HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 05/16/2000 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 59, 2000, MAKING VA AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 17
DATE: May 16, 2000
. FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF:
Ted Shepard
SUBJECT:
First Reading of Ordinance No. 59,2000,Making Various Amendments to the City of Fort Collins
Land Use Code.
i
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
d
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Staff has identified a variety of proposed changes,additions and clarifications in the Spring biannual
update of the Land Use Code. On May 4, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 7-0 to
* recommend adoption of the proposed changes to City Council.
ACKGROUND:
The Land Use Code was first adopted in March of 1997. Subsequent revisions have been made on
a biannual basis to make changes, additions, deletions and clarifications that have been identified
in the preceding six months. The proposed changes are offered in order to resolve implementation
issues and to continuously improve the "user-friendliness" of the Code. Following is a brief
synopsis of three substantive issues. A summary of all the issues follows the Ordinance.
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES:
1. Amend the"maximum"parking standard for"General Office"of 3.0 spaces per 1,000 square
feet of gross leasable area.
Problem Statement:
The "General Office" land use is required to not exceed a maximum of 3.0 spaces/1,000 sq. ft.
Office developers and tenants have indicated that the present maximum is too restrictive and should
be raised. The latest trend in office development is to provide more employees per square foot than
in the past. This is accomplished by efficiencies in office modules and equipment.
Proposed Solution:
The proposed solution is to apply performance standards to increase the amount of parking in the
Harmony Corridor zone only. The objective is to allow an increase in parking and yet at the same
DATE: 2 ITEM NUMBER: 17
time try to influence typical low-rise suburban office park design so that the principles of new
urbanism can be implemented.
The ratio of 3.0 can be raised to a maximum of 4.5(which matches the ratio allowed for the"medical
office"category)based on satisfying a range of performance criteria. There would be two ways to
raise the parking maximum:
Raise the ratio by 1.5 by constructing a parking structure capable of containing at least as many
spaces as would be the difference between 3.0 and 4.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.
Or, in lieu of a parking structure,provide any of the following three performance standards, either
individually or in combination,each worth a.5 raise in the ratio with the possible maximum being
capped at 4.5 spaces/1,000 sq. ft.:
Raise the ratio by .5 by providing no more than 50%of the total parking between the front door and
the street(as defined by big box standards).
Raise the ratio by .5 by providing at least 50% of the total parking at the rear of the building (as
defined in big box standards).
Raise the ratio by.5 by providing parking lot perimeter landscaping in excess of what is required in
3.2.1 (Landscaping) by 50%.
2. Adopt new standards and permitting for stockpiling dirt prior to approval of a P.D.P. (Project
Development Plan) and modify the definition of"development' accordingly.
Problem Statement:
Presently,the City experiences frequent problems with developers and their contractors wanting to
stockpile currently available fill dirt on development sites and other properties in anticipation of
future developments. The Land Use Code defines stockpiling of fill material as "development,"
thereby requiring the approval of a P.D.P. prior to stockpiling. The opportunities to acquire fill
material, however, do not always coincide with the timing for development. Therefore, a process
to allow for controlled stockpiling of fill material is needed to provide flexibility for the optimum
use of fill resources.
Proposed Solution:
Staff proposes to initiate a Stockpiling Permit that would allow for stockpiling of fill materials on
property prior to any development. The permit process would set up controlled conditions to keep
stockpiling from being a nuisance or a hazard for the public. It is proposed that the City Engineer
issue the permit and coordinate the input from all other departments. Since the majority of the
impact from stockpiling involves erosion control, the Erosion Control Inspector would do the
necessary inspection. The following are examples of the kinds of requirements the City Engineer
might impose as a condition of allowing stockpiling:
• Prevent the fill from being placed in a floodway, floodplain or other drainage area;
• Require limited grading of the stockpile to stabilize the stockpile and prevent erosion from
wind and water;
Protect natural habitats and features;
DATE: ITEM NUMBER-
3 17
• Protect neighboring properties;
• Protect other public improvements.
The Stockpiling Permit would not allow general grading, compaction and other construction
activities. The Permit Fee would be nominal to cover some of the costs its administration.
3. Amend the Group Home section to(1)allow Group Homes in the Commercial zone district and
(2)create a new"Large Group Care Facility"for over eight clients and removing the cap of 20
on the maximum number of clients.
Problem Statement:
Not allowing Group Homes in the Commercial zone was an inadvertent omission. The present cap
of 20 clients does not accurately reflect modern trends in residential care/treatment programs. There
are numerous residential structures that are capable of converting to Large Group Care Facilities but
would be artificially capped.
Proposed Solution:
Add Group Homes to the Commercial zone district. Create and define a new land use called"Large
Group Care Facility"that allows for more than eight clients. Lift the cap of 20 so as to remove an
arbitrary number and allow the existing performance standards in the Code to effectively review and
evaluate this new use.
s
s
ORDINANCE NO. 59, 2000
• OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING VARIOUS AMENDMENTS
TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE
WHEREAS, on March 18, 1997, by Ordinance No. 51, 1997, the Council of the
City of Fort Collins adopted the Land Use Code; and
WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the
understanding of staff and 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 "fluid" document
capable of responding to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and
citizens of the City; and
WHEREAS, the staff of the City and the Planning and Zoning Board have
reviewed the Land Use Code and identified and explored various issues related to the
Land Use Code and have made recommendations to the Council regarding such issues;
and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the Land Use Code amendments
which have been proposed are in the best interest of the welfare of the City and its
• citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF FORT COLLINS that the Land Use Code be, and hereby is, amended as follows:
Section 1. That Section 1.2.4 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort
Collins is hereby amended to read as follows:
1.2.4 Applicability
The provisions of this Land Use Code shall apply to any and all
development of land within the municipal boundaries of the city, unless
expressly and specifically exempted or provided otherwise in this Land
Use Code. No development shall be undertaken without prior and proper
approval or authorization pursuant to the terms of this Land Use Code.
All development shall comply with the applicable terms, conditions,
requirements, standards and procedures established in this Land Use Code.
Except as hereinafter provided, no building, structure or land shall be used
and no building or structure or part thereof shall be erected, constructed,
reconstructed, altered, repaired, moved or structurally altered except in
conformance with the regulations herein specified for the district in which
it is located, nor shall a yard, lot or open space be reduced in dimensions
or area to an amount less than the minimum requirements set forth herein
or to an amount greater than the maximum requirements set forth herein.
1
This Land Use Code establishes procedural and substantive rules for
obtaining the necessary approval to develop land and construct buildings
and structures. Development applications for overall development plans,
project development plans, and final plans will be reviewed for
compliance with the applicable General Development Standards and
District Standards. Building permit applications will also be reviewed for
compliance with the applicable General Development Standards and
District Standards, and will be further reviewed for compliance with the
approved final plan in which they are located.
This Land Use Code shall also apply to the use of land following
development to the extent that the provisions of this Land Use Code can
be reasonably and logically interpreted , as having such ongoing
application.
Section 2. That Section 1.3.4(A)(6) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort
Collins is hereby amended to read as follows:
(6) Such use is not specifically listed as a "Permitted Use" in Article
4. (See Section 2442.9 for the procedures for text amendments.)
Section 3. That a new Section 2.1.5 be added to the Land Use Code of the
City of Fort Collins to read as follows:
2.1.5 Dedications and Vacations.
Dedication of streets, easements and other rights-of-way as laid out
on plats or as otherwise described in deeds of dedication, whether
on or off the site of a specific planning item that is subject to
Planning and Zoning Board review shall be accepted by the
Planning and Zoning Board in accordance with Section 2-353(4) of
the Code, provided that such dedication is made necessary by the
approval of such planning item. The Board shall also have the
authority to vacate easements and other rights-of-way, but not to
include streets and alleys, by resolution or by approval of plats (or
replats) containing notation of such vacation. Dedication of
streets, easements and other rights-of-way as laid out on plats or
otherwise described in deeds of dedication, whether on or off the
site of a specific planning item :that is subject to administrative
review shall be accepted by the Director, provided that such
dedication is made necessary by the approval of such planting
item. With regard only to a specific-planning item that is subj ect to
admimstrativei6vie�v,the Director shall also have the authority to
vacate easements and otfier nglits-o way;°buf not to'' nclude streets
and alleys, by resolution or by° approval of plats (or replats)
containing notation of`vacation;
2
Section 4. That Section 2.2.7(D)(3) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort
. Collins is hereby amended to read as follows:
(3) Findings. All decisions shall include at least the following elements:
(ba) A clear statement of approval, approval with conditions, or denial,
whichever is appropriate.
(ab) A clear statement of the basis upon which the decision was made
including specific findings of fact
with specific reference to the relevant
standards set forth in this Land Use Code.
Section 5. That Section 2.2.10(A)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code of the City of
Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows:
(a) the minor amendment results in an increase or decrease by one (1)
percent or less in the approved number of dwelling units, except
that in the case of a change of use of any property that was
developed pursuant to a Building Permit review or use-by-right
review under prior law, the number of dwelling units proposed to
be added or deleted may be four(4)units or less; or
. Section 6. That Section 2.2.11(D)(3) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort
Collins is hereby amended to read as follows:
(3) Term of Vested Right. Within a maximum of three (3) years
following the approval of a final plan or other site specific
development plan, the applicant must undertake, install and
complete all engineering improvements (water, sewer, streets,
curb, gutter, street lights, fire hydrants and storm drainage) in
accordance with city codes, rules and regulations. The period of
time shall constitute the "term of the vested property right." The
foregoing term of the vested property right shall not exceed three
(3) years unless: (a) an extension is granted pursuant to paragraph
4 of this subsection, or (b) the City and the Developer enter into a
development agreement which vests the property right for a period
exceeding three (3) years. Such agreement may be entered into by
the City only if the subject development constitutes a "large base
industry" as defined in Article 5 and only if warranted in light of
all relevant circumstances, including, but not limited to, the size
and phasing of the development, economic cycles and market
conditions. Any such development agreement shall:be adopted as
a legislative act subject to referendum. Failure to undertake and
• complete the development within the term of the vested property
right shall cause a forfeiture of the vested property right and shall
require resubmission of all materials and reapproval of the same to
3
be processed as required by this Land Use Code. All dedications
as contained on the final plat shall remain valid unless vacated in
accordance with law.
Section 7. That Division 2.6 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins
is hereby amended to read as follows:
DIVISION 2.6 STOCKPILING PERMITS AND DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
Sections:
2.6.1 Purpose
2.6.2 Applicability
2.6.3 Stockpiling Permits and Development Construction Permit Review
Procedures
2.6.1 Purpose
(A) A Stockpiling Permit is required in order to regulate the placement of fill
dirt on properties not covered by a site specific development plan, to
protect against adverse impacts to floodplains, drainage systems, natural
areas, wildlife habitat, wetlands, or other areas of public interest, and to
assure that public nuisances will not be created by ,the stockpiling
activities.
(B) A Development Construction Permit is required in order to coordinate the
transition from completion of the development review process to the
construction process.
2.6.2 Applicability
(A) A Stockpiling Permit shall be required for temporarily or permanently
placing soils or similar inorganic materials upon property that is not
subject to the provisions of a valid Development Construction Permit;
provided, however,that no Stockpiling Permit may be issued for property
that is within the boundaries of a Project Development Plan for which an
application for approval has been filed but which plan has not yet been
approved by the decision maker,
(B) A Development Construction Permit shall be required for all development
that is required to construct public infrastructure improvements that, upon
completion,will be owned or maintained by the city.
2.6.3 Stockpiling Permit and Development Construction Permit Review
Procedures
An application for a Stockpiling Permit or a Development Construction
4
Permit shall be processed according to, in compliance with, and subject to
the provisions contained in Division 2.1 and Steps (1) through (12) of the
Common Development Review Procedures (Section 2.2.1 through 2.2.12,
inclusive), as follows:
(A) Step I (Conceptual Review): Not applicable.
(B) Step 2 (Neighborhood Meeting): Not applicable.
(C) Step 3(A) (Development Application Forms): Not applicable, and
in substitution therefor, all applications for Stockpiling Permits or
Development Construction Permits shall be in a form established
by the City Engineer and made available to the public.
Step 3(B) (Consolidated Development Applications and Review):
Not applicable.
Step 3(C) (Development Application Contents): Applicable.
Step 3(D) (Submittal Hearing Date Schedule): Not applicable.
Step 3(E) (Development Review Fees — Stockpiling Permit):
Applicable
Step 3(E) (Development Review Fees — Development
Construction Permit): Not applicable, and in substitution therefor,
the applicant for a Development Construction Permit shall remit to
the city an application fee and a construction inspection fee in the
amounts as are authorized to be established pursuant to Chapter
7.5, Article I of the City Code.
(D) Step 4 (Determination of Sufficiency): Applicable except that the
term "City Engineer" shall be substituted for the term 'Director."
(E) Step S (Staff Report): Not applicable.
(F) Step 6(Notice): Not applicable.
(G) Step 7(Public Hearing - Stockpiling Permit): Not applicable, and
in substitution therefor, an application for a Stockpiling Permit
shall be processed, reviewed, considered and approved, approved
with modifications or denied by the City Engineer based on its
compliance with the City Code,and�all regulations related to such
peen it'adopted by the city by reference'or otherwise, as amended;
including, ,without limitation, the erosion eootrol standards iis
contained in the Stoixnwater Design Critena ';and Constritctiori
Stand aids Manual.
5
Step 7 (Public Hearing — Development Construction Permit): Not
applicable, and in substitution therefor, an application for a
Development Construction Permit shall be processed, reviewed,
considered and approved, approved with modifications or denied
by the City Engineer based on its compliance with the Site Specific
Development Plan, the City Code and all regulations related to
such permit adopted by the city by reference or otherwise, as
amended.
(H) Step 8 (Standards — Stockpiling Permit): Not applicable, and in
substitution therefor, an application for a Stockpiling Permit shall
be reviewed for compliance with the City Code and all regulations
related to such permit adopted by the city by reference or
otherwise, as amended, including, without limitation, the erosion
control standards as contained in the Stormwater Design Criteria
and Construction Standards Manual.
Step 8 (Standards — Development Construction Permit): Not
applicable, and in substitution therefor, an application for a
Development Construction Permit shall be reviewed for
compliance with the Site Specific Development Plan, the City
Code and all regulations related to such permit adopted by the city
by reference or otherwise as amended.
(I) Step 9(Conditions of Approval): Applicable.
Q) Step 10 (Amendments): Not applicable, and in substitution
therefor, amendments to Stockpiling Permits or Development
Construction Permits may be authorized by the City Engineer only
as allowed under the Stockpiling Pernut or Development
Construction Permit regulations adopted by the city by reference or
otherwise, as amended, provided that the amended Stockpiling
Permit or Development Construction Permit remains in
compliance with the applicable standards.
(K) Step "11 (Lapse - Stockpiling Permits): Not applicable, and in
substitution therefor, a Stockpiling Permit shall be subject to the
following lapse and extension provisions:
(1) Term of permit. All Stockpiling Permit activity shall be
commenced and completed within thirty (30) days of
issuance of the Stockpiling Permit unless a longer term of
permit is established by the City Engineer upon issuance:of
the permit.
(2) Extensions. The applicid fora Stockpiling;Permit may
apply for an.extension of the'term of such permit if such
application is filed with the City Engineer at least two (2)
6
working days prior to the permit expiration date. Such
. application shall contain good and sufficient reasons as to
why an extension is necessary. For good cause shown, the
City Engineer may approve an extension application that
has been timely filed; provided, however, that no extension
shall be granted for a term in excess of thirty (30) days, and
no extension shall be granted which, in the judgment of the
City Engineer, would be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare.
Step 11 (Lapse — Development Construction Permit): Not
applicable, and in substitution therefor, a Development
Construction Permit shall be subject to the following lapse and
extension provisions:
(1) Prior to commencement of construction. If construction
has not commenced within sixty (60) days from the date of
issuance of the Development Construction Permit, such
permit shall expire, and all fees paid therefor shall be
forfeited.
(2) Following commencement of construction. If construction
has timely commenced, the Development Construction
Permit shall expire upon the passage of one (1) year from
the date of issuance thereof.
(3) Extensions. The applicant for a Development Construction
Permit may apply for an extension of the term of such
permit if such application is filed with the City Engineer at
least two (2) weeks prior to the permit expiration date.
Such application shall contain good and sufficient reasons
as to why an extension is necessary; and, for good cause
shown, the City Engineer may grant extensions; provided,
however, that no extension shall be granted for a term in
excess of six (6) months, and no extension shall be granted
which, in the judgement of the City Engineer, would be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.
(L) Step 11 (Appeals): Not applicable, and in substitution therefor,
appeals of any final decision of the City Engineer on a Stockpiling
Permit or a Development Construction Permit application shall be
in accordance with Division 2.11; provided, however, that such
appeals may be filed only by persons who possess a legal or
equitable interest in the specific real property which is the subject
of the decision.
. Section 8. That Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort
Collins be amended to read as follows:
7
(H) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable, and the Planning
and Zoning Board may grant a modification of
standards only if it finds that the granting of the
modification would aeith"mot be detrimental to the
public good
; and that:
(1) the plan as submitted will advance or protect
the public interests and purposes of the
standard for which the modification is
requested equally well or better than would
a plan which complies with the standard for
which a modification is requested; or
(2) the granting of a modification from the strict
application of any standard—whon-4w.h.
n M:nnlly in f gsiblo apd
would, without impairing the intent and
purposes of this Land Use Code,
substantially alleviate an existing, defined
and described problem of city-wide concern
or would result in a substantial benefit to the
city by reason of the fact that the proposed
project would substantially address an
important community need specifically and
expressly defined and described in the city's
Comprehensive Plan, or in an adopted
policy, ordinance or resolution of the City
Council, and the strict application of such
standard would render the project practically
infeasible;or
(3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions
or other extraordinary and exceptional
situations, unique to such property,
including, but not limited to, physical
conditions such as exceptional narrowness,
shallowness or topography, or physical
conditions which hinder the owner's ability
to install a solar energy system, the strict
application of the standard sought to be
modified would result in unusual and
exceptional practical difficulties, or
exceptional or undue hardship upon the
owner of such property, provided that such
difficulties or hardship are not caused by the
8
act or omission of the applicant.
Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2) or (3) above
shall be supported by specific findings showing how the
plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of
said subparagraph(1), (2) or(3).
Section 9. That Section 2.10.2(H) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort
Collins is hereby amended to read as follows:
(H) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable, and a hardship variance shall meet
or exceed the following standards: Hardship variances from the
terms of Articles 3 through 4, inclusive, may be approved or
approved with conditions by the Zoning Board of Appeals where,
by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary
and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but
not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness,
shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder
the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict
application of any regulation enacted herein would result in
unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or
undue hardship upon the owner of such property; provided that
such relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
• public good and ..,ithQw r.,b....,nfialiy : ...:. the ji4togt a
""'"^"` of n,+:,ao.. 3 th...,,,h ^ inGlusWo, and provided that such
difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the
applicant and that no hardship variance shall authorize any change
in use other than to a use that is allowed subject to Building Permit
Review.
Section 10. That Section 2.11.1(B) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort
Collins is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph (7) to read as follows
and all subsequent subparagraph to be renumbered accordingly:
(7) The issuance of a Stockpiling Permit under Section 2.6.3.
Section 11. That Section 3.1.1 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort
Collins 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
3.8 inclusive, except that single-family dwellings and accessory buildings
and structures and accessory uses that are permitted subject only to
building permit review as allowed in Article 4 need to comply only with
the standards contained in Article 4 for the zone district in which such
uses are located and the standards contained in Division 3.8. In addition
9
to the foregoing, this Land Use Code shall also apply to the use of land
following development to the extent that the provisions of this Land Use
Code can be reasonably and logically interpreted as having such ongoing
application.
Section 12. That Section 3.2.1(D)(2) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort
Collins is hereby amended to read as follows:
2. Street Trees. Planting of street trees shall occur in the adjoining
street right of way in connection with the development by one (1)
or more of the methods described in subparagraphs (a) through (c)
below.
(a) Wherever the sidewalk is separated from the street by a
parkway, canopy shade trees shall be planted at thirty-foot
to forty-foot spacing (kita;;WP4(averaged along the entire
front and sides of the block face) in the center of all such
parkway areas. If two_(2) or more consecutive residential
lots along a street each measure between forty (40) and
sixty (60) feet in street frontage width, one (1) tree per lot
may be substituted for the thirty (30) foot to forty (40) foot
spacing requirement. Such street trees shall be placed at
least eight (8) feet away from the edges of driveways and
alleys, and forty (40) feet away from any streetlight, and to
the extent reasonably, feasible, be positioned at evenly
spaced intervals.
(b) Wherever the sidewalk is attached to the street in a manner
that fails to comply with the Design and Construction
Criteria, Standards and Specifications for Streets,
Streetscapes, Sidewalks, Alleys and Other Public Ways,
canopy shade trees shall be established in an area ranging
from three (3) to seven (7) feet behind the sidewalk arm
at the spacing intervals as
required in subsection (a)above. 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 (16) square feet at thirty-foot to forty-foot spacing.
(c) Ornamental trees shall be planted in substitution for the
canopy shade trees required in subsection (13)(2)(a) and (b)
above where overhead lines and fixtures prevent normal
growth and maturity. Ornamental trees shall be placed at
least fifteen (15) feet away from any streetlight.
Section 13. That Section 3.2.1(E)(5) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort
Collins is hereby amended by the addition of a new subsection (e) and relettering of
10
subsequent subsections accordingly, to read as follows:
(e) Parking bays shall extend no more than fifteen (15)parking
spaces without an intervening tree, landscape island or
landscape peninsula.
Section 14. That Section 3.2.2(E)(6)(b) of the Land Use Code of the City of
Fort Collins is hereby amended by read as follows:
°^R^96 .,,:"^^,.' M kAerves}i aS %ree, las:dscage is!—1 o
azking bays shall be landscaped in
accordance with the requirements contained in subsection
3.2.1(E)(5).
Section 15. That Section 3.2.2 (K)(2) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort
Collins is hereby amended by the addition of a new subsection (c) to read as follows:
(c) In the Harmony Corridor(H-C) District only, the maximum
parking ratio for "General Office" may be increased to no
greater than four and one half(4.5) spaces per one thousand
(1,000) square 'feet of gross leasable area by satisfying
either of the following two criteria:
• 1. All of the additional parking spaces gained by the
increased ' ratio (over the ratio 'established in
subsection 2(a) above) shall be contained within a
parking garage/structure, or
2. Incremental increases in the parking ratio
established in subsection 2(a) above are justified by
complying with one or more of the following
standards:
a. The applicant may increase the ratio by one
half (%2) parking space per one ;thousand
(1,000) square feet of gross leaseable area
by providing no more than fifty (50) percent
of the total off-street parking as "Front
Parking Area" as such parking is determined
in accordance with Section 3.5.4 (C)(3)(b).
b. The applicant may increase the ratio by one
half"'(lx) "parking" space per one""thousand
(1,000) square feet,of gross' leaseable"area
. by.providing no mole"than fifty(50)"percent
of the "total off-st`11reet " parking as "Rear
Pazking`Area' The Rear Parking Area shall
tt
be determined by drawing a line from°the
rear corners of the building to the nearest
property corners. If any such line, when
connected to the plane of the rear facade of
the building, creates an angle that is greater
than one hundred eighty (180) degrees, then
the line shall be adjusted to creat& an angle
of one hundred eighty (180) degrees when
connected to the plane of the rear facade of
the building. If any such line, when
connected to the plane of the rear facade of
the building, creates an angle that is less
than ninety(90) degrees, then the line shall
be adjusted to create an angle of ninety (90)
degrees when connected to the plane of the
rear facade of the building. ':Parking spaces
in Rear Parking Area shall be counted to
include all parking spaces within the
boundaries of the Rear` Parking Area,
including (1) all partial parking spaces if the
part inside the Rear Parking Area boundary
lines constitutes more than one-half (%:) of
said parking space, and (2) all parking
spaces associated with any pad sites located
within the Rear Parking Area boundaries.
C. The applicant may increase the ratio by one-
half (%z) parking space per one thousand
(1,000) square feet of gross leaseable area
by increasing by fifty (50) percent the
parking' lot perimeter landscaping as
required pursuant to subsection 3.2.1(E)(4).
Section 16. That Section 3.3.2(E)(1)(c) of the Land Use Code of the City of
Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows:
(c) Streets and alleys. All streets shall be paved with
curbs and gutters installed in accordance with the
approved utility plans. All alleys .,fie
required to be constructed by the city shall be
paved. In cases where a previously existing street
which has not been brought up to city specifications
is located within a subdivision, such street shall be
paved with curbs and gutters installed in order to
meet city specifications. All streets existing within
ownership of the lands which make up any
subdivision shall be shown on the subdivision plat.
If any subdivision is located adjacent to any existing
12
street right-of-way, the applicant shall improve
local streets to the full width and collector and
arterial streets to one-half-width except as is
otherwise provided hereinbelow, with pavement,
curb, gutter, sidewalk and any other required street
improvements as necessary to bring such street up
to city specifications. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, collector and arterial streets shall be
constructed to such specifications as shall be
necessary in the judgment of the City Engineer
based upon traffic safety considerations, and taking
into account the traffic impact of the development
upon such arterial or collector street. No such
arterial street shall be constructed to a width of less
than thirty-six (36) feet.
Section 17. That Section 3.4.1(E)(3) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort
Collins is hereby amended to read as follows:
(3) Planning and Zoning Board Review for Projects with Less Than
Recommended Buffer. If the application of the performance
standards contained in this subparagraph results in a proposed
buffer zone that includes a buffer distance that is, on average, less
. than eight (80) percent of the minimum general buffer distance
recommended in the table below, then the project will be reviewed
through Planning and Zoning Board Review as defined in Section
2.2"2.1.1.
Section 18. That Section 3.5.1(J)(1) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort
Collins is hereby amended to read as follows:
(1) No areas for outdoor storage, trash collection or compaction, loading or
other such uses shall be located within twenty (20) feet of any public
street, public sidewalk or internal pedestrian way. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, areas for trash collection may be located within twenty (20) feet
of an internal pedestrian way.
Section 19. That Section 3.5.2(A) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is
hereby amended to read as follows:
(A) Purpose/Applicability. The following standards are intended to
promote variety, visual interest in z^^= distriQts
,.i,.,..,-ta;i,oa by rcsidentialbllildii4gdoveigpme and, pedestrian
oriented streets in residential development.
. Section 20. That Section 3.5.2(C)(1) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins
is hereby amended to read as follows:
13
(C) Relationship of Attached and Multi-Family Buildings to Streets and Parking.
(1) Orientation to a Connecting Walkway. Every front facade with a primary
entrance to a dwelling unit shall face the adjacent street to the 114axiRw;N
extent reasonably feasiblegxacticable. Every front facade with a primary
entrance to a dwelling unit shall face a connecting walkway with no
primary entrance more than two hundred (200) feet from a street sidewalk.
The following"exceptions to this standard are permitted:
(a) A primary entrance may be up to three-hundred fifty (350) feet
from a street sidewalk if the primary entrance faces and opens
directly onto a connecting walkway that qualifies as a major
walkway spine.
(b) If a multifamily building has more than one (1) front facade, and if
one (1) of the front facades faces and opens directly onto a street
sidewalk,the primary entrances located on the other front facade(s)
need not face a street sidewalk or connecting walkway.
Section 21. That the introductory sentence of Section 3.5.2(E) of the Land Use Code
of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows:
(E) Garage Doors. To prevent residential streetscapes from being dominated
by protruding garage doors, and to allow the active, visually interesting
features of the house to dominate the streetscape, the following standards
shall apply:
Section 22. That Section 3.5.2(E)(1) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins
is hereby amended to read as follows:
(1) Street-facing garage doors must be recessed behind either
the front facade of the ground floor living area portion of
the dwelling or a covered porch (measuring at least six (6)
feet by eight (8) feet by at least four (4) feet. Any street-
facing garage doors complying with this standard shall not
protrude forward from the front facade of the living area
portion of the dwelling by more than eight (8) feet.
Section 23. That Section 3.8.4(A) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort
Collins is hereby amended to read as follows:
(A) A minimum of two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of outdoor
play area shall be provided for fifteen (15) children or fewer, with
seventy-five (75) additional square feet being required for each additional
child, except that the size of the total play area need only accommodate at
least fifty'(50) percent of the capacity of the center. For the purposes of
14
this subsection, the capacity of the center,is calculated based upon indoor
. floor space reserved for school purposes of forty (40) square feet per child.
Any such play area within or abutting any residential district shall be
enclosed by a decorative solid wood fence, masonry wall or chain link
fence with vegetation screening, densely planted. The height of such
fence shall be a minimum of six (6) feet and shall comply with Section
3.8.11. Where access to preschool nurseries is provided by other than
local streets, an off-street vehicular bay or driveway shall be provided for
the purpose of loading and unloading children.
Section 24. That Section 3.8.6 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is
hereby amended to read as follows:
3.8.6 Group Home Regulations.
(A) G;eupResidential homes shall conform to the lot area and separation
requirements specified in the following table:
Zone Maximum Additional lot Maximum Minimum
number of area for each permissible separation
residents additional residents, requirements
excluding resident excluding between any other
supervisors, for (squarefeet) supervisors group home
• minimum lot (feet)
size
U-E 3 2,000 8 1,500
R-L, N-C-L, H-C, 3 1,500 8 1,500
E,R-F
L-M-N, N-C-M, 6 750 .1S8 1,000
R-D-R
N-C-B, D, C-N, 6 500 208 700
C-C-N, M-M-N,
N-C, C, C-C, C-L,
C-C-R
(B) Large group care facilities shall conform to the lot area and separation
requirements specified in the following table:
Zone Maximum Additional . lot Maximum Minimum
number of area for each permissible separation
residents additional residents, requirements
. excluding resident (square excluding between any
supervisors, for feet) supervisors other— group
15
minimum lot size home (feet)
LMN, NCM, 6 750 15 1,000
RDR
NCB, D, CN, 6 500 20* 700
CCN, MMN,
NC, C, CC, CL,
CCR
* The decision maker may determine a higher maximum number of residents to be allowed
to occupy the facility upon finding that the facility as so occupied will satisfy the
following criteria:
a. the adjacent street system is sufficient to accommodate the traffic impacts
generated by the large group care facility;.
b. the large group care facility has made adequate, on-site accommodations
for its parking needs;
C. the architectural design of the large group care facility is compatible with
the character of the surrounding neighborhood;
d. the size and scale of the large group care facility is compatible with the
character of the surrounding neighborhood; and
e. the types of treatment activities or the rendering of services proposed to be
conducted upon the premises are substantially consistent with the
activities permitted in the zone district in which the facility is proposed to
be located.
(9C) With respect to group homes which require either a Type 1 or Type 2
review, the following regulations shall apply:
(1) Before any group home shall be approved in any zone that requires
a Type 1 or Type 2 review, the decision maker shall conduct such
review for the purpose of approving, denying or approving with
conditions the application for a group home use in such zone. If
approved, the decision maker shall, with such approval, establish
the type of group home permitted and the maximum number of
residents allowed in such group home.
/7\ Th irgues fQr. :A c.n4inn by %he Aorisin.i mama. at the PPOGW
hear h 11 ' h1do .1 . alysis Qi%ho £119winge
lagmsi
16
Eb) Whether the—S;QQP hORW has—made a
1,.1.otbQ; the r^l,•«QG+Q;21 .io9:8A F
cemPatible With the eharacter e€ the adjac
aeighberhsed wad
Fdl „hetheY tho «,EPOS ,.F«.oar.1,<,.« aati itjos Qr. the d F
substantially kgr:,asistent—>, iti; «l 2Gti-Wer, «l,
(32) A group home may be located without consideration to the minimum
separation requirements as established in subparagraph (A) and (B) of this
Section if the group home is separated from other group home within the
area of the aforesaid minimum separation requirement by a substantial
natural or man-made physical barrier, including, but not limited to, an
arterial street, a state or federal highway, railroad tracks, river or
commercial/business district. Such reduction in the separation requirement
shall be allowed only after the decision maker has determined that the
barrier and resulting separation distance are adequate to protect the city
from any detrimental impacts resulting from an excessive concentration of
. group homes in any one (1) vicinity.
(43) No permanent certificate of occupancy will be issued by the city for a
group home until the person applying for the group home has submitted a
valid license, or other appropriate authorization, or copy thereof, from a
governmental agency having jurisdiction.
(54) If active and continuous operations are not carried on in a group home
which was approved pursuant to the provisions contained in this Section
for a period of twelve (12) consecutive months, the group home use shall
be considered to have been abandoned. The group home use can be
reinstated only after obtaining a new approval from the decision maker as
outlined in this Section.
7 7
imPosed 1 SIAGh 9F « homo Waal! bo duly r g;ded L_. .L_ _i4, .:.L
UPOR.,.high W 1Wh 9;9 „ h.,me : pQR4•ti a
Section 25. That Section 3.8.7(S) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is
hereby amended by adding a new subparagraph(5) to read as follows:
(5) No window sign shall exceed seven(7) feet in height.
17
Section 26. That Section 3.8.13(C) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is
hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph(15) to read as follows:
(15) To the extent reasonably feasible, the applicant shall employ "stealth
technology so as to convert the wireless telecommunication facility into
wireless telecommunication equipment, as the best method by which to
mitigate and/or camouflage visual impacts. Stealth technology consists of,
but is not limited to, the use of grain bins, silos or elevators, church
steeples, water towers, clock towers, bell towers, false penthouses or other
similar "mimic' structures. Such "mimic' structures shall have a
contextual relationship to the adjacent area.
Section 27. That Section 3.8.17(A)(3) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort
Collins is hereby amended to read as follows:
(3) Contextual Height. Regardless of the maximum building height limit
imposed by the zone district standards of this Land Use Code, applicants
shall be allowed to use a "contextual" height limit. The allowed
"contextual" height may fall at any point between the zone district
maximum height limit and the height of a building that exists on a-lots that
isare adjacent to the subject lot. if %ho subjc..t lot is n -o;awr19t the
ia..«to..fi,al" be;sht A423, fall at ally «+ beyAcce« rho Aist.i..+
luax"IA.., hcigw 1:.,,it and the Ibuilding haigh♦ that a fists on the lot that is
var", the hci& that 20; i6ts" gsuchwaralAt lots ..hall l.o n
the m «. lwight limit that applies to +he apt 1" This provision
shall not be interpreted as requiring greater minimum heights or lower
maximum heights than imposed by the underlying zone district.
Section 28. That Section 4.4(B)(2)(a) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins
is hereby amended by the addition of a new subsection 6 to read as follows:
6. Mixed-use dwelling units.
Section 29. That Section 4.4(B)(2)(c)3. of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort
Collins is hereby amended to read as follows:
3. Neighborhood centers consisting of at least
two (2) of the following uses: mixed-use
dwelling 'units; retail stores with less than
five thousand (5,000) square feet of gross
floor area; convenience grocery stores;
personal and business service shops; small
animal veterinary facilities; offices, financial
services and clinics containing less than five
18
thousand (5,000) square feet of gross floor
• area; community facilities; neighborhood
support/recreation facilities; schools, child
care centers; and places of worship or
assembly.
Section 30. That Section 4.4(B)(3)(a) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort
Collins is hereby amended by the deletion of subsection 4. "Mixed-use dwelling units."
Section 31. That Section 4.4(D)(3)(b) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort
Collins is hereby amended to read as follows:
(b) Location. A neighborhood center shall be planned as an integral
part of surrounding residential development and located where the
network of local streets provides direct access to the center. 2=ke
1 inthe intw or-Qf a. silo r' 1
2 al@14S 2aterial streets
Neighborhood centers with retail 'uses or restaurants located on arterial
• streets shall be spaced at least three thousand nine hundred sixty (3,960)
feet (three-quarter [3/4] mile) apart.
Section 32. That Section 4.7(B)(3) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is
hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph (c) to read as follows and all subsequent
subparagraphs to be relettered accordingly:
(c) Commercial/Retail Uses:
1. Bed and breakfast establishments with six(6) or fewer
beds.
Section 33. That Section 4.12(B)(2) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins
is hereby amended by changing Part `B. Institutional/Civil/Public" subheading "Places of
Worship or Assembly"to read as follows:
Places of worship or N"4?�Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted
assembly
Section 34. That Section 4.18(B)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort
19
Collins is hereby amended by the addition of new subsections 36 and 37, to read as follows:
36. Grocery stores.
37. Supermarkets.
Section 35. That Section 4.21(B)(2) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins
is hereby amended by the addition of a new subsection (a) to read as follows and all subsequent
subsections to be relettered accordingly:
(a) Residential Uses:
1. Mixed-use dwelling units.
Section 36. That Section 4.21(B)(3)(a) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort
Collins is hereby amended by the deletion of subsection 1. "Mixed-use dwelling units" and all
subsequent subsections be renumbered accordingly.
Section 37. That Section 4.21(E)(3) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins
shall be repealed and reenacted to read as follows:
(E) Development Standards
(3)Building Design.
(1) Industrial Buildings. To the extent reasonably feasible, industrial
buildings shall provide a primary entrance that faces and opens
directly onto the adjacent street sidewalk or a walkway, plaza or
courtyard that has direct linkage to the street sidewalk without
requiring pedestrians to cross any intervening driveways or parking
lots.
(2) Campus Exception. An exception shall be permitted to
subsection(a) above, and to the requirements contained in Section
3.5.3(B) if the development provides a "campus or park-like
development block", meaning development with a unifying,
formative internal framework of pedestrian oriented, non-vehicular
outdoor spaces and walkways that function as an alternative to
street sidewalks by organizing and connecting buildings. The
internal campus pedestrian circulation system shall be designed to
provide direct connections to common'origins and destinations
(such as street sidewalks, transit stops, restaurants, child care
facilities and convenience shopping centers).
Section 38. That Section 4.22(B)(2) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins
is hereby amended by the addition of a new subsection (a) to read as follows and all subsequent
20
subsections to be relettered accordingly:
(a) Residential Uses:
1. Mixed-use dwelling units.
Section 39. That Section 4.22(B)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort
Collins is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 6. to read as follows:
6. Warehouse and distribution facility.
Section 40. That Section 4.22(B)(3)(a) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort
Collins is hereby amended by the deletion of subsection 1. "Mixed-use dwelling units" and all
subsequent subsections be renumbered accordingly.
Section 41. That Section 4.22(B)(3)(c) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort
Collins is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 11 to read as follows:
11. Limited indoor recreation establishments.
Section 42. That Section 4.22(D)(2) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins
is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph (u) to read as follows:
(u) Limited indoor recreation establishments.
Section 43. That Section 4.23(B)(2) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort
Collins is hereby amended by the addition of a new subsection (a) to read as follows and all
subsequent subsections to be renumbered accordingly:
(a) Residential Uses:
1. Mixed-use dwelling units.
Section 44. That Section 4.23(B)(3)(a) of the Land Use Code of the City of
Fort Collins is hereby amended by the deletion of subsection 1. "Mixed-use dwelling
units" and all subsequent subsections be renumbered accordingly.
Section 45. That Section 4.23(E)(3)(b)(1) of the Land Use Code of the City of
Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows:
1. Storage, loading and work operations.shall be screened from
view along all district boundary lines and along all public
streets.
21
Section 46. That the definition of"Group home" in Section 5.1.2 of the Land
Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows:
Group home shall mean either of the following:
1. Residential group home shall mean a residence operated as a single
dwelling, licensed by or operated by a governmental agency, for
the purpose of providing special care or rehabilitation due to
homelessness, physical condition or illness, mental condition or
illness, elderly age or social, behavioral or disciplinary problems,
provided that authorized supervisory personnel are present on the
premises.
2. Large group care facility shall mean a residential facility that is
planned, organized, operated and maintained to offer facilities and
services to a specified population and is licensed by or operated by
a governmental agency, for the purpose of providing special care
or rehabilitation due to homelessness,physical condition or illness,
mental condition or illness, elderly age or social, behavioral or
disciplinary problems, provided that authorized supervisory
personnel are present on the premises.
Section 47. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort
Collins is hereby amended by adding a new definition "Large base industry" to read as
follows:
Large base industry shall mean a firm that: (1) produces,or will produce,
manufactured goods, at least eighty (80) percent of which are, or will be,
produced for export to areas outside of the city; (2) employs, or will
employ, no fewer than one hundred (100) persons for at least thirty-five
(35) hours of year-round employment per week; and (3)owns or leases, or
will own or lease,real property or equipment within the city limits that is
used in the operation of the firm's business and that has, or will have, as of
the date of the commencement of the fi m's operation, a fair market value
of no less than one hundred million dollars($100,000,000).
Section 48. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort
Collins is hereby amended by adding a new definition "Logo"to read as follows:
Logo shall mean a graphic , symbol or emblem which conveys a
recognizable meaning which symbol or emblem may include script
(words)provided such script is contained entirely within the boundaries of
the symbol or emblem; and script alone, or outside of the boundaries of
the symbol or emblem, whether registered as a trademark or not, is not
included within the meaning of the term"logo"
Section 49. That the definition of"Major walkway spine" in Section 5.1.2 of
the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by to read as follows:
22
• Major walkway spine shall mean a tree-lined connecting walkway that is
at least five (5) feet wide, with landscaping along both sides, located in an
outdoor space that is at least thirty-five (35) feet in its smallest dimension,
with all parts of such outdoor space directly visible from a public street.
Section 50. That the definition of "Off-street parking area or vehicular use
area" in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Off-street parking area or vehicular use area shall mean all off-street
areas and spaces designed, used, required or intended to be used for the
parking, storage, maintenance, service, repair, display or operation of
motor vehicles, including driveways or accessways in and to such areas,
but not including: (1) any outdoor storage area used principally as
"recreational vehicle, boat or truck storage" use; (2) any parking area that
is primarily used for long-term storage of vehicles that more closely
resembles an outdoor storage area than it does a parking lot (such as
impound lots, junkyards or other similar uses); or (3) any public streets
aador right-of-way.
Section 51. That the definition of "Parks, recreation and open lands" in
Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read
• as follows:
Parks, recreation and open lands shall mean natural areas as de€ated
bydescribed in the Natural Areas Policy Plan, parks and recreation
facilities as defamed-.I;ydescribed in the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan,
environmental interpretation facilities, outdoor environmental research or
education facilities, or public outdoor places.
Section 52. That the definition of "Public facilities" in Section 5.1.2 of the
Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows:
Public facilities shall mean transportation systems or facilities, parks and
recreation and/or natural area program systems or facilities, water systems
or facilities, wastewater systems or facilities, storm drainage systems or
facilities, fire, police and emergency systems or facilities, electric utilities,
gas utilities, cable facilities or other public utilities.
Section 53. That the definition of "Sign" in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use
Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by deleting subparagraph (12) and
renumbering subsequent subparagraphs as follows:
• het.-OCR the -it., «.I .. . , .i d that sugh agwoment
23
(4312) products, merchandise or other materials which are offered for sale
or used in conducting a business, when such products, merchandise
or materials are kept or stored in a location which is designed and
commonly used for the storage of such products, merchandise or
materials; and
(4.413) a sign which has been found by the Landmark Preservation
Commission to have been an integral part of a building designated
as a historic landmark, and is a contributing feature of the historic
character of such building.
Section 54. That the definition of"Site specific development plan" in Section
5.1.2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Site specific development plan shall mean and be limited to a final plan as
approved pursuant to this Land Use Code; or, under prior law in effect on
the day before the effective date of this Land Use Code, any of the
following: the final plan, as approved pursuant to §29-526; the final
subdivision plat, as approved pursuant to §29-643; a minor subdivision
plat, as approved pursuant to §29-644; final site plans in the R-M District,
as provided pursuant to § 29-179; final site plans in the R-H District, as
provided pursuant to §§29-205 and 29-206; cluster development plans as
provided pursuant to §29-116; site plans in the I-L and I-P Districts, as
provided pursuant to §29-372; site plans in the RC District, as provided
pursuant to §29-419; nonconforming use review, as provided pursuant to
Chapter 29, Article III, Division 6; and group home review, as provided
pursuant to §29-475. In addition, a site specific development plan shall
mean a final plan or plat that was approved by Larimer County for
property which, at the time of approval, was located in the county but has
been subsequently annexed into the city. All references to districts or
sections herein pertain to the law in effect on the day before the effective
date of this Land Use Code and which is repealed by the adoption of this
Land Use Code.
Section 55. That the definition of "Street' in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use
Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows:
Street shall mean a public way (whether publicly or privately owned) used
or intended to be used for carrying vehicular, bicycle andle; pedestrian
traffic and shall include the entire area within the public right-of-way
and/or public access easement.
Section 56. Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is
hereby amended by adding a new definition"Street sidewalks"to read as follows:
Street sidewalk shall mean the sidewalk within the right-of-way of a
24
public street designed to the standards specified in Design and
Construction Criteria, Standards and Specifications for Streets, Sidewalks,
Alleys and Other Public Ways or the sidewalk within the public access
easement of a private street designed in accordance with the standards
specified in section 3.6.2(K) of the Land Use Code.
Introduced and considered favorably on first reading and ordered published this
16`h day of May, A.D. 2000, and to be presented for final passage on the 6`h day of June,
A.D. 2000.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 6`h day of June, A.D. 2000.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
•
25
Community Planning and Environmental Services
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Board
FROM: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
RE: Information Related to the Land Use Code Amendments
DATE: April 26, 2000
Attached to this memo is a packet containing information regarding the Spring 2000
biannual update to the Land Use Code. The Board will be considering these changes at
the regular meeting on May 4, 2000.
Please note that the Board took action on April 20, 2000 to approve the proposed change
to the "general office"parking ratio in the Harmony Corridor zone district and, therefore,
this particular item will not be further discussed. Also please note that issue #315
. regarding clarification of what percentage of a building has to be at or within the "build-
to" line has been continued to Fall, 2000. The packet contains the following information:
• Memo from Paul Eckman regarding issues #348 and#351. Issue #348 proposes
to delete the language "or other factors considered" from the section which
requires the Board to make certain findings on all decisions. (See page 3, Section
4. of the Ordinance.) Issue #351 proposes to delete the language "nor impair the
intent and purposes of this Land Use Code" from the section regarding
modifications. (See pages 7-9, Section 8 of the Ordinance.)
• Electronic memo from Mark Sears, Department of Natural Resources, addressing
issue #354 proposing to amend the definition of"Public Facilities" to include
"Parks and Recreation or Natural Area Program Facilities." (See page 23,
Section 56 of the Ordinance.)
• Draft Minutes of the Council Growth Management Committee meeting of April
10, 2000.
• Annotated Ordinance Index.
• Annotated Issue List.
• • Ordinance Making Various Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use
Code.
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX(970)416-2020
City Attorney
City of Fort Collins CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 25, 2000
TO: Members of the Planning and Zoning Board
FROM: W. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attomey // /
RE: Certain Proposed Amendments to the Land Use Code
As luck would have it, it fell to me to explain three of the proposed amendments to the Land Use
Code at the Friday work session which, at the present moment, I do not believe I will be able to
attend. So, the purpose of this memorandum is to explain those proposed changes.
Item Number 348 is simply a "clean up" item to correct some vague terminology. Section
2.2.7(D)(3)requires the Planning and Zoning Board to make certain findings on all of its decisions.
. One of the requirements is a "clear statement ofspecifcfindingsoffactorotherfactorsconsidered,
whichever is appropriate, and a statement ofa basis upon which such facts were determined. " First,
the phrase`or other factors considered"is too vague/over broad to be legally defensible and seems
to suggest that the Board can make decisions based upon something other than applying the facts
to the law. In quasi-judicial decision making the simple rule is that the facts are received and then
applied to the law. Other factors, such as the attitude of an applicant(or opponent) or the mood of
a Boardmember are not considered. Therefore, I believe the phrase `other factors considered"
should be deleted. The Section also requires that the Board make a clear statement of the basis upon
which such facts were determined. The Board never does this and I do not believe that it is
necessary for the Board to attempt to engage in such a subtle,yet mighty, intellectual struggle as to
attempt to verbalize a basis upon which facts are determined. What could that clause possibly mean?
Would it mean that the Board concluded that one witness was credible and the other one not? Would
the basis be that one witness smiled while the other frowned? I propose deleting the clause and
replacing it with a requirement that the Board make a statement of "the basis upon which the
decision was made including specific findings of fact'. The new language would simply require the
Board to make specific findings of fact and apply them to the applicable criteria,and if they comply
with the criteria, the basis is established.
The other two changes are proposals to amend both Division 2.8 and 2.10 regarding the language
contained in both Divisions which prohibit the granting of a modification of a standard or ahardship
variance unless the appropriate decision maker finds that the granting would not substantially impair
• the intent and purposes of the Code. First, with regard to the ZBA variances, the fundamental
purpose of a variance is to afford the City an opportunity to avoid working unreasonable hardships
300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6520 • FAX (970)221-6327
Members of the Planning and Zoning Board
April 25, 2000
Page 2
(and potentially takings claims) by the granting of variances which, most likely, would to some
degree or another impair the intent and purposes of the Code. Some of the variances may even be
seen as substantially impairing the intent and purposes of the Code but yet appropriate for avariance
in order to avoid a hardship. The difficulty of this clause is aggravated by the fact that some Code
sections are introduced with a "purpose statement" while some are not. If there is no purpose
statement,then can the Board glean apurpose from the context of the language? If there is apurpose
statement,then is the Board not allowed to glean apurpose from the context,but must only rely upon
the language of the purpose statement? Is the Board limited to the general purpose statements as
established in Article 1? I propose deleting the language entirely from the hardship variance
provisions of Division 2.10.
With regard to Division 2.8, I would have proposed the same solution (complete deletion of the
clause) but for the fact that I sensed that the Board, at its last meeting, did not want to go that far.
Accordingly,I prepared language which moves the clause from the general introductory paragraph
into the subparagraph which authorizes the granting of modifications when the applicant has a
proposal to meet an important community need. This solves the problem of the likelihood that the
modifications based upon hardship create the same dilemma as they would for ZBA variances and
also solves the seemingly unnecessary finding that the Board is required to make when granting a
modification based upon the"equal to or better than" standard. This is because, if the applicant's
proposal is"equal to or better than"then it goes without saying that it does not impair the intent and
purposes of the Code. It never could. Therefore, you will see that I moved the clause into the
second subparagraph, which is the paragraph authorizing the modification of a standard upon the
applicant having met some important community need.
WPE:med
cc: Ted Shepard
ad Shepard - Land Use Code Change Page 1
• From: Mark Sears
To: Ted Shepard
Date: Tue, Apr 25, 2000 1:23 PM
Subject: Land Use Code Change
Ted,
I hope the following explanation will help. I have left a message with Sally Craig and I hope to talk to her
before your meeting tomorrow.
Mark
354 Natural Resources and Parks and Recreation are requesting this amendment. Currently the
wording in the P-O-L Zoning regulations seems to prohibit a Natural Areas or Parks and Recreation
Facility that serves more than just the specific site or area. The regulations allow Public Facilities and
Accessory Uses. Natural Resources is currently proposing to construct a Natural Areas Maintenance
Facility on the Nix Farm, which is, zoned P-O-L. Since the facility will serve more than just that site or
area it is more than an "accessory use." Currently the definition of"public facilities"does not include
Natural Areas or Parks and Recreation facilities. This amendment recommends including "parks and
recreation or natural areas program facilities" in the definition. Parks and Recreation are proposing to
construct a Parks Maintenance Facility in Fossil Creek Park that will serve more than just that park. This
amendment will solve their situation also.
CC: Craig Foreman, Marty Heffernan, Tom Shoemaker
=_d Shepard -apri110_00_min.doc Page 1
** DRAFT MINUTES **
The Council of the City of Fort Collins
Council Growth Management Committee
April 10, 2000 4:00 to 5:30 p.m.
Council Liaisons: Scott Mason —679-3466 Staff Liaison: Greg Byrne - 221-6601
Chuck Wanner—484-0810
Karen Weitkunat— 229-9774
Planning & Zoning Board Representatives: Glen Colton
ATTENDEES:
Council Members: City Staff:
Scott Mason John Fischbach Bob Blanchard Bob Smith Clark
Mapes
Chuck Wanner Greg Byrne Timothy Wilder Paul Eckman Sally
Maggart
Karen Weitkunt Ron Phillips Ted Shepard Glen Schleuter
(recorder)
P & Z Boardmember: Others:
Glen Colton Ben Herman
Kelly Ohlson
Sally Craig
6 CSU Students (College of Natural Resources)
AGENDA:
Review of Draft Minutes— March 13, 2000
Six Month Planning Calendar
Floodplain Regulations and Projects located in the Downtown River Corridor
Design Manual
1-25 Regional Corridor Plan
Land Use Code Amendments
MINUTES:
1. Review Draft Minutes—March 13, 2000
The minutes were approved as written.
2. Six Month Planning Calendar
No changes were made to the Six Month Planning Calendar.
3. 1-25 Regional Corridor Plan
Ben Herman, our consultant for the 1-25 Regional Corridor Plan, gave a quick update of the
project. The first round of process has been completed. The winter months were spent
developing a series of alternative patterns that focused on development and transportation
patterns. They were developed with the input of the Technical Advisory Committee that
consists of staff from each of the eight jurisdictions and the two Counties that are involved in
the project.
ed Shepard -apri110_00_min.doc Page 6
Council Growth Management Committee
April 10, 2000
Page 6
The Oxbow is another area. There will be a lot of questions about the amphitheater and the
propriety of that.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated when the implementation program is discussed, there will
need to be a discussion regarding sources of funding.
Councilmember Mason asked whether or not staff discussed specific uses of the Oxbow.
Wilder stated everyone knows what's been proposed as options. The recommendation from
the technical team would be public acquisition. They didn't specify a particular use. There is
also a levee option to protect the Buckingham area.
5. Design Manual
Staffmember Clark Mapes stated he's been working on the Design Manual for some time. It
was promised as part of City Plan to help developers understand the intent of the dry Code
language.
Staffmember Mapes stated the Manual has been distributed, and basically thinks they are
finished. Clark stated this is the "first" edition.
Councilmember Mason and Weitkunat stated they think it's great and will really be helpful.
Weitkunat stated it should be mandatory for P&Z Boardmembers. The pictures really help.
• Staffmember Byrne complimented Clark. The Manual was distributed for peer review with
private sector designers. He received very positive feedback.
6. Land Use Code Amendments
Staffmember Ted Shepard stated one item is being added that wasn't included in the packet,
and he distributed information to committee members. There was also some additional
information on the parking issues.
Ted began with the parking issue. They decided to price how much it would cost to build a
parking structure in the Harmony Corridor. They received estimates from Fentress-Bradburn
(they did the Civic Parking Structure), and they provided estimates. Interestingly enough,
behind-the-building, above-grade parking with no architectural features or embellishments costs
about $7,500 per stall. Surface stall parking in a landscaped parking lot, to City standards, is
about $3,500 a stall. Staff found this to be very interesting, since that's not what they have
been hearing from the development community. They are quoting numbers that are quite a bit
higher than the estimates we received.
Staff feels there is a difference of costs between the Harmony Corridor and downtown. The
Harmony Corridor has some large, vacant parcels of land, and there are developers with large
holdings that are wanting to do office park development. That's where the problem seems to
be the most acute.
Staff is proposing to increase parking lot ratios if the following is achieved. Parking could
increase from 3.0 to 4.5 parking ratio if certain criteria were met. If a parking structure is built,
embellished or not, parking could increase to 4.5 spaces. If a parking structure is not built, then
parking would need to be distributed and hidden.
ed Shepard -aprill0 00 min doc Page 7l
Council Growth Management Committee
April 10, 2000
Page 7
So, there's two ways to increase parking ratios: the first being to build a parking structure, and
the second option includes three parts —each worth .5 increase in the parking ratio, but capped
at 4.5. Parking would need to be distributed, with no more than 50 percent of the parking
between the front of the building and the street. If the parking is in the rear and more than 50%
of the parking is in the rear, then there are rewards. The other option is to increase
landscaping by 50%.
Councilmember Wanner asked when the cost of parking downtown was considered for the
Civic Center Parking Structure, what land costs were used. Staffmember Byrne responded the
rule of thumb is when land costs exceed $25 per square foot, then structure parking begins to
make sense.
Wanner stated we don't want to add to the disabilities of the downtown mix, and we don't want
to make parking too easy to achieve, because then we begin to rely on it. He still questions the
three options for increased parking.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated that from the feedback they've received from people who deal
with this, and the change in market conditions in employment areas, the necessity is there.
Also, the parking issues have been separated for the Harmony Corridor, is this issue zone
sensitive where this is occurring. Are we encountering the parking problem in employment
zones only?
Staffmember Shepard stated the proposed changes are only applicable to office development.
It's not applicable to industrial; it has its own parking criteria and its own ratio. The same for
retail.
Staffmember Greg Byrne responded that the interior layout of buildings is contributing to the
problem. Cubbies are getting smaller, therefore, there are more employees per floor. There's
a higher traffic ratio per square foot of building. Ideally, we could gauge our parking to the land
use. When a building is first built this scenario works, but buildings change uses and the
parking could be way too much or way too little. It's hard to develop a rational approach, so
that's way we tried to develop additional performance standards.
The City is somewhat in a dilemma by not having a fully functional multi-modal transportation
system in this area. If we did, it could be the solution.
Staffmember Shepard stated at the Planning & Zoning Board meeting coming up on April 20'",
some of the folks who wrote letters will address the Board and ask the Board if the City would
be interested in forming an ad hoc task force on this issue. Maybe this would be a way to figure
a new urbanization pattern in the UGA and still provide parking in a rational way that meets
users' needs, and still gives us an opportunity for transit-oriented development along transit
corridors.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked for clarification that the proposed change would specifically
address parking in general office areas, not the parking problem indicated throughout the Code.
Staffmember Greg Byrne responded yes; and specifically, it's office use in the Harmony
:d Shepard -aprill0_00_min.doc Page 81
Council Growth Management Committee
April 10, 2000
Page 8
Corridor.
Councilmember Mason stated he likes staff's recommendation because it's flexible and
performance based. We will try to achieve the same goals as we did with the Big Box
Standards.
Shepard referred to the letter written by Celestica. Celestica is 7/8 manufacturing business,
and 1/8 office use, so there are two ratios. The manufacturing ratio is 2 parking spaces for
every 3 employees. The problem occurs with overlapping shifts. The ratio is .75 parking per
employee figured with the largest shift. The double shifts are not counted. Celestica was
allowed additional parking with their future expansion pad. The parking is in the back of the
building.
Staffmember Ron Phillips stated Celestica was given a 30% reduction in parking requirements
because they agreed to put in TDM programs, but they have never participated in funding bus
service. They would be required to build a bus stop, but they haven't even provided bus passes
for employees. Phillips stated he can't recall the exact arrangement. Celestica wanted to
reduce their parking at that time to reduce development costs.
Fischbach asked can they get that 30% of parking back? Staffmember Shepard responded
they added some parking on the south part of the building when they realized they had shift
• overlap problems. A minor amendment was done.
Staffmember Shepard stated another Code amendment has to do with stockpiling permit. It is
very straight forward. The inspectors have been included in the conversations.
Another Code amendment concerns group homes. The language will be changed in the group
home table to allow a new use. It was proposed that we create an "institutional home", that is
not capped by a maximum number of residents, excluding supervisors, at 20 so as to allow a
greater number. It will be reviewed by performance standards in a limited number of zone
districts.
Councilmember Mason asked Deputy City Attorney Eckman if he had found a memo he had
written about homeowner association covenants with respect to doing any Land Use Code
modifications to allow solar collectors, clotheslines and xeriscaping. Eckman stated he would
locate the memo.
7. Other Business
Councilmember Wanner stated we may want to downplay Mr. Power's presentation on the
Oxbow property until such time as we are done with some of the issues, so we can deal with it
separately. It gets very confusing.
Councilmember Mason stated there is a $5 million price tag for the amphitheater. There is a
long laundry list of capital improvements that are needed — how do we prioritize? Is there a 7-
year capital plan?
Fischbach responded they are trying to develop one. Mr. Power's presentation doesn't state
Proposed Spring 2000 Land Use Code Revisions
May 4,2000 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting
Annotated Ordinance Index
Ord.Section IN Code Cite Revision Effect Issue
1 1.2.4 Amend to clarify ongoing applicability. 352 Amend 1.2.4 and 3.1.1 which are the"Applicability"
sections so it is clear that same provisions of the Code .
apply to not only development proposals but also to
the use of land after development has occurred.
Clarifies ongoing applicability.
2 1.3.4(Ax6) Revise cross reference 347 Correct the cross-reference in 1.3.4)A)(6)from 2.3.3
to 2.9.
3 2.1.5 Amend 2.1.5 to authorize the Hearing Officer/Director to 320 Amend 2.1.5 to authorize the Hearing Officer/Director
accept dedications and vacations as laid out on plats and to accept dedications and vacations as laid out on plats
separate deeds in conjunction with a Type I Hearing. and separate deeds in conjunction with a'type I
Hearing.
4 2.2.7(D)(3) Clarify provisions regarding P&Z Board findings. 348 Amend 2.2.7(D)(3)regarding the findings the P&Z
Board must make in considering approval or denial by
deleting"or other factors considered whichever is
appropriate."
5 2.2.10(A)(1)(a) Revise the number of additional dwelling units that may 324 Amend the Minor Amendment section to allow Minor
be added to existing uses through the minor amendment Amendments for old Use-By-Right projects to allow
process from I to 4. conversions from office to new live/work units or new
dwelling units.
6 2.2.11(D)(3) Revise provisions regarding term of vested right for"large 346 Allowance to extend the terms of a vested right for
base industries". "Large Base Industry" 2.2.11(D)(3). Includes a new
definition.
i
7 2.6 Add section defining the stockpiling permit to Division 2.6 282 Adopt new standards and permitting for stockpiling
dirt prior to approval of a P.D.P.and modify,definition
of"development"accordingly.
in ZBA hardship variances. 351 Amend 2.10.2(H)which sets the standards by which
Revise provisions regarding p
8 2.8.2(H) P g B
the Z.B.A.may grant a hardship variance by deleting
"and without substantially impairing the intent and
proposes of Articles 3-4 inclusive." Allows for
greater flexibility.
9 2.10.2(H) Revise provisions regarding ZBA hardship variances. 351 Amend 2.10.2(H)which sets the standards by which
the Z.B.A.may grant a hardship variance by deleting
"and without substantially impairing the intent and
purposes of Articles 3-4 inclusive." Allows for
greater flexibility.
Wednesday,April 26,2000 Page I of 5
Action# Code Cite Revision Effect • Issue .
10 2.1 LIR) Provide a cross reference to the new stockpiling permit. 282 Adopt new standards and permitting for stockpiling
dirt prior to approval of a P.D.P.and modify definition
of"development"accordingly.
11 3.1.1 Amend to clarify ongoing applicability. 352 Amend 1.2.4 and 3.1.1 which are the"Applicability"
sections so it is clear that some provisions of the Code
apply to not only development proposals but also to
the use of land after development has occurred.
Clarifies ongoing applicability.
12 3.2.1(D)(2) Revise and refine tree spacing provisions to exempts lots 337 Consider allowing more flexibility for the street tree
under 60 feet and to measure tree spacing as an average. spacing requirement of one tree per 30'to 40'for lots
with narrow frontage(to be defined)due to
insufficient area for both utilities and trees.
13 3.2.1(E)(5) Revise and refine code provisions related to parking bays. 344 Cross reference 3.2.2(E)(6)(b)"Parking bays shall
extend no more than 15 spaces without an intervening
tree..."to 3.2.1(E)(5)to provide design Flexibility
afforded by the alternative compliance provision.
14 3.2.2(E)(6)(b) Revise and refine code provisions related to parking bays. 344 Cross reference 3.2.2(E)(6)(b)"Parking bays shall
extend no more than 15 spaces without an intervening
tree_."to 3.2.1(E)(5)to provide design flexibility
afforded by the alternative compliance provision.
15 3.2.2(Kx2) Revise parking standards for the Harmony Corridor 206 Re-evaluate the"maximum"parking standard for
district. offices of 3 spaces/1,000 sq.Q.
16 3.3.2(E)(lx c) Revise code provisions related to alleys. 361 Revise a term used with Alleys to be required rather
than permitted
17 3.4.1(E)(3) Correct citation. 335 Fix 3.4.1 (E)(3)so that the reference is to back to
2.1.1,not 2.2.1.
18 3.5.1(1)(1) Amend general development standards regarding outdoor 330 Revise and refine code provisions related to screening
storage to accommodate trash enclosures near sidewalks. of trash enclosures to allow sidewalk access dumpslers.
19 3.5.2(A) Revise and refine the garage standards purpose statement. 340 Amend the purpose statement to the garage standards
beyond promoting visual variety/visual interest by
adding"human scale"or other reference to impacts on
the streetscape.
20 3.5.2(C) Revise and refine code provisions regarding the maximum 345 Amend 3.5.2(1)"Every front f n;ade with a primary
200 foot limit walkway distance for access to door ways entrance to a dwelling unit shall face a connecting
in multifamily units. walkway with no primary entrance more than 200'
from a street sidewalk"to allow for a"major walkway
spine"to be used in addition to street sidewalk
Wednesday,April 26,2000 Page 2 of 5
Ord.Section# Code Cite Revision Effect Issue
21 3.5.2(E) Revise and refine garage door code provisions. 340 Amend the purpose statement to the garage standards
beyond promoting visual variety/visual interest by
adding"human scale'or other reference to impacts on
the streetscape.
22 3.5.2(E)(1) Revise and refine garage standard code provisions to 338 Clarify garage standards to be clear that the"front
clarify how the font facade is measured. facade of the living area portion of the dwelling"is
specific to the ground floor only.
23 3.5.2(E)(3) Revise and refine design standard regarding"campus-like' 342 Clarify,and expand on the meaning of"campus or
site design alternative. park-like"in 4.21(E)(3)(a)for the H-C zone.
24 3.8.4(A) Revise supplemental child care center regulations to allow 323 Amend how we calculate the required size of an
total play area requirements to be based on 50%of center outdoor play area for child care centers.
capacity.
25 3.8.6(A) Amend the Group Home table in 3.8.6 to allow Group 329 Amend the Group Home table in 3.8.6 to allow Group
Homes in the Commercial district. I tomes in the Commercial district,and create a new
use,"Institutional",with not cap at 20 residents.
i Code to impose a limit on the height
26 3.8.7(S) Amend the sign code to address windows over 7 feet high. 332 Amend the Sign mp g
� of window signs. The Code limits the height of wall
signs,but not window signs.
27 3.8.13(C) Revise and refine telecommunications equipment a 355 Add a reference to considering stealth technology in
facilities code provisions. order to mitigate the visual impact of wireless
telecommunications equipment and facilities
(monopoles and cellular towers).
28 3.8.17(A)(3) Revise"contextual height'code provisions. 349 Amend 3.8.17(A)(3)regarding"Contextual Height'so
that context can be defined as the adjacent
neighborhood as opposed to the immediate abutting
property. Allows for more flexibility to implement
new urbanism design.
29 4.4(B)(2xa) Add mixed use dwelling units as a permitted use through 316 Change"Mixed-use dwelling units"to Type 1 uses in
Type I review the LMN zone. the LMN,MMN,HC,E and I zones.
30 4.4(B)(2xc)(3) Add mixed use dwelling units as a permitted use through 316 Change"Mixed-use dwelling units"to Type I uses in
Type I review in LMN Neighborhood Centers. the LMN,MMN,IIC,E.and I zones.
31 4.4(Bx3xa) Nlete mixed use dwelling units as a permitted use 316 Change"Mixed-use dwelling units"to Type I uses in
through Type 2 review in the LMN zone. the LMN,MMN,HC,E and I zones.
32 4.4(Dx3)(b) Revise LMN Neighborhood Center code provisions 357 Remove unnecessary language regarding the location
of L-M-N Neighborhood Centers in Section
4.4(D)(3)(b)
Wednesday,April 26,2000 Page 3 of 5
*tion# Code Cite Revision Effect • Issue .
33 4.7.(B)(3) Add"Red and Breakfast Establishments Containing Six 325 Add"Bed and Breakfast Establishments Containing
Beds or Less"to the N-C-M Zone District as a permitted Six Beds or Less"to the N-C-M Zone District as a
use permitted use subject to review by the Planning and
Zoning Board.
34 4.12(Bx2)(c) Add"Places of Worship and Assembly"as a permitted use 353 Add"Places of Worship and Assembly"as a permitted
in the Downtown zone district,Old City Center sub district use in the Downtown zone district,Old City Center
sub district,subject to administrative review.
35 4.18(Bx2)(c) Add"Grocery Stores"and"Supermarkets"as permitted 341 Add"Grocery Stores"and"Supermarkets"as
uses in the C-N zone. Unintentional exclusion. permitted uses in the C-N zone. Unintentional
exclusion.
36 4.21(B)(2) Add mixed use dwelling units as a permitted use through 316 Change"Mixed-use dwelling units"to Type 1 uses in
Type 1 review in the HC zone. the LMN,MMN,HC,E and 1 zones.
37 4.21(B)(3)(a) Delete mixed use dwelling units as a permitted use 316 Change"Mixed-use dwelling units"to Type 1 uses in
through Type 2 review in the HC zone. the LMN,MMN,HC,Land 1 zones.
38 4.22(Bx2) Add mixed use dwelling units as a permitted use through 316 Change"Mixed-use dwelling units"to Type I uses in
Type I review in the E zone. the LMN,MMN,HC,E and I zones.
39 4.22(B)(3)(a) Delete mixed use dwelling units as a permitted use 316 Change"Mixed-use dwelling units"to Type I uses in
through Type 2 review E zone. the LMN,MMN,HC,E and I zones.
40 4.22(B)(2)(c) Add Warehouse and distribution facility as a permitted 358 Add Warehouse and distribution facility as a permitted
use in the Employment District use in the Employment District
41 4.22(B)(2)(c) Add"Limited Indoor Recreational Use"as a permitted 334 Add"Limited Indoor Recreational Use"as a permitted
secondary use in the Employment zone district secondary use in the Employment zone district.
42 4.22(Dx2) Add"Limited Indoor Recreational Use"as a permitted 334 Add"Limited Indoor Recreational Use"as a permitted
secondary use in the Employment zone district-??????? secondary use in the Employment zone district.
43 4.23(B)(2) Add mixed use dwelling units as a permitted use through 316 Change"Mixed-use dwelling units"to Type 1 uses in
Type 1 review in the 1 zone. the LMN,MMN,HC,E and 1 zones.
44 4.23(B)(3$a) Delete mixed use dwelling units as a permitted use 316 Change"Mixed-use dwelling units"to Type 1 uses in
through Type 2 review in the 1 zone. the LMN,MMN,HC,E and I zones.
45 4.23(E)(3xb)(1) Amend general screening requirements to include views 328 Re-examine the screening requirement of outside
from all public streets. storage along a public street in the I District
4.23(E)(3). It takes precedent over the screening
requirements in Article 3 and may not be sufficient.
46 5.1.2 Revise definition of"Residential Group Home"and add 329 Amend the Group Home table in 3.8.6 to allow Group
definition of"Large Group Care Facility" I looses in the Commercial district,and create a new
use,"Institutional",with not cap at 20 residents.
Wednesday,April 26,2000 Page 4 of 5
Ord.Section# Code Cite Revision Effect Issue
47 5.1.2 Definitions Add a definition of"Large Base Industry". 346 Allowance to extend the terms of a vested right for
"Large Base Industry" 2.2.11(D)(3). Includes a new
definition.
48 5.1.2 Add a definition for"logo sign". 359 Add a definition for"logo sign"to Article 5
49 5.1.2 Revise definition of"Major Walkway Spine" 345 Amend 3.5.2(1)"Every front I'agade with a primary
entrance to a dwelling unit shall face a connecting -
walkway with no primary entrance more than 200'
from a street sidewalk"to allow for a"major walkway
spine"to he used in addition to street sidewalk
50 5.1.2 Definitions Revise definition of off-street parking area. 356 Amend definition of Off-street parking or vehicular use
area to add long term vehicle storage to list of
' exemptions.
51 5.1.2 Amend definition of"parks,recreation and open lands" 331 Amend definition of"parks,recreation and open
lands'by changing the words"defined by"to
"described in."
52 5A.2 Amend the definition of"Public Facilities". 354 Amend the definition of"Public Facilities"in Article 5
to include"parks and recreation or natural area
program maintenance facilities and offices."
53 5.1.2 Definitions Amend definition of sign to exempt bus benches. 350 Amend the definition of"sign"in Article 5 by deleting
the paragraph that refers to bus benches. Council
moved bus bench and bus shelter advertising out of
the Land Use Code. Housekeeping measure.
54 5.1.2 Amends the definition of"Site Specific Development 326 Amend the definition of"Site Specific Development
Plan"to accommodate projects approved by the County. Plan"to include reference to subdivisions and plans
approved in the County so existing County
subdivisions would not have to replat upon annexation.
55 5.1.2 Revise the definition of"Street" 345 Amend 3.5.2(1)"Every front fagade with a primary
entrance to a dwelling unit shall face a connecting
walkway with no primary entrance more than 200'
from a street sidewalk"to allow for a"major walkway
spine"to be used in addition to street sidewalk
56 5.1.2 Revise the definition of"Street sidewalk." 345 Amend 3.5.2(1)"Every front fagade with a primary
entrance to a dwelling unit shall face a connecting
walkway with no primary entrance more than 200'
from a street sidewalk"to allow for a"major walkway
spine"to be used in addition to street sidewalk
Wednesday,April 26,2000 Page 5 of 5
Proposed Spring 2000 Land Use Code Revisions
. May 4,2000 Planning Zoning Board Meeting
Annotated Issue List
Issue ID# Issue Name
206 Re-evaluate the "maximum" parking standard for offices of 3 spaces/1,000 sq.ft.
Problem Statement
The"General Office"land use is required by the Code not to exceed a maximum of 3.0
spaces/1,000 sq. ft. This maximum is in contrast to the pre L.U.C. (L.D.G.S. and Use-By-
Right)which recommended a range of 2.8 --3.5 spaces/1,000 sq. ft., and no less than 2
spaces per every 3 employees. ("Medical Office" is required not to exceed a maximum
of 4.5 spaces/1,000 sq. ft.)
The office development industry has indicated that the trend in high tech and general
office employment is to provide less square footage per employee than in the past. This
is accomplished by installing the latest and most efficient office modules and office
equipment thereby reducing the size of the building or tenant space. This efficiency
results in more employees per 1,000 sq. ft. of space than in the past. Consequently,the 3
spaces/1,000 sq. ft. is perceived to be overly restrictive and unworkable.
Finally,the Modification of a Standard process may be difficult in this case due to the
awkward requirement of having to show how providing more parking than allowed is
"equal to or better"than the standard being modified.
Proposed Solution Overview
Harmony Corridor Only:
The immediate problem is most acute in the Harmony Corridor zone where large tracts
of land remain and where large corporate users and office park developers are most
motivated to provide the maximum amount of parking. In other districts with office
development potential,particularly the three Downtown zones, there are more
opportunities for public transit and parking in civic structures or lots.Further, there are
fewer large tracts of land under single ownership where maximum parking lot
development could occur. Therefore, the proposed solution applies to the Harmony
Corridor zone only.
Staff recommends allowing the parking maximum to be raised to 4.5 spaces/1,000 sq. ft.
subject to the following performance measures.
Performance Standards:
There would be two ways to raise the parking maximum from 3.0 to 4.5 spaces/1,000 sq.
ft.
1. Raise the ratio by 1.5 by constructing a parking structure capable of containing at least
as many spaces as would be the difference between 3.0 and 4.5 spaces/1,000 sq. ft.
2.Or,in lieu of parking structure,provide any of the following three performance
standards, either individually or in combination,each worth a.5 raise in the ratio, with
the possible maximum being capped at 4.5 spaces/1,000:
• A.Raise the ratio by.5 by providing no more than 50%of the total parking between the
front door and the street(as defined in big box standards).
Wednesday,April 26,2000 Page 1 of 19
B.Raise the ratio by .5 by providing at least 50%of the total parking at the rear of the
building(as defined in big box standards).
C. Raise the ratio by.5 by providing parking lot perimeter landscaping in excess of what
is required in 3.2.1 (Landscaping)by 50%.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
15 3.2.2(K)(2) Revise parking standards for the Harmony Corridor district.
282 Adopt new standards and permitting for stockpiling dirt prior to approval of a P.D.P.and
modify definition of"development" accordingly.
Problem Statement
Presently the City experiences frequent problems with developers and their contractors
wanting to stockpile soil on development sites and other properties in anticipation of
needing currently available material for upcoming or future developments. The Land Use
Code defines stockpiling of fill material as development,thereby,requiring the approval
of a development plan prior to stockpiling. However,the opportunities to acquire fill
material do not always coincide with the timing for development. Therefore,a process to
allow for controlled stockpiling of fill material is needed to provide flexibility for the
optimum use of fill resources.
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff proposes to initiate a Stockpiling Permit that would allow for stockpiling of fill
materials on property prior to any development. The permit process would set up
controlled conditions to keep stockpiling from being a nuisance or a hazard for the
public. It is proposed that the City Engineer issue the permit and coordinate the input
from all other departments. Since the majority of the impact from stockpiling involves
erosion control,the Erosion Control Inspector would do the necessary inspection. The
following are examples of what would be City concerns for allowing stockpiling:
(1)Prevent the fill from being placed in a floodway,flood plain or other drainage area:
(2)Require limited grading of the stockpile to stabilize the stockpile and prevent its
erosion from wind and water;
(3)Protect natural habitat and features;
(4)Protect neighboring properties;and
(5)Protect other public improvements.
The Stockpiling Permit would not allow general grading,compaction and other
construction activities. The Permit fee would be nominal to cover some of the costs of
its administration.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
7 2.6 Add section defining the stockpiling permit to Division 2.6
10 2.11.1(B) Provide a cross reference to the new stockpiling permit.
316 Change "Mixed-use dwelling units" to Type I uses in the LMN,MMN,HC,E and I zones.
Problem Statement
The"Mixed-Use Dwelling Unit' is regarded as an important element in implementing
new urbanism design principles,especially in the L-M-N zone district where such a land
use would be a key ingredient in the L-M-N"Neighborhood Center." Presently,if an
applicant proposes an L-M-N "Neighborhood Center"consisting of all Type One uses,
Wednesday,April 26,2000 Page 2 of 19
and includes a"Mixed-Use Dwelling Unit,"then the entire"Neighborhood Center' would
• have to be considered a Type Two review.
Developers and land planning consultants are indicating that the 'Neighborhood Center"
concept is not working as well as intended. The ability to create an economically viable,
small center within a larger residential area is challenging. Such centers are envisioned to
feature an urban character with opportunities for social gathering spaces. This vision
would be further encouraged by including "Mixed-Use Dwelling Unit" into the list of
Type One uses. These uses may be more practical that a free-standing office,retail store,
financial service, clinic or personal and business service shops. Finally,the "Mixed-Use
Dwelling Unit" is seen a land use that would add variety and urban character in all of the
five applicable zone districts and contribute to the City Plan policy that all zones are
mixed-use.
Proposed Solution Overview
Change "Mixed-Use Dwelling Unit" from a Type Two to a Type One use in the L-M-N,
M-M-N,H-C,E and I zone districts. In the L-M-N zone district, add"Mixed-Use
Dwelling Unit"to the list of permitted uses in a'Neighborhood Center."
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
29 4.4(B)(2)(a) Add mixed use dwelling units as a permitted use through Type
1 review the LMN zone.
30 4.4(B)(2)(c)(3) Add mixed use dwelling units as a permitted use through Type
1 review in LMN Neighborhood Centers.
31 4.4(B)(3)(a) Delete mixed use dwelling units as a permitted use through
Type 2 review in the LMN zone.
36 4.21(B)(2) Add mixed use dwelling units as a permitted use through Type
1 review in the HC zone.
37 4.21(13)(3)(a) Delete mixed use dwelling units as a permitted use through
Type 2 review in the HC zone.
38 4.22(B)(2) Add mixed use dwelling units as a permitted use through Type
1 review in the E zone.
39 4.22(B)(3)(a) Delete mixed use dwelling units as a permitted use through
Type 2 review E zone.
43 4.23(B)(2) Add mixed use dwelling units as a permitted use through Type
1 review in the I zone.
44 4.23(B)(3)(a) Delete mixed use dwelling units as a permitted use through
Type 2 review in the I zone.
320 Amend 2.1.5 to authorize the Hearing Officer/Director to accept dedications and vacations
as laid out on plats and separate deeds in conjunction with a Type I Hearing.
Problem Statement
Staff proposes that a new Section 2.1.5 be added to the Land Use Code. This new Section
would transpose what is already contained in Section 2-353(4)of the City Code into the
Land Use Code which authorizes the Planning and Zoning Board to accept dedications on
plats. It also authorizes the Planning and Zoning Board to vacate easements(except for
streets) as is already authorized to the Board in the City Code. However,since the City
Code is silent on Type 1 reviews and the authority of the director to accept dedications
and to accomplish vacations, the proposed new Section 2.1.5 would authorize the
director to accept dedications and to accomplish vacations as well. In the absence of this
authorization, arguably,with Type 1 reviews,dedications and vacations would have to go
to the City Council,which is not the result we are trying to obtain in regard to Type 1
reviews.
Proposed Solution Overview
Wednesday,April 26,2000 Page 3 of 19
Amend the Land Use Code to add a new Section 2.1.5 Dedications and Vacations to read
as follows:
2.1.5 Dedications and Vacations.
Dedication of streets,easements and other rights-of-way as laid out on plats or as
otherwise described in deeds of dedication,whether on or off the site of a specific
planning item that is subject to Planning and Zoning Board review shall be accepted by
the Planning and Zoning Board in accordance with Section 2-353(4)of the Code,
provided that such dedication is necessitated by reason of the approval of such planning
item. The Board shall also have the authority to vacate easements and other rights-of-
way,but not to include streets and alleys,by resolution or by approval of plats(or
replats)containing notation of such vacation. Dedication of streets,easements and other
rights-of-way as laid out on plats or otherwise described in deeds of dedication,whether
on or off the site of a specific planning item that is subject to administrative review shall
be accepted by the Director provided that such dedication is necessitated by reason of the
approval of such planning item. With regard only to a specific planning item that is
subject to administrative review,the Director shall also have the authority to vacate
easements and other rights-of-way,but not to include streets and alleys,by resolution or
by approval of plats(or replats)containing notation of such vacation.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
3 2.1.5 Amend 2.1.5 to authorize the Hearing Officer/Director to accept
dedications and vacations as laid out on plats and separate
deeds in conjunction with a Type I Hearing.
323 Amend how we calculate the required size of an outdoor play area for child care centers.
Problem Statement
The Code currently requires that the size of an outdoor play area for a child care center is
based on the total number of children that the center is licensed for. Specifically,the
requirement is that 2500 square feet of outdoor play area is required for the first 15
children, and an additional 75 square feet is required for each additional child. Thus,a
center that is licensed for 100 children is required to have a play area of at least 8875
square feet. Our requirement is based on the assumption that it is possible that all 100
children will be outside at the same time. In reality,such a situation does not occur.
Outdoor playtime is generally staggered throughout the day,and each playtime is geared
toward specific age groups. For instance,toddlers and 5 year olds will not be outside
together; instead each group will have its own time. Additionally,infants seldom have an
outdoor playtime. Since the number of children outside at any one time is less than the
total number that the center is licensed for,it is not necessary to require as much outdoor
play area as presently called for.
Proposed Solution Overview
The LUC requirement should be modified in order to more closely align with the State
requirement. The State requirement is that "The outdoor play area must provide a
minimum of 75 square feet of space per child for a group of children using the total play
area at any one time. The total play area must accommodate at least 33 percent of the
licensed capacity of the center or a minimum of 1500 square feet,whichever is greater".
The State's requirement is based on the more realistic assumption that not all the children
in the center will be using the outdoor play area at any one time.
A survey of existing child care centers in Fort Collins shows that the City requirement
should still be more restrictive than the State's. This is due to the fact that the local
"market"demands here are for fewer infants than normal. Therefore,our centers have a
somewhat higher percentage of older children. Thus the possibility that play areas will
Wednesday,April 26,2000 Page 4 of 19
be used by a greater number of children exists.
• Staff proposes that Section 3.8.4 be modified so that the total play area need only
accommodate at least fifty(50)percent of the capacity of the center.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
24 3.8.4(A) Revise supplemental child care center regulations to allow total
play area requirements to be based on 50%of center capacity.
324 Amend the Minor Amendment section to allow Minor Amendments for old Use-By-Right
projects to allow conversions from office to new live/work units or new dwelling units.
Problem Statement
The Code currently allows the minor amendment process to be used to change the
number of approved dwelling units of an approved LDGS or LUC project,and to allow a
proposed change of use to a property that was originally developed as a use-by-right. For
example,an old use-by-right retail store may be converted to an office by means of a
minor amendment. This process still requires that the property be brought into
compliance with all the applicable standards in the LUC before a new certificate of
occupancy can be issued. However,the minor amendment criteria in 2.2.10(A)does not
allow a minor amendment to be approved if the application results in an increase or
decrease by 1%or less in the approved number of dwelling units. This criteria makes
sense when reviewing a minor amendment request to a development that had previously
been reviewed and approved with respect to a certain number of dwelling units being
provided. However,when a property was originally developed years ago, and was
approved without any such review,the criteria can be an impediment to the creation of
mixed-use dwelling units. A common scenario is this: the owner of an old two story
. office building downtown wants to convert all or part of the second floor into one or two
dwelling units. The minor amendment process allows for a change of use from a non-
residential use to another type of non-residential use,but not from non-residential to
residential(office to mixed-use dwelling in this particular case). Therefore,in order to do
an interior remodel to add the dwelling unit(s)to the second floor of this building,a full-
blown Type I or Type 2 review is required. However,the minor amendment process
would work quite well in these situations where no additions are proposed.
Proposed Solution Overview
In order to allow for simple conversions of older buildings to allow a change in use mix
of the building, Section 2.2.10(A)(1)(a)should be amend to allowed up to 4 dewelling
units be added through the minor amendment process.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
5 2.2.10(A)(1)(a) Revise the number of additional dwelling units that may be
added to existing uses through the minor amendment process
from 1 to 4.
325 Add "Bed and Breakfast Establishments Containing Six Beds or Less" to the N-C-M Zone
District as a permitted use subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board.
Problem Statement
Presently,"Bed and Breakfast Establishments Containing Six Beds or Less"are allowed
in the U-E,L-M-N.M-M-N,N-C-B and H-M-N districts only. This represents a variety
of districts that allow a range of residential uses and densities. The N-C-M zone was
created under the auspices of the East and West Side Neighborhood Plans. These plans
contemplated B&B's(<6 beds)in the N-C-B but not the N-C-M.The prohibition of B
B's(<6 beds) from the N-C-M is overly restrictive in that such uses are residential in
Wednesday,April 26,2000 Page 5 of 19
character. Such a use is considered less intense than four-plex structures which are
allowed in the zone.
Proposed Solution Overview
Add B&B's(<6 beds)into the N-C-M as such a use would be a logical addition in that
they are residential in character and are roughly similar in size and scale,if not less
intense,to the multi-family structures(four-plexes)that are already permitted. Also
would help preserve large older houses.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
33 4.7.(B)(3) Add"Bed and Breakfast Establishments Containing Six Beds
or Less"to the N-C-M Zone District as a permitted use
326 Amend the definition of"Site Specific Development Plan" to include reference to
subdivisions and plans approved in the County so existing County subdivisions would not
have to replat upon annexation.
Problem Statement
Section 2.7.2 of the LUC states that a building permit can only be issued after a site
specific development plan has been approved for the property upon which the proposed
structure is to be erected. The current definition of"site specific development plan"does
not contain any reference to plats and plans approved in the County that are subsequently
annexed into the city,even though these County plans have vested rights. Therefore,if
we annex a residential subdivision for instance,we can't issue a permit for a new house
on a lot within the subdivision since the lot is not within a site specific development plan.
Before the permit can be issued,the owner would need to replat the subdivision. The
same would be true before we could even issue a permit for a detached storage shed or a
house addition.
Proposed Solution Overview
In order to allow the issuance of building permits to properties in approved County
plans,the definition of"site specific development plan"in Section 5.1.2 should be
amended to include plans approved by the County.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
54 5.1.2 Amends the definition of"Site Specific Development Plan"to
accommodate projects approved by the County.
328 Re-examine the screening requirement of outside storage along a public street in the I
District 4.23(E)(3). It takes precedent over the screening requirements in Article 3 and
may not be sufficient.
Problem Statement
The LUC contains screening requirements in Article 3 that are generally applicable to all
uses in all zones. Specifically, Section 3.5.1(J)contains regulations for the screening of
such things as outdoor storage areas,trash collection,loading docks and other such
service functions. These functions are required to be located and screened so that the
visual impacts are"fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public
streets."
However,the Article 4 standards for screening properties that are located in the I District
are less restrictive in that they only have to screen service functions along district
boundary lines. This at least ensures that abutting residential properties will be screened
from these types of functions. However,these I District properties are not required to
screen their service functions from adjacent nonresidential uses or from the street. Not
Wednesday,April 26,2000 Page 6 of 19
providing screening from adjacent,nonresidential uses in the I district makes some sense.
• However,not providing screening from the street results in an unattractive streetscape for
motorists or pedestrians passing through the industrial area. (Many of the properties in
the Industrial District are on streets that connect to commercial or residential
neighborhoods).
Proposed Solution Overview
In order to ensure that the general screening requirements contained in Article 3 apply to
street screening for properties in the I District, Section 4.23(E)(3)(b)(1)should be
amended as follows:
1. Storage,loading and work operations shall be screened from view along all district
boundary lines and along all public streets.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
45 4.23(E)(3)(b)(1) Amend general screening requirements to include views from
all public streets.
329 Amend the Group Home table in 3.8.6 to allow Group Homes in the Commercial district,
and create a new use,"Institutional",with not cap at 20 residents.
Problem Statement
1.There was a clerical error in the group home chart in Section 3.8.6 of the LUC, and the
C—Commercial zoning district was inadvertently left out of the chart.
2.The reasoning behind imposing a limit on the number of residents in group homes is
two-fold:(1)that it is"operated as a single household unit, and(2)that it is"subject to
limitations which will make the size and scale of the group home similar to the size and
scale of the other residential uses permitted in that zone."
It has been discussed by staff that 20 residents may be an arbitrary number.
3.There is no longer a special review hearing for group homes,so reference to it should
be removed.
4.Currently the LUC requires"any group home permit granted by the city"to be
recorded by the city with the County Clerk and Recorder.This is perhaps not helpful
enough to make it worth the effort. Another problem is that in order for a property to
continue to be considered a group home, it must continue to be run or licensed by a
government agency. If a group home lost it's license, it would no longer be a group
home,but there is no mechanism to update the information that would have been sent to
the County Clerk and Recorder.
Proposed Solution Overview
1.Add the C-Commercial zone to the bottom row of the group home chart in 3.8.6(A).
2.Group homes should really be separated into two separate group home types,namely
"residential group homes"and"institutional group homes."Group homes with 8 or
fewer residents would be able to be operated as a single household unit,but any larger
than that and it begins to be more institutional in nature.Residential group homes should
have specific maximums,but for institutional group homes it would be appropriate to
take off the reference to a maximum of 20 and allow a flexible maximum to be used
based on performance of how the group home would impact the neighborhood.
3.Revise 3.8.6(B)(2)to be additional review criteria for institutional group homes over 8
residents and remove reference to"special review hearing."
4.Take out 3.8.6(B)(6)in it's entirety.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code CiteRevision Effect
• 25 3.8.6(A) Amend the Group Home table in 3.8.6 to allow Group Homes in
the Commercial district.
Wednesday,April 26,2000 Page 7 of 19
46 5.1.2 Revise definition of"Residential Group Home"and add
definition of"Large Group Care Facility"
330 Revise and refine code provisions related to screening of trash enclosures to allow sidewalk
access dumpsters.
Problem Statement
Section 3.5.l(J)(1)sets forth one of the regulations that govern the location of certain
types of service functions that are common to many developments. These service
functions include outdoor storage areas,trash collection areas,loading areas and other
such uses. Such functions are required to be located at least 20 feet from a public street,
public sidewalk,or internal pedestrian way(sidewalk). Taken literally,this means that a
trash dumpster or enclosure will not be easily accessible by tenants or others who need to
deposit garbage since the receptacle must be at least 20 feet from a street or any type of
sidewalk,public or private. A person would need to traverse 20 feet of grass,gravel or
dirt surface in order to access the trash enclosure. While it makes sense to keep trash
areas at least 20 feet from a public street or public sidewalk,it is often necessary to
provide access to a trash enclosure by means of a private,internal walk.
Proposed Solution Overview
Since it is necessary to allow safe and convenient access to trash enclosures, Section
3.5.1(.1)(I)of the LUC should be amended to exempt trash collection areas near internal
sidewalks.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
18 3.5.1(J)(1) Amend general development standards regarding outdoor
storage to accommodate trash enclosures near sidewalks.
331 Amend definition of"parks,recreation and open lands" by changing the words "defined
by' to"described in."
Problem Statement
Staff notes that the Natural Areas policy plan does not define the term"natural areas"but
rather simply describes the natural areas. The same thing goes for the parks and
recreation policy plan and the term"parks and recreation facilities". Therefore,the
definition of"parks,recreation and open lands"contained in Article 5 is incorrect when it
makes reference to those terms as being defined in either the natural areas policy plan or
the parks and recreation policy plan. They are merely described in those plans.
Proposed Solution Overview
Amend the definition of"Park,recreation and open lands"to be lands"described by",
not"defined by",the Natural Areas Policy Plan and the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
51 5.1.2 Amend definition of"parks,recreation and open lands"
332 Amend the Sign Code to impose a limit on the height of window signs. The Code limits the
height of wall signs,but not window signs.
Problem Statement
The sign code provisions regulate the size,height and placement of signs. One of the
provisions limits the maximum height of wall signs to 7 feet. However,there is no such
height limit for window signs. Since windows are an integral part of a building wall,the
height limit of wall signs should also be applicable to window signs.
Wednesday,April 26,2000 Page 8 of 19
Proposed Solution Overview
. The window sign regulations contained in Section 3.8.7(S)of the LUC should be
amended by adding a new paragraph(5)to read as follows:
(5)No window sign shall exceed seven(7)feet in height.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
26 3.8.7(S) Amend the sign code to address windows over 7 feet high.
334 Add "Limited Indoor Recreational Use" as a permitted secondary use in the Employment
zone district.
Problem Statement
The nature of these uses is evolving. Real estate professionals and industry
representatives have indicated that such uses now typically include pre-school and after-
school care,transportation services to and from home and school, a variety of youth
activities,as well as typical uses found in the definition. At the same time,these uses are
needing larger vacant parcels on which to develop. Suitable parcels in the available zone
districts with existing public improvements are difficult to find.
Proposed Solution Overview
Add the use to the Employment zone district as a secondary use,subject to review by the
Planning and Zoning Board. Such an addition would contribute to the mixed-use nature
of the E zone and provide opportunities for parents who work in the area to be in close
proximity to such a proposed use. By providing an additional zone district for such
multi-purpose uses,the Code becomes a little more flexible and provides opportunities to
• reduce vehicle miles traveled.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
41 4.22(B)(2)(c) Add"Limited Indoor Recreational Use"as a permitted
secondary use in the Employment zone district
42 4.22(0)(2) Add"Limited Indoor Recreational Use"as a permitted
secondary use in the Employment zone district-???????
335 Fix 3.4.1 (E)(3)so that the reference is to back to 2.1.1,not 2.2.1.
Problem Statement
Section 3.4.1(E)(3)contains a cross-reference that is incorrect to Section 2.2.1. The
correct cross-reference should be to Section 2.1.1.
Proposed Solution Overview
Amend Section 3.4.1(E)(3)(the introductory paragraph only)to read as follows:
(3)Planning and Zoning Board Review for Projects with Less Than Recommended
Buffer. If the application of the performance standards contained in this subparagraph
results in a proposed buffer zone that includes a buffer distance that is, on average,less
than eight(80)percent of the minimum general buffer distance recommended in the
table below,then the project will be reviewed through Planning and Zoning Board
Review as defined in Section 2.1.1.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
. 17 3.4.1(E)(3) Correct citation.
Wednesday,April 26,2000 Page 9 of 19
337 Consider allowing more flexibility for the street tree spacing requirement of one tree per
30' to 40'for lots with narrow frontage(to be defined)due to insufficient area for both
utilities and trees.
Problem Statement
Street tree spacing at 30 to 40 foot intervals becomes problematic in coordinating utilities
for narrow lots,and becomes difficult for lots that are over 40 feet wide and under 60 feet
wide because the spacing does not divide easily into the lot widths.Tim Buchanan,the
City Forester,said that he had already been thinking that on small lots, it would probably
make more sense to have one tree per lot rather than a rigid 30 to 40 foot spacing.It has
also been suggested that the 30 to 40 foot spacing requirement should be applied on an
average along the entire block rather that on a tree by tree basis.
Proposed Solution Overview
A sentence should be added to the street tree spacing requirements that allows lots under
a 60 feet to be excluded from the 30 to 40 foot spacing requirement and only be required
to provide one tree per lot. Also, it should be clarified that the 30 to 40 foot street tree
spacing is applied as an average.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
12 3.2.1 (D)(2) Revise and refine tree spacing provisions to exempts lots
under 60 feet and to measure tree spacing as an average.
338 Clarify garage standards to be clear that the "front facade of the living area portion of the
dwelling" is specific to the ground floor only.
Problem Statement
It is currently specified that a street facing garage door must be recessed at least 4 feet
behind the"living area portion of the front facade"of a house. It should be clarified that
this applies to the ground floor facade only.
Proposed Solution Overview
Add"ground floor"in front of"living area"to clarify the standard.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
22 3.5.2(E)(1) Revise and refine garage standard code provisions to clarify
how the font facade is measured.
340 Amend the purpose statement to the garage standards beyond promoting visual
variety/visual interest by adding"human scale" or other reference to impacts on the
streetscape.
Problem Statement
Currently the Purpose/Applicability statement in 3.5.2(A)states that the standards of the
section"are intended to promote variety and visual interest in zone districts
predominately characterized by residential building development." Currently the purpose
stated for the garage standards is"to prevent residential streetscapes from being
dominated by protruding garage doors." It seems that in light of the requirement that the
street facing garage doors must be recessed behind a front porch or the living area portion
of the dwelling,there is a human interaction element behind the reason for the standard,
and the purpose statements should reflect that.
The reason this is an important issue is because if an applicant were to request a
modification to this standard, they would be required to address the purpose of the
Wednesday,April 26,2000 Page 10 of 19
standard in their proposed alternative design. Preventing the streetscapes from being
• dominated by protruding garage doors is only part of what a modification should be
required to address. An applicant should really also have to provide for human
interaction between the residents and the human activity associated with the street.
Proposed Solution Overview
Include the phrase"and to provide a physical environment for human interaction
between the dwellers of the housing units and the human activity associated with the
street"into the Purpose/Applicability standard in 3.5.2(A).
Include the phrase,"and to provide a physical environment for human interaction
between the dwellers of the housing units and the human activity associated with the
street'into the stated purpose of the garage standards in 3.5.2(E).
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
19 3.5.2(A) Revise and refine the garage standards purpose statement.
21 3.5.2(E) Revise and refine garage door code provisions.
341 Add "Grocery Stores' and "Supermarkets' as permitted uses in the C-N zone.
Unintentional exclusion.
Problem Statement
The North College Avenue Corridor Plan envisioned the CN zone as a flexible zone
allowing a large variety of commercial use types in addition to industrial,
workshop/craftsman,services,entertainment,retail,restaurant,and residential uses. It was
always the intention of the zone to allow"grocery stores'and"supermarkets"in the zone,
but those uses were somehow inadvertently left out when the Land Use Code was written.
• Proposed Solution Overview
Add"grocery store'and"supermarkets'as permitted uses in the CN zone.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
35 4.18(B)(2)(c) Add"Grocery Stores"and"Supermarkets"as permitted uses in
the C-N zone. Unintentional exclusion.
342 Clarify and expand on the meaning of"campus or park-like'in 4.21 (E)(3) (a)for the H-C
zone.
Problem Statement
1. Currently Section 4.12(E)(3)of the LUC is one paragraph with two sentences. The
first sentence speaks to standards specific to Industrial Building in the HC zone,while
second sentence speaks to all other mixed-use,institutional and commercial building in
the HC zone. The way it is worded now, it is very confusing whether or not the entire
section refers to industrial building only.
2. It is not clear what"campus or park-like",referred to in 4.21(E)(3)(a),specifically
means.
3. Section 4.2 1(E)(3)(a)has another standard that is confusing. This section(a)is set up
to allow an exception to the mixed-use, institutional and commercial building standards
of 3.5.3(B),but opens up the paragraph stating that a building"may orient away from the
street'if a list of criterion are satisfied. Orienting a building away from the street is not
• the only issue. 3.5.3(B)does not specifically require that a building be oriented to the
street,but it does require that:
Wednesday,April 26,2000 Page I I of 19
a.A main entrance face and open directly onto a connecting walkway,and,
b.Build-to lines are adhered to,and
c.No vehicle use areas are allowed between the building faces and the street.
Proposed Solution Overview
1.To reflect the intent of the paragraph,the section really should be renumbered 3a for
industrial buildings and 3b for mixed-use,institutional and commercial buildings.
2.A definition of"campus or park-like"will be added to Article 5.
3. Since we have a section specifically allowing an exception to the standards of
3.5.3(B),perhaps it would be more appropriate to allow an exception to the bulleted
items above rather than to a standard that is not actually required
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Of Revision Effect
23 3.5.2(E)(3) Revise and refine design standard regarding"campus-like"site
design alternative.
344 Cross reference 3.2.2(E)(6)(b) "Parking bays shall extend no more than 15 spaces without
an intervening tree..." to 3.2.1(E)(5)to provide design flexibility afforded by the
alternative compliance provision.
Problem Statement
The present location in the Code for this standard does not allow for design flexibility
afforded by the alternative compliance provision. Staff,however,has reviewed a variety
of parking lot layouts that meet the standard equally well or better than the strict
interpretation of the standard but cannot approve these layouts without a seeking a
Modification of Standard from the Planning and Zoning Board. This could move a Type
One review into a Type Two review or require a stand alone modification. Either effect
would add unnecessary time to the review process. Allowing review and evaluation
under the alternative compliance provision would add flexibility and efficiency to the
Code.
Proposed Solution Overview
Make the cross-reference to Section 3.2.1 (E)(5).
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
13 3.2.1(E)(5) Revise and refine code provisions related to parking bays.
14 3.2.2(E)(6)(b) Revise and refine code provisions related to parking bays.
345 Amend 3.5.2(1) "Every front fagade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face
a connecting walkway with no primary entrance more than 200' from a street sidewalk" to
allow for a "major walkway spine"to be used in addition to street sidewalk
Problem Statement
1.The underlying reason for this standard is to encourage front doors of dwelling units
face the pedestrian realm associated with a street. Secondary reasons for this standard
may also have to do with easy vehicular access(for guests,deliveries,and residents who
parallel park)to the front doors of dwellings.Many developers have expressed concern
that this requirement is very difficult to meet. Staff has entertained the idea of increasing
the distance or perhaps allowing other types of sidewalks to be used in addition to street
sidewalks as the sidewalk from which this 200 feet can be measured.
2. Section 3.5.2(1)makes reference to the term"maximum extent practicable,"but that
term is not defined. The term"maximum extent feasible"is defined in article 5,and
should be the tern used here.
Wednesday,April 26,2000 Page 12 of 19
. 3.There currently is no definition of a"street sidewalk"in article 5,but the definition of
"street"in article 5 does not help to clarify this confusion,but rather suggests that a
pedestrian or bicycle path could be considered a street. It should be clarified with a LUC
revision what exactly is meant by a"street'and a"street sidewalk."
Proposed Solution Overview
1.Keep the specified distance at 200 feet,but allow"major walkway spines"(as defined
in article 5)to be used in addition to street sidewalks as the sidewalks from which this
200 feet can be measured.
2. Change the word practicable to feasible in Section 3.5.2(1).
3.Add a definition of"street sidewalk"to Article 5,and modify the definition of"street'
to clarify that a street must have a vehicle component with possible bicycle or pedestrian
components.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
20 3.5.2(C) Revise and refine code provisions regarding the maximum 200
foot limit walkway distance for access to door ways in
multifamily units.
49 5.1.2 Revise definition of"Major Walkway Spine"
55 5.1.2 Revise the definition of"Street"
56 5.1.2 Revise the definition of"Street sidewalk."
346 Allowance to extend the terms of a vested right for "Large Base Industry" 2.2.11(D)(3).
Includes a new definition.
Problem Statement
The state law allows a longer period of vesting than three years if such longer period of
vesting is granted through a development agreement which has been approved by
ordinance of the Council as a legislative act and if it is justified in light of all relevant
circumstances including,but not limited to,the size and phasing of the development,
economic cycles,a market conditions. Staff proposes to make provision in our Code for
such extended term of vested right provided also that such extended term apply only to
"large base industries".
Proposed Solution Overview
In order to accomplish this purpose,Section 2.2.11(D)(3)of the Land Use Code should
be amended to include the vested rights exemption for these uses and also a definition
should be added to Article 5 for the purpose of defining the term"large base industry".
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
6 2.2.11(D)(3) Revise provisions regarding term of vested right for"large base
industries".
47 5.1.2 Definitions Add a definition of"Large Base Industry".
347 Correct the cross-reference in 1.3.4)A)(6)from 2.3.3 to 2.9.
Problem Statement
The problem is that Section 1.3.4(A)(6)contains an incorrect cross-reference to Section
2.3.3. The cross-reference should be to Section 2.9.
• Proposed Solution Overview
Wednesday,April 26,2000 Page 13 of 19
Amend Section 1.3.4(A)(6)to read as follows:
(6)Such use is not specifically listed as a"Permitted Use" in Article 4. (See Section
2.3.32.9 for the procedures for text amendments.)
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Cade Cite Revision Effect
2 1.3.4(A)(6) Revise cross reference
348 Amend 2.2.7(D)(3)regarding the findings the P&Z Board must make in considering
approval or denial by deleting"or other factors considered whichever is appropriate."
Problem Statement
Section 2.2.7(D)(3)contains some requirements regarding findings that the Planning and
Zoning Board must make in considering and approving or denying development
applications. The paragraph is somewhat confusing in its organization and is hard to
follow. It also included the term"or other factors considered" as a factor for P&Z
consideration. This term is unclear and could contribute to arbitrary decision making.
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff proposes to amend Section 2.2.7(D)(3)to clarify it's meaning and application.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
4 2.2.7(0)(3) Clarify provisions regarding P&Z Board findings.
349 Amend 3.8.17(A)(3)regarding"Contextual Height" so that context can be defined as the
adjacent neighborhood as opposed to the immediate abutting property. Allows for more
flexibility to implement new urbanism design.
Problem Statement
Presently,contextual height is defined to refer to the context of a development proposal
as the immediate abutting property. This is considered a narrow definition and overly
restrictive. By using adjacency versus abutting,the context is broadened thereby
providing more flexibility.
Proposed Solution Overview
Delete references to"abutting to the subject lot"and clarify that contextual height may
refer to adjacent properties. This would allow a broader area to become the context by
which to evaluate contextual height.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
28 3.8.17(A)(3) Revise"contextual height"code provisions.
350 Amend the definition of"sign"in Article 5 by deleting the paragraph that refers to bus
benches. Council moved bus bench and bus shelter advertising out of the Land Use Code.
Housekeeping measure.
Problem Statement
The definition of sign, in subparagraph(12)thereof,exempts signs on bus benches from
being"signs". Since we amended Section 24-1 of the Code of the City to allow for and
regulate bus benches,it is now appropriate to delete paragraph(12)from the definition of
"Sign".
Proposed Solution Overview
Wednesday,April 26,2000 Page 14 of 19
Amend the definition of"sign"as contained in Article 5 of the Land Use Code by the
• deletion of subparagraph(12)thereof and by renumbering subsequent subparagraphs
accordingly.
Related Code Revisions
Ord,Section Code Cite Revision Effect
53 5.1.2 Definitions Amend definition of sign to exempt bus benches.
351 Amend 2.10.2(H)which sets the standards by which the Z.B.A.may grant a hardship
variance by deleting"and without substantially impairing the intent and purposes of
Articles 3-4 inclusive." Allows for greater flexibility.
Problem Statement
Staff recommends that the standards for granting hardship variances be clarified.
Section 2.10.2(H)sets the standards for the granting of hardship variances by the ZBA.
One of the criteria for the granting of a hardship variance is that it can be granted
"without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the
intent and purposes of Articles 3 through 4,inclusive".Because hardship variances are
granted for the purpose of avoiding an injustice,they almost always impair the intent and
purposes of the Code. Hopefully though,they are not granted if they constitute a
substantial detriment to the public good. Depending upon how either general or specific
one looks at the "intent and purposes of Articles 3 through 4,"one might conclude that
the impairment is not"substantial'or is"substantial'. For example,if one only focuses
on the "cosmic" intent and purpose,maybe there is no substantial impairment. However,
if you look at the specific purpose of the Section of the Code which the applicant seeks to
obtain a variance from,then there is most likely a substantial impairment.
• Proposed Solution Overview
Staff proposes to delete the clause pertaining to substantial impairment of the intent and
purposes,and simply rely upon the clause that requires a finding that there be no
substantial detriment to the public good.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
8 2.8.2(H) Revise provisions regarding ZBA hardship variances.
9 2.10.2(H) Revise provisions regarding ZBA hardship variances.
352 Amend 1.2.4 and 3.1.1 which are the "Applicability" sections so it is clear that some
provisions of the Code apply to not only development proposals but also to the use of land
after development has occurred. Clarifies ongoing applicability.
Problem Statement
The "applicability"sections found at Section 1.2.4 and Section 3.1.1 need to be amended
to clarify that some of the provisions of the Land Use Code not only apply to the
development of land but also to the use of land after development has occurred. As an
example,the regulations pertaining to home occupations, signs,organic soil amendments,
etc. contained in Division3.8 have an ongoing applicability even after the final plan has
been approved. There are many other provisions that have ongoing applicability. Since it
is hard to imagine all of the different provisions of the Land Use Code that might have
ongoing applicability, I think it might be best to amend the applicability paragraphs in a
general way to give us a better argument that a Section has an ongoing applicability.
Proposed Solution Overview
. Amend Sections 1.2.4 and 3.1.1 to clarify ongoing applicability
Related Code Revisions
Wednesday,April 26,2000 - Page 15 of 19
Ord.Section Cyde Cite Revision Effect
1 1.2.4 Amend to clarify ongoing applicability.
11 3.1.1 Amend to clarify ongoing applicability.
353 Add "Places of Worship and Assembly" as a permitted use in the Downtown zone district,
Old City Center sub district,subject to administrative review.
Problem Statement
During the adoption process of the original version of the Land Use Code,it was not
envisioned that there would be a demand for re-use of existing structures as places of
worship or assembly. In the meantime,there has been an abandonment of a former
industrial use in a large structure and a request by a church to move in and occupy this
structure. Presently,the Code prohibits this.
With regard for new churches,the trend is for new construction to be accompanied by
large parking lots(Timberline Church and Faith Evangelical Free)which would not be
available in the Old City Center due to lack of assembled parcels. Smaller churches
would be the more likely candidate for a downtown location,especially as an adaptive re-
use of an existing structure. Any church would be regulated by the general development
standards of Article Three and the zone district standards of Article 4.
Proposed Solution Overview
Add"Places of Worship or Assembly"as a type one permitted use in the Downtown—
Old City Center Sub District in Article 4.12.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
34 4.12(B)(2)(c) Add"Places of Worship and Assembly"as a permitted use in
the Downtown zone district,Old City Center sub district
354 Amend the definition of"Public Facilities" in Article 5 to include"parks and recreation or
natural area program maintenance facilities and offices."
Problem Statement
"Public Facilities"are a permitted use in the P-O-L,Public Open Lands zone district. As
presently written,the definition of"Public Facilities"refers to"transportation systems or
facilities,water systems or facilities,wastewater systems or facilities,storm drainage
systems or facilities, fire,police and emergency systems or facilities,electrical utilities,
gas utilities,cable facilities or other public facilities." As written,the definition prohibits
Parks and Recreation and Natural Area Program facilities.
There is now a need to provide for Parks and Recreation and Natural Areas Program
facilities in the P-O-L zone district. These uses are considered comparable with the
allowable permitted uses.
Proposed Solution Overview
Add"Parks and Recreation or Natural Area Program Maintenance Facilities"as a type
one permitted use in the Public Open Lands zone district.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
52 5.1.2 Amend the definition of"Public Facilities".
355 Add a reference to considering stealth technology in order to mitigate the visual impact of
wireless telecommunications equipment and facilities(monopoles and cellular towers).
Wednesday,April 26,2000 Page 16 of 19
Problem Statement
• The original drafting of the Wireless Telecommunications Equipment and Facilities code
section was done in 1996. Since then,the trend in the industry has been to consider
stealth technology as the best alternative,to the extent reasonably feasible,by which to
screen monopoles and cellular towers or equipment. The present Code does not contain
any references to stealth technology and thus has not kept up with current trends.
Proposed Solution Overview
Add the following to 3.8.13 {C}
When considering wireless telecommunications equipment or facilities,the applicant
shall consider stealth technology first,to the extent reasonably feasible, as the best
method by which to mitigate and or camouflage the visual impacts of equipment,
monopoles or cellular towers. Stealth technology consists of,but not limited to,the use
of the following by which to mitigate said visual impacts: grain silos,grain elevators,
church steeples, water towers, clock towers,bell towers, false penthouses or any suitable
"mimic"structures.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
27 3.8.13(C) Revise and refine telecommunications equipment a facilities
code provisions.
356 Amend definition of Off-street parking or vehicular use area to add long term vehicle
storage to list of exemptions.
Problem Statement
The definition of off-street parking and vehicular use area currently applies to all off-
street parking lots except those that are used primarily for"recreational vehicle,boat and
truck storage". All other types of parking areas are subject to the parking lot design
standards that are contained in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 with regards to paving,striping,
and interior parking lot landscape islands. These standards are necessary to ensure that
parking areas are safe,efficient,and attractive.
An"RV,boat and truck storage'use is exempted from meeting the design standards of a
parking lot because such a use more closely resembles an outdoor storage use,which is
defined as"...the keeping in an unroofed area, of any equipment,goods,junk,material,
merchandise or vehicles in the same place for more than twenty-four(24)hours". These
uses are required to comply with the standards for outdoor storage areas tha&are found in
Sections 3.5.(J)and 3.2.1. This means that they must be totally screened from view from
a public street or sidewalk by means of a solid fence or wall, and that landscaping must be
installed along the outside perimeter of the fence in order to enhance the low visual
interest of a plain fence or wall. Since daily or continual vehicular movement does not
occur in an"RV,boat and truck storage use',the interior design or layout of the lot is not
as important a factor as it is for lots used by employees and customers. Since the storage
lot must be totally screened from view and involves only occasional and controlled
vehicular movement,there is little benefit to requiring such things as landscape islands in
the middle of the lot or paved surfaces that increase the amount of imperviousness.
While one of the items that the definition of outdoor storage area applies to is the storage
of vehicles,the definition of off-street parking area or vehicular use area also applies to
the storage of motor vehicles. Therefore,a conflict exists between the two definitions and
it is not clear which design standards apply.
Proposed Solution Overview
• In order to resolve the conflict between the definitions and to clarify which standards
apply, it is recommended that the definition of off-street parking area or vehicular use
Wednesday,April 26,2000 Page 17 of 19
area by amended.
A parking area that is primarily used for long-term storage of vehicles(i.e.an impound
lot,junkyard,or other similar use)more closely resembles an outdoor storage area than it
does a parking lot. The interior parking lot design elements are not an important
consideration for such an area,but the visual perimeter screening of these long-term
facilities is important. Therefore,the definition of off-street parking area or vehicular
use area in Article 5 should be amended in order to exempt other types of vehicular use
areas in addition to an"RV,boat and truck storage"use.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
50 5.1.2 Definitions Revise definition of off-street parking area.
357 Remove unnecessary language regarding the location of L-M-N Neighborhood Centers in
Section 4.4(D)(3)(b)
Problem Statement
In the "Location" standard for neighborhood centers,there is a sentence that describes
that such centers should locate
"in the interior of a residential development or along an arterial street."
In reviewing several L-M-N developments, Staff has found that there are other locations
as well that meet the intent and purpose of the standard and that this existing language
may be overly restrictive. For example,a good location for an L-M-N Neighborhood
Center would be at the intersection of two collector streets. Staff,therefore,believes this
sentence is not necessary and that other existing language in the Code is sufficient.
The existing language that will remain and is sufficient to convey the intent of the
regulation states:
"A neighborhood center shall be planned as an integral part of surrounding residential
development and located where the network of local streets provides direct access to the
center."
Proposed Solution Overview
Delete the sentence "The location may be in the interior of a residential development or
r along arterial streets."
Related Code Revisions
Ord,Section Code Cite Revision Effect
32 4.4(1))(3)(b) Revise LMN Neighborhood Center code provisions
358 Add Warehouse and distribution facility as a permitted use in the Employment District
Problem Statement
The LUC defines two types of warehouse uses. A warehouse is simply a building used
for storage of goods. A warehouse and distribution facility consists of storage and
distribution of products,including accessory offices or showrooms,and incidental retail
sales. The number of employees and the amount of traffic associated with a warehouse
can be minimal,whereas the number of employees and the amount of traffic associated
with a warehouse and distribution facility will be somewhat higher. Warehouses are
permitted in 4 districts,the CN,CL,E and I. Warehouse and distribution uses are
allowed in 3 districts,the CN,CL,and I,but are not allowed in the E district.
Wednesday,April 26,2000 Page 18 of 19
A warehouse and distribution facility is similar to other uses allowed in the E district with
respect to size,employment,on-site activities,and traffic impacts. In fact light industrial
uses,which are a permitted Type 1 use in the E district,often include warehousing and
distribution as part of their operation. For example,a product is manufactured or
packaged,then stored in the warehouse portion of the building,and then loaded onto
trucks and distributed off-site.
Proposed Solution Overview
Since warehouse and distribution facilities are similar to other uses permitted in the E
district with respect to size,employment,on-site activities,and traffic impacts,the use
should be added to the list of Type 1 uses allowed in the district. (The E district
regulations currently require that any building that exceeds 50,000 square feet shall be
subject to Planning and Zoning Board review. Thus,a large warehouse and distribution
facility will be subject to a Type 2 review even if the use is added to the Type 1 list of
uses).
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
40 4.22(B)(2)(c) Add Warehouse and distribution facility as a permitted use in
the Employment District
359 Add a definition for "logo sign" to Article 5
Problem Statement
The sign code(Section 3.8.7)establishes size regulations for"individual letter",
"cabinet",and "logo"signs that are placed on walls of buildings which are located in the
Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Article 5 of the LUC contains definitions for 23
different types of signs. However,a definition for"logo sign"was not included.
. Since the sign code has different regulations for logo and individual letter signs,it is
important that the term"logo'be defined in order to eliminate confusion as to how a
particular sign should be classified.
Proposed Solution Overview
Section 5.1.2(definitions)should be amended by adding the definition of"Sign, logo'.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
48 5.1.2 Add a definition for"logo sign".
361 Revise a term used with Alleys to be required rather than permitted
Problem Statement
A problem surfaced where an alley required for a development may not have to be
paved. The Land Use Code needs to be revised to remove the incorrect interpretation.
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff proposes to change the word"permitted"to'required"as it relates to the paving of
alleys in a development. Revise the sentence in Section 3.3.2(E)(c)Streets and Alleys,to
read, "All alleys,where required,shall be paved."
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effecr
16 3.3.2(E)(1)(c) Revise code provisions related to alleys.
Wednesday,April 26,2000 Page 19 of 19
ITEM NO. 10
20/00 +
MEETId Sheila 4/911410
STAFF Ted Shepard 5�4�00
City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Biannual
Revisions, Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use
Code.
APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding the biannual
update to the Land Use Code. There are proposed revisions, clarifications and
additions to the Code that address a variety of subject areas that have arisen
since the last update in November of 1999.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
There are 34 proposed changes, clarifications or additions to the Land Use
Code. There are two changes in Article One, Organization. There are six
changes in Article Two, Administration. There are 15 changes in Article Three,
General Development Standards. There are six changes in Article Four,
Districts. There are five changes in Article Five, Terms and Definitions. A full
description of each proposed change is contained in the attachment.
•
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N.College Ave. P.O.Box 580 Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 (970)221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Biannual Revisions,
Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code
April 20, 2000 P & Z Meeting
Page 2
COMMENTS:
1. Substantive Issues:
There are three proposed changes that could be considered more substantive
than the other proposed revisions. Briefly, these three changes are summarized
as follows:
A. Re-evaluate the "maximum" parking standard for offices of 3 spaces/1,000
square feet in the Harmony Corridor zone.
B. Adopt new standards and permitting for stockpiling dirt prior to approval of
a P.D.P. and modify definition of"development' accordingly.
C. Add a new type of Group Home for facilities serving more than eight
clients, excluding supervisors, and remove the present cap on the number
of clients (20) and review based on performance standards. The new type
of facility would be known as an "institutional home."
2. Article One—Organization:
347 Correct the cross-reference in 1.3.4 (A)(6) from 2.3.3 to 2.9.
352 Amend 1.2.4, "Applicability" so it is clear that some provisions of the Code
apply not only to development proposals but also to the use of land after
development has occurred. Clarifies ongoing applicability.
2. Article Two —Administration:
282 Adopt new standards and permitting for stockpiling dirt prior to approval of
a P.D.P. and modify the definition of"development' accordingly.
320 Amend 2.1.5 to authorize the Hearing Officer/Director to accept
dedications and vacations as laid out on plats and separate deeds in
conjunction with a Type One hearing.
324 Amend the Minor Amendment section, 2.2.10(A)(1)(a), to allow minor
Amendments for old Use-By-Right projects to allow conversions from
office to new livetwork unit or new dwelling units.
• Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Biannual Revisions,
Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code
April 20, 2000 P & Z Meeting
Page 3
346 Allowance to extend the terms of a vested right for "Large Base Industry"
and adopt a new definition accordingly. 2.2.11(D)(3).
348 Amend 2.2.7(D)(3) regarding the findings the P & Z Board must make in
considering approval or denial by deleting "or other factors considered
whichever appropriate." As presently written, it opens the door for
arbitrary decision-making.
351 Amend 2.10(H) which sets the standards by which the Z.B.A. may grant a
hardship variance by deleting "and without substantially impairing the
intent and purposes of Articles 3— 4 inclusive." Allows for greater
flexibility.
3. Article Three—General Development Standards:
206 Re-evaluate the "maximum" parking standard for offices of 3 spaces/1,000
• square feet.
315 Clarify what percentage of a building has to be at or within the "build-to"
line.
323 Amend how we calculate the required size of an outdoor play area for
child care centers.
329 Amend the Group Home table in 3.8.6 to create a new group home
category for facilities serving more than eight clients, excluding
supervisors, and call it "institutional," and not cap the number at 20 as
presently stated in the Code. Also, make other minor corrections to this
section and the table.
330 Amend 3.5(J)(1) which requires trash enclosures to be 20 feet from a
street, public sidewalk, or internal pedestrian way. Delete the reference to
internal pedestrian way.
332 Amend the Sign Code to impose a limit on the height of window signs.
335 Fix 3.4.1(E)(3) so that the reference is back to 2.1.1, not 2.2.1. As written
now, the citation is wrong.
•
Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Biannual Revisions,
Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code
April 20, 2000 P & Z Meeting
Page 4
337 Allow for more flexibility for the street tree spacing requirement of one tree
per 30' to 40' lots with narrow frontage (under 60 feet in width) due to
insufficient area for both utilities and street trees.
338 Clarify garage standards to be clear that the "front fagade of the living area
portion of the dwelling"is specific to the ground floor only.
340 Amend the purpose statement to the garage standards beyond promoting
visual variety/visual interest by adding "human scale"or other reference to
impacts on the streetscape.
344 Cross-reference 3.2.2(E((6)(b) "Parking bays shall extend no more than
15 spaces without an intervening tree..."to 3.2.1(E)(5) to provide design
flexibility afforded by the alternative compliance provision.
345 Amend 3.5.2(1) `Every front fagade with a primary entrance to a dwelling
unit shall face a connecting walkway with no primary entrance more than
200 feet from a street sidewalk"to allow for a "major walkway spine"to be
used in addition to the street sidewalk.
349 Amend 3.8.17(A)(3) regarding "Contextual Height" so that context can be
defined as the adjacent neighborhood as opposed to the immediate
abutting property. Allows for more flexibility to implement new urbanism
design.
352 Amend 3.1.1 which is the "Applicability" section for Article Three so it is
clear that some provisions of the Code apply to not only development
proposals but also to the use of land after development has occurred.
Clarifies ongoing applicability.
355 Add a reference requiring telecommunication providers to consider
"stealth technology"first in order to mitigate the visual impact of wireless
telecommunications equipment and facilities (monopoles and cellular
towers).
4. Article Four— Districts
325 Add "Bed and Breakfast Establishments Containing Six Beds or Less"to
the N-C-M zone district as a permitted use subject to review by the
Planning and Zoning Board.
• Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Biannual Revisions,
Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code
April 20, 2000 P & Z Meeting
Page 5
328 Re-examine the screening requirement of outside storage yards along a
public street in the I zone since it takes precedence over the screening
requirements in Article 3 and may not be sufficient.
334 Consider adding "Limited Indoor Recreational Use"as a permitted
secondary use in the E zone, subject to review by the Planning and
Zoning Board.
341 Add "Grocery Stores and Supermarkets"as permitted uses in the C-N
zone.
342 Clarify or expand the meaning of "campus or park-like"in the H-C zone.
353 Add Places of Worship or Assembly"as a permitted use in the Downtown
zone, Old City Center sub district, subject to administrative review.
. 5. Article Five —Terms and Definitions:
326 Amend the definition of "Site Specific Development Plan"to include
reference to subdivisions and plans approved in the County so existing
County subs would not have to replat upon annexation.
331 Amend the definition of"Parks, Recreation and Open Lands"by changing
the words "defined by"to "defined in."
350 Amend the definition of "Sign"by deleting the paragraph that refers to bus
benches.
354 Amend the definition of "Public Facilities"to include "Parks and Recreation
or Natural Area Program Facilities."
356 Amend the definition of "Off-street Parking or Vehicular Use Area"to add
"long term vehicle storage"to the list of exemptions.
•
. Spring Bi-Annual Revision of the Land Use Code
A summary of the proposed changes, clarifications and corrections to the Land Use Code
was presented to the committee. These changes will go the P &Z Board on April 20d,
and then on to Council for two readings in May.
The primary issue for the Spring cycle is to revise the maximum allowable amount of on-
site parking for the "general office"category. Office developers and office users are
requesting that the present maximum of 3.0 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft be raised and that the
present ratio is too restrictive. The latest trend in office development is to provide more
employees per square foot than in the past. This is accomplished by efficiencies in office
modules and equipment.
Staff has been working with office developers and land planning consultants in trying to
find a way to increase the maximum allowable parking and yet, at the same time,try to
influence typical low-rise suburban office park development so that the design principles
of new urbanism can be implemented. A more urban land use pattern will more readily
lend itself to transit service in the future.
To this end, Staff proposes a compromise. This compromise is seeks to find a middle
ground and is specified for the Harmony Corridor zone only.
The ratio of 3.0 can be raised to a maximum of 4.5 (which matches the ratio allowed for
the"medical office"category) based on satisfying a range of performance criteria. There
would be two ways to raise the parking maximum:
1. Raise the ratio by 1.5 by constructing a parking structure capable of
containing at least as many spaces as would be the difference between 3.0
and 4.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.
2. Or, in lieu of a parking structure,provide any of the following three
performance standards,either individually or in combination, each worth a
.5 raise in the ratio with the possible maximum being capped at 4.5
spaces/1,000:
A. Raise the ratio by .5 by providing no more than 50% of the total
parking between the front door and the street(as defined in big box
standards).
B. Raise the ratio by .5 by providing at least 50%of the total parking
at the rear of the building(as defined in big box standards).
C. Raise the ratio by .5 by providing parking lot perimeter
• landscaping in excess of what is required in 3.2.1 (Landscaping)by
50%.
4
EVERITT
Commercial Partners8
May 8, 2000
1 1 7-,3
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
City of Fort Collins
281 N. College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80522
RE: Code Revision for the "Maximum" Parking Ratio
Dear Ted:
Following are my comments regarding the proposed amendment to the code regarding appraising
the parking maximum.
1. The cost of building a parking structure is in excess of $10,000 per parking space, and
therefore, is economically feasible to serve a shopping mall, a downtown business area,
hospital, large employer such as Hewlett Packard, or a university. That cost for a grocery
store or employers like ABB, LSI, or even Celestica would not be economically feasible.
2. It is proposed to raise the parking ratio by .5 by providing a lot perimeter landscaping in
excess of what is required by at least 50%. That seems very arbitrary to me. Most designers
will say that just by adding more doesn't make it better, so to add 50% to what may be an
already good landscape plan seems to be a very arbitrary requirement that could weaken the
overall design of the project.
I do feel strongly that the current code regarding the maximum parking ratio does need to be
changed. If you would like to discuss this further, please feel free to contact me at 226-1500.
Sincerely,
Off`
Stuart MacMillan
Partner / Vice President
SM/ch 3030 south Couege Avenue
Fort Collins,Colorado 80525 _
(970)226-1500
(970)223-4156 F.
(303)623-6018 Mean
w .e rintwmpmies.com
T H E
KAPLAN COMPANY
onI N C O R P O R A T E D
April 21, 2000
Ted Shepard
Planning in Environmental Services
City of Fort Collins
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
Dear Ted:
I appreciate your good work in coordinating the diverse perspectives on parking
requirements among the staff and crafting a Code change that improves the
situation, at least for the Harmony Corridor. I was pleased to hear from the
Planning Zoning Board members last evening a general consensus that parking
requirements outside the Harmony Corridor for general office and retail uses
deserve more analysis for possible modification.
As you know, I am an advocate for a citizen's task force to work with the staff in
tackling the many issues associated with parking requirements. Perhaps the
• comments from the Board can be used to encourage the City Council to consider
a more comprehensive analysis of parking citywide employing a citizen's task
force.
Attached is a copy of my presentation to the Board last evening. Thank you
again for your efforts, and please call me whenever you just feel like talking
"parking philosophy".
Very truly yours,
Lester M.Kaplan
1060 Sailors Reef •Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 • 970/226.6819 • Fax 970/207-9256
Presentation to Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
April 20, 2000
Biannual Update to Land Use Code: General Office Parking
Requirements
I would like to speak briefly tonight about philosophy— the philosophy
of parking. Like any philosophy this would be an underlying believe
system. In the case of parking it would be a mindset that is at the
root of public policy on this issue.
To begin, there should be no doubt by anyone that the existing city
limitation of a maximum of 3 parking spaces per 1000 square feet of
office space is inadequate with regard to employees and the general
public use of such a building. Not too many years ago the city
required a minimum of 4 parking spaces per 1000. Clearly, the trend
in office development is an increase in the number of employees per
1000 square feet from the traditional 3 to 5 to as many as 7 to10.
The Urban Land Institute recommends a minimum of 4.5/1000. A 3
per 1000 maximum is, simply stated, a death sentence to most office
development.
What makes this parking inadequacy novel is that it is actually
intended to be inadequate by city policy. The "philosophy" of parking,
as it has been explained to me by staff is this: If there is not adequate
parking for a general office building, then important goals of the city
are more likely be achieved. These goals include 1) alternative
modes of transportation, where increasing numbers of citizens
abandon their cars for bikes, buses, trails and car pooling 2) a more
pedestrian friendly environment, where the VMT are reduced, and 3)
less traffic and air pollution.
These laudable goals are certainly not a unique vision by Fort Collins
citizens for our community. Communities across the country are
choosing these goals and adopting planning policies to bring them
about. However, the notion of restricting parking to a level below the
requirements of the public in order to bring these goals about could
be unique to Fort Collins.
Let's look more closely at this philosophy of restricting parking to
some seemingly arbitrary number below the needs of occupants and
users of a building in order to compel a behavioral change by the
public. This really is a facet of a philosophy promoted by some
previous policymakers in city maintaining that, if public streets are not
widened, out of sheer frustration, the public would flock to buses and
bicycles. Perhaps because of the Shields Street lawsuit and the
public referendum on the Timberline bridge requiring the city to
proceed with these improvements, the old thinking of"no pain, no
gain" with regard to road improvements at least appears to have
been reconsidered.
It is now time to expand this open mindedness towards this "no pain,
no gain" philosophy into the realm of public policy on parking.
The premise behind this philosophy is flawed, and inflicting this
philosophy onto the public and prospective employers is causing
unforeseen consequences and potential damage you may not be
aware of.
First, throughout the country where mass transit has been a
prominent mode of travel, this has not come about because
government has passed laws restricting parking below the level
needed for the safe and convenient operation of commercial
buildings. Successful mass transit requires threshold densities and
intensities of land use plus developers who choose to decrease
parking in favor of increasing leasable square footage. The city
currently places an unreasonable and unjustifiable emphasis on the
relationship between restricting parking to inconvenient levels and
getting the public to support mass transit. Where in the country or in
planning literature has this approach been proven to work? In most
suburban office developments that I am familiar with, mass transit
coexist with adequate parking. It is not one at the expense of the
other. Providing adequate parking does not mean embracing the
automobile.
As the voters' overwhelming rejection of the city's $70 million mass
transit initiative suggests, promoting mass transit is an extremely
complex issue. And adherence to limiting parking to a level below the
needs of a building, thereby inconveniencing employees and the
2
• general public, will not bring about a much-needed expansion to the
mass transit system in Fort Collins, but will only create more
resentment and distrust toward the city.
There are enough inconveniences to the public already without the
city intentionally creating more in order to change people's behavior.
For those who believe that parking is a tool to achieve behavioral
change in the community, please remember that above all else
parking is a dimension of public safety and welfare. This is why cities
across the country protect the public interest by requiring a minimum
number of parking spaces, not an unrealistic maximum as does Fort
Collins.
And what are some of these unforeseen consequences from making
the provision of adequate parking within the city limits illegal:
1. Restricting parking prevents new office construction at desirable,
close-in locations within the city limits and drives employees and
public into Larimer County and Loveland, where the parking
. minimum is 5 per 1000. This undermines the city's objective for
compact development, loses tax ratables and increases
automobile dependency.
2. Restricting parking leads to inefficient office usage and land use,
where the number of employees is forced to adjust to the number
of parking spaces.
3. Inadequate parking limits building income— an obstacle to
financing new office construction.
6. Forcing parking onto public streets undermines public safety, is
unreliable and eliminates areas for overflow parking.
7. Inadequate parking create stress on employees, customers and
clients and potential conflicts with neighboring property owners.
In my discussions with staff, there does not appear to have been a
• major office building built in Fort Collins under these guidelines since
they were adopted three years ago. Office parks outside the city
3
limits are sprouting up. The new "epi- center" of Northern Colorado is
now the 4000 acre Global Technology Center at 1-25 and US
Highway 34, which is attracting our best employers and, for that
matter, our best planners. Congratulations, Bob Blanchard on your
new position with this exciting development that could never occur
within the city limits of Fort Collins due to parking restrictions.
City policy regarding parking must respond to changing market
conditions of increased occupancy just as the city's increase of 3 to 5
du/ac responded to the market conditions of the need for greater land
use efficiency and housing affordability. Public policy can and should
work in tandem with market forces.
may be alone tonight in number but not in support for a change to
the City's parking restrictions. There has been no public notice of this
item, the agenda does not indicate parking as a discussion item, and
none of the people or companies who have voluntarily written the city
expressing concerns have been notified. These letters include
people in companies who are on the front-line of this issue:
1. The President of First Interstate Bank, one of the largest
commercial lenders in Fort Collins.
2. The Everitt Companies, the largest commercial developer in Fort
Collins.
3 Realtec, the largest commercial brokerage in Fort Collins.
4. Hewlett Packard and Celestica, the largest private employers in
Fort Collins.
5. BHA Designs and Vaught-Frye Architects/Planners, the largest
planning and design firms in Fort Collins.
6. The Neenan Company, one of the largest commercial builders in
Northern Colorado.
Just imagine the level of community interests the city would have if
this issue were to be opened to public input and discussion, as it
4
• should be. Therefore, I recommend that the Planning and Zoning
Board consider the following:
1. Approve the recommendations of staff as an interim measure at
addressing this problem.
2. Consider the creation of a citizens' Task Force to more thoroughly
analyze with staff the relationship between parking, city goals, and
changing market conditions and to have this analysis with possibly
more " philosophical" recommendations for changes ready for the
Board at the next scheduled review of City Plan.
I'd like to leave you with the prophetic words from a bumper sticker I
saw on the way to tonight's meeting: " If it ain't broke, fix it till it is."
Minimum rather than maximum parking spaces have worked for Fort
Collins for nearly 20 years and are best for the city's future.
Thank you for your time this evening and allowing me to talk
• philosophy.
Prepared by:
Lester M. Kaplan
5
HEWLETT•
47Hewlett-Packard Company PACKARD
Fort Collins Site
9404 Fast Harmony Road
Fort Collins, CO 8052"599
970.898.4620
Steve Stfesmeyer
APB 2000 Fort Collins Site Manager
Mr.Ted Shepard
Senior Planner �� ��
City of Fort Collins Planning
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins,Co. 80522-0580
Dear Ted:
In speaking recently with Bruce Hendee at BHA Design,we became aware of the City's current
consideration of possible amendments to the Fort Collins Land Use Code relating to parking thresholds.
Specifically the code,as we understand it,permits a maximum ratio of 3 parking spaces per 1,000 square
feet of gross leasable area for office buildings. The code as proposed is considering a revision to allow
additional parking spaces granting additional space up to 4.5 spaces per 1,000 SF if certain criteria are met.
• We would like to express a couple of comments about this proposed change to the code. HP has numerous
campuses through the United States and overseas. Our campuses have been planned through numerous
ongoing studies,and we continuously are reviewing our needs for both facilities and site parking. Over the
years we have seen some changes,but clearly the trend has been to provide more parking per building. One
of the reasons for this trend is that companies in general are providing for more intensive use of their office
space. This means a higher ratio of employees per square foot. In fact,HP is currently undertaking a
company wide evaluation to determine how existing buildings can be more effectively utilized with smaller
workspaces. This trend translates into more employees per building and thus a corresponding increase in
demand for parking.
The trend in more intensively used buildings results in a decreasing amount of land used because fewer
buildings need to be constructed. In essence this accomplishes one of the goals of the Land Use Code(by
creating a market solution),which is to reduce suburban sprawl.
The recommendations suggested by the Planning Department are prescriptive. Prescriptive requirements
quite often are very difficult to implement when placed in a real life setting. The challenges faced by a
company in trying to meet their unique company needs,combined with the site constraints,can easily take a
project out of compliance. Prescriptive requirements are also mandatory. This means if they are not met
they require either a variance or a modification. Both of these measures are time consuming and place a
project in the difficult position of justification before the Planning and Zoning Board.
As a starting point for consideration,we believe that it would be useful to start from a parking standard that
is at least an industry-wide standard. Today HP's parking requirements nationwide have been determined to
be approximately 4 parking spaces per 1,000 SF of GLA. From our experience,we also find many business
• parks around the country that use a ratio of between 4 and 5 per 1,000 SF. In a review of the Urban Land
Institute Guidelines published in the Business and Industrial Park Develonment Handbook,they also
recommend a ratio of 4-5 per 1,000 SF.
Mr.Ted Shepard
April 12,2000
Page 2
The changes,as currently proposed will not be seen as an incentive but rather as punitive. To provide the
option of increasing parking because of the incorporation of a parking structure,additional landscaping,or
reallocation of parking to different places around the building can only be seen as an incentive if they start
from the perspective of giving something more than can be found in other communities. Loveland,
Windsor,Greeley,Longmont,and other communities in Northern Colorado have minimum parking
standards. Ft.Collins is the only city to adopt maximum standards. In other communities the desire is to
make sure that parking does not spill into surrounding neighborhoods and create adjacent landowner
compatibility problems. HP shares this concern. Additionally,we do not want to run the risk of creating
situations in which employees have to walk excessively long distances from their cars to their office.
Our preference would be to encourage alternative transportation,rather than create the setting through
maximum parking ratios where there are conflicts and problems with adjacent landowners or with City
enforcement. HP has a long-standing reputation as a leader in encouraging employees to get out of their
automobiles. We are one of the only companies to establish a Transfort bus route specifically oriented for
employees and subsidized by HP. We offer preferential parking for carpoolers. We have lockers and
showers to encourage cycling to work,and we have a long-standing program to encourage bicycling to
work.
We share your concerns about the environment,but at the same time do not want to be placed in an
untenable position with respect to facility planning.Therefore,we respectfully request that you consider
establishing a minimum parking standard of 4 spaces per 1,000 SF of gross floor area.
ke
er
Fart Collins Site Iviana err
Hewlett-Packard Company
T H E
KAPLAN COMPANY
• INCORPORATED
February 4,2000
Ted Shepard FEB 0 4
f
Planning and Environmental Services �4J 2000
City of Fort Collins v
281 North College Avenue sy__
Fort Collins, Colorado 80424
Dear Ted:
I understand that City Staff is currently reconsidering the parking provision in City Plan restricting
the number of parking spaces for general office uses. I believe that the current"maximum"
number of 3 parking spaces per 1000 square feet of gross floor area is a significant obstacle to
new office construction and employers locating in Fort Collins. In an effort to keep my comments
limited to one page as you suggested,the following is a summary of my perspective on the
problems and issues associated with this parking limitation:
1. Restricting parking prevents new office construction at desirable, dose-in locations within the
City Limits and drives employees and the public into Ladmer County and Loveland,where the
parking minimum is 5 per 1000. This undermines the Ckty s objective for compact
development, loses tax ratables, and increases automobile dependency.
2. Restricting parking leads to inefficient office usage and land use,where the number of
employees is forced to adjust to the number of parking spaces.
3. The trend in office usage is towards more employees, (6 to 8)or more per 1000 square feet, in
a computer station environment with a greater sharing and intensification of work spaces.
4. Inadequate parking limits building income—an obstacle to financing new office construction.
5. General office projects that are not mixed use(e.g. combining churches, retail and muff family)
are the worst impacted. Such mixed use is not always possible.
6. Forcing parking onto public streets undermines public safety, is unreliable, and eliminates
area for overflow parking.
7. Inadequate parking creates stress on employees, customers and clients and potential conflicts
with neighboring property owners.
B. Fort Collins voters rejected the$70 million Mass Transit Tax,thereby, questioning the illusion
of some policymakers that the public will abandon the automobile if streets are not widened
and parking lots are undersized.
Please keep me posted on the review process for this important Code amendment A task force
of citizens representing sectors of the community which deal on regular basis with the
consequences of this parking limitation to prospective new employers and office development
would provide the Staff with valuable information.
• Very truly yours.
plan
1060 Sailors Reef • Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 970/226-6819 Fax 970/207-9256
Ito T H E
K A P L A N C O M P A N Y
I N C O R P O R A T E D
February 7, 2000
FEB 0 7 2000 !
Frank Bruno,Assistant City Manager
City of Fort Collins
300 Laporte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Dear Frank
As you may or may not know, City Staff is finally reviewing the parking provision in City
Plan restricting the number of parking spaces for general office uses. Please recall my
discussing with you that the current"maximum"number of 3 parking spaces per 1000
square feet has been a significant obstacle to new office construction and employers
locating in Fort Collins.
Both the public and private sectors of our community need to be assured that this review
of the parking provision in the Code is undertaken comprehensively and with the
opportunity for those being impacted by these restrictions to provide input. I have heard
repeatedly of businesses that cannot expand or refuse to locate in Fort Collins due the
City's position on parking. Most recently ConAgra decided against Fort Collins for this
reason, and both W.W. Reynolds and The Neenan Company have been unable to
undertake projects here. The Hewlett Packard Company intends major changes to its
space planning along Harmony Road, which changes may not be possible unless the
Code is corrected.
In light of your economic development background, I am hopeful that you appreciate the
importance of having the economic impact from these restrictions understood by
assuring that community input is channeled Into the City Staff review process. Please-
discuss with City Manager John Fischbach the importance of this parking issue and the
need for a task force or citizen's committee of some sort to work with City Staff so that
this issue can be properly and fully reviewed. I have no reason to believe that Staff
would be opposed to working with a citizen's group; although, the need to schedule City
Plan review items before the Planning and Zoning Board may be creating review time
limitations for Staff.
Attached is a copy of my February 4, 2000 letter to Ted Shepard with the Planning
Department summarizing my perspective on the problems and issues associated with
this parking limitation.
Very truly yours,
Lester M. Kaplan
Cc. 'Ted Shepard
1060 Sailors Reef • Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 970/226-6819 Fax 970/207-9256
hp HEWLETT•
Hewlett-Packard Company , PACKARD
3404 East Harntony Road
Fort Collins,Colorado 80528-9599
February 7,2000
Ted Shepard FEB 1 0 2000
City of Fort Collins Planning Department
281 North College Avenue By
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Dear Mr.Shepard:
I am writing on behalf of Hewlett-Packard Company regarding the provision in City Plan restricting
the maximum number of parking spaces we can provide our employees for general office use. I
understand that this provision is atypical from most public bodies where public interest
consideration is typically expressed as a minimum number of parking spaces required. Hewlett-
Packard respectfully requests that the current limit on parking spaces of 3 per 1000 square feet be
revised to more realistic 4 to 5 spaces per 1000 square feet. Ideally, City Plan would leave the
decision regarding maximum parking spots to the business providing the parking. We take this
position for the following reasons:
• • Both Larimer County and Loveland have a 5 parking space per 1000 square foot minimum
requirement. The Urban Land Institute recommends 4 spaces per 1000 feet. For Fort Collins to
limit parking to 3 spaces per 1000 square feet puts our community at a clear competitive
disadvantage in terms of attracting and retaining office occupations in our city.
• In our current environment,HP provides approximately 3.5 parking spaces per 1000 square feet
of gross space,yet parking is consistently one of our biggest employee complaints.
• As we consolidate our employee base in Fort Collins and start to implement our Next
Generation Workplace environment which will increase employee density by 15-2m our
employee parking situation will deteriorate further.
• As we begin to plan for new buildings in our Harmony Technology Park, it is clear that we will
need even higher employee densities. It is imperative that these employees have on-site parking
available to minimize their need to park on public streets creating public safety problems and
potential conflicts with neighboring property owners.
• Our experience with off-site parking and shuttling resulted in even higher levels of employee
dissatisfaction and increased pollution and vehicle miles traveled due to inefficient shuttles from
our plant site to the remote parking areas.
• Not only does the proscriptive limit of 3 spaces per thousand impact our employees ability to
park at the work site,it ignores the need for convenient and accessible parking for our
company's customers,vendors and visitors.
• HP recognizes the desirability for citizens to use alternatives to single occupant vehicles and has
actively supported a number of City initiatives to increase commute alternative usage by our
employees. These have included underwriting the operating costs of the SouthSide Shuttle for
two years, providing free Transfort Bus passes to employees and providing premier parking
spots for our carpooling employees. HP also expends a significant amount of effort on internal
marketing of these programs. This effort has resulted in an average reduction of more than 6000
one-way SOV trips to and from our site monthly. In spite of this,we continue to hear complaints
of inadequate parking from our employees and visitors.
• Fort Collins does not provide adequate mass transit to improve this situation. The evidence for
this is clear. HP offers all of our Fort Collins employees a free Transfort bus pass. If this were a
viable option for our employees I would expect that a majority of local employees would take
advantage of this offer. To date we have distributed just over 300 free passes.
• Fort Collins voters made it crystal clear in last April's election that they are not interested in
providing more funding for City busses.
I hope that I have been able to adequately articulate why this issue is of such great concern to HP. I
hope that you and the planning staff will give serious consideration to our request to modify this
overly restrictive element of the City Plan. I would be happy to answer any questions that you or
your staff may have regarding HP's position on this situation. I can be reached at 898,3235. Thank
you for your consideration.
SinZ:L
Hewlett-Packard Company
Will Arduino
Colorado Public Affairs Manager
Cc: Bob Blanchard City of Fort Collins
Greg Byrne City of Fort Collins
Steve Stiesmeyer HP
aW _ ------
February 10,2000 �� i Ij 1�II
��I FEB 1 4 2000 IJ
Mr.Ted Shepard
City of Fort Collins g y
Planning Department `--
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins,CO 80424
Dear Ted
Les Kaplan informed me that the City Staff has agreed to reconsider the parking provisions of the City Plan
restricting the number of parking spaces for general office uses. I would like to express my opinion that
indeed the maximum parking requirements of the City Plan are unrealistic and counter productive to the
intended purposes. This policy,along with several others in the City Plan, are having the effect of driving
development further away from the City core and,thus, creating more traffic on our streets and highways,
resulting in increased congestion and air pollution.
Not too many years ago,it was reasoned that a minimum number of parking spaces should be required for
general office use;that minimum number being larger than the current maximum number required under
the City Plan The minimum requirements under the L.D.G.S. were based on sound reason and common
sense Those guidelines,unlike the Ciry Plan's restrictive guidelines,were a reflection of behaviors in our
community and society chat will not be altered by the institution of restrictive regulations such as the current
parking requirements for office space under the Ciry Plan
Trends in utilization of office space by corporations, large and small, are to consolidate more employees per
1,000 square feet of space than has previously been customary. This is good news as far as it slows down
land absorption,but it is a trend that will need to be accommodated with more parking than the maximum
three spaces per thousand that is set forth under the City Plan.
I would hope that the Ciry Plan would seriously consider moving away from the unrealistic policy currently
in place with regard to this issue and institute new policies that are congenial to the market place. If you
would kite to discuss this further,please don't hesitate to give me a call.
Verytr*yours,
7 -
avid E Britt
President
. DE/lmhp
Corporate Offices
3030 South College Avenue•Fort Collins•Colorado•80525
Mailing Address:P.O.Box 2125•Fort Collins•Colorado•80522
Telephone:(970)226-1500•FAX:(970)223-4156•Denver Lim:(303)623-6018
® Mark Dritcoa
National .aan°a"t
Bank
February 8,2000 jf
FEB 1 2000 J
Mr.Ted Shepard
Jll 1
City of Fort Collins,Planning Department
281 North College Avenue by !—
Fort Collins,CO 80524
Dear Mr.Shepard:
Les Kaplan has advised me that City Staff is currently reconsidering the parking provision in
City Plan that restricts the number of parking spaces for general office uses. As a commercial
lender in Fort Collins,First National Bank is concerned about the economic viability of new
office construction,particularly related to income projections,valuations and a project's
ability to service debt. Certainly a major factor in this equation is whether the number of
available parking spaces satisfies the parking demands of building occupants and their clients.
Inadequate parking influences the Bank's ability to provide financing and could result in the
denial of a loan application.
The current"maximum"permitted parking in City Plan of three(3)parking spaces per 1000
square feet of office floor area deserves further analysis by the City,including additional
public review. As you know,the market trend is in the direction of more intense utilization of
office space through computer workstations and shared work areas. This alone is increasing
occupancy from the traditional 3 to 4 employees per 1000 to 6 to 7 and in some cases as many
as 10 employees per 1000. Shared parking between different land uses often is not possible
and relying upon public streets to accommodate private parking demands seems unsafe and
unreliable.
I believe the City does not want to provide further incentives for commercial office
developers to leave Fort Collins for locations in Loveland and Larimer County. I understand
there are minimum rather than maximum parking requirements of 5 parking spaces per 1000
in both jurisdictions. City parking requirements should not result in inefficient new office
construction. This could occur when the intensity of occupancy is forced to adjust to the
availability of parking. Nor should the lack of adequate parking result in employees and
clients paying for parking or walking long distances. The market will not bear this approach.
While the objective in City Plan to discourage the use of the automobile and vehicle miles
traveled is laudable,limiting parking for general office users is adversely impacting the
economic viability of new office construction in Fort Collins. Hopefully the current initiative
by City Staff to evaluate the"maximum"parking approach in general and specifically the 3
per 1000 limitation will result in a more realistic and market sensitive approach to this issue.
Very truly yours,
a
aos West Oak Street CO.Box 0 Fort Collins,CO 80521-00 970.48z4861
•
Chateau Custom Builders, Inc. 8101 E. Prentice Ave., Suite 815 Englewood, Colorado 801 11
(303) 771-8854 FAX (303) 694-333
ij l '�C l u, _.
February 4, 2000
Lail
2000Ted ShepardCity Planning Department ----
2S I North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80424
Re: Office Building Parking Requirements
Dear Mr. Shepard:
It is my understanding that your Department is in the process of reviewing the current
City Plan requirements restricting the number of parking spaces permitted for general use
office buildings. I believe that the currently mandated maximum of three parking spaces
per one thousand square feet of office space is too restrictive, and results in many
potential office users choosing locations other than Fort Collins.
By way of personal experience, our company has lost two potential office space users on
the sole basis of inadequate parking. The first was a Fortune 100 company which
required five spaces per one thousand square feet in order to accommodate regional sales
meetings which were held two days per month. The second potential user was a real
estate brokerage firm which needed additional parking in order to accommodate
customers. It is my understanding that, in both situations, the users relocated to other
communities.
It is my opinion that the current office building parking limitations are overly restrictive,
and frequently results in employers choosing to locate outside of the City limits. Rather
than reduce the dependence on automobiles, the result is a loss of employment
opportunities within the City, the loss of potential tax revenues to the City, and increased
commuter traffic by City residents travelling to external employment centers. I strongly
urge your Department and the City Council to consider increasing the current parking
restrictions to a more workable and realistic level.
Sincerely,
. Bradford C. Bennett
President
Archistruction > -
I`S
F ,
LBY
FEB 17 2000February 15,2000
Ted Shepard
City Planning Department
281 North College
Fort Collins, O 80524
Dear Ted,
After giving this whole parking issue some thought,I decided to send you a short letter just
because I believe there is a problem.
In this economy the customer is king. Our customers are the owners and tenants for the
buildings we design and build. Tenants tend to see no redeeming social value in the size of
parking lots,they just want to drive to work and park.
I made the mistake of building a building with just under 3 spaces per 1,000. I lost tenants and
those I had reminded me of my shortsightedness often. I would never do this again, once was
enough.
My request would be that you make very sure City Plan is flexible in its parking standards.
From what I see,a more realistic standard would range between 4 and 5 spaces per thousand.
Re tfully,
Z';'(I I/]
evIGZ
David G.Neenan
]zh
FEB 1 6 ?000 ( j
BLACKFOX COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE, LLC
3555 Stanford Road,Suite 204
Fort Collins. Colorado 80525
(970)226-1414 tar:(9Z0)2263348
February 14, 2000
Ted Shepard
Fort Collins Planning Department—City of Fort Collins
P.O Box 580
281 N. College Ave
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Fax: 416-2020
cc. Les Kaplan
1060 Sailors Reef Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Re: Reconsideration of Office Space Parking
Requirements—City of Fort Collins
Dear Ted,
It is my understanding that you are looking at one of the last thought out
experiments(requirements)that come with the implementation of City Plan. To wit
the requirement that office space provides a maximum of three units per 1000 SF of
gross floor area. The intention, at the time it was adopted, as conveyed by both
planning staff and City officials,both elected and appointed, was that the new
standard would encourage more bike community and alternate transportation
strategies.
As far as I've been able to determine the 3 per 1000 SF standard came out of
thin planning political correctness air rather than from my empirical research.
Having been involved with office projects and zoning requirements both as a
planner, developer, and commercial broker for twenty eight years, I have not seen an
example where lowering parking requirements works. In fact,with many offices
. today companies are placing more and more people in smaller areas,rather than
creating larger offices.
Call centers and tech companies, such as HP and Celestica all have developed
parking issues.
Newer office buildings built to the 3 per 1000 SF have a tendency to spill
parking into the street system or neighbor's existing parking lots. In short, the
standard is unworkable and intellectually bankrupt.
Financing institutions demand that new facilities provide adequate parking.
Hence investments decisions are starting to be made just outside the Fort Collins
borders. The traffic impact remains the same,but the dollars do not flow to the city.
Another part of the low maximum space problem evidenced itself with
Celestica. Many tech businesses run 24 hours a day. Celestica,with shift overlaps,
i.e. A machine operator on shift#1 needs to spend time briefing his replacement on
shift#2, has a problem with the City's standards. The standards are simply
inadequate, when they do not account for shift overlap.
I would urge that the City go back to the 4-5 spaces per thousand standard
offices. I would be happy to visit with you on this issue or provide testimony if it
would be useful.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Tom Peterson,AICP
Principal-Blackfox Commercial Real Estate Group,LLC
CELESTICA_ cwnc.e«,..n,.
4701 Toehnolo0y Pk y
. Port ColGnt,C0 p578
USA
Mr. Ted Shepard February 10, 2000
City Planning Department _;--- --.
281 North College Avenue I![
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 i
J FEB 1 6 7000
Dear Ted: gY
I understand that the City staff has agreed to reconsider the parking provision in the City
Plan that restricts the number of parking spaces for general office use. We would support
a revision to the plan, as the current provision of three spaces per 1000 square feet does
not meet Celestica's needs.
Since moving into our new facility in April of 1999 we have experienced numerous
obstacles that have impacted our employees. First of all we are a combination of office
space and manufacturing space. If the trend in office buildings is approximately 6-8
spaces per 1000 square feet we feel a compromise is appropriate. As a business that
operates 7 days a week, 24 hours a day we have shift changeovers that create a couple of
dangerous situations. We have people parking on County Road 9, Monday through
Thursday from 4:00 p.m. into the early morning hours during our main shift change.
Employees are also forced to park next to curbs within our parking lot that are not
designated parking spaces. This results in a hazardous situation for our employees.
Parking on County Road 9 also impacts the safety of the neighborhood, and as the area
becomes more developed this will be an issue for our neighbors.
During our construction phase of the building we were also required by the City to
construct a sheltered bus stop at a cost to Celestica of$15,000. We have worked with the
City Transportation Department to provide service to us since that time and have been
told that they will not stop here due to no place to safely turn the bus around. Numerous
times we have made a case that a bus could safely turn around by entering our parking lot
on the far South side and driving a short distance to exit the property and resume their
route. We have made it a goal as a company to utilize public transportation and
encourage car-pooling and other means of alternate transportation but have experienced a
lack of interest to support our initiatives.
We hope that the City can look further into the existing provision and use a common
sense approach to this issue. If we can be of any further assistance please contact me.
Regards,
Kevin.Oliver
Director of Facilities
(970) 207-5072
REALTEC
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. 255 E Monroe Av, Ste 4
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(970)229.9900 Tel
(970)282-1080 Fax
_realtec®newamerlca.com
February 11, 2000 s ;:
Ted Shepard P 1;,,,, FEB 1 fi 2000
City of Fort Collins
281 N. College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Dear Ted,
I am writing to express my concerns about the parking provision in the City Plan
which limits the number of parking spaces to three spaces per 1,000 square feet
of office space. I feel a more realistic number would be five or six spaces per
1,000 square feet for the following reasons:
1. People rely on their cars. They will use them because is more convenient
for them to do so. When you limit the parking within the city, you drive
potential employers outside the city which in turn, increases traffic.
2. Six to eight employees per 1,000 square feet is a more accurate reflection
of how office space is being used.
3. Financing for new office construction is difficult when there is inadequate
parking.
4. Public safety is at risk when people are forced to park on public streets.
5. Frustration over inadequate parking creates stress for employees and
conflicts with property owners.
6. The $70 million Mass Transit Tax was rejected by Fort Collins voters. The
public has spoken. They will continue to drive their cars.
encourage you to support change for general office parking requirements in Fort
Collins.
5im
rm re ards,
Mokler, CCIM, SIOR
Broker Associate
NI
NBWAmerks International
� n
February 10,2000 FEB 2 2 2000
VF RIPLEY
ASSOCIATES INC.
Mr.Ted Shepard Landscape Architecture
City Planning Department Urban Design
281 North College Planning
Fort Collins,CO 80521
It 13 Stonry Hill Drie
Fon Collins.Colorado 80525
Dear Ted, PHONE(970)224-5828
rAX(970)324A662
It is my understanding that staff is reconsidering the parking provision in City Plan that establishes the maximum
number of parking spaces for general office uses. As you know I have worked in the Fort Collins market place for
over 25 years and have been involved with a multitude of office and mixed-use developments.
My experience with regards to parking ratios clearly reveals that a fixed number of spaces based on the area of a
building are an inappropriate means of determining actual need. The office market varies greatly as far as the
number of employees per square foot of space. Some employers such as real estate offices,engineering firms,
architects,graphic artist,etc.typically have a very high ratio of people per square foot. Case in point;our current
building is about 4000 square feet,based on City Plan we would be allowed 12 spaces. The actual number of
employees in the building totals 24 people. Our overflow parking spills into the neighborhood on to surrounding
streets. When large meetings are held there are times when we may have 30 cars in the area I can only imagine the
problems that would be created if we only had 12 spaces versus the 20 that exist. We are fortunate that street
parking is available,in many instances this alternative is not an option.
As an employer and businessman I also have concerns about the safety of my staff and the convenience of my
clients,not to mention the potential impact to neighborhoods.
I think it is unwise to assume that all office needs are the same and that a generic formula can be applied across the
board The mentality of one-size fits all simply does not work.
I hope that staff will take a hard look at the reality of parking needs based on use,location,size,availability of
alternate transportation and determine that a more flexible formula is the only real solution to this provision.
I am happy to contribute my time in resolving this issue.
Best regards,
Frank Va
Principal