HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 10/26/2004 - FALL 2004 LAND USE CODE CHANGES DATE: October26, 2004 STUDY SESSION ITEM
STAFF: Ted Shepard FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Fall 2004 Land Use Code Changes.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
The purpose of this study session item is to introduce to Council the proposed amendments,
revisions and clarifications to the Land Use Code for Fall of 2004. The Land Use Code team
encourages any questions or comments regarding any of these proposed changes.
Staff's experience is that discussion with Council is most efficient prior to First Reading of the
Ordinance so that any questions may be answered or any suggestions may be incorporated without
delay to the adoption schedule.
In the past,it has been the custom to highlight those proposed changes that may be considered more
substantive than others. Briefly, for this round of changes, three such changes are:
1. Item 668—This change would require trash enclosures to include sufficient
space for recycling containers for multi-family, commercial and industrial
uses, and includes an illustrative guidance booklet. The standard is written
in a performance-based format versus a prescriptive format so that individual
projects can meet the standard based on the amount of recyclable materials
expected to be generated by the proposed use. The standard would only
apply to new construction or existing projects that are significantly
remodeled,amended,or expanded. The Planning and Zoning Board supports
this change.
2. Item 670 — This change would reduce the required minimum number of
parking spaces for a two-bedroom, multi-family dwelling unit. Based on
Cambridge House and Atrium Suites,two recent multi-familyprojects across
the street from Colorado State University, and a survey of 29 cities with
universities,there is evidence that residing so close to campus may result in
not every tenant needing a car. Consequently, the requirement for 1.75
parking spaces for a two-bedroom unit may be excessive in some cases. As
proposed,the code change would reduce this required minimum to 1.5 spaces
but only for projects that meet specific location and proximity standards.
The Board supports this change.
3. Item 665 — This change would remove the present prohibition on drive-in
restaurants in the N-C, Neighborhood Commercial, zone. This zone
specifically states thatfastfood restaurants are permitted but "without drive-
in or drive-through facilities." This change is being initiated by the owner
October 26, 2004 Page 2
of the Sonic Drive-In Restaurant franchise for Fort Collins. The Planning
and Zoning Board is mixed on this proposed change. Those in support offer
that operation is essentially similar to a fast food restaurant. Those opposed
are concerned about the auto-related character of the operation, even though
there would be no drive-through lane. All members expressed that the
standard prototype design would have to be significantly modified in order
to meet the General Development Standards of Article 3 of the Land Use
Code.
Land Use Code Issues
•Wednesday,October 20,2004
Issue ID# Issue Name
648 Add a land use&definition for a building that is not a long term care facility and not a true multi-family
dwelling,but more of an independent living facility.
649 Add a definition for"health club"and amend the existing definition of"limited indoor recreational facility" to
limit such facility to 5,000 sq. ft.
650 Add a provision to NCL,NCM,NCB that clearly states that a lot can't be divided in conjunction with
construction of a new single family home on a lot where a dwelling already exists.
651 Consider adding "funeral homes" as a permitted use in the Industrial zone.
653 Delete the asterisk in the definition of"sign,flush wall"that established a compliance date associated with the
code change to the definition contained in Ord.091,2004.
654 Consider adding a land use and definition for a"pet hotel" and add to the list of uses in the appropriate zones.
655 Change the definition of"Community facility" from"publicly owned"to"publicly owned or leased."
656 Amend 3.8.7(A)(3)(d)of the Sign Code to include portable,vehicle-mounted and banner signs as types of signs
that must be brought into compliance within 60 days of annexation.
657 Amend 4.4(D)(4)in L-M-N to allow placement of conditions on"other non-residential development."
• Conditions would be with respect 4o type of business,number of employees,etc.
658 Amend 2.10.2(H)-Z.B.A.Variances- by adding the"nominal and inconsequential divergence"as a criteria
for granting a variance similar to the recent change for Modifications to P.D.P:s.
659 Correct an inadvertent omission to 4.6(E)(4)to add the 25-foot side setback requirement for a church or school.
660 Correct the list of sections cross-referenced in 3.8.7(B)(1)of the Sign Code.
661 Alleys-both public and private-consider adding more design criteria.
662 Revise 2.1.3(A)to insert a reference to the Stockpiling and D.C.P. (Div.2.6).
663 Revise 3.2.4[C] -Site Lighting by adding"and private streets"after"streets" in the first line.
664 Revise 3.6.2(B)& [C] to change 80 feet to 100 feet to match both LCUASS and Fire Code,and in[C],delete
"provided" in line 5 &replace with"dedicated and constructed."
665 Amend 4.19(B)(2)[c]2-Permitted Use List in the N-C-to delete or modify the prohbifion on"drive-in"fast
food restaurants. Would allow"drive-in"restaurants,like Sonic,which do not have"drive-thru,"in
Neighborhood Commercial zone.
666 Amend 4.7(E)(1)in N-C-M and 4.8(D)(6)in N-C-B to clarify dimensional standards so that the minimum lot
frontage applies to each dwelling. Would prevent"skinny houses."
667 Amend 3.3.2(D)-Required Improvements Prior to Issuance of Building Permit-to allow exceptions as agreed
to and stated in the recorded Development Agreement.
668 Add a new Section, 3.2.5 titled"Trash and Recycling Enclosures"to ensure adequate space for collection,
storage and loading of recycled materials at multi-family,commercial and industrial sites.
• 669 Add a new section(4)to 3.8.7(M)to codify that messages on electronic signs cannot change more frequently
than once per minute, and that it must change instantaneously with no scrolling or fading in and out.
Wednesday,October 20,2004 Page I of 2
Issue ID# Issue Name
670 Consider amending 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)to add a new lower minimum onsite parking requirement for 2-bedroom
multi-family dwelling units in acitivity centers such as Downtown,Campus West and H-M-N zones. Would
reduce from 1.75 to 1.5 spaces per 2-bedroom unit.
671 Amend Sections 3.2.2[C](1)(a)-Safety Considerations and 3.2.2[C](5)(a)-Walkways so they work in
conjunction requiring either raised or enhanced crosswalks across parking lots. Eliminates a contradiction.
672 Amend 3.8.18(A)(1)(a)-Calculation of Gross Residential Density-to clarify that land dedicated for open
space,parkland,stormwater or flood protection facilities prior to a submittal may also be included in the gross
acreage in a subsequent P.D.P.
673 Amend 3.8.17-Measuring Building Height-so that the height of a building is measured from the dominant
roof line(flat-roof building)or the mean height between eave and ridge(sloped-roof building).
674 Add language to 3.4.7-Historic and Cultural Resources-to allow for the demolition or relocation of
individually eligilble historic resources when appropriate.
675 Revise 3.1.1 -Applicability of General Development Standards(Art.3)-to eliminate the applicability of the
standards contained in 3.4.7 to single family dwellings which would otherwise be subject only to Type 1 or
Type 2 review.
Wednesday,October 20,2004 Page 2 of 2
Natural Resources Department
Page 1
10/21 /2004
Item #668 DRAFT
LAND USE CODE MAINTENANCE PROCESS
PROPOSED Language for LUC : Trash & Recycling Enclosures
Proposal: Amend Article 3 ( General Development Standards ) to address new
recycling enclosures requirement for commercial and multifamily construction by
adding a section to Division 3 . 2 ( Site Planning and Design Standards ) , entitled " 3 . 2 . 5
Trash and Recycling Enclosures " . Add reference to this requirement to 3 . 2 . 1
( Landscaping & Tree Protection ) and 3 . 5 . 1 ( Building & Project Compatibility ) ,
concerning screening and outdoor storage areas . Add new definition to Article 5 .
Problem Statement: The City' s adopted goal to divert 50 % of the solid waste away
from local landfills cannot be met without strong participation from all sectors of the
community . The large volume and high quality ( and value ) of non -trash waste material
generated by commercial sources is particularly desirable to " capture " and recycle .
Currently , commercial and multi -family buildings do not provide sufficient space where
recyclables can be stored for regular ( e . g . , weekly) collection . Although staff routinely
offers guidance and the recommendation to include recycling areas along with trash
enclosures , we rarely see developers apply the idea to their projects . It is much more
difficult and costly to retrofit site designs to allow recycling storage and collection to
occur than to include them in original plans and construction , and thereby giving
tenants the option to participate in waste reduction and recycling .
Proposed Solution Overview:
By requiring that a recycling area is part of all new commercial and multifamily
development , the City will ensure that future tenants or occupants who wish to recycle
are not constrained by a lack of space .
Proposed Language:
3 . 2 . 5 Trash and Recycling Enclosures
(A) Purpose
To ensure the provision of areas , compatible with surrounding land uses , for the
collection , separation , storage , loading , and pickup of recyclable materials by
requiring that adequate , convenient space is functionally located at multifamily
residential , commercial and industrial land use sites . This provision will lead to an
increase in the recycling of reusable materials consistent with the City' s goals to
reduce solid waste , and decrease impacts on the environment associated with
the consumption of renewable and nonrenewable resources .
( B ) Applicability
( 1 ) All new commercial or multi -family structures , all existing commercial or
multifamily structures proposed to be enlarged by more than 25 % , and all
buildings where a change of use is proposed shall provide adequate space for
the collection and storage of refuse and recyclable materials .
Natural Resources Department
Page 2
10/21/2004
( 2 ) The following structures are exempt from the provisions of subsection ( 1 )
above : single -family dwellings ; and multi -family dwellings where there are no
central or communal refuse or recycling collection or storage facilities or where
refuse and recyclable materials are stored and collected on an individual unit
basis .
( C ) Provisions :
( 1 ) The amount of space provided for the collection and storage of recyclable
materials shall be designed to accommodate collection and storage containers
consistent with the recyclable materials generated . Areas for storage of trash
and recyclable materials shall be provided in a number adequate in capacity ,
number, and distribution to serve the development project .
( 2 ) Recyclable materials storage areas shall be located adjacent to refuse
collection and storage areas in order to provide convenient recyclable materials
drop-off, storage , and collection .
( 3 ) Each trash and recycling enclosure shall be designed to allow walk in access
without having to open the main enclosure service gates .
(4 ) Trash and recycling areas must be enclosed such that they are screened
from public view . The enclosure shall be constructed of durable materials , such
as masonry , and shall be compatible with the structure to which it is associated .
Gates on the enclosures shall be constructed of metal or some other comparable
durable material , shall be painted to match the enclosure , and shall be properly
maintained .
( 5 ) Enclosure areas should be designed to provide adequate , safe and efficient
accessibility for service vehicles .
( 6 ) Enclosure areas should be constructed on a concrete pad , for longevity and
safety of handlers . Gravel , packed dirt and rutted asphalt will not be allowed .
( 7 ) The property owner shall supply and maintain adequate containers for
recycling and waste disposal . Containers must be clearly marked for recycling .
( D ) Exceptions :
( 1) Exceptions may be granted by the City or a designee thereof for existing
buildings where this provision will negatively impact parking stall requirements or
other existing conditions prevent its practical application .
Related Code Revisions:
• 3 . 2 . 1 ( E )6 : Landscaping & Tree Protection , Landscape Standards , Screening :
add cross reference to 3 . 2 . 5
Please refer to guidance document "xx" for estimations of area needed.
Natural Resources Department
Page 3
10/21/2004
• 3 . 5 . 1 ( 1 ) : Building and Project Compatibility , Outdoor Storage Areas/Mechanical
Equipment : add cross reference to 3 . 2 . 5
• Article 5 , Definitions : add the following definitions
Trash or Recycling Enclosure : An area or structure built consistent with the City
of Fort Collins Land Use Code ( building code ? ? ) designed to provide shelter for
compactors , containers , drop boxes , receptacles , or any other solid waste and
recycling containment facilities .
Related Guidance Documents:
Please see "Trash and Recycling Enclosures , " City of Fort Collins Guidance Document ,
August 2004
#670 Consider amending Section 3 . 2 . 2 ( K) ( 1 ) (a ) — minimum parking for
multi -family — to refine the minimum onsite parking requirement for two -
bedroom dwelling units that meet specific criteria as stated in City Plan .
This change would reduce the number of parking spaces for two -bedroom
dwelling units from 1 . 75 to 1 . 5 spaces per unit but only for projects that
meet specific criteria .
Problem Statement
There is a concern that the existing multi -family parking standard is a one -size-
fits-all requirement that treats greenfield development on par with downtown or
near-campus development . Staff has reviewed projects that are near activity
centers and on transit routes where the 1 . 75 spaces- per- unit may be excessive .
The purpose behind the standard is to accommodate the parking demand for the
project and , at the same time , protect the neighborhood from the impacts of
spillover parking . Conversely , compliance with the parking standard should not
result in excessive unused parking . The present standard should be further
refined to the point of recognizing that some projects will not generate the same
demand as others , without having to seek a Modification of Standard .
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff has reviewed a survey of 29 cities with universities roughly the size of
C . S . U . , The survey of these cities yielded 34 parking standards . Five cities
have a differentiated scale that allows less parking near activity centers such as
downtown or campus . Approximately 46 % of the sample allows 1 . 5 parking
spaces for two - bedroom multi -family apartments . Allowing slightly less parking
provides greater flexibility in site planning , especially in more urban areas .
Example :
24 two- bedroom units at 1 . 75 spaces yields a minimum requirement of 42
spaces . At 1 . 5 spaces , the requirement would be 36 , a difference of six spaces .
At 171 square feet per space (9 ' x 19 ' ) , six spaces totals 1 , 026 square feet , and
this does not include the access drive necessary to serve the spaces . As can be
seen , the reduction of parking spaces results in significant additional ground that
can be developed , landscaped , or otherwise put to a better use than simply
parking a car .
City Plan promotes urbanism . Now that the Growth Management Boundary is
fixed , there will be significantly more attention paid to infill development . Projects
that are within walking distance to activity centers and along transit routes
promote the City Plan principles and policies of a more compact urban form and
should be eligible for a reduced parking standard .
City Plan Principles and Policies :
City Plan Policy CCD- 1 . 19 states :
" Reduced parking standards should be applied to Community
Commercial Districts in recognition of their proximity to high -
frequency transit service and their walkable environment and mix of
uses . On -street parking should be maximized . Parking structures
should be encouraged , including ground floor retail or service uses .
All parking must provide for visibility , personal safety and security . "
City Plan Policy DD-5 . 4 states :
" Parking is a critical factor in the future of Downtown . Parking will
be convenient , economical , affordable , and accessible to meet
diversified parking demands . Reduced parking standards will be
applied to Downtown in recognition of its proximity to high -
frequency transit service , walkable environment , and mix of uses . "
Further, Staff has surveyed two apartments near campus , Cambridge House and
Sherwood Greens , and there is strong evidence that in such close proximity to
campus , not every tenant has a car. These surveys were conducted in the field
before 8 : 00 a . m . and after 5 : 00 p . m . , the times when residents are most likely to
be home .
The proposed solution is to limit the new parking requirement to those zone
districts that are intended to develop and re-develop in an urban form . These
zones have been identified as Downtown , Campus West Community
Commercial , and High Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood .
Transit service , bike lanes and sidewalks abound in these areas offering
opportunities for using alternative modes of travel . If an urban form is desired in
these areas , then a suburban parking requirement will not achieve the desired
result . Since the H - M - N zone is our newest zone district ( having been adopted to
implement the West Central Neighborhoods Plan ) , it may be helpful to review the
purpose statement :
(A) Purpose. The High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District is
intended to be a setting for higher density multi-family housing and group
quarter residential uses (dormitories, fraternities, sororities, etc .) closely
associated with, and in close proximity to, the Colorado State University
Main Campus, provided that such areas have been given this designation
in accordance with an adopted subarea plan. Multistory buildings (greater
than one [ 1 ] story and up to five [5 ] stories) are encouraged in order to
promote efficient utilization of the land and the use of alternative modes of
travel.
Proposed Code Section
(K) Parking Lots - Required Number of Off-Street Spaces for Type of Use.
( 1 ) Residential and Institutional Parking Requirements. Residential and
institutional uses shall provide a minimum number of parking
spaces as defined by the standards below.
(a) Attached Dwellings : For each two-family and multi-
family dwelling there shall be parking spaces provided as
indicated by the following table :
Number of Bedrooms/Dwelling Unit Parking Spaces Per Dwelling Unit *
One or less 1 . 5
Two 1 . 75
Three 2 . 0
Four and above 2 . 5
• Spaces that are located in detached residential garages
(but not including parking structures) may be credited
toward the minimum requirements contained herein
only if such spaces are made available to dwelling unit
occupants at no additional rental or purchase cost
(beyond the dwelling unit rental rate or purchase price) .
For two bedroom dwelling units , the minimum parking requirement may b'11
reduced to 1 . 5 spaces per unit but only for such projects that are located within
the Downtown , Campus West Community Commercial and the High Density
Mixed - Use Neighborhood zone districts . This provision shall not apply to rental
units that are leased by the individual bedroom versus being leased by the
dwelling unit .
( See map describing these three districts . )
�, IIIIPIIIIIIII - __ n R1 C--
1!�
, 1_�_:clEY•____ml �` ells 'I
�� �•�yllll.Idl'll,n �-111111. . ���,� ��, • '� _ \\,
. m,•• uum II�IIIIIIII. t,
,E■ �.�� �� IIIIIICAI III=Innlll_. ..
l u I II ���•-1°�•1!u11nB;u IIIIIIIIIIIII-11 ��'� ��., �''%/�r�`
-` n�■I .i7 ` ��`.0 nnarLim Illllll 1 dlh�
iiiw-�^-- `-r�,F�14�111:�-■: 11===:,n�•�i:
.�rYl-Ci.�. 'i+L9751J �I r II11 \11t�aE 11�T�
�'jE1�►`�!�'i,7v"> '�iyR�- l�nnmlen�al■I�•wME.�'r■� n +1
rI I .�- ��►f��pllll�sl
- -'min ��lll�.-!�l'1�� �slnel lilt,:-•�� - ' 7
cis I Y/,,��,,,,��,, •� �I ,� , �:��>, I .
ONoil
l
Eo ,,,.�,� ai► E/ c
'E'4• �'111��� �-ns r „�:;_�, Ana^I-
►
Item 665 Amend Section 4 . 19 ( 113 ) (2 M2 — Permitted Use List in the N -C ,
Neighborhood Commercial zone district - to delete or modify the current
prohibition on " drive - in " restaurants . This would have the effect of
allowing restaurants , like Sonic , which have a " drive - in " feature but not a
" drive -through " feature .
Problem Statement
This proposed code change has come at the request of the owner of the Sonic
Drive - In franchise for Fort Collins . The N -C zone specifically states that fast food
restaurants are permitted but without drive-in or drive-through facilities .
1 . Background :
There are three classifications of restaurants as defined by the following :
Restaurant, drive-in shall mean any establishment in which the principal
business is the sale of foods and beverages to the customer in a ready-to -
consume state and in which the design or principal method of operation of
all or any portion of the business is to allow food or beverages to be
served directly to the customer in a motor vehicle without the need for the
customer to exit the motor vehicle .
Restaurant, fast food shall mean any establishment in which the
principal business is the sale of food and beverages to the customer in a
ready-to-consume state , and in which the design or principal method of
operation includes all of the following characteristics :
( 1 ) food and beverages are usually served in edible containers or in
paper , plastic or other disposable containers ;
( 2 ) the consumption of food and beverages is encouraged or
permitted within the restaurant building , elsewhere on the premises
or for carryout ; and
( 3 ) there is no drive - in facility as a part of the premises .
Restaurant, standard shall mean any establishment in which the
principal business is the sale of food and beverages to customers in a
ready-to-consume state ; where fermented malt beverages , and /or malt ,
special malt or vinous and spirituous liquors may be produced on the
premises as an accessory use ; and where the design or principal method
of operation includes one ( 1 ) or both of the following characteristics :
( 1 ) customers are served their food and/or beverages by a
restaurant employee at the same table or counter at which the
items are consumed ; or
( 2 ) customers are served their food and/or beverages by means of
a cafeteria-type operation where the food or beverages are
consumed within the restaurant building .
Since Sonic Drive - In is classified as a Restaurant, drive-in, it is
specifically prohibited from the N -C zone .
2 . Sonic Drive - In — Arguments in Favor of the Code Change :
As mentioned , this is a citizen - initiated code change . In written
documentation , Sonic offers the following :
• Sonic is more like a standard restaurant because food is not pre -
cooked ahead of time but made to order . Also , Sonic attracts
families , just like a standard restaurant . Business is not dominated
by college students .
• 95 % of the cars turn off their engines when parked at Sonic .
• Any concerns about sightlines or unsightliness of the drive- in
canopies and facilities , while certainly subjective on the one hand ,
can be mitigated on the other hand through appropriate site design .
• Good site design , over which the City has strict review , would
appear sufficient to cure any possible traffic circulation issues that
may arise with drive - in facilities in many instances .
• The N - C zone is very much like the C , Commercial zone (where
drive- in restaurants are permitted ) . Both are located along major
streets and usually at the intersection of two arterials . It seems
inconsistent to allow drive- in restaurants in one and not the other .
• Drive - in restaurants are like banks which are permitted in the N -C .
• Allowing drive - in restaurants in N - C zones would reduce the
number to trips to College Avenue thereby reducing traffic and
pollution .
• Several standard restaurants in the Harmony Corridor have carry-
out service . This is similar to a drive - in restaurant .
• Sonic is essentially similar to a fast food restaurant like Subway or
Dairy Queen . Customers drive to Subway or Dairy Queen , like
Sonic . Food is then prepared and delivered to the customer in a
ready-to-consume state , like Sonic or Dairy Queen . Customers
then have the option of consuming the meal on the premise or
carryout . There is only one trip in and one trip out . There is no
drive-through lane with its associated stacking and idling of
engines . In terms of land use intensity , a Sonic is no different from
a Subway or Dairy Queen .
3 . Arguments Against Allowing Drive- in Restaurants in the N -C :
During Staff discussion , the following points were raised :
• The purpose statement of the N -C zone is as follows :
Purpose. The Neighborhood Commercial District is intended to be a mixed-use
commercial core area anchored by a supermarket or grocery store and a
transit stop . The main purpose of this District is to meet consumer
demands for frequently needed goods and services, with an emphasis on
serving the surrounding residential neighborhoods typically including a
Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. In addition to retail and
service uses, the District may include neighborhood-oriented uses such as
schools , employment, day care, parks, small civic facilities, as well as
residential uses .
This District is intended to function together with a surrounding Medium
Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood, which in turn serves as a transition and
a link to larger surrounding low density neighborhoods . The intent is for
the component zone districts to form an integral, town-like pattern of
development with this District as a center and focal point; and not merely
a series of individual development projects in separate zone districts .
Drive- in restaurants were intentionally excluded from the N -C
district because of their character and impact . During the crafting
of the Land Use Code , drive-in ' s were associated with strip
commercial districts such as College Avenue .
Their location along highways and commercial arterials is to
capture the impulse shopper who is already out and about doing
errands or commuting . Their history of attention -grabbing
architectural form , colors , banners , lighting , etc . originated and is
perpetuated by the need to attract and then pull the motorist off the
roadway . Drive- in ' s , by their own admission , are rarely a
destination trip . The opportunity to not leave one ' s car is one of
their primary spur-of-the moment attractions , particularly to the
impulse customer .
In contrast , the N -C district was envisioned to be an antidote to the
1950 ' s- 1960 ' s highway strip development pattern by consolidating
businesses and services that did not need to be along a busy
highway or arterial . This is the concept of the " planned center. "
Supermarkets and grocery stores are the typical anchor tenant
accompanied by a group of smaller stores that serve the everyday
needs of the nearby residents .
All N - C districts are flanked by M - M - N districts in order to create a
critical mass for using alternative modes . The opportunity created
by placing these two districts next to each other is to allow folks the
ability to walk or ride their bike to obtain everyday goods and
services . Combined , the two districts are expected to generate
sufficient activity to support transit . This is a fundamental tenet of
new urbanism . ( See map . )
• Allowing a drive- in restaurant in the N - C district represents an
opportunity cost to allowing a less auto-dominant use within walking
distance of the M - M - N .
• Drive - in restaurants are not significantly different from drive -through
restaurants . They both are essentially auto- related . If we allow
one into the N - C , then it may be difficult to continue to disallow the
other .
• Design mitigation may be impossible to achieve . The auto- related
attributes of the drive- in prototype are so dominant that effective
mitigation may be unacceptable to either the franchisee or
corporation .
• The sheet metal canopies dwarf the building , are flat and accented
by bright striping . Each stall is individually illuminated including
individual menu boards . Pedestrian access is diminished by
excessive drive aisles . While Staff has had success in the past in
mitigating convenience stores and quick- lubes by use of building
orientation , the auto access needs of such a drive- in facility would
take precedence over such mitigation techniques as " reverse
mode" or side - mounted " buildings . Design mitigation may be
unachievable .
• A real - life example may be helpful . One of the premier N - C
districts is Poudre Valley Plaza at the southeast corner of
Horsetooth and Shields . Try envisioning this center, with its street-
oriented buildings , with the inclusion of a drive - in restaurant .
Inserting a drive - in restaurant into such a center appears to Staff as
incongruous from both a land use and compatibility perspective .
111 �� , •• �1`�` � 1 �� •gyp
�i "SY11J•LILS� •r�.S` ���' 7,` I■I III 1
Il�f,nm
► I
:
I�a.mm�nnn �1 -- �� m •
•� �nnn_nnm:m■ n �
1�■ ��j_�„• �nnm::m:inm=nnnnc. •....�.� a 11�:\I
■IIIIIP�i_IM 1111111111111fir
111111� ,11JrJv an1LIvIn:■] .r �►/=►�tl ,Illllll , •'. fll
'8491M � uioca �•i �.
�"EliiilE �r-••r-Fl1,l__�.■. 11
■_I,I•,=_�_:nirtw'
i7■Ir��--- . '
.�rrier■ef����7as�.�lnnml�� •���L��� ` i,��►
wpols
.
nrv' � n 1. ■�:�_ 40 o�� � '■
�s FORD
Oil
C�RII
iJ
wry
. ........ ..
i
— _1
• #648 Add a land use definition for a building that is not a long term
care facility and not a true multi -family dwelling , but more of an
independent living facility .
Problem Statement
" Long term care facility" is currently defined in a manner that includes 3
types of facilities . They are : a convalescent center , a nursing care facility ,
and an intermediate health care facility . All of these facilities are
institutional in character and provide different levels of care services .
Recent development proposals that include these facilities are also
proposing a new , different type of residential option as part of their overall
plan to provide care and housing options . This new option is most
commonly referred to as an independent living facility or dwelling . These
living units contain a kitchen , and are therefore classified as a dwelling
unit . As such , they are residential uses , and are allowed only as a
secondary use in some zones even though they are an integral part of the
larger development plan that provides some or all of the 3 types of long
term care facilities . These developments are set up in such a manner that
allows the residents of the "dwelling units " to take advantage of all the
other care services offered to the residents that stay in the other buildings
that make up the long term care facility . For example , they can choose to
eat their meals in a common cafeteria and they have ready access to
medical personnel on site .
Since these independent living facilities function as part of the larger
development , it would be better if they weren ' t considered to be a
separate , secondary use . Rather , they are just another housing option
provided in a long term care facility development .
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff recommends that the definition of " Long -term care facility" in Section
5 . 1 . 2 be amended as follows to include a new section (4 ) to add
independent living unit as an additional type of housing :
5 . 1 . 2 Definitions .
Long-term care facility shall mean any of the following :
( 1 ) Convalescent center shall mean a health institution that is planned ,
organized , operated and maintained to offer facilities and services
to inpatients requiring restorative care and treatment and that is
either an integral patient care unit of a general hospital or a facility
physically separated from , but maintaining an affiliation with , all
services in a general hospital .
( 2 ) Nursing care facility shall mean a health institution planned ,
organized , operated and maintained to provide facilities and health
services with related social care to inpatients who require regular
medical care and twenty-four- hour per day nursing services for
illness , injury or disability . Each patient shall be under the care of a
physician licensed to practice medicine in the State of Colorado .
The nursing services shall be organized and maintained to provide
twenty-four- hour per day nursing services under the direction of a
registered professional nurse employed full time .
( 3 ) Intermediate health care facility shall mean a health - related
institution planned , organized , operated and maintained to provide
facilities and services which are supportive , restorative or
preventive in nature , with related social care , to individuals who
because of a physical or mental condition , or both , require care in
an institutional environment but who do not have an illness , injury
or disability for which regular medical care and twenty-four- hour per
day nursing services are required .
(4 ) Independent living facility shall mean single-family , two-family and/or
multi -family dwellings which are located within a development that
contains one or more of the facilities described in ( 1 ) through ( 3 )
above , and wherein the residents of such dwellings have access to
the common amenities and services available to residents of the
facilities described in ( 1 ) through ( 3 ) above .
#649 Add a definition for " health club " and amend the existing
definition of " limited indoor recreation facility" to limit such a facility
to 5000 square feet .
Problem Statement
A health club is a use that is a listed permitted use in Article 4 in numerous
zones . However the use is not defined in Article 5 . " Limited indoor
recreation " and " unlimited indoor recreation " are uses that are also
permitted in numerous zones . All of the uses are similar ; in fact the
definition of " limited indoor recreation use" includes a health club .
However, a " limited indoor recreation use " is intended to be much smaller
than a large health club . In order to clearly delineate between the three
types of uses , it would be helpful if all three were defined appropriately .
Proposed Solution Overview
In order to clarify the differences between a " health club " , a " limited indoor
recreation use " and an " unlimited indoor recreation use " , staff proposes
that Article 5 be amended by adding a definition for " health club " and by
changing the definition of " limited indoor recreation use " by deleting health
club from the definition and by adding 5000 square feet as the maximum
size .
5 . 1 . 2 Definitions .
Health club shall mean an establishment that is usually open only to
members and guests on a membership basis and that provides facilities
for aerobic exercises , running and jogging , exercise equipment , game
courts , swimming facilities , and saunas , showers and lockers .
Limited indoor recreation use shall mean facilities established primarily for
such activities as exercise or athletic facilities ; and amusement or
recreational services , such as billiard or pool parlors , pinball /video
arcades , dance studios , martial art schools , arts or crafts studios ; or
exerciseer health clubs , but not including bowling alleys or establishments
which have large -scale gymnasium -type facilities for such activities as
tennis , basketball or competitive swimming . This definition is intended to
restrict the type of recreational use allowed to those small -scale facilities
containing no more than five thousand ( 5000 ) square feet that would be
compatible with typical buildings and uses in the zone district in which this
use is allowed .
• #650 Add a provision to NCL , NCM , and NCB that clearly states that
a lot can ' t be divided in conjunction with construction of a new
single family home on a lot where a dwelling already exists .
Problem Statement
The recent moratorium on alley houses resulted in an ordinance that
established land use and development standards for carriage houses ( a
detached single family dwelling located behind a street fronting dwelling ) .
During the ordinance adoption process , it was clear that City Council
wanted the ordinance to prohibit existing lots from being subdivided in a
manner that would allow the new carriage house to be on its own separate
lot . Changes were made to the ordinance between first and second
reading to incorporate this standard . However , recent citizen inquiries into
the code requirements for carriage houses have indicated that it would be
helpful if the code stated this in common , layman ' s language .
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff proposes that the NCL , NCM and NCB standards in Article 4 be
amended by adding a section that clearly states that lots can ' t be
subdivided .
4 . 6 ( F ) Development Standards .
( 7 ) Subdividing of existing lots. No existing lot can be further
subdivided in such a manner so as to create a new lot in the
rear portion of the existing lot .
4 . 7 ( F ) Development Standards .
( 7 ) Subdividing of existing lots. No existing lot can be further
subdivided in such a manner so as to create a new lot in the
rear portion of the existing lot .
4 . 8 ( E ) Development Standards .
( 7 ) Subdividing of existing lots. No existing lot can be further
subdivided in such a
manner so as to create a new lot in the rear portion of the
existing lot .
• #651 Consider adding " funeral homes " as a permitted use in the
Industrial zone .
Problem Statement
Staff has recently received two inquiries regarding constructing a new
funeral home on lots that are located in the Industrial zone . Such a use is
currently not allowed in the district , although one of the city ' s four funeral
homes is already in the Industrial zone . Funeral homes often contain
chapels , and the Industrial zone does allow places of worship and
assembly .
Proposed Solution Overview
Since funeral homes are similar to other uses allowed in the Industrial
zone , staff is recommending that funeral homes be added to the list of
permitted uses in the zone as a Type 1 use by adding a new subsection
( 22 ) to Section 4 . 23 ( B ) ( 2 ) ( c ) as follows :
( 22 ) Funeral homes .
• #653 Delete the asterisk in the definition of " sign , flush wall " that
established a compliance date associated with the code change to
the definition in Ordinance 091 , 2004 , adopted in June of 2004 .
Problem Statement
The Spring 2004 LUC change ordinance contained a provision that
amended the definition of flush wall signs . The amendment requires that
certain types of flexible material wall signs must be modified by November
1 , 2004 . This date was noted in the definition by means of an asterisk .
Since November 1 , 2004 has passed , the asterisk is no longer needed
and should be deleted .
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff recommends that the definition of " sign , flush wall " be amended by
deleting the asterisk and the explanatory note that established the
November 1 , 2004 deadline .
Sign, flush wall shall mean any sign attached to , painted on or erected
against the wall of a building in such a manner that the sign face is parallel
to the plane of the wall and is wholly supported by the wall . Banner ,
canvas or other similar flexible material may be used for this type of sign
only if the material is securely attached to a rigid structure in a manner
which prevents the material from moving , sagging or wrinkling ; and the
rigid structure is attached directly to the building fascia . Any sign made of
banner , canvas or other similar flexible material that is not attached to a
rigid structure in this manner is not a flush wall sign and shall be subject to
the banner regulations contained in Section 3 . 8 . 7 ( N ) of this Land Use
Code . '*
*A11 SUGh flexible mate.rial flush wall signs existing as of the effeGtive date
of (l nno I� Ir, nQ I � nnn mi IM be hrni 1ght iRte GGm Tn�r h�+ rhr�
Ghanges made to this efinition by Qrdinanno No . 091 2004 and not late
t h nirrA ' 'ePe �` 9 94-
0
• #654 Consider adding a land use definition for a " pet hotel " ( indoor
kennel ) and add to the list of uses in the appropriate zones .
Problem Statement
The LUC does not allow kennel uses for dogs and cats anywhere in the
city , but does allow animal boarding facilities for large animals in the UE ,
RC , and I zones . Kennel uses for dogs and cats often have nuisance
factors such as noise and odor associated with them , and therefore the
use has not been allowed since the adoption of the LUC in 1997 . Prior to
that time , kennels were permitted in developments processed as a PUD .
Staff has received proposals from interested parties to provide state -of-
the -art indoor kenneling facilities . The manner of operation of these
facilities is such that the nuisance factors to adjoining properties are
negligible or non -existent , and they can be operated in a manner that is
compatible with other uses . However, since the use is not permitted in
any zone , the facilities are not allowed .
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff recommends that a definition for " indoor kennel " be added to Article
5 , and that the use be added to the list of permitted uses in the C , C- N , C-
L , C -C- N , H -C ( as a permitted use and add to list of secondary uses ) , and
I zone districts . The definition should contain requirements for such things
as indoor exercise areas , 24 hour supervision , and ventilation .
5 . 1 . 2 Definitions .
Indoor kennel shall mean an establishment in which twenty-four
hour care and boarding is provided for household dogs or cats .
Such an establishment is conducted entirely within a soundproof
building that contains exercise facilities , separate ventilation
systems for dogs and cats boarded in the same building , and
wherein such other services as grooming and training are offered .
4 . 15( B ) (2 ) ( c ) Permitted uses .
( 24 ) Indoor kennel .
4 . 17 ( B ) (2 ) ( c ) Permitted uses .
( 28 ) Indoor kennel .
4 . 18 ( B ) (2 ) ( c ) Permitted uses .
(41 ) Indoor kennel .
4. 20 ( B ) (2) (c) Permitted uses .
( 12 ) Indoor kennel .
4. 21 ( B) (2) (c) Permitted uses .
4 . 21 ( D ) (2) Land Use Standards .
( p ) Indoor kennel .
4. 23 ( B ) (2) (c) Permitted uses .
(22 ) Indoor kennel .
• #655 Change the definition of " community facility" from " publicly
owned " to " publicly owned or leased " .
Problem Statement
The definition of " community facility" requires that the property be owned
by a governmental agency or some other public entity . This limits the
ability of government to provide important services . For instance , the City
may want to rent a vacant building for the purpose of creating a branch
library location . If the building is in a zone that allows a " community
facility" but not a library , then the City can 't locate the library there simply
because it doesn ' t own the building . If the City owned the building , then
there would be no problem .
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff recommends that the definition of " community facility" be amended to
allow the facility to be
publicly leased or owned .
5 . 1 . 2 Definitions .
Community facility shall mean a publicly owned or publicly leased facility
or office building which is primarily intended to serve the recreational ,
educational , cultural , administrative or entertainment needs of the
community as a whole .
• #656 Amend 3 . 8 . 7 (A) ( 3 ) ( d ) of the sign code to include portable signs ,
vehicle signs and banner signs as types of signs that must be
brought into compliance within 60 days of annexation .
Problem Statement
The sign code requires that all existing signs on properties that are
annexed into the city and which do not comply with our sign code must be
brought into compliance within 5 years from the date of annexation . The
standard goes on to state that any signs with flashing , moving , blinking or
animation effects shall cease within only 60 days of annexation . Such
effects can easily be remedied by usually just flipping a switch . Since
there is little or no cost associated with correcting this type of
nonconformity , the code requires a much shorter " amortization " period .
Many of the commercial properties in larger enclave annexations that are
or will be annexed into the city display numerous portable signs , vehicle-
mounted signs , and banners and pennants , These types of signs are
generally displayed in a manner or for a time period that doesn ' t comply
with the sign code . Since these types of nonconformities can also be
corrected at little or no cost , they should also be subject to the 60 day
amortization period rather than the 5 year amortization period .
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff recommends that Section 3 . 8 . 7 (A) (3 ) (d ) of the LUC be amended to
include banners , pennants , vehicle- mounted signs and portable signs as
types of signs that must be brought into compliance within 60 days of the
property annexation .
3 . 8 . 7 (A) ( 3 ) ( d ) Signs .
( d ) All existing signs with flashing , moving , blinking , chasing or other
animation effects not in conformance with the provisions of this Article and
located on property annexed to the city after November 28 , 1971 , shall be
made so that such flashing , moving , blinking , chasing or other animation
effects shall cease within sixty ( 60 ) days after such annexation , and all
existing portable signs , vehicle- mounted signs , banners , and pennants
located on property annexed to the city after November 28 , 1971 , shall be
removed or made to conform within sixty (60 ) days after such annexation .
• #657 Amend 4 . 4 ( D ) (4) in the LMN zone to allow placement of
conditions on " other non - residential development" . Conditions
would be with respect to type of business , number of employees ,
etc .
Problem Statement
The LMN zone allows a neighborhood center as a permitted use . Such a
center can contain non - residential uses like child care centers , churches ,
banks , small retail stores , offices , restaurants , vet clinics and personal and
business service uses . The list of permitted uses allowed in the zone also
includes "office , banks and clinics that are not part of a neighborhood
center" . The Land Use Standards for the LMN zone then go on to state
that these uses which are not in a neighborhood center are allowed in the
zone only when the requirements for a neighborhood center have been
satisfied . This means that if there is already a center in the neighborhood ,
then offices can be located as a stand -alone use within the neighborhood .
Since the code does not require off-street parking for such non - residential
uses , the conversion of a home to an office may create negative impacts
on the abutting and adjacent residential uses . Other factors such as the
type of business and number of employees may also impact nearby
properties . Unless the code is amended , conversions can occur without
the ability to address some of these issues .
Proposed Solution Overview
In order to allow staff and the decision maker the ability to ensure that
non - residential uses of this type are compatible with the neighborhood ,
staff recommends that 4 . 4 ( D ) (4 ) be amended as follows :
4A( D ) (4)
(4 ) Other Nonresidential Development. Permitted nonresidential uses that
are not part of a neighborhood center shall not be approved in any
development project until the requirements for a neighborhood center in
subsection ( 3 ) above have been met . When approving such use , the
decision maker may impose conditions regarding such things as off-street
parking , hours of operation , number of employees , and type of business in
order to ensure that the use will be compatible with the neighborhood .
This limitation shall not apply to uses permitted along East Vine Drive
under subsection ( 5 ) below .
• #658 Amend 2 . 10 . 2 ( H ) by adding the " nominal and inconsequential
divergence " as a criteria for granting of variances by the Zoning
Board of Appeal in a manner similar to the recent change for
Modifications to PDP ' s .
Problem Statement
The criteria in the LUC that allow the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA ) to
grant a variance to the regulations of Articles 3 and 4 are :
1 ) a finding that there is a hardship situation , and
2 ) a finding that the proposal will promote the general purpose of the
standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than
would a plan which complies with the standard .
Numerous standards in Articles 3 and 4 are stated in absolute prescriptive
measurements . These standards must be precisely met . Any deviation
from these standards requires a variance or modification . There are times
when a prescriptive standard is not met but the degree of divergence from
compliance is minimal . For example , when a standard requires a 20-foot
setback , a 19 ' setback may be proposed . Given the context of the
property , there would appear to be no detriment to the public by allowing a
reduced setback . While this is but one example , this degree of flexibility
can be applied throughout the LUC resulting in plans having a better
qualitative outcome even though a quantitative standard may not be
strictly met . However , the two existing criteria available to the ZBA that
provides the basis for the granting of a variance may not allow such a
divergence to be approved , even if the neighbors are in full support of it .
Proposed Solution Overview
The LUC was amended recently by adding the " nominal and
inconsequential divergence " standard to the criteria that the hearing officer
or P &Z Board are allowed to consider when deciding on a modification
request . Staff and the ZBA recommend that Section 2 . 10 . 2 ( H ) of the LUC
be amending subsection (2 ) and adding a new subsection ( 3 ) as follows :
1 % 2 ( H ) Variance Review Procedures
( 2 ) the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of
the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or
better than would a proposal which complies with the standard
for which the variance is requested- ; or
( 3 ) the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of
the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be
modified except in a nominal , inconsequential way when
considered from the context of the neighborhood , and will
continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as
contained in Section 1 . 2 . 2 .
• #659 Correct an inadvertent omission to 4. 6( E ) (4) to add the 25 -foot
side setback requirement for a church or school .
Problem Statement
The setback standards for the NCL , NCM and NCB are identical , except
that the NCL does not contain the provision that requires a 25 ' side
setback for a church or school . Absent that provision , the side setback
requirement for such uses would merely be 5 ' . The NCL is a far more
restrictive zone than either the NCM or NCB zones . Therefore , it' s
apparent that an oversight resulted in the 25 ' side setback being omitted
from the setback standards in the NCL zone .
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff recommends that Section 4 . 6 ( E ) (4 ) of the LUC be amended as
follows :
4. 6( E ) Dimensional Standards
(4) Minimum side yard width shall be five (5) feet for all interior side yards .
Whenever any portion of a wall or building exceeds eighteen ( 18) feet in
height, such portion of the wall or building shall be set back from the
interior side lot line an additional one ( 1 ) foot, beyond the minimum
required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of wall or building height
that exceeds eighteen ( 18) feet in height. Minimum side yard width shall be
fifteen ( 15) feet on the street side of any corner lot. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, minimum side yard width for schools and places of worship shall
be twenty-five (25 ) feet (for both interior and street sides) .
• #660 Correct the list of sections cross -referenced in 3 . 8 . 7 ( B ) ( 1 ) (a) of
the sign code .
Problem Statement
Section 3 . 8 . 7 ( B ) ( 1 ) (a ) is the section of the sign code which requires that
sign permits be obtained for most types of signs . The section does
however exempt permits for such signs as "for sale " signs and " election "
signs . An " ideological sign " by definition , includes "election " signs .
Ideological signs and election signs are two separately defined terms , but
while the permit exemption applies to election signs , due to an oversight it
doesn 't apply to ideological signs even though an election sign is a type of
ideological sign .
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff recommends that Section 3 . 8 . 7 ( B ) ( 1 ) (a ) be amended as follows to
include ideological signs in the list of permit exemptions :
3 . 8 . 7 ( B ) ( 1 ) Permit required , Exception .
(a ) The erection , remodeling or removal of any sign shall require a permit
from the Zoning Administrator, except that no permit shall be required for
the erection , remodeling or removal of any sign regulated by subsections
3 . 8 . 7 ( C ) ( 1 ) ( a ) , ( c) , er ( g ) or 0 ) ; subsections 3 . 8 . 7 ( D ) (2 ) , Gr ( 3 ) or (4 ) ; or
subsection 3 . 8 . 7 ( L ) .
# 662 Revise 2 . 1 . 3 (A) to insert a reference to the Development
Construction Permit in describing the development approval
process .
Problem Statement
In describing the types of development applications in Section 2 . 1 . 3 (A) ,
reference to the development construction permit was left out of the step
by step description .
Proposed Solution .-
The proposed solution is to add the additional development process step
by adding the phrase "then through a development construction permit
( Division 2 . 6 ) . " Revise Section 2 . 1 . 3 (A) of the Land Use Code to read as
follows ..
2 . 1 . 3 Types of Development Applications
(A ) Applicability. All development proposals which include only
permitted uses must be processed and approved through the
following development applications : first through a project
development plan ( Division 2 . 4 ) , then through a final plan ( Division
2 . 5 ) , then through a development construction permit ( D ) ,
and then through a building permit review ( Division 2 . 7 ) . If the
applicant desires to develop in two ( 2 ) or more separate project
development plan submittals , an overall development plan ( Division
2 . 3 ) will also be required prior to or concurrently with the project
development plan . Each successive development application for a
development proposal must build upon the previously approved
development application by providing additional details (through the
development application submittal requirements ) and by meeting
additional restrictions and standards (contained in the General
Development Standards of Article 3 and the District Standards of
Article 4 ) .
#663 Revise 3 . 2 . 4( C ) to insert a reference to lighting on " private
streets " as well as public streets in describing lighting exceptions on
private property .
Problem Statement
This section describes site lighting that applies to private property lighting .
Streets , both public and private , must be exempted from this section .
However, only public streets are currently mentioned .
Proposed Solution .-
The proposed solution is to add "and private streets " in the first line of
Section 3 . 2 . 4 ( C ) following the word "streets . " This will separate street
lighting for both public and private streets from the requirements of site
lighting . Revise Section 3 . 2 . 4 ( C ) of the Land Use Code to read as follows :
3 . 2 . 4 Site Lighting
( C ) Lighting Levels. With the exception of lighting for public streets
and private streets , all other project lighting used to illuminate
buildings , parking lots , walkways , plazas or the landscape , shall be
evaluated during the development review process . The following
chart gives minimum and , for under-canopy fueling areas ,
maximum lighting levels for outdoor facilities used at night .
#664 Revise 3 . 6 . 2 ( B ) & ( C ) , to change 80 feet to 100 feet to match
both LCUASS and the Fire Code , and in ( C ) , delete " provided " and
replace it with " dedicated and constructed . "
Problem Statement
The Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards ( LCUASS ) and the
Poudre Fire Authority fire code were revised in 2001 to increase the radius
of cul -de -sacs and emergency vehicle turnarounds from 80 feet diameter
to 100 feet diameter . This was done to provide the space needed to turn
around emergency vehicles used to fight fires . This section of the Land
Use Code must be revised to match those current standards . In addition ,
Section 3 . 6 . 2 ( C ) needs clarification with more specific language on how a
temporary turnaround must be provided .
Proposed Solution .-
The proposed solutions are to revise the numbers "eighty ( 80 ) feet" to be
" one hundred ( 100 ) feet . " The numbers will then match the current
standards in LCUASS and the Fire Code . In addition , to clarify the how a
temporary turnaround is provided is paragraph ( C ) the word " provided "
should be changed to " dedicated and constructed . " Revise Section
3 . 6 . 2 ( B ) and ( C ) of the Code to read as follows :
3 . 6 . 2 Streets , Streetscapes , Alleys and Easements
( B ) Cul -de -sacs shall be permitted only if they are not more than six hundred
sixty ( 660 ) feet in length and have a turnaround at the end with a
diameter of at least eighty 80 ) one hundred ( 100 ) feet . Surface drainage
on a cul -de -sac shall be toward the intersecting street , if possible , and if
not possible a drainage easement shall be provided from the cul -de -sac .
If fire sprinkler systems or other fire prevention devices are to be
installed within a residential subdivision , these requirements may be
modified by the City Engineer according to established administrative
guidelines and upon the recommendation of the Poudre Fire Authority .
( C ) Except as provided in ( B ) above for cul -de -sacs , no dead -end streets
shall be permitted except in cases where such streets are designed to
connect with future streets on abutting land , in which case a temporary
turnaround easement at the end of the street with a diameter of at least
eighty lone hundred ( 100 ) feet must be pFev+ded dedicated and
constructed . Such turnaround easement shall not be required if no lots
in the subdivision are dependent upon such street for access .
Item 666 Add clarification to the Dimensional Standards within the NCM
and NCB zones so that the minimum frontage requirements apply to each
principal building on the lot rather than the development taken as a whole .
Problem Statement
The Land Use Code is silent with regard to the number of principal buildings that
can be constructed side- by-side within the buildable envelope of the lot . Given
the narrow lots within the Old Town area , concern has been expressed that
present regulations could allow extremely narrow buildings ; either single or multi -
family units to be physically " shoehorned " side- by-side along the street front
within these neighborhoods . The resulting building mass and proportions would
likely be out of scale with the established neighborhood character .
While Fort Collins has yet to experience this form of infill development , such
narrow units have been built in other communities , most notably Portland and
Seattle , where they are experiencing development of 15-foot wide houses on infill
lots within their established neighborhoods . Within these communities , there has
been growing neighborhood opposition and the perception that the regulations
have created an undesired outcome . Staff wants to take a proactive approach to
address this potential infill issue .
Such a code clarification would ensure a rhythm and spacing of houses , as
described in the adopted Eastside and Westside Neighborhood Plans and
Guidelines , which are more consistent with the historic pattern .
Proposed Solution Overview
Add text to the lot frontage requirements clarifying that the standards apply to
each principal building on the lot .
Draft Code Revisions
4 . 7 ( E ) ( 1 )
( E ) Dimensional Standards
( 1 ) Minimum lot width shall be forty (40 ) feet for single-family and two-
family dwellings and fifty ( 50 ) foot for all other uses, except that
when more than one such dwelling is constructed on the same
lot side - by-side along the street front, the minimum lot width
shall be forty (40 ) feet for each such dwelling . The minimum
lot width for all other uses shall be fifty ( 50 ) feet.
4 . 8 ( D ) ( 6 )
( 6 ) Dimensional Standards
( a ) Minimum lot width shall be forty (40 ) feet for single-family and two-
family dwellings , except that when more than one such dwelling
is constructed on the same lot side - by-side along the street
front, the minimum lot width shall be forty (40 ) feet for each
such dwelling . EXG8pt tThe minimum lot width for lands located
within the West Central Neighborhood Plan Subarea and south of
University Avenue shall be eighty-five ( 85 ) feet .
#667 Amend 3 . 3 . 2 ( D ) — Required Improvements Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit — to allow exceptions as agreed to and documented in the
recorded Development Agreement .
Problem Statement
The Land Use Code , Section 3 . 3 . 2 ( D ) , requires that essentially all public infrastructure
( utilities and street improvements ) be completed before a building permit can be issued
for a particular lot or piece of property . This provision seems to be intended for single -
family residential subdivision projects , and it makes sense for these improvements to be
required for those types of projects . However , in many large commercial and multi -
family projects , this code provision restricts builders and developers to a sequential
construction process that can be inefficient and costly .
Several important commercial projects will be beginning soon , such as the Poudre
Valley Hospital Harmony Campus Expansion , the Summit Lifestyle Center , and the
Foothills Mall Expansion . Projects such as these can safely and efficiently build their
infrastructure in parallel with their building construction . The keys to doing so are as
follows :
• All infrastructure ( utilities and transportation improvements ) that is necessary to
support the project must be completed and accepted before a Certificate of
Occupancy ( CO ) is issued for the building project .
• During construction , adequate all -weather access for emergency vehicles
( ambulances , police vehicles and fire trucks ) must be maintained to and within
the job site at all times .
• Water lines and fire hydrants must be installed and in service before combustible
materials can be brought to the job site .
• Adequate drainage and erosion control measures must be installed and
maintained so that the project does not damage adjacent and downstream
property owners , or the public .
There needs to be flexibility to use sound professional judgment in determining whether
a building permit can be issued . Each project and site is different , and each may have
more or less stringent needs for site preparation prior to issuance of a building permit .
Footing and foundation permits are often used now on commercial projects to allow
building construction to begin prior to all infrastructure being completed . This is
appropriate and should be continued , although someone could strictly interpret an F & F
permit to be a form of Building Permit , and thus deny its issuance until after all
infrastructure is completed , given the current LUC language .
One way to add flexibility to the current process would be to allow the City Engineer , in
coordination with the Building Official , Fire Marshall and utility providers , to modify the
LUC requirements by specifying in the development agreement an appropriate standard
for the level of site improvements to be completed prior to a building permit being
released .
Proposed Solution Overview
Modify Section 3 . 3 . 2 ( D ) of the Land Use Code as follows :
3 . 3 . 2 Development Improvements
( D ) Required Improvements Prior to Issuance of Building Permit. The following
improvements shall be required prior to the issuance of a Building Permit , unless
nt :
• #669 Add a new section (4) to 3 . 8 . 7 ( M ) of the sign regulations in
order to codify staff' s interpretation that the displayed message on
electronic marquee signs can not change more frequently than once
per minute , and that the change must occur instantaneously ( i . e . no
scrolling or fading in or out) .
Problem Statement
The sign code allows changeable copy signs . Historically , such signs
have been ones that require the lettering of the message to be changed
manually . However, there had been the occasional electronic marquee
sign , wherein the message changes electronically . The code prohibits
flashing , moving or other animation effects on signs and therefore staff
has required that such electronic signs must be programmed so that the
message is static for a period of time , and that when the message
changes it does so in a manner where the old message is removed and is
replaced by the new one instantaneously ( i . e . , no scrolling , fading , etc) .
The use of such electronic signs has been infrequent . However, staff is
now receiving sign permit applications for these signs on a more frequent
basis and is of the opinion that the sign code should clearly address how
these signs are to function .
Proposed Solution Overview
In order to codify the needed regulations , staff recommends that Section
3 . 8 . 7 ( M ) be amended by adding a new subsection (4 ) as follows :
( M ) Electrical Signs .
(4) Electrical signs that contain an electronic changeable copy module must
be programmed so that the displayed message does not change more
frequently than once per minute and so that the message change occurs
without the use of scrolling, flashing, fading or other similar effects .
#671 Amend Sections 3 . 2 . 2 [Cl ( 1 ) ( a ) and 3 . 2 . 2 [Cl ( 5) ( a ) so that
requirements for pedestrian safety through parking lots , in the form
of walkways and crosswalks , are consistent . By clarifying these two
standards , a contradiction regarding raised crosswalks is eliminated .
Problem Statement:
In Section 3 . 2 . 2 Access, Circulation and Parking, the General Standard
states that the on -site pedestrian system must provide adequate
directness , continuity , street crossings , visible interest and security .
Several applicable standards in this Section appear to conflict with each
other . In one case , 3 . 2 . 2 ( C ) ( 5 ) (a ) , requires grade separation for instances
where pedestrian walkway intersects with vehicular driveways . In
3 . 2 . 2 ( C ) ( 1 ) ( a ) , however, the standard requires mitigation measures to
ensure safety but offers a number of suggested options from which to
pick .
Clarification is needed so that the intent of the standards is clear and
consistent .
There may be times when drive aisle pedestrian crossings should employ
various mitigation techniques as already spelled out in the code , but may
not need to be required to be grade-separated ( raised ) . We would want to
retain , however , the requirement for raised crosswalks in certain situations
such as primary walkways through busy commercial parking lots . The
proposed change provides both flexibility and consistency and retains the
ability require raised crosswalks but only where deemed necessary .
Proposed Solution Overview:
( C ) Development Standards. All developments shall meet the following
standards
( 1 ) Safety Considerations. To the maximum extent feasible , pedestrians
shall be separated from vehicles and bicycles .
( a ) Where complete separation of pedestrians and
vehicles and bicycles is not possible , potential
hazards shall be-minimized by the use of techniques
such as special paving , grade SeparatiORS , raised
surfaces, pavement marking , signs or striping ,
bollards , median refuge areas , traffic calming
features , landscaping , lighting or other means to
clearly delineate pedestrian areas , for both day and
night use .
5 ) Walkways.
( a ) Directness and continuity . Walkways within the
site shall be located and aligned to directly and
continuously connect areas or points of pedestrian
origin and destination , and shall not be located and
aligned solely based on the outline of a parking lot
configuration that does not provide such direct
pedestrian access . Walkways shall link street
sidewalks with building entries through parking lots .
Such walkways shall be grade separated frern tho
paFkIRg le , raised or enhagftd with a paved surface
not less than six (6 ) feet in width ._Drive aisles leading
to main entrances shall have walkways on both sides
of the drive aisle .
Item 672 Amend 18 . 18(A)( 1 )(a) — Calculation of Gross Residential Density
— to clarify that land dedicated for open space , stormwater or flood
protection facilities prior to a submittal may also be included in the gross
acreage in a subsequent P . D . P .
Problem Statement
The City' s Utilities and Real Estate Departments have discovered a problem in
acquiring land zoned L- M - N for regional drainage and flood control facilities . This
section currently requires that , at the time of a P . D . P . submittal , the gross
residential density calculation shall exclude land previously dedicated , purchased
or acquired for any public use .
In two specific instances , the City has encountered resistance on the part of
sellers to sell off a portion of their property for open space , parkland or
stormwater facilities . This resistance is due to the sellers not wanting to lose the
potential L-M - N density associated with the subject parcel under consideration
for sale . As a result , sellers are either refusing to sell or charging a premium for
this loss of potential density at the time of a subsequent P . D . P .
In order to facilitate reasonable negotiation and acquisition on behalf of the
public , this code change would have the effect of allowing the density associated
with the parcel conveyed to the public to be shifted to the parcel of land retained
by the seller. That way , at the time of P . D . P . submittal , the density from the
parcel sold , or dedicated , to the public is captured within the boundaries of the
parcel that remains after sell or dedication .
This density shifting is similar to the clustering concept allowed in the Urban
Estate zone . The City benefits from not losing density envisioned for the L-M- N
zone . The property owner benefits from not losing development potential .
Finally, the acquiring entity benefits from not paying exorbitant prices for land
needed for public purposes .
Proposed Solution Overview
3 .8A8 Residential Density Calculations - _ - � Formatted: Font: Bold
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Formatted: Font: Bold
(A) Calculation of the gross residential density shall be performed (and
included on the development plan) in the following manner:
( 1 ) Determining the gross acreage. The gross acreage of all the land
within the boundaries of the development shall be included in the
density calculation except:
a) land previously dedieated,
Wernmental public use prior to the date of approval of the
development plan, provided, however, that this exception shall not
apply to any such acquisition of an interest in land solely for open
space, parkland purposes or stormwater facilities;
Item 674 Add language to Section 3 . 4 . 7 , Historic and Cultural
Resources , to allow for the demolition or relocation or individually
eligible historic resources when appropriate .
Problem Statement
Section 3 . 4 . 7 of the Land Use Code is intended to protect designated or
individually eligible historic properties . The section applies only to Type 1
and Type 2 development projects affecting resources that are designated
on the National , State or Fort Collins Landmark registers , or resources
individually eligible for Landmark designation . The purpose is to ensure
that historic sites , structures or objects are preserved and incorporated
into the proposed development , and any undertaking that may potentially
alter the characteristics of the historic property is done in a way that does
not adversely affect the integrity of the historic resource .
The City Attorneys Office recently reviewed the provisions of this Section ,
and determined that the existing code language requires historic
resources to be retained , in their original location , effectively prohibiting
either relocation or demolition as options .
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff recommends that 3 . 4 . 7 of the Land Use Code be revised as follows :
3 . 4 . 7 Historic and Cultural Resources
(A) Purpose. This Section is intended to ensure that to the maximum extent
feasible ( 1 ) historic sites , structures or objects are preserved and
incorporated into the proposed development and any undertaking
that may potentially alter the characteristics of the historic property
is done in a way that does not adversely affect the integrity of the
historic rope property ; and (2 ) new construction is designed to
respect the historic character of the site and any historic properties
in the surrounding neighborhood . This Section is intended to
protect designated or individually eligible historic sites , structures or
objects as well as sites , structures or objects in designated historic
districts , whether on or adjacent to the prejeGt development site .
( B ) General Standard. If the project contains a site , structure or object that
( 1 ) is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark
designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers
of Historic Places ; ( 2 ) is officially designated as a local or state
landmark , or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places ; or
( 3 ) is located within an officially designated historic district or area ,
then to the maximum extent feasible the development plan and
building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use
of the historic rope structure . The development plan and
building design shall protect and enhance the historical and
architectural value of any s historic property , that is ( a )
preserved and adaptively used on the development site or ( b ) is
located on property adjacent to the development site and qualifies
under ( 1 ) , (2 ) , or (3 ) above . whether OR
„ r adja eRt +G the pr,, , o,.+
site-. New cgs structures must be compatible with the historic
character of any such historic rope property , whether on the
pFejeGt development site or adjacent thereto .
( C ) Determination of Landmark Eligibility. The determination of individual
eligibility for local landmark designation will be made in accordance
with the applicable provisions of Chapter 14 of the City Code . A
site , structure or object may be determined to be individually
eligible for local landmark designation if it meets one ( 1 ) or more of
the criteria as described in Section 14 -5 , " Standards for
Designation of Sites , Structures , Objects and Districts For
Preservation " of the City Code . If a property is determined to be
eligible for designation , the applicant will provide a completed
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form
for the property . ( Forms are available from the Community Planning
and Environmental Services Department . )
The determination of individual eligibility for the National or State Register of
Historic Places shall be according to the processes and procedures
of the Colorado Historical Society .
( D ) Reuse, Renovation, Alterations and Additions.
( 1 ) Original materials and details , as well as distinctive form and scale ,
that contribute to the historic significance of the structure or
neighborhood shall be preserved to the maximum extent
feasible . Rehabilitation work shall not destroy the
distinguishing quality or character of the property structure or
its environment .
( 2 ) The rehabilitation of buildiRgS aPA structures shall be in conformance
with the Secretary of the Interior' s " Standards for
Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings " (available from the Director) or other adopted
design guidelines .
( E ) New Construction.
( 1 ) To the maximum extent feasible , the height , setback and/or width of
new buildiRgS structures shall be similar to those of existing
historic 1961ildiRgG structures on any block face on which the
new buildiRg structure is located and on any portion of a
block face across a local or collector street from the block
face on which the new Ong structure is located unless , in
the judgment of the decision maker, such historic 1961ildiRgS
structures would not be negatively impacted with respect to
their historic exterior integrity and significance by reason of
the new " 6 , ; ' G ) structure ( s ) being constructed at a
dissimilar height , setback and /or width . Where building
setbacks cannot be maintained , elements such as walls ,
columns , hedges or other screens shall be used to define
the edge of the site and maintain alignment . Taller 196101diRgG
structures or portions of buildiRgs structures shall be located
interior to the site . BUildiRgG Structures at the ends of blocks
shall be of a similar height to buildings structures in the
adjoining blocks .
( 2 ) New buildiRgS structures shall be designed to be in character with
such existing historic structures , but net be an imitation of
hm. Steri�e . Horizontal elements , such as cornices ,
windows , moldings and sign bands , shall be aligned with
those of such existing historic cgs structures to
strengthen the visual ties among Wings structures .
Window patterns of such existing d ' RgS structures (size ,
height , number) shall be repeated in new construction , and
the pattern of the primary building entrance facing the street
shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible . See
Figure 6 .
Figure 6
Building Patterns
DINS
NOT THIS
( 3 ) The dominant building material of such existing historic buildiRgS
structures adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed structure shall be used as the primary material for
new construction . Variety in materials can be appropriate ,
but shall maintain the existing distribution of materials in the
same block .
(4 ) Visual and pedestrian connections between the site and neighborhood
focal points , such as a park , school or church , shall be
preserved and enhanced , to the maximum extent feasible .
( 5 ) To the maximum extent feasible , existing historic and mature
landscaping shall be preserved and when additional street
tree plantings are proposed , the alignment and spacing of
new trees shall match that of the existing trees .
Item 675 Revise Section 3 . 1 . 1 of the Land Use Code , "Applicability, "
to eliminate the applicability of the standards contained in Section
3 . 4 . 7 to single family dwellings which would otherwise be subject
only to Type 1 or Type 2 development review.
Problem Statement
This revision would return the code to its original intent that only Type 1 or
Type 2 development projects are subject to the provisions of Section 3 . 4 . 7
of the Land Use Code . In 2002 , the Land Use Code was amended to
require that development and building permit applications , subject only to
basic development review , would also be required to comply with the
standards contained in Section 3 . 4 . 7 , " Historic and Cultural Resources . "
Inclusion of Section 3 . 4 . 7 in this applicability statement had the
unintended consequence of subjecting individually eligible single family
dwellings applying for building permits for demolition , alterations , or
relocation , to the same Land Use Code requirements as individually
eligible single family dwellings proposed for Type 1 or Type 2
redevelopment .
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff recommends that language of Section 3 . 1 . 1 be revised to remove
Section 3 . 4 . 7 from the definition 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 . 9 inclusive , except that single-family dwellings and
accessory buildings and structures and accessory uses that are
permitted subject only to basic development 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 SeGtien 3 . 4 . 7 and Division 3 . 8 . In addition 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 .