerships, and increased communications about on -campus housing
updates.
Plan Implementation, Monitoring and Review
Implementation of the Plan will occur as indicated below:
• Near -Term Action ItemsSpring 2013
• Longer -Term Actin Items2014 and beyond
• Action Items — No Council Action 2013
• Action Items In Other Processes2013 and beyond
The Land Use Code items will impact new development as it occurs. Other items are new initiatives
that will need to be accommodated infuture workplans and, ifnecessary, accommodated into future
capital and/or operating budgets. Most items are recommended to be implemented as soon as
possible, and some will be implemented immediately.
The action items will be monitored regularly to ensure they are meeting the desired outcomes and
to recommend any needed changes.
383
February 26, 2013
Full implementation of the action items in the Plan will have a cost. The action items fall into the
following three categories with respect to the need for resources:
Existing Resources — Items that can be accomplished with existing resources and will not
add costs to the City. These items include all of the Near -term Action Items. Additionally,
all of the educational program improvements will be implemented using existing resources.
Additional Resources Needed — Some of the action items will need additional resources to
be implemented. All of the Longer -term Action Items require some level of additional
resources. The details for the costs of these items will be included in the materials provided
to City Council when these items are individually broughtforward forformal consideration.
3. Resources Identified in other Processes — The action items that are proceeding in other
processes will identify funding needs within the process they are moving forward in. For
example, the City Parking Plan will identify the funding needs for implementation of that
plan. Additionally, the items that are the responsibility of CSU will use CSU resources for
implementation.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The Plan will not have any direct environmental impacts; however, the individual action items will
address environmental impacts during the review process for those specific items.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the Student Housing Action
Plan. General support was given by the Landmark Preservation Commission, Building Review
Board, and the Air Quality Advisory Board. Although the Affordable Housing Board was primarily
supportive, the Board expressed concern on some of the specific action items.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Public outreach included the following:
• Throughout theprocess stakeholders, which includedAssociated Students ofCSU (ASCSU),
FRCC Student Council and administration, CSU and FRCC students at large, neighbors,
Fort Collins Board of Realtors, developers and designers, Northern Colorado Rental
Housing Association, property managers/landlords, and property owners were utilized for
focus groups, dialogues, and general feedback.
• Presentations and updates were provided to several boards and commissions, as well as
professional organizations throughout the process.
• Awebsite was developed specifcallyforSHAPtoprovidedetailed information, updates, and
to seek input. Additionally, a survey was put onto the website as a more convenient way for
the general public to provide feedback about the draft action items.
• Social media tools were used to generate interest and direct people to the website.
• After the action items were drafted, a public Open House was held to gather more general
public feedback on the draft action items.
9M
February 26, 2013
A student survey of rental housing preferences was conducted in 2011 and 2012 with
updates planned to occur annually. "
Beth Sowder, Neighborhood Services Manager, stated this process was initiated at the direction of
Council to address the increasing need for multi -family student housing, and the potential negative
impacts to, and compatibility concerns of, existing single-family neighborhoods. The Plan will
serve as a guide for addressing student housing issues by staff, Council, and the community.
Sowder reviewed the process of development of the Plan and stated the action items included in the
Plan are split into four categories: near -term action items, longer -term action items, administrative
action items, and action items that are also proceeding in other processes. Sowder reviewed the
timeline for the action items. Staff recommends adoption of the Plan and the Planning and Zoning
Board also voted to recommend approval. General support was provided by other boards; however,
the Affordable Housing Board did express concern regarding specific action items.
Ross Conniff, 2267 Clydesdale.Drive, stated this Plan is a decent start but stated more work needs
to be done. He requested energy use also be considered as part of the Plan.
Lea Hanson, Women's Commission Member, supported the creation of multi -family units and
questionedhow some of the components of the Plan may affect future development.
Joel Rovnak, 1308 Bennett, stated the Plan provides some hope to neighborhoods and stated the Plan
would not eliminate multi -family developments. He supported adoption of the Plan.
Mike Pruznick, 636 Castle Ridge Court, suggested support for this Plan could be indicative of City
support for the proposed on -campus stadium. He encouraged a thorough discussion prior to a vote.
Astrid, 507 Mathews, expressed concern regarding unintended consequences of this Plan and noted
there are many non -student, older residents who also desire smaller, high -density housing.
Jeffrey Martin, Fort Collins Board of Realtors Chairman, expressed appreciation for the efforts of
staff and stakeholders in this process. He noted multi -family housing is not all student housing and
expressed concern this Plan could have a negative impact on multi -family housing. He opposed the
reintroduction of rental licensure as part of the long-term approach.
Francie Martinez, Fort Collins Board of Realtors Chair -Elect, stated regulations for student housing
should be different from regulations for traditional multi -family housing. She opposed rental
licensure and supported adoption of a Plan that strikes the requirement for four -bedroom units and
strikes the requirement for additional parking in the Transit Overlay District.
John Dietrich, ASCSU, stated college students need to be more engaged in this process.
Clint Skutchan, Fort Collins Board of Realtors CEO, opposed the length of the process and
encouraged Council to discuss its rationale regarding decisions relating to housing. He stated some
of the items in the Plan are very intrusive on multi -family housing for the city's future.
Mayor Weitkunat asked about the action items which are set to come before Council on March 5.
Laurie Kadrich, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director, replied those action
items came about as staff worked on the first phase of Land Use Code amendments to address
February 26, 2013
compatibility issues. These items have been through the Planning and Zoning Board and are ready
to be heard by Council.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked about the parking requirements of the Transit Overlay District.
Kadrich replied the proposal that will come before Council on March 5 will not include parking
requirements for four -bedroom or greater units within the TOD.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson noted the Planning and Zoning Board expressed concern about the impact
of parking on neighborhoods. Sowder clarified the Board recommended adoption of the Plan and
voted to exempt the parking requirement from the TOD when it considered the specific action items.
Councilmember Horak made a'motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution
2013-013.
Councilmember Horak made an amendment, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to remove
consideration of a rental licensing program from the Plan.
Councilmember Horak stated the extension of the committee will allow the ability to look at the
possibility of a rental licensing program in the future.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson stated he would not support the amendment as an appropriate rental
licensing program makes sense for the future.
Councilmember Troxell supported the amendment as the advisory committee could provide a
recommendation in the future.
Councilmember Poppaw noted the Plan does not require a rental licensing program, but suggests
consideration of such a program in the future. Kadrich replied citizen input has varied on the issue.
The vote on the motion to amend was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Horak, Troxell, and Kottwitz.
Nays: Poppaw, Manvel, and Ohlson.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the impact of this Plan on multi -family housing in general.
Kadrich replied this has been part of the melding of what happened with the community discussion
related to compatibility impacts of multi -family housing with the Student Housing Action Plan that
was already in place.
Mayor Weitkunat asked whether or not staff is trying to define multi -family versus student housing.
Kadrich replied the staff chose not to define the issue and stated after the broader community
discussion, as well as a discussion at a Council work session and a Planning and Zoning Board
meeting, the consensus was that people felt the compatibility issues related to multi -family
development were similar whether it was student housing or other types of housing.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson noted Council gave the direction to drop defining students as a separate
group.
February 26, 2013
Councilmember Manvel asked whether or not most four -bedroom units would be used primarily by
students. Kadrich replied Affordable Housing representatives have stated families do desire four -
bedroom units.
Councilmember Kottwitz expressed concern regarding possible unintended consequences of
adoption of the Plan as endorsing the Plan could endorse specific action items.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson stated he would support the Plan and requested additional information
regarding the timing of specific issues prior to First Reading on the action items.
Councilmember Horak stated he would support the Plan and the formation of an advisory committee
as soon as possible.
Mayor Weitkunat stated she would support the Plan as it is necessary to move forward in addressing
the city's housing issues.
The vote on the motion to adopt the Plan was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson,
Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: Kottwitz.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Items Relating to the 2012 Streets and Stormwater
Site Development Initiatives, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2012, Adopting an Update to Appendix C of the
Lorimer County Urban Area Street Standards Pertaining to "Streetscape Standards "for the
City ofFort Collins.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code and
the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual to Incorporate Provisions Implementing Low
Impact Development Principles.
Ordinance No. 151, 2012 replaces the City of Fort Collins Streetscape Design Standards &
Guidelines document with a new version entitled "City of Fort Collins Streetscape Standards ".
Ordinance No. 152, 2012 updates the City's Low Impact Development Criteria and Policy regarding
the control and treatment ofstormwater runofffrom streets and site development. Both Ordinances
were unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 18, 2012.
The Streetscape Standards guide the treatment ofparkway strips (between the curb and sidewalk),
medians, intersections, roundabouts, and key gateway intersections. For the new Streetscape
standards document, staff is proposing minor text revisions for Second Reading. One of the
387
February 26, 2013
revisions requires Council consideration of three options regarding parkway landscaping by
homeowners in certain circumstances. Other revisions are clarifying edits.
The Low Impact Development (LID) Criteria and Policy addresses the City's requirements anti
incentives for more distributed stormwater runoff 'management and control which relies mainly on
filtration and infiltration to treat and manage the stormwater runoff. This approach will apply to
private site development projects as well as to public street projects. Ordinance No. 152, 2012, has
been revised on Second Reading to improve the clarity of the, description of LID Criteria
requirements.
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
Two Parts of a Larger Coordinated Program
These Ordinances are parts of a larger coordinated program called the 2012 Streets and
Stormwater Site Development Initiatives. While the two Ordinances were approved on First
Reading, questions remained, needing additional information for Second Reading.
1. Potential Revisions to New Streetscape Standards Document
Questions raised at First Readingprompted a potential text revision regardingparkway landscaping
maintained by homeowners. For this potential revision, three options are proposed for Council
consideration. Attachments 2-4 show the three options in redline/strikeout format. Attachment 5
is a staffsummary of pros and cons of the options.
Staff is seeking a Council decision on which text option to adopt on Second Reading.
The options involve parkway landscaping in single family housing developments where approved
development plans specify turfgrass in the parkways.
While these parkways are publicly owned, it is the responsibility of private property owners to
maintain the landscaping except for street trees. Questions involve situations where an individual
property owner wishes to change the landscaping from that which is shown on the development
plan.
Specifically, should Homeowners Association (HOA) approval be required for such changes, and
what process is reasonable for a homeowner to follow, if they want to change the approved
landscaping in the parkway adjacent to their lot?
Current Process
Currently, such a change requires a Minor Amendment request to amend the plan on file. There is
currently a $350 filing fee for Minor Amendments. If the development has an HOA, then staff
requires authorization by the HOA to amend the development plan. The rationale is that HOA
interests typically include the look and feel of the public space in the neighborhood, and in some
cases, HOAs maintain certain parkway areas.
The First Reading version of the Streetscape Standards reflects this current process.
::
February 26, 2013
Second Reading Revision Options
Second Reading options for potential text revisions involve combinations of two components. One
component is a requirement, or lack thereof for an administrative process to amend development
plans (e.g., the current Minor Amendment process)- Staff has identified a potential new process
called "Parkway Landscaping Amendment ", with a lower fee and better -fitting requirements than
the current Minor Amendment process. Staff
could create this administratively.
The second component is a requirement, or lack thereof, forHOAs to authorize changes to approved
plans for the developments they govern.
Following is a summary of the options, along with the First Reading version for comparison.
First Reading version: Requires a Minor Amendment, which has a $350 fee; and requires HOA
consent.
Option]: Replace the Minor Amendment requirement with a new "Parkway Landscaping
Amendment ` and a lower fee; and keep the HOA consent requirement (Attachment 2).
Option 2: Replace the Minor Amendment requirement with a .new "Parkway Landscaping
Amendment" and a lower fee; and drop the HOA consent requirement (Attachment 3).
Option 3: Drop all City requirements (allow a homeowner to choose landscaping different than
approved plan,for the development with no amendment to the plan.) (Attachment 4)
Note that where there is no approved developmentplan, there is no issue. The owner can landscape
with or without turfgrass. Standards include a few basic requirements for live plantings that are
low -growing, but there is no formal process.
In addition to text revisionsforparkway landscaping described above, staffis proposing a clarifying
statement that "Appropriate irrigation shall be provided to maintain health of plantings with
efficient use of water. - That statement is shown on pages 36 and 43 of the document.
No other text edits are proposed except those shown on pages 36 and 43.
2. Low Impact Development Criteria and Policy Update - Ordinance No. 152, 2012
At First Reading, staff was asked for additional information about the financial impact of the
proposed criteria. More specifically, staff was asked to address the initial installation costs of
pervious pavements and their potential impacts on costs of development in Fort Collins.
Attachment 6 is a memo with explanation of the costs, and a cost comparison spreadsheet of an
actual parking lot example built in 2010 with side -by -side pervious and impervious pavement
surfaces. "
Laurie Kadrich, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director, noted questions
have arisen since First Reading regarding the process for a homeowner to make a change to parkway
February 26, 2013
landscaping. Kadrich noted parkways are part of approved landscape plans and are inspected at least
every five years to ensure compliance with the plan. Under the previous practice, a homeowner
would need to submit for a minor amendment and obtain HOA consent if appropriate, in order to
make a change to parkway landscaping. That practice was recommended to continue as part of First
Reading. Staff has developed additional options for Council consideration on Second Reading.
Option 1 is to have a new plan amendment process which would reduce the minor amendment fee
from $350 and possibly remove the requirement of HOA consent. Option 2 would not require the
HOA to be notified at all and Option 3 would drop the City requirement entirely to do a plan
amendment.
City Manager Atteberry noted Options 2 or 3 would create some level of consistency with the City's
previously -adopted policy allowing front yard xeriscaping.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, asked if this standard addresses stormwater irrigation.
Joe Siple,.2938 Ruff Way, supported the ability of homeowners to xeriscape parkways in order to
conserve water.
Basil Harridan, Stormwater Quality Engineer, stated regulations specifically allow the use of
stormwater for parkway irrigation. There is no mechanism in these standards which would require
existing turfed areas to be retrofitted to utilize stormwater irrigation. As opportunities arise to
retrofit these areas, that will occur.
Councilmember Troxell asked about certain areas of parkway and whether they are maintained by
homeowner's associations or adjacent property owners. Clark Mapes, City Planner, replied this
topic deals only with local and collector streets within residential areas, not arterial streets. Arterial
streets are mostly maintained by the Parks Department; however, there are some different
arrangements in some areas throughout the city.
Councilmember Troxell asked if some parkways on collector streets are HOA maintained. Mapes
replied they are almost all maintained by adjacent owners, though there are a few cases where the
HOA maintains the parkways.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson noted Option 1 just requires HOA consultation, rather than consent. He
stated he prefers Option 3 and questioned what action would come from HOA consultation. He also
questioned why homeowners need to pay such a high fee to the City. Kadrich replied this issue has
not been presented to all of the HOAs for review; therefore, requiring HOA consultation is deemed
as a positive option. Mapes replied the HOA consultation allows for a unified appearance and could
provide for a neighborhood discussion. The fee is in place to cover some of the administrative costs
in amending the plan on file, though staff has considered a fee of less than $100.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if staff would be open to recommending Option 3 at a future time
should Option 1 prove to be ineffective for residents. Kadrich replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the history of landscape plans. Kadrich replied all
subdivisions, since 1997, have an approved landscape plan which includes any parkways.
390
February 26, 2013
Councilmember Manvel asked if HOA consultation is required for a front yard xeriscape. Staff
replied in the negative.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked if the City is violating a state law by not allowing xeriscaping in the
parkways. City Attorney Roy replied it is not; the state law limits the ability of HOAs to enforce
certain covenants.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson suggested the City re-examine the way it landscapes its parkways. City
Manager Atteberry stated the issue has been examined regarding lowing maintenance costs and
water usage for medians and added he will get back to Council on the issue regarding parkways.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kottwitz, to adopt Ordinance
No. 151, 2012, Option 1, on Second Reading.
Councilmember Troxell stated the consent of HOAs could be important because it would allow
better communication among neighbors.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson noted Option 1 involves a consultation with the HOA rather than consent.
He requested staff s assurance that they would return to Council should this not work the way it is
intended. Kadrich replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked about the fee issue. Kadrich replied Option 1 proposes a landscape
amendment fee of somewhere between $25 and $150.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson stated he would like the fee to be under $50.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance
No. 152, 2012, on Second Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 020, 2013,
Amending Section 2-35 of the City Code with Regard to the
Removal of Persons from City Council Meetings, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 5, 2013, amends City Code to
allow the presiding officer of a City Council meeting or City Council committee meeting to order
391
February 26, 2013
the removal of any person who significantly and intentionally disrupts such meeting by failing to
comply with the requirements of the presiding officer in maintaining order during the meeting. "
Mike Pruznick, Fort Collins resident, opposed the Ordinance and asked how people would be
removed from a meeting and about any appeal process. He asked why the item is needed.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, opposed the wire fencing separating Council from the
audience and suggested the Ordinance should apply equally to citizens and City staff.
Mayor Weitkunat noted the language specifically uses the phrase "significantly and intentionally."
She also noted warnings would occur prior to the removal of an individual.
Councilmember Troxell noted the term "Mayor" was replaced with "presiding officer."
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson noted it was never Council's intent to limit paper materials that can be
passed out in the lobby and those regulations were actually loosened.
Councilmember Manvel asked if this would apply to other functions of Council, such as the URA
Board. City Attorney Roy replied the URA Board has its own set of procedural rules; this
Ordinance would apply specifically to Council meetings and Council committee meetings.
City Attorney Roy noted this rule is consistent with state statute. The original regulation required
a vote of Council to remove an individual which was cumbersome and unrealistic. Additionally,
the original regulation did not utilize the "significant and intentional" phrase.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 020, 2013, on Second Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Manager Atteberry reiterated there was never an intent to limit free speech or material
distribution, as mentioned by Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson.
Items Relating to the Planned Development
Overlay District Pilot, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code by the Addition
of a Temporary Planned Development Overlay Zone District.
B. Second 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.
392
February 26, 2013
The Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) is a new zoning tool designed to provide
contextual land use and design f exibilityfor 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. This Ordinance has been amended since First Reading based on input
from City Council and the Planning and Zoning Board, as follows:
• Properties owned by Colorado State University and Colorado State Research Foundation
have been removed from the pilot boundary.
• Several properties north of Vine Drive and west of North Lemay Avenue have been added
from the pilot boundary.
• The minimum number ofpoints required on the performance matrix has been raised to 60.
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. These Ordinances were adopted on First Reading on
February 12, 2013 by a vote of 6-1 (Nays: Ohlson).
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
Although both Ordinances were adopted on First Reading, City Council asked staff to address two
issues before bringing Ordinance No. 024 back for Second Reading: the Planned Development
Overlay District (PDOD) pilot boundary andjustification for the 45 point minimum on the
performance matrix.
PDOD Boundary
When the PDOD was originally proposed, any projects within a defined boundary (original
boundary) would have the option to use the PDOD, and there was a provision that allowed
properties outside the boundary to "opt -in "provided certain site criteria were met. During public
outreach when the pilot was proposed, concerns were raised over some areas that were included
in the boundary including historic districts, residential properties, and properties near the Poudre
River. Consequently, when the PDOD pilot was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board for
recommendation in 2012, the Board recommended certain areas be removed from the boundary.
Then, based on additional conversations with Councilmembers, the pilot boundary was reduced
further.
At the Council meeting on February 12, 2013, a citizen requested that property be added into the
pilot boundary; this includes land where the current Raptor Center is located (zoned Industrial and
Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood) as well as the adjacent Schlagel property (also zoned Low
Density Mixed Use Neighborhood). Additionally, Council questioned why Colorado State
University (CSU) property was included in the boundary, particularly if CSU is not required to
adhere to the City's development review process. This also brought into question land owned by
Colorado State Research Foundation (CSRF) that was in the pilot boundary. While Council was
393
February 26, 2013
receptive to adding the property mentioned above and removing CSUand CSRFproperty, staffwas
requested to bring it to the Planning and Zoning Board for a formal recommendation prior to
Second Reading. The Board will provide a recommendation regarding the boundary at its February.
21 meeting, and the outcome and draft minutes will be provided to Council prior to Second Reading
on February 26, 2013.
Attachment 2 is a map showing the original PDOD boundary and the proposed amended boundary
for comparison.
Performance Matrix
The most unique aspect of the PDOD is the performance matrix, which was designed as a menu of
site and building options that rewards applicants via a point system for exceeding minimum Code
standards or providing public benefits. The matrix is divided into seven categories that mirror the
seven categories of City Plan, and, in addition to meeting the General Standards in Article III ofthe
Land Use Code, an applicant must achieve at least 45 points in at least four different categories to
be considered for approval. At the Council meeting on February 12, 2013, the justification for
establishing 45 points as the minimum was questioned, and staff was asked to provide more
information explaining why that number was chosen.
When the matrix was first developed, staffretrospectively tested several projects to understand how
they would score. Attachment 3 provides a spreadsheet showing the projects that have been
evaluated and their respective matrix scores. Note that the project evaluations were based on staffs
best knowledge ofeach project, and the scores were not confirmed with the developer/owner. Based
on those outcomes, 45 points was viewed at the time to be sufficient to ensure quality while not being
overly -burdensome to applicants.
It is important to keep in mind that all the items in the matrix are above existing minimum
standards; one of the c6ncerns raised during public outreach was that the PDOD would add costs
as a result. This is a specific concern that the pilot is intended to address, and could be an aspect
of the PDOD that is recommended to change based on the pilot outcomes.
The Planning and Zoning Board discussed the matrix at its February 15, 2013 work session and,
based on the outcomes of the test projects, recommends increasing the minimum point requirement
to 60. The Board's formal recommendation will be provided to Council prior to Second Reading
on February 26, 2013. "
Megan Bolin, Economic Health Analyst, stated the PDOD is a new performance -based zoning tool
designed to provide flexibility for infill development and redevelopment. The first Ordinance would
implement the pilot program and the second Ordinance would make several amendments to Article
3 of the Land Use Code as related to the implementation of the PDOD. Bolin discussed boundary
changes made since First Reading which removed CSU and CSURF property from the pilot and
added the Raptor Center and Schlagel properties. Additionally, the Ordinance was amended to raise
the number of points required on the performance matrix to 60 from 45. Bolin stated the Planning
and Zoning Board approved both changes._
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, questioned the need for this process.
394
February 26, 2013
Mickey Willis, 150 Fairway Lane, thanked staff and Council for expanding the boundary.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 024, 2013, on Second Reading.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson stated there is likely no need to incentivize growth and development;
however, he stated he would support the program on Second Reading.
Councilmember Manvel agreed with Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson but stated he would support the motion
as testing the process with a few pilot projects seems a good place to start.
Mayor Weitkunat stated she would support the Ordinances as they infuse the basic premise of City
Plan.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 025, 2013, on Second Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Horak and other Councilmembers requested that staff present both the original and
amended versions of the fracking ban at the next Council meeting.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson suggested moving the URA work session to February 28.
Executive Session Authorized
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to go into Executive
Session for the purpose of meeting with the City Attorney, City Manager, and other affected
members of City staff to discuss potential litigation and related legal issues as permitted under
Section 2-31(a)(2) of the City Code. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
395
February 26, 2013
Adjournment
At the conclusion of the executive session, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
ATTEST: ��F FOR) -
City Clerk
396