HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/20/2019 - Zoning Board Of Appeals - Summary Agenda - Regular MeetingRalph Shields, Chair
Shelley LaMastra, Vice Chair
Bob Long
John McCoy
Taylor Meyer
Butch Stockover
Council Liaison: Ross Cunniff
Staff Liaison: Noah Beals
LOCATION:
City Council Chambers
300 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make
special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance.
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 20, 2019
8:30 AM
• CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL
• APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING
• CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda)
• APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE
1. APPEAL ZBA190023
Address: 2620 S. Timberline Rd.
Owner/Petitioner: Glenn Haas
Zoning District: N-C
Code Section: 3.8.7.2 (B) Table (B)
Project Description:
Variance to install new INDL wall sign which is 60" tall, the max height of a wall sign is 30". This
property is in the Residential Sign District and sub-district Neighborhood Service Center.
2. APPEAL ZBA190024
Address: 112 S. Grant Ave.
Owner: Jo & Nick Clements
Petitioner: Kate Penning
Zoning District: N-C-L
Code Section: 4.7(D)(2)(a)1.; 4.7(D)(3); 4.7(E)(2); 4.7(E)(3) & (4)
Project Description:
This is a request for 4 variances:
1) Allow 113 square feet floor area over the allowed lot maximum of 1680 square feet
2) Allow 496 square feet floor area over the allowed rear half lot maximum of 525 square feet
3) Allow rebuilding of garage addition, using existing footprint, to encroach 7'-4" into the required 15'
rear setback
4) Allow the front porch to encroach 4'-3" into the required 15' front setback.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
AGENDA
Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 June 20, 2019
3. APPEAL ZBA190025
Address: 317 Smith St.
Owner/Petitioner: Bruce Neuroth
Zoning District: N-C-M
Code Section: 4.8(D)(2)(a)(2)
Project Description:
The variance request is to build a 340 square foot addition to the back of the existing home. The
existing home and accessory buildings currently total 3746 square feet. The overall allowable floor
area for this 9500 square foot lot in NCM district is 3625 square feet. The addition will put the overall
floor area total at 4086 square feet, 461 square feet over the maximum allowed.
4. APPEAL ZBA190026
Appellant: Jeff Gaines and Bryan Soth
Zoning District: N-C-L
Code Section: 2.11.1, 4.7(D)(2)(a)(2), 4.7(D)(2)(d)
Description:
This is an appeal of the Administrative Interpretation of sections 4.7(D)(2)(a)(2) and 4.7(D)(2)(d).
5. APPEAL ZBA190027
Address: 2720 Council Tree Ave.
Owner: Studio Be Salon
Petitioner: Randy Lerich
Zoning District: H-C
Code Section: 3.8.7.2(A)(3)(a)
Project Description:
This is a request to allow signage on the west side of the building. An increase in sign allowance is
permitted for the building with the condition that no signs be allowed on the west side.
• OTHER BUSINESS
• ADJOURNMENT
1
May 11, 2019
To: FOCO Zoning Board of Appeals
From: Glenn and Nathan Haas
(Owners of Krazy Karls Pizza)
3403 Green Wing Court
Fort Collins, CO 80525
970-498-9350
glennehaas@comcast.net
Subject: Response to “Reasoning” Question on the Application Request for Variance
RE: Proposed Wall Sign for Krazy Karls Pizza at 2620 S.Timberline in the Shops of Rigden
Farm
The purpose of this letter and attached 7 pages is to respond to the “Reasoning” question on the
Application Request for Variance from the Land Use Code. We believe that the proposed sign is
not a detriment to the public good and that the variance would be a nominal, inconsequential
divergence when considered in the context of the neighborhood.
Situation: Krazy Karls Pizza is a local, independent, and family-owned small business.
The 2620 S. Timberline store opened in January 2017. We quickly discovered a design flaw in
that the pick-up area was part of the restaurant and there was significant customer conflict
between sit-down and pick-up patrons. In early 2018, we were able to increase our lease space
to the north in order to separate the pick-up area from the sit-down restaurant. This change has
been an improvement but there is still considerable time and attention to ushering pick-up
customers to our new door and counter. The proposed wall sign would improve this situation.
Variance Request: The initial wall sign submitted to Zoning was 90” tall. Zoning inspector
Jamie Kimberlin was helpful and suggested we reformat the sign with the words “Pick” and
“Up” positioned to the side of our logo, thus reducing the vertical size. This was a good
suggestion and we responded accordingly, but the size of the logo we seek is still larger than the
30” standard. That is, our proposed wall sign depicted on page 2 of the attached pages shows a
wall sign with lettering of 30” within standard but the centerpiece KK logo being 60”. It is the
latter we ask your consideration for a variance.
2
Reasoning:
1. The proposed wall sign faces west into the Shops of Rigden Farm commercial center. As
evidenced in the attached pages, the viewshed from the sign location is 98% commercial
businesses. The closest residential property is 669 feet from our proposed sign; the second
closest residential property is 870 feet from our proposed sign. Furthermore, these rangefinder
measurements were taken in late April before full leaf-out of the numerous trees in the
commercial center which would virtually obliterate the view of our logo from any homes.
2. The KK logo is considered by us to be an artistic piece. It depicts our pizza pie but also our
sense of FOCO place with trees and the iconic Horsetooth. The clarity and colors of this logo is
poor at the 30” standard but is enriched and clear at the 60” dimension.
3. We are not asking for a special sign exception in this commercial business location. As
evidenced in the attached pages, there are a number of businesses with signs greater than 30”.
We particularly draw your attention to the “Car Wash” sign towering above us within 50 feet, the
King Soopers anchor store sign which by our estimate is 9’from top to bottom, the Blue Credit
Union sign which by our measures exceeds 60”, and others not to belabor our point here.
In summary, we believe that the proposed sign is not a detriment to the public good and that the
variance would be a nominal, inconsequential divergence when considered in the context of the
neighborhood.
Thank you for considering our request.
2620 S. Timberline (and Drake)
Krazy Karls Pizza
Proposed KK Signage
Views of Neighborhood
South View Southwest View
Views of Neighborhood-con’t
Northwest View North View
1241 RIVERSIDE AVE, STE 200 ● FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ● 80524
PHONE 970.372.0965 ● www.tomlinsondesigns.com ● 866.353.5225 FAX
Clements Addition - Variance Request
May 14, 2019
Project Overview:
The existing residence was built in 1923 on a 4,200 SF lot in the Loomis Addition neighborhood. The
original residence is 720 SF and is located about a foot into the front yard setback. There have been
several additions over the years. One such addition was a garage and enclosed stair to access the
basement. The existing garage addition is currently 261 SF. The original garage addition was built
sometime in the 1940s and does not adhere to today’s rear setback of 15’-0”. It is currently about
7’-8” from the rear property line. There are two other additions that are proposed to be removed.
These additions total 157 SF. One of these additions exists within the rear setback. The lot is one of
the smaller lots in the neighborhood at 70 feet in length by 60 feet in depth.
Zoning District:
Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L)
Applicable Land Use Code Standards:
• LUC Standard 4.7 (D) (3): “Allowable Floor Area on Rear Half of Lots. The allowable floor area on the
rear half of a lot shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the area of the rear fifty (50) percent
of the lot.”
• LUC Standard 4.7 (E) (2): “Minimum front yard setback shall be (15) feet.”
• LUC Standard 4.7 (E) (3): “Minimum rear yard setback shall be (5) feet from existing alleys and
fifteen (15) feet in all other conditions.”
• LUC Standard 4.7 (F) (1) (b): “The primary entrance to a dwelling shall be located along the front
wall of the building, unless otherwise required for handicap access. Such entrance shall include
an architectural feature such as a porch, landing or portico.”`
Variances Requested:
1. Variance to allowable floor area on rear half of lot for the proposed addition.
2. Variance to rear yard setback on the east side of lot for the proposed rebuilding of the existing
garage.
3. Variance to front yard setback on west side of lot for the proposed front porch to be in
compliance with LUC Standard 4.7 (F) (1) (b).
Variance Request #1 - Allowable Floor Area on Rear Half of Lot
1. Hardship:
A. The existing lot is 70 feet wide by 60 feet deep. With the side yard setbacks of 5 feet and the
front yard and rear yard setbacks of 15 feet the allowable building area becomes 60 feet
wide by 30 feet deep. The site is not deep enough for the rear half of lot standard of 25%
allowable floor area. Currently 62.5% of the house is within the rear half of the lot, which
exceeds the 25%. As a result the exceptional shallowness of the lot creates hardship.
2. Nominal and Inconsequential:
A. 62.5% of the existing residence is within the rear half of the lot. With the proposed plan,
there would be a total of 1,674 SF, 955 SF of which would be in the rear half of the lot,
causing the percentage to go down to 57%. The new proposed plan would be
| 1
1241 RIVERSIDE AVE, STE 200 ● FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ● 80524
PHONE 970.372.0965 ● www.tomlinsondesigns.com ● 866.353.5225 FAX
inconsequential in terms of difference between the new and existing allowable floor areas
on the rear half of the lot.
Variance Request #2 - Rear yard setback
1. Equal to or Better than:
A. The existing garage is already nonconforming with the setback requirements when
purchased by the current property owner. The existing garage was built poorly and needs
considerable work to get it up to current structural and building standards.
B. The proposed garage addition is to be rebuilt within the existing garage footprint. This
would allow for updates in building and structural standards. Due to these structural
updates, the north wall of the garage will need to be pushed out by 3.5” to allow for a
proper structural footing.
2. Nominal and Inconsequential:
A. Replacing the existing garage with a new garage will not change the existing conditions and
will therefore be inconsequential in changes.
Variance Request #3 - Front yard setback
1. Hardship
A. Per LUC Standard 4.7 (F) (1) (b) the primary entrance to a dwelling shall be located along
the front wall of the building and shall include an architectural feature such as a porch,
landing or portico. The current house is within the front yard setback by 1’. To allow for a
porch and door on the front wall of the building, there must be an allowance for the porch
to encroach further into the front yard setback.
2. Equal to or Better than:
A. The current front door has a 3 foot deep by 4 foot wide front stoop and a 3 foot deep by 7
foot wide roof overhang. The proposed porch addition adds an architectural feature with
columns and larger concrete patio, fitting better into the neighborhood context and allowing
for a more substantial front porch.
| 2
1241 RIVERSIDE AVE, STE 200 ● FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ● 80524
PHONE 970.372.0965 ● www.tomlinsondesigns.com ● 866.353.5225 FAX
Photos of Existing Residence
Front (West Elevation)
Rear (East Elevation)
| 3
1241 RIVERSIDE AVE, STE 200 ● FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ● 80524
PHONE 970.372.0965 ● www.tomlinsondesigns.com ● 866.353.5225 FAX
South Elevation
Garage Elevation
| 4
1241 RIVERSIDE AVE, STE 200 ● FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ● 80524
PHONE 970.372.0965 ● www.tomlinsondesigns.com ● 866.353.5225 FAX
North Elevation
| 5
:$6+(5
'5<(5
5()
:$6+(5
'5<(5
SOUTH GRANT AVE
ALLEY
(
*DUDJH
'RRU
+DOI
/LWH
6)
(
(
Application Request for 340 sq. ft. building addition to 317 Smith St., Bruce Neuroth, Owner
We have lived in the property for 24 years; and owned it for 30 years. I remodeled the 1907 legal
duplex structure in 1994 from the ground up, installing a new foundation, basement and second story
to the existing duplex; aligning with the neighborhood architectural style.
Since 1994, we have raised our family and now have my son living with us with his family. Our living
space is inadequate for the needs of our growing family. The proposed addition will extend out into
our landscaped back yard, nominally visible only to neighbors on each side and having minimal effect
to the surrounding residents.
Our variance request is the answer to this need. We love the area of Smith St.; and do not want to
leave the neighborhood. It allows us to have a sustainable lifestyle; being able to walk and bike to
fulfill most all our needs.
Our proposal includes an addition to our living area of 340 square feet. The current space only has a
narrow breakfast bar that seats 2 people, and a small area for a dining that seats 2. The traffic flow
through this area is interrupted/ blocked if anyone is sitting in both seating areas.
With myself, my wife, and our sons' growing family we would like to have an area for all of us to sit
down at a table for meals and family occasions. The addition will allow for this and a larger living area
to enjoy time with family.
The NCM Code Section 4.8 :
Current existing living area less basement 3192 square feet
Current existing Garage 320 square feet
Carport attached to garage 234 square feet
Total Existing 3746 square feet
Proposed addition 340 square feet
New Total 4086 square feet
Thank You for your consideration to improve our quality of life in Fort Collins.
To Whom it May Concern,
On behalf of the owners of this property, pursuant to Division 2.11 of the Land Use Code, I am appealing
the application of sections 4.7(D)(2)(a)(2) and 4.7(D)(2)(d), as well as an administrative interpretation
regarding this application. I was contacted in March of this year by zoning staff reviewing permit
applications for a new house and detached garage at 226 North McKinley Avenue, a 6,250 square foot
lot. Plans for the project include a 2,087 square foot house and detached 528 square foot garage, and
were based on allowable floor area as outlined by the Land Use Code:
Allowable floor area was calculated per Section 4.7(D)(2)(a)(2):
On a lot that is between five thousand (5,000) square feet and ten thousand (10,000) square
feet, the allowable floor area for single-family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family
dwellings shall not exceed twenty (20) percent of the lot area plus one thousand (1,000) square
feet. On a lot that is between six thousand (6,000) square feet and ten thousand (10,000) square
feet, an additional two hundred fifty (250) square feet shall be added for a detached accessory
structure.
6,250 (.2) + 1,000, +250 square feet for detached accessory space = 2,500 square feet
Building area was calculated per Section 4.7(D)(2), including 4.7(D)(2)(d):
For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the following spaces and
building elements shall not be included:
The first two hundred fifty (250) square feet of a detached accessory building, provided that it is
located behind a street-fronting principal building and is separated from such principal building
by at least ten (10) feet."
2,087 sf (house) + 528 sf (garage) - 250 (first 250 square feet of garage) = 2,365 square feet
Zoning staff informed me that the intention of these code sections was to only provide a single 250
square foot accessory bonus, and that the project was therefore 115 square feet over allowable area.
An administrative interpretation provided March 27, 2019 supported the staff application of the code. A
subsequent administrative interpretation, provided May 9, 2019 also clarified which of the two adopted
standards is not being allowed by staff: 4.7(D)(2)(d).
Following are justifications provided by staff and in the administrative interpretation supporting staff’s
application of the Land Use Code, as well as responses:
The original intention of the 2013 code changes stemming from the Eastside/Westside character study
was to only allow a 250 square foot bonus.
Whatever the original intent of the Land Use Code may have been in this area, it is unreasonable
for the Land Use Code to be applied inconsistently with clearly outlined and formally adopted
standards. Requirements of the Land Use Code should be applied as they are written, not as
they were meant to be written. Expecting designers to guess which elements of the Land Use
Code are mistakes creates an unfair burden.
“The agenda materials (behind the code changes) clearly state that an additional 250 square-foot
allowance was envisioned for detached accessory buildings, with no reference to an additional 250
square foot (or total of 500 square foot) allowance.”
Again, agenda materials should not supersede adopted standards. However, the agenda
actually mentions allowance for accessory structures twice, once under 'New FAR Formula' and
once under 'New FAR Measurement Method'. The way the agenda organizes this into an
application both to lot FAR formula and to FAR measurement method corresponds to how the
Land Use Code reads and how a designer would reasonably apply the standards to a project.
“To the best of our knowledge, staff has consistently applied this standard to ensure that no more than
250 square feet of additional allowance is applied to projects in the NCM district”
Speaking personally, this has not been my experience. In 2013, I worked proactively to
thoroughly check my understanding of the new standards with zoning staff including Gary Lopez
and Peter Barnes. This error in the Land Use Code was not brought to my attention at that time,
nor in the six years since, during which time I have submitted multiple plans for review that
calculate allowable and measured floor area as stated in the code. Given the amount of time
this error has gone unfixed, and staff turnover, it seems implausible to say that staff has
consistently not allowed application of 4.7(D)(2)(d).”
The wording of these sections is confusing and allows for multiple interpretations – it will be fixed soon
by a code change.
It is debatable that the wording of these sections allows for multiple interpretations, and
certainly does not seem unreasonable that staff could at this point apply the code as it is
written. Also, it is standard practice to design projects around currently adopted versions of
regulations (generally with the target date of permit application), not future changes.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this request,
Sincerely,
Jeff Gaines
From: Noah Beals
To: Kacee Scheidenhelm
Subject: FW: Administrative Interpretation - NCL Floor Area
Date: Monday, June 3, 2019 2:29:08 PM
Attachments: Admin Interpretation -#1-19_NCL_250sf_Bonus.pdf
Request for Administrative Interpretation.msg
From: Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 3:38 PM
To: Jeff Gaines <Jeff@highcraft.net>
Cc: Tom Leeson <tleeson@fcgov.com>; Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com>
Subject: Administrative Interpretation - NCL Floor Area
Hi Jeff,
I appreciate your patience on this administrative interpretation – it took a little time and research to
make sure we could explain our interpretation fully and clearly. Please see attached for the final
interpretation.
I want to apologize for any confusion we may have caused through previous conversations, and I
would be happy to take a look at any previous permits where you feel the code was applied
differently (without any consequences for those homeowners, of course). I really do want to make
sure we are clear and consistent, and it is concerning to me that you have felt misled. I appreciate
your detailed analysis and I definitely see how the code can be interpreted incorrectly – we will be
following up with a code change to clarify those sections very soon. Let me know if you’d like to
discuss further in person or over the phone.
As far as next steps, there are a couple options for your permit:
1. Modify design for the garage and/or house addition to comply with the floor area standards
2. Request a variance from the standard through Zoning, which would be presented to the
Zoning Board of Appeals for a decision
If you go with option 2, Noah Beals would be your contact and can get you the information you need
for the variance.
Please let me know if there’s anything else I can help with, and how you would like to proceed from
here.
Thanks,
Rebecca
Rebecca Everette, AICP
Development Review Manager
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct
Click here to tell us about our service, we want to know!
From: Jeff Gaines
To: Rebecca Everette
Cc: Noah Beals
Subject: Request for Administrative Interpretation
Date: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 7:06:53 PM
Hello Rebecca,
I just had a conversation with Noah today regarding the interpretation of several land use
standards as they apply to current building permit applications for a new house and detached
garage at 226 North McKinley Ave. in Fort Collins. The lot is in the NCL district, and an
issue has arisen regarding sections 4.8(D)(2)(a)(3) and 4.8(D)(2)(d) of the land use code
concerning how bonus square footage is tabulated for detached accessory buildings.
Respectively, the first section increases allowable square footage on lots greater than 6,000
square feet by 250 square feet where this extra is applied to detached accessory buildings, and
the second section says that in general, for any lot, the first 250 square feet of a detached
accessory is not to be included in calculating floor area for the purpose of allowable floor
area. I was notified by planning staff today that these standards are actually intended to mean
the same thing, and to just exclude the first 250 square feet of a detached accessory, period.
This is a lengthy emailing concerning what I know must seem like a minor issue. However, I
am in the position of having submitted a completed, construction ready set of plans to the city,
and am looking at the situation both from the perspective of what the land use code says, and
the practical implications of going through redesign of the garage, if not also house, at this late
stage. To summarize the situation, this is a 6,250 square foot lot with 2,250 square feet of
allowable area before considering accessory structure bonus area. The new house is to be
2087 square feet, and new garage is to be 528 square feet. Design was based off 500 square
feet effectively being excluded from the garage for purposes of allowable area. Reducing this
bonus to 250 square feet would mean going from a comfortable 22'X24' garage to a small
20'X20' garage, and/or also redesigning the house. There are implications here for the quality
of the project itself, the project schedule, and the costs of redesign. From my conversation
with Noah, the best present recourse seems to be asking for an administrative interpretation,
and that is the purpose of this email.
I understand that the Land Use Code is a complex, living document, and it is not always easy
to distill planning intentions into clear standards, or to maintain perfect and concise language.
I have certainly noticed redundancies or areas that are not crystal clear in the code, and this
simply seems like a byproduct of the difficulty of organizing so many often overlapping
standards. However, it never crossed my mind that this was one of these cases. Simply put,
for somebody reading the letter of the currently adopted code from the outside, these are
separate and complimentary standards.
It would take both a leap of judgement and actual alteration of the wording to come to the
conclusion that they are saying the same thing. This is due to the way the statements are
structured and arranged in the context of the section, as well as a material difference between
them. The first statement approaches the issue from calculating allowable area on the lot
itself, directing the designer to increase allowable area by 250 square feet for detached
accessories. The second approaches it from calculating actual area of buildings to be used in
validating allowable area, by directing that 250 square feet be excluded from detached
accessories. I'll be honest that this has always seemed strange to me, but I hope you'll
understand that it serves to strongly reinforce the perception somebody reading the code will
have that they are distinct items. More importantly, the first applies to lots over 6,000 square
feet, and the second applies to all lots in the district. This is a very concrete difference in
meaning, and says to someone reading the actual language that for lots over 6,000 square feet,
a combined total of 500 square feet are to be excluded, while for lots under 6,000 square feet,
only 250 square feet are to be excluded.
In my conversation with Noah, he noted that to his knowledge staff have always and
consistently interpreted these standards as just allowing a single 250 square foot bonus. This
has not been my experience. Over the past six years working at HighCraft, I have submitted
numerous plans for the NCM and NCL districts that have described a '500 square foot
detached accessory bonus' where lots were over 6,000 square feet, whether or not the bonus
was even close to decisive to the particular project. I am incredulous that this is the first time
I'm hearing about this interpretation. Aside from the fact no zoning reviewer has corrected
this reading to date, when I moved to Fort Collins in 2013, I made what I feel was a concerted
effort to make sure that I had a good grasp of the NCM and NCL standards. In reviewing the
standards, I put together a spreadsheet summarizing the main points of the code sections. I
met with Gary Lopez at the time to review the standards and used the spreadsheet I put
together as an outline. Since Gary felt that the department was still a little shaky on
interpreting the standards at that time, he asked that I email the spreadsheet to him for some
additional review. This will sound like I'm bragging (and I'm not), but the zoning department
(I can't remember whether it was Gary or Peter Barnes asking, or simply me showing up at the
help window and seeing the staff person on call that day using it as a cheatsheet and talking
about it with them) actually used this spreadsheet for training and quick reference since it
boiled down some main points of what are two lengthy and often repetitious sections. I'm
bringing this up because not only was the information outlined in the spreadsheet and the way
it was organized on-point enough to be shared around and used, but Peter Barnes' only
comments in reviewing the spreadsheet for inaccuracies were to say that I should note that the
formulas were just applicable to single-family dwellings, and that I should specifically clarify
that the 250 square foot bonus to lot allowable area would also apply to lots over 10,000
square feet, which was in line with what I'd stated.
I am going to forward you a chain of emails that followed my sending the spreadsheet to Gary
after we initially met. It's hard to believe that Peter Barnes specifically clarified the point
regarding the lot allowable area bonus also being applicable to all lots over 6,000 square feet,
even those also over 10,000 square feet, but did not make any clarification regarding the
deduction of 250 square feet in calculating the floor area basis for any lot. At this point, it's
appropriate to stress the fact that these two numbers cannot just be combined. An additional
determination, that is not present in the code, would need to be made regarding whether this
single 250 square feet deduction would apply to all lots or just to those over 6,000 square feet.
If there has been a consistent interpretation by zoning staff regarding these code sections, it
seems like in my case there could not possibly have been a better opportunity than the
distribution and review of this spreadsheet to note that the writing of the code did not reflect
the the intentions behind it.
Returning to the project at hand, I'd like to just walk through how I interpret the code when
reading through how it is written and arranged. I believe this is a fair interpretation of the
standards as they are written, and that it follows the text more closely than to say the two items
are to be combined. Again, on top of the way the code actually reads, this interpretation has
never been questioned or called to my attention in six years of submitting plans for these
districts, nor was it corrected when I made the effort to initially check my understanding of the
code with zoning staff in 2013. I appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this
request. Again, I will forward you my previous email communications with zoning staff.
Sincerely,
Jeff Gaines
Calculating Lot Allowable Floor Area (where lot has a detached accessory over 250
square feet):
"(a) The allowable floor area shall be as follows:
On a lot that is between five thousand (5,000) square feet and ten thousand (10,000) square
feet, the allowable floor area for single-family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-
family dwellings shall not exceed twenty (20) percent of the lot area plus one thousand (1,000)
square feet. On a lot that is between six thousand (6,000) square feet and ten thousand
(10,000) square feet, an additional two hundred fifty (250) square feet shall be added for a
detached accessory structure."
6250 (.2) + 1000, +250 square feet for detached accessory space = 2500 square feet
Calculating Areas of Buildings for Validating Allowable Area Limit:
"(b) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area , one hundred (100) percent of the
floor area of the following spaces and building elements shall be included:
1. The total floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the outside walls of such
buildings and including each finished or unfinished floor level plus the total floor area of the
ground floor of any accessory building larger than one hundred twenty (120) square feet, plus
that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and
one-half (7½) feet located within such accessory building on the lot.
2. Basement floor areas where any exterior basement wall is exposed by more than three (3)
feet above the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall.
3. Roofed porches, balconies and breezeways that are enclosed on more than two (2) sides.
4. Carports.
(c) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area , the floor area of the following spaces
and building elements shall be counted at two hundred (200) percent:
High volume spaces on the first or second floor where the distance between the floor and the
ceiling or roof rafters directly above is greater than fourteen (14) feet.
(d) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area , the floor area of the following
spaces and building elements shall not be included:
The first two hundred fifty (250) square feet of a detached accessory building, provided that
it is located behind a street-fronting principal building and is separated from such principal
building by at least ten (10) feet."
House Area of 2,087 square feet + Garage area of 528 square feet - First 250 square feet of
Garage = 2,365 square feet
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Interested Parties
FROM: Tom Leeson, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Director
Rebecca Everette, Development Review Manager
DATE: March 27, 2019
SUBJECT: Administrative Interpretation #1-19 regarding the relationship between two
allowable floor area standards in the Neighborhood Conservation Low
Density (N-C-L) zone district.
On March 19, 2019, the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Department
received a request to clarify standards related to the allowable floor area in the
Neighborhood Conservation Low-Density (N-C-L) zone district. The specific question is
how Section 4.8(D)(2)(a)(2) should be interpreted in conjunction with Section 4.8(D)(2)(d),
which both reference a 250 square foot floor area “bonus” for detached accessory
buildings.
RELEVANT CODE STANDARDS:
Division 4.8 - Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L)
(D) Land Use Standards.
1) Required Lot Area. Minimum lot area shall not be less than six thousand (6,000) square feet.
2) Allowable Floor Area on Lots .
a. The allowable floor area shall be as follows:
1. On a lot of less than five thousand (5,000) square feet, the allowable floor
area for single-family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family
dwellings shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the lot area.
2. On a lot that is between five thousand (5,000) square feet and ten thousand
(10,000) square feet, the allowable floor area for single-family dwellings
and buildings accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed twenty
(20) percent of the lot area plus one thousand (1,000) square feet. On a lot
that is between six thousand (6,000) square feet and ten thousand
(10,000) square feet, an additional two hundred fifty (250) square feet
shall be added for a detached accessory structure. [emphasis added]
3. On a lot that is more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, the allowable
floor area for single-family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-
Community Development & Neighborhood
Services
281 North College Ave.
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
970.224.6046
970.224.6050 - fax
fcgov.com
2
family dwellings shall not exceed thirty (30) percent, plus two hundred fifty
(250) square feet for a detached accessory structure.
4. The allowable floor area for buildings containing permitted uses other than
single-family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family dwellings
shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the lot area.
b. For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area , one hundred (100) percent of
the floor area of the following spaces and building elements shall be included:
1. The total floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the outside
walls of such buildings and including each finished or unfinished floor
level plus the total floor area of the ground floor of any accessory building
larger than one hundred twenty (120) square feet, plus that portion of the
floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and
one-half (7½) feet located within such accessory building on the lot.
2. Basement floor areas where any exterior basement wall is exposed by more
than three (3) feet above the existing grade at the interior side lot line
adjacent to the wall.
3. Roofed porches, balconies and breezeways that are enclosed on more than
two (2) sides.
4. Carports.
c. For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area , the floor area of the following
spaces and building elements shall be counted at two hundred (200) percent:
High volume spaces on the first or second floor where the distance between the
floor and the ceiling or roof rafters directly above is greater than fourteen (14) feet.
d. For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area , the floor area of the following
spaces and building elements shall not be included:
The first two hundred fifty (250) square feet of a detached accessory building,
provided that it is located behind a street-fronting principal building and is
separated from such principal building by at least ten (10) feet. [emphasis
added]
INTERPRETATION:
How much additional floor area is allowed on an N-C-L lot greater than 6,000 sf in size
with a detached accessory dwelling?
For lots in the N-C-L zone districts greater than 6,000 square feet, only 250 total additional
square feet are allowed for a detached accessory structure. Sections 4.8(D)(2)(a)(2) and
4.8(D)(2)(d) could be read to imply that 250 square feet are allowed for lots greater than
6,000 square feet, in addition to excluding 250 square feet for accessory buildings, for a
total of 500 additional square feet. However, the original intent for the code language in
Section 4.7(D) was for no more than 250 square feet total to be exempted from the floor
area calculations.
Code changes related to floor area ratios in the N-C-L and N-C-M zone districts were
adopted by City Council March 5, 2013 and were intended to implement the Eastside and
Westside Neighborhoods Character Study. A link to Ordinance No. 033, 2013 is available
here: https://library.municode.com/co/fort_collins/ordinances/land_use?nodeId=866101.
In summary, Council adopted new formulas to calculate floor area ratios with the goal of
limiting the over size, scale and footprint of new buildings in the Eastside and Westside
Neighborhoods. The agenda materials clearly state that an additional 250 square-foot
3
allowance was envisioned for detached accessory buildings, with no reference to an
additional 250 square-foot (or total of 500 square-foot) allowance.
For reference, and in support of this interpretation, the Agenda Item Summary that
accompanied the ordinance is available here:
http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=72&docid=2050878&dt=AGENDA+ITEM
&doc_download_date=MAR-05-2013&ITEM_NUMBER=30
To the extent of our knowledge, staff has consistently applied this standard to ensure that
no more than 250 square feet of additional allowance is applied to projects in the N-C-L
district. Because the wording in these two sections currently allows for multiple
interpretations, staff will follow this interpretation with a code change that clarifies the
intent and approach to calculating allowable floor area.
CONCLUSION:
Per Section 4.8(D)(2)(a)(2), on a lot that is between six thousand (6,000) square feet and
ten thousand (10,000) square feet, an additional two hundred fifty (250) square feet shall be
added for a detached accessory structure. No allowance will be made for an additional 250
square feet for detached accessory structures.
From: Noah Beals
To: Kacee Scheidenhelm
Subject: FW: Revised Administrative Interpretation and Appeal Procedure
Date: Monday, June 3, 2019 2:29:19 PM
Attachments: Admin Interpretation -#1-19_NCL_250sf_Bonus_rev2019-0509.pdf
Att 2 - Annotated Issue List May 2019.pdf.pdf
LUC Spring ORD.pdf
appealform.pdf
From: Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2019 9:45 AM
To: Jeff Gaines <Jeff@highcraft.net>
Cc: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com>; Tom Leeson <tleeson@fcgov.com>; Zoning
<zoning@fcgov.com>
Subject: Revised Administrative Interpretation and Appeal Procedure
Hi Jeff,
Thank you for your follow-up questions related to the administrative interpretation for floor area
calculations in the N-C-L district. Attached is a revised interpretation with some additional
information:
Corrected references to code sections – the original interpretation addressed Division 4.8 (N-
C-M) rather than 4.7 (N-C-L); both sections contain similar code language.
Clarification that staff have not been allowing a 250 sf exemption for detached accessory
structures on lots less than 6000 sf in size in the N-C-L district.
As we’ve discussed, if you aware of any examples of inconsistent application of the code by staff, we
would appreciate the opportunity to see those. It could help with training, if nothing else. I also
wanted to let you know that we have prepared a code change to clarify this section of code, which
will be considered by the Planning & Zoning Board at their hearing next Thursday evening. I have
attached a list of the various code changes that are being proposed, as well as the draft ordinance
(see page 16 for the N-C-L changes). As currently proposed, the code change would remove the
duplicative reference to a 250 sf exemption, and would also expand the exemption to all lots in the
N-C-L and N-C-M districts.
Finally, you asked about the appeal procedure for an administrative interpretation. You may appeal
this interpretation pursuant to Division 2.11 of the Land Use Code, available here:
https://library.municode.com/co/fort_collins/codes/land_use?nodeId=ART2AD_DIV2.11APADDE.
You have 14 days to file an appeal, but if you would like it to be heard at the June 13 Zoning Board of
Appeals meeting, then the deadline for materials is next Tuesday, May 14 at 3 p.m. I have attached
the appeal form, which you can submit directly to zoning@fcgov.com with any supporting
documentation.
Please let us know if you have any questions!
Thanks,
Rebecca
Rebecca Everette, AICP
Development Review Manager
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct
Click here to tell us about our service, we want to know!
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Interested Parties
FROM: Tom Leeson, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Director
Rebecca Everette, Development Review Manager
DATE: May 9, 2019
SUBJECT: Administrative Interpretation #1-19 regarding the relationship between two
allowable floor area standards in the Neighborhood Conservation Low
Density (N-C-L) zone district.
On March 19, 2019, the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Department
received a request to clarify standards related to the allowable floor area in the
Neighborhood Conservation Low-Density (N-C-L) zone district. The specific question is
how Section 4.7(D)(2)(a)(2) should be interpreted in conjunction with Section 4.7(D)(2)(d),
which both reference a 250 square foot floor area “bonus” for detached accessory
buildings.
An initial administrative interpretation was provided on March 27, 2019. The requestor
followed up with questions about the application of this code section to properties less than
6,000 square feet in size. This revised interpretation corrects references to some code
sections and provides additional information about how staff has applied the code to all
properties in the N-C-L district.
RELEVANT CODE STANDARDS:
Division 4.7 - Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L)
(D) Land Use Standards.
1) Required Lot Area. Minimum lot area shall not be less than six thousand (6,000) square feet.
2) Allowable Floor Area on Lots.
a. The allowable floor area shall be as follows:
1. On a lot of less than five thousand (5,000) square feet, the allowable floor
area for single-family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family
dwellings shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the lot area.
2. On a lot that is between five thousand (5,000) square feet and ten thousand
(10,000) square feet, the allowable floor area for single-family dwellings
and buildings accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed twenty
(20) percent of the lot area plus one thousand (1,000) square feet. On a lot
Community Development & Neighborhood
Services
281 North College Ave.
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
970.224.6046
970.224.6050 - fax
fcgov.com
2
that is between six thousand (6,000) square feet and ten thousand
(10,000) square feet, an additional two hundred fifty (250) square feet
shall be added for a detached accessory structure. [emphasis added]
3. On a lot that is more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, the allowable
floor area for single-family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-
family dwellings shall not exceed thirty (30) percent, plus two hundred fifty
(250) square feet for a detached accessory structure.
4. The allowable floor area for buildings containing permitted uses other than
single-family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family dwellings
shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the lot area.
b. For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, one hundred (100) percent of
the floor area of the following spaces and building elements shall be included:
1. The total floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the outside
walls of such buildings and including each finished or unfinished floor
level plus the total floor area of the ground floor of any accessory building
larger than one hundred twenty (120) square feet, plus that portion of the
floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and
one-half (7½) feet located within such accessory building on the lot.
2. Basement floor areas where any exterior basement wall is exposed by more
than three (3) feet above the existing grade at the interior side lot line
adjacent to the wall.
3. Roofed porches, balconies and breezeways that are enclosed on more than
two (2) sides.
4. Carports.
c. For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the following
spaces and building elements shall be counted at two hundred (200) percent:
High volume spaces on the first or second floor where the distance between the
floor and the ceiling or roof rafters directly above is greater than fourteen (14) feet.
d. For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the following
spaces and building elements shall not be included:
The first two hundred fifty (250) square feet of a detached accessory building,
provided that it is located behind a street-fronting principal building and is
separated from such principal building by at least ten (10) feet. [emphasis
added]
INTERPRETATION:
How much additional floor area is allowed on an N-C-L lot greater than 6,000 sf in size
with a detached accessory dwelling?
For lots in the N-C-L zone districts greater than 6,000 square feet, only 250 total additional
square feet are allowed for a detached accessory structure. Sections 4.7(D)(2)(a)(2) and
4.7(D)(2)(d) could be read to imply that 250 square feet are allowed for lots greater than
6,000 square feet, in addition to excluding 250 square feet for accessory buildings, for a
total of 500 additional square feet. However, the original intent for the code language in
Section 4.7(D) was for no more than 250 square feet total to be exempted from the floor
area calculations.
Code changes related to floor area ratios in the N-C-L and N-C-M zone districts were
adopted by City Council March 5, 2013 and were intended to implement the Eastside and
Westside Neighborhoods Character Study. A link to Ordinance No. 033, 2013 is available
here: https://library.municode.com/co/fort_collins/ordinances/land_use?nodeId=866101.
3
In summary, Council adopted new formulas to calculate floor area ratios with the goal of
limiting the over size, scale and footprint of new buildings in the Eastside and Westside
Neighborhoods. The agenda materials clearly state that an additional 250 square-foot
allowance was envisioned for detached accessory buildings, with no reference to an
additional 250 square-foot (or total of 500 square-foot) allowance.
For reference, and in support of this interpretation, the Agenda Item Summary that
accompanied the ordinance is available here:
http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=72&docid=2050878&dt=AGENDA+ITEM
&doc_download_date=MAR-05-2013&ITEM_NUMBER=30
To the extent of our knowledge, staff has consistently applied this standard to ensure that
no more than 250 square feet of additional allowance is applied to projects in the N-C-L
district. In the case of lots less than 6,000 square feet in size, staff has not been allowing an
additional 250 square feet of floor area for detached accessory structures. There is similar
code language located in Division 4.8 for the Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density
(N-C-M) zone district, which staff has also applied in a consistent way.
Because the wording in these two sections currently allows for multiple interpretations,
staff will follow this interpretation with a code change that clarifies the intent and approach
to calculating allowable floor area.
CONCLUSION:
Per Section 4.7(D)(2)(a)(2), on a lot that is between six thousand (6,000) square feet and
ten thousand (10,000) square feet, an additional two hundred fifty (250) square feet shall be
added for a detached accessory structure. No allowance will be made for an additional 250
square feet for detached accessory structures.
Friday, May 03, 2019 Page 1 of 12
Land Use Code Maintenance Process
Annotated Issue List
1046
Placeholder for formatting Reports
and Ordinance
Problem Statement
N.A.
Proposed Solution Overview
N.A.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
1 N.A. N.A.
1051
Amend 2.1.5(B) - Dedications and Vacations - providing further clarity on the Director's
authority to accept the dedication of streets and easements as well as accept the vacation of
easements.
Problem Statement
This provision of code was intended to provide the authority of the Director to accept the
dedication of streets, easements and other rights-of-way as well as providing the authority
of the Director to accept the vacation of easements. The language in this section has been
open to interpretation over the years as to whether requests to dedicate or vacate can be
accepted by the Director when there is not an associated development application
concurrent with the request. For example, the City received a request to vacate a portion of
a drainage easement in a subdivision built several years ago, caused by the
homeowner’s request to build a patio into a drainage easement. The City interpreted that
the request to build a patio constituted a “planning item” that allowed the Director the authority to
vacate the easement, but it is being construed that the “planning item” pertains to the original
development plan approval of the subdivision. Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to not reference “planning items” and make clear that the
Director has the authority to accept the dedication of streets and easements as well as
accept the vacation of easements. Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
3 2.1.5(B) Clarifies Director's authority to accept dedications of streets
& easements and vacation of easements.
1093 Amend 3.2.1(A - N) - Tree Protection and Replacement - to update, revise and add new
provisions for a variety of aspects related to Landscape Plans with the primary focus on
trees.
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2
Friday, May 03, 2019 Page 2 of 12
Problem Statement
This section covers all aspects of landscaping and has not been updated since initial
adoption. There have been many changes over the years to best practices for landscaping
design, installation, and mitigation. Issues related to mitigation for the Emerald Ash
Borer, payment in lieu, tree cut-outs, tree protection and critical root zone are now
addressed.
Proposed Solution Overview
The propose solution is a comprehensive update of the Landscaping section.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
9 3.2.1 Comprehensive update of the Landscaping section of the
Code.
1094 Amend 3.3.2(E)(1)(e) – Required Improvements Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy
– to delete a list of specific stormwater implementation techniques and replace with a
reference to the Development Review Checklist.
Problem Statement
The problem is that the current Code explicitly details all the Stormwater features to be
inspected with their inspections being at the point of installation. Adding new features, or
points of inspection, would require a Code change. Instead, the proposed language will
simply require inspections of specific private improvements and features at certain points
of installation as called out in the Development Certification Checklist required to be
submitted to Water Utilities Engineering. Any changes could then efficiently be made on
the Development Certification Checklist as they arise.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to delete the specific references to porous pavers, bioretention
cells, rain gardens, sand filters, extended detention basins and underground treatment and
replace with a broad reference to the Development Certification Checklist. Related Code
Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
12 3.3.2(E)(1)(e) Replaces detailed list of improvements with a checklist.
1095 Amend 3.3.5 – Engineering Design Standards – to add Broadband / Fiber Optic to the list of
utilities and services for which compliance with requirements and specifications must be
achieved.
Problem Statement
The list of utilities and services for which compliance must be achieved does not include
City’s newest utility - Broadband / Fiber Optic.
Proposed Solution Overview
Add Broadband / Fiber Optic to the list.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
13 3.3.5 Adds Broadband and Fiber Optic to the list.
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2
Friday, May 03, 2019 Page 3 of 12
1096 Amend 3.5.2(D) to establish 150 feet as the maximum distance between the staging area for
emergency responders and access into individual single family attached dwelling units
Problem Statement
A relatively recent development trend is to orient single family attached dwellings such
that they do not front on public streets, private streets, or street-like private drives.
Instead, these dwellings front on connecting walkways or major walkway spines and face
common area open space often referred to as greenbelts, or greenways, or green courts.
This results in the back of units facing a private alley and consisting only of the garage
with no direct doors into the individual unit. Consequently, emergency responders and
their equipment can only gain access to these dwellings and stage their equipment from
these private alleys at the rear of the units. But in order to get into the unit, emergency
responders must go around three sides of the building to the front. Such arrangements
also require alleys to be named and that addresses be posted in the back.
The standard requirement for building perimeter access for firefighting in the Fire Code
for the Poudre Fire Authority is 150 feet as measured from the designated fire lane around
the building. While this standard is adequate for addressing the physical building
perimeter and may be slightly increased if there is an automatic fire sprinkler systems, it is
silent with regard to doors that provide access into individual units for medical
emergencies.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to add a requirement that at least one door provide direct access
for emergency responders into an individual single family attached unit and not be greater than
150 feet from where emergency responders and their equipment can stage and this access cannot
be through the garage. Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
16 3.5.2(D)(3)
Requires at least one door into single family attached
dwellings be within 150 feet of emergency access staging
area.
1098 Amend 3.8.17(A)(2)(b) - Building Height - Measuring Building Height - to correct a
discrepancy and delete the ability of a residential structure to use the 25-feet from floor-
to-floor allowance
Problem Statement
This section allows the height of a residential structure to be measured as a maximum of
25 feet from floor-to-floor. This standard contains two references: commercial and
residential. The reference to residential was inadvertently not deleted at the time a newer
standard was adopted which calls for the maximum vertical height of 12 feet, eight inches,
for each residential story, which is now the prevailing standard. The two standards are in
conflict. Also, at this time, adding a reference to industrial would provide further
explanation as industrial buildings are more likely to rely on greater distances between
floors than commercial buildings such as offices, hotels, retail stores and the like.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to delete the reference to residential in the standard that allows
commercial buildings to have a maximum height of 25 feet from floor-to-floor and add a
reference to industrial buildings. Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2
Friday, May 03, 2019 Page 4 of 12
17 3.8.17(A)(2)(b) Deletes the reference to residential,
adds industrial to measuring maximum building height.
1099 Amend 4.4(B)(3)(d) - R-L Permitted Use List - to add Wireless Telecommunications
Facility as a Type Two accessory use but restricted to non-residential properties such as
Places of Worship or Assembly, and only if stealth.
Problem Statement
The creation of private sector wireless communication networks has evolved since the
adoption of the federal Wireless Telecommunication Act of 1996. As originally
implemented, monopoles, ranging in height from 40 to 100 feet, were deemed adequate to
provide coverage over a specified geographic area. Now, with new technologies, and a
higher concentration of users in urban areas, providers are building networks that use a
combination of facilities (pole-mounted antennas) and equipment (building-mounted
antennas) that are at lower heights but more frequently dispersed.
Recently staff has processed two Requests for Additions of Permitted Use to allow
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities in the R-L zone. Both were located on
nonresidential properties, mitigated by stealth installation and both were approved. With
large areas of the City zoned R-L, and with the demand by consumers for coverage and
market response to provide coverage, allowing Facilities in the R-L would be appropriate
but restricted to non-residential properties. As mitigation, installations using stealth
techniques, such as church steeples, bell towers or silos would be required.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to add Wireless Telecommunications Facilities as a Type Two
permitted accessory use in the R-L zone with standards restricting installations to
nonresidential properties and using stealth technology as visual mitigation. Related Code
Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
18 4.4(B)(3) Adds Wireless Telecommunications Facilities as a Type 2
Accessory Use in R-L.
19 4.4(D)(4) Adds standards for W.T.F. in R-L.
1100 Amend 4.22(B)(2)(c) 28. – C-S, Service Commercial zone district – Type One Permitted Use
List – to delete Enclosed Mini-Storage Facilities if located at least 200 feet from N. College
Avenue portion of the C-S zone.
Problem Statement
Storage units are a land use that is contrary to the vision for urban evolution of synergistic
uses in the C-S-zoned portions of the North College Avenue corridor. The vision is
explained in the adopted North College Corridor Plan. An Urban Renewal Plan, Market
Analysis, and an Infrastructure Funding Plan are also in place to help implement the
vision.
The City and its Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Citizen Advisory Group (CAG)
continually seek solutions to remedy problems of past ad hoc subdivision of land when the
area was the outskirts of town along US Highway 287. Examples of such problems are
defective and inadequate street layout and faulty lot layout in relation to accessibility,
utility infrastructure, drainage, flooding, and overall functionality as part of the city.
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2
Friday, May 03, 2019 Page 5 of 12
Retrofitting needed infrastructure and improving functionality generally depend upon
cooperation and participation across various existing land parcels. Assembly of land or
land pooling by owners of multiple parcels is needed in some cases to form more cohesive
development. These issues are described in plan documents.
The risk of a new storage unit development project creating a potentially new obstacle to
achieving the vision and goals has been recognized by staff and the URA CAG for some
time. There have been inquiries by owners where this would be the case. In discussions
with staff, inquiries have so far not become actual development proposals.
Enclosed Mini-Storage Facilities are a relatively expedient use with minimal need for
connectivity or public infrastructure, creating spots of low activity with no synergy with
surrounding parcels. Storage uses exist and are appropriate in an Industrial zone portion
of the area on the east side of North College Avenue.
A significant amount of public investment has been expended in the corridor to implement
the vision and remedy problems. Local, State and Federal funds have been used to
construct major public improvements from Jefferson Street to State Highway 1 including
street, railroad, drainage, and other utility infrastructure with associated beautification and
pedestrian improvements. Staff’s latest estimate of public investment since adoption of
the North College Corridor Plan in 1995 is in the range of $50-60 million. This
investment has resulted in economic activity and real estate development projects such as
the North College Marketplace, Lyric Cinema, Crowne Apartments at Old Town North,
and Jax Expansion among others.
Since the original 1995 North College Corridor Plan and its associated zoning, conditions
have changed to the point where there is positive economic momentum resulting in urban
evolution, but crucial improvements are still needed in key portions of the area where a
storage unit development would be incompatible.
Proposed Solution Overview
Delete Enclosed Mini-Storage Facilities from the North College Avenue corridor area in
C-S, Service Commercial zone district. Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
23 4.22(B)(2)(c)28 Deletes Enclosed Mini-Storage from
N. College in C-S zone.
1101 Amend 3.1.1 Article Three - General Provisions - Applicability - to clarify applicability to
single family on platted lots.
Problem Statement
The Applicability Section at the beginning of Article 3 contains terminology and language
that confuses applicability to single family houses.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to amend the language to add clarity with regard to single family
detached dwellings. Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
8 3.1.1 Clarifies the applicability of Article 3 to single family
detached dwellings.
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2
Friday, May 03, 2019 Page 6 of 12
1102 Amend 5.1.2 - Definition of a Neighborhood Center - to match the description of a
Neighborhood Center as stated in the LMN development standards - 4.5(D)(3) - for
consistency.
Problem Statement
The definition of ‘Neighborhood Center’ in the LMN zone does not match the standards
for the LMN zoning district in Article 4. The difference: the LMN zone district includes
mixed-use dwelling units as an option for one of two uses that must be combined in order
to qualify a development as a Neighborhood Center; while the definition in Article 5
mentions “a combination of at least two (2) nonresidential uses…”.
Thus the question is whether or not the inclusion of a dwelling unit above a nonresidential
use qualifies a development as a Neighborhood Center. The LMN zone district list of
Permitted Uses includes the following (note that mixed-use dwelling units are included):
“Neighborhood centers consisting of at least two (2) of the following uses: mixed-use
dwelling units; retail stores; convenience retail stores; personal and business service
shops; small animal veterinary facilities; offices, financial services and clinics; community
facilities; neighborhood support/ recreation facilities; schools; child care centers; limited
indoor recreation establishments; open-air farmers markets; and places of worship or
assembly.” Likewise, a Land Use Standard in the LMN zone district states:
4.5(D)(3)(c)
“Land Use Requirements. A neighborhood center shall include two (2) or more of the
following uses: mixed-use dwelling units; community facilities; neighborhood
support/recreation facilities; schools; child care centers; places of worship or assembly;
convenience retail stores; retail stores; offices, financial services and clinics…”
Contrary to those LMN standards, the definition of Neighborhood Center mentions two
nonresidential uses:
“Neighborhood center shall mean a combination of at least two (2) nonresidential uses and
an outdoor space, which together provide a focal point and a year-round meeting place for
a Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood.”
Proposed Solution Overview
Amend 5.1.2, the definition of Neighborhood Center, to match the description in LMN
zone district per 4.5(D)(3). Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
24 5.1.2 Amends the definition of Neighborhood Center for
consistency with LMN permitted use.
1103 Amend 2.1.2(C) - Overview of Development Review Procedures - to add references to Basic
Development Review and make other minor edits.
Problem Statement
Since the adoption of the Code, projects that are not required to be subject to a public
hearing, either Type One or Two, were referred to as Building Permit Review and then later
renamed to Basic Development Review (BDR). Such projects include uses that are
fundamentally considered compatible with the underlying zone district and are generally not
complex. All relevant standards are applied to these projects. The original Code section that
describes the overview of the development review procedures made no mention of this review
process because there was, at that time, no formal routing, commenting, project tracking and no
requirement for a public hearing. Over time, however, BDR’s have become more formalized.
Consequently, the Code would be more current and user-friendly if BDR’s were described in
the overview. Proposed Solution Overview
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2
Friday, May 03, 2019 Page 7 of 12
The solution is to add references to BDR’s in the overview section and make minor edits
for clarity.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
2 2.1.2(C) Adds a specific reference to Basic Development Review.
1104 Amend 2.15(C)(7)(a) - PUD Overlay Review Procedure - to remove the reference to the
50acre minimum in case there is a request for a Modification for a parcel with less than
50 acres. Otherwise, there would be no decision maker.
Problem Statement
Section 4.29(C)(1), PUD Overlay – Application – establishes the 50-acre minimum
project size for PUD Master Plans. By placing this limitation in Article Four, it implies
that this standard is modifiable. Section 2.15(C)(7)(a) identifies the decision maker for
PUD Master Plans of various sizes. Planning & Zoning Board renders the decision on
PUD Master Plans that are 50-640 acres in size with City Council deciding on PUD
Master Plans over 640 acres. If an applicant seeks a modification to the 50-acre minimum
in 4.29(C)(1), section 2.15(C)(7)(a) does not provide clear direction on who decides on the
PUD Master Plan.
Proposed Solution Overview
Remove the 50-acre minimum threshold in Section 2.15(C)(7)(a).
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
6 2.15(C)(7)(a) Removes the 50-acre minimum threshold.
1105 Amend 2.10 - Variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals - to allow certain variances to be
considered by the Director instead of the Z.B.A.
Problem Statement
Due to the growth of the City and the volume of cases being required to be heard by the
Zoning Board of Appeals, there has been an increase in the Board’s workload as well as
staff time. Further, staff finds that in the recent past, approximately 25% of the variances
are minor in scope and routinely approved by the Board. In order to address the over
processing of minor cases, and to allow more time for consideration of more complex
issues, staff recommends that the Director, or his delegee such as the Zoning Manager, be
granted the authority to be the decision maker for minor, routine cases of a limited scope.
Our peer communities have implemented this approach successfully. This process
improvement will be more efficient for homeowner-applicants, builders, contractors,
architects, land planners, staff and board members with no loss of quality control. In
circumstances where the Director deems appropriate, eligible cases may be referred to the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to amend the Variances procedures to grant the Director, or his
delegee, the authority to be the decision maker in certain cases. Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
5 2.10 Amends the procedures and criteria for Variances to allow
Director review in limited cases.
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2
Friday, May 03, 2019 Page 8 of 12
1106 Amend 3.2.1(K)(2) - Utilities and Traffic - to increase the distance between street trees and
traffic control signs from 20 to 50 feet.
Problem Statement
This provision of code presently requires a 20-foot separation from shade and/or
ornamental trees to traffic control sign and devises. Twenty feet of separation from a tree
to a stop (or yield sign), as well as 20 feet of separation from a tree to a traffic signal has
presented challenges in maintaining adequate sight distance to the traffic signage and
signals. A greater separation of 50 feet would help ensure that line of sight to the traffic
control device is adequately maintained throughout the maturity of the tree.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to amend the standard from 20 feet to 50 feet.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
10 3.2.1(K)(2) Increases the distance between trees and traffic control
signs.
1107 Amend 2.18.3(G) - Step 7(D) - Basic Development Review - Decision and Findings - to provide
written notice, including appeal information, to abutting property owners regarding a BDR
decision.
Problem Statement
We recently adopted a Code revision that removes the obligation to provide notice (sign
posting, newspaper published notice and written letter to A.P.O.’s) for all B.D.R.’s that
are not Minor Subdivisions that create new lots. Since all B.D.R.’s are appealable, there
remains a burden to let the public know that a decision has been made. With the new
revision, we have moved from providing an abundance of notice to providing a dearth of
notice. If a B.D.R. decision is appealable, but there is no practical manner for an abutting
property owner to become informed of such decision, then the appeal process lacks
transparency.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to provide post-decision notice to abutting property owners.
(Again, for Minor Subdivisions that yield a new lot, full notification is already required.) This
notice would also include appeal information. Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
7 2.18.3(G) Requires notice of BDR decision to abutters.
1109 Amend 3.2.4 - Lighting - to add that light fixtures must not exceed correlated color
temperature of 3,000 degrees Kelvin and make minor edits based on new lighting
technology.
Problem Statement
City Council adopted Resolution 2016-074 expressing Council’s intent and General Policy
Considerations Regarding Night Sky Objectives (September 20, 2016). The Resolution
states that, “the City will incorporate dark sky policies and standards into Building Codes,
Land Use Codes, and Streetscape standards when applicable and appropriate.” An
interdisciplinary staff team continues to work with a consultant to comprehensively
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2
Friday, May 03, 2019 Page 9 of 12
address lighting issues and promote dark sky policies both on a citywide basis, and out of
the city in the case of natural areas.
In the short term, however, staff has identified two quick fixes to acknowledge the advent
of LED (light emitting diodes) technology and to implement a maximum correlated color
temperature (CCT) to reduce glare. These two revisions have been identified as
noncontroversial and are being practiced now but on a recommendation basis only.
Codifying at this time allows for the implementation of dark sky policies in a timely
manner.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to adopt the revisions identified by staff working on the dark sky
policies.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
11 3.2.4(D)(11) Maximum correlated color temperature 3000 degrees
Kelvin.
11 3.2.4(D)(5) Deletes obsolete references.
1110 Amend 3.4.1(E)(1) - Natural Habitats and Features - 3.4.1(E)(1)(c) - Buffer Zone
Performance Standards - to clarify the scope of the buffer zone and emphasize that non-
native trees & vegetation must be evaluated in the ECS for potential ecological value.
Problem Statement
Under (E)(1), the sentence that allows stated buffer zone dimensions to be adjusted based
on performance standards is currently worded in a way that confuses the concept. General
buffer zone dimensions are stated in a table, but those dimensions are accompanied by a
proviso that the decision maker may reduce a dimension if listed performance standards
are achieved. Current wording, however, suggests that the decision maker must reduce a
stated dimension if necessary, to achieve the listed performance standards. It would never
be necessary to reduce a dimension to achieve the performance standards, that is simply
incorrect wording.
Rather, the performance standards are to allow a dimension to be reduced if the
performance standards are met.
This wording has caused awkward and confusing discussion in at least two development
projects where a dimension was reduced based on achieving the performance standards,
but it was not necessary to do so.
Under (E)(1)(c), the current language states that only existing trees and vegetation that are
deemed significant per 3.2.1 - Tree Protection Standards for Landscape Plans - are to be
preserved. Staff has found, however, that existing non-significant trees and vegetation
have habitat value and must be considered for preservation and accounted for in any
evaluation by an Ecological Characterization Study.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution to (E)(1) is to reword the language for clarity. The proposed
solution to (E)(1)(c) is to revise and add language that states all non-native trees and
vegetation must be considered for preservation even though some species may not be
considered significant under the Tree Protection standards for Landscape Plans in
3.2.1(F). This would allow clusters of non-native species such as Siberian Elms
and Russian Olive to be considered for habitat and ecological values. Related Code
Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2
Friday, May 03, 2019 Page 10 of 12
15 3.4.1(E)(1)(c) Clarifies that all non-native trees and vegetation that are
not significant to be evaluated for ecological value.
15 3.4.1(E)(1) Corrects the standard as originally intended.
1111 Amend 3.4.1(D)(1)(e) - Ecological Characterization Study - to clarify that non-native trees &
vegetation be evaluated for potential habitat value even though certain species would not
meet the mitigation criteria under Tree Protection in 3.2.1.
Problem Statement
The current Code section is in need of updating and enhanced specificity. City
Environmental Planning staff have encountered numerous development projects where
trees proposed for removal do not meet tree mitigation criteria in 3.2.1 under Landscaping
yet provide habitat value, as determined by Environmental staff during site visits and/or
biologists in ecological characterization studies. While tree mitigation in 3.2.1 accounts
for lost ecological and environmental value, habitat value is secondary to tree condition,
caliper and species, thereby disqualifying trees with habitat value from mitigation. There
is a need to allow environmental planners to mitigate for lost habitat value to better reflect
the intent of section 3.4.1 of the Code, which strives to protect natural habitats and
features on the site and in the vicinity of the site during development.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed Code revision allows mitigation for trees not covered under Section 3.2.1 of
the Code on properties containing a habitat buffer zone. Mitigation plantings will occur
within the natural habitat buffer zone to maintain the site’s habitat and ecological function.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
14 3.4.1(D)(1)(e) Clarifies that the ECS describe the habitat
value of nonnative trees and vegetation.
1113 Amend 4.7(D)(E)(F) - N-C-L Land Use Standards, Dimensional Standards and
Development Standards - to revise floor area metrics, clarify the height of carriage houses,
add dormer standards and clarify eave height.
Problem Statement
As design standards for accessory building/carriage houses have evolved, repetitive
standards have been created in the Land Use Code. The repetitive standards have not
always been consistent and have led to confusion. Clarification is needed for the
standards that address maximum allowable floor area, maximum allowable height and
maximum eave height. Additionally, accessory buildings/carriages houses do not
currently limit the size of a dormer and how that that may increase wall and eave heights.
It is unclear at what size are dormers an acceptable deviation to eaves and wall height
limitations.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to amend the standards that are repetitive and provide clear
direction on design standards of accessory buildings/carriage houses. Related Code
Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
20 4.7(D)(E)(F) Clarifies standards related to allowable floor area, height,
dormers and eaves of accessory buildings and carriage
houses.
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2
Friday, May 03, 2019 Page 11 of 12
1115 Amend 4.8(D)(E)(F) - N-C-M Land Use Standards, Dimensional Standards and
Development Standards - to revise floor area metrics, clarify height of carriage houses, add
dormer standards and clarify eave height.
Problem Statement
As design standards for accessory building/carriage houses have evolved, repetitive
standards have been created in the Land Use Code. The repetitive standards have not
always been consistent and have led to confusion. Clarification is needed for the
standards that address maximum allowable floor area, maximum allowable height and
maximum eave height. Additionally, accessory buildings/carriages houses do not
currently limit the size of a dormer and how that that may increase wall and eave heights.
It is unclear at what size are dormers an acceptable deviation to eaves and wall height
limitations.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to amend the standards that are repetitive and provide clear
direction on design standards of accessory buildings/carriage houses.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
21 4.8(D)(E)(F) Clarifies standards related to allowable floor area, height,
dormers and eaves of accessory buildings and carriage
houses.
1116 Amend 4.9(D)(E) - N-C-B Land Use Standards and Dimensional Standards to revise floor area
metrics, clarify height of carriage houses, add dormer standards, and clarify eave height.
Problem Statement
As design standards for accessory building/carriage houses have evolved, repetitive
standards have been created in the Land Use Code. The repetitive standards have not
always been consistent and have led to confusion. Clarification is needed for the
standards that address maximum allowable floor area, maximum allowable height and
maximum eave height. Additionally, accessory buildings/carriages houses do not
currently limit the size of a dormer and how that that may increase wall and eave heights.
It is unclear at what size are dormers an acceptable deviation to eaves and wall height
limitations.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to amend the standards that are repetitive and provide clear
direction on design standards of accessory buildings/carriage houses. Related Code
Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
22 4.9(D)(E) Clarifies standards related to allowable floor area, height,
dormers and eaves of accessory buildings and carriage
houses.
1117 Amend 2.2.12 - Common Development Review Procedures - Step 12: Appeals / Alternate -
to add a new reference to Section 2.18 - Basic Development Review since the BDR process
has become more formalized.
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2
Friday, May 03, 2019 Page 12 of 12
Problem Statement
When the LUC was established, there was no formalized Basic Development Review
procedure. These projects were considered minor in scope and permitted subject to
simply applying for a building permit and the review process was informally managed by
the zoning administrator as a building permit review. As time went on, however, these
projects became more complex requiring a review process more comparable to a P.D.P.
versus a building permit. The term Basic Development Review was initiated along with a
more formal review process, which now includes an appeal procedure and contained
within a relatively new section 2.18. Currently, under the Common Development Review
Procedures – Step 12: Appeals, there is no reference to Basic Development Review.
Proposed Solution Overview
Add a reference to Basic Development Review under the common development review
procedures.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
4 2.2.12 Adds a reference to BDR.
ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2
DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
1
ORDINANCE NO. ___, 2019
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING VARIOUS AMENDMENTS TO THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE
WHEREAS, on December 2, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 190, 1997, the City
Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and
WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the understanding of
staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject to future
amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors, but also for the
purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic document capable of responding
to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and citizens of the City; and
WHEREAS, since its adoption, City staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have
continued to review the Land Use Code and identify and explore various issues related to the Land
Use Code and have now made new recommendations to the Council regarding certain issues that
are ripe for updating and improvement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use Code
amendments are in the best interests of the City and its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That Section 2.1.2(C) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
2.1.2 Overview of Development Review Procedures
. . .
(C) Which type of development application should be submitted? To proceed with a
development proposal for permitted uses, the applicant must determine what type
of development application should be selected and submitted. All development
proposals which include only permitted uses must be processed and approved
through the following development applications: first through a project
development plan (Division 2.4), and then through a final plan (Division 2.5). If
the applicant desires to develop in two (2) or more separate project development
plan submittals, an overall development plan (Division 2.3) will also be required
prior to or concurrently with the project development plan. Overall development
plans, PUD Overlays, basic development reviews, project development plans and
final plans are the four (4) five (5) types of development applications for permitted
DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
2
uses. Each successive development application for a development proposal must
build upon the previously approved development application, as needed, by
providing additional details (through the development application submittal
requirements) and by meeting additional restrictions and standards (contained in
the General Development Standards of Article 3 and the District Standards
of Article 4). Overall development plans, basic development reviews and project
development plans may be consolidated into one (1) application for concurrent
processing and review when appropriate under the provisions of Section 2.2.3. The
purpose, applicability and interrelationship of these types of development
applications are discussed further in Section 2.1.3.
Section 3. That Section 2.2.12 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(A) Appeals. Appeals of any final decision of a decision maker under this Code shall be
only in accordance with Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code, unless
otherwise provided in Divisions 2.3 through 2.11 and 2.16, 2.18, and 2.19 of this Code.
. . .
Section 4. That Section 2.18.3(G) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
2.18.3 Basic Development Review and Minor Subdivision Review Procedures
. . .
Step 7(D)(1 and 2) : (Decision and Findings): Not applicable and in substitution thereof,
after consideration of the development application, the Director shall issue a written
decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the development application based
on compliance with the standards referenced in Step 8 of the Common Development
Review Procedures (Section 2.2.8). The written decision shall be mailed to the
applicant,and to any person who provided comments during the comment period and to the
abutting property owners, and shall also be posted on the City's website at www.fcgov.com.
. . .
Section 5. That Section 3.1.1 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
3.1.1 - Applicability
All development applications and building permit applications shall comply with the
applicable standards contained in divisions 3.1 through 3.11 except that with the following
exceptions:
DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
3
(A) sSingle-family detached dwellings and extra occupancy rental houses on platted
lots that are subject only to building permit review.under article 4, as well as any
(B) aAccessory buildings, structures and accessory uses associated with the such
single-family dwellings and extra occupancy rental houses listed in (A) above,.
Applications for the development noted in exceptions (A) and (B) above must need to
comply only with: (a) the standards contained in article 4 for the zone district in which such
uses are located; (b) the standards contained in division 3.8; and (c) with respect to extra
occupancy rental houses, the additional standards contained in sSection 3.2.2(k)(1)(j).
Existing Development. In addition to the foregoing, this Land Use Code shall continue to
apply to ongoing use of land in a completed developments to the extent that the provisions
of this lLand uUse cCode can be reasonably and logically interpreted as having such
ongoing application.
Section 6. That Section 3.2.1(A) through (I) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
3.2.1 - Landscaping and Tree Protection
(A) Applicability. This Section shall apply to all development (except for development on
existing lots for single-family detached dwellings) within the designated "limits of
development" ("LOD") and natural habitatarea buffer zones established according to
Section 3.4.1 (Natural Habitats and Features).
(B) Purpose. The intent of this Section is to require preparation of landscape and tree protection
plans that ensure significant canopy cover is created, diversified and maintained shading
so that all associated social and environmental benefits are maximized to the extent
reasonably feasible. These benefits include reduced erosion and stormwater runoff,
improved water conservation, air pollution mitigation, to reduced glare and heat build-up,
contribute to visual quality increased aesthetics, and improved continuity within and
between developments. Trees planted in appropriate spaces also, provide screening and
may mitigateion of potential conflicts between activity areas and other site elements while,
enhancinge outdoor spaces, all of which add to a more resilient urban forest., reduce
erosion and stormwater runoff, encourage water conservation and mitigate air pollution.
. . .
(D) Tree Planting Standards. All developments shall establish groves and belts of trees along
all city streets, in and around parking lots, and in all landscape areas that are located within
fifty (50) feet of any building or structure in order to establish at least a partial urban tree
canopy. The groves and belts may also be combined or interspersed with other landscape
areas in remaining portions of the development to accommodate views and functions such
as active recreation and storm drainage.
DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
4
(1) Minimum Plantings/Description. These tree standards require at least a minimum
tree canopy but are not intended to limit additional tree plantings in any remaining
portions of the development. Groves and belts of trees shall be required as follows:
. . .
(c) “full tree stocking” shall be required in all landscape areas within fifty (50)
feet of any building or structure as further described below. Landscape areas
shall be provided in adequate numbers, locations and dimensions to allow
full tree stocking to occur along all high use or high visibility sides of any
building or structure. Such landscape areas shall extend at least seven (7)
feet from any building or structure wall and contain at least fifty-five (55)
square feet of nonpaved ground area, except that any planting cutouts in
walkways shall contain at least sixteen thirty-two (1632) square feet. A
minimum planting cutout of four (4) feet wide shall be provided and the
recommended lengths are as follows: eight (8) feet, ten (10) feet or twelve
(12) feet. Applicants are encouraged to investigate and implement, subject
to City approval, alternative methods or subsurface technologies to promote
tree root growth. Planting cutouts, planters or other landscape areas for tree
planting shall be provided within any walkway that is twelve (12) feet or
greater in width adjoining a vehicle use area that is not covered with an
overhead fixture or canopy that would prevent growth and maturity.
. . .
(2) Street Trees. Planting of street trees shall occur in the adjoining street right-of-way,
except as described in subparagraph (b) below, in connection with the development
by one (1) or more of the methods described in subparagraphs (a) through (ce)
below:
. . .
(b) Wherever the sidewalk is attached to the street in a manner that fails to
comply with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, canopy
shade trees shall be established in an area ranging from three four (34) to
seven (7) feet behind the sidewalk at the spacing intervals as required in
subsection (a) above. Planting shall occur on public right-of-way if it is wide
enough, otherwise trees shall be planted on adjoining private property to
comply with this subsection.
(c) Wherever the sidewalk is attached to the street and is ten (10) feet or more
in width, or extends from the curb to the property line, canopy shade trees
shall be established in planting cutout areas of at least sixteen thirty-two
(1632) square feet at thirty-foot to forty-foot spacing.
(d) Ornamental trees shall be planted in substitution for the canopy shade trees
required in subsection (D)(2)(a) and (b) above where overhead lines and
DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
5
fixtures prevent normal growth and maturity. Ornamental trees shall be
placed at least fifteen (15) feet away from any streetlight.
(e) Wherever existing ash trees (Fraxinus species) are in the adjoining street
right-of-way, the applicant shall coordinate and obtain an onsite analysis
with the City Forester to determine replacement canopy shade trees either
through shadow planting or other emerald ash borer mitigation methods.
(3) Minimum Species Diversity. To prevent uniform insect or disease susceptibility
and eventual uniform senescence on a development site or in the adjacent area or
the district, species diversity is required, and extensive monocultures are
prohibited. The following minimum requirements shall apply to any development
plan.
Number of trees
on site
Maximum percentage of
any one species
10—19 50%
20—39 33%
40—59 25%
60 or more 15%
(4) Tree Species and Minimum Sizes. The Director City Forester shall provide a
recommended list of trees which shall be acceptable to satisfy the requirements for
landscape plans, including approved canopy shade trees that may be used as street
trees. The following minimum sizes shall be required (except as provided in
subparagraph (5) below):
Type Minimum Size
Canopy Shade Tree 2.0" caliper balled and burlapped
or equivalent
Evergreen Tree 6.0' height balled and burlapped
or equivalent
Ornamental Tree 1.5" caliper balled and burlapped
or equivalent
Shrubs
5 gallon or adequate size
consistent with design intent or 1
gallon may be permitted if
planting within the Critical Root
Zone of existing trees
Canopy Shade Tree as
a street tree on a
1.25" caliper container or
equivalent
DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
6
Residential Local
Street Only
Any tree plantings that are in addition to those that are made as part of the approved
landscape plan are exempt from the foregoing size requirements.
. . .
(F) Tree Protection Preservation and Mitigation Replacement. Existing significant trees (6-
inches and greater in diameter) within the LOD and within natural habitat area buffer zones
shall be preserved to the extent reasonably feasible and may help satisfy the landscaping
requirements of this Section as set forth above. Such trees shall be considered "protected"
trees within the meaning of this Section, subject to the exceptions contained in subsection
(2) below. Streets, buildings and lot layouts shall be designed to minimize the disturbance
to significant existing trees. All required landscape plans shall accurately identify the
locations, species, size and condition of all significant trees, each labeled showing the
applicant's intent to either remove, transplant or protect.
Where it is not feasible to protect and retain significant existing tree(s) or to transplant
them to another on-site location, the applicant shall replace such tree(s) according to the
following schedule and requirements and shall. Replacement trees shall be used to satisfy
the tree planting standards of this Section. To the extent reasonably feasible, Rreplacement
trees shall be planted either on the development site or, if not reasonably feasible, in the
closest available and suitable planting site on public or private property. The closest
available and suitable planting site shall be selected within one-half (½) mile (2,640 feet)
of the development site, subject to the following exceptions. If suitable planting sites for
all of the replacementmitigation trees are not available within one-half (½) mile (2,640
feet) of the development, then the planting site shall be selected within one (1) mile (5,280
feet) of the development site. If suitable planting sites are not available for all of the
mitigation trees within one (1) mile (5,280 feet) of the development site, then the City
Forester shall determine the most suitable planting location within the City's boundaries as
close to the development site as feasible. If locations for planting replacement trees cannot
be located within one-half mile of the development site, the applicant may, instead of
planting such replacement trees, submit a payment in lieu to the City of Fort Collins
Forestry Division to be used to plant replacement trees to plant replacement trees as close
to the development site as possible. The payment in lieu mitigation fee per tree is
determined by the City Forester and may be adjusted annually based on market rates.
Payment must be submitted prior to the Development Construction Permit issuance or
other required permits.
(1) A significant tree that is removed shall be replaced with not less than one (1) or
more than six (6) replacement trees sufficient to mitigate the loss of contribution
and value of the removed significant tree(s). Notwithstanding the foregoing,
significant Siberian elm, and Russian-olive and ash trees located in a natural habitat
buffer found to contain ecological value, as provided in paragraph 3.4.1(D)(1) of
this Code, shall be mitigated in accordance with subparagraph 3.4.1(E)(2)(b) of this
Code. The applicant shall select either the coordinate with the City Forester or a
DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
7
qualified landscape appraiser to determine such loss based upon an onsite tree
assessment appraisal, including, but not limited to, shade, canopy, condition, size,
aesthetic, environmental and ecological value of the tree(s) to be removed. and by
using the species and location criteria in the most recent published Guide for Plant
aAppraisal guide by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers. Replacement
trees shall meet the following minimum size requirements unless otherwise
determined by the City Forester:
(a) Canopy Shade Trees: 32.00" caliper balled and burlap or equivalent.
(b) Ornamental Trees: 2.50" caliper balled and burlap or equivalent.
(c) Evergreen Trees: 8' height balled and burlap or equivalent.
(2) Trees that meet one (1) or more of the following removal criteria shall be exempt
from the requirements of this subsection unless they meet mitigation requirements
provided in paragraph 3.4.1(D)(1) of this Code:
. . .
(c) Siberian elm less than eleven (11) inches DBH and Russian-olive or ash
(Fraxinus species) less than eight (8) inches DBH;
(d) Russian-olive, and Siberian elm, and ash (all Fraxinus species) of wild or
volunteer origin, such as those that have sprouted from seed along fence
lines, near structures or in other unsuitable locations;
(e) Russian-olive, and Siberian elm, and ash (all Fraxinus species) determined
by the City Forester to be in poor condition.
. . .
(G) Tree Protection Specifications. The following tree protection specifications shallould be
followed to the maximum extent feasible for all projects with protected existing trees. Tree
protection methods shall be delineated on the demolition plans and development plans.
. . .
(2) All protected existing trees shall be pruned to the City of Fort Collins Forestry
Division standards.
(3) Prior to and during construction, barriers shall be erected around all protected
existing trees with such barriers to be of orange construction or chain link fencing
a minimum of four (4) feet in height, secured with metal T-posts, no closer than six
(6) feet from the trunk or one-half (½) of the drip line, whichever is greater.
Concrete blankets, or equivalent padding material, wrapped around the tree trunk(s)
DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
8
is recommended and adequate for added protection during construction. There shall
be no storage or movement of equipment, material, debris or fill within the fenced
tree protection zone. A tree protection plan must be submitted to and approved by
the City Forester prior to any development occurring on the development site.
. . .
(7) The installation of utilities, irrigation lines or any underground fixture requiring
excavation deeper than six (6) inches shall be accomplished by boring under the
root system of protected existing trees at a minimum depth of twenty-four (24)
inches. The auger distance is established from the face of the tree (outer bark) and
is scaled from tree diameter at breast height as described in the chart below. Low
pressure hydro excavation, air spading or hand digging are additional
tools/practices that will help reduce impact to the tree(s) root system when
excavating at depths of twenty-four (24) inches or less. Refer to the Critical Root
Zone (CRZ) diagram, Figure 2, for root protection guidelines. The CRZ shall be
incorporated into and shown on development plans for all existing trees to be
preserved.
Tree Diameter at Breast
Height (inches)
Auger Distance From
Face of Tree (feet)
0-2 1
3-4 2
5-9 5
10-14 10
15-19 12
Over 19 15
Figure 2
Critical Root Zone Diagram
DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
9
(H) Placement and Interrelationship of Required Landscape Plan Elements. In approving
the required landscape plan, the decision maker shall have the authority to determine the
optimum placement and interrelationship of required landscape plan elements such as trees,
vegetation, turf, irrigation, screening, buffering and fencing, based on the following
criteria:
. . .
(4) creating visual interest year-round;
. . .
(I) Landscape Materials, Maintenance and Replacement.
. . .
(8) Restricted Species. City Forestry Division shall provide a list of specified tree
species that shall not be planted within the limits of development and adjoining
street right-of-way. For example, no ash trees (Fraxinus species) shall be planted
due to the anticipated impacts of the emerald ash borer.
(9) Prohibited species. For prohibited species reference Chapter 27, Article II, Division
1, Sec. 27-18 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code.
DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
10
. . .
Section 7. That Section 3.2.1(K) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(K) Utilities and Traffic. Landscape, utility and traffic plans shall be coordinated. The
following list sets forth minimum dimension requirements for the most common tree/utility
and traffic control device separations. Exceptions to these requirements may occur where
utilities or traffic control devices are not located in their standard designated locations, as
approved by the Director. Tree/utility and traffic control device separations shall not be
used as a means of avoiding the planting of required street trees.
(1) Forty (40) feet between shade trees and streetlights. Fifteen (15) feet between
ornamental trees and streetlights. (See Figure 23.)
Figure 23
Tree/Streetlight Separations
(2) Twenty (20) feet between shade and/or ornamental trees and traffic control signs
and devicesMinimum of fifty (50) feet between street trees and stop/yield signs and
traffic signals.
. . .
Section 8. That Section 3.2.4(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
3.2.4 Site Lighting
. . .
(D) Design Standards. The lighting plan shall meet the following design standards:
DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
11
. . .
(5) Light sources must minimize contrast with the light produced by
surrounding uses and must produce an unobtrusive degree of brightness in
both illumination levels and color rendition. Incandescent and high-
pressure sodium light sources all can provide adequate illumination with
low contrast and brightness and are permitted light sources.
(11) All lighting shall have a nominal correlated color temperature (CCT) of
no greater than three thousand (3,000) degrees Kelvin.
Section 9. That Section 3.3.2(E)(1)(e) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
(E) Required Improvements Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
. . .
(e) Drainage. The construction of stormwater drainage facilities required by the
approved Development Plan Documents must be consistent with the Stormwater
Criteria Manual as it may be modified from time to time. Such stormwater drainage
facility must be verified by an authorized City inspector at the appropriate phases
of construction activities as specified in the Development Certification Checklist
issued by Water Utilities Engineering and available on the City of Fort Collins
website. from the Department, including but not limited to the following:
(1) Porous Pavers:
(a) Installation must be verified via inspection by an authorized City
inspector at the point of installation of the outlet, underdrain,
geomembrane layer, if included in whole or in part in the design
detail set forth in the Development Plan Documents, and sub-base
course.
(b) Installation of this facility must be verified via inspection by an
authorized City inspector at the point of installation of the pavers
and joint fill material.
(2) Bioretention Cells, Rain Gardens, and/or Sand Filters:
(a) Installation of this facility was verified via inspection by an
authorized City inspector at the point of installation of the outlet,
underdrain and geomembrane layer, if included in whole or in part
in the design detail set forth in the Development Plan Documents,
and base course.
DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
12
(b) Installation of this facility was verified via inspection by an
authorized City inspector at the point of installation of the pea gravel
course and sand or growing media layer course.
(3) Extended Detention Basins: Installation of this facility was verified via
inspection by an authorized City inspector at the point of installation of the
water quality control box(es).
(4) Underground Treatment: Installation of this facility was verified via
inspection by an authorized City inspector at the point at which the feature
is installed but not buried.
In the event of non-compliance, the City shall have the option to withhold building
permits and/or certificates of occupancy or use any other legal remedy that may be
provided in the City Code, the Land Use Code and/or the Development Agreement,
as determined appropriate to ensure that the Developer properly installs all privately
owned stormwater improvements associated with the development as specified in
the Development Plan Documents.
In addition, a “Drainage Certification” prepared by a Professional Engineer
licensed in the State of Colorado must be provided. The “Certification” must
confirm to the City that all stormwater drainage facilities required to serve the
property have been constructed in conformance with the approved Development
Plan Documents so as to protect downstream property and the quality of
Stormwater runoff from the property to comply with the City’s Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer System permit. Such certification must be in the form required by the
City’s Stormwater Criteria Manual and Construction Standards.
. . .
Section 10. That Section 3.3.5 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
3.3.5 - Engineering Design Standards
The project must comply with all design standards, requirements and specifications for the
following services as certified by the appropriate agency or variances must be granted by such
agency:
• water supply
• sanitary sewer
• mass transit
• fire protection
• flood hazard areas
• telephone
• walks/bikeways
DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
13
• irrigation companies
• electricity
• natural gas
• storm drainage
• cable television
• streets/pedestrians
• broadband/fiber optic
Section 11. That Section 3.4.1(D)(1)(e) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
3.4.1 Natural Habitats and Features
. . .
(D) Ecological Characterization and Natural Habitat or Feature Boundary
Definition. The boundary of any natural habitat or feature shown on the Natural
Habitats and Features Inventory Map is only approximate. The actual boundary
of any area to be shown on a project development shall be proposed by the applicant
and established by the Director through site evaluations and reconnaissance, and
shall be based on the ecological characterization of the natural habitat or feature in
conjunction with the map.
(1) Ecological Characterization Study. If the development site contains, or is
within five hundred (500) feet of, a natural habitat or feature, or if it is
determined by the Director, upon information or from inspection, that the
site likely includes areas with wildlife, plant life and/or other natural
characteristics in need of protection, then the developer shall provide to the
City an ecological characterization report prepared by a professional
qualified in the areas of ecology, wildlife biology or other relevant
discipline. At least ten (10) working days prior to the submittal of a project
development plan application for all or any portion of a property, a
comprehensive ecological characterization study of the entire property must
be prepared by a qualified consultant and submitted to the City for review.
The Director may waive any or all of the following elements of this
requirement if the City already possesses adequate information required by
this subsection to establish the buffer zone(s), as set forth in subsection (E)
below, and the limits of development ("LOD"), as set forth in subsection
(N) below. The ecological characterization study shall describe, without
limitation, the following:
. . .
(e) the pattern, species and location of all non-native trees and any
significant non-native trees, including Siberian elm and Russian
olive trees, as described in paragraph 3.2.1(F)(1) of this Code, and
DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
14
non-native vegetation that contribute to the site's ecological, shade,
canopy, aesthetic and cooling value;
. . .
Section 12. That Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
3.4.1 Natural Habitats and Features
. . .
(E) Establishment of Buffer Zones. Buffer zones surrounding natural habitats and
features shall be shown on the project development plan for any development that
is subject to this Division. The purpose of the buffer zones is to protect the
ecological character of natural habitats and features from the impacts of the
ongoing activity associated with the development.
(1) Buffer Zone Performance Standards. The decision maker shall determine
the buffer zones for each natural habitat or feature contained in the project
site. The buffer zones may be multiple and noncontiguous. The general
buffer zone distance is established according to the buffer zone table
below, but the decision maker may shall reduce or enlarge any portion of
the general buffer zone distance so long as the reduced buffer complies
with, if necessary in order to ensure that the performance standards set
forth below are achieved. To mitigate a reduced portion of the buffer area,
the decision maker may also enlarge any portion of the general buffer zone
distance if necessary to ensure that the buffer complies with the
performance standards set forth below. The buffer zone performance
standards are as follows:
. . .
(c) The project shall be designed to preserve significant existing trees
and other significant existing vegetation on the site. that contribute
to the site’s ecological, shade, canopy, aesthetic, habitat and cooling
value. Notwithstanding the requirements of Section 3.2.1(F), all
trees and vegetation within the Limits of Development must be
preserved or, if necessary, mitigated based on the values established
by the Ecological Characterization Study or the City Environmental
Planner. Such mitigation, if necessary, shall include trees, shrubs,
grasses, or any combination thereof, and must be planted within the
buffer zone.
. . .
DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
15
Section 13. That Section 3.5.2(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new subparagraph (3) which reads in its entirety as follows:
(D) Relationship of Dwelling to Streets and Parking.
. . .
(3) At least one door providing direct access for emergency responders from the
outside into each individual single family attached dwelling must be located within
one hundred fifty (150) feet from the closest emergency access easement or
designated fire lane as measured along paved walkways. Neither an exterior nor
interior garage door shall satisfy this requirement.
Section 14. That Section 3.8.17(A)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
3.8.17 Building Height
. . .
(2) Building Height Measured in Stories. In measuring the height of a building in
stories the following measurement rules shall apply:
(a) A balcony or mezzanine shall be counted as a full story when its floor area
is in excess of one-third (1/3) of the total area of the nearest full floor
directly below it.
(b) No story of a commercial or industrial residential building shall have more
than twenty-five (25) feet from floor to floor.
(c) A maximum vertical height of twelve (12) feet eight (8) inches shall be
permitted for each residential story. This maximum vertical height shall
apply only in the following zone districts: U-E; R-F; R-L; L-M-N; M-M-N;
N-C-L; N-C-M; N-C-B; R-C; C-C-N; N-C; and H-C.
. . .
Section 15. That Section 4.4(B)(3)(e) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new subparagraph (e) to read as follows:
. . .
(3) The following uses are permitted in the R-L District, subject to review by the
Planning and Zoning Board:
. . .
(e) Accessory / Miscellaneous Uses:
DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
16
1. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities.
. . .
Section 16. That Section 4.4(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new subparagraph (4) which reads in its entirety as follows:
(4) Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. Wireless telecommunications facilities
must be located on a non-residential parcel and installation must be mitigated by
use of stealth techniques such as steeples, bell towers, grain silos, and the like.
Section 17. That Section 4.7 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
DIVISION 4.7 Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L)
(D) Land Use Standards.
. . .
(2) Allowable Floor Area on Lots.
(a) The allowable floor area shall be as follows:
. . .
2. On a lot that is between five thousand (5,000) square feet and ten
thousand (10,000) square feet, the allowable floor area for single-
family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family dwellings
shall not exceed twenty (20) percent of the lot area plus one
thousand (1,000) square feet. On a lot that is between six thousand
(6,000) square feet and ten thousand (10,000) square feet.
3. On a lot that is more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, the
allowable floor area for single-family dwellings and buildings
accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed thirty (30)
percent, plus two hundred fifty (250) square feet for a detached
accessory structure.
. . .
(5) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future Habitable Space).
Any accessory building with water and/or sewer service shall be considered to have
habitable space. Any person applying for a building permit for such a building shall
DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
17
sign and record with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder an affidavit stating
that such accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit. All applicable
building permits issued for such buildings shall be conditioned upon this
prohibition. Any such structure containing habitable space that is located behind a
street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of six hundred (600)
square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space within the basement
and ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a
ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet and basement floor area where
any exterior basement wall is exposed by more than three (3) feet above the existing
grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall. Such accessory building may
be located in any area of the rear portion of a lot, provided that it complies with the
setback requirements of this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation
between structures.
(6) Accessory Buildings Without Habitable Space. Any accessory building without
water and/or sewer service, which has not been declared to contain habitable space
by the applicant, shall not exceed a total floor area of six hundred (600) square feet.
Floor area shall include all floor space (including basement space) within the
ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story building having
a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet and basement floor area
where any exterior basement wall is exposed by more than three (3) feet above the
existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall.
(E) Dimensional Standards.
. . .
(5) Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case of a detached
dwelling unit at the rear of the lotfor carriage houses and accessory buildings
containing habitable space, which shall be a maximum of one and one-half (1½)
stories.
(F) Development Standards.
. . .
(2) Bulk and Massing
(a) Building Height.
1. Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case
of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot carriage houses and
accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be a
maximum of one and one-half (1 1/2) stories.
. . .
DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
18
(b) Eave Height.
1. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not
exceed thirteen (13) feet from grade for a dwelling unit located at
the rear of the lot or an accessory building with habitable space. An
eave of a dormer or similar architectural feature may exceed thirteen
(13) feet if set back two (2) feet from the wall below and does not
exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the wall length.
2. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not
exceed ten (10) feet from grade for an accessory building containing
no habitable space. An eave of a dormer or similar architectural
feature may exceed ten (10) feet if set back two (feet) from the wall
below and does not exceed 25% of the wall length.
3. The maximum eave height is measured at the minimum setback
from an interior side-yard lot line and can be increased at a ratio of
six (6) inches of additional building height for each one (1) foot of
setback from the interior side property line.
34. If a second story has an exterior wall that is set back from the lower
story's exterior wall, the eave height shall be the point of an
imaginary line at which the upper story's roofline (if extended
horizontally) would intersect with the lower story's exterior wall (if
extended vertically).
DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
19
. . .
Section 18. That Section 4.8 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
DIVISION 4.8 Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District
. . .
(D) Land Use Standards.
(1) Required Lot Area. Minimum lot area shall not be less than the following: five
thousand (5,000) square feet for a single-family or two-family dwelling and six
thousand (6,000) square feet for all other uses.
(2) Allowable Floor Area on Lots.
(a) The allowable floor area shall be as follows:
1. On a lot of less than four thousand (4,000) square feet, the allowable
floor area for single-family dwellings and buildings accessory to
single-family dwellings shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the lot
area.
224’
DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
20
2. On a lot that is between four thousand (4,000) square feet and ten
thousand (10,000) square feet, the allowable floor area for single-
family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family dwellings
shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the lot area plus one
thousand (1,000) square feet. On a lot that is between six thousand
(6,000) square feet and ten thousand (10,000) square feet, an
additional two hundred fifty (250) square feet shall be added for a
detached accessory structure.
3. On a lot that is more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, the
allowable floor area for single-family dwellings and buildings
accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed thirty-five
(35) percent of the lot area, plus two hundred fifty (250) square feet
for a detached accessory building.
4. The allowable floor area for buildings containing permitted uses
other than single-family dwellings and buildings accessory to
single-family dwellings shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the lot
area.
. . .
(5) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future Habitable Space).
Any accessory building with water and/or sewer service shall be considered to have
habitable space. Any person applying for a building permit for such a building shall
sign and record with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder an affidavit stating
that such accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit. All building
permits issued for such buildings shall be conditioned upon this prohibition. Any
such structure containing habitable space that is located behind a street-fronting
principal building shall contain a maximum of six hundred (600) square feet of
floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space within the basement and ground
floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height
of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet and basement floor area where any exterior
basement wall is exposed by more than three (3) feet above the existing grade at
the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall. Such accessory building may be
located in any area of the rear portion of a lot, provided that it complies with the
setback requirements of this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation
between structures.
(6) Accessory Buildings Without Habitable Space. Any accessory building without
water and/or sewer service, which has not been declared to contain habitable space
by the applicant, shall not exceed a total floor area of six hundred (600) square feet.
Floor area shall include all floor space (including basement space) within the
ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story building having
a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet and basement floor area
DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
21
where any exterior basement wall is exposed by more than three (3) feet above the
existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall.
. . .
(E) Dimensional Standards.
. . .
(5) Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case of a detached
dwelling unit at the rear of the lot for carriage houses and accessory buildings
containing habitable space, which shall be limited to one and one-half (1 1/2)
stories.
(F) Development Standards.
. . .
(2) Bulk and Massing.
(a) Building Height.
1. Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case
of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot for carriage houses
and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be
limited to one and one-half (1 1/2) stories.
. . .
(b) Eave Height.
1. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not
exceed thirteen (13) feet from grade for a dwelling unit located at
the rear of the lot or an accessory building with habitable space. An
eave of a dormer or similar architectural feature may exceed thirteen
(13) feet if set back two (2) feet from the wall below and does not
exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the wall length.
2. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not
exceed ten (10) feet from grade for an accessory building containing
no habitable space. An eave of a dormer or similar architectural
feature may exceed ten (10) feet if set back two (2) feet from the
wall below and does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the wall
length.
3. The maximum eave height is measured at the minimum setback
from an interior side-yard lot line and can be increased at a ratio of
DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
22
six (6) inches of additional building height for each one (1) foot of
setback from the interior side property line.
34. If a second story has an exterior wall that is set back from the lower
story's exterior wall, the eave height shall be the point of an
imaginary line at which the upper story's roofline (if extended
horizontally) would intersect with the lower story's exterior wall (if
extended vertically).
. . .
Section 19. That Section 4.9 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
DIVISION 4.9 Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District (N-C-B)
. . .
(D) Land Use Standards.
. . .
(3) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future Habitable Space).
Any accessory building with water and/or sewer service shall be considered to have
habitable space. An applicant may also declare an intent for an accessory building
to contain habitable space. Any person applying for a building permit for such a
building shall sign and record with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder an
affidavit stating that such accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit.
All building permits issued for such buildings shall be conditioned upon this
prohibition. Any such structure containing habitable space that is located behind a
street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum six hundred (600)
square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space within the basement
and ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a
ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet and basement floor area where
any exterior basement wall is exposed by more than three (3) feet above the existing
grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall. Such accessory building may
be located in any area of the rear portion of a lot, provided that it complies with the
setback requirements of this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation
between structures.
(4) Accessory Building without Habitable Space. Any accessory building without
water and/or sewer service, which has not been declared to contain habitable space
by the applicant, shall not exceed a total floor area of six hundred (600) square feet.
Floor area shall include all floor space (including basement space) within ground
floor plus that portion of floor area of any second story the building having a ceiling
height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet and basement floor area where any
DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
23
exterior basement wall is exposed by more than three (3) feet above the existing
grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall.
. . .
(E) Development Standards.
(1) Building Design.
. . .
(e) Front porches shall be limited to one (1) story, and the front facades of all
single- and two-family dwellings shall be no higher than two (2) stories,
except in the case of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot for
carriage houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which
shall be limited to one and one-half (1 1/2) stories.
. . .
(2) Bulk and Massing.
(a) Building Height.
1. Maximum building height shall be three (3) stories, except in the
case of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot for carriage
houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which
shall be limited to one and one-half (1 1/2) stories.
. . .
(b) Eave Height.
1. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not
exceed thirteen (13) feet from grade for a dwelling unit located at
the rear of the lot or an accessory building with habitable space. An
eave of a dormer or similar architectural feature may exceed thirteen
(13) feet if set back two (2) feet from the wall below and does not
exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the wall length.
2. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not
exceed ten (10) feet from grade for an accessory building containing
no habitable space. An eave of a dormer or similar architectural
feature may exceed ten (10) feet if set back two (2) feet from the
wall below and does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the wall
length.
3. The maximum eave height is measured at the minimum setback
from an interior side-yard lot line and can be increased at a ratio of
DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
24
six (6) inches of additional building height for each one (1) foot of
setback from the interior side property line.
34. If a second story has an exterior wall that is set back from the lower
story's exterior wall, the eave height shall be the point of an
imaginary line at which the upper story's roofline (if extended
horizontally) would intersect with the lower story's exterior wall (if
extended vertically).
. . .
Section 20. That Section 4.22(B)(2)(c)28 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(c) Commercial/Retail Uses:
. . .
28. Enclosed mini-storage facilities, if located at least two hundred
(200) feet from North College Avenue or one hundred fifty (150)
feet from South College Avenue.
. . .
Section 24. That the definition “Neighborhood center” contained in Section 5.1.2 of the
Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Neighborhood center shall mean a combination of at least two (2) nonresidentialuses and
an outdoor space, which together provide a focal point and a year-round meeting place
for a Low Density Mixed-Use Nneighborhood as listed in the Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood zone district.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this ___ day of
____, A.D. 2019, and to be presented for final passage on the ___ day of _____, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on this _____ day of ____, A.D. 2019.
DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
25
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
!
"
!"
#
$! $
#!!
%
%
%
! !
&'
&
$&#
0DLQ/HYHO
(
5RRI%HDU
J
(
)RXQGDWLRQ
(
*DUDJH/HYHO
1
8SSHU/HYHO
1
8SSHU5RRI
%HDU
J
1
8SSHU/HYHO
%HDU
J
1
)5217325&+
(
5(6,'(1&(
1
$'',7,21
1
522)727,(,1
1
$'',7,21
6287+6,'(6(7
%$&./,1(
(
0DLQ/HYHO
(
5RRI%HDU
J
(
)RXQGDWLRQ
(
*DUDJH/HYHO
1
8SSHU/HYHO
1
8SSHU5RRI
%HDU
J
1
8SSHU/HYHO
%HDU
J
(
5(6,'(1&(
%(<21'
1
)5217
325&+ 1
*$5$*(,1 (
*$5$*()22735,17
(
0DLQ/HYHO
(
5RRI%HDU
J
(
)RXQGDWLRQ
(
*DUDJH/HYHO
1
8SSHU/HYHO
1
8SSHU5RRI
%HDU
J
1
8SSHU/HYHO
%HDU
J
1
*$5$*(,1 (
*$5$*()22735,17
(
5(6,'(1&(
1
$'',7,21
(
0DLQ/HYHO
(
5RRI%HDU
J
(
)RXQGDWLRQ
(
*DUDJH/HYHO
1
8SSHU/HYHO
1
8SSHU5RRI
%HDU
J
1
8SSHU/HYHO
%HDU
J
1
*$5$*(,1
(
*$5$*(
)22735,17
(
5(6,'(1&(
1
$'',7,21522)
1
)5217325&+
ALL DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS,
PLANS, IDEAS, ARRANGEMENTS,
AND DESIGNS REPRESENTED OR
REFERRED TO ARE THE PROPERTY
OF AND OWNED BY TOMLINSON
DESIGNS, INC. WHETHER THE
PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE
MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. THEY
WERE CREATED, EVOLVED,
DEVELOPED AND PRODUCED FOR
THE SOLE USE ON AND IN
CONNECTION WITH THIS PROJECT
AND NONE OF THE ABOVE MAY BE
DISCLOSED OR GIVEN TO OR USED
BY ANY PERSON, FIRM, OR
CORPORATION FOR ANY USE OR
PURPOSE WHATSOEVER
INCLUDING ANY OTHER PROJECT,
EXCEPT
UPON WRITTEN PERMISSION OF
TOMLINSON DESIGNS, INC.
COPYRIGHT 2019
TOMLINSON DESIGNS, INC.
SHEET
COPYRIGHT 2019 TOMLINSON DESIGNS, INC.
PROJECT:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
ISSUE DATE:
REVISIONS:
Tomlinson Designs, Inc.
1241 Riverside Ave, Ste 200
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
970.372.0965 phone
866.353.5225 fax
info@tomlinsondesigns.com
www.tomlinsondesigns.com
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
A-3.1
([WHULRU
(OHYDWLRQV
Clements
Addition
112 S Grant Ave
Fort Collins, CO
PROJECT 1819
KP, ST
ST
05/14/2019
VARIANCE SUBMITTAL
05/14/2019
VARIANCE SUBMITTAL
&OHPHQWV$GGLWLRQ
May 14, 2019
:6FDOH HVW( OHYDWLRQ
6FDOH 6RXWK(
OHYDWLRQ
6FDOH (DVW( OHYDWLRQ
6FDOH 1RUWK(
OHYDWLRQ
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
/LYLQJ
5RRP
6)
0XG/DXQGU\
5RRP
6)
(
*DUDJH
6)
(
6WDLU
6)
)URQW
3RUFK
$//2:('6) 6)
(;,67,1*5(6,'(1&( 6)
5(%8,/'*$5$*( 67$,5 6)
352326('.,7&+(1$'',7,21 6)
352326('8367$,56$'',7,21 6)
727$/ 6)
1
522)
29(5+$1*$%29(
+DOI
/LWH
+$1*,1*
6)
%DWK
6)
(
%HGURRP
6)
(
%HGURRP
2IILFH
5() 3$175<
&2817(5
6)
.LWFKHQ
(
%8,/7,172
5(0$,1
+22.6
79 %8,/7,16
(
),5(3/$&(
&2817(5
&2817(5
&2817(5
%(1&+
3RFNHW
[
7$%/(
[
6KRZHU
[
6KRZHU
%(1&+
&2817(5
6.</,*+7
$%29(
3RFNHW
7RS
5DLO
6OLGHU
[
)UHH
6WDQGLQJ
7XE
6)
0DVWHU
%HGURRP
6)
0DVWHU
%DWK
6)
0DVWHU
&ORVHW
/,1(7<3(/(*(1'
(
:$//
'(02 (
:$//
1(::$//
'(02 (
27+(5
',$*21$/
+$7&+('$5($6
,1',&$7(12:25.
'21(,17+,663$&(
ALL DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS,
PLANS, IDEAS, ARRANGEMENTS,
AND DESIGNS REPRESENTED OR
REFERRED TO ARE THE PROPERTY
OF AND OWNED BY TOMLINSON
DESIGNS, INC. WHETHER THE
PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE
MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. THEY
WERE CREATED, EVOLVED,
DEVELOPED AND PRODUCED FOR
THE SOLE USE ON AND IN
CONNECTION WITH THIS PROJECT
AND NONE OF THE ABOVE MAY BE
DISCLOSED OR GIVEN TO OR USED
BY ANY PERSON, FIRM, OR
CORPORATION FOR ANY USE OR
PURPOSE WHATSOEVER
INCLUDING ANY OTHER PROJECT,
EXCEPT
UPON WRITTEN PERMISSION OF
TOMLINSON DESIGNS, INC.
COPYRIGHT 2019
TOMLINSON DESIGNS, INC.
SHEET
COPYRIGHT 2019 TOMLINSON DESIGNS, INC.
PROJECT:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
ISSUE DATE:
REVISIONS:
Tomlinson Designs, Inc.
1241 Riverside Ave, Ste 200
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
970.372.0965 phone
866.353.5225 fax
info@tomlinsondesigns.com
www.tomlinsondesigns.com
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
A-2.1
)ORRU3ODQV
Clements
Addition
112 S Grant Ave
Fort Collins, CO
PROJECT 1819
KP
ST
05/14/2019
VARIANCE SUBMITTAL
05/14/2019
VARIANCE SUBMITTAL
&OHPHQWV$GGLWLRQ
May 14, 2019
6FDOH 0DLQ/ HYHO)ORRU3ODQ
6FDOH 8SSHU/ HYHO)ORRU3ODQ
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
(
(
(
(
5(6,'(1&(
6)
5<6%
)<6%
6<6%
6<6%
3266,%/(
6)
3266,%/(
6)
3266,%/(
6)
3266,%/(
6)
7$//(67+(,*+7
$76(7%$&.
7$//(67+(,*+7
$76(7%$&.
&/
&/
90° 00' 00"
60.00'
N E
0° 00' 00"
70.00'
N E
0° 00' 00"
70.00'
S W
90° 00' 00"
60.00'
N W
5(029(' (
$'',7,21 6)
5(029(' (
$'',7,21 6)
6*5$17$9(
727$/6,7($5($6)
$//2:$%/(6) 2)6,7($5($
&855(17727$/6) 6)
(
5(6,'(1&( 6)
(
&/26(',1325&+ 6)
(
0%('$'',7,21 6)
(
*$5$*( 6)
$'',7,21$/6)$//2:(' 6)
6)2)$//2:(',15($5+$/)2)/27
f &855(17/<6),15($53257,212)/27
f :,//1(('$9$5,$1&(72$''$1<$'',7,21$/
6)725($5+$/)2)/27
&855(17*$5$*(,15($56(7%$&. :,//1(('
9$5,$1&(725(%8,/'
3(5',6&866,216:,7+6758&785$/$1'*&,7,6
0267&267())(&7,9(72%8,/'21726,'(62)
+286(963233,1*723
3(5&,7<2))257&2//,1667250:$7(5
(1*,1((50$5.7$</25 /(77(52)0$3
$0(1'0(17&203/(7(' 2872))/22'3/$,1
3(5&,7<127,1',9,'8$//<(/,*,%/()25+,6725,&
/$1'0$5.'(6,*1$7,21
(
352326('6)$'-8670(176
(;,67,1*5(6,'(1&( 6)
5(%8,/'*$5$*( 67$,5 6)
352326('.,7&+(1$'',7,21 6)
352326('8367$,56$'',7,21 6)
727$/ 6)
SOUTH GRANT AVE
ALLEY
(
(
(
(
5(6,'(1&(
6)
5<6%
)<6%
6<6%
6<6%
7$//(67+(,*+7
$76(7%$&.
7$//(67+(,*+7
$76(7%$&.
&/
&/
90° 00' 00"
60.00'
N E
0° 00' 00"
70.00'
N E
0° 00' 00"
70.00'
S W
90° 00' 00"
60.00'
N W
(
352326('$'',7,21
6)
352326('
*$5$*(,1
(
)22735,17
6)
1
352326('
)5217325&+
6)
$'',7,21$/6)72
$//2:)256758&785$/
)281'$7,21
ALL DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS,
PLANS, IDEAS, ARRANGEMENTS,
AND DESIGNS REPRESENTED OR
REFERRED TO ARE THE PROPERTY
OF AND OWNED BY TOMLINSON
DESIGNS, INC. WHETHER THE
PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE
MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. THEY
WERE CREATED, EVOLVED,
DEVELOPED AND PRODUCED FOR
THE SOLE USE ON AND IN
CONNECTION WITH THIS PROJECT
AND NONE OF THE ABOVE MAY BE
DISCLOSED OR GIVEN TO OR USED
BY ANY PERSON, FIRM, OR
CORPORATION FOR ANY USE OR
PURPOSE WHATSOEVER
INCLUDING ANY OTHER PROJECT,
EXCEPT
UPON WRITTEN PERMISSION OF
TOMLINSON DESIGNS, INC.
COPYRIGHT 2019
TOMLINSON DESIGNS, INC.
SHEET
COPYRIGHT 2019 TOMLINSON DESIGNS, INC.
PROJECT:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
ISSUE DATE:
REVISIONS:
Tomlinson Designs, Inc.
1241 Riverside Ave, Ste 200
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
970.372.0965 phone
866.353.5225 fax
info@tomlinsondesigns.com
www.tomlinsondesigns.com
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
A-1.1
([LVWLQJ
3URSRVHG6LWH
3ODQV
Clements
Addition
112 S Grant Ave
Fort Collins, CO
PROJECT 1819
ST
ST
05/14/2019
VARIANCE SUBMITTAL
05/14/2019
VARIANCE SUBMITTAL
&OHPHQWV$GGLWLRQ
May 14, 2019
6FDOH (
6LWH3ODQ
6FDOH 3URSRVHG6LWH3ODQ
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE