Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutConstituent Letter - Read Before Packet - 11/1/2022 - Information From Meaghan Overton Re: Community Comments Regarding Agenda Item 21- Land Development CodeFrom:FCGov Contact Form To:Meaghan Overton Subject:Land Use Code Phase 1 Comments Date:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:56:14 PM Name Nathaniel Coffman Email nathaniel.coffman@gmail.com Phone 9188122225 Comments - Setting aside a subdistrict for exclusively civic buildings exacerbates the existing problem of having a large corridor of land adjacent to downtown limited to a single use, which becomes dead space on nights and weekends. Civic buildings should be placed throughout the city to act as local focal points for surrounding neighborhoods. - More commercial uses should be allowed in residential areas, especially the Old Town District which can support higher residential densities, to reduce trip lengths and allow more trips to take place by foot or bicycle. Further, allowing Accessory Commercial Units would allow small businesses (e.g. barbers) to provide services locally. - Residential parking minimums should be eliminated. - Much of the residential land within 1/2mile of the MAX line is zoned RL. RL largely surrounds many of the city’s amenities, such as City Park. This zone needs to allow more building types. Du/tri/quadplexes can be designed in keeping with neighborhood architecture. Would you like to be contacted by a member of the project team? (Y/N) Yes, if there are any questions about comments. November 1, 2022 TO: Mayor & City Council THRU: City Manager's Office FROM: Meaghan Overton RE: Community Comments regarding Agenda Item 21 - Land Development Code /sek This packet does not include community emails sent to City Leaders regarding this topic. From:FCGov Contact Form To:Meaghan Overton Subject:Land Use Code Phase 1 Comments Date:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 10:02:16 AM Name Michael Webster Email mwebster254@gmail.com Phone Comments I would like to see mixed-use development incentivized. Introducing commercial spaces into neighborhoods and expanding mixed-density housing further throughout the city could help to extend safe corridors for active transportation and increase affordability. Our updated LUC should encourage density, affordability, and active transportation, especially in historically car-centric places like Midtown and the Harmony and College corridors. I believe that shifting our approach towards people-orientated design could strengthen economic viability, especially for the spaces around the MAX Line. The single-use car- orientated sprawl of parking lots, drive-thrus, and big-box stores on College and other arterial roads will hinder many of the goals of the LUC in providing a climate-conscious, economically viable, and pedestrian-safe future. I hope the LUC addresses these issues and provides Fort Collins with a means to pursue short and long-term improvements to such corridors by eliminating parking minimums, separating streets from roads, and encouraging more sustainable forms of transportation. I really enjoy much of the work that has gone into the updated LUC, thank you so much for this! I believe that with the right approach, we can strive to make Fort Collins more economically and environmentally conscious, affordable, and people-centric. Would you like to be contacted by a member of the project team? (Y/N) Sure, I wouldn't mind to hear updates or give more feedback! Email is probably the best way to contact me. From:FCGov Contact Form To:Meaghan Overton Subject:Land Use Code Phase 1 Comments Date:Wednesday, October 26, 2022 5:40:05 PM Name Laura Radcliff Email radoza@hotmail.com Phone 9705811350 Comments I’m very unhappy with the new land use restrictions. I have lived in old town for 32 years. The city has given the ok to build all manner of monstrous houses around me. These rules, should I choose to do the same in the future, would restrict me to 2000 feet? I These code proposals are saying the city wants people to sell old small homes in lieu of densely built buildings for CSU & tax money not preservation of single home character. If the intention was to keep singl family residences it would be exactly the opposite - home additions, mother in law homes, additions etc wouldn’t have restrictions and duplexes, row houses, etc would. Seems like a proposal for greed not preservation. Would you like to be contacted by a member of the project team? (Y/N) Yes From:FCGov Contact Form To:Meaghan Overton Subject:Land Use Code Phase 1 Comments Date:Friday, October 28, 2022 7:51:44 AM Name Felix Haimson Email blox@att.net Phone 9702865012 Comments I would like to see the zoning updated to allow and encourage "corner stores". Walkable neighborhood stores that sell some food and basic household necessities, perhaps with incentives for providing fresh produce. These stores are important because they encourage people to walk or bike for those last minute small food purchases, instead of driving to a large store further away, therefore reducing traffic and wear on roads, and developing a sense of community and connection with other residents in the neighborhood. Would you like to be contacted by a member of the project team? (Y/N) Yes From:FCGov Contact Form To:Meaghan Overton Subject:Land Use Code Phase 1 Comments Date:Saturday, October 29, 2022 10:33:28 AM Name Patricia Quinn Email therealpatriciaquinn@gmail.com Phone 9175449929 Comments Would a builder or resident still be able to request a variance to the new proposed land development code for a specific project? If so, would neighbors still be notified via mail as is the current practice and would the same variance request standards apply? Additionally, will there continue to be historic review in Old Town neighborhoods? Would you like to be contacted by a member of the project team? (Y/N) Y From:FCGov Contact Form To:Meaghan Overton Subject:Land Use Code Phase 1 Comments Date:Monday, October 31, 2022 1:58:36 PM Name Michelle Drum Email mdrum2@msn.com Phone 9702141032 Comments My family has owned our home in Old Town since 1982. Our family has always intended to use this home as a multi-generational home. These proposed changes would have a devastating impact on those plans. Our neighbors to the north are just completing their home addition, and our neighbors to the house moved into a 3,000 plus square foot new build that was built after the original home was scraped. The proposed changes would impact long term residents of Old Town who haven't had or homes scraped or who can have home renovations completed before the proposed changes take place. The proposed changes will have a tremendous impact on my family. I am currently caring for my father with dementia as well as a son with special needs. Your proposed changes will have a devastating impact on long term residents of the community. Would you like to be contacted by a member of the project team? (Y/N) Yes. From:FCGov Contact Form To:Meaghan Overton Subject:Land Use Code Phase 1 Comments Date:Monday, October 31, 2022 4:46:05 PM Name Chris Alexander Email cmalex@gmail.com Phone 510-207-8692 Comments I'm wholeheartedly in favor of the proposed Land Use Code changes. We need to address our housing crisis head on, and the proposed changes are a great step. We also need to encourage cycling and walking instead of driving, in order to meet the city's ambitious climate goals. Increasing density and adding ADUs is critical to enable more people to live car-free while experiencing the richness of life in Old Town. A denser Old Town will be better for everyone! Would you like to be contacted by a member of the project team? (Y/N) N From:FCGov Contact Form To:Meaghan Overton Subject:Land Use Code Phase 1 Comments Date:Monday, October 31, 2022 4:59:55 PM Name Anna Sofranko Email annasofranko@gmail.com Phone 5132573193 Comments I can't make the meeting tomorrow but just wanted to voice my support for the proposed land use code changes. I really like the ability to add an ADU. The goal of having more people live near future bus rapid transit lines sounds great too. Additional incentives for affordable housing will be nice because I want to ensure our city remains a place where artists, essential workers, and students can thrive. I also support the proposed limit on single family home sizes. Thanks in advance for voting in favor of these important changes. Would you like to be contacted by a member of the project team? (Y/N) No From:FCGov Contact Form To:Meaghan Overton Subject:Land Use Code Phase 1 Comments Date:Monday, October 31, 2022 5:03:00 PM Name Matthew Behunin Email mjbehunin@gmail.com Phone 970-459-7708 Comments I have only one suggestion: eliminate parking minimums. There are huge financial benefits, environmental benefits, city-design benefits, and it's an easy way to increase the supply of affordable housing. FINANCIAL BENEFITS Building parking is expensive and makes land less productive. Small-scale businesses and apartments become cost-prohibitive because there is not enough space to generate the business income needed to cover the cost of projects. The space goes to parking instead. Then the city loses out on tax revenues and economic benefits that would have come from literally any land use besides car storage. ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS Requiring parking everywhere makes storing cars cheap or free--thus reducing the incentive to use transit or ride your bike. Parking minimums creates free parking, which subsidizes car owners. This is bad for the environment and inequitable to those who cannot afford cars. BETTER CITY DESIGN Parking is so so so ugly, but if you look at a map of Fort Collins it is one of the biggest land uses! The city is full of vast empty parking spaces like Foothills Mall, Aztlan Community Center, Epic Ice Arena, Key Bank Tower lot, 1st National Bank Tower lot, Moby Arena, Council Tree Library complex, and literally every church parking lot. What a complete waste of space. Let's build a walkable town designed for people. Not for cars. AFFORDABLE HOUSING We don't have a parking shortage. We have a housing shortage. It’s the same idea as land productivity for businesses. Affordable housing projects are already challenging to finance because of their inherently lower rent streams. Parking minimums make small-scale apartments (desperately needed in Fort Collins) unviable because there is so much space required that doesn't produce any rent. Allowing builders to build housing instead of parking increases the housing supply at no cost to the taxpayer. BUT CAN WE DO IT? Yes!! The only reason we have parking requirements is due to the emotional reaction we have to potentially losing something we once had for free. This is not a good reason for policy. Parking minimums have been lowered or removed from cities across the country like Sacramento, Berkley, Emeryville, Cambridge MA, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Richmond, and Raleigh. Even college towns like Ann Arbor, South Bend, and Gainesville have successfully hopped on the eliminating-parking-minimums-bandwagon. Eliminating parking minimums doesn't mean no more parking. It just puts the decision of how many spaces to build in the hands of property owners that carefully weigh how much is needed for their buildings at those specific locations. We will end up with how many we need. Any surge in on-street parking could be managed in a localized way through paid parking, permits, and transit improvements. The intricate formulas currently in the code that define how many parking per-unit are excessive at-best. The draft code currently requires more parking spots then bedrooms (for multi-family apartments) in the transit corridor!! Really? Are we trying to increase car traffic in this town? We have a housing shortage. We do not have a parking shortage. Parking does not provide any public benefit, so we should stop requiring it in the land use code. We don't need a public right to access every building in the city by private car. It's exclusionary, costly, and totally wrecks good city design. Look to the future. In twenty or thirty years are we still going to have all these empty lots in Fort Collins? Please no. Sources: https://www.planning.org/planning/2018/oct/peopleoverparking/ https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/7/2/3-major-problems-with-parking-minimums https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264837718312870 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/05/parking-drives-housing-prices/618910/ https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-04-26/editorial-eliminate-parking-requirements- housing-people-is-more-important-than-housing-cars Would you like to be contacted by a member of the project team? (Y/N) N