Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMULBERRY & GREENFIELDS - PUD MASTER PLAN - ODP210002 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION Mulberry & Greenfields – PUD Master Plan: Public Benefits Agreement Conformance Fort Collins, CO | August 18, 2021 Public Benefits Agreement – PUD Master Plan Conformance In March 2021, the Fort Collins City Council approved a Public Benefits Agreement (PBA) with the applicant identifying exceptional benefits that will be achieved through the development of the Mulberry project. The PUD is a critical element in achieving these benefits, as it establishes project- specific development standards that are needed to achieve these benefits. The below narrative connects the PBA to specific elements within the PUD to illustrate how the PUD facilitates the applicant’s ability to achieve these benefits. Many of the changes proposed within the Mulberry PUD are consistent with the direction established in the Housing Strategic Plan and the Land Use Code Audit. Many of these are identified below. The Mulberry PUD provides an opportunity pilot many of these proposed code revisions in a targeted manner. Additionally, the LUC Audit recommended restructuring some of the code for simpler interpretation, such as consolidating uses into a single table (p. 27). These changes have been incorporated into the PUD. 1. Affordable Housing a. At least 15% of the total dwelling units will be affordable for households earning 80% of AMI or less. A minimum of 240 affordable units will be built (15% of the target 1,600 total units). The ongoing exceptional increase in home prices is paired with a marked lack of housing supply. This affects affordable, attainable, and market-rate buyers. As the city’s DRAFT Housing Strategic Plan (HSP) stated, “In 2010, the median sales price of a single-family detached home was just over $200,000 (IRES). Today, the median sales price of a single- family detached home is $448,250, a 124% increase over 2010. Townhomes and condominiums have seen similar levels of appreciation. In 2010, the median sales price of townhomes/condominiums was $120,000 compared to $316,885 today, a 164% increase. Median income during this same timeframe only increased 25%.” (DRAFT Housing Strategic Plan, p. 102). Similarly, the adopted HSP states, “In 2015, the average cost to build a unit of housing was about $278,000, while today it costs close to $330,000. Median income households can only afford a home priced at about $330,000. Developers build housing for a profit and thus cannot build new homes for purchase for less than $330,000 without some form of subsidy. In addition, the recent Land Use Code Audit identified many places where existing regulations could be revised or clarified to better encourage a wide range of housing options.” (p. 31). To address these challenges, the applicant is proposing a series of code changes. Throughout the PUD, side setbacks for Single Family Detached (SFD) units have been reduced to 3’ from the current 5’. Minimum lot sizes have been lowered, and there is no minimum unit size. These changes, in conjunction with new housing types, such as the cottage home, and a widespread allowance of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) help achieve the project’s goal of innovation in housing. The applicant, and other builders, are finding that townhomes Public Benefits Agreement – PUD Master Plan Conformance are no longer the most attainable entry point to homeownership as HOA fees, insurance costs, and other elements have made them increasingly expensive. Smaller detached homes prove an alternative at a better price point and have lower HOA fees, meaning that owners can purchase more home for the same monthly payment. The applicant is developing architecture for these cottage units in order to reduce construction waste and to simplify the construction process (e.g., developing homes that fit standard lumber dimensions to reduce construction complexity). Such units, whether they sold with an affordability covenant or are simply sold at-market, are being designed so that they lower the sales prices relative to comparable SFD units. Size is the most noticeable factor, with some SFD units likely below 900 SF. The same units are contemplated for use as SFD rentals and the PUD includes a lot typical for using this alternative. The inclusion of new housing types is a core recommendation of the Land Use Code Audit (LUC Audit), which directly calls out for the creation of a cottage home type (p. 16-17). As it states, “…both City staff and stakeholders noted that under Fort Collins’ current requirements projects are simply not able to achieve the diversity of housing options and density called for by [City Plan]” (p. 16). It goes on to state, “Existing definitions should be updated, and new definitions added to more clearly emphasize the full spectrum of housing types desired” in the Mixed-Use Neighborhood place type, which is where Mulberry is situated (p. 16). It also recommends widening the definition of an ADU beyond simply a carriage house, including specifying different kinds of ADUs (attached, detached, etc.…), increased flexibility about how they are designed and accesses (e.g., allowed in sideyards, not just rear), and allowing ADUs with other uses than single family detached (e.g., above detached multifamily garages) (p. 19). The HSP echoes similar themes, including advancing phase one of the Land Use Code Audit and the establishment of additional housing types (p. 51). The PUD includes many of these elements. Table 2 (p. 8-14) of the LUC Audit delineates a number of specific proposed changes to the zoning code. Its recommendations of adding uses, adding ADUs, increasing density in the LMN area have been adopted in the PUD. Staff comments generated during the first PUD review included some on the need to preserve the code’s current standards about distance to neighborhood centers in the LMN area, as the PUD removed this requirement. The LUC Audit recommends removing rigid “specific location and spacing requirements” (p. 9) for neighborhood centers and the applicant believes that the strength of the overall commercial core meets the intent of the code. Therefore, the PUD is critical in aligning the Mulberry project with the direction of the LUC Audit, which the applicant believes is warranted given the unique nature of the commercial elements at Mulberry. Additionally, the Audit encourages a Public Benefits Agreement – PUD Master Plan Conformance focus on placing neighborhood centers so there is “multimodal access and connections….” (p. 9), which is the case with the commercial core in District 3. Table 2 also makes recommendations for modifications to the MMN zone, including many that are capture in the PUD such as the addition of ADUs and the recommendation to allow additional stories at major intersections (p. 9). The latter of these is captured in the modifications for District 2. Additionally, densities have been increased in the PUD over the LMN base, per the PBA, to achieve density goals through these strategies for SFD, as well as the development of condos, apartments, and other attached product. These proposed changes are also consistent with Fort Collins City Plan and directly help achieve Principle LIV 5: “Create more opportunities for housing choices” (p. 42). Sub- policies under this header include content addressed by the proposed PUD. For instance, Policy LIV 5.2: Supply of Attainable Housing, which is calls for additional missing middle housing types. Those new types are addressed in the PUD. In general, the PUD provides the necessary changes to development standards needed to achieve the PBA requirement of providing at least 15% of all units as affordable units. b. At least 40 units will be for-sale units and affordable to families earning 80% or less of AMI and will be dispersed throughout the community. Other units will be affordable rental units affordable to households earning 60% of AMI, on average, based on CHFA methodology. Predictability in review process is critical to achieving affordable and attainable multi- family housing, including affordable rentals, for-sale condos, and market-rate apartments. In many jurisdictions, projects that fulfill the code’s requirements – and which meet city goals and objective, such as affordable housing or increased density – become politicized or charged at the very end of the project, often through the public hearing process. The implications of this are particularly serious for affordable housing projects, which are funded through the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA) using federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) funds. The timelines on these projects are extremely rigid, as are each project’s finances. Last minute uncertainty is therefore a serious challenge to the viability of a LIHTC project, like the one proposed for Mulberry. The PUD is therefore proposing that all residential development is subject to an administrative review (Type 1) or a Basic Development Review (BDR), as is detailed within the PUD. This modification to review types still provides the public a guarantee that the goals of PUD will be met, however the applicant is also assured that if standards are met the project can be approved. Should a project deviate from the standards Public Benefits Agreement – PUD Master Plan Conformance included in the PUD, it would fall back to the type of review otherwise specified within the Land Use Code. The HSP includes a list of prioritized strategies to address affordable housing. One of those is “Advance Phase One of the Land Use Code (LUC) Audit…Responds to the greatest challenges by addressing the entire housing spectrum with new tools and processes.” (p. 51). This is further described as “(a) Establishment of additional housing types; opportunities to increase overall supply; (b) Recalibration of existing incentives for affordable housing production; identification of new incentives; (c) refines and simplifies development processes” (p. 51). The last of these is directly addressed with the portion of the PUD focused on review types. The PUD also addresses the first two in the list through other mechanisms discussed herein. Pages 19-20 of the LUC Audit discuss ways to incentivize affordable housing, including: • “Removing known barriers where possible, such as limitations on the total number of units or square footage per multi-family building (potentially in conjunction with minimum/maximum bedroom standards to address student considerations); • “Clarifying and simplifying development standards—as discussed in Section 3, below—and build in more flexibility for affordable housing projects where possible; • “Recalibrating density and height incentives with updated development standards and expanding the number of districts where they are offered; • “Exploring further reductions to parking requirements in mixed-use districts; • “Consider establishing baseline lot coverage maximums where they do not exist today (using current setbacks as a starting point) and offering increased lot coverage above those maximums for affordable housing projects; • “Consider eliminating maximum densities in certain districts (likely in conjunction with adding more detailed dimensional standards, at least in residential districts); and • “Simplifying and consistently applying a net density as the standard rule for measuring density (i.e., eliminating the numerous variations on gross density, net density, and average density that exist today).” (p. 20). The PUD incorporates many of these elements as well as simplifying the design and entitlement process. Flexibility is achieved in many of the ways discussed above. Parking standards are modified for the cottage home type. Densities are increased in all the planning areas, however SFD residential is limited within District 3. One departure from the above list is the recommendation to establish lot coverage restrictions. This requirement does not currently exist in the code and the PUD includes language excluding the site from a restriction of this type should one be contemplated in a later update of the code. The rationale for this is that such a requirement would arbitrarily increase the minimum lot size for each product type, especially so for cottages Public Benefits Agreement – PUD Master Plan Conformance and other small product, and thus lead to a net reduction in density. Since density is an explicit objective of the PBA, this potential restriction has been removed from the site via the PUD. c. All affordable units must have a minimum of a 20-year minimum affordability covenant. This criterion is not directly affected by the PUD. The affordability requirement will be met through CHFA and federal LIHTC standards for the affordable rental housing. For- sale affordable units will meet the minimum covenant timeline restrictions through partnerships with Habitat for Humanity, which qualifies homebuilders, originates their mortgages, and ensures long-term affordability. d. The PBA establishes multiple ways this could be achieved. The applicant’s intent is to sell a portion of the property in District 2 to a LIHTC developer, who will build affordable rental units for households averaging 60% AMI. That project will be subject to CHFA and other applicable federal affordability standards. The PUD use and density standards within District 2, as well as the building type standards, help facilitate this project. Additionally, the freedom to place building over zoning lines is critical to the success of this project, as it straddles two underlying zones. The for-sale affordable units will be built by Habitat for Humanity and will be dispersed throughout the development. At this time, the intent is for Habitat to build homes designed by Hartford Homes so that the dispersed homes will match the look and feel of other homes throughout the neighborhood. The standards in the PUD aimed at overall flexibility and attainability for SFD and SFA housing all factor into for-sale affordability as well, including a reduction in lot size, reductions in setbacks, and density increases. These proposed changes bring the PUD in alignment with the City Plan, including Policy LIV 5.5: Integrate and Distribute Affordable Housing (p. 42). This policy calls for affordable housing to be integrated throughout the community, which is also required by the PBA and facilitated by the PUD. 2. Critical On-Site and Off-Site Public Infrastructure Within Fort Collins, the PUD operates like an Overall Development Plan (ODP) and, in addition to establishing project-specific development standards also establishes the general alignment of collector and arterial roads, as well as access point to adjoining communities. In the case of Mulberry, a series of unique project site constraints makes it extremely challenging to meet specific code requirements for vehicular connections. It is the applicant’s intent to use the PUD mechanism to entitle specific access point and to therefore exclude other access points that are not viable. For instance, given the width of the site, the Land Use Code would typically require three access points to Vine Dr., though the significant grade differential between Vine Dr. and the site makes it unlikely that three points can be realistically engineered. For reference, the texture plan Public Benefits Agreement – PUD Master Plan Conformance included as a supplementary graphic within the PUD submittal shows a conceptual lotting plan and illustrates how access and circulation may work below Vine Dr. The first E-W road south of Vine Dr. is located as far north as possible, given the grade. Due to this, only one connection is shown to Vine. (Greenfields Dr.), which will run through the entire site. The applicant will work with PFA and other regulatory agencies to ensure that appropriate emergency access is maintained. Similarly, the ODP elements of the PUD show the ways the Mulberry project will implement the generalized vision of governing documents such as the Master Streets Plan (MSP). One element of the MSP is a connection between existing ROW south of Lake Canal and the current termination of Delozier Dr. at the future intersection of International Blvd. The PUD is critical in demonstrating how this intent will be met, since there are significant utilities located on the Mulberry site on the property line where the road is shown in the MSP. As has been discussed with staff, the PUD shows Delozier Dr. curving west offsite from its current terminus and then curving south to connect with the existing off-set alignment of the road below the ditch. The applicant’s intent is to entitle this alignment with the ODP. Specific infrastructure elements are identified in the PBA and their connection to the PUD is detailed below: a. Fund, design, and construct a pedestrian and vehicular railroad crossing for Greenfields Dr. As stated above, the PUD establishes the core roadway network. The Great Western Railway railroad spur diagonally bisects the site, which functionally creates a barrier between the two halves of the property. Per the Transportation Master Plan, Greenfields is slated to be extended from Mulberry to Vine and the PUD shows this route, including a single at-grade crossing of the railroad. Based on conversations with Parks and Trails staff, as well as with the railroad and the Public Utilities Commission (PUD), the latter of which is the agency that would approve the crossing, it is the applicant’s understanding that only one shared at-grade pedestrian and vehicular crossing is likely to be approved. The PUD establishes the agreed-upon routing of the future regional trail. The overall road network and trail networks have been designed to operate within the reality of a single crossing. A City-funded underpass of Greenfields Dr. on the south side of the tracks will create a seamless opportunity for pedestrians and bicyclists to move between the east and west half of the site without needing to cross a major roadway. The PUD is therefore critical in showing only one crossing of the tracks and it is also critical in establishing the secondary pedestrian routes through the community so that the community remains connected and walkable. b. Fund design, and construct the Greenfields and Mulberry roundabout Public Benefits Agreement – PUD Master Plan Conformance The applicant has shown this element within the PUD and is working with the adjoining project, known as Peakview, in unincorporated Larimer County to develop a cost sharing agreement so that the roundabout is constructed with the initial phase of development, regardless of whether Peakview or Mulberry is the first to develop. The PUD includes signage elements, including a proposed sign within the roundabout. Staff comments have indicated that the City is not supportive of this sign, though the applicant believes it could still provide a strong signage opportunity for the City and provides the opportunity help re-brand the Mulberry corridor. Outside of signage and road alignments, the PUD does not otherwise affect the roundabout commitment within the PBA. c. Contribute to the improvements at Vine and Timberline, with a minimum contribution of $250,000. The PUD does not directly relate to this PBA criterion. d. Contribute to the design (or design and construct) of improvements in the median of Mulberry at Greenfields, with a minimum contribution of $800,000. This criterion will be addressed with future PDPs and FDPs. e. Contribute to the design (or design and construct) of a city entry feature, including landscaping and monumentation, within the area west of Greenfields, south of the frontage road, and north of Mulberry, with a minimum contribution of $500,000. The PUD establishes generalized land use areas and, while this area could be a prime development area, the PUD shows this area as open space. Additionally, the applicant believes that the future entry monument to the city will likely exceed the sign areas permitted under the code and has therefore included specialized standards to increase the sign area. However, the sign code would exclude the applicant’s ability to build a second sign for commercial tenants within the commercial portion of the site. Both signs are important to the success of redevelopment efforts in the region and the PUD includes the standards for a tenant sign along Mulberry St. This sign is critically important because, due to alignment of the frontage road and landscaping elements, the commercial area will likely be significantly further from Mulberry St. than comparable commercial developments. The second sign proposed in this area is therefore critical to the success of businesses that choose to locate within the Mulberry development. This portion of the site is bisected by a number of existing and proposed utilities and it is also the low point of the property, meaning that site drainage and the future Lake Canal overflow channel will move through this area. While the “hard corner” of Greenfields Dr. and Mulberry St. will be landscaped and include entry monumentation, other portions of this tract are well suited to detention. Adding detention to this area has the ancillary Public Benefits Agreement – PUD Master Plan Conformance benefit of reducing detention within the commercial area, providing opportunity for more tenants and parking. The PUD identifies future detention areas and is therefore critical in showing how the stormwater infrastructure of the site interacts with other elements, including the monumentation elements within this tract. A conceptual layout of this parcel has been included in the resubmittal materials as a supplementary graphic. Finally, the PUD shows within the signage section the location of a proposed obelisk or other vertical feature. The purpose of this is to create a unique, visual destination on the south end of the development for pedestrians using the pedestrian spine. It also provides a landmark for motorists on Mulberry St. and therefore serves as an anchor in the commercial portion of the development for multiple users. The PUD entitles this element, including this element within the same landscaped area south of the frontage road. A conceptual plan for how these elements might work together has been included with the resubmittal for reference. 3. High-Quality and Smart Growth Elements The PUD directly entitles many of the High-Quality and Smart Growth Elements. The PUD allows the application to modify development standards for the site as a whole or for sub-sections of the site. Below these changes are addressed. a. An increase in density for the LMN areas from the current standard of 4 du/ac This change has been included in the PUD, with densities in the majority of the LMN areas being proposed permitted to increase to 12 du/ac. In District 1 and not limited within District 2. Other portions of the underlying LMN areas have been significantly increased to provide transitions to abutting properties and to locate higher density development closer to the commercial area and to undeveloped properties. For example, the triangular portion of District 2 has underlying LMN zoning, though the PUD permits condos, multifamily housing, or other denser land uses in this area. Additionally, the most northwestern portion of District 2 below International Blvd. has underlying LMN zoning, but the PUD allows for this portion of District 2 to be merged with elements MMN zoning elements creating one uniform development area on the western edge. This area is where the affordable rental housing is contemplated and providing a uniform, higher density zoning is critical to the success of the project. Setbacks and lot sizes have been adjusted in tandem with the overall du/ac increase to provide tools to increase the density of SFD and SFA units through smaller home and lot sizes, thereby reducing overall cost to the homeowner. b. Alley-loaded access to at least 40% of the total dwelling units While the execution of this criterion will be met through future PDPs and FDPs, the PUD is critical in establishing new housing types (e.g., detached townhomes, cottages, etc.…) Public Benefits Agreement – PUD Master Plan Conformance which will allow the applicant to develop new housing typologies that support the market and trends in housing. The vast majority of these are alley-loaded, though the configuration of the alley in some cases is non-traditional. For example, the cottage home type has ganged or banked rear-loaded garages located on alleys, but in most cases, these are not adjacent to the homeowner’s lot and are instead located on an alley across a shared open space. c. Added utility services and raw water dedication The ODP elements of the PUD show the generalized plan for detention ponds. Two of the proposed ponds are also planned to be used for the storage of non-potable irrigation water and will help to create amenities within the community. One of these is the larger pond within the neighborhood park. d. Enhanced pedestrian crossings The central pedestrian greenway spine is shown within the PUD. At this time, the applicant intends to use existing city details for bump outs, and pedestrian-activated crosswalks. One critical element the applicant is still resolving with the city is the design for the intersection of the central pedestrian corridor and International Blvd. Since International Blvd. is designated by the city as an arterial, there are limits to the spacing on stop- controlled intersection. The applicant looks forward to working with staff to identify how the PUD can be used to entitle a crossing of International Blvd. that specifically is oriented to pedestrian safety. e. A central pedestrian-oriented greenway spine through the center of the neighborhood The PUD identifies the corridor the spine will follow, on the east side of a future north- south street running approximately halfway between Greenfields Dr. and the project’s western property line. The PUD itself does not entitle unique street sections, as these are covered through a separate variance process. The applicant intends for any roadway cross sections to be addressed at the time of PDP for each applicable section of the spine, should a custom road section be needed. f. A secondary bicycle path to provide a more direct route for cyclists The PUD shows this routing, which was determined in conversation with Suzanne Bassinger of the Park Planning and Development department. The trail will come up the Cooper Slough to the railroad tracks and run in a 50’ easement on the south side of the tracks to a box culvert under Greenfields Dr., where it will connect to the sidewalk on Greenfields at the railroad crossing within the larger consolidated crossing. On the north side of the tracks, it will continue to the northwest in a 50’ easement. Offsite connections, including connections through properties to the south and/or a box culvert under Vine Dr. are the responsibility of others. Public Benefits Agreement – PUD Master Plan Conformance A secondary spur trail is planned along the western edge of Greenfields to International Dr., where it will turn west along the north side of International Dr. and run to the western property line. The spur trail will function as an expanded sidewalk section, with an easement parallel to the ROW for the expanded sidewalk. g. An enhanced east-west greenway to connect the railroad crossing to the Cooper Slough The PUD shows this green connection, though the implementation will come at the time of PDP and FDP for that portion of the site. Custom development standards are not anticipated to be needed to fulfill this criterion. h. Mixed-use design The East Mulberry Corridor Plan (EMCP) established a land use framework for the corridor, including the Mulberry project site in 2005. The basic structure of the ECMP informed the underlying zoning for the project site when it was annexed and zoned within the City of Fort Collins. The underlying zoning creates somewhat complex and competing standards within the area shown as District 3, as well as in portions of the predominately residential sections of the site. The PUD establishes a single set of standards for each district, while still providing a similar baseline from what was within the original zoning. The PUD also specifically permits buildings to cross underlying zoning lines in order to facilitate an orderly and cohesive development of each planning area, regardless of the underlying zoning lines. District 3 still includes office uses and commercial uses, though the PUD allows these to move around the district rather than being confined to the fairly narrow areas shown in the EMCP and the underlying zoning. The LUC Audit calls for smaller multi-family options in NC zoning (including townhomes) to be approved through administrative review. It also recommends flexibility for secondary residential uses, including allowing them on corridor frontages (p. 11-12). The PUD captures this recommendation by making all residential applications a Type 1 or BDR review. Additionally, the LUC Audit recommends expanding residential housing types. “consider allowing some additional types of housing – beyond mixed-use dwellings – administratively, provided proposed development meets certain locational criteria…”. Townhomes are specifically mentioned as a transition use (p. 12). Since a lack of flexibility around secondary uses in the E zone is called out as a known problem (p. 21), the PUD attempts to remedy these issues by providing for some SFD and SFA housing in District 3. Standards for this type vary between NC and E within the code and the PUD creates a uniform set of standards. As can be seen in the texture plan (included as a supplementary exhibit to the PUD submittal), the vision is for a more urban single-family Public Benefits Agreement – PUD Master Plan Conformance housing condition on the northern edge of District 3, providing a transition to the commercial core of the community. The PUD reduces non-vertically mixed-use residential in the District 3, by capping lot size and percent of the site that can be non-vertically mixed-use. More formal, urban SFD and SFA are permitted, through home types such as townhomes or detached townhomes, to help frame the commercial core. The PUD also include the addition of new housing uses, such as SFD rentals, in order to facilitate options for a more mixed-use community. It also includes additional housing forms, such as the cottage, detached townhomes, and more granular refinement of multi-family home types. i. Neighborhood parks, pocket parks adjacent to the greenway spine, and a commercial center promenade. While not required by city code, the project will include a neighborhood park built and maintained by the metro district. The location of this park is shown in the PUD. Additionally, a pocket park / plaza element is planned for the commercial area and will connect with the central greenway spine. This element is also shown on the PUD. The implementation of these elements will be completed with the associated PDPs and FDPs. 4. Environmental Sustainability a. One or more Final Plan will include a solar power generation system that will generate, at a minimum, 800 kilowatts. The PUD does not directly relate to this PBA criterion. b. Water conservation through a non-potable irrigation system. The metropolitan district will build and operate a non-potable irrigation system. Two of the detention ponds within the PUD are also planned to hold non-potable irrigation water as a part of the distribution system. c. Sustainable landscape design, including xeric planting. A future design guidelines document will be produced and enforced by the metropolitan district, which will also include xeric landscape requirements for individual lots. The design guidelines will include a signature plant list that helps facilitate this criterion. Design of the parks, open spaces, and trail corridors will happen at the time of PDP and FDP, including the planting plans that will fulfill this criterion. d. Enhanced community resiliency through: • Improvements to Cooper Slough to reduce runoff and lower peak flows through upstream planning and mitigation The Applicant is committed to providing onsite improvements to meet this requirement. Public Benefits Agreement – PUD Master Plan Conformance • Improvements to Lake Canal to bring it out of the current floodplain The PUD does not directly apply to this criterion. • Landscape architecture designed to support flight distances and migration patterns of applicable pollinators As stated above, the criterion will be addressed as a part of the landscape design for each PDP and FDP for public spaces, ROW, parks, and common areas.