HomeMy WebLinkAboutMEMO - Mail Packet - 7/11/2023 - Memorandum from Meghan Overton, Noah Beals, and Sylvia Tatman-Burruss re: Land Use Code Engagement Update
Planning, Development & Transportation
281 N. College Ave
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
www.fcgov.com
MEMORANDUM
DATE: JULY 06, 2023
TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers
THRU: Tyler Marr, Deputy City Manager
Clay Frickey, Interim Planning Manager, Community Development &
Neighborhood Services
FROM: Meaghan Overton, Housing Manager
Noah Beals, Development Review Manager
Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, Senior Policy & Project Manager
RE: Land Use Code Engagement Update
The purpose of this memorandum is to share information regarding possible code alternatives
that seek to integrate community feedback and achieve the guiding principles of the land use
code updates as directed by Council. This memorandum is intended to provide context and an
in-depth update on potential alternatives to inform Council’s upcoming work session on Land
Use Code changes scheduled for July 31, 2023. This memorandum focuses only on the key
topic areas presented to Council at previous work sessions and explored during community
engagement, recognizing that there are many other changes to the existing Land Use Code
(e.g. code reorganization, increasing graphic representations, clarifying language and rules of
measurement, and more) that will also be brought forward for Council consideration.
Background
Following the submission and certification of a petition sufficient for referendum, Council
reconsidered Ordinance No. 114, 2023 at the Regular Meeting on January 17, 2023. Council
voted unanimously (7-0) to repeal Ordinance No. 114, 2022, Repealing and Reenacting Section
29-1 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Code to Adopt the Land Development Code and
Separately Codifying the 1997 Land Use Code As “Transitional Land Use Regulations”. Council
directed staff to explore next steps to allow for additional community engagement and further
refinement of housing-related code changes. Project information can be found at the following
link: https://www.fcgov.com/lucupdates
Engagement Memo: City staff drafted an engagement memo that was included in Council
packets on June 27th. The memo included engagement events held since the February 14th,
2023 Council Work Session, attendance numbers at those events, and an engagement
summary created by Dr. Martin Carcasson. That memo can be found at the following link:
https://records.fcgov.com/CouncilCorr/DocView.aspx?id=17698235&dbid=0&repo=FortCollins&
searchid=48c02bfa-601d-465a-a5b5-582f91134b30
Development and Evaluation of Potential Alternatives
At the May 23rd Council Work Session, staff presented an approach to potential code
alternatives using a quadrant framework that highlighted the spectrum of options for code
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F4A27F6-BFBA-4BDE-A504-2460EA495925
revisions and the potential trade-offs. At that Work Session, Council feedback generally focused
within the right, upper-hand quadrant:
Given the feedback from the Work Session, staff has begun to formulate potential code
alternatives informed by community feedback that address housing capacity while emphasizing
existing neighborhood character.
Methodology: Code alternatives have been developed using feedback gathered from various
sources, including:
• Emails to staff and City Leaders
• Comments gathered through the general feedback form on the project webpage.
• Feedback gathered at engagement events
• The engagement summary assembled by Dr. Martin Carcasson, which includes
information from both City-hosted engagement events and input gathered outside of the
City’s engagement process:
o Comments shared by community groups that have been engaged in the project
o Discussions from the Coloradoan specifically related to this project (Fort Collins
local newspaper)
Evaluation Framework: City staff created a list of criteria by which each potential alternative was
evaluated to determine alignment with the goals and purpose of the Land Use Code updates.
The completed evaluation is attached to this memo. In creating the evaluation framework, staff
considered several factors including alignment with the 5 Guiding Principles, potential impact on
equity, resources necessary for implementation, whether the alternative responded to
community feedback, and whether the alternative could advance community goals as expressed
in key adopted plans. More information regarding the evaluation process can be found in the
attachment.
In addition to organizing the possible code alternatives into zone districts, staff has continued to
consider the 7 key themes expressed in community feedback when developing alternatives:
• Increased menu of housing choices and associated regulations
• Affordable housing questions, concerns, and suggestions
limit housing capacity and
choices
Allow for more diverse
housing choices
that fit in with the existingcharacter
Allow for more diverse
housing choices that do not
fit within the existing
character
Increase housing
capacity and choices
More emphasis on changes
to address housing capacity
and choices
Less emphasis on changes
to address choices that fit in
with existing character
More emphasis on changes
to address both housing
capacity /choices and choices
that fit in with existing
character
Less emphasis on
changes to address either
housing capacity /choices
or choices that fit in with
existing character
(status quo)
Less emphasis on changes
to address housing capacity
and choices
More emphasis on changes
to address choices that fit in
with existing character
Overview
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F4A27F6-BFBA-4BDE-A504-2460EA495925
• Size, height, form, and allowed density of specific housing types
• Interaction between the code and private covenants (HOAs)
• Notification, community input, and review procedures for residential development
• Infrastructure and utilities (including parking)
• Process of LDC code changes and adoption
Code Alternatives in Detail
Staff has compiled a list of 33 potential code alternatives for consideration, each of which has
been evaluated by staff for alignment with the project guiding principles and other criteria as
discussed above and in the attached evaluation framework. They are not intended to be staff
recommendations, and instead offer a list of options to consider based on community feedback
and previous Council discussions. Where applicable, potential alternatives have been organized
into different zone districts. Other potential alternatives are city-wide changes for Council to
consider. For each group of alternatives, information has also been included about what is
currently permitted under the existing Code and the purpose of the potential alternatives.
Zone-specific alternatives:
RL – Low Density Residential
Currently allowed under the existing Land Use Code:
• Housing Types Permitted: Single-unit detached house
• Lot Size: 6,000 sq feet minimum OR 3 times the total floor area, whichever is greater
• Maximum Height: 28 feet for residential buildings
• Hearing Type: Public Hearing (Type 1)
Purpose of Possible Alternatives:
• Respond to community feedback indicating concerns about multi-unit housing
• Allowing up to 2 units on all lots increases housing capacity and choice
• Allowing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) increases housing capacity and choice
• Allowing duplexes in limited circumstances and specific contexts increases housing
capacity and choice while emphasizing existing character
• Limiting the allowable height of ADUs responds to community feedback indicating
concerns about privacy, shading, and neighborhood character
• Including provisions for the integration of existing buildings helps add housing capacity
while maintaining existing character
• Extending affordable housing incentives into this zone district provides additional
opportunity for deed-restricted affordable housing
Possible Alternatives for Council Consideration:
RL (Residential, Low Density)
1 Limit ADUs to one story when there is no alley
2 Allow ADU with single unit dwelling, not with a duplex
3 Require ADU properties to be owner occupied (meaning owner has to reside in one
of the units)
4 Allow two units maximum (house + ADU or duplex only)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F4A27F6-BFBA-4BDE-A504-2460EA495925
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
NCL – Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density
Currently allowed under the existing Land Use Code:
• Housing Types Permitted: Single-unit detached house; carriage house
• Lot Size: 6,000 sq. feet minimum; 12,000 sq. feet minimum for carriage house
• Maximum Height: 2 stories, 1.5 stories for carriage house or building at the rear of the lot
• Hearing Type: Administrative Review (Basic Development Review/BDR) for single-unit
detached house, Public Hearing (Type 1) for 2 units or alley-fronting buildings
Purpose of Possible Alternatives:
• Respond to community feedback indicating concerns about multi-unit housing
• Decreasing minimum lot sizes aligns with historic pattern of development and allows
additional housing capacity and choice
• Allowing up to 2 units on all lots increases housing capacity and choice
• Allowing up to 3 units in limited circumstances and specific contexts increases housing
capacity and choice while emphasizing existing character
• Limiting the allowable height of ADUs responds to community feedback indicating
concerns about privacy, shading, and neighborhood character
• Including provisions for the integration of existing buildings helps add housing capacity
while maintaining the existing character
• Extending affordable housing incentives into this zone district provides additional
opportunity for deed-restricted affordable housing
Possible Alternatives for Council Consideration:
NCL (Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density)
6 Decrease minimum lot size to 4,500 sf
7 Allow two units maximum on lots 4,500 - 6,000 sf (house + ADU or duplex)
8 Restrict ADU height to the height of the primary building.
9 Allow three 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
NCM – Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density
Currently allowed under the existing Land Use Code:
• Housing Types Permitted: Single-unit detached house; carriage house; multi-unit up to 4
units (e.g. duplex, triplex, fourplex)
• Lot Size: 5,000 sq. feet minimum for single-unit detached house; 10,000 sq. feet
minimum for carriage house; 6,000 sq. foot minimum for multi-unit buildings up to 4 units
• Maximum Height: 2 stories, 1.5 stories for carriage house or building at the rear of the lot
• Hearing Type:
o Administrative Review (BDR) for single-unit detached house or up to 2 units in
one building on a vacant lot or with no exterior changes to an existing building
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F4A27F6-BFBA-4BDE-A504-2460EA495925
o Public Hearing (Type 1) for 2 units in more than one building or up to 4 units on a
vacant lot or with no exterior changes to an existing building
o Public Hearing + neighborhood meeting (Planning and Zoning Commission) for
2-4 units when structural additions or exterior alterations are made to an existing
building
Purpose of Possible Alternatives:
• Respond to community feedback indicating concerns about multi-unit housing
• Decreasing minimum lot sizes aligns with historic pattern of development and allows
additional housing capacity and choice
• Allowing up to 3 units on all lots increases housing capacity and choice
• Allowing up to 6 units in limited circumstances and specific contexts increases housing
capacity and choice while emphasizing existing character
• Including provisions for the integration of existing buildings helps add housing capacity
while maintaining existing character
• Extending affordable housing incentives into this zone district provides additional
opportunity for deed-restricted affordable housing
Possible Alternatives for Council Consideration:
NCM
10 Decrease minimum lot size to 4,500 sf
11 Allow three units maximum on lots 4,500 - 6,000 sf (single unit, duplex, row house and
ADU only)
12 Allow five units maximum on lots larger than 6,000 sf
13 Allow six units on 6,000 sf or larger ONLY IF the development converts and integrates an
existing 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
City-wide alternatives
Affordable Housing
Currently allowed under the existing Land Use Code:
• Density bonus of 3 additional dwelling units per acre in the Low-
Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Zone
• Height bonus of 2 stories for buildings that are both mixed-use and affordable in the
Transit-Oriented Development Overlay (TOD) Zone
• Parking Reductions of up to 50% in the TOD Zone for affordable developments at 60%
Area Median Income (AMI) or below
• Reduced tree sizes permitted for affordable housing developments
Currently required under the existing Land Use Code:
• 20-year deed restriction
• 10% of units in a development must be affordable to households at 80% AMI or below
Purpose of Possible Alternatives:
• Respond to community input encouraging more affordable housing
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F4A27F6-BFBA-4BDE-A504-2460EA495925
• Expanding affordable housing incentives citywide increases housing capacity and choice
and responds to community input
• Restructuring incentives and requirements achieves several strategies within adopted
plans including the Housing Strategic Plan, City Plan, and Our Climate Future
• Extending the required deed restriction length to 99 years increases the long-term
availability of affordable housing citywide
• Modifying the AMI targets for rental and ownership ensures that affordable units match
community needs for different parts of the housing spectrum
• Establishing a clear incentive framework improves the likelihood that potential
mandatory inclusionary housing requirements can be effectively implemented if desired
Possible Alternatives for Council Consideration:
Affordable Housing
15 Expand affordable housing incentives citywide and calibrate market-feasible
incentives for ownership and rental
16 Update definitions of affordable housing to match market needs for ownership and
rental
17 Extend required affordability term to 99 years
Private Covenants and HOAs
Currently allowed under the existing Land Use Code:
• Homeowners Associations (HOAs) can regulate several aspects of aesthetics and
design including exterior colors, materials, and some aspects of design
• HOAs cannot restrict residents from having solar panels, xeric landscaping, or clothes-
drying lines on their properties
Purpose of possible alternatives:
• Respond to community input indicating concern about how HOAs could be impacted
• Clarifying language about what HOAs can and can not regulate responds to community
feedback indicating an interest to preserve predictability in HOA neighborhoods
• Considering specific ways HOAs could regulate lots or ADUs can increase housing
capacity and choice while emphasizing existing neighborhood character
Possible Alternatives for Council Consideration:
Private Covenants/HOAs
18 Allow an HOA to regulate the option for detached or attached ADU
19 Specify that HOA's can continue regulate aesthetics (color, window placement,
height, materials, etc.) within the bounds of their existing rules
20 Add language to allow HOA's to regulate site placement (additional setbacks,
separation requirements)
21 Allow an HOA to regulate whether a lot can be further subdivided
Parking & Infrastructure
Currently required under the existing Land Use Code:
• Adequate Public Facilities (APF) management system ensures that public facilities and
services are available concurrently with the impacts of development
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F4A27F6-BFBA-4BDE-A504-2460EA495925
• Public streets are constructed to allow on-street parking
• All developments are required to meet minimum parking standards
Purpose of possible alternatives:
• Respond to community input indicating concerns about parking availability
• Maintaining the existing APF requirements ensures that public facilities and services are
available concurrently with the impacts of development
• Slightly reducing parking requirements for studio, 1- and 2-bedroom units in multi-unit
buildings responds to community feedback while right-sizing parking requirements
• Reducing parking requirements for affordable housing developments over 7 units
creates a meaningful incentive and increases housing capacity and choice
• Requiring parking for ADUs responds to community feedback
Possible Alternatives for Council Consideration:
Parking/Infrastructure
22 Reduce parking requirements for multi-unit developments: 1 bedroom = from 1.5 to
1, 2 bedroom = from 1.75 to 1.5
23 Reduce parking requirements for affordable housing ONLY if the development has 7
or more units
24 Require 1 parking space for an ADU
25 Allow a tandem parking space to count ONLY IF an ADU or extra occupancy
Public Input in Development Review
Currently required under the existing Land Use Code:
• Notification and hearing requirements depend on the proposed use. Generally, projects
that require a Planning and Zoning Commission hearing also require a neighborhood
meeting
• Most residential projects are subject to both a neighborhood meeting and public hearing.
• The intention of the neighborhood meeting is to allow adjacent neighbors to learn more
about the project and voice concerns early in the development review process
Purpose of possible alternatives:
• Respond to community input suggesting increased and clear avenues for resident
engagement in the development review process
• Allowing most residential projects to be reviewed through Administrative Review (BDR)
simplifies the review process to allow for greater predictability, which can be a factor in
the final cost of housing units
• Adding requirements for neighborhood meetings, conceptual review meetings, and
defined public comment periods responds to community input indicating a desire for
more clarity and consistency around resident participation in development review
• Considering requirements for some projects to go to the Planning and Zoning
Commission when requesting modifications responds to community input about what
kinds of projects should have a public hearing
Possible Alternatives for Council Consideration:
Input in Development Review
26 Allow residential projects to be reviewed under Basic Development Review
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F4A27F6-BFBA-4BDE-A504-2460EA495925
27 Require a neighborhood meeting for some projects (larger, more complex, etc.)
28 Require a pre-application conceptual review meeting for projects over 6 units
29 Establish a defined comment period for public comments on Basic Development
Reviews
30 Require projects with Modifications go to P&Z when it involves a modification for
certain code sections (such as parking, height, density) or;
31 Require projects with Modifications go to P&Z when it involves more than a certain
number of modifications
Short Term Rentals
Currently permitted under the existing Land Use Code:
• Short Term Rentals (STRs) are currently only allowed in single-family homes (including
single-family-attached homes) and only within specific areas
• Depending on the area, two different STR types are allowed:
o Non-primary short term rental is a dwelling unit that is not a primary residence
and that is leased in its entirety to one party at a time for periods of less than 30
consecutive days
o Primary short term primary rental is a dwelling unit that is the owner’s primary
home and a portion of the home is leased to one party at a time for periods of
less than 30 consecutive days. Owners must reside in their primary STR at least
9 months out of the year
Purpose of possible alternatives:
• Respond to community feedback indicating concern that new units could be used as
STR while allowing established STRs to remain
Possible Alternatives for Council Consideration:
Short Term Rentals
32 Restrict new ADUs from being used as STR
33 Allow existing ADU or Accessory Structures with STR license to continue operating
under current license
Next Steps:
• Staff will share these alternatives with community members prior to the July 31st Work
Session. The focus of the engagement will be to discuss the connection between code
alternatives and community feedback and gather feedback on possible alternatives.
• July 31st: Extended Work Session discussion with Council
• August 22nd: Extended Work Session discussion with Council
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F4A27F6-BFBA-4BDE-A504-2460EA495925
Possible Code Alternatives – Evaluation Framework | July 5, 2023
This document describes an evaluation framework used by City Staff to analyze possible Land Use Code
alternatives for alignment with project guiding principles and goals as directed by City Council.
Scope. Alternatives evaluated focused only on the key topic areas presented to Council at previous work
sessions and explored during community engagement, recognizing that there are many other changes to
the existing Land Use Code (e.g. code reorganization, increasing graphic representations, clarifying
language and rules of measurement, and more) that will also be brought forward for Council
consideration. Key topic areas included:
• Increased menu of housing choices and associated regulations
o Accessory Dwelling Units/ADUs
o 2‐5 plexes
• Affordable housing
• Size, height, form, and allowed density of specific housing types
• Interaction between the code and private covenants (HOAs)
• Notification, community input, and review procedures for residential development
• Infrastructure and utilities (including parking)
Evaluation framework. A number of factors are important considerations in evaluating and prioritizing
specific code alternatives for inclusion in the City’s Land Use Code. Each alternative was evaluated
across a series of questions to confirm feasibility and alignment within each of the following topic areas:
Alignment with the 5 Guiding Principles
Potential impact on equity (as informed by the attached Equity Factors Matrix completed in May
2022)
Feasibility of implementation, including financial and legal considerations
Whether each alternative aligns with policies outlined in key adopted plans
Considerations for economic feasibility and enforceability
The Evaluation Framework is attached to this document. Evaluation criteria are listed in the left‐hand
column and zone districts/topic areas across the top (RL/Low Density Residential, NCL/Neighborhood
Conservation Low Density, NCM/Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density, Affordable Housing,
HOAs/Private Covenants, Parking/Infrastructure, Input in Development Review, and Short Term
Rentals). Alternatives were evaluated on each criterion using a yes/no/maybe response with additional
notes as needed.
Code Alternatives. Staff compiled a list of 33 possible code alternatives for consideration, each of which
was evaluated by staff using the attached evaluation framework. All 33 code alternatives are also
attached. These alternatives are not intended to be staff recommendations, and instead offer a list of
options to consider based on community feedback and previous Council discussions. Where applicable,
possible alternatives have been organized into different zone districts (Low Density Residential/RL,
Neighborhood Conservation Low Density/NCL, Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density/NCM). The
other possible alternatives are city‐wide changes for Council to consider. These possible alternatives will
continue to be refined through July and August through staff workshops, City Council feedback, and
community engagement.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F4A27F6-BFBA-4BDE-A504-2460EA495925
Possible Code Alternatives ‐ Evaluation Framework | July 5, 2023 Figure 1: Evaluation Framework RL NCL NCM Affordable Housing HOAs/Private Covenants Parking/ Infrastructure Input in Development Review Short Term Rentals Evaluation Framework Respond to each question with yes, maybe, or no: Guiding Principles 1 Do these alternatives increase overall housing capacity (market rate and affordable) and/or calibrate market‐feasible incentives for deed restricted affordable housing? yes yes yes yes no yes maybe yes 2(a) Do these alternatives enable more affordability overall? yes yes yes yes no yes maybe maybe 2(b) Do these alternatives enable more affordability near high‐frequency transit and growth areas? yes yes yes yes no yes maybe no 3 Do these alternatives allow for more diverse housing choices that fit in with the existing context? yes yes yes yes maybe yes maybe no 4 Do these alternatives make the code easier to use and understand? no no no yes no yes yes yes 5 Do these alternatives improve predictability of the development review process? no no no yes no yes yes yes Equity Do these alternatives increase equity as outlined in the Equity Factors Matrix (May 2022)? indirect yes ‐ supports equity in the context of providing more choices and better access to opportunity areas. indirect yes ‐ supports equity in the context of providing more choices and better access to opportunity areas. indirect yes ‐ supports equity in the context of providing more choices and better access to opportunity areas. yes no yes maybe; increases resident empowerment and participation in process yes; ensures that new housing units are used for long‐term residents and not short‐term rentals Feasibility Does the city have necessary resources to implement, administer and monitor? yes; except owner occupancy no yes yes yes; over time will require more compliance and monitoring no yes yes maybe; will require more compliance and monitoring Are these alternatives legally sound? yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Do these alternatives respond to public input? yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Do these alternatives require additional action outside of the LUC to fully implement? mostly no; owner occupancy yes no no yes; requires coordination with housing team maybe no no yes Policy Alignment Do these alternatives help advance other community goals contained in… Our Climate Future yes yes yes yes no yes yes yes Housing Strategic Plan yes yes yes yes no yes yes yes City Plan yes yes yes yes no yes yes yes Transportation/Transit Master plan maybe maybe maybe yes no yes yes yes Subarea Plans (if applicable) ‐ needs more analysis Additional policy analysis needed to review subarea plans as applicable to different alternatives Notes on economic feasibility and enforceability DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F4A27F6-BFBA-4BDE-A504-2460EA495925
Possible Code Alternatives ‐ Evaluation Framework | July 5, 2023 What kind of impact do these alternatives have on economic feasibility of projects? limiting to 2 units maximum and requiring owner occupancy have biggest impact requiring integration of existing structures for more than 3 units has biggest impact requiring integration of existing structures for more than 3 units has biggest impact moderate to large impact; if calibrated to market conditions, can make affordable housing more feasible to build depending on regulations of individual HOAs, could have large impact on feasibility moderate to large impact on feasibility, especially for multi‐unit affordable projects minor impact on feasibility minor impact on feasibility How enforceable are these alternatives? easily enforceable except owner occupancy; need definitions for conversion of existing structures, affordable housing incentives require additional compliance and monitoring fairly enforceable; need definitions for conversion of existing structures, affordable housing incentives require additional compliance and monitoring fairly enforceable; need definitions for conversion of existing structures, affordable housing incentives require additional compliance and monitoring fairly enforceable; will require compliance and monitoring of deed restrictions and commitments difficult to enforce easily enforceable easily enforceable fairly enforceable; may require additional resources added to current compliance processes DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F4A27F6-BFBA-4BDE-A504-2460EA495925
Possible Code Alternatives ‐ Evaluation Framework | July 5, 2023 Figure 2: Possible Alternatives Possible Alternatives RL (Low‐Density Residential Zone) 1 Limit ADUs to one story when there is no alley 2 Allow ADU with single unit dwelling, not with a duplex 3 Require ADU properties to be owner occupied (meaning owner has to reside in one of the units) 4 Allow two units maximum (house + ADU or duplex only) 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 NCL (Neighborhood Conservation Low Density Zone) 6 Decrease minimum lot size to 4,500 sf 7 Allow two units maximum on lots 4,500 ‐ 6,000 sf (house + ADU or duplex) 8 Restrict ADU height to the height of the primary building. 9 Allow three 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 or 3) a lot is within 1/4 mile of current or future high‐frequency transit NCM (Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density Zone) 10 Decrease minimum lot size to 4,500 sf 11 Allow three units maximum on lots 4,500 ‐ 6,000 sf (single unit, duplex, row house and ADU only) 12 Allow five units maximum on lots larger than 6,000 sf 13 Allow six units on 6,000 sf or larger ONLY IF the development converts and integrates an existing 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 Affordable Housing 15 Expand affordable housing incentives citywide and calibrate market‐feasible incentives for ownership and rental 16 Update definitions of affordable housing to match market needs for ownership and rental DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F4A27F6-BFBA-4BDE-A504-2460EA495925
Possible Code Alternatives ‐ Evaluation Framework | July 5, 2023 17 Extend required affordability term to 99 years Private Covenants/HOAs 18 Allow an HOA to regulate the option for detached or attached ADU 19 Specify that HOA's can continue regulate aesthetics (color, window placement, height, materials, etc.) within the bounds of their existing rules 20 Add language to allow HOA's to regulate site placement (additional setbacks, separation requirements) 21 Allow an HOA to regulate whether a lot can be further subdivided Parking/Infrastructure 22 Reduce parking requirements for multi‐unit developments: 1 bedroom = from 1.5 to 1, 2 bedroom = from 1.75 to 1.5 23 Reduce parking requirements for affordable housing ONLY if the development has 6 or more units: 1 bedroom = 0.75 spaces per unit, 2 bedroom = 1 space per unit, 3 bedroom = 1.25 spaces per unit, 4 bedroom = 1.5 spaces per unit 24 Require 1 parking space for an ADU 25 Allow a tandem parking space to count ONLY IF an ADU or extra occupancy Input in Development Review 26 Allow residential projects to be reviewed under Basic Development Review 27 Require a neighborhood meeting for some projects (larger, more complex, etc.) 28 Require a pre‐application conceptual review meeting for projects over 6 units 29 Establish a defined comment period for public comments on Basic Development Reviews 30 Require projects with Modifications go to P&Z when it involves a modification for certain code sections (such as parking, height, density) 31 Require projects with Modifications go to P&Z when it involves more than a certain number of modifications Short Term Rentals 32 Restrict new ADUs from being used as short term rentals (STR) 33 Allow ADU or Accessory Structures with STR license to continue operating under current license DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F4A27F6-BFBA-4BDE-A504-2460EA495925
Possible Code Alternatives ‐ Evaluation Framework | July 5, 2023 Figure 3: Equity Factors Matrix Equity Factors Summary of Possible Changes How these changes impact equity Specific examples in PossiblePlternatives Alignment with Goals in other Plans Racial Inequity Increased housing supply, diversity and price points Reduce wealth disparities by increasing homeownership opportunities Residential zones add new housing types including duplex, cottage court, triplex, rowhouse, apartment options Housing Strategic Plan Increased mix of for‐sale & rental Reduce disproportionately higher poverty rates by race with more affordable housing costs Density bonuses and reduced parking for affordable housing 2020 Strategic Plan Increased housing types, price points, density in high‐opportunity areas Our Climate Future ADUs in all districts CityPlan Livable Larimer County 5‐Year Plan Health Inequity Increased housing supply, diversity and price points Housing that is affordable enables more spending on health care, transportation, other critical needs Smaller minimum lot sizes in NCL and NCM districts allows smaller, more affordable housing types Housing Strategic Plan Increased mixed‐use housing Being housed can reduce health disparities for BIPOC, low income, disabled residents Affordable housing bonuses incentivize more housing units near basic services and transportation CityPlan Bonus density for affordable housing in TOD zones Livable Larimer County 5‐Year Plan Increased housing diversity in ‘Health Equity Index’ priority areas (CityPlan) Gentrification/ Displacement Risk Increased housing diversity and supply in areas of displacement risk AND high‐opportunity areas More for‐sale and rental housing options increases ability to stay in neighborhood Increase in housing density and diversity in high Vulnerability Index areas Housing Strategic Plan Increased housing options and sizes for ownership More affordable housing supply reduces potential for eviction due to rent hikes Increase in housing density and diversity in high‐opportunity areas for Economy, Mobility, Education CityPlan Increased smaller and multifamily housing across price points Climate Resilience & Environmental Justice More housing supply and diversity for people to withstand climate events and disasters Denser neighborhoods reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas emissions Duplexes, triplexes, cottage courts, rowhouses, ADUs increase access to yards, green spaces, parks, trails Our Climate Future More types and locations of housing with proximity to parks/green space/nature Denser housing allows space for parks/green space/tree canopy to mitigate pollution Increased housing allows proximity to critical services/jobs; reduces driving trips Housing Strategic Plan More housing near TOD reduces vehicle usage Lower housing costs allow residents to better afford utility costs CityPlan Access to Opportunity More zones allow housing diversity in order to access public and private goods (parks, quality schools, healthy food sources, multimodal transportation) in more neighborhoods Increases housing supply, diversity, price points in high‐opportunity areas for Economy, Education, Mobility, Environment Increased housing diversity and price points in high‐opportunity areas in NCL, NCM, NCB districts in downtown and along College Ave. Housing Strategic Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F4A27F6-BFBA-4BDE-A504-2460EA495925
Possible Code Alternatives ‐ Evaluation Framework | July 5, 2023 More housing diversity and price points reduce ‘opportunity hoarding’ of public goods Increased housing density and diversity in high‐opportunity areas in CG, CC, CL, CS, CCN districts. CityPlan Increased housing in high‐opportunity areas in LMN, MMN, HMN districts Livable Larimer County 5‐Year Plan Income and Wealth Inequality Diverse housing types in high‐opportunity areas and near multimodal transportation can increase economic opportunity Allows greater access to jobs, education, critical services to improve economic prosperity and reduce poverty Increased housing supply, diversity and price points in high‐opportunity areas Housing Strategic Plan Density bonuses for affordable housing increase access to jobs, services Affordable housing near TOD reduces transportation spending Pandemic Response & Recovery Increased housing diversity and affordability improves ability to shelter and isolate Increases affordable housing options for essential workers Duplexes, triplexes, ADUs increase access to yards, green spaces and neighborhood parks Housing Strategic Plan Diverse housing supply reduces risk of eviction during pandemics and economic downturns Density and ‘complete neighborhoods’ allow access to critical services including medical care and food; reduces impacts of supply chain interruptions Expansion of housing types, density and price points facilitates ability to work from home Our Climate Future CityPlan Community Empowerment / Access to the Political Process Increased housing supply, diversity, price points increase chance to stay in neighborhood, strengthen social cohesion Housing stability increases likelihood of political participation and power Simplified Zone Districts Housing Strategic Plan Incorporates Home2Health engagement process recommendations Displacement leads to disruption of community voice and power More housing diversity and price points throughout Districts Code is easier to read and understand with many graphics More transparent, easy to read code builds trust in and access to the development process Graphic illustrations within the code ADUs in all zones increase access to process of building ADUs DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F4A27F6-BFBA-4BDE-A504-2460EA495925