HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/07/2014 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Work Session (2)Planning & Zoning Board
Work Session Agenda
Friday, March 7, 2014
281 N. College Ave – Conference Room A
Web users: Documents for the Consent and Discussion items shown below can be
found under the March 13, 2014, Hearing agenda.
12:00 – 2:00pm
Consent:
1.) P&Z Hearing Minutes – February 13, 2014
Discussion:
2.) Bella Vira: Filing 2, Combined Major Amendment - Final Plan (Wray)
3.) Historic Preservation-Related Code Changes (McWilliams)
2:00 – 5:00pm
Board Topics:
• Poudre River Downtown Project (Stokes)
• TOD Parking Study (Lorson)
• Midtown in Motion, College Avenue Transportation Study (Iverson)
Policy and Legislation:
• 2014 Annual Land Use Code Amendments Update (Shepard)
• Multifamily Project Counts as of 12/27/13 (Kadrich)
• 30,000’ View of What is Happening in the NE (Wray)
1
2
3
4
Item 904 Amend 4.17(B)(3) and (D)(4) – R-D-R Zone – to allow parking lots and
garages as a principal use and to add maximum timeframe of three years with an
extension provision.
Problem Statement:
The topic of balancing economic activity with the principles of urban design and the
provision of parking in the R-D-R zone has been a recurring theme since the adoption of
the amended City Plan in 2011. Also, public input received during the Downtown River
District Standards and Guidelines project reveals that one of the key policy items is to
activate this area so that the economic vitality that is found within Old Town is carried
over across Jefferson Street (State Highway 14) with an emphasis on preserving the
natural character and enjoying the views of the Poudre River.
For economic revitalization, there seems to be a consensus that the area needs to
generate a sufficient amount of its own internal activity. This includes a healthy mix of
employment, commercial and residential uses rather than having to rely on activity
spilling over from Old Town. An area that is cut off from Old Town by Jefferson Street
would do best by creating a critical mass of economic elements so the area could stand
on its own. This activity could then attract a mix of support services such as coffee
shops and restaurants. Otherwise, Jefferson Street becomes a visual and
psychological barrier with no compelling reason to further explore the area.
Mixed-use development in this area generally means placing residential dwelling units
on the upper stories above commercial and employment uses. Such is the case with
Encompass Block One with 12 dwellings above employment, storefronts and a
restaurant.
Providing parking for these uses is challenged by two factors. First, there are a variety
of parcel sizes within the area with smaller parcels having a harder time devoting
surface area to parking lots. Second, while there are discussions about placing a new
parking structure in this area, there is no policy basis for cost-sharing or dedicated
funding source for developing a parking garage. Any future parking garage would be a
long term capital project.
In the meantime, development and re-development activity is taking place. Larger
parcels that may be presently under-utilized would be prime candidates to provide
needed parking on an interim basis. An off-site parking lot as a principal use would
benefit the smaller parcels in the short term until a long term solution is realized.
Otherwise, some development would be delayed until the ultimate parking solution is
constructed.
5
Proposed Solution Overview:
The solution is to allow parking lots and garages as a principal use in the R-D-R, subject
to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. This use is currently allowed in eight zone
districts, including all three sub-districts of the Downtown zone. Further, since surface,
offsite parking lots are envisioned to be temporary, the solution includes adding a
sunset provision.
Proposed Code Revision:
Section 4.17(B)(3)(c)8.
8. Parking lots and parking garages (as a principal use).
Section 4.17(D)(4)
(4) Site Design.
(a) The natural qualities of the River landscape shall be maintained and enhanced,
using plants and landscape materials native to the River corridor in the design of site
and landscape improvements.
(b) Walls, fences and planters shall be designed to match or be consistent with the
quality of materials, the style and colors of nearby buildings. Brick, stone or other
masonry may be required for walls or fence columns.
(c) Parking lots as a principal use serving off-site uses shall be restricted to a period not
to exceed three years. Extensions for two successive periods of one year each may be
granted by the Planning and Zoning Board upon the finding that the plan complies with
all the general development standards as contained in Article Three and Zone District
Standards as contained in Article Four at the time of application for the extension.
6
Item 914 Amend 4.9(D)(6)(b) – N-C-B Front Yard Setback – to clarify that the 60-
foot minimum front setback south of University Avenue applies to Shields Street
only.
Problem Statement:
The West Central Neighborhoods Plan was adopted in 1999 and calls for the residential
character along Shields Street to be preserved. Four distinct areas for preservation
were identified; one being the west side of Shields Street between University Avenue
and Prospect Road. As a result, the 60-foot minimum front yard was added to the
development standards in the N-C-B zone. But, the standard fails to clarify that the
large front yard setback applies only to lots abutting Shields Street. Clearly, lots that do
not abut Shields Street are not intended to feature a 60-foot setback and are eligible to
be subject to 15-foot front yard setback for the house and 20-feet for the garage.
Proposed Solution Overview:
Clarify that the standard applies to lots abutting Shields Street only.
Proposed Code Revision:
(b) Minimum front yard setback shall be fifteen (15) feet. Setbacks from garage doors to
the backs of public walks shall not be less than twenty (20) feet, except that the
minimum front yard setback for lands located within the West Central Neighborhoods
Plan Subarea and south of University Avenue, abutting Shields Street, shall be sixty
(60) feet, and setbacks from garage doors to the backs of public walks shall not be less
than sixty-five (65) feet.
7
Item 954 Add to 4.9(B)(3) – N-C-B Permitted Use List – Type 2 – Single Family
Attached Dwellings as this housing type is well-suited for this zone district.
Problem Statement:
The N-C-B zone district was established pre City Plan in 1991 and, from the beginning,
allowed Multi-Family Dwellings as a permitted use. And, at that time, Single Family
Attached Dwellings was not yet a defined term in the Zoning Code. Then, with the
adoption of the Land Use Code in 1997, the term Single Family Attached was added as
a permissible housing type in the new City Plan zone districts. This housing type was
initially envisioned to be more associated in the newly developing areas rather than infill
redevelopment in the East and West Side Neighborhoods. The real estate term for this
housing is “townhome” where each unit is on its own fee simple lot but, at the same
time, may be attached in an unspecified number such as four-plex or six-plex and
aligned horizontally next to each other.
There are a multitude of Multi-Family Dwellings (apartments and condominiums) in the
N-C-B. This housing type allows units to be stacked vertically resulting in typical multi-
family arrangements and densities that are seen today. Single Family Attached
Dwellings, however, by being on their own individual lots, cannot be stacked resulting in
less density. Where Multi-Family Dwellings are allowed, it stands to reason that by
virtue of having less density, Single Family Attached Dwellings should also be allowed.
Proposed Solution Overview:
Add Single Family Attached Dwellings as a Type Two permitted use in the N-C-B.
Proposed Code Revision:
Section 4.9(B)(3)(a)
(3) The following uses are permitted, subject to Planning and Zoning Board review:
(a) Residential Uses:
1. Fraternity and sorority houses, provided that such fraternity or sorority house is
located within a street-fronting principal building.
2. Single Family Attached Dwellings
2.3. Multi-family dwellings containing more than four (4) dwelling units per building at a
density of more than twenty-four (24) dwelling units per net acre, provided that such
multi-family dwelling is located within a street-fronting principal building.
8
3. 4. Mixed-use dwellings which are combined with any other use subject to Planning and
Zoning Board review.
9
Item 958 - Amend 2.2.10(A)(1)(e) and 2.2.10(A)(2)(e) - Minor Amendments - to
broaden and clarify the criteria to also include Project Development Plans rather
than just site specific development plans.
Problem Statement:
The Code allows for minor amendments to both Project Development Plans (PDP's)
and site specific development plans, provided that the proposed minor amendment
meets the criteria outlined in the Code. Currently, criteria (e) states that a minor
amendment is allowed only if the minor amendment does not result in new buildings,
additions or site improvements outside of the boundaries of the approved site specific
development plan.
Proposed Solution Overview
Include approved PDP's to the minor amendment criteria language, thereby clarifying
and allowing for minor amendments to approved PDP's, in addition to approved site
specific development plans, as long as the minor amendment does not result in new
buildings, additions or site improvements outside of the boundaries of the approved
PDP or Final Plan for both Administrative and Planning and Zoning Board reviews.
Draft Code Revision:
That Section 2.2.10(A)(1)(e) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(e) the minor amendment does not result in new buildings, building
additions or site improvements, such as parking lots and
landscaping, that are proposed to be located outside the
boundaries of the approved Project Development Plan or approved
site specific development plan; or
Section _. That Section 2.2.10(A)(2)(e) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(e) the minor amendment does not result in new buildings, building
additions or site improvements, such as parking lots and
landscaping, that are proposed to be located outside the
boundaries of the approved Project Development Plan or approved
site specific development plan.
10
Item 959 Amend 2.3.2(H)(3) – O.D.P. Standards – to clarify that the requirement to
comply with the Transportation Level of Service per 3.6.4 requires the submittal
of a T.I.S. at the Master level only, not the Full, Intermediate or Memorandum level
per LCUASS.
Problem Statement:
This section is a standard for an Overall Development Plan and, by cross reference,
requires compliance with Section 3.6.4(C) which states:
Transportation Impact Study. In order to identify those facilities that are necessary in order to
comply with these standards, development plans may be required to include the submittal of a
Transportation Impact Study, to be approved by the Traffic Engineer, consistent with the
Transportation Impact Study guidelines as established in Chapter 4 of the Larimer County Urban
Area Streets Standards.
Per the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, there are four levels of a
Transportation Impact Study. These are Master, Full, Intermediate and Memorandum.
The problem is that the Section 2.3.2(H)(3), which is an O.D.P. standard, does not
specify which level of T.I.S. is required. In practice, the Master Level is the appropriate
level. This is because at the O.D.P. level, the best estimation of trip generation rates
cannot yet be determined. At the P.D.P. stage, however, the amount of commercial
square footage or number of dwelling units can be determined and the Full,
Intermediate or Memorandum Level T.I.S. is required.
The level of the T.I.S. turns out to make a difference in assessing compliance with
LCUASS. At the Master level, variances are not considered because the data is in the
aggregate. At the other three levels, however, variances must be considered if there is
a lack of compliance.
Proposed Solution Overview:
The proposed solution is to clarify the standard that the Master level T.I.S. is required.
Proposed Code Revision:
2.3.2(H)(3) The overall development plan shall conform to the Master Street Plan
requirements and the street pattern/connectivity standards both within and adjacent to
the boundaries of the plan as required pursuant to Sections 3.6.1 and 3.6.3(A) through
(F). The overall development plan shall identify appropriate transportation
improvements to be constructed and shall demonstrate how the development, when
fully constructed, will conform to the Transportation Level of Service Requirements as
contained in Section 3.6.4. by submittal of a Master Level Transportation Impact Study.
11
Item 963 Amend 3.10.4(C) – Off-street Parking in the T.O.D. – to allow flexibility to
the standard that requires parking to be located only behind, above, or below
street-facing building with no parking along a street.
Problem Statement:
Presently, the standard is an all-or-none proposition in that there cannot be, in any
case, any parking along a street edge. In fact, there may be instances where the
fundamental objectives of creating a walkable urban environment allows may still be
achieved with a small amount of street edge featuring a parking lot.
Also, the reference to parking being located “above” a building should be replaced by
“within” a building.
Proposed Solution Overview:
The solution is to add a measure of flexibility to the standard.
Proposed Code Revision:
3.10.4 (C) Off-street Parking. Off-street parking shall be located only behind, above
within or below street-facing buildings. to the maximum extent feasible. No parking will
be allowed between the street and the front or side of a building.
12
Item 964 - Amend Minor Amendment Referrals - to broaden the minor amendment
referral body to include administrative hearing officer rather than just the
Planning and Zoning Board for cases where the plans being amended were
originally subject to administrative review.
Problem Statement:
The Code allows for the Director to refer a minor amendment to the Planning and
Zoning Board only, regardless of what type of review it originally was subject to; thus
elevating a minor amendment from the original administrative review process to review
by the Planning and Zoning Board.
Proposed Solution Overview
Allow for minor amendments to be referred to an administrative hearing officer if the
approved plan was originally subject only to administrative review.
Draft Code Revision:
That Section 2.2.10(A)(3) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(3) Referral. In either (1) or (2) above, the Director may refer the
amendment to the Administrative Hearing Officer or Planning and
Zoning Board. The referral of minor amendments to development
plans approved under the laws prior to the adoption of the Land
Use Code shall be consistent with the land use or uses proposed
for the amendment as set forth in Article 4 (i.e. Type 1 review or
Type 2 review) for the zone district in which the land is located. The
referral of Minor Amendments to Project Development Plans or
Final Plans approved under this Land Use Code shall be consistent
with the original review process for the plan being amended and/or
with the land use or uses proposed for the amendment as set forth
in Article 4 and, if so referred, the decision of the Hearing Officer or
Planning and Zoning Board shall constitute a final decision, subject
only to appeal as provided for development plans under Division
2.3, 2.4 or 2.5, as applicable, for the minor amendment.
13
Item 968 Amend 2.2.11(A) – Step 11 – Lapse – requiring notice to the Director of
the transfer in equitable interest of the ownership of land that is subject to a
pending application.
Problem Statement:
Section 2.2.11(A) pertains to the lapse of application submittals, essentially allowing a
period of 180 days following receipt of City comments to submit a revised application
and also allowing for the granting of a couple of extensions. This Section is silent on
the question of whether an application expires upon transfer of ownership of the
property. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify that pending applications (which
have not manifested into any kind of an approved plan) expire upon transfer of
ownership of the property (or any portion of the property) unless a new owner provides
evidence acceptable to the Director of the prior owner/applicant’s intention to transfer
the application to the successor in interest.
Proposed Solution Overview:
Add a requirement that notice be provided to the Director if an application changes in
ownership.
Proposed Solution:
2.2.11 Step 11: Lapse
(A) Application Submittals. An application submitted to the City for the review and
approval of a development plan must be diligently pursued and processed by the
applicant. Accordingly, the applicant, within one hundred eighty (180) days of receipt of
written comments and notice to respond from the City on any submittal (or subsequent
revision to a submittal) of an application for approval of a development plan, shall file
such additional or revised submittal documents as are necessary to address such
comments from the City. If the additional submittal information or revised submittal is
not filed within said period of time, the development application shall automatically lapse
and become null and void. The Director may grant one (1) extension of the foregoing
one-hundred-eighty-day requirement, which extension may not exceed one hundred
twenty (120) days in length, and one (1) additional extension which may not exceed
sixty (60) days in length. This subsection (A) shall apply to applications which are, or
have been, filed pursuant to this Code and to applications which are, or have been, filed
pursuant to the laws of the City for the development of land prior to the adoption of this
Code. On transfer of ownership of any real property which is the subject of a pending
application, whether in whole or in part, such transfer shall bar a new owner or
transferee from taking further action on such application unless, prior to taking any
action, the new owner provides
14
Item #970 Amend 2.7.3 – Building Permit Review Procedures – and 2.2.3(D)(3) –
Development Review Fees and 2.13.3(E) – Application for Vested Rights and
Takings Determinations – to clarify waiving fees for the Fort Collins Housing
Authority.
Problem Statement:
Ordinance No. 37, 2013, contains certain amendments to the Land Use Code which
resulted in some ambiguity as to the proper interpretation of the Land Use Code. In
order to clarify, Section 2.7.3(C) should be amended to delete any reference to
submittal and hearing date schedule, which is not a part of the Land Use Code
language in Step 3, and in its place, include development review fees as being fully
applicable. Furthermore, Section 2.2.3(D)(3) should be amended by changing, in the
second line, the word “chapter” to “section”. Finally, Section 2.13.3(E) should, in the
second line thereof, be changed so that the word “chapter” is changed to “section”.
Proposed Solution:
2.7.3 Building Permit Review Procedures
Step 3(D) (Submittal and Hearing Date Schedule): Not applicable.
Step 3(ED) (Development Review Fees): Step 3(E)(1) shall apply.
Step 3(E)(2) and (3) shall not apply.Applicable.
2.2.3 Step 3: Development Application Submittal
(D) Development Review Fees.
(3) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Council may, by ordinance,
waive the imposition of any fee imposed by the provisions of
this ChapterSection for a housing project wholly or partially owned by
a housing authority formed pursuant to the provisions of Section 29-4-
101, et seq., C.R.S., if the City Council, in its sole discretion,
determines that:
2.13.3 Application
(E) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Council may, by ordinance, waive
the imposition of any fee imposed by the provisions of this ChapterSection
for a housing project wholly or partially owned by a housing authority
formed pursuant to the provisions of Section 29-4-101, et seq., C.R.S., if
the City Council, in its sole discretion, determines that:
15
City Attorney’s Office
300 Laporte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6520
970.221.6327
fcgov.com
Item 971 Amend 2.2.4 – Step Four Determination of Sufficiency – and in
succeeding references from 2.3.2 through 2.15.2 (11 occurrences) so that the
term “Determination of Sufficiency” is replaced by “Review of Applications”
allowing the Code to be consistent.
Problem Statement:
Step 4 of the common development review procedures has, at some point, undergone a
name change so that it is no longer “determination of sufficiency” but is “review of
applications”. This change was not made in the remainder of the Land Use Code under
the sections pertaining to overall development plan, project development plan, final
plan, stockpiling permits, building permits, etc. The 12-step process should be changed
throughout the Land Use Code so that the words “determination of sufficiency” are
changed to “review of applications.” This change is needed in order to ensure that Step
4 is fully applicable since the “determination of sufficiency” paragraph is only a part of
the requirements of Step 4 as it has been amended by Ordinance 149, 2012.
Proposed Solution Overview:
Change Step Four to Review of Applications and in 11 occurrences thereafter in Article
Two.
Proposed Solution:
DIVISION 2.2 COMMON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
Sections:
2.2.4 Step 4: Determination of SufficiencyReview of Applications
2.3.2 Overall Development Plan Review Procedures
(D) Step 4 (Determination of SufficiencyReview of Applications): Applicable.
2.4.2 Project Development Plan Review Procedures
(D) Step 4 (Determination of SufficiencyReview of Applications): Applicable.
16
2.5.2 Final Plan Review Procedures
(D) Step 4 (Determination of SufficiencyReview of Applications): Applicable.
2.6.3 Stockpiling Permit and Development Construction Permit Review
Procedures
(D) Step 4 (Determination of SufficiencyReview of Applications): Applicable
except that the term "City Engineer" shall be substituted for the term
"Director."
2.7.3 Building Permit Review Procedures
(D) Step 4 (Determination of SufficiencyReview of Applications): Not
applicable.
2.8.2 Modification Review Procedures
(D) Step 4 (Determination of SufficiencyReview of Applications): Applicable.
2.9.4 Text and Map Amendment Review Procedures
(D) Step 4 (Determination of SufficiencyReview of Applications): Applicable.
2.10.2 Variance Review Procedures
(D) Step 4 (Determination of SufficiencyReview of Applications): Applicable.
2.11.2 Administrative Appeal Review Procedures
(D) Step 4 (Determination of SufficiencyReview of Applications): Applicable.
2.15.1 Detailed Development Plan
(4) Step 4 (Determination of SufficiencyReview of Applications):
Applicable.
2.15.2 Complete Development Plan
(4) Step 4 (Determination of SufficiencyReview of Applications):
Applicable.
17
Item 973 Clarify 4.5(E)(2)(a) and 4.5(E)(2)(e)2. – L-M-N Development Standards –
so that the reference back to 3.5.3(C) – Build-to Line – Exceptions – is required in
order to set the building back greater than 15 feet.
Problem Statement:
Within the L-M-N development standards there are two sections that regulate the same
dimension. The first standard references the build-to-line standard which requires a
building to be built within a certain distance of the right-of-way, but also allowing
exceptions to be further away with certain landscape improvements. The second
standard simply requires a setback.
The L-M-N zone district is intended for low density housing with other supporting and
complementary uses with attractive walking and biking paths. The build-to-line
standards with its exceptions ensure visual interest and attractiveness along the
adjoining walking and bike paths. The standard setback does not guarantee an
enhanced area along the adjoining walking and bike paths.
Proposed Solution Overview:
Allow the build-to-line standard with its exceptions to apply and delete the setback
standard.
Proposed Code Revisions:
(E) Development Standards.
(2) Nonresidential and Mixed-Use Buildings.
(a) All nonresidential buildings permitted under this Section, including industrial
buildings, shall meet the standards for Mixed-Use and Commercial Buildings in Section
3.5.3.
(E)(2)(e) Building Massing. No building permitted by this Section shall have a single
undifferentiated mass with a footprint over ten thousand (10,000) square feet. No
building footprint shall exceed a total of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet.
2. Minimum front yard setback of all buildings shall be fifteen (15) feet in order to
provide a landscaped front yard consistent with the residential character of the L-M-N
zone district.
18
Item 974 Amend 4.5(E)(2)(e) – L-M-N Development Standards – Building Massing
– to delete the duplicate reference to the building maximum of 20,000 square feet
for non-residential and mixed-use buildings.
Problem Statement:
There is a repetitive standard in 4.5(E)(2)(e) that should be deleted:
“No building footprint shall exceed a total of twenty thousand 20,000 square feet.”
This standard is stated earlier in the section with an exception in section 4.5(E)(2)(a):
“No building footprint shall exceed twenty thousand square (20,000) square feet, with
the exception of schools and places of worship or assembly.”
The repetitive standard seems to nullify the exception, and is not needed.
Proposed Solution Overview:
Delete the duplicate standard.
Proposed Code Revision:
(e) Building Massing. No building permitted by this Section shall have a single
undifferentiated mass with a footprint over ten thousand (10,000) square feet. No
building footprint shall exceed a total of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet.
19
Item 976 Amend 1.3.4(A) – Addition of Permitted Use – to add a Purpose
Statement and an Applicability statement that further clarifies the overall intent of
the process.
Problem Statement:
In 2013, a sub-committee of the Planning and Zoning Board met with interested citizens
regarding the Addition of Permitted Use process. One of the outcomes is that there is
presently a lack of a Purpose Statement that generally describes the overall intention of
the process. A Purpose Statement would be helpful especially for citizens that are
asked to participate in the process evaluating a request for an Addition of Permitted
Use.
Proposed Solution Overview:
The solution is to add a Purpose Statement.
Proposed Code Revision:
Section 1.3.4(A) Purpose Statement:
The purpose of the Addition of Permitted Use process is to allow for the approval of a
specific land use to be located on a specific parcel within a zone district that otherwise
would not permit such a use. As an optional process, an applicant may submit a plan
that is subject to a heightened level of review with close attention being paid to
compatibility and impact mitigation. The process is intended allow for consideration of
unforeseen uses and unique circumstances on specific parcels with evaluation based
on the context of the surrounding area. The process allows for consideration of
emerging issues, site attributes or changed conditions within the neighborhood
surrounding and including the subject property. For residential neighborhoods, land use
flexibility shall be balanced with the existing residential character. Projects are
expected to continue to meet the objectives of any applicable sub-area plan and City
Plan. The process encourages dialogue and collaboration among applicants, affected
property owners, neighbors and City Staff.
Section 1.3.4(B) – Applicability
B. Applicability.
This Section is intended to apply in two different kinds of situations:
20
1) Where the proposed use is not recognized or listed anywhere in the Land Use
Code, does not fall within any existing use classification, and is proposed as
being appropriate for consideration of being added to the zone district.
2) Where the proposed use is recognized and listed in other zone districts, is
proposed based solely on unique circumstances of a site and the development
plan, but may or may not be proposed as being appropriate for consideration as
being appropriate to add to the zone.
21
Item 977 Amend 1.3.4(A) – Addition of Permitted Use – Required Findings – to
require a second neighborhood information meeting if the subject site is in an
existing residential neighborhood.
Problem Statement:
In 2013, a sub-committee of the Planning and Zoning Board met with interested citizens
regarding the Addition of Permitted Use process. One of the outcomes is that there is a
heightened concern when a land use not otherwise permitted in a residential zone is
proposed in within a residential area. Residential neighborhoods are considered to be
stable and not typically subject to rezonings or changes of use. The Addition of
Permitted Use process, however, allows for new uses to be introduced into residential
areas. Also, since most all zone districts include a mix of uses and are not exclusively
residential, the concept of what constitutes residential areas requires a broader
perspective than merely a list of zone districts. Consequently, the process of evaluating
an Addition of Permitted in existing residential areas could be improved by promoting a
higher level of dialogue and collaboration among the neighborhood, applicant and staff.
Proposed Solution Overview:
The proposed solution is to require a minimum of two neighborhood meetings for
projects seeking an Addition of Permitted Use in or near residential areas.
Proposed Code Revision:
(A) Required Findings. In conjunction with an application for approval of an
overall development plan, a project development plan, a final plan or any
amendment of the foregoing, and upon the petition of the applicant or on the
Director's own initiative, the Director (or the Planning and Zoning Board as
specifically authorized and limited in subsection (B) below) may add to the uses
specified in a particular zone district any other similar use which conforms to all
of the following conditions:
(1) Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added;
(2) Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and
the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added;
(3) Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust,
heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more
traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental
impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or
22
services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or
other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting
from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is
added;
(4) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone
district to which it is added;
(5) Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential
neighborhood, shall be subject to two neighborhood meetings, unless the
Director determines that the development proposal would not have
significant neighborhood impact. The first neighborhood meeting must
take place prior to submittal of an application. The second neighborhood
meeting must take place after submittal of an application and after the
application has completed the first round of review.
(56) Such use is not a medical marijuana dispensary or a medical
marijuana cultivation facility.
For reference only:
Adjacent shall mean nearby, but not necessarily touching. The determination of "nearby"
shall be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the context in which the
term is used and the variables (such as but not limited to size, mass, scale, bulk, visibility,
nature of use, intensity of use) that may be relevant to deciding what is "nearby" in that
particular context. Adjacency shall not be affected by the existence of a platted street or
alley, a public or private right-of-way, or a public or private transportation right-of-way
or area.
23
City Attorney’s Office
300 Laporte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6520
970.221.6327
fcgov.com
Item 978 – Amend 5.1.2 – Definitions – to add a new use, Music Studio, and Article
Four, to add the new use to various appropriate zone districts.
Problem Statement:
The C-C zone district contains a permitted use of “artisan and photography studio and
gallery”. The definition of this use does not contain any reference to musical artists and
accordingly, does not specifically provide for any type of studio space for musicians so
they could rehearse, collaborate, record or write music. A new definition of “music
studio” should be added to Article 5, and that “music studio” should be a listed permitted
use in the commercial zones of the City, and perhaps other zones as well.
Proposed Solution Overview:
The proposed solution is to create a new use and add to the various commercial,
employment and industrial zones.
Proposed Solution:
(a) Add the definition “music studio” to Article 5.1.2 to read as follows:
Music studio shall mean a fully enclosed soundproof studio for the recording,
producing, writing or rehearsing of music.
(b) Amend Article 4 to add the new use in various appropriate zones.
Zone Districts:
C-C Community Commercial
C-C-N Community Commercial North College
C-C-R Community Commercial Poudre River
D Downtown
R-D-R River Downtown Redevelopment
C-G General Commercial
C-S Service Commercial
E Employment
I Industrial
24
RECENT MULTI‐FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS
Includes multi‐family and mixed‐use with residential
September 17, 2013
STAGE OF PROJECT PROJECT NAME ADDRESS/LOCATION UNITS BEDROOMS PARKING TARGET MARKET COMMENTS
Completed 2013 Choice Center 1609‐1717 S College Ave 219 676 217 Students
Completed 2013 The Grove Rolland Moore/Centre 218 612 495 Students
Completed 2013 Ram's Crossing K2 914 W Lake St 36 42 ‐88 Students
Completed 2013 1409 W Elizabeth Student
Apts
1409 W Elizabeth St 27 51 63 Students
Completed 2012 Pura Vida Place 518 W Laurel St 52 100 49 Students
Under Construction District at Campus West W Plum St. 194 658 461 Students
FDP Recorded 8/13 Max Flats 203 W Mulberry St 64 100 64 Students
FDP Recorded 8/13 Remington Row 705‐711 Remington St 11 28 21 Students
Subtotal ‐ Student Market 821 2,267 1,282
STAGE OF PROJECT PROJECT NAME ADDRESS/LOCATION UNITS BEDROOMS PARKING TARGET MARKET COMMENTS
Completed 2013 Penny Flats (Bldg 3) 210 Maple St 21 27 23 All
Completed 2012 Presidio (Terra Vida) Rock Creek/Lady Moon 240 360 436 All
Completed 2012 Penny Flats (Bldg 4) 311 N Mason St 30 46 38 All
Under Construction Caribou Apartments Phase
Two
Horsetooth/Caribou 96 156 124 All
Under Construction The Trails at Timberline Timberline/Drake 314 485 536 All
Under Construction One Boardwalk Place 5233 Boardwalk Ave 24 48 51 All
Under Construction Legacy Senior Apts 413 N Linden St 72 112 51 Senior
Subtotal ‐ All Other Markets 797 1,234 1,259
1,618 3,501 2,541
Figures shown are net
changes. Before: 89 units, 98
bedrooms, 135 parking. After:
125 units, 140 bedrooms, 47
parking. In Transit Oriented
Development Overlay District
(TOD).
All Other Projects (mixed demographic groups, seniors, etc.)
INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS BY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT
Total parking for residential
and commercial
In TOD
In TOD
Affordable
Student Housing Projects
(1) Approved Final Plan/Under Construction/Recently Completed
In TOD
TOTAL FOR ALL MARKETS ‐
Approved Final Plan/Under Construction/Recently Completed
In TOD
In TOD
In TOD
Affordable
1 25
RECENT MULTI‐FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS
Includes multi‐family and mixed‐use with residential
September 17, 2013
STAGE OF PROJECT PROJECT NAME ADDRESS/LOCATION UNITS BEDROOMS PARKING TARGET MARKET COMMENTS
FDP Submitted 4/13 Aspen Heights SW of Conifer/Redwood 221 720 786 Students
FDP Submitted 6/13 Carriage House
Apartments
Springfield/Shields 57 97 58 Students
FDP Submitted 2/13 BDR 4‐Plex 621 S Meldrum St 4 12 4 Students
FDP Submitted 5/13 West Range Apartments Laurel/Meldrum 15 38 39 Students
PDP Approved 2009; still
vested through extensions
Hellenic Plaza 635 S Shields St 46 83 91 Students
PDP Approved 2009; still
vested through extensions
Hellenic Plaza ‐46 ‐83 ‐91
PDP Approved Dec. 2013 Peck Apartments 218 W Laurel St 6 12 8 Students In TOD
Subtotal ‐ Student Market 303 879 895
STAGE OF PROJECT PROJECT NAME ADDRESS/LOCATION UNITS BEDROOMS PARKING TARGET MARKET COMMENTS
PDP Approved 8/13 Feeder Supply Restaurant
and Multi‐family
359 N Linden St 54 74 54 All
(2) Approved Project Development Plan/ Submitted Final Plan
(2) Approved Project Development Plan/ Submitted Final Plan (continued)
INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS BY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT
Student Housing Projects
All Other Projects (mixed demographic groups, seniors, etc.)
720 bedrooms after extra
occupancy permit
In TOD
In TOD
In TOD
Subtracted out this project;
there is a newer conceptual for
site (609 S Shields)
INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS BY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT
(2) Approved Project Development Plan/ Submitted Final Plan (continued)
In TOD
In TOD
2 26
RECENT MULTI‐FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS
Includes multi‐family and mixed‐use with residential
September 17, 2013
PDP Approved 11/13 Redtail Ponds Permanent
Supportive Housing
5046 Fossil Blvd 60 66 36 All
FDP Submitted 9/13 The Crowne on Timberline 6111 Timberline Rd 310 534 557 All
PDP Approved 7/13 Ziegler‐Harvest Park 5305 Ziegler Rd 22 52 52 All
MJA Approved 7/13 Ridgewood Hills
Residences, 4th Filing
Avondale and Triangle 146 291 313 All
FDP Submitted 5/13 Hickory Commons Mixed
Use
319‐333 Hickory St 28 66 51 All
FDP Submitted 5/13 River District Block One
Mixed Use ‐ Encompass
418 Linden St 12 13 All
FDP Submitted 11/13 Terre Vida II Apartments Ladymoon & Precision 276 396 449 All
FDP Submitted 5/13 Foothills Mall
Redevelopment
215 E Foothills Pkwy 800 1,214 1,422 All
Subtotal ‐ All Other
Markets
1,708 2,706 2,934
2,011 3,585 3,829
STAGE OF PROJECT PROJECT NAME ADDRESS/LOCATION UNITS BEDROOMS PARKING TARGET MARKET COMMENTS
FDP Submitted 7/13 Prospect Station 223 W Prospect Rd 29 59 38 Students
PDP Submitted 12/12 Landmark Expansion E of Prospect/Shields 84 168 148 Students
Subtotal ‐ Student Market 113 227 186
STAGE OF PROJECT PROJECT NAME ADDRESS/LOCATION UNITS BEDROOMS PARKING TARGET MARKET COMMENTS
PDP Submitted 8/13 Old Town Flats Mason/Maple (northeast
corner)
94 123 85 All
PDP Submitted
All Other Projects (mixed demographic groups, seniors, etc.)
Major amendment to a
previously approved plan
TOTAL FOR ALL MARKETS ‐
Approved Project Development Plan/Submitted Final Plan
INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS BY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT
In TOD; Affordable/transitional
housing
Parking for residential portion ‐
1,422
In TOD
Offices, restaurant and
apartments
Live/Work units
Student Housing Projects
(3) Under Review
3 27
RECENT MULTI‐FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS
Includes multi‐family and mixed‐use with residential
September 17, 2013
Subtotal ‐ All Other Markets 94 123 85
207 350 271
STAGE OF PROJECT PROJECT NAME ADDRESS/LOCATION UNITS BEDROOMS PARKING TARGET MARKET COMMENTS
Preliminary 8/13 Capstone Cottages Lincoln/Lemay (northeast
corner)
197 900 950 Students
Conceptual 4/13 1501 W Elizabeth ‐
Multifamily/ Mixed use
1501 W Elizabeth 18 23 53 Students
Conceptual 4/13 Ram's Crossing East
(Phased redevelopment of
existing complex)
1117 City Park Ave 46 228 122 Students
Conceptual 3/13 609 Shields Multi‐family 609 S Shields St 92 215 85 Students
Conceptual 2/13 1201 Plum Multi‐family 1201 W Plum St 70 160 120 Students
Conceptual 2/13 801 S Shields Multi‐family 801 S Shields St 21 33 8 Students
Conceptual 11/12 830 S College Mixed Use 830 S College Ave 20 38 25 Students
Conceptual 6/12 2300 W Elizabeth Lofts 2300 W Elizabeth St 27 51 63 Students
Conceptual 5/12 615 W Lake 615 W Lake St 91 113 71 Students
Conceptual 3/2012 Yovanoff Property Multi‐
family
910 Hill Pond Rd 24 24 54 Students
Subtotal ‐ Student Market 606 1,785 1,551
Student Housing Projects
In TOD; coffee shop on 1st
floor
In TOD
In TOD ‐ Parking for residential
and commercial
INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS BY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT
(4) Conceptual/Preliminary (continued)
Numbers shown at left are net
increases. Total: 222 units, 470
BRs, 370 parking spaces
Parking is for residential and
commercial
(4) Conceptual/Preliminary
TOTAL FOR ALL MARKETS ‐
Under Review
INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS BY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT
In TOD
(Bedroom and parking space counts may be underestimated because conceptual proposals provide incomplete information.)
In TOD
BRs unknown (>24)
4 28
RECENT MULTI‐FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS
Includes multi‐family and mixed‐use with residential
September 17, 2013
STAGE OF PROJECT PROJECT NAME ADDRESS/LOCATION UNITS BEDROOMS PARKING TARGET MARKET COMMENTS
Conceptual 12/2013 Oakwood School
Multifamily
1401 W Mountain Ave 5 unknown unknown All
Conceptual 12/2013 The Colony at Rigden Farm 2419 Custer Dr 24 unknown unknown All
Conceptual 11/2013 Hill Pond on Spring Creek Hill Pond & Gilgalad 18 unknown unknown All
Conceptual 11/2013 633 Mathews 4‐Plex 633 Mathews St 4 8 unknown All
Conceptual 10/2013 Rigden Farm Tract Z Exmoor & Porter 49 114 98 All
Conceptual 3/2013 LEE MLD ‐ Single and Multi‐
family (now called Fox
Grove)
East of Mulberry/I‐25 54 54 unknown All
Conceptual 2/2013 909 S Lemay Multi‐family 909 S Lemay Ave 46 92 unknown All
Conceptual 2/2013 315, 323, 325 N Howes 315‐325 N Howes St 78 78 78 All
Conceptual 2/2013 3836 Manhattan
Townhomes
3836 Manhattan Ave 41 41 All
Conceptual 10/2012 Affinity 501 Spaulding Ln 150 150 unknown Senior
Conceptual 6/2012 301 N Howes 301 N Howes St 16 16 unknown Unknown
Subtotal ‐ All Other Markets 385 431 78
TOTAL FOR ALL MARKETS ‐ Conceptual/Preliminary 991 2,216 1,629
(Bedroom and parking space counts may be underestimated because conceptual proposals provide incomplete information.)
All Other Projects (mixed demographic groups, seniors, etc.)
In TOD; bedrooms unknown
(>16)
BRs unknown (>41)
Structured parking for 78
54 condo units; bedrooms
unknown; multifamily area
currently in floodplain
BRs unknown (>150)
Major amendment of
previously‐approved Colony at
Rigden Farm Plans
Requires addition of a
permitted use
5 29