Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Memo - Read Before Packet - 10/3/2023 - Memorandum From Sylvia Tatman-Burruss And Noah Beals Re: Additional Materials And Updated Presentation For October 3 First Reading Of The Land Use Code
City Manager’s Office City Hall 300 LaPorte Ave. PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6505 970.224.6107 - fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation 281 N. College Ave PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 www.fcgov.com MEMORANDUM DATE: October 3, 2023 TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers THRU: Kelly DiMartino, City Manager Tyler Marr, Deputy City Manager Caryn Champine, Director, Planning, Development & Transportation Paul Sizemore, Director, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Clay Frickey, Interim Planning Manager, Community Development & Neighborhood Services FROM: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, Senior Policy & Project Manager Noah Beals, Development Review Manager RE: Additional Materials and Updated Presentation for October 3 First Reading of the Land Use Code Purpose: The purpose of this memorandum is to update Councilmembers on the discussion that occurred at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on September 27, 2023. Attachments include: DRAFT Minutes from the Planning & Zoning Commission hearing, held September 27, 2023; DRAFT Minutes from the Historic Preservation Commission meeting, held September 20, 2023; maps that depict all Zone Districts within each Council District; and an Updated Council Presentation with minor edits to the Ordinance Numbers. Background Historic Preservation Commission: On September 20, 2023, the Historic Preservation Commission conducted a Regular Meeting to make a recommendation to Council regarding the proposed Land Use Code and the rezoning to rename the Neighborhood Conservation Low Density, Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density, and Neighborhood Conservation Buffer zone districts to the Old Town zone district. Planning & Zoning Commission: On September 27, 2023, the Planning & Zoning Commission conducted a Special Hearing to make a recommendation to Council regarding the proposed Land Use Code and the rezoning to rename the Neighborhood Conservation Low Density, Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density, and Neighborhood Conservation Buffer zone districts to the Old Town zone district. The only topic of discussion was the Land Use Code, including items flagged for further discussion by Councilmembers at their last work session on August 22, 2023. Zoning Maps by Council District: These maps are meant to illustrate all zone districts across each Council District for reference purposes. Commission Recommendations The Historic Preservation Commission recommended that Council adopt the Land Use Code as presented on a 6-0 vote. Verbatim Motion Language: Commissioner Smith made a motion that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend approval of the proposed Land Use Code updates based on the following findings: that the proposed changes will allow for an increase in overall housing capacity and housing affordability while continuing to allow for preservation of historic resources. Commissioner Nelsen seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Edwards, Gibson, Nelsen, Smith, Wilson and Rose. Nays: none. The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended that Council adopt the Land Use Code as presented on a 4-1 vote (Haefele Nay). The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended that Council rezone the Neighborhood Conservation Low Density, Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density, and Neighborhood Conservation Buffer zone districts to rename them as the Old Town zone district on a 4-1 vote (Haefele Nay). Attachments: Updated Slide Deck Historic Preservation Draft Minutes from September 20, 2023 Planning & Zoning Commission Draft Minutes from September 27, 2023 Zoning Maps by Council Districts Code Alternatives “Red, Yellow, Green” – LUC Draft Code and Original LDC Comparison Chart Page 1 Jim Rose, Chair Location: Bonnie Gibson, Vice Chair Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Margo Carlock And remotely via Zoom Jenna Edwards Anne Nelsen Andy Smith David Woodlee Staff Liaison: Tom Wilson Maren Bzdek Vacant Seat Historic Preservation Manager Regular Meeting September 20, 2023 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Rose called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Jenna Edwards, Bonnie Gibson, Anne Nelsen, Jim Rose, Andy Smith, Tom Wilson ABSENT: Margo Carlock, David Woodlee STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Heather Jarvis, Jim Bertolini, Melissa Matsunaka • AGENDA REVIEW Ms. Bzdek stated there were no changes to the published agenda. • CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. • STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • CONSENT AGENDA Historic Preservation Commission Page 2 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 16, 2023. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the August 16, 2023 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Vice Chair Gibson made a motion, seconded by Member Smith, to approve the consent agenda for the September 20, 2023 meeting as presented. Yeas: Edwards, Gibson, Nelsen, Rose, Smith and Wilson. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. REPORT ON STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING Staff is tasked with an array of different responsibilities including code-required project review decisions on historic properties, support to other standing and special work groups across the City organization, and education & outreach programming. This report will provide highlights for the benefit of Commission members and the public, and for transparency regarding decisions made without the input of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Mr. Bertolini reported on staff activities since the last Commission meeting, including a design highlight of a mural moving ahead on the landmarked building at 401 Pine Street, which is currently the Bas Bleu Theatre, and a visit from Mattie Lyle’s granddaughter, Sharon Kelley North, and her family, which involved a tour of places related to Mattie Lyle and an interview with FCTV. Mr. Bertolini also mentioned the draft of the Civil Rights Historic Context project is complete and staff is moving ahead with a couple related projects that are intended to stem from that project. Additionally, he stated recommendations should be forthcoming related to downtown interpretive signage. He also noted the Historic Preservation newsletter, titled Historic Preservation Matters, is up and running. 3. LAND USE CODE HOUSING UPDATE (PHASE 1) – REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION DESCRIPTION: Planning Division staff will provide an updated overview of the preferred land use code alternatives that emerged from the full public outreach process and the August 22, 2023 extended discussion with City Council. Following the presentation, public comment, and discussion, the HPC will consider the request for a recommendation to City Council, based on the HPC’s assessment of the anticipated impact of the changes on the protection and adaptive reuse of historic resources. NOTE: This incomplete staff report is a placeholder and will be updated as soon as possible prior to the HPC meeting with a summary and analysis of code revision details that are of particular relevance to the preservation and management of historic resources. Planning staff is working diligently to finalize presentation materials and board and commission comments and recommendations in preparation for the October 3, 2023 City Council meeting, at which the code updates will be discussed and voted upon. In the meantime, full materials related to the outreach efforts to date and the draft code sections are posted for public review at https://www.fcgov.com/housing/lucupdates. STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager Staff Presentation Ms. Bzdek commented on the City’s extensive public engagement process to consider alternatives for proposed Land Use Code changes that would implement the Housing Strategic Plan and Our Climate Future Plan. Page 3 Noah Beals, Development Review Manager, noted staff is seeking a recommendation from the Commission regarding the draft Land Use Code update. He also noted the goals of the update come from already adopted plans, including the Master Plan, Housing Strategic Plan, Transit Master Plan, and the Our Climate Future Plan. He stated this first phase of updates relates to residential and the second phase will relate to other topics. Beals outlined the five guiding principles of the phase one update: to increase overall housing capacity, including both market rate and affordable housing, enable more affordable housing throughout the city, allow for more diverse housing choices that fit within the existing context of neighborhoods, make the Code easier to use and understand, and to improve predictability. He outlined the process related to the previous adoption of the Land Development Code, petition to repeal that Code, and subsequent action by Council to repeal the Code and to direct staff to conduct additional public outreach. Beals outlined the additional public engagement that has occurred, beginning with the mailing of a postcard to residents, public deliberation hosted by CSU’s Center for Public Deliberation, an open house at the Lincoln Center, and walking tours which were a new type of outreach. Additionally, staff members attended five Council work sessions and are currently seeking input from Boards and Commissions on the draft prior to going before Council on October 3rd. Beals provided a summary of the proposed Code changes as they related to the five guiding principles. He stated housing capacity increases were targeted in zones that are near transit corridors and in those that have the greatest amount of buildable land, the maximum density in the LMN zone was increased from 9 to 12 dwelling units per acres, parking requirements are being proposed to be reduced for studio, one-, and two-bedroom units for multi-unit projects, the regulation of density was changed in some areas to consider building design types rather than units per acre. In terms of the second guiding principle of enabling more affordability, some of the changes include expanding affordable housing incentives, creating height bonuses for parking reductions in certain zones, requiring a 60-year deed restriction rather than 20 years for affordable housing projects, continuing to require a minimum of 10% of dwelling units in a project be affordable at an 80% AMI in order for the project to count as an affordable project. Regarding increasing housing choices throughout the city, main changes would allow accessory dwelling units (ADU’s) in all residential and mixed zone districts, create a larger menu of residential building types and guiding standards throughout residential zone districts, update the Land Use Code table to permit more housing types, and adjust standards to enable more small lot infill development. Additionally, changes were made to update use standards, rules or measurement, and definitions to better align with the new building types. Beals outlined the changes related to making the Code easier to understand and increasing predictability, including adding more graphics and tables, a reorganization of the Code, reformatting some of the zone districts, consolidating repeating standards, and renaming three existing zone districts: the Neighborhood Conservation Low-Density District, Neighborhood Conservation Medium-Density District, and the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District to the Old Town District A, B, and C, respectively. Beals discussed the housing needs that were identified based on the predicted 2040 population and addressed how these proposed changes would affect housing needs. He stated the 33 proposed alternatives focused mainly on three zone districts: the Low-Density Residential (RL) District, Neighborhood Conservation Low-Density (NCL) District, and the Neighborhood Conservation Medium-Density (NCM) District, and there were also city-wide topics such as affordable housing, private covenants, parking and infrastructure, the development review process, and short-term rentals. Page 4 Beals outlined Council’s input on the proposed alternatives beginning with the RL zone district and questions and concerns about ADU’s. He stated the proposed Code would allow ADU’s in the RL zone district and alternatives were presented to reduce impacts on existing neighborhoods, including limiting ADU’s on one story and not allowing an ADU with a duplex. Beals noted having an owner occupancy requirement for the main home of a property with an ADU would not likely be possible legally; therefore, one alternative would allow for an ADU with a resident manager. Beals outlined the proposed requirements for ADU’s in the NCL zone, including a change to lot sizes and an ADU height limit not to exceed that of the primary dwelling. In terms of the NCM district, lot sizes and number of units were addressed. Regarding affordable housing, changes include expanding affordable housing through city-wide incentives such as parking requirement reductions and encouragement of an ownership product. Beals stated the Land Development Code had suggested a 99-year affordable housing deed restriction, though there has been some recent discussion at Council to reduce that restriction to 60 years, which still exceeds the 20-year restriction of the current Code but also allows for multi- generational use while not exceeding a possible lifespan of the building. Beals outlined the proposed criteria under which a duplex would be allowed in the RL zone, noting only one of the four must be met: that the lot is at least 100-feet wide, that the existing structure is integrated, that the lot is within ¼ mile of high-frequency transit, or if one of the units is created as deed-restricted affordable housing. Beals discussed the regulations around building three units on a lot in the NCL zone: that the existing structure must be integrated, or an affordable housing unit is created. He also discussed the new cottage court housing type which constructs smaller units surrounding a green area on some of the larger lots in the conservation districts. He stated the NCL zone district would require a 9,000-square-foot lot for that type of product and the development must be affordable housing. Beals detailed the idea of ‘integration with an existing structure,’ stating it shall mean using the existing structure to achieve a new use or using the existing structure to increase the number of dwelling units. He stated exterior walls must remain except to allow for new windows, doors, or entry features on the front and side walls, though the rear wall could be 100% demolished to allow for an addition, which must not exceed the height of the existing structure and must be compatible with the defining features of the existing structure. Beals discussed the proposed changes to the NCM zone district, including allowing 6-unit structures if they both integrate the existing structure and are deed-restricted affordable housing. Additionally, the NCM zone would allow a cottage court concept on appropriately sized lots. Beals noted no historic preservation standards are proposed to be changed, though numbering has changed. Additionally, he noted City Code has not changed and the procedure by which a property could be initiated for designation has also not changed. Commission Questions and Discussion Commissioner Smith commended staff on the enhanced public outreach and supported the idea of integrating and preserving existing structures. He asked if any type of ADU addition in an historic district would always trigger Historic Preservation review. Ms. Bzdek any exterior change to a property protected in a local landmark district would go through the landmark design review process, and if a proposed ADU is allowed in the zone district, the Historic Preservation Commission would have the purview to review it for the appropriate application of the Secretary of the Interior standards. She noted a National Register designation does not provide the same degree of review. Beals also noted ADU’s are being proposed to be reviewed through a basic development review process which includes review by Historic Preservation staff and a mailing to property owners within a certain boundary. Commissioner Edwards asked if there are provisions in place to keep ADU’s from becoming short- term rentals. Beals replied there were no proposed changes to the short-term rental standards in the Land Development Code; however, concerns arose and Council opted to prohibit short-term rental uses for new ADU’s. Additionally, any short-term rental license already issued or application submitted by January 1, 2024, can continue. Page 5 Commissioner Nelsen asked about the definition of façade base and the requirement that all façades shall have a recognizable base. Beals replied a recognizable base is something that currently exists in the Code and the standard exists to attempt to break up massing of a façade and to make a building’s first story more pedestrian oriented. Commissioner Nelsen asked about a roof pitch of 24/12 being mentioned noting that is quite steep. Beals replied that references a covered porch. He stated the general standard for urban houses includes covered porches which can help to show a focus on pedestrians and/or bicyclists rather than vehicles at a given household. Commissioner Smith commented on detached garages that are not on an alley in the RL zone and asked if the only option for those lots to densify would be to build a duplex using the existing structure. Beals replied ADU’s can be either detached or attached and a duplex allows a bit more floor area than an attached ADU; therefore, the options for someone with a detached garage with no alley in the RL zone would be a third structure or an addition to the existing primary house. Commissioner Smith asked if concerns have been raised regarding the cumulative stormwater effect of the additional impervious surfaces these types of additions will cause. Beals replied there are always concerns with stormwater and Water Utilities staff are part of all development review processes to ensure proper mitigation occurs. Additionally, all developments must meet adequate public facilities requirements in order to be approved. Ms. Bzdek clarified the Commission is the decision maker for those landmarked properties that are protected by local ordinance. Chair Rose noted the Land Use Code is only part of what the Commission must consider in terms of criteria it utilizes to determine whether a project can be authorized. Ms. Bzdek stated the Commission must consider the application of the Secretary of the Interior standards and act as subject matter experts for the community in that regard. Commissioner Nelsen suggested the 24/12 roof pitch mentioned in the language should be examined for accuracy. Commissioner Smith stated the duties of the Commission have not been weakened by the changes and they will not provide any new threats to historic resources. Commissioner Smith made a motion that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend approval of the proposed Land Use Code updates based on the following findings: that the proposed changes will allow for an increase in overall housing capacity and housing affordability while continuing to allow for preservation of historic resources. Commissioner Nelsen seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Edwards, Gibson, Nelsen, Smith, Wilson and Rose. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 4. HISPANIC HERITAGE MONTH HISTORY PRIMER DESCRIPTION: Staff will provide a brief summary of known history and historic places related to the Hispanic History in Fort Collins from the 1860s and beyond. This presentation is being given at a regular meeting as opposed to a work session to benefit the attending public. Staff is partnering with the Poudre Libraries District to offer in-person walking tours of several of these sites on upcoming Saturdays at 9:30 a.m., specifically September 23 in Alta Vista, starting and ending at Sugar Beet Park, and October 14 in the Holy Family neighborhood, starting and ending at Washington Park. Registration is required and is done through the Poudre Libraries website, HERE. STAFF: Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Page 6 Staff Presentation Mr. Bertolini stated Hispanic Heritage Month in the United States is celebrated between September 15th and October 15th and is intended to be quite broad. He stated his presentation will focus on the Spanish and Mexican story that is interwoven into western United States, Colorado, and Fort Collins history, and will utilize the term Hispanic to refer to the fuller community, Spanish American to refer to those who settled in what is now Colorado in the 1600’s- 1800’s, and Mexican American to refer to those who emigrated from Mexico mostly in the 20th century. Mr. Bertolini stated Spanish people were the first European settlers to permanently colonize the Americas and Spanish and Portuguese culture fused with many of the indigenous cultures of people already in the Americas. He discussed Mexican settlements and conflicts that ensued as a result of cultural differences, particularly land use culture, and he commented on Hispanic labor leaders and associated organization in Colorado. Additionally, he noted much of Colorado is in what became part of the Mexican republic in 1821. Mr. Bertolini highlighted some landmarks across Colorado related to Mexican and Spanish American settlement, including the Baca House in Trinidad, the Concilio Superior Building in Antonito, and the Colorado Fuel and Iron Complex in Pueblo. He discussed the agricultural history of Fort Collins, noting labor demands, particularly in the sugar beet industry, were a major draw for many immigrant communities. He noted many of those immigrants experienced segregation and discrimination in Fort Collins. Mr. Bertolini discussed the discrimination of Hispanic residents of the United States that became citizens after 1848 or were born in the United States, stating it is due to a loss of access to the means of making a living due to displacement from agricultural resources after the Anglo system of prioritizing private resources took over. Mr. Bertolini commented on the Mexican Revolution of the 1900’s and resulting migration of approximately one to one and a half million Mexican residents to the United States and Canada. He noted many immigrants were actively recruited by Great Western Sugar to come to Fort Collins. He discussed local agricultural resources, such as the Great Western Sugar factory on West Vine and the Johnson Barn on East Drake, and noted many landmarked farms in Fort Collins would have, at some point, relied upon Hispanic labor. Mr. Bertolini outlined surveys that documented numbers associated with Fort Collins’ migrant worker community, including one in 1909 which showed about 10,000 migrant workers recorded along the entire Front Range, about 6,000 of which were German Russians, just over 2,000 were Japanese, and 1,000 were Hispanic, predominantly Mexican Americans from other parts of the United States. A 1924 survey of migrant workers recorded 24,000 along the Front Range, 14,000 of which were Hispanic, primarily immigrants who had fled the Mexican Revolution. Mr. Bertolini discussed the primarily Hispanic neighborhoods that developed in Fort Collins, particularly the Tres Colonias neighborhoods which were built around the sugar beet factory, two of which were built for German Russian residents that shifted to be predominantly Hispanic by the late 1920’s, and Alta Vista which was built specifically as ‘The Spanish Colony.’ He stated the largest Hispanic neighborhood was the Holy Family neighborhood which was built as a predominantly Anglo neighborhood northwest of Fort Collins that transitioned to a predominantly Hispanic neighborhood by the 1930’s. He noted there were de facto practices that effectively redlined Fort Collins and held most of the city’s Hispanic residents, up until the 1960’s and 1970’s, in these neighborhoods. Mr. Bertolini highlighted members of the Hispanic community in Fort Collins, including Guillermo Godinez, the founder of El Burrito, George Romero who lived in the former Romero Family house which is now the Museo de las Tres Colonias, and Jovita Vallecillo Lobato who was Fort Collins High School and Colorado State University’s first Hispanic graduate. Page 7 Mr. Bertolini discussed the Spanish architecture of the Alta Vista neighborhood which was developed primarily for Great Western Sugar workers. He highlighted residents of the neighborhood including Charles and Margaret Martinez and the Cordova Family. In terms of the Holy Family neighborhood, Mr. Bertolini stated many of those Hispanic residents were more financially stable, including Lee Martinez, Lee Suniga who co-founded the Colorado Hispanic Baseball Hall of Fame, and Josie en Fuegos who started Joe’s Auto Upholstery on Linden Street. He discussed the history of Holy Family Church and Fullana Elementary School, which was built to replace the Laport Avenue School in 1974 after much community organization around the need for a school to serve the Hispanic community. Mr. Bertolini discussed the community organizing in Fort Collins during the broader national civil rights movement, including the formation of CSU student organizations such as the Mexican American Committee for Equality and United Mexican American Students, who were often organizing in solidarity with Black students at CSU to combat racism on and off campus, both in hiring and recruitment, but also housing as students of color did not have an easy time finding housing available to them off campus. In terms of present day, Mr. Bertolini stated there are legacies of success and discrimination in Fort Collins. He noted there are many longstanding Hispanic-owned businesses and landmarks, including Lee Martinez Park, Sugar Beet Park, Suniga Road, and Romero Road. However, he noted legacies of discrimination remain and there is a disproportionate lag in economic success for some Hispanic families, particularly with newer, often non-Mexican Hispanic immigrants, and housing segregation remains an issue, particularly along the North College corridor. Mr. Bertolini commented on the importance of encouraging landmarking of some of these important homes and sites in order to help make this history visible noting none of the places discussed in this presentation, other than the Museo de las Tres Colonias, are City landmarks. He acknowledged some of the organizations that are working to support Hispanic American heritage in Fort Collins, including the Museum of Discovery, the University archives and special collections at CSU, the Museo de las Tres Colonias, and storytelling members of the community. He announced upcoming walking tours co-sponsored with Poudre Libraries and the community celebration of Hispanic American heritage at the Gardens on Spring Creek on October 14th. Commission Questions and Discussion Commissioner Nelsen commended the presentation. Chair Rose noted the need to tell this story still exists despite the fact it may be met with differences of opinion about what is deserving of designation and consideration. • CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS None. • OTHER BUSINESS None. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Rose adjourned the meeting at 8:02 p.m. Minutes prepared by and respectfully submitted by Melissa Matsunaka. Page 8 Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________. _____________________________________ Kurt Knierim, Chair David Katz, Chair Virtual Hearing Julie Stackhouse, Vice Chair City Council Chambers Michelle Haefele 300 Laporte Avenue Adam Sass Fort Collins, Colorado Ted Shepard Samantha Stegner Cablecast on FCTV, Channel 14 on Connexion & York Channels 14 & 881 on Comcast 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. Regular Hearing September 27, 2023 Chair Katz called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Haefele, Katz, Sass, Shepard, Stegner Absent: Stackhouse, Yor Staff Present: Frickey, Sizemore, Claypool, Yatabe, Myler, Tatman-Burruss, Overton, Beals, Tatman- Burruss, Myler, Champine, Gerwel, Betley, Keith and Manno Chair Katz provided background on the Commission’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He noted that members are volunteers appointed by City Council. The Commission members review the analysis by staff, the applicants’ presentations, and input from the public and make a determination regarding whether each proposal meets the Land Use Code. He noted that this is a legal hearing, and that he will moderate for civility and fairness. Agenda Review CDNS Director Sizemore reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, stating that all items will be heard as originally advertised. Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: None noted. Consent Agenda: No items listed. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission September 27, 2023 Page 2 of 8 Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted Discussion Agenda: 1. Land Use Code (LUC) Phase 1 Update Project Description: The purpose of this item is to consider changes to the City’s Land Use Code. The Land Use Code (LUC) Phase 1 Update implements policy direction in City Plan, the Housing Strategic Plan, and the Our Climate Future plan. Changes are intended to address one or more of the following Guiding Principles: 1. Increase overall housing capacity and calibrate market-feasible incentives for affordable housing. 2. Enable more affordability, especially near high frequency transit and priority growth areas. 3. Allow more diverse housing choices that fit in with the existing context and priority place types. 4. Make the Code easier to use and understand. 5. Improve predictability of the development review process, especially for housing. If adopted by City Council, staff recommends that the proposed Code changes take effect on January 1, 2024. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported that: An email from Bill & Lisa King had been received asking to reject the current proposal until it can undergo further study. 2 additional emails were received that will be added to the Supplemental Documents Log by the end of the week, following this hearing. Staff and Applicant Presentations Development Review Manager Noah Beals gave a brief verbal/ visual overview of this item. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Chris Conway, 311 E. Magnolia, would like Council to approve the code update. This will help with housing options that individuals can afford. Michael Still, 1933 Wallenberg Dr., has concerns with parking, traffic, etc. How can the city handle the impact? He would like the potential challenges kept as a priority. Wayne Brothers, spoke to single-family homes and HOA’s and how they fund infrastructure. He would like to know why the city is declaring war on single-family neighborhoods and their covenants. Why is the city trying to change everything everywhere all at once? He feels that the proposed changes do not represent a good faith effort to maintain the character of the neighborhoods. Chris Rogers, 719 McGraw Cir., is concerned with density, traffic, change to personality of the city, and the changes the new codes will have on home values. He is opposed. Glen Colton, 625 Hinsdale Dr., is concerned about the proposed density increase of 52% and the proposed density increase of existing neighborhoods. This will not help future affordability and will create future challenges. We do not need to grow at this rate. He would like to see the code rewritten to exclude densification. Ron Hanser, RL Zone resident, feels the proposed code changes are fraught with complexity and inconsistencies. He feels residents oppose building everything all at once. New density will not ensure affordability. Trudy Haines, 625 Hinsdale Dr, HOA Coalition, urged the commission to reject the proposed code changes and Planning & Zoning Commission September 27, 2023 Page 3 of 8 recommend that Council take more time. It is too much, too fast. Peter Conway, West Fort Collins, feels that the proposed changes will impact the character of neighborhoods (not for the best) and create future traffic issues. Suzanne Murray, 117 S. Whitcomb St., feels the proposed code changes zero in on the Whitcomb neighborhood. They currently have to pay to park in front of their home, creates parking issues where there are free spots and now, they can build more units, that may not be “affordable” to add to the issues already at play. Vicky Rossen, Fort Collins resident, spoke to subdivision of lots. She feels there will not be the infrastructure in place to handle the additional homes, if built. The HOA has taken care of the drainage system, the city does not contribute to upkeep. Brian Tracy, 638 Smith St., spoke to OTB, commented that the changes in the proposed code are unacceptable in historic districts. He also spoke to land mass percentage and feeling that because the percentage is small that many do not care. He is concerned with parking issues and the potential lack of available parking with density increase. Colleen Hoffman, Wallenburg Dr., spoke to resident managers and how this is not a good plan. ADU’s will become rentals, and this will change the character of neighborhoods. She does not understand how the city can change HOA guidelines. She also feels that density does not equal affordability, stop trying to tie them together. Missy Abrams, Harbor Walk Lane, is disappointed with the way Fort Collins is changing. She also feels this should be a ballot issue to be voted on. Staff Response Planning Manager Beals responded to the historic preservation comment and requirements, these will remain intact as they are today. In regard to public of adequate facilities, meaning is our stormwater systems, our public infrastructure going to be able to handle this; this is reviewed at every development and project and if something is found to be inadequate under the different utility departments standards or traffic standards, that development project is required to bring those facilities up to the place they need to be to accommodate any new development. Regarding the comment of a lot with 1.5-acres in the RL with 10 units; this scenario would require each unit to have access to public right-of-way and sewer and water taps would have to be evaluated and brought up to requirements if necessary. Sr. Planning Manager Frickey responded to the change in the housing capacity numbers from the land Development code to what is before the commission at this moment. The change in housing capacity is attributable to the changes in the low-density mixed use neighborhood zone district, going from 9 dwelling units per acre to 12 units per acre in new neighborhoods. In the OTB for example, the numbers were reduced because the housing capacity numbers are attributable to new neighborhoods not existing neighborhoods. Member Haefele asked if the current code requires that in any neighborhood with potentially historic properties adjacent, that new construction has to address the context and new construction has to conform, how or if has this changed? Beals responded that it has not changed and most of those codes are in the Municipal Code and that code is not being changed. Member Haefele asked if a single-family home is being changed to no longer being a single-family home, would this eliminate any exemptions? Beals responded that it does not eliminate the exemption, but that the exemption would not apply if it is a duplex that is no longer a single-family house. Sr. Planning Manager Frickey responded to lot width requirements in all zone districts. Any new lots would have to meet the new lot width requirements. This change will minimize awkward lot splits. Sr. Planning Manager Frickey responded to owner occupancy/property manager requirement. Attorney Yatabe provided this information as a confidential legal memorandum. He stated that the Commission could go into executive session to discuss. Planning & Zoning Commission September 27, 2023 Page 4 of 8 Sr. Planning Manager Frickey responded to moving into an accessory dwelling unit and renting out the primary residence on a short-term basis. This would not conform to the way City Council sees this working and staff would need to take a look at this. This is a loophole that will need to be closed. Commission Questions / Deliberation Clarifying questions: Member Haefele asked if the Council’s yellow items were “not” included. Development Review Manager Beals responded that they are included in the draft code. Member Haefele asked if in a project, a tri-plex or six-plex in MCN had one unit, would it be considered an affordable housing project? Beals responded, yes, because it would be over 10%. Member Haefele asked if it then can go through a BDR? Beals responded yes, the entire project will be reviewed through a basic development review. Member Shepard asked if the exception to corner lots and off-street parking made it into the draft. Beals responded that it did not make it as part of the draft. A corner lot will require one off-street parking space for an accessory dwelling unit. Member Shepard asked for clarification regarding the urban estate zone district. If we have a 1-acre lot on a corner and the applicant wants to divide the lot into two (2) .5-acre complying lots, how does this work in the urban estate zoning district? Beals responded that the ADU would be allowed on the .5-acre site. You could have two (2) primary buildings, one on each half-acre and each of those half-acres could have an ADU under the proposed code. Chair Katz asked how the city is defining current or high frequency transit. Beals responded that it is in the city’s master transit plan. It depends on how often a bus will make a stop, 15 minutes or less during peak times. Chair Katz asked if it will be defined in the new definitions or just reference the master transit plan? Beals responded that high frequency transit is defined by the master transit plan and the map outlines where the lines are. Member Sass requested clarification on, “you cannot build a new ADU and use it as a short-term rental” in the proposed code, is this correct? Beals responded that this is correct. No new ADUS will have the ability to be used for short-term rentals under the proposed code. Member Sass asked if an ADU could be built, that applicant could then move into the ADU and make the primary residence a short-term rental. Beals responded that the applicant could if they were in a zone district that allowed short-term rentals. Chair Katz asked if there was a formal appointment of resident manager if it is not an owner? Beals responded that the code would say when the city receives and application for the ADU, at the time of building permit, the owner who is the responsible party for that building permit application, would also need to designate the resident owner. The city would not issue a CO (certificate of occupancy) until the designation is known. Chair Katz: if the owner were to move and keep the property and decide to rent out the primary, is there going to be a process to appoint a new resident manager? Beals responded that staff has been thinking through what the process will be, but that at any time, upon city request, the owner would need to provide the information. Member Shepard requested clarification on the height of an ADU stating that under detached accessory structure height maximum it states that the ADU height 24’ max or as tall as the primary building, whichever is less. In current code, the clause “whichever is less” is not in the current code. This is more restrictive than current code, is this the intent? Beals responded, yes. This is part of the outreach that staff completed and an effort to ensure that the accessory building units are more compatible with existing structures. Member Shepard commented on accessory buildings with habitable space that cannot be a dwelling unit but is more than a garage. He does not see in the new code where this structure type is listed. Beals responded that staff can look at it for clarification, but in general it is just a detached structure. Member Shepard asked if the current standards in the code relating to accessory building with habitable space will be deleted from the new code. Beals responded that most of them are in the detached accessory structure building type. Member Shepard asked if the row house is equivalent to what we presently call single-family attached. Beals responded, yes, and that it is also a building form, it becomes a single-family attached when they draw the lot lines between units. Member Shepard commented that he did not see anything in the new code that describes lot lines Planning & Zoning Commission September 27, 2023 Page 5 of 8 and asked if the intent was then to allow a building form called row house and then within that building form there would be another building type called single-family attached which has a definition of each unit being on its own lot? Beals responded that it goes back to the building type allowing a row house and then if the minimum lot sizes are allowed, you cold put lot lines between the units, or the row house acts like a multi-unit building without lot lines. Planning Manager Frickey responded that the consideration is the design is the same whether it is a condo unit or single-family attached. The point is to try to control the design of the building, to ensure attractive buildings that fit into the community whether there are lot lines or not. Member Shepard asked if there was anything in the proposed code that would limit the number of units that could be in a “row”? Beals responded that some of the design standards that apply to multi-unit buildings remain in place and is in the proposed code under Article 5. Member Shepard requested clarification regarding lot splits. In the RL zone district there are two standards, have they changed under the proposed code: 4.4.(d)(1) and (2) the minimum lot size in the RL is 6,000 sq. ft. and the minimum lot width along the public street is 60 ft.? Beals responded that the minimum lot size is 6,000 sq. ft. and the minimum lot width is 60 ft., this is not changing. Deliberation: Member Shepard has concern if the accessory dwelling units with habitable space is going away because there is something between a garage and a dwelling unit or a garage and an ADU. These spaces can go by many different names and are finished with sewer, heating, and cooling. They just do not have kitchens, so they are not ADU’s, but they can go in the backyard, and you could rent them out, etc. What changes in the new code? Beals responded that most of the standards for accessory buildings with habitable space are particular to the NCL and NCM zone districts and are in the zone district standards for accessory buildings. There is still a wall height limit, height limits that are more restrictive in the zone district for these this type of building. There are design standards for zone districts specifically. In the new code it is a detached structure and can contain the garage with finished space which could be a bathroom or could be art/yoga studio and heated space. Basically, it is a different name, but they have to fit within the specified areas of the new code. In the old code, there was no limit to how many detached accessory structures one can have in any zone district, in the new code, there is not a limit on the number of, but there is a limit to the size of the structure. These structures do not increase the occupancy limits on the property. If there is someone staying in the detached guest room does not increase or put you over your permitted occupancy limit with the occupants in the primary building, this would be ok. This gust would need to stay for longer than 30 days to be counted toward occupancy. Member Shepard commented that he would like to see a reference section. Frickey pointed out where Member Shepard could see some cross reference and repetitive information in different code sections. Member Haefele asked if accessory structure was the same as accessory building. Beals responded with a nod. Member Haefele asked about the different types of accessory building, accessory building, accessory building habitual space, and accessory dwelling unit (has kitchen). Beals responded yes. Fickey commented that the city is moving toward a form-based code; staff is regulating based on shape of the building and what it looks like. With the new code staff is looking to simplify whereas in the current code it staff makes distinctions between accessory buildings with habitual space, those without them but functionally from the outside they look the same. Within the new code it will be easier to understand that the accessory structures are limited in size and clearly subordinate to the main structure. Beals clarified that when someone is building an accessory building that there is a building permit review. Member Shepard asked if the water and sewer can be extended from the primary house is still allowed for the detached structure, correct? Beals, yes. Member Shepard asked how is it that the raw water charge applies to these detached structures? Beals responded that this is not for this phase and that the raw water acquisition fees are part of the water utilities policy and in codes. If there is an issue, staff would be looking to utilities to address. Member Sass – detached accessory structure is the appropriate term in this proposed code, yes? We have an ADU which contains the term dwelling and then a detached accessory structure, which is everything else, not dwelling. Can we say that detached accessory structures do not have habitable spaces? Beals, no, detached accessory structures can have finished or habitable space. It could be an extra bedroom, office, or workshop where air conditioning or heating could be applied. To say it is not habitable would eliminate all those options where you would have to say you were doing an accessory dwelling unit to have conditioned space. Frickey clarified that Planning & Zoning Commission September 27, 2023 Page 6 of 8 Section 3.1.8 of the proposed code does clarify that detached accessory structures do not include dwelling units. Member Sass asked if habitable floor space is defined in the proposed code. Beals responded that staff would need to double check, but that the industry term is finished space. Frickey responded that there is a definition for habitable floor space in the proposed code. Member Sass is hung up on the word “and” and would like to see the word “or” or have the definition further defined. Beals commented that when you get an accessory building with habitable space, you get a letter of completion, not a certificate of occupancy. Member Sass wants the definitions cleared up. Member Shepard agrees with Member Sass’s recommendation to staff, they should be broader and more precise. Chair Katz spoke to the maximum floor area in the new OTA and OTB. The area has been increased from 2,000 sq. ft. to 2,400 sq. ft. He feels that if someone wants to buy two lots that are adjacent and would like to build a home, they should be entitled to do so. He would like to see it go back to floor area ratio. Member Haefele commented that this was the only thing she liked about the LBC, she liked it better when it was 2,000 sq. ft. It changes the character, it eliminates a disincentive to create very unaffordable housing, it makes the two lots with small housing less attractive to someone with money to tear them both down and build one big house. Tearing both houses down diminishes the amount of affordable housing, diminished the number of houses. This undoes any of the potential good that this land development code could have implemented. Member Katz commented that the verbiage is housing options, does this demographic not have rights too? Member Shepard clarified on the 2022 LBC recommended changes. Remove the limit on primary structure size in the OTC (NCB). You have the limit in OTA and OTB but not OTC. Member Haefele commented that the concerns and recommendations from P&Z in 2022 were not unanimous. Member Sass commented that he read in the code that OTC still had the same limits. Member Shepard noticed this as well. He believes that it is an inconsistency between the staff report and the proposed code. Member Sass commented that they allow larger buildings in the OTB and OTC, just not single- family homes. Chair Katz stated that this would change the character more than someone build one home. We want to make sure that demographics are not excluded. Member Shepard asked if the standard might potentially be eligible for a modification. Beals responded yes. Member Shepard supports, Chair Katz will not be supporting due to concerns with the code changes, they change some of the character of some of the neighborhoods. Particularly the less dense neighborhoods. Chair Katz questioned whether or not the proposed code interferes with HOA covenants. Member Sass says yes, this is already happening with landscaping, and cautions the commission. Member Shepard spoke to uneven rules with HOA’s across the city. Chair Katz spoke to bank overlays and if the city is allowed to restrict the overlay. Is this right and appropriate in our code? Member Haefele feels that what the latest iteration of the proposed code has done is pulled back a bit of density in certain zone districts and not others. Fairness and equal rules across the city are what should be kept. Chair Katz asked if the city should regulate HOA’s. Member Haefele commented that if the city is going to alter existing neighborhoods, that alteration of existing neighborhoods should be, at the very least, equal throughout the city. Member Sass commented that focus would be on the covenants that HOA’s have in force. Chair Katz responded yes, this is not specific zone districts, just the covenants and the city’s ability to regulate those covenants. Member Sass responded that it is legal. Member Shepard commented that it would be more equal across the city than the carve outs. He agrees with member Haefele in regard to being equal across the city. Member Sass also agrees. Chair Katz started the conversation in regard to #5 alternatives, specific to RL – allowed duplexes, he is considering changing the character and that it may need to be looked at in other districts as well. He is comfortable at 100’ wide and almost comfortable with #2 and feels #3 and #4 can get tricky. Member Katz asked staff if duplexes are allowed in the RL. Beals respond they are not. Member Katz asked if duplexes are allowed in urban estate. Beals responded yes, they are allowed. Chair Katz proposes the elimination of #3 and #4 as compliant criteria. Member Shepard asked if he meant that #1, #2 and #3 be embedded within #5? Chair Katz responded yes, keep #1 and #2 and eliminate #3 and #4. Member Shepard likes all four criteria for the people that do live in the RL. Member Sass agrees with both Member Shepard and Chair Katz and is struggling with #3. Member Shepard asked if in another part of the code it states high frequency corridor or is transit and corridor the same thing? Beals responded it probably does say corridor and the words are used interchangeably. Member Haefele suggested that future high frequency transit should be more concretely defined. Chair Katz asked if this was defined in the street plan? Beals responded yes. Member Shepard asked if it would be fair to say that the only two would be West Elizabeth and North College. Frickey responded pulled up a map of the street plan. Member Sass commented that the commission could talk about an and/or. Member Haefele responded that if it is to be an and, she suggests it be moving the affordability requirement to 1st, an affordable unit and 2, 3 or 4. Affordability the primary criteria. Member Sass agrees. Member Shepard asked if Member Haefele means to make affordability mandatory. Member Haefele responded yes, allow duplexes only if; 1 unit is and affordable housing unit AND either integrates with the existing Planning & Zoning Commission September 27, 2023 Page 7 of 8 structure or within ¼ mile. All should be predicated on affordability. Member Stegner commented that if you make it about affordable housing and have this piece be the biggest thing are you not restricting other things? Member Sass clarified, just in the RL and if you are going to put a duplex in RL it has to be affordable, 1 unit has to be affordable. He would like to see the 100’ width and “and”. Recommendation would be 1 and 2 and 3 or 4. Chair Katz is leaning toward Member Sass’s suggested recommendation. Member Shepard asked for clarification on what affordable means in the RL. Beals responded, if it is a rental project, it is 10% of the units that are 60% AMI or 20% of the units at 80% AMI. Member Shepard asked how this works on one lot. Beals responded that one (1) unit is already over 10%. This one unit could be at 60% AMI and qualify as affordable housing. More than 20% would be 50% that could qualify for 80% AMI. Member Shepard asked, in the RL zone, if an attached ADU is a duplex and a detached ADU is an ADU? Beals responded that an ADU attached or detached would be allowed in the RL and the also a duplex is allowed in the RL. The difference between an attached ADU and a duplex is that a duplex can be greater in size than the ADU. The ADU is limited at 40% of floor area of the primary building. Member Shepard is going to support the staff decision as written with each option being an “or”. Member Shepard did a thorough breakdown of each option as to why he supports his decision. Member Haefele does not support diminishing any of the requirements, she would prefer increasing them and that all should be predicated upon intentional affordability. #9 – OTA, allow 3 units maximum, 6,000 sq. ft. or larger only if it is a duplex plus and ADU or a tri-plex converted and integrates to an existing structure or tri-plex or three-unit cottage court includes one (1) affordable unit. Chair Katz asked if the commission is comfortable with how it is written as-is. Member Haefele feels the RL #1, 2, 3 and 4 should all apply in the NCL. She is not comfortable with the way it is written. Member Shepard and Chair Katz are comfortable. Chair Katz asked Member Haefele is there was a specific criterion that she would like to adjust or eliminate or combine. Member Haefele responded in the existing code, if we are going to expand, three units is not allowed, if we are going to expand density in an existing neighborhood, she would like the affordable unit to be mandatory and possibly some other combination of others. The overarching issue is that we are explicitly changing the conditions under which people have bought their homes and moved into their neighborhoods. It should be for a public benefit. Member Sass asked where low density is defined. Member Shepard read him the definition. Member Sass spoke his curiosities with the transportation master plan in relation to this section. Frickey pulled up a presented slide and reiterated the transportation plan. Chair Katz and Member Sass are both comfortable with this segment. #13 – NCM, OTB, allow 6 units on 6,000 sq. ft. or larger only if the development converts and integrates and existing structure and 1 unit is affordable. Chair Katz asked if he were building a 5-unit it would not require an affordable unit, correct? Beals responded, correct. Member Sass commented that you have to integrate that building on that lot into your development, you cannot scrape and build a 5-unit building is this correct? Beals responded, correct. Member Shepard commented that if you choose to do a 4-plex, you could scrape an old house and build a 4-plex structure. Beals responded, correct. #14 – Allow a cottage court on lost 9,000 sq. ft. or larger. Beals explained that the allowance is for 6 units on a 9,000 sq. ft. lot, a green belt in the middle with smaller units around the green belt. This is not buying 3 to 4 lots trying to get to 9,000 sq. ft., this is lots that are on existing 9,000 sq. ft. or greater. There is 100 ft. width minimum. Chair Katz asked if this currently existed anywhere. Beals responded that there are a small number. Member Shepard replied in the Landings subdivision. Frickey commented that basically you have to have a double lot in old town. Member Haefele continues to be concerned with affordability. Chair Katz commented that this creates housing options, and he is in agreement with this segment. Add language to allow HOA’s to regulate site placement (additional setbacks and separation requirements). Beals pulled a presented slide of this information and spoke to where this is located within the code and what HOA’s would have the ability to do. He commented that the HOA could restrict an accessory building, but the prohibition is not to restrict an accessory dwelling unit. The HOA can determine if the accessory dwelling unit is internal or external to the existing structure or if it is detached or attached. Member Stegner is concerned that if you are giving an HOA a way to deny. Member Shepard commented that it comes down to what is in the public interest. Member Shepard will support this segment. Member Shepard made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission take a brief recess to go into executive session to discuss the provision of not having an owner occupied mandate for either in the Planning & Zoning Commission September 27, 2023 Page 8 of 8 primary or ADU structure in lieu of this going to a resident manager. Chair Katz seconded. Vote 4:1; Haefele – No, Stegner – Yes, Sass – Yes, Shepard – Yes, Katz – Yes Chair Katz spoke to the amendment to clarify the definition of a detached accessory structure and to note that it not be assessed a raw water fee, proposed by Member Shepard. He would like to leave this as direction to staff based on discussion. Member Stegner asked if the commission was comfortable with the percentage for affordable housing. Chair Katz explained why the numbers are set to where they are. Member Stegner understood. Member Shepard spoke to buffering in the landscape section and would like to see these should be acknowledged. Member Sass commented that staff has done the outreach and a lot time has been spent getting to this point and recommended that residents go to the Council session and voice their concerns. Member Sass made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that Council adopt the Land Use Code as presented by staff tonight. This recommendation is based on the agenda materials, staff presentation, public testimony, and the Commission discussion on this topic. Member Shepard seconded the motion. No further discussion. Vote: 4:1; Shepard – Yes, Haefele – No, Stegner – Yes, Sass – Yes, Katz - Yes. Member Sass made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that Council rezone the neighborhood conservation low density, neighborhood conservation medium density, and neighborhood conservation buffer zone districts to rename them as old town zone district, finding that proposed rezoning is consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan, better aligns the purpose of the zone district with its name under their advised land use code, and facilitates public understanding and use of the revised land use code. This recommendation is based on the agenda materials, staff presentation, public testimony, and the Commission discussion on this item. Member Shepard seconded the motion. No further discussion. Vote 4:1; Stegner – Yes, Sass – Yes, Shepard – Yes, Haefele – No, Katz – Yes. For more complete details on this hearing, please view our video recording located here: https://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php?search=PLANNING%20ZONING Other Business None noted Adjournment Chair Katz moved to adjourn the P&Z Commission hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Manno. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on: ____________. Paul Sizemore, CDNS Director David Katz, Chair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`$ ',675,&7 =RQLQJ 3ULQWHG 6HSWHPEHU 0LOHV ©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| ZONING Auxiliary aids and services are available for persons with disabilities.23-25678 Country Club Rd W Mountain Ave Mountain Vista Dr E Vine Dr N S h i e l d s S t N L e m a y A v e S T i m b e r l i n e R d N T i m b e r l i n e R d S C o l l e g e A v e Ri v e r s i d e A v e S L e m a y D r Richards Lake Rd E County Road 38 E Douglas Rd E Mulberry StW Mulberry St W Laurel St W Elizabeth St W Drake Rd W Horsetooth Rd E Prospect Rd S C o u n t y R d 5 E Li n c o l n A v e Country Club Rd W Mountain Ave Mountain Vista Dr E Vine Dr N S h i e l d s S t N L e m a y A v e S T i m b e r l i n e R d N T i m b e r l i n e R d S C o l l e g e A v e Ri v e r s i d e A v e S L e m a y D r Richards Lake Rd E County Road 38 E Douglas Rd E Mulberry StW Mulberry St W Laurel St W Elizabeth St W Drake Rd W Horsetooth Rd E Prospect Rd S C o u n t y R d 5 E Li n c o l n A v e 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 Miles Community Commercial (CC) Community Commercial North College (CCN) Community Commercial Poudre River (CCR) General Commercial (CG) Limited Commercial (CL) Service Commercial (CS) CSU Downtown (D) Employment (E) Industrial (I) Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Neighborhood Conservation Buer (NCB) Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (NCL) Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) Public Open Lands (POL) River Conservation (RC) Low Density Residential (RL) Rural Lands District (RUL) Transition (T) Urban Estate (UE) 6 & R O O H J H $ Y H :+RUVHWRRWK5G 6 / H P D \ $ Y H 6 7 L P E H U O L Q H 5 G 6WUDXVV & D E LQ 5 G =L H J O HU 5 G :/DXUHO6W (&RXQW\ 5RDG :'UDNH5G (3URVSHFW 5G ( 7 U L O E\ 5 G 6 & R X Q W \ 5R D G .HFKWHU5G (+RUVHWRRWK5G :+DUPRQ\5G (&RXQW\5RDG :3URVSHFW5G ('UDNH5G (+DUPRQ\5G 5LYHUVLGH$YH :7ULOE\5G 6 6 X P P LW 9 L H Z ' U 6 & R X Q W \ 5 R D G !"`$ ',675,&7 =RQLQJ 3ULQWHG 6HSWHPEHU 0LOHV © 3DWK . ?$UF0DS3URMHFWV?&LW\0DQDJHUV2IILFH?*HQHUDO0DSSLQJ5TXHVW?*HQHUDO0DSSLQJDSU[ *HQHUDO&RPPHUFLDO &* &68 (PSOR\PHQW ( +DUPRQ\&RUULGRU +& /RZ'HQVLW\0L[HG8VH 1HLJKERUKRRG /01 0DQXIDFWXUHG+RXVLQJ 0+ 0HGLXP'HQVLW\0L[HG 8VH1HLJKERUKRRG 001 1HLJKERUKRRG &RPPHUFLDO 1& 3XEOLF2SHQ/DQGV 32/ 5LYHU&RQVHUYDWLRQ 5& /RZ'HQVLW\5HVLGHQWLDO 5/ 7UDQVLWLRQ 7 8UEDQ(VWDWH 8( DISTRICT 2 | ZONING Auxiliary aids and services are available for persons with disabilities.23-25678 W Prospect Rd E Prospect Rd S S u m m i t V i e w D r E Horsetooth Rd E Drake Rd E Harmony Rd Ketcher Rd S L e m a y A v e Zi e g l e r R d S T i m b e r l i n e R d S C o l l e g e A v e St r a u s s C a b i n R d W Drake Rd W Harmony Rd W Prospect Rd E Prospect Rd S S u m m i t V i e w D r E Horsetooth Rd E Drake Rd E Harmony Rd Ketcher Rd S L e m a y A v e Zi e g l e r R d S T i m b e r l i n e R d S C o l l e g e A v e St r a u s s C a b i n R d W Drake Rd W Harmony Rd 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 Miles General Commercial (CG) CSU Employment (E) Harmony Corridor (HC) Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Manufactured Housing (MH) Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Public Open Lands (POL) River Conservation (RC) Low Density Residential (RL) Transition (T) Urban Estate (UE) :+RUVHWRRWK 5G 6 / H P D \ $ Y H 6 7 L P E H U O L Q H 5 G 6W U DXVV & D E LQ 5 G =L H J OHU 5 G :+DUPRQ\5G ( 7 U L O E\ 5 G (&RXQW\ 5RDG (+DUPRQ\5G 6 & R O O H J H $ Y H .HFKWHU5G (+RUVHWRRWK5G 6WDWH + LJKZD\ (&RXQW\5RDG &DUSHQWHU 5G 6 & R X Q W \ 5 R D G ( & R X Q W \ 5 R DG 6 8 6 + L J K Z D \ :7ULOE\ 5G 6 & R X Q W \ 5 R D G 6 & R X Q W \ 5R D G 6 & R X Q W \ 5 R D G !"`$ ',675,&7 =RQLQJ 3ULQWHG 6HSWHPEHU 0LOHV © 3DWK . ?$UF0DS3URMHFWV?&LW\0DQDJHUV2IILFH?*HQHUDO0DSSLQJ5TXHVW?*HQHUDO0DSSLQJDSU[ &RPPXQLW\&RPPHUFLDO && *HQHUDO&RPPHUFLDO &* 6HUYLFH&RPPHUFLDO &6 (PSOR\PHQW ( +DUPRQ\&RUULGRU +& /RZ'HQVLW\0L[HG8VH 1HLJKERUKRRG /01 0HGLXP'HQVLW\0L[HG 8VH1HLJKERUKRRG 001 1HLJKERUKRRG &RPPHUFLDO 1& 3XEOLF2SHQ/DQGV 32/ /RZ'HQVLW\5HVLGHQWLDO 5/ 5XUDO/DQGV'LVWULFW 58/ 7UDQVLWLRQ 7 8UEDQ(VWDWH 8( DISTRICT 3 | ZONING Auxiliary aids and services are available for persons with disabilities.23-25678 S L e m a y A v e S T i m b e r l i n e R d Kechter Rd E Trilby Rd Carpenter Rd State Highway 392 E Harmony Rd E Horsetooth Rd S C o l l e g e A v e Zi e g l e r R d St r a u s s C a b i n R d S L e m a y A v e S T i m b e r l i n e R d Kechter Rd E Trilby Rd Carpenter Rd State Highway 392 E Harmony Rd E Horsetooth Rd S C o l l e g e A v e Zi e g l e r R d St r a u s s C a b i n R d 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 Miles Community Commercial (CC) General Commercial (CG) Service Commercial (CS) Employment (E) Harmony Corridor (HC) Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Public Open Lands (POL) Low Density Residential (RL) Rural Lands District (RUL) Transition (T) Urban Estate (UE) 6 & R OO HJ H $YH :+RUVHWRRWK5G 6 / H P D \ $ Y H 6 2Y H U O D Q G 7 U O :'UDNH5G 6 7 D I W + L O O 5 G (+RUVHWRRWK5G ( 7 U L O E \5G ( ' UDNH 5G :&R X Q W \ 5 R D G ( 6 6 K L H O G V 6 W :+DUPRQ\5G : 7 U L OE\ 5 G (+DUPRQ\5G &DUSHQWHU 5G 6 & R X Q W \ 5 R D G 6 8 6 + L J K Z D \ (&RXQW\5RDG 6 & R X Q W \ 5 R D G ',675,&7 =RQLQJ 3ULQWHG 6HSWHPEHU 0LOHV © 3DWK . ?$UF0DS3URMHFWV?&LW\0DQDJHUV2IILFH?*HQHUDO0DSSLQJ5TXHVW?*HQHUDO0DSSLQJDSU[ *HQHUDO&RPPHUFLDO &* /LPLWHG&RPPHUFLDO &/ (PSOR\PHQW ( /RZ'HQVLW\0L[HG8VH 1HLJKERUKRRG /01 0HGLXP'HQVLW\0L[HG 8VH1HLJKERUKRRG 001 1HLJKERUKRRG &RPPHUFLDO 1& 3XEOLF2SHQ/DQGV 32/ 5HVLGHQWLDO)RRWKLOOV 5) /RZ'HQVLW\5HVLGHQWLDO 5/ 5XUDO/DQGV'LVWULFW 58/ 7UDQVLWLRQ 7 8UEDQ(VWDWH 8( DISTRICT 4 | ZONING Auxiliary aids and services are available for persons with disabilities.23-25678 W Harmony Rd W C o u n t y R d 3 8 E W Horsetooth Rd W Drake Rd E Harmony Rd Carpenter Rd E Horsetooth Rd E Drake Rd W Trilby Rd S C o l l e g e A v e S T a f t H i l l R d S C o u n t y R d 1 9 S O v e r l a n d T r S L e m a y A v e S S h i e l d s S t W Harmony Rd W C o u n t y R d 3 8 E W Horsetooth Rd W Drake Rd E Harmony Rd Carpenter Rd E Horsetooth Rd E Drake Rd W Trilby Rd S C o l l e g e A v e S T a f t H i l l R d S C o u n t y R d 1 9 S O v e r l a n d T r S L e m a y A v e S S h i e l d s S t 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 Miles General Commercial (CG) Limited Commercial (CL) Employment (E) Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Public Open Lands (POL) Residential Foothills (RF) Low Density Residential (RL) Rural Lands District (RUL) Transition (T) Urban Estate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© 3DWK . ?$UF0DS3URMHFWV?&LW\0DQDJHUV2IILFH?*HQHUDO0DSSLQJ5TXHVW?*HQHUDO0DSSLQJDSU[ &RPPXQLW\&RPPHUFLDO && *HQHUDO&RPPHUFLDO &* &68 (PSOR\PHQW ( +LJK'HQVLW\0L[HG8VH 1HLJKERUKRRG +01 /RZ'HQVLW\0L[HG8VH 1HLJKERUKRRG /01 0HGLXP'HQVLW\0L[HG 8VH1HLJKERUKRRG 001 1HLJKERUKRRG &RPPHUFLDO 1& 1HLJKERUKRRG &RQVHUYDWLRQ%XIIHU 1&% 1HLJKERUKRRG &RQVHUYDWLRQ/RZ 'HQVLW\ 1&/ 1HLJKERUKRRG &RQVHUYDWLRQ0HGLXP 'HQVLW\ 1&0 3XEOLF2SHQ/DQGV 32/ 5HVLGHQWLDO)RRWKLOOV 5) /RZ'HQVLW\5HVLGHQWLDO 5/ 8UEDQ(VWDWH 8( DISTRICT 5 | ZONING Auxiliary aids and services are available for persons with disabilities.23-25678 W Vine Dr W Elizabeth St W Mulberry St W Drake Rd E Drake Rd E Horsetooth Rd E Prospect Rd Ri v e r s i d e A v e E Prospect Rd N S h i e l d s S t N C o l l e g e A v e N L e m a y A v e N O v e r l a n d T r l S O v e r l a n d T r l S T a f t H i l l R d N T a f t H i l l R d S C o l l e g e A v e S S h i e l d s s t Laporte Ave W Mountain Ave Lincoln Ave E Vine Dr W Willox Ln W Vine Dr W Elizabeth St W Mulberry St W Drake Rd E Drake Rd E Horsetooth Rd E Prospect Rd Ri v e r s i d e A v e E Prospect Rd N S h i e l d s S t N C o l l e g e A v e N L e m a y A v e N O v e r l a n d T r l S O v e r l a n d T r l S T a f t H i l l R d N T a f t H i l l R d S C o l l e g e A v e S S h i e l d s s t Laporte Ave W Mountain Ave Lincoln Ave E Vine Dr W Willox Ln 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 Miles Community Commercial (CC) General Commercial (CG) CSU Employment (E) High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (HMN) Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Neighborhood Conservation Buer (NCB) Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (NCL) Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) Public Open Lands (POL) Residential Foothills (RF) Low Density Residential (RL) Urban Estate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©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| ZONING Auxiliary aids and services are available for persons with disabilities.23-25678 N O v e r l a n d T r l N T a f t H i l l R d N S h i e l d s S t E Prospect RdW Prospect Rd W Elizabeth St W Mulberry St Laporte Ave N C o l l e g e A v e S T a f t H i l l R d S O v e r l a n d T r l W Mountain Ave W Vine Dr E Willox Ln E Vine Dr E Mulberry St S S h i e l d s S t S C o l l e g e A v e N O v e r l a n d T r l N T a f t H i l l R d N S h i e l d s S t E Prospect RdW Prospect Rd W Elizabeth St W Mulberry St Laporte Ave N C o l l e g e A v e S T a f t H i l l R d S O v e r l a n d T r l W Mountain Ave W Vine Dr E Willox Ln E Vine Dr E Mulberry St S S h i e l d s S t S C o l l e g e A v e 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 Miles Community Commercial (CC) Community Commercial North College (CCN) Community Commercial Poudre River (CCR) General Commercial (CG) Limited Commercial (CL) Service Commercial (CS) CSU Downtown (D) Employment (E) Industrial (I) Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Neighborhood Conservation Buer (NCB) Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (NCL) Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) Public Open Lands (POL) River Conservation (RC) Low Density Residential (RL) Transition (T) Urban Estate (UE) Manufactured Housing (MH) CODE ALTERNATIVES: CURRENT DRAFT LAND USE CODE COMPARED TO REPEALED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DATE: OCTOBER 3, 2023 Green = General agreement and included in the proposed ordinance Yellow = Included in the proposed ordinance and needs additional information/discussion Red = Not included in the proposed ordinance RL (Residential, Low Density) UPDATED LUC REPEALED LDC RYG 1 Limit ADUs to 1‐story when there is no alley 2‐story ADUs allowed 2 Allow ADU with single unit dwelling, not with a duplex Duplex and ADU allowed 3 Require ADU properties to be owner occupied (meaning owner has to reside in one of the units) Not required 4 Allow 2 units maximum (house + ADU or duplex only) 3 units (triplex) and Cottage Courts allowed 5 Allow duplexes ONLY IF 1) a lot is 100ft width or wider or 2) one unit is an affordable housing unit or 3) the duplex converts and integrates an existing structure or 4) a lot is within 1/4 mile of current or future high‐frequency transit Duplexes allowed on 100ft width lots NCL (Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density) UPDATED LUC REPEALED LDC RYG 6 Decrease minimum lot size to 4,500 sf Same – no change 7 Allow 2 units maximum on lots 4,500 ‐ 6,000 sf (house + ADU or duplex) 3 units max on 4,500sf lots 8 Restrict ADU height to the height of the primary building. ADU allowed to be taller 9 Allow 3 units maximum on lots 6,000+ sf ONLY IF 1) a duplex + ADU or triplex converts and integrates an existing structure OR 2) a triplex or 3‐unit cottage court includes one affordable unit 3 units max on 4,500sf lots with no site‐specific criteria NCM (Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density) UPDATED LUC REPEALED LDC RYG 10 Decrease minimum lot size to 4,500 sf Same – no change 11 Allow 3 units maximum on lots 4,500 ‐ 6,000 sf (single unit, duplex, row house and ADU only) 6 units max. on 4,500 sf min. lots 12 Allow 5 units maximum on lots larger than 6,000 sf 5 units on 4,500 sf min. lots 13 Allow 6 units on 6,000 sf or larger ONLY IF the development converts and integrates an existing 6 units max. on 4,500 sf min. lots with no site‐ specific criteria. Code Alternatives: Draft LUC compared to repealed LDC 2 structure (single unit, duplex, row house and ADU only) AND one unit is affordable 14 Allow a Cottage Court (minimum 3 units, maximum 6 units) on lots 9,000 sf or larger No limit of units on 9,000sf lots with no site‐ specific criteria City-wide alternatives Affordable Housing UPDATED LUC REPEALED LDC RYG 15 Expand affordable housing incentives citywide and calibrate market‐feasible incentives for ownership and rental Same – no change 16 Update definitions of affordable housing to match market needs for ownership and rental Same – no change 17 Extend required affordability term to 60 years 99‐year affordability term Private Covenants/HOAs UPDATED LUC REPEALED LDC RYG 18 Allow an HOA to regulate the option for detached or attached ADU Detached and Attached ADUs allowed everywhere 19 Specify that HOA's can continue regulate aesthetics (color, window placement, height, materials, etc.) within the bounds of their existing rules Same – no change 20 Add language to allow HOA's to regulate site placement (additional setbacks, separation requirements) Did not state either way 21 Allow an HOA to regulate whether a lot can be further subdivided Allowed HOA to restrict subdivision Parking/Infrastructure UPDATED LUC REPEALED LDC RYG 22 Reduce parking requirements for multi‐unit developments: 1 bedroom = from 1.5 to 1, 2 bedroom = from 1.75 to 1.5 Same – no change 23 Reduce parking requirements for affordable housing ONLY if the development has 7 or more units Same – no change 24 Require 1 parking space for an ADU No parking space required 25 Allow a tandem parking space to count ONLY IF an ADU or extra occupancy No parking space required Input in Development Review UPDATED LUC REPEALED LDC RYG 26 Allow Affordable Housing projects to be reviewed under Basic Development Review All residential projects reviewed under BDR Code Alternatives: Draft LUC compared to repealed LDC 3 27 Require a neighborhood meeting for some projects (larger, more complex, etc.) Not required 28 Require a pre‐application conceptual review meeting for projects over 6 units Not required 29 Establish a defined comment period for public comments on Basic Development Reviews Not required 30 Require projects with Modifications go to P&Z when it involves a modification for certain code sections (such as parking, height, density) or; Not required 31 Require projects with Modifications go to P&Z when it involves more than a certain number of modifications Not required Short Term Rentals UPDATED LUC REPEALED LDC RYG 32 Restrict new ADUs from being used as STR New ADUs could be STRs in STR zones 33 Allow existing ADU or Accessory Structures with STR license to continue operating under current license Same – no change