HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 12/07/2004 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 198, 2004, MAKING V ITEM NUMBER: 36
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: December7, 2004
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Ted Shepard
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 198,2004,Making Various Amendments to the City of Fort Collins
Land Use Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff has identified a variety of proposed changes, additions and clarifications in the Fall biannual
update of the Land Use Code. On November 18, 2004,the Planning and Zoning Board considered
the proposed changes and took specific action on five individual items. These actions are
summarized in the attached memo. Outside of these five specific items, the Board voted 6 - 0 to
recommend approval of the balance of the proposed changes to City Council.
BACKGROUND
The Land Use Code was first adopted in March of 1997. Subsequent revisions have been
recommended 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 both the overall quality and"user-friendliness"
of the Code.
Attachments include a summary of the Planning and Zoning Board's action and a summary of all
the issues as well as the proposed Ordinance itself.
In addition,the attachments provided by the private party that seeks to add the Drive-in Restaurants
to the Neighborhood Center zone district are included. Also provided are draft design standards for
Drive-in Restaurants if they are to be allowed in the N-C zone district. Should City Council decide
to enact these design standards, refinements will need to be made between First and Second
Readings of the Ordinance.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of City Council IS
FROM: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
RE: Summary of Planning and Zoning Board Recommendations
DATE: December 1, 2004
The Board specifically discussed the following items:
• Allowing Drive-in Restaurants in the N-C, Neighborhood
Commercial, zone district;
Item 666 — Protecting the N-C-M and N-C-B zone districts from
"Skinny Houses;"
Item 668 —Trash and Recycling Enclosures for commercial, multi-
family and industrial uses;
• Item 654 —Adding "Indoor Kennels" to commercial zones;
• Item 676 — Revising the Raptor Buffer Standards.
A summary of the Planning and Zoning Board's discussion and action on these
items is as follows:
1. Amend Section 4.19(13)(M02 — 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.
As a result of City Council's direction at their October 26, 2004 study
session, this particular item was not included in the draft Ordinance
reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board. There is an interested party,
however, that is pursuing this change and delivered both written and oral
testimony to the Board.
Since this code change is not in the Ordinance, the Board first voted 4 — 2
in favor of a motion to consider and discuss the item. Clarification was
i
then provided that the potential code change would apply to drive-in
restaurants only, and not to drive-through restaurants.
Members opposed pointed out that there are other zones that allow drive-
in restaurants. In terms of geographic distribution, these uses are allowed
on South and North College Avenue, and within convenience shopping
centers in the Employment zone. There were concerns about air quality.
Also, bicycle and pedestrian access is discouraged if riders and walkers
from the nearby neighborhoods have to navigate in, around or through
drive-in restaurants.
Members in favor indicated that they see no significant distinction between
a fast food restaurant, like Subway or Dairy Queen, and a drive-in
restaurant like Sonic. Both can be pedestrian-friendly. The aesthetic
concerns about design issues, like mitigating canopies, are valid but
design is not a land use issue. The concern about idling engines would be
the same for banks as for drive-in's and banks are allowed in the N-C
zone.
The Board voted 4 — 2 to recommend approval of allowing drive-in
restaurants in the N-C zone.
(At the October 26, 2004 Council study session, one member requested
information on possible design standards. Attached to this memo is a
draft of design standards for drive-in restaurants for the Neighborhood
Commercial zone only.)
2. 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. Would prevent "skinny houses."
The Board considered the testimony of two residents of the Capitol Hill
and Martinez Park neighborhoods. The first speaker asked that the Board
apply the new proposed regulation to all residential principal uses (i.e.
multi-family dwellings and bed and breakfast establishments) allowed in
the two zones, and not just to single family and two-family dwellings. The
second speaker asked that the present restriction of 40 feet of lot frontage
per principal dwelling be reduced to 35 feet.
Members in favor of the code change, as written, indicated that there
appears to be a loophole that needs to be closed. These members did not
support the request to reduce the required minimum lot frontage from 40
feet to 35 feet.
2
Members opposed to the change did not see an imminent threat. While
some of the illustrative examples from other cities indeed appeared in
sharp contrast with the Old Town character, they envisioned potential
projects that could blend in. Such projects would have the effect of
increasing density in the two affected zones.
The Board voted 4 — 2 to recommend approval of the code change,
as written, with no revisions.
3. 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.
The Board considered the testimony of an interested citizen who was
concerned about the additional cost such enclosures may have on end-
users. Also, there was a concern about how much flexibility Staff would
have in interpreting the standard for end-users with particular recycling
needs. For example, banks shred confidential records which are then
picked up by a private recycling service. A multi-tenant general office
building, however, may not use such a specialized service. While some
firms use an internal recycling contractor, others may not. This citizen
cautioned that the Board should consider this item with the full knowledge
that the costs could be higher than Staff anticipates, especially in sensitive
areas like Harmony Corridor.
Members of the Board engaged the Staff of the Department of Natural
Resources in a question-answer discussion about a number of topics.
Natural Resources Staff provided a "read before" memo describing the
assumptions of the analysis and cost estimates (see attached). The
Board was satisfied that the assumptions were valid and the cost does not
appear to be onerous given the context of an entire project. The standard
is not prescriptive and that the Guidance Document provides a number of
examples on how to achieve compliance based on the individual needs of
the end-user.
The Board indicated by an informal voice vote that they were
comfortable with the proposed code change as written.
(Since the P & Z hearing, and in response to citizen input, Staff has added
language to the proposed code section that the standards would be
enforced "to the extent reasonably feasible." This term is specifically
defined in Article Five and grants Staff the ability to enforce the standard
on an individual case-by-case basis in collaboration with the applicant.)
3
4. #654 Consider adding a land use definition for a "pet hotel' (indoor
kennel) and add to the list of uses in the appropriate zones.
There was no public testimony. One member suggested that since
residential is allowed as a secondary use within the H-C, Harmony
Corridor zone, we should be careful not to allow such as use within a
residential project or neighborhood.
Staff agreed. The Ordinance has been revised to preclude such use
within residential neighborhoods by restricting indoor kennels in the
H-C zone to Regional and Community Shopping Centers only as
defined by the Harmony Corridor Plan.
5. Revise 3.4.1(E)(1)(0) — Buffer Zone Performance Standards — and the
Buffer Zone Table — to eliminate the buffer distance and mitigation
for hawks and add a temporary Limits of Development provision.
There was no public testimony on this item. The Department of Natural
Resources Staff made a presentation. The Board followed-up with
questions and comments. Please refer to the minutes for the full
discussion.
Here are few key points from those opposed to the code change:
• Last June, during consideration of the code change that
implemented the current standard, there was input from the
scientific community. Now, there appears to be no scientific input.
• The original science was that these raptors needed a 1,500-foot
buffer. This was reduced to 1,320 feet, then further reduced to 900
feet, and again reduced to 450 feet with mitigation.
• One idea was to allow a buffer of only 450 feet, with no mitigation,
that way owners are not paying twice in order to meet the standard.
• There was considerable discussion about current federal
protections under the Migratory Bird Act.
Here are few key points by those in favor:
There is evidence in the field that some raptors have adapted to the
urban environment. Not all raptors need a buffer ranging from 450
feet to 1,500 feet.
4
• The evidence supporting the 1,500 foot buffer may have been
derived from a wild land environment, not an urban environment.
• The current standard may have an unintended consequence of
encouraging some land owners of removing trees prior to
submitting for a P.D.P.
• The Limits of Disturbance during the first construction season
should protect the existing nesting birds.
Initially, one Board member made a motion to oppose the code
change. Another Board member, however, offered to make a new
motion to continue the item until Spring of 2004 for further study.
This new motion was seconded and it passed 5 — 1.
(Council discussed this item at their November 30, 2004 study session.
A summary of this study session is provided under separate cover.)
5
DRAFT DESIGN STANDARDS FOR
DRIVE-IN RESTAURANTS IN N-C ZONE
One member of City Council has requested a draft of what design standards for
drive-in restaurants in the N-C District would look like.
These draft standards are in addition to and supplement the existing provisions in
the Land Use Code. For example, not repeated here are the existing standards
that relate to building orientation, landscaping, site lighting, signage, operational
and physical compatibility and connecting walkways out to both the public street
and rest of the center. These draft standards would apply only in the N-C zone.
1. Neighborhood Commercial Districts are planned centers that are
strategically located next to M-M-N zone districts. Due to this proximity,
nearby residents are provided the opportunity to walk or bike to the center.
In order to minimize the conflict with vehicles, and to promote safe
pedestrian/bicycle access and usage:
• There shall be an indoor dining component that features tables and
chairs and not merely a walk-up counter.
The dining room entrance shall be the main identifiable entrance as
viewed from the nearest public street. There shall be a direct
walkway connection(s) that ties the dining room/main entrance
back to the interior of the center with logical points of origin and
destination.
2. Drive-in restaurants are historically associated with "strip commercial'
development found along most highways in and out of cities. Typically,
each restaurant featured a highly individualized character, often
highlighted by an oddly-shaped novelty or a whimsical accent feature in
order to stand out among the crowd. In order to prevent the visual blight
associated with a jumbled variety of chaotic and arbitrary building forms,
the use of superfluous attention-getting devices, or extraneous building
components, should be toned down as follows:
• Buildings shall not contain forms or components such as, but not
limited to, towers, spires, arches, figures, statuettes, raised pylons,
food product imitations, A-frame roofs, or other pseudo-structural
elements.
i
3. Typically, for drive-in restaurants, there is one illuminated menu board per
parking stall. This could result in a range of 18 — 36 menu boards
depending on the size of the site. In order to mitigate proliferation,
illumination and general visual intrusion of the multiple, individual menu
boards, the use of typical hand-held menus versus menu boards shall be
required.
• Individual menu boards per car stall shall be prohibited.
4. The history of fast food, drive-through and drive-in restaurants is replete
with the use of novelty roof design as an attention-getting device for
otherwise small boxy structures. While flamboyant roofs may be
appropriate in a more competitive commercial environment, such as
College Avenue, embellished individualized roof design would be
inappropriate out in the neighborhoods. In order to prohibit the use of
non-traditional roofs:
• Roof design shall not consist of unusual projections or other
features that are disproportionate to the balance of the building and
the roof design theme of the commercial center.
5. The canopy is a challenge from a design perspective. Canopies are large,
flat, metallic and highly visual. Their only purpose is to create a comfort
zone for the automobile. The relationship of the canopy to the building,
however, is such that the building is dwarfed. Quite simply, without the
attention paid to the auto, there would be no canopies. In many cases,
canopies have been used to include such attention-getting devices as
bright colors, illumination, neon, L.E.D. lighting, neon rope and gleaming
metal. In order to minimize the aesthetic intrusion represented by the
canopies:
• Primary canopies and shade structures shall be attached to and
made an integral part of the main building and shall not be free-
standing.
• Free-standing secondary canopies and shade structures that are
detached from the building, if any, shall be designed with a pitched
roof to match the primary canopy and relate to the neighborhood
character.
• There shall be no flat-roofed canopies.
• All canopies shall be designed with a shallow-pitched roof, or
parapet that matches the building. Such roofs or parapets shall be
2
constructed of traditional roofing materials such as shingles or
cementious, clay or concrete tiles, or standing seam metal in
subdued, neutral colors in a medium value range. The colors shall
be designed to relate to other buildings within the commercial
center.
• Canopy fascias and columns shall not be internally illuminated nor
externally illuminated with neon or other lighting technique. Nor
shall canopy fascias or columns be accented, striped, or painted in
any color except that of the predominant building exterior color.
• There shall be no advertising, messages, logos or any graphic
representation displayed on the canopy fascias or columns.
• Under-canopy lighting shall be fully recessed with flush-mount
installation using a flat lens. There shall be no spot lighting.
6. Drive -in restaurants require traffic circulation patterns that often cause
headlight glare to shine unnecessarily onto abutting properties or
roadways. In order to prevent such light spillage:
• Headlight glare shall be blocked by the use of berms, or
landscaping of sufficient opacity to block 80% of the illumination, or
any combination thereof.
7. In order to promote air quality, idling engines should be shut off.
• Signs shall be posted in conspicuous locations requiring that idling
engines shall be shut off.
3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Board
FROM: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
DATE: November 17, 2004
RE: Council Summary on Drive-in Restaurants in the N-C zone
The purpose of this memo is to summarize City Council's discussion at their
October 26, 2004 study session regarding adding drive-in restaurants in the N-C
zone. The request to add this use into the N-C, Neighborhood Center, zone is
being made informally by the owners of the Sonic franchise in Fort Collins in
conjunction with the Fall 2004 Land Use Code Biannual Update. Based on
Council's discussion, Staff is not recommending this Code change.
The following is an edited summary and not verbatim minutes. Comments are
listed in chronological order based on the actual City Council study session
discussion.
1. Eric Hamrick
The request is in conflict with the policy that was formed by the City Plan
Advisory Committee and not in sync with City Plan.
2. Bill Bertschy
I agree with Eric.
3. David Roy
I agree with Eric and Bill.
4. Karen Weikenant
I am very mixed on this request. Just because the market drives it, doesn't mean
we should allow it. It's the policy. Where does the policy fit into the market?
That is the question. I was on the City Plan Advisory Committee and this issue
was controversial. I feel mixed on this issue. I recall a very mixed discussion. I
don't have a problem with looking at this request because sometimes we do not
realize the unintended consequences of our policies. I think this is an economic
development issue that EVSAG should look at. I'm concerned that we have a
market-driven land use on the one hand and a policy not to allow these uses in
certain areas. It is fundamentally an economic issue. I am also concerned that
we have all these cars driving around polluting our City.
5. Marty Tharp
I have nothing to offer on this at this time.
6. Kurt Kastein
Regarding drive-in restaurants in the N-C zone, I lean toward these being O.K.
But, I would like to see some development standards. The idea of not allowing
these can't be based just on the number of cars. For example, a standard sit-
down restaurant still has a lot of cars parked around it and might generate the
same number of cars.
7. Ray Martinez
I agree with that. If you don't allow these drive-in restaurants in more places,
then you just have more cars driving around looking for them. It might be a good
idea to spread them around. That way you would have fewer cars per restaurant
and shorter lines. But, customers look for drive-through's and don't seem to
mind the lines.
Summary:
No. Eric Hamrick
Bill Bertschy
David Roy
Yes. Ray Martinez
Yes, but with conditions. Karen Weitkenant— the existing policy should
be reviewed by EVSAG.
Kurt Kastein — before allowing, we should look
at design standards.
No opinion at this time. Marty Tharp
Lierne PMOOMMM
en Franchisee of Sonic Inc.
RESPONSE TO: Fort Collins City Council on Item 665
FROM: David& Scott Beard(Sonic Drive-In)
DATE:November 29,2004
The Planning and Zoning Board voted to allow"DRIVE-IN
FACILITIES"in Neighborhood Commercial, Section 4.19(B)(2)(c)2.
We as Sonic-Drive-In are pleased with their decision and hope that the
Council will concur with this decision.
The Sonic Drive-In on West Elizabeth is a family oriented, destination
restaurant This Sonic is a good example of a true Drive-In. We have
indoor seating as well as drive-in stalls, where 95%of the patrons turn off
their cars. We also have tables outside to order from as well as a bike rack
for those who want to bike in. The highest volume sales month is July of
each year,prior to the return of approximately 15,000 college students
which reside in a one mile radius of the store.
This means to us that we are a family oriented, destination restaurant.
The West Elizabeth Sonic is a family owned business and has been here
since 1989. We feel we have been good corporate citizens as we have
participated in events at City Park ,Downtown and CSU. We know Sonic
has had a positive effect in Fort Collins.
We think we should have the same rights as other sit down restaurants to
be included in the N-C Zoning
With a positive recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Board we
hope that the Council will concur in this change.
Thank you your consideratio
35061 Cornerstone Way•Windsor,CO 110550-2617
Phone:970-686-7286
Licensed Franchiseeof 96nic Inc.
•
REQUEST TO: City of Fort Collins, Planning and Zoning Board
FROM: David Beard(Sonic Drive-In)
DATE: November 8 ,2004
RE: Request Further Review of a Zoning Change as a part of the Semi-Annual
Zoning Review; Section 4.19(B)(2)(c)2. Deletion of"WITHOUT DRIVE-THRU
FACILITIES"AND REMOVAL OF LIMITATIONS ON DRIVE-IN FAST
FOOD RESTAURANTS.
This is an abbreviated synopsis of the request that went to the city Planning and
Environmental Group. Also attached is a copy of that request in case it was not
passed on to P&Z.
I am requesting that You consider recommending to the City Council that they
chance the NC zoning to allow Drive-In as well as Drive-thru restaurants
The retail uses in the NC zone allows Convenience Retail stores with canopies,
• Banks with canopies, Gas Stations with canopies and standard restaurants along
with many other uses to serve the adjacent housing area.
Eating is one of the things that normal people do ever day and to
DISCREMINATE against"Drive-thru&Drive-in Restaurants is not right.
As it now stands we are forcing people to drive to higher traffic areas to eat at
their favorite drive-thrn,there are families that presently come to Sonic from all
parts of Fort Collins.
I have heard staff say that bank drive-thru's and gas station canopies are an
accessory to that business. Well so are drive-ttuu's to most of the fast food
restaurants.
NC Zoning seems to be setup for the convience of those living in the area so as
not to force them to drive to other parts of the city,don't you think that some Fast
Food Restaurants with Drive-Thru's should be allowed in the NC Zones?
Please look at the attached request and more specific to the next to the last
paragraph concerning what is happening in the Harmony Corridor.
Thank you for your consideration.
35001 Cornerstone Pay•"indsor.CO 110,M-2617
Phone:970.00647200
a
'Nr N'
• ucensnf Franchisee of onlr Inc.
MEMO TO: City of Fort Collins, Community Planning and Environmental Services
FROM: David Beard (Sonic Drive-In)
DATE: September 15, 2004
RE: Requested Zoning Change as Part of Semi-Annual Zoning Review;
Section 4.19 (13)(2)(c) 2. —Removal of Limitation on'Drive-In Fast Food
Restaurants
This is written to request the City to delete the restriction on drive-in fast food restaurants
contained in the above Land Use Code section.
The Sonic Restaurant on West Elizabeth Street opened in October, 1989 as the only
drive-in in Fort Collins that I am aware of. We have a varied menu and the food and drinks are
• prepared to order when the orders are placed, not cooked or made ahead of time. This is no
different than any other sit-down restaurant. The only difference is we try to do it quicker, the
food is placed into bags on a tray, and delivered to customers in their vehicles.
Much to my surprise, from the very beginning, July of each year is our busiest month for
sales, not August when 15,000 college students come back to school within a half-mile radius of
our store. This indicates that we are a family oriented restaurant, and as the students return the
families move to other areas to get their food and drinks. If our drive-in were allowed in NC-
zoned areas, it would lessen the need to drive to College Avenue.
In talking to various members of the planning department, it hasn't seemed to me that
anyone knows of any real opposition to the drive-in concept, except that there may be some
vague concern about pollution from the cars. However, at least 95 percent of the cars turn off
their engines when they park at Sonic, and so this is a negligible difference with people who
drive to a full sit-down restaurant, I feel. Like drive-in movie theatres, which have experienced a
resurgence in popularity recently, people enjoy staying in their cars to eat, sometimes.
We have been good corporate citizens, as we have created tax revenues to help pay City
expenses. We have cooperated with City street projects, including the recent Elizabeth Street
improvements. We have contributed money and goods to help charities as well as assisting in
the CSU athletic scholarship programs. We believe we provide a needed and valuable service
• that people appreciate and desire in Fort Collins.
3',-061 Col nel:slone Na)•Uindsor,Or f{073U-261 i
Phone:970-686 72110
l
NI
Ucensed Franehlsee of Sonic Inc.
The trend is toward more drive-thru facilities throughout the country. This city has some
excellent examples of fast food drive-thru restaurants. The Wendy's restaurants have three fine
facilities, and would like to expand with the ability to have drive-thru's. McDonalds has rebuilt
one of its stores, and is in the process of rebuilding its second store. They found it necessary to
go to I-25 and Mulberry in the unincorporated county so as to have a drive-thru. Sonic has been
trying to expand in Fort Collins since 1999, but has not been able to find a site in the City that
meets all of the requirements and has a chance of being profitable.
I would note that presently there are, by my count, 44 restaurants and 11 banks in the
Harmony Corridor. Not one of the restaurants has a drive-thru, although with some of them food
can be ordered ahead of time by telephone and the restaurant will bring the food to one's car to
take home. Sounds a lot like a drive-thru. All of the banks have drive-thru's, some with
canopies bigger than any drive-thru restaurant I have ever seen, and at times there are lines as
long as any line in a drive-thru restaurant in the drive-thru bank facilities.
Under these circumstances, it seems somewhat absurd to disallow drive-thru facilities in
• the NC Zone.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
•
:1.)061 Cornerstone Nay•\\indsor.CO 80930--21i 17
Phone:970-686-7210
JJ+._. NI
• Licensed Franchisee of Sonic Inc.
MEMO TO: City of Fort Collins, Community Planning and Environmental Services
FROM: David Beard (Sonic Drive-In)
DATE: September 15, 2004
RE: Requested Zoning Change as Part of Semi-Annual Zoning Review;
Section 4.19 (13)(2)(c) 2. —Deletion of"Without Drive-thru Facilities"
This memorandum is to petition the City of Fort Collins to delete the wording in the
above cited Land Use Code section that restricts fast food restaurants in the NC Zone from
having drive-thru facilities.
Fast food restaurants are an appropriate use in the NC Zoning, and drive-thru facilities are
customary, desirable, and also very appropriate.
• I understand that drive-thru facilities are permitted for fast food restaurants in C-
Commercial Zones. Many banks and some pharmacies also have drive-thin facilities. Any
objection to drive-thru facilities on the basis of alleged air pollution would seem to be as valid
(or invalid) in C-Commercial areas as in the NC-zoned areas. I question the significance of any
such pollution generated by drive-thru facilities, and would be very interested to examine any
data the City may have in this regard. However, again, the environmental argument seems moot
given that the City does permit drive-thru facilities in many instances.
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-thru facilities in individual cases.
It appears very difficult to distinguish between C-Commercial areas and those areas
zoned NC with regard to reasons why the former areas may have fast food restaurants with drive-
thru facilities and the latter areas cannot. NC areas, like C-Commercial areas, are typically
located on arterial or major arterial highways, and normally at comers of two arterials. Fast food
restaurants with drive-thru facilities (and banks) are often located at identical intersections. To
the extent there are NC-zoned areas that are not on the most significant roads, I would suggest
that it would reduce traffic on the major roads to allow fast food restaurants with drive-thin
facilities to locate in those areas, as well. Probably more pollution is caused by forcing people to
drive to College Avenue to get to their favorite drive-thru and back home than if they had the
ability to go through a drive-thru at a more proximately located NC-zoned property. As of late,
• the citizens of Fort Collins have been reluctant to tax themselves to pay for street improvements,
and it would seem to help the situation to allow drive-thru's in NC-zoned areas.
:0061 Corne islone%%aY•11 Incisor.1;0 ft,10-2617
Phone:970-686-72111i
1
NI
• Licensed Franchisee of Sonic Inc.
The trend is toward more drive-thru facilities throughout the country. This city has some
excellent examples of fast food drive-thru restaurants. The Wendy's restaurants have three fine
facilities, and would like to expand with the ability to have drive-thru's. McDonalds has rebuilt
one of its stores, and is in the process of rebuilding its second store. They found it necessary to
go to I-25 and Mulberry in the unincorporated county so as to have a drive-thru. Sonic has been
trying to expand in Fort Collins since 1999, but has not been able to find a site in the City that
meets all of the requirements and has a chance of being profitable.
I would note that presently there are, by my count, 44 restaurants and 11 banks in the
Harmony Corridor. Not one of the restaurants has a drive-thru, although with some of them food
can be ordered ahead of time by telephone and the restaurant will bring the food to one's car to
take home. Sounds a lot like a drive-thru. All of the banks have drive-thnf's, some with
canopies bigger than any drive-thru restaurant I have ever seen, and at times there are lines as
long as any line in a drive-thru restaurant in the drive-thru bank facilities.
Under these circumstances, it seems somewhat absurd to disallow drive-thru facilities in
• the NC Zone.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
•
35061 Cornerstone'Aar•%t Ind,o r.CO 805o0-2617
Pl W oc:670-6110-7286
2
MEMO
Date: November 17, 2004
To: Planning&Zoning Board
Thru: John Stokes, Natural Resources Director
From: NRD Environmental Planners Sandy Hicks and Susie Gordon
RE: Land Use Code Amendment for Recycling Enclosures
During the public outreach process for a proposal to require recycling areas in trash enclosures,
staff was questioned about the accuracy of our cost estimates. We attempted to identify costs in a
Guidance Document(Trash and Recycling Enclosures; Design Considerations),which is cited in
amended Section 3.2.5 of the LUC concerning Trash and Recycling Enclosures, and which will
be reviewed by the P&Z Board tonight In this memo, we have refined our calculations,with the
very helpful assistance of self-described local "dumpster expert"Matt Rankin, architect at a Fort
Collins development firm.
Actual Recommended Area versus Improved (constructed)Area
At the heart of the issue is the question of how many parking spaces will be lost by complying
with the proposed amendment. The amount of cost to attach to the"lost opportunity"to park has
not been included in our costs estimates, although it is clearly a trade-off that must considered.
To put this in perspective and since recycling/trash enclosures are usually located in parking
areas; the size of a parking stall for a compact vehicle is 1Ox19,or 190 square feet(SF). For
apartments, in addition to space needed for trash enclosure, an estimated 100 SF of recycling
area is recommended for the first 10 units,plus another five SF for each additional unit. Thus, in
a 15-unit complex, an area of 125 SF(65% of one parking stall) will accommodate recycling
needs.
A similar amount of space(100 SF, or 53% of a parking stall) is needed for recycling in smaller
commercial buildings that are under 10,000 SF in size. For each additional 1,000 SF of
commercial space in buildings greater than 10,000 SF in size, an additional five square feet of
recycling area is needed. Thus, for a building of 20,000 SF, a 150 SF area is needed, and for a
50,000 SF building, 300 SF is needed(1.5 parking stalls).
Out of the entire area recommended to accommodate recycling, only 24-45 square feet is actually
dedicated, enclosed storage area for bins. The rest is open pavement to ensure adequate access by
the vehicles haulers use to remove or empty recycling (and trash) containers. Since these
approach areas are assumed to already be part of a parking lot or loading area, and because they
are part of trash enclosure specifications, we do not include their real estate or paving costs as
additions to our cost estimate for recycling enclosures.
Pagel of 2
Changes Made to Cost Factors
Our calculations for recycling space were based on the immediate area needed to accommodate
additional containers, as an extension of(required)trash enclosures. We included costs for the
square footage (land)and construction materials such as concrete and masonry at an average of
$50 per square foot. Mr. Rankin suggested that this number would underestimate the cost for a
high-end type of project, and that an average of$75 per square foot would be a reasonable factor
to use for an entire enclosure (including swinging doors). Since Mr. Rankin described this type
of project as an exception to typical designs, we have also included estimates in this memo based
on $60 per square foot.
Estimated Costs*
Container Size SF required Former estimate Mid-range High-end
$50 $60 sf @ $75 sf
(2) 95- allon carts 24 sf $1,200 $1,440 $1,800
(1) 2-CY container 27 $1,350 $1,890 $2,025
(1) 3-CY container 45 $2,250 $2,700 $3,375
or (1) 4-CY container
* includes 6 inches of concrete base,masonry (8 feet high) or other construction material, and
pedestrian access. Does not include asphalt"apron"for vehicle access or additional landscaping.
Page 2 of 2
Community Planning and Environmental Services
Current Planning
MEMORANDUM
City of Fort Collins
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
THROUGH: Greg Byrne, C.P.E.S. Director
RE: Summary of Study Session Item elating to Raptor Buffers
DATE: December 1, 2004
At their November 30, 2004 study session, City Council discussed the potential
change to the Land Use Code regarding reducing raptor buffers. This change
would revise Section 3.4.1(E)(1)0) of the Buffer Zone Performance Standards
and the Buffer Table to limit protection of nesting sites of Red-tailed and
Swainson's Hawks from new construction for up to one year only, and add a
temporary Limits of Development provision.
Council was presented with information regarding the implementation issues
related to the standard as currently written. The proposed change was then
reviewed and discussed. Specifically, Council was asked:
"Shall the Raptor Buffer Standards from Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use
Code be amended as proposed?"
Four council members were present and their responses are as follows:
1. 1 do not support the proposed change. I would also like to see a map of
our Growth Management Area where the 26 current nest sites are located.
With this change, are we in jeopardy of violating the Federal Migratory
Bird Act?
2. 1 am not comfortable with the proposed change. I think people enjoy
seeing wildlife in an urban setting. I would like to see P&Z minutes.
3. 1 support the proposed change since it promotes a greater amount of
fairness for affected land owners.
4. 1 support the proposed change. I agree that our Natural Areas and
Community Separator programs will provide a landscape-scale habitat
protection program.
This proposed code change will be included in the Fall biannual Ordinance
scheduled for First Reading on December 7, 2004. Staff will provide the map,
minutes of the P & Z hearing and information on Federal Migratory Bird Act as
requested.
281 North College Avenue • P.O.Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6750 • FAX(970)416-2020
N
wE City of Fort Collins
77
1y4 PIWV
�..
= 4
a
t} •
ii �d-••
s
i
... _J
1
Legend
LL(based
t Locations for Swainson's and Red-tailed Hawks
002 Colorado Division of Wildlife data) BUG 4QRaptor Nests
—CityLimits Raptor Nests Lost
tor nests that are coexisting with development. —Major Streets 0 Existing Raptor Nests
Land Use Code Changes
General Direction Sought and Specific
Raptor Buffer Standards Questions to be Answered:
City Council Study Session: Shall the Raptor Buffer Standards from Section 3.4.1.of
November 30, 2004 the Land Use Code be amended as proposed?
Proposal Background/History
-March 1997 new Land Use Code with general
Eliminate the red-tail and Swainson's hawk buffer and habitat protection standard; 100'to 300' buffers
mitigation provisions.
•1999, matrix with specific buffer standards for
Create a temporary 450'Limit of Disturbance during the various species added. (1320')
nesting season and during the first year of a multi-year
construction project' -in June of 2004, reduced to a 900'buffer; 900'
buffer able to be changed to 450'with one-to-one
In any subsequent year,therewould notbea buffer. However,the land mitigation or a mitigation payment of
Migratory Bird!Treaty Act prohibits disturbance of an active nest. $10,000 per acre
1
Buffer Standard Comparison Proposal
Proposetl Existing
Eliminate the red-tail and Swainson's hawk buffer and
\
..... mitigation provisions.
80 ac 'i \ Create a temporary 450'Limit of Disturbance during the
nesting season and during the first year of a multi-year
132(Y construction project'
j
'In any subsequent year,there would not be a buffer. However,the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits disturbance of an active nest.
i'---'-N0 DISTURBANCE/XO BUIIO EOX!
Concerns with Proposal Staff Recommendation
-Modify the Code as proposed
• Loss of"urban" raptors -The City has a landscape-scale
• Shifts burden to natural areas program conservation system via the Natural
Areas program,as well as various
• There is no city-wide tree protection elements of the Land Use Code that
ordinance provide set-backs from riparian areas
• Change not science-based and other natural features; in essence,
these are more effective tools for
conservation of large wide-ranging
animals
2
MEMORANDUM
'—" FROM THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
DATE: November 30, 2004
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Nate Donovan on behalf of the Natural Resources Advisory Board
SUBJECT: Raptor Buffer Standards
The Natural Resources Advisory Board met in mid-November and voted to recommend
Council NOT approve the staff proposal relating to raptor buffer standards in Section
3.4.1 of the Land Use Code, for the following reasons:
1. The proposed elimination of Red-tail and Swainson's hawk buffer standards is
not supported by the prevailing science, but rather is in response to Council requests for
staff to bring forth a proposal to accomplish the elimination. The NRAB respectfully
submits that staff justifications for the proposal emphasize the perceived problems with
the standards rather than the benefits, to better match some Council perceptions.
2. The current standards were developed through a lengthy process of major
compromise that included citizens, staff and other natural resources professionals.
Throughout the process of revising Section 3.4.1 of the code, staff and their hired
consultants supported the revisions to the buffers for nesting raptors and argued
forcefully for Council approval. This group included the Colorado Division of Wildlife's
former raptor biologist. Those participating in discussions agreed we risk losing all our
urban nesting raptors if the buffers would be further reduced beyond the compromised
code standards. As a result, in last spring's LUC revisions, the buffers for nesting
raptors were reduced by up to 89% from the previous code provisions. The NRAB does
not believe that elimination of this already significantly reduced standard can be justified
as a balance of development interests and natural resources protection.
3. The NRAB submits that existing land use code performance standards alone or
staffs proposed temporary buffer limit do not sufficiently protect these raptors. The
existing compromise standard at least allows for these species to be part of the weaving
of wildlife habitat and natural features into the fabric of our community and its
connectivity to larger landscape-level land conservation strategies. Without these
standards, only highly adapted urban raptors will stay and nest in the city. More
sensitive individuals will abandon their urban habitats. The city risks losing this aspect
of the qualities that make it desirable.
Please feel free to contact me regarding the Board's recommendations on this issue.
Yours truly,
Nate Donovan, Chair
Natural Resources Advisory Board
tel: 472-1599, e-mail: ndonovanlaw(a)earthlink.net
cc: Darin Atteberry, Interim City Manager
NRAB Memorandum: Raptor Buffer Standards; Page 1 of 1
DRAFT
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 18 , 2004
Project : Recommendation to City Council for the Fall
2004 Biannual Revisions , Clarifications and
Additions to the Land Use Code .
Recommendation : Approval
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence :
Ted Shepard , Chief Planner gave the staff presentation . He reviewed for the
Board their packet materials and stated that the packet did not include the
proposal that we reduce the multi -family parking for two- bedroom dwelling units
from a 1 . 75 per/du basis to a 1 . 5 per/du at the request of City Council due to the
concern about the issues surrounding three unrelated persons . We are also at
this time , not recommending in this Code packet , that we include drive - in
restaurants in the NC zone . He stated that there would be some citizen input on
that issue tonight . Staff is adding something that is not in the packet and not in
the ordinance , but in a separate memo because it was brought to staff after the
packet went to print . The request is to expand the infill map to include two
additional areas and the Board received a graphic and map on that item . There
are also some materials in the back of the ordinance that talk about the issues
that he has just went over .
Public Input
Patrick Reeves , 810 Maple Street stated he would be speaking to the draft
revisions for Section 4 . 7 ( E ) ( 1 ) , which concerns dimensional standards for the
NCM zoned regions of the city . He stated that he owns property and resides at
810 Maple Street in the Capitol Hill neighborhood , which is zoned NCM . He
would read a prepared statement to be entered into the record on behalf of
himself and the following 9 residents of the Capitol Hill and Martinez Park
neighbors :
Pat Kendall , 502 N . Shields St .
Robert and Elisabeth Cuff, 400 Park St .
Jeff Derry , 219 Wood Street
Diane Reiser , 4087 Wood Street
Jim Wurz , 425 N . Sherwood Street
Don Flick , 520 N . Sherwood Street , # 14
Nan Reed , 308 Park Street
Derek Marchi , 429 N . Grant Street
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes
November 18 , 2004
Page 2
In addition , these comments have been endorsed by the Capitol Hill
Neighborhood Organizing Group .
" Martinez Park and Capitol Hill encompass an area of Old Town Fort Collins that
is predominantly zoned NCM . The approximate boundaries of the area are
Meldrum Street on the east , Vine Street on the north , Shields Street on the west ,
and Laporte Street on the south . Ours is a neighborhood consisting primarily of
modest , one-story , single family homes , interspersed with the occasional duplex
and multi -family dwelling . While our homes are not the stately mansions of the
Mountain and Oak historic districts , there can be no question that these
neighbors form an important record of Fort Collins history . A quick walk down
Cherry or Park streets will make that fact abundantly clear. Our neighborhoods
contain a large concentration of the unique architecture that has come to be
known affectionately as the "sugar shack"—those small square houses with a
single brick chimney emanating from the center peak of the roof—which were
built at the turn of the century to house workers for the now defunct Great
Western Beet Sugar Refinery . It has been a fortuitous twist of fate that these
working class neighborhoods remain largely intact 100 years after their
construction , and have not been "scraped off" to make way for more profitable
housing developments , as has been the case in areas adjacent to the historic
downtown commercial districts of many growing municipalities nationwide .
We believe that the proposed changes to the Land Use Code will provide a
measure of protection for the historical character of our neighborhoods .
Accordingly , we support the spirit of the draft revisions to the Code . The
changes will promote the preservation of these historic neighborhoods by
decreasing the potential for shoehorning of extremely narrow single family homes
and duplexes side by side within a single lot with a minimum street frontage
dimension of 40 feet . Furthermore , the changes do not conflict with the goals for
redevelopment and infill in Old Town set forth in the City Council approved
Comprehensive Plan , or City Plan . We believe that the planned amount of
growth can be easily accommodated by infill of existing vacant lots , consolidation
of underutilized partial lots that are adjacent to one another, and where
appropriate , through the construction of carriage houses behind existing
dwellings . After all , it is in our long back yards that the majority of our
undeveloped land exists .
However, we are unsure why the draft revisions appear to be limited to single
family homes and duplexes , and are not extended to other permitted uses (such
as multi -family dwellings of up to four units , bed and breakfasts , group homes ,
child care centers , and so forth ) . Under the proposed revisions , it will continue to
be possible to shoehorn extremely narrow structures of the aforementioned types
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes
November 18 , 2004
Page 3
side by side , provided a minimum street frontage dimension of 50 feet is met .
We believe that failing to give the same treatment to these uses as to single
family homes and duplexes will promote an alteration of the historical pattern of
development , and will provide an economic incentive for the "scrape off' of
existing structures , followed by the construction of high density multi -family
developments to the detriment of our neighborhoods ' unique character.
This concern is not purely hypothetical . There are many parcels with street
frontage dimensions of between 50 and 100 feet that will remain particularly
vulnerable unless the draft code revisions are modified to include all currently
permitted uses . For example , on the Maple Street side of Block 293 , there are
four such parcels (one of which is my own ) , that collectively encompass more
that 50 % of the total street frontage . This block is not unusual in this respect ,
and in fact is representative of the rhythm and spacing of development in much
of Martinez Park and Capitol Hill . Under the proposed revisions , half of this block
(and many others like it) could be converted into stacked rows of "skinny" three
and four-plex dwellings .
Secondly , extending the revisions to include all permitted uses will greatly
simplify and regularize the Land Use Code . Retaining two logically distinct types
of street frontage requirement in the same section of code is unnecessarily
confusing . If the revisions are not changed to include all permitted uses there will
be one minimum dimensional requirement (the 40 foot requirement for single
family homes and duplexes ) that will apply to each principal building , and another
(the 50 foot requirement for all other permitted uses ) that will apply to a
development as a whole , regardless of the number of principal buildings to be
stacked side by side along the street frontage .
Therefore , we urge the Planning and Zoning Board to support the draft code
revisions at the upcoming City Council hearing with the following modifications :
Extend the clarification (that the lot frontage requirement standard be applied to
each principal building on the lot) to multi -family dwellings and all other permitted
uses . " ( Exhibit 1 )
Scott Beard , 1712 Silvergate Road stated he owns and operates the Sonic Drive
In on West Elizabeth Street . He appreciated the opportunity to speak the Board
tonight and also the input that city Staff has had on their proposed Code change .
There are requesting that "drive- in " be dropped from the NC , Neighborhood
Commercial zoning district . In the beginning , they submitted two petitions to the
city , one of which would drop "drive-thru " and on of which would drop "drive- in " .
Over time they have come to the conclusion that a "drive- in " would be sufficient
for them , after all that is what they are is a "drive-in " .
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes
November 18 , 2004
Page 4
Sonic Drive - In by its nature is similar to a sit down restaurant . It just so happens
that half of their dining area is in the patrons cars . They pull in , they park and
they turn off their car and they sit and eat there . The Neighborhood Commercial
Zoning District , by nature is a mixed use commercial core for serving the
demands for frequently needed goods and services . The emphasis is on serving
the surrounding neighborhoods , including eating . Sonic Drive - In , by its nature , is
a local neighborhood family oriented restaurant . He would feel that it would be
vital and useful in the Neighborhood Commercial areas which are distributed
throughout the city of Fort Collins .
Mr. Beard went on to say that some of the things that would benefit from that . A
good share of their business ( he would use their Campus West drive - in as an
example ) is in a neighborhood commercial zone , it is on the lot line in the front ,
up next to the street , the design of the store adheres to most of the design
requests that the city asks of us today . That being up next to a street or sidewalk
that it does not allow for cars to drive around the building . In essence , it makes it
pedestrian friendly . They get a good share of walk- by traffic , good share of
bicycle traffic and a good share of people who pull up , park and use their picnic
facilities there at their location . He thinks that would fit within the neighborhood
commercial throughout the city as he understands it .
Neighborhood Commercial as he understands it , is designed to help minimize
cross-town traffic . Right now people in certain areas of town , for example , over
by Harmony and Timberline , in order to go and grab a burger or something
similar, they have to drive at least a mile up to Horsetooth and Timberline or
College and Harmony to get what they are looking for . By allowing them to
located within the neighborhood commercial areas , it would minimize the cross -
town traffic serving those customers who would probably go across town anyway
to get what they are looking for. A good share of their customer base in Campus
West , actually comes from other parts of the city , which to him makes it more of a
destination location . People are willing to drive across town to get what they are
looking for . By locating throughout the town in neighborhood commercial zones ,
would allow them to minimize across town traffic , congestion and pollution . He
asked for the Board ' s support and asked that they vote for the proposed Code
change , dropping " drive-thru " from the neighborhood commercial approved list .
Danielle Bilyeu , 406 Wood Street stated that she supported the previous
speaker' s comments that the minimum frontage requirements be applied to all
permitted uses in the NCM zone . She would like to also voice an idea to reduce
the minimum frontage for single family homes from 40 feet to 35 feet . In the
Capitol Hill and Martinez Park neighborhoods , there are many homes that have a
35 foot frontage . It is common to this area and she thought for accommodating
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes
November 18 , 2004
Page 5
the city ' s plan to infill these areas , it is more desirable to permit slightly narrower
lots , than to promote the building of carriage houses in the rear . It was hard for
her to imagine restrictions on carriage houses that could prevent them from
becoming reoriented towards the alley . She would rather see slightly narrower
lots allowed so that more houses could be in -filled with street frontage . She was
proposing that the minimum frontage for a single family home in these
neighborhoods be reduced from 40 feet to 35 feet .
Public Input Closed
Chairperson Torgerson would like to address the "drive-thru " "drive - in " issue first .
Because this is a legislative issue , and for the record he did take a call from Scott
Beard today and did indicate to him that he would offer the opportunity for him to
petition the Board to bring the issue up . It was taken off of the Code changes by
City Council and the reason he felt the reason to at least entertain the matter is
that he is engaged in a process with staff in good faith and it seems that he
deserves his day in court at least before the Board with a recommendation to
City Council .
Member Lingle asked for some background as to how this came about . His
understanding was that in those zones , a fast-food restaurant like Wendy' s or
McDonald ' s , if they did not have a drive -thru window , would be permitted .
Planner Shepard responded that it was correct to the extent that you would find a
Wendy' s or McDonald ' s without a drive -thru window . We think of it more in the
terms of a Subway or Dairy Queen .
Member Lingle was struggling with the distinction made between someone who
drives and parks their car to a Subway or Dairy Queen versus someone who
drives and stays in their car at a Sonic and eats their meal in their car . The
number of cars is the same , the traffic is the same . It' s just a matter of whether
they are getting out and walking into a building or not . He was having a hard
time understanding what the rationale behind making that distinction in the Land
Use Code .
Planner Shepard replied that as they discussed this at the Land Use Code Team
Meeting , the feeling was that we kept trying to compare this to a Subway or a
Dairy Queen . What is the primary difference between a Sonic or a hypothetical
drive-thru restaurant and a hypothetical fast-food restaurant . In Fort Collins , fast
food means no drive-thru lane . That is a distinct definition . It is the auto
relatedness of the restaurant . The drive - in restaurant celebrates the automobile ,
it provides a shelter for the automobile and has an outdoor menu for the
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes
November 18 , 2004
Page 6
automobile . It has outdoor lighting for people in their automobiles , signage , and
site layout for the automobile . These just are not parking stalls . This is a
celebratory car hop kind of atmosphere that exalts the automobile . You don ' t
find canopies and outdoor menus and lights at a Subway or Dairy Queen . It is
that auto related essence that makes this different .
Member Lingle asked why that was a " bad " thing from a code point of view .
Planner Shepard replied from the neighborhood center point of view , it
represents an opportunity cost of putting in a land use that doesn ' t cater to the
automobile , it caters more to a walk- up pedestrian . It does not celebrate the car
and has more pedestrian connections . Keep in mind that this prohibition is only
in the NC zone . The community is not shutting down drive - in restaurants . They
are permitted in several zone districts . It is only out in the neighborhood , and the
Board has a map in their packet , where you see that the NC zones are all flanked
by the MMN zone , which is out highest density multi -family zone . We are trying
to generate enough density and activity to create walkable neighborhoods that
can support transit along arterial streets . That is one of the essential
fundamental visions of City Plan . To insert an auto related use of this magnitude
into the NC , to staff on the Land Use Code Team , seems counter to City Plan .
Member Craig agreed with Planner Shepard and was thinking , like tonight , if
somebody went to Sonic and sat in their car , would they have it turned off,
probably not . That is another issue that has not been thought out , that someone
would drive up and turn off their car and sit there for an hour in the cold while
they eat , which she doubts would happen . She thought that was another issue to
consider , especially in a neighborhood community center . She did not know if
staff has had the chance to go out and see if that is what they do in the cold .
This gets back to the process question Member Torgerson was asking and
maybe first the Board should take a vote and see if they want to even consider
this or not because at this point in time Council has pulled it .
Member Gavaldon moved to include this topic into the Board ' s
recommendation to City Council allowing drive - in ' s in the NC zone .
Member Lingle seconded the motion . The motion was approved 4 -2 with
Members Craig and Schmidt voting in the negative . Member Carpenter was
absent .
Member Gavaldon asked why we can ' t have this that both satisfies both drive- up
and walk- up as in Mr . Beard ' s current situation in the NC zone .
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes
November 18 , 2004
Page 7
Planner Shepard replied that his understanding would be that they would include
a walk in component . That by itself did not dissuade staff from thinking that this
is still essentially an auto- related use .
Member Gavaldon asked if there was still an opportunity for the team to go back
and look at it with a more regional mind .
Planner Shepard replied that they never did not look at it that way , we always
looked at these as having a walk in dining room . That did not solve the problem
of the essential auto related character of a drive- in restaurant .
Member Gavaldon thought that this prohibition of this is killing an opportunity that
we can have in the city and meet the Goals and Objectives both ways . He asked
how staff presented this to Council at their study session .
Planner Shepard replied that they gave them some written material , it was in the
form of a memo and it explained to the City Council that the Land Use Code
Committee was divided and mixed on this issue , as was the Planning and Zoning
Board at their October worksession .
Member Schmidt voted no on the previous motion because she thought that if we
were going to discuss this in detail , she would have asked for a couple of other
items . Is it necessary to have these in the NC zone when you can go half a mile
down the road and there is a Community Commercial . Are we usually talking a
half mile difference , in which case , to her there seems to be ample opportunity in
other zones to have these dispersed throughout the community?
Planner Shepard answered one mile difference . There are two exceptions at
College and Trilby and College and Carpenter Road , there are two NC districts
that not only abut a MMN , and they also front on South College Avenue . Those
are the exceptions most of the other NC zones are strategically located about a
mile off of College Avenue , which would be the Shields Corridor , the Lemay
Corridor, Taft Hill and Timberline Corridor' s as well . The idea is that north of
Trilby you don ' t see NC zone districts on College Avenue . College Avenue is
more for the C zone . The other zone is the CC , which is Campus West , Foothills
Fashion Mall , and Mountain Vista and these are not allowed in the CC .
Member Schmidt asked if you could do one in the E , Employment zone .
Planner Shepard responded that in the Employment zone there is a land use
permitted in the Employment zone district called the Neighborhood Convenience
Shopping Center , it is very "tightly" defined . You can do one of those in the E ,
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes
November 18 , 2004
Page 8
inside the Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center , a fast food restaurant
with a drive-thru or drive- in .
Member Schmidt asked how this description then fit into McDonald ' s and
Wendy' s and if we change the Code does that mean any drive- in restaurant is
eligible .
Planner Shepard replied that in the Land Use Code , three different kinds of
restaurants are defined . The first is a standard sit-down restaurant . The second
is a drive-thru and the drive -thru and the drive- in are coupled as one . Then there
is the fast-food . The fast-food is like a Subway or a Dairy Queen which has no
drive-thru or drive- in .
Member Schmidt asked if the Code change would be to allow drive- in .
Planner Shepard replied drive - in only in the NC zone , drive-thru and standard
and fast food are already permitted .
Member Schmidt asked what the difference was between a drive- in and a drive -
thru .
Peter Barnes , Zoning Administrator responded that a drive- in restaurant is all -
inclusive and includes a restaurant like Sonic on West Elizabeth , but does not
have a drive -thru , it also includes a McDonald ' s that has a drive-thru , but no
drive- in . We don ' t make a distinction between the two ; they are the same use
even though they may operate differently .
Member Schmidt asked how then it would be that we would allow a drive- in and
not a drive -thru .
Mr. Barnes replied that in the list of permitted uses , you put drive- in restaurants
with no drive -thru lanes . It ' s possible in that manner then , to exclude a
McDonald ' s with a drive-thru , but still allow something like a Sonic .
Member Craig asked if a Sonic could go in the newly created center at Prospect
and Timberline Road .
Planner Shepard replied yes .
Member Craig asked about the new Lifestyle Center . Planner Shepard replied
no . They would not be allowed anywhere in the Harmony Corridor Zone , the
nearest place to Harmony and Timberline , would be on the west side of
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes
November 18 , 2004
Page 9
Timberline Road , north of Caribou in the Horsetooth Business Park area . That
area has within it a sub -set , a neighborhood convenience center and that is how
the newly constructed quick- lube was able to locate there .
Chairperson Torgerson asked about the Neighborhood Center at the corner of
Lemay and Drake , the Scotch Pines Center . He stated that he designed a drive-
up for the Runza Restaurant at that located several years ago that was approved
by the planning staff.
Planner Shepard asked if that was before the adoption of the Land Use Code .
Chairperson Torgerson replied no . It is a drive up box that you talk into and
someone comes out with your food . It is multiple and operates just like a Sonic .
Planner Shepard replied that he was not sure how that was permitted .
Planner Shepard went on to say that the way the Committee talked about this
issue , and keep in mind that this is an informal committee and this project was
not submitted as a text amendment , is that the group discussion was mixed , the
group discussion was split and there are arguments on both sides . If the
question is what the difference is , he would reply that the committee felt that
because of the canopies , the proliferation of those auto- related characteristics
such as menu boards and lighting , the interference of drive thru lanes with
crosswalks and just the essential auto relatedness . There is no getting around
the fact that this is such an auto- related land use , it just seems incongruous to
put it into an NC zone that we are trying to densify in a new urbanism fashion
with walkable , bicycle access and density .
Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the Recommendation to City
Council for the change for item 665 for drive - in , in the NC zone based on
the facts and findings of Board Members .
Member Lingle seconded the motion .
Member Craig obviously would not be supporting the motion . To go back to the
process itself, when Council pulled it to receive more information , she thought it
was important to remind the Board that there was three definite no ' s from
Council , there were two yes ' s with conditions , including Councilmember
Weitkunat' s recommendation for the economic development issue be reviewed
by the EVSAG . Council Member Kastein thought we should look at design
standards . She felt that in fairness to staff who have not had a chance to do
some of that and bring it to the Board , that we are being premature at this time .
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes
November 18 , 2004
Page 10
Member Schmidt agreed with Member Craig and felt that they have not had the
opportunity to add conditions at this point in time not having a chance to review it
thoroughly . Her main concern is no guarantee , unless there is a condition that
people are going to turn off their autos and that also leads to a lack of pedestrian
use . One of the goals of the NC zone is to encourage the pedestrian and the
bike and you are not going to do that by adding cars sitting and running .
Member Gavaldon disagreed and do not see any difference between this and the
drive-thru lanes we have created with the drug stores . He feels that although
Council may have some reservations , he questions how well this was presented
and if they did have a full scope of this . He thought that the citizens do have a
right to bring these things to us . He thought that staff needs to look back at the
Runza Restaurant . He also really gets perturbed when we continually beat up
the automobile and he thinks that we are going to use the automobile and it is not
going away .
Member Lingle thought that it was important to be on record of how each of them
feel so when Council looks at this they can hear what they are talking about . He
thought that the distinction being made between drive - in and other restaurants
that people would park and go in was an unnecessary distinction in his mind .
Staff is using Dairy Queen as an example , the Dairy Queen on South College on
a July night has far more traffic than almost any restaurant in town and people
park in their cars , they sit there , they get out of their cars , they sit on their hoods
and talk and that has been his experience at Sonic . People don ' t necessarily sit
in their cars , they sit at picnic tables and it is very pedestrian oriented .
He did not see a big distinction between a canopy being over a parking lot or just
having a parking lot from a land use point of view . The point about people not
turning off their cars , he thought we were assuming that is in the winter time and
he thought that drive - up banks and people lined up in drive lanes is far worse
than someone idling waiting for their order at Sonic . For those reasons he
thought that it was a distinction in the Code that we should not be making at the
detriment of one particular market segment , he thought it was blatantly unfair in
comparison to some of the other kinds of restaurant uses that are out there .
The motion was approved 4 -2 with Members Craig and Schmidt voting in
the negative . Member Carpenter was absent .
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes
November 18 , 2004
Page 11
Chairperson Torgerson moved to Item 666 regarding the "skinny houses" since
there was so much sentiment about that . He stated that there was a group of
people who presented on this item and suggested that multi -family , group homes
and other uses also be added to the list . There was also someone who
suggested that the setback should go from 40 feet to 35 feet in a certain zone
district . He stated that he and Director Gloss had spoke prior to the meeting
about this and asked him to reply to this .
Director Gloss responded that overall this testimony this evening and
worksession discussion might be underscoring the need to do a larger project
and look at the design standards within the Old Town area . If the Board would
recall an exhaustive process was done over the last year to look at how alley
house development was treated . We came up with new carriage house design
standards and went through a very rigorous process to do that involving a huge
range of stake holders , development community , property owners and citizens
and preservation specialists have very involved . We had al the specialists
represented there to give their view point and come up with a very
comprehensive approach to the problem .
He felt this may fall within that same group . This all started when Mr. Reeves
sent him a request for an interpretation of the Land Use Code asking whether
extremely narrow buildings , " skinny houses " can be built in the NCM zone
district . His response was , given the setbacks and lot sizes and widths , and it
would result in houses as narrow as 15 feet . What he brought to staffs attention
was there are some jurisdictions where 15 foot wide houses are being built .
Director Gloss showed slides depicting an area in Portland and he stated that
these units , in staffs perspective are quite incompatible , very narrow with houses
in a neighborhood that are typically 35 to 50 feet in width . From our perspective ,
trying to take that experience like a place like Portland and try and apply it to Fort
Collins , it seemed like a no brainer that we would go ahead with this Code
change . Now we start to introduce other types of units , how we address the
duplexes or a bed and breakfast or some other type of use that is allowed in the
zone district , to him it gets a little more complex .
Given this diversity of use , staffs perspective is that we should go ahead and
recommend this particular Code change , but that we would also delay until the
Spring/ Fall change cycle some additional changes to address the other issues
Mr . Reeves brought up in his testimony and our second speaker brought up and
look at it more comprehensively . That will take a special project and a significant
effort of staff for the next four to six months to do that .
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes
November 18 , 2004
Page 12
Chairperson Torgerson asked to clarify that he was still continuing to recommend
Issue 666 but would like to see it un -amended and discuss the other issues
separately .
Director Gloss replied that was correct and if the Boards pleasure was to go
ahead and continue that item as well , staff understands that , but staff is confident
that this particular code change is appropriate .
Member Gavaldon agreed that the Board should go ahead with Issue 666 . He
lives in Martinez Park and he was just made aware of this tonight through email
from the neighbors and he honestly did not think that they had full support from
Martinez Park on this one because there are many who have not weighed in ,
given that and the setback change from 40 feet to 35 feet , he has reservations
about as well , he would like staff to look at the other issue in a larger scoped
project .
Chairperson Torgerson also thought that not a lot of people have weighed in on
the "skinny house " question .
Member Lingle thought that they talked about this during the Carriage House
discussion in terms of the number of garages and accessory buildings that can
be on a particular lot in relation to the alley , but not the principle street and as
long as they did not exceed their allowable floor area there could be multiple
buildings side by side on the alley . Maybe that part needs to be looked at too , if
we don ' t want the same effect on the alley as on the street .
Director Gloss replied that may be true , thinking back to the review process and
standards that were created for carriage houses that there is actually a limited
footprint of those buildings . While it is true that you can have multiple buildings in
a backyard , there is a limitation to the amount of coverage and staff' s perspective
going through that process is that we would not have the bulk of the development
in the rear it would be in the front as a result of those standards .
Member Lingle asked if what he was saying was that part of his concern with
these is not just the width , but the proportion of the width to the depth as
opposed to the 600 s . f. carriage house .
Director Gloss replied that is seems to reason that if you build a 15 foot unit , that
the end result would be very "skinny" in terms of width , but also very long in order
to get a reasonable and usable square footage within the unit to make it
functional and also often times it will be very tall . The City of Denver recently
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes
November 18 , 2004
Page 13
enacted some standards in a few neighborhoods that regulated not just the width
of the house , but the depth of it .
Chairperson Torgerson clarified for the Board that staff was recommending that
the Board include the item with their recommendation , but study only additional
uses other than single family . It occurred to him that this could benefit from the
same study as carriage houses .
Member Meyer' s concern was that if this gets put aside for nine or ten months ,
can the city protect them for that long , and if not do we need to staying action
tonight .
Member Craig agreed with Member Meyer and Member Gavaldon . She thinks
that staff has looked at this and wants to protect that person until they have had
those nine months to look at it like they did the "skinny houses" and then whether
they permit it or not , they have gone through the process and put some design
standards and what goes through at that time is more appropriate . She felt that
the people that brought this up should be protected until we have a chance to go
through it thoroughly .
Member Lingle thought that there was not an imminent threat , it was just
happening some where else that someone knew about and we were looking at it
from that point of view . It was not like there is a development application on file
to do this kind of thing that we are responding to .
Member Craig agreed with Member Lingle in that regard , but since we are limited
to only twice a year that we can look at this , possibly we should close the
loophole before it becomes an issue that staff is trying to rush through to protect
that neighborhood at that time . It has been looked at in Denver, so it is not like
this is new .
Chairperson Torgerson said that there were also neighborhoods that encourage
it . If somebody built that next to him , he would be much happier than his current
neighbor .
Member Gavaldon moved that the Board include Item 666 to the current
recommendation list to City Council as currently written and supported by
staff.
Member Schmidt seconded the motion . The motion was approved 4 =2 with
Members Lingle and Torgerson voting in the negative .
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes
November 18 , 2004
Page 14
Public Input Reopened
Linda Hopkins stated that she received notice from the Natural Resources
Department regarding the code changes for trash enclosures . She was sent
draft guidelines and was asked for some public input . The 17 - page guideline
document came just one day after she had received a memo from the City
Council bemoaning their budget woes . The next day she gets a 17- page
guideline document and truthfully it gave her a bit of an "attitude " that the
incongruent message to the public . It caused her to look more carefully at those
guidelines and look with some interest at the Code changes . She engaged the
staff in some conversation about actual dimensions and costs and staff was very
responsive and was curious and attentive about her concerns . The staff actually
came out to her place of business and looked at their trash enclosures and
generally receptive to her comments , however it is clear that there were no
changes so she was compelled to come and asked the Board to look more
carefully .
As a code change , there is nothing really in the language as she understands it
that allow for variances and exceptions . It is clearly a code change that is
designed to ensure provision . Each paragraph and point is designated as a
" shall " . She finds that in the development review process , code changes like
these can be more successful if there is certain latitude with the guidance . She
thought that latitude is critical . In conversation with staff, she thought we tried to
make the distinction for those buildings that are designed , and in this instance we
are talking major commercial facilities and multi -family developments . For those
commercial developments , basically two kinds , ones that are owner specific , user
specific and some that are spec buildings . She referenced the building that she
is part owner , The Group , Inc . , and that they know how they handle their trash ,
they know their confidentiality of certain documents and in that case they prefer
to recycle inside their building and take care of it in a very protected manner .
Building another additional square footage for a building that is owned by the
user , she thought should be given a separate consideration .
Ms . Hopkins spoke with Planner Shepard in the course of this discussion and he
mentioned a bank , again discrete confidential documents that could be held in a
different recycling mode . She thought that it should be given serious
consideration . By the same token , a spec building where the user is unknown
and the trash generation is undetermined , she thought that additional flexibility to
potentially expand , shrink building the enclosures to meet the needs of specific
users might be warranted . But , without certain latitude in the code , she was not
sure that was available . She wanted to raise that point .
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes
November 18 , 2004
Page 15
Further , the staff and herself had several laps of conversations regarding the
costs and her concern was that the costs are significantly understated and
primarily again because we are talking about commercial development along
Harmony Road and Timberline Road , along important segments of the
streetscapes where there are in fact , other design guidelines . The enclosures
cannot be on Harmony Road on Timberline Road and are many times interior to
parking lots on islands that are landscaped and have additional costs . The
memos are generally silent on that and she knows from Planning ' s perspective
and the perspective of the P & Z Board , that it is something that could be given
additional consideration .
She was not arguing about the need and without accurate costs , if the Board
approves this , they should do this with the full knowledge that they are approving
this at "any" cost . She thought that was the message to Council that the Board
should convey .
Public Input Closed .
Chairperson Torgerson asked for any comments on Item 668 .
Member Lingle asked if it made allowance for particular allowance for business
owners who wish to recycle inside their buildings to do that .
Planner Shepard read a section of the code : "The amount of space provided for
the collection and storage for 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 . " There is then and ( * ) , which provides a range of options ,
which are suggestions . The essence of the standard is to provide something ,
Section 6 of the Ordinance under 3 . 2 . 5 , Trash and Recycling enclosures .
Chairperson Torgerson stated that it was brought up that there was no allowance
for a variance . He asked if this was subject to the modification procedure .
Planner Shepard replied that all Article 3 standards are .
Member Craig asked staff for an overview of Ms . Hopkins concerns .
Susie Gordon , Natural Resources Department explained that she believed that
the issue of an exact cost is pretty hard to refine . There are a lot of variables , the
cost of real estate , construction materials , the paving , the concrete pad that goes
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes
November 18 , 2004
Page 16
underneath trash enclosures and recycling bins . Staff did end up with a fair
spread and eventually it will depend on the type of building that the enclosure is
associated with and the types of materials that are used in the construction . She
did not believe that they were too far off on the numbers , but it is not an exact
calculation .
Ms . Gordon stated that if you have a building that is over 10 , 000 s . f. , you are
going to need as much space as 45 square feet and at the high end of $ 75 a
square foot that looks like $ 3 , 375 that will cost in addition to the trash enclosure
that is already required for that building .
Chairperson Torgerson asked if there was any Board Member that would like to
vote on this separately . There was no response , so it would be voted on with the
remainder of the items as a whole .
Member Craig would like to discuss items 654 and 676 .
Item 654 , Pet Hotels :
Member Craig had one concern and that was it was included in the Harmony
Corridor and yet a lot of Harmony Corridor is residential . Were we putting this
into residential areas ?
Peter Barnes , Zoning Administrator replied that staff had not thought about that
or that someone would put one in their house . When you allow it in a zone which
means all the uses are allowed in all the zones . Harmony Corridor zone already
allows restaurants and things of that nature , we were not too concerned about
people turning their house into a restaurant . If you look at Pet Smart located in
the Harmony Corridor zone and they are getting into providing indoor kennels
and what they do is all internal to their store . They take a portion of their square
footage and make that into an indoor kennel .
Member Craig asked if it should only be allowed in the primary areas of the
Harmony Corridor . She asked if staff would consider the change .
Mr . Barnes suggested that a qualifier would be put in and it would be included
before it goes to City Council .
Planner Shepard suggested it could be as easy as defining in the Harmony
Corridor , which already has the definitions for us , restricting these to designated
centers , the Regional and Community and even maybe the Neighborhood
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes
November 18 , 2004
Page 17
Centers . There is only one Neighborhood Center in the Harmony Corridor and
that is built out anyway .
Member Craig asked if that would be added , or did the Board need to vote on
that separately?
Planner Shepard replied that they would be putting that in .
Member Craig asked to talk about Item 676 , Buffer Standards .
Member referred to the problem statement .
Doug Moore , Natural Resources Department referenced a read before memo
that had gone out to the Natural Resources Advisory Board to provide more
information and also covered that statement as well .
Member Craig stated that she had concerns about items 3 , 4 , 5 and 6 . Item 3
says that "the size of buffers is too large and constitutes an unfair appropriation
of land and buffer radius . She did not see anything from staff regarding the hiring
of consultants to originally work on the buffers and how the possibility of reducing
them would be addressed and also looking at mitigation . She was wondering
why there was nothing in the packet to this particular problem statement . How
was staff addressing this particular problem statement?
John Stokes , Director of Natural Resources replied that what staff tried to do in
the memo to the Planning and Zoning Board was to provide the feedback that
staff received from Council . There were four members of Council that had asked
staff to bring forward a proposal like this . Some of these statements , 1 through
8 , were feedback from Council . Items 4 , 5 , 6 and 7 were thoughts that staff
shared with each other regarding this particular code provisions . In terms of Item
3 , he would need to know more specifically , what Member Craig was interested
in because there are two things going on in Item 3 . There is discussion we could
have about the size of the buffers and whether they are too large or not and that
depends on your perspective ; depending on whether or not you are looking at it
from a habitat point of view or if you are looking at it from the point of view of the
landowner who thinks you are taking their property away unfairly .
Member Criag asked to have it addressed from the scientific basis from studies
and documentations that staff accumulated to even go down this road .
Mr. Stokes replied that if you are looking at this from the scientific perspective ,
what staff heard from our consultant is that a buffer zone from a hawk should be
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes
November 18 , 2004
Page 18
in excess of 1500 feet , and it differs from species to species , some species are
more or less sensitive to human disturbance . When we made changes last
summer we had a conversation about we have a buffer of 1320 feet of radius , so
that is actually a 2 , 600 foot circle around a hawk nest . That number had been
selected earlier because it was close to some of the research that had been done
on flushing distances for hawks . Flushing distance is when somebody starts to
get close to a hawk nest , the hawk begins to get agitated and at some point will
lift off of the nest and fly away , it is disturbed off of it' s nest .
The research that has been conducted on hawks is typically done on wild land
and rural settings , and in urban settings . What we have found is that there is a
real dearth in information on urban hawks , there really is not any real good
information out there . However, there is quite a bit on rural and wild land
settings . What that tells us is that the setback , the flushing distance , or the buffer
zone should be about 1500 feet or more than that depending on the species . We
took that down to 1320 , which was considered to be too large and too
prescriptive by some , so what staff tried to do this summer was come back with a
zone of 900 feet that you can encroach on before 50 if you in return provide one
to one land mitigation and you can pay for that at $ 10 , 000 an acre and you can ' t
drop below 450 feet unless you are in certain zone districts and 7 zone districts
were excluded when the code was rewritten last summer . In terms of what
science is telling us about the buffer , probably ought to be pretty large .
Member Craig asked after going through that process and come up with this ,
how is it that staff is recommending no buffer.
Mr. Stokes replied that one of the problems staff perceives with this code , and
the reason that staff thought about it and after it passed and what staff and some
members of Council because concerned about was the perception from
landowners was that the code was really prescriptive and they did not want it to
apply to their piece of property . Staff was concerned about people going out in
the dead of night and cutting down trees . This was potentially a counter
productive piece of legislation , and staff was concerned that it may have an
unintended consequence . That because it is so prescriptive by the landowners ,
that they in fact avoid having to comply with the code altogether by removing the
nest tree .
Member Craig stated that staff had just come before them four or five months
ago recommending these buffers , that is one questions she would like addressed
and the other one is if we have no buffers for these particular hawks , is there
anything in the Land Use Code that would protect them , and if so could he
address specifically what that is .
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes
November 18 , 2004
Page 19
Mr. Stokes replied to the first part of Member Craig ' s question and that was that
staff has changed their minds . After we drafted this code staff started to think
about it and the practical effects , and after four members of Council were quite
concerned about this we started to think a little harder about it .
In regard to the second question , the code that we have proposed would provide
a limited development around an active hawk nest during the first season of
construction it would not do that during the second season . If a developer came
in and had a multi -year project , they could not encroach on the 450 foot buffer
during that first season of construction , however if the hawk leaves in the fall and
goes back to South America , they could build right up to the vicinity of the tree .
That is a temporary limited development during the first nesting season . They
are not allowed to take that nest tree out , there is a prescription against that ,
there are exceptions to that however , encouraging them to leave the tree there
based on the hope that some hawks , Swainson ' s and some Redtails are highly
adaptable and will come back to that tree .
The other thing to keep in mind is that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act , which is a
Federal Law , protects active nesting trees , so no person can go and disturb a
tree where a hawk is actively nesting . They are not allowed to disturb that tree or
cut it down .
Member Craig asked if what was included is what the Federal mandates anyway .
Mr. Stokes replied that was correct . There also was an additional sentence
added recently to make sure that we have made it abundantly clear to any
landowner that they had to be compliant with Federal law . We did not want them
to think that after that first season of development , that they can just go in the
next summer when a hawk was there and just cut the tree down .
Member Craig asked if we were talking a housing project and the first year they
were working way north of the tree , so they have protected it . The second year ,
they are going to go right underneath it and the bird comes . Is he going to go
out , as city staff and protect that , or is he going to call the Federal Agent to come
and protect it .
Mr. Stokes replied that we are saying that they can build up to the tree ; they can ' t
take the tree that is against Federal Law .
Member Craig asked when Mr . Stokes was talking about several cases of
Swainson ' s and Redtail hawks that have handled urbanization to this point where
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes
November 18 , 2004
Page 20
there is development under the tree and could he be more specific and could he
give her at least two sites .
Doug Moore , Natural Resources Department replied that there is a Redtail over
off of Trilby and Timberline Road that there has been development with the
Westchase Subdivison before staff realized there was a nest over there .
Member Craig asked what encompassed the tree .
Mr . Moore replied that the tree is actually on a lot where someone has a home
already built there . It is also up against Timberline and Trilby Road . If they have
not been out there , it is a very busy intersection . The Coloradoan did a story on
the raptor issues . As for a nest , there is one in a residential neighborhood , in a
greenbelt area and there are homes on both sides of that in an established
neighborhood on the southwest part of town .
Member Craig asked how close the homes were .
Mr. Moore replied he had not gone out and measured , but approximated 100 feet
on one side and about 150 on the other .
Member Craig asked on the Timberline and Trilby site how close was the single
house that was near the tree .
Mr. Moore replied it is in their backyard and the resident there sent him some
photographs of the hawks out in the yard when the kids are out playing . They
were sitting on top of the cover of the hot tub . That nest hangs over Timberline
Road and another nest is directly above it . It is an Urban Estate development but
estimated it to be about 100 feet .
Member Craig said that we have these two cases that we have a 100 foot buffer
in that the hawks have some way of getting away . From these cases , without
any input from the Consultants or anybody except in house from staff, it has been
concluded that Redtail ' s and Swainson ' s have proved highly adaptable to urban
environments therefore they do not need a buffer.
Mr. Stokes replied that he would not say that every Redtail and Swainson is
highly adaptable , but what we were told when we were looking at this more
carefully last spring was that some are , but we don ' t really know what percentage
of those birds are or are not .
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes
November 18 , 2004
Page 21
Mr. Moore added that we did go out and look as far as down into the Denver area
at different sites where there was nesting going on and close proximity in some
cases nests within the center of the diagonal highway , state parks along the
interstate and there are some examples where subdivisions are building right up
to nests and the nests are still there . He is not saying that every single Redtail
hawk will put up with that , we don ' t know . What we are saying is that we do see
and we do notice that some will adapt .
Mr. Stokes added that among hawk species , those two birds seem to be more
adaptable than others .
Member Craig said to be quite honest , she did not think that anything is going to
nest when it has no buffer what so ever . She thought this was a door being
opened without any scientific basis what so ever .
Member Craig moved that the Planning and Zoning Board send a
recommendation to City Council that we leave the buffer standards as we
proposed them May 20 , 2004 .
Member Schmidt seconded the motion .
Member Schmidt would like Council to consider something . She understands
peoples concern that the cost of mitigation is costly . She feels like then , take that
option out , you can still leave a 450 foot buffer and not offer any mitigation . Then
the whole deal about paying twice is a mute point . Her point is that she feels that
there are still other compromises that need to be discussed and she can ' t
support the Land Use Code changes at this point because she just sees
crossings out that they are not being considered and she thought it was
mentioned an additional proposal that was being put forth . She did not think that
there was any guarantees at this point that another proposal would be coming
forward . Was that something that is already part of this package ?
Mr. Stokes replied that other than what is proposed in the Board ' s packet , no
there is no other additional proposal that would be coming forward , other than the
change that is being proposed now . Keep in mind that staff was asked by four
members of Council to prepare a proposal very much along the lines of what is
before them tonight .
Member Meyer asked for a friendly amendment to add to the motion that
more study be done and the standard from May, 2004 be looked at to see if
it is right.
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes
November 18 , 2004
Page 22
Member Craig stated that she would consider it and her concern was that if
she asked to continue this to talk more about it, there might not be support
there .
Member Meyer stated that what she was asking is for a friendly amendment
that says leave it as 2004 , but go back to the drawing board and bring them
something else and do more research .
Member Meyer also accepted the friendly amendment .
Member Lingle agreed with Member Schmidt and the two issues of the buffer
and the mitigation should be separated . He did not know if that was something
that Council wanted . He thought it may not be in the best of interest ; if they are
expecting something that we are giving them something 180 degrees from there
that they may not even consider it .
The motion was approved 5 - 1 with Chairperson Torgerson voting in the
negative .
Member Gavaldon moved to recommend to City Council approval of the
remainder of the Fall 2004 Land Use Code Changes and Revisions ,
excluding the items voted on separately 666 and 676 .
Member Schmidt seconded the motion .
The motion was approved 6 -0 .
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes
November 18 , 2004
Page 23
Land Use Code Issues
Wednesday,November 24,2004
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 use"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" (indoor kennel)and add to the list of uses in 4
commercial zones and H-C and I 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 to hours of operation,number of employees, etc.
658 Amend 2.10.2(H) -Z.B.A.Variances- by adding the "nominal and inconsequential divergence" as a criterion
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 Revise 3.6.2(.l) -Alleys-to clarify the differences for the use of public alleys and privates drives,and add
design and construction criteria.
662 Revise 2.1.3(A)to insert a reference to the Stockpiling and D.C.P. (Div. 2.6).
663 Revise 3.2.4LC] -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."
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 special provisions or
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.
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.
Wednesday,November 24,2004 Page 1 of 2
Issue ID# Issue Name
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 the N-C and C-C zones-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.
676 Revise 3.4.1(E)(1)(j)-Buffer Zone Performance Standards-and the Buffer Zone Table-to eliminate the
buffer distance and mitigation for hawks and add a temporary Limits of Development provision.
677 Expand the"Infrll Area"map to include one significantly developed area on the east side, and one 35-acre
parcel west of Overland Trail.
Wednesday,November 24,2004 Page 2 of 2
Iv
Iw
' o
I�
n
T Y m V
� oxo
U U m v E .:1 b v'' •O E d �i Q m E i
Lj
> o d
N Vl N 'D VI N "L N Y N U V
yCa � . '[ e°co
y !I I
N
o y
O v
IZ
rA IA
e
M N N V Vi M 4 �! N
•' nl N (+1 e+l M d N i N Nt t1 m 2J
d
� � o
N
p
3
w
0
°
m
A
a
A A I I
N N A N O � '°O •p W 9 ll ° F y OU 'O 'L '° W
a 3 .o
L i C 3 C ll 'O > V "vl A u O L'
v v ° ° ° U O v � ^' _° v 9 I 90 m 0. 0 0 ,=. G 0 ❑ C c .0
3gC F F F F C A Q W $ cO .J
O y O F O y O y rU ^�• UM U .0
6
o m ° U p� T ° .. Ey Vic «
F F o a N N 5
W c ❑ p; c � � v U m 3! v �''� .o 0 0 � C_9
c�p E wA 0o yf W fl
rUi. 'AO O vU. S J O J O v°i .F 9 b y •Un C AL' O V A A W O C 6._ O •O@ ,� O
.cA. p '� .. o c a>i v E z Eu i` o oro s v v 'F0 ' 'R uo
L�is :? rL rn u 6 cC .S ro C aO n5 � °0 6 a"yi UM Q E4 u a QW ow Q � U o
� �D •D b b �O b b b b b
O
A
V C
O
F V
O A O
� F
y C L q O
C U O O
A F
p w°
s ❑ I Q o C c � v
•y p
U U o
V M M M M o-? ai ai oo v
r� m e1 r1 < pp
m
ro
a
I
LL1 0 R C b � 'O N F V b � 9 ', N C .• > O O y 0 0 O w
c F .,.. c'oc ccc
_yv U :9 v 'R ro 'o _ UFO e iOcv U :9 v 'R oovm romm ro � ro ae � m
z S eo v �. A 3 � Z >
�z
vY 2 v v Z 3 3$ z _ 3 9 tQ � c m 'mF ro d F'
G m m rJ G N G N W aO F G O 6 O ro N C V •'Zi
vR U
y !
o
L L
T T
F F
F d) V V
j L Y
o O v o ro ro m
d
•� `L'' G � G � CT � �qqE q=q G
V V ! 6 6 d
� I I
v v v a e C v v v v AF
� I ;
0
V I T
N N N N N N N N N
a
w
p
V
v
W
A
a
ooE s
v ro v a F 'F ❑ F a ❑ F 't c E c 'c p F _ `°. E ._
c F roa A roa ro E Aa A o >` � aQ a � � go. y? _ro ° 'ao o_ °' �:. �.•o
Y
U v O
a 't E
a ,� c v '° C ro c A F :'• - i.°. ❑ _ rt � y ,_ y y w F :F a 'o �' x y A
tug
, E A p v
m 'm an °` E � vS " �i F ' m 5 8 >• v � c G A n m � ,� iv p .--
EE � � E 'O � c c _ E e°co.V m '�E q ' E = G � .5'E
E 'd o v � o 0 0 0 0 0 l! o — o ° E t a _ .: :-. c c— vas.. o
Q S � Ea Us ° Us ° Us V s° U �' d aKi ° U .°c $ I 'yM d m B d9a
v > en a a r o\ m M
75
y I
� I
9 °
S
u •T'
u
y
WIE
•,�, c F ,« c a a a .o a
v
U N N N N
Q U I O N N N N N N N
U N N N N V1 ^ vl vl f- •-•# i v
9 N M M M M M M M M M M C
Land Use Code Maintenance Process
Annotated Issue List
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.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
38 5.1.2 Add a definition of Long Term Care Facility
649 Add a definition for"health club"and amend the existing definition of'limited indoor
recreational use"to limit such facility to 5,000 sq. ft.
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
Wednesday,November 24,2004 Page 1 of 14
recreation use"by deleting health club from the definition and by adding 5000 square
feet as the maximum size.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
34 5.1.2 Add a definition of"Health Club".
37 5.12 Amend the definition of"limited indoor recreational use".
650 Add a provision to NCI,NCM,NCB that clearly states that a lot can't be divided in
conjunction with contraction 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.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
20 4.6(F) Clarify subdivision of lots.
22 4.7(F) Clarify subdivision of lots.
24 04.8(E) Clarify subdivision of lots.
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.
Related Code Revisions
Ord Section Code Cite Revision Effect
32 4.23(B)(2)(c) Add"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.
Wednesday,November 24,2004 Page 2 of 14
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.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effecf
39 5.1.22 Deletes past compliance date reference.
654 Consider adding a land use and definition for a"pet hotel"(indoor kennel) and add to the list
of uses in 4 commercial zones and H-C and I 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.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
26 4.15(B)(2)[c] Add"indoor kennel'as a permitted use.
27 4.17(13)(2)(c) Add"indoor kennel'as a permitted use.
28 4.18(B)(2)(c) Add"indoor kennel'as a permitted use.
30 4.20(B)(2)(c) Add"indoor kennel"as a permitted use.
31 4.21(13)(2)(c) Add"indoor kennel"as a permitted use.
32 4.23(B)(2)[c] Add"indoor kennel'as a permitted use.
35 5.1.2 Add a definition of"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
Wednesday,November 24,2004 Page 3 of 14
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.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
33 5.1.2 Revise the definition of"Community Facility".
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.
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.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
14 3.8.7(A)(3)(d) Amend the Sign Code to address compliance at
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 to hours of operation, 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
Wednesday,November 24,2004 Page 4 of 14
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 number of employees and
hours of operation 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:
Related Code Revisions
Ord Section Code Cite Revision Effect
18 4.4(D)(4) Amend L-M-N zone to allow conditions on non-residential
uses.
658 Amend 2.10.2(H) -ZB.A.Variances- by adding the "nominal and inconsequential
divergence"as a criterion for granting a variance similar to the recent change for
Modifications to P.D.P.'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:
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
2 2.10.2(H) Add "nominal and inconsequential divergence"to Z.B.A.
variance criteria.
Wednesday,November 24,2004 Page 5 of 14
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 to included these
setbacks.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
19 4.6(E)(4) Add church and school setbacks.
660 Correct the list of sections cross-referenced in 3.8.7(B)(1)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 to include ideological signs in
the list of permit exemptions.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
15 3.8.7(B)(1) Correct cross references.
661 Revise 3.6.2(.I)-Alleys-to clarify the differences for the use of public alleys and privates
drives, and add design and construction criteria.
Problem Statement
In new developments with alleys, it is sometimes difficult to determine whether the
proposed alleys should be constructed as public alleys or private drives. This distinction
has implications for design and construction standards, and for long-term maintenance
responsibilities. The Land Use Code language that addresses alleys needs to be modified
in a way that will better guide this decision. Recent development proposals have indicated
the use of public alleys in situations where a private drive would seem to be more
appropriate. Short"alleys"in isolated situations do not seem to fit the City's planning
intent. Dead-end public"alleys"are sometimes proposed,and these should not be
allowed. Long-term maintenance and cost is also a concern,if the public has to bear the
cost of maintaining a service access drive that serves only a few homes and is not a part of
a larger system of alleys.
Proposed Solution Overview
Modify the language in the Land Use Code(Section 3.6.2)that pertains to alleys. Make
it clear that public alleys are only to be used in areas where alleys are common over a
Wednesday,November 24,2004 Page 6 of 14
larger area or neighborhood(i.e.,Old Town,Harvest Park, Sage Creek,etc.). This would
distinguish public alleys from private drives. Private drives, as opposed to public alleys,
would need to be used for rear garage access in smaller,isolated or in-fill projects where
an alley pattern has not been established and is unlikely to be established over a larger
area. The proposed modifications to the Land Use Code also reformat the Section 3.6.2
somewhat by separating the language on Easements into a new sub-paragraph(M).
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision E((ect
13 3.6.2(J) Clarify use of alleys.
662 Revise 2.1.3(A) to insert a reference to the Stockpiling and D.C.P.(Div.2.6).
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 Overview
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:
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Clte Revision EKeci
1 2.1.3(A) Add a reference to the Stockpiling and D.C.P.
663 Revise 3.2.4[C] -Site Lighting-by adding "and private streets"after"streets"in the first line.
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 Overview
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:
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision EKect
5 3.2.4[C] Clarify street lighting provisions.
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."
Problem Statement
The Latimer 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.
Wednesday,November 24,2004 Page 7 of 14
Proposed Solution Overview
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:
Related Code Revisions
Ord Section Code Cu Revision Effect
12 3.6.2 Reconcile with LUCASS and Fire Code.
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."
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.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Seclion Cade Cite Revision Effect
21 4.7(E)(1) Amend the N-C-M zone to address"skinny houses"
23 4.8(D)(6)(a) Amend the N-C-13 zone to address"skinny houses"
667 Amend 3.3.2(D)-Required Improvements Prior to Issuance of Building Permit-to allow
special provisions or exceptions as agreed to and stated 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
Wednesday,November 24,2004 Page 8 of 14
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:
•CAll 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.
•0 Water lines and fire hydrants must be installed and in service before combustible
materials can be brought to the job site.
•JAdequate 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:
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
7 3.3.2(D) Accommodate provisions in 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.
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.
Wednesday,November 24,2004 Page 9 of 14
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.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
6 3.2.5 Add requirements for re-cycling enclosures in multifamily,
commercail and industrial projects.
669 Add a new section(4)to 3.8.7(n 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
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:
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
16 3.8.7(M) Add electronic sign provisions.
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.
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
Wednesday,November 24,2004 Page 10 of 14
the ability require raised crosswalks but only where deemed necessary.
Proposed Solution Overview
Revise standards to address these concerns.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
4 3.2.21C](5)(a) Revise standards.
4 3.2.21C](1)(a) Revise standards.
672 Amend 3.8.18(A)(1)(a) -Calculation of Gross Residential Density-to clarify that land
dedicated for open space,parkland,stomtwater 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
Revise the code to clarify these density calculations.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
17 3.8.18 Clarity density calculations.
673 Amend the N-C and C-C zones-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).
Problem Statement
This is a minor housekeeping item to clarify intent. These two zone districts have a
somewhat unusual standard: a minimum building height stated in feet. The problem is in
how the minimum height is measured. The only guidance is found in Section 3.8.17 of the
Code,which states that height in feet is measured to the"highest point"of the roof surface
Wednesday,November 24,2004 Page 11 of 14
or structure. The highest point is not necessarily the relevant aspect of the height of the
building. (An insignificant or barely visible peak feature may be the highest point.)
Furthermore,there is a big difference between a sloped-roof building and a flat-roofed
building of identical height,in terms of mass, shading,and other impacts. That is a
relevant consideration that should be acknowledged in these two standards. Clarify density
calculations.
Proposed Solution Overview
Revise the standards to measure the dominant roof line of a flat-roofed building,or the
mean height between the eave and ridge on a sloped-roof building.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
25 4.14(E)(2) Clarify roof height measurements.
29 4.19(E)(2) Clarify roof height measurements.
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.
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 Attorney's 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:
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
11 3.4.7 Allows demolition or relocation of some historic resources.
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.
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
Wednesday,November 24,2004 Page 12 of 14
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:
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
3 3.1.1 Clarify applicability of Article 3.
676 Revise 3.4.1(E)(1)(j)-Buffer Zone Performance Standards-and the Buffer Zone Table-to
eliminate the buffer distance and mitigation for hawks and add a temporary Limits of
Development provision.
Problem Statement
In spring of 2004, Council adopted several changes to Section 3.4.1 and the buffer
standards for Red-trail and Swainson's hawks. These changes reduced the buffer zone for
these species from a radius of 1,320'to 900.' A developer could further reduce the 900'
buffer to 450' if,in turn,he provided land mitigation at a 1:1 ratio or paid the City
$10,000 per acre for land developed within the buffer zone. Although these changes
were intended to make hawk buffer standards more flexible,they have been criticized on
many levels by staff and City Council. These criticisms,in no particular order of
importance,are:
1)E That the City is making landowners pay twice for their land by instituting a mitigation
payment.
2)E That the mitigation payment is too high.
3)'E That the size of the buffers is too large and constitutes an unfair appropriation of land
(the smallest buffer radius of 450' is approximately 14 acres; a 900'radius is
approximately 43 acres).
4)D That creating buffers for two relatively common and highly adaptable hawk species
represents a potentially unsustainable conservation strategy because creating a buffer
around a nest site does not ensure that the nest site is viable into the future(for example,
further development in the area outside of the buffer may make the nest site unsuitable).
5)-]That Red-tail and Swainson's hawks have provedhighly adaptable to urban
environments and currently are nesting in highly developed areas within City limits.
6)OThat the correct scale for conservation of wide-ranging species such as raptors is at a
much larger landscape level and that the City's Natural Areas Program constitutes just
such a landscape-level conservation approach.
7)E]That the Code also protects, for example,riparian corridors and wetlands and that
these,in addition to land conservation by the Natural Areas program,provide the"
connective tissue"that raptors and other wide-ranging species require for survival.
8)C That large Red-tail and Swainson's buffers unduly interfere with other policy goals,
such as implementation of the Master Streets program
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution eliminates the Red-tail and Swainson's hawk buffer standards and
the mitigation requirements. A Division is proposed to be added,however,that provides
for a temporary Limit of Development associated with nesting Red-tail and Swainson's
hawks. The temporary Limit of Development is intended to protect a nest site through at
least one nesting season.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
8 3.4.1 Delete raptor buffers and mitigation requirements.
Wednesday,November 24,2004 Page 13 of 14
9 3.4.1(E)(1)6) Delete hawks from the buffer distance table.
10 3.4.1(N) Add temporary L.O.D.for nesting season.
677 Expand the "Infill Area"map to include one significantly developed area on the east side, and
one 35-acre parcel west of Overland Trail.
Problem Statement
This item would expand the"Infill Area"map as defined in Article Five. The Infill Area
is a term that is used periodically throughout the Code to refer to a geographic part of the
City that is considered developed. The Infill Area is proposed to be expanded to include
two areas. First,there is a triangular-shaped area bounded by north of Prospect Road,east
of Lemay Avenue,and along the Union Pacific Railroad tracks which parallel Riverside
Drive which is significantly developed. This area includes Poudre Valley Hospital,Water
Pik,Highlander Heights,The Coloradoan,Regis University,Rivendell School, and
various commercial and medical office uses along Riverside Drive. Second,there is a 35-
acre rectangle west of Overland Trail, south of the C.S.U. Equine Center and north of The
Ponds subdivision. This parcel has not yet annexed but the easterly 20 acres are
designated for L-M-N zoning on the Structure Plan. An analysis of parcels that have
developed west of Overland Trail indicates there are no developments that have attained
the L-M-N minimum required 5.00 dwelling units per net acre. If this parcel were to
remain outside the"Infill Area,"then it would be required to achieve this minimum
density which would be out of character with the established development pattern west of
Overland Trail.
Proposed Solution Overview
The solution is to graphically expand the map as contained in Article Five under the
definition of Infill Area. See map attached.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
36 5.1.2 Expand the"Infill Area"map.
Wednesday,November 24,2004 Page 14 of 14
ORDINANCE NO , 198 , 2004
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 Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code") ; and
WHEREAS , at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the
understanding of staff and Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject
to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors,
but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic document
capable of responding to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and
citizens of the City; and
WHEREAS , 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 City and its citizens .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF FORT COLLINS that the Land Use Code is hereby amended as follows :
Section 1 . That Section 2 . 1 . 3 (A) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
(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
(Division 2 . 6), 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) .
1
Permitted uses subject to administrative review or permitted uses
subject to Planning and Zoning Board review listed in the
applicable zone district set forth in Article 4, District Standards,
shall be processed through an overall development plan, a project
development plan or a final plan. If any use not listed as a
permitted use in the applicable zone district is included in a
development application, it may also be processed as an overall
development plan, project development plan or final plan, if such
proposed use has been approved, or is concurrently submitted for
approval, in accordance with the requirements for an amendment
to the text of this Land Use Code and/or the Zoning Map, Division
2 . 9, or in accordance with the requirements for the addition of a
permitted use under Section 1 . 3 .4 . Development applications for
permitted uses which seek to modify any standards contained in
the General Development Standards in Article 3 , or the District
Standards in Article 4, shall be submitted by the applicant and
processed as a modification of standards under Division 2 . 8 .
Hardship variances to standards contained in Article 3 , General
Development Standards, or Article 4, District Standards, shall be
processed as hardship variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals
pursuant to Division 2 . 10 . Appeals of administrative/staff
decisions shall be according to Division 2 . 11 .
Section 2 . That Section 2 . 10.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by
amending subsection (H)(2) and adding a new subsection (H)(3 ) to read as follows :
(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 in the context of the
neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purposes of
the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1 .2 .2 .
2
Section 3 . That Section 3 . 1 . 1 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
3. 1 . 1 Applicability
All development applications and building permit applications shall
comply with the applicable standards contained in Divisions 3 . 1 through
3 . 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 See fi ,,, 3 . 4 . 7 a* 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.
Section 4. That Section 3 .2 .2(C) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
(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 se-p tionsraised
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
3
pedestrian access. Walkways shall link street
sidewalks with building entries through parking
lots . Such walkways shall be , fade sepafated ffo
the paFk e ,raised or enhanced 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.
Section 5 . That Section 3 .2 . 4(C) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
(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.
Section 6 . That Section 3 .2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new subsection 3 .2 . 5 which reads as follows :
3 .2.5 Trash and Recycling Enclosures
(A) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is 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
multi-family residential, commercial and industrial land use sites .
(B) Regulations. The following regulations shall be applied to the
extent reasonably feasible :
( 1 ) All new commercial or multi-family structures and all
existing commercial or multi-family structures proposed to
be enlarged by more than twenty-five (25) percent or
where a change of use is proposed, shall provide adequate
space for the collection and storage of refuse and recyclable
materials .
(2) The amount of space provided for the collection and
storage of recyclable materials shall be designed to
accommodate collection and storage containers that are
4
appropriate for the recyclable materials generated. Areas
for storage of trash and recyclable materials shall be
adequate in capacity, number and distribution to serve the
development project. *
(3 ) Recyclable materials storage areas shall be located abutting
refuse collection and storage areas .
(4) Each trash and recycling enclosure shall be designed to
allow walk-in access without having to open the main
enclosure service gates .
(5) Trash and recycling areas must be enclosed so 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.
(6) Enclosure areas shall be designed to provide adequate, safe
and efficient accessibility for service vehicles .
(7) Enclosure areas shall be constructed on a cement concrete
pad.
(8) The property owner shall supply and maintain adequate
containers for recycling and waste disposal. Containers
must be clearly marked for recycling.
* Please refer to "Trash and Recycling Enclosures - Design
Considerations" for estimations of area needed.
Section 7 . That Section 3 . 3 .2(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
(D) Required Improvements Prior to Issuance of Building Permit.
The following improvements shall be required prior to the issuance
of a Building Permit, unless otherwise specified in the
development agreement:
Section 8 . That Section 3 .4 . 1 (E)( 1 )O ) of the Land Use Code is hereby deleted
in its entirety:
s
Although the buffet! zone table establishes a buffef
zone o n N1N0 T!1l� thus 44 r
Red tailed and Swainse k nest sites , suei
1- l.A ev.- zoiie s4L�. CCL'1N2da Els may
be.
feduee 1 the
lleeisio make-f to a Nal ius of not loan than fou
httiidfeEl fifty ( 450) feet ffoffl siieh nest sites,
pfoyide- that the dove-lopeN mitigates s eh Ned etio
land aeeeptable to the eit" {�- fo use as a f!aptof ha tlta
(as EleS . wed. in.
the Natural uab; tnta Treattifes
Mitigation
Manual) ,
wh1etl alto-f ativi af!e-a shall
Nl1Ntio thereof) hint be-ea isoof the
Neduetio !�i}f. �thhe
et to. legal
)thleh are pen aNeNtly enf6feeable by the e1ty an
as
p(y11 11 JJJ 7
feasenabldeteffninGR�the eit� �teevent uses
of aetivities on said pfE)pei4y that wetild Rot be
E6rmrr�Nutib lrc with ei3e6ag�rntaesefvifig fapter
develop v 1�V�Tsion mitigation l as
11�i11Vai 7 aa..�i vv 7
afar-es
the developer- niEF)r eleet to pay to the
not latel—than the date of of the fif!si
Manager as being c1u e; eNt to eomNensate the e ; ty
land 1N the city, fen each here (ot! NoNtio thereof) e�
1nNl1 10g" t ben all Clp /lT the ND/Ylletl /1N /lT the h419eY area.
Any
s eh payment
shall be used by the eft y erily (f�er
11 the NNHl se o bl nel. iN1N1 neeox)tne lnrlll 'S4Ritnhle Tl1N
Naptot! habitat
of
Nesto fin - city
owned
lands for the
MIINHIICIe !1T eCltnh11101hjfjg 1ne faptof habitat
thefeon.
Tie! oust established
s lbJ lamed y the City
t y � /1 ! nagef as
1^�/NQ {aAl11�iY nhllll ll--UU..11llll ne�lY/�.{l li E)I 1. h m�li)•nS ��'�!{ efItVC" C; OSt
vrcac`jicr�nuzr-vc-vxs�ccr�vrr �nvat�eG�lr��ac
of Land Repoft" as pfepat!ed by the City' s
Depaft.m..e.AA A4- a Re-seufeeas ffifid s eh otke
er-edible
infofmation fegafding cuf ent land values
as may
be W1n11alllrto the City age and shall
bt> adjusted ann At
the diset!etion of the city
N4C 'Egor ZTet 2Lv1iniL��N 7MMY be T efYeITl to the
City Council
by Nesolution E)
tailed
of! C �iainso 's hawk
neat site
is loomed �t �lthlrl
the f4ghto (�� way o n�fg141N 1
afttell l stfeet, of in the D, Downtown;tl'l I '
r omffmaity G o F.A.mefeial ; G G N, G
6
Comereias North
Coliege;��, Comnm erC ' nl • C Nr
College; N >
Commef ial;or- C T , Limited Coma mefeial Zone
Distfiets, then the deeision maker- may feduee the
1,1standardto as little aszefoTee
provided that the developer- pfesefves the Rest tfe.e
and provides mitigation in aeeofdanee with this
Section 9 . That the Buffer Zone Table for Fort Collins Natural Habitats and
Features contained in Section 3 .4 . 1 of the Land Use Code is amended by the deletion of
"Red-tailed and Swainson's hawk nest sites " under the category of " Special Habitat
Features/Resources of Special Concern" as follows :
Red tailed and Swainson's hawk nest sites 900 fee
Section 10 . That Section 3 .4 . 1 (N) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by
the addition of a new subparagraph (5) and the renumbering of the existing subparagraph
(5 ) as subparagraph (6) as follows :
(5 ) Red-tailed and Swainson 's Hawk Nest Sites .
(a) No tree with an active nest shall be removed unless
a permit for such removal has been obtained by the
developer from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service .
(b) To the extent reasonably feasible, trees that are
known to have served as nest sites shall not be removed
within five (5 ) years of the last known nesting period. If
the tree is removed, it shall be mitigated in accordance with
Section 3 .2 . 1 Landscaping and Tree Protection Standards .
(c) A temporary LOD of a four-hundred and fifty (450)
foot radius shall be established for Red-tailed and
Swainson's hawk active nest sites during the period from
February 15 through July 15 of the first year of a multi-year
development construction project.
(56) Prairie Dog Removal. Before the commencement of
grading or other construction on the development site, any
prairie dogs inhabiting portions of the site within the LOD
shall be relocated or eradicated by the developer using city-
approved methods as set forth in Chapter 4 of the City
Code and, when applicable, using methods reviewed and
approved by the Colorado Division of Wildlife.
Section 11 . That Section 3 .4 . 7 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read 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 feseur-eeproperty; 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
proj eeldevelopment 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 r-eseur-c€structure .
The development plan and building design shall protect and
enhance the historical and architectural value of any suehrhistoric
property, whether on or adjaeent to the project site 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. New buildingsstructures must be
compatible with the historic character of any such historic
Fesoufc-eproperty, whether on the prejee development site or
adjacent thereto .
(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
8
destroy the distinguishing quality or character of the
proystructure or its environment.
(2) The rehabilitation of buildings an 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) Relocation or Demolition. A site, structure or object that is
determined to be individually eligible for local landmark
designation or for individual listing in the State or National
Registers of Historic Places may be relocated or demolished only
if, in the opinion of the decision maker, the applicant has, to the
maximum extent feasible, attempted to preserve the site, structure
or object in accordance with the standards of this Section, and the
preservation of the site, structure, or object is not feasible.
(EF) New Construction .
( 1 ) To the maximum extent feasible, the height, setback and/or
width of new bngsstructures shall be similar to those of
existing historic buildingsstructures on any block face on
which the new bngstructure is located and on any
portion of a block face across a local or collector street
from the block face on which the new building is located
unless, in the judgment of the decision maker, such historic
buildingsstructures would not be negatively impacted with
respect to their historic exterior integrity and significance
by reason of the new building(s) 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 buildingsstructures or portions of buildingsstructures
shall be located interior to the site. Buildings Structures at
the ends of blocks shall be of a similar height to
buildingsstructures in the adjoining blocks.
(2) New buildingsstructures shall be designed to be in
character with such existing historic structures, '���be
sty4es. Horizontal elements, such as
cornices, windows, moldings and sign bands, shall be
aligned with those of such existing historic
buildingsstructures to strengthen the visual ties among
buildings . Window patterns of such existing
9
bngsstructures (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 .
(3 ) The dominant building material of such existing historic
buildingsstructures 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.
Section 12 . That Sections 3 . 6 .2(B) and (C) of the Land Use Code are hereby
amended to read as follows :
(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 0)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 one hundred ( 100) feet must be
provide dedicated and constructed. Such turnaround easement
shall not be required if no lots in the subdivision are dependent
upon such street for access.
Section 13 . That Sections 3 . 6 .2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by
amending subsection (J) and adding a new subsection (M) which read as follows :
(J) Public alleys and other easements shall be controlled by the
following requirements :
10
( 1 ) When Allowed.- Public alleys in residential subdivisions
shall be permitted only when: (a) they are necessary and
desirable to continue an existing pattern or to establish a
pattern of alleys that will extend over a larger development
area, Brand (b) they are needed to allow access to
residential properties having garages or other parking areas
situated behind the principal structure and the principal
structure is on a residential local street.() Public alleys
shall also be provided in commercial and industrial areas
unless other provisions are made and approved for service
access.
(32) Design Construction Requirements. All public alleys shall
be constructed in conformance with the Design and
Construction Criteria, Standards and Specifications for
Streets, Streetscapes, Sidewalks, Alleys and Other Public
Ways * as adopted by the City Council by ordinance or
resolution, except those public alleys within the N-C-L, N-
C-M and N-C-B zone districts that do not abut
commercially zoned properties and that provide access only
for carriage houses and habitable accessory buildings as
such terms are described in Article 4 . Dead-end alleys
shall not be allowed. 1
(4 Easements,
Hl
yam.. lie and private,of JNVll CAR nn TG�ess
shall be provided on lots
or- utilities, pub!W
Jt I�tPNad N1ni (1Z ^ they p 1NI1e N11Toses as
required
and
n approved
y �+CTNbQ`" !_'..i�+".+EL1nginee f l�lJl)-QlJ required.
(5 ) Pedestfian and bieyele paths shn "z� provided to
aEce ate Mfe ffind Eofwenient pedestr4an and bieyele
ImIICOVeMeint—thFOUghOUt—the subdivision
ub iyisio and to n
existing and. f ,tureadjaeent neigh' ofhoods a� ethef
development;
all
YOGAII If /\N � pedestrian
edetYia and
bicycle� a t hs shall be
CU.AM.stHO ted L.ea,oifVYm, with a..e., D
Construlfion StandardsandJ /Ce/✓ lA S#eeq , ' L and Other PHbli.e
T-6tys * as
adopted by
the CityCoUncil
by
ordinance
(6) The
}subdivider-
r-
to eliminate of control flood hazards assoeiated with the
subdivision in aeeor-danee with Chapter- 10 of the Munieipal
�'^a�greements stofmwatef drainage.
I1
(M) Easements shall be controlled by the following requirements.
( 1 ) Public and private easements shall be provided on lots for
utilities, public access, stormwater drainage or other public
purposes as required and approved by the City Engineer.
(2) Pedestrian and bicycle paths shall be provided to
accommodate safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle
movement throughout the subdivision and to and from
existing and future adjacent neighborhoods and other
development; all such pedestrian and bicycle paths shall be
constructed in conformity with the Design and
Construction Criteria, Standards and Specifications for
Streets, Streetscapes, Sidewalks, Alleys and Other Public
Ways * as adopted by the City Council by ordinance or
resolution.
(3 ) The subdivider shall be responsible for adequate provisions
to eliminate or control flood hazards associated with the
subdivision in accordance with Chapter 10 of the City
Code. Agreements concerning stormwater drainage
between private parties shall be subject to city review and
approval.
*Effective March 1 , 2001 , the Design and Construction Criteria,
Standards and Specifications referenced above will be replaced by
the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, per Ord. No .
1865 2000, adopted 1 /2/01 .
Section 14 . That Section 3 . 8 . 7 (A)(3) (d) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(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.
12
Section 15 . That Section 3 . 8 .7(B)( 1 )(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(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), or (g) or 0 ) ; subsections 3 . 8 . 7(D)(2), of
(3) or (4) ; or subsection 3 . 8 . 7(L) .
Section 16 . That Section 3 . 8 . 7(M) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by
the addition of a new subparagraph (4) which reads as follows :
(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 .
Section 17 . That Section 3 . 8 . 18 (A)( 1 )(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(a) land pfeviously dedicate ehassed of acqu
for- any p4he any interest in land which has
been deeded or dedicated to any governmental
agency for 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 or stormwater purposes; and
Section 18 . That Section 4 . 4(D)(4) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
(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, and number of employees 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.
13
Section 19 . That Section 4 . 6(E)(4) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
(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) .
Section 20 . That Section 4 . 6(F) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by
the addition of a new subparagraph (7) which reads as follows :
(7) Subdividing of existing lots. No existing lot may be further
subdivided in such manner as to create a new lot in the rear
portion of the existing lot.
Section 21 . That Section 4 . 7(E)( 1 ) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
( 1 ) Minimum lot width shall be forty (40) feet for single-
family and two-family dwellings ^ra fifty (50) feet for-
^ ii
ether , except that when more than one ( 1 ) 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.
Section 22 . That Section 4 . 7(F) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by
the addition of a new subparagraph (7) which reads as follows :
(7) Subdividing of existing lots. No existing lot may be further
subdivided in such manner as to create a new lot in the rear
portion of the existing lot.
Section 23 . That Section 4 . 8 (D)(6)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
14
(a) Minimum lot width shall be forty (40) feet for
single-family or two-family dwellings a-nd fifty (50)
feet fof all othef hoes , except th , except that when
more than one ( 1 ) 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. 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.
Section 24 . That Section 4 . 8(E) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by
the addition of a new subparagraph (7) which reads as follows :
(7) Subdividing of existing lots. No existing lot may be further
subdivided in such manner as to create a new lot in the rear
portion of the existing lot.
Section 25 . That Section 4 . 14(E)(2)(d) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(d) Building Height. All buildings shall have a
minimum height of twenty (20) feet, measured to
the dominant roof line of a flat-roofed building, or
the mean height between the eave and ridge on a
sloped-roof building. In the case of a complex roof
with different co-dominant portions , the
measurement shall apply to the highest portion. All
buildings shall be limited to five (5 ) stories .
Section 26 . That Section 4 . 15 (B)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 24 which reads as follows :
24. Indoor kennel.
Section 27 . That Section 4 . 17(B)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 28 which reads as follows :
28 . Indoor kennel.
Section 28 . That Section 4 . 18(B)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 41 which reads as follows :
41 . Indoor kennel.
15
Section 29 . That Section 4 . 19(E)(2)(d) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(d) Building Height. All buildings shall have a
minimum height of twenty (20) feet, measured to
the dominant roof line of a flat-roofed building, or
the mean height between the eave and ridge on a
sloped-roof building. In the case of a complex roof
with differenct co-dominant portions, the
measurement shall apply to the highest portion. All
buildings shall be limited to five (5 ) stories .
Section 30 . That Section 4 .20(B)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended by the additin of a new subparagraph 12 which reads as follows :
12 . Indoor kennel .
Section 31 . That Section 4 .21 (B)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 8 which read as follows :
8 . Indoor kennel if in a community or regional
shopping center.
Section 32 . That Section 4 .23 (B)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended by the addition of new subparagraphs 22 and 23 which reads as follows :
22 . Indoor kennel .
23 . Funeral homes .
Section 33 . That the definition " Community facility" contained in Section 5 . 1 . 2
of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows :
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 .
Section 34 . That Section 5 . 1 .2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new definition "Health club" which reads as follows :
Health club shall mean an establishment that is open only to members and guests
and that provides facilities for at least three (3 ) of the following : aerobic
exercises, running and jogging, exercise equipment, game courts, swimming
facilities, and that also includes amenities such as spas, saunas, showers and
lockers .
16
Section 35 . That Section 5 . 1 .2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new definition "Indoor kennel" which reads as follows :
Indoor kennel shall mean an establishment in which twenty-four (24) hour care
and boarding is provided for household dogs or cats within a soundproof building
(or buildings) that contains exercise facilities, separate ventilation systems for
dogs and cats if they are boarded in the same building, and wherein other services
such as grooming and training are offered.
Section 36 . That the Figure describing "Infill Area" contained in Section 5 . 1 .2
of the Land Use Code is hereby changed to appear as shown on Exhibit "A" attached
hereto .
Section 37 . That the definition of "Limited indoor recreation use" contained in
Section 5 . 1 .2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows :
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 exercise ^M 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 (5 ,000) square feet
that would be compatible with typical buildings and uses in the zone district in
which this use is allowed.
Section 38 . That the definition of "Long-term care facility" contained in
Section 5 . 1 .2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new
subparagraph (4) which reads as follows :
(4) Independent living facility shall mean a single-family, two-family
and/or multi-family dwelling which is located within a
development that contains one ( 1 ) or more of the facilities
described in ( 1 ) through (3) above, 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 and wherein independent living facilities occupy no more
than twenty-five (25) percent of the total gross area of a long-term
care development.
Section 39 . That the definition "Sign, flush wall" contained in Section 5 . 1 .2 of
the Land Use Code is hereby amended as follows :
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
17
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. *
*All sueh flff We tnwerial flush wall signs existing as of the effeetive Elate 0
Ofdinanee No . 09 1 2004 must be brought into eompliance with the ehanges made to this
definition by Or-dinanee No . 091 , 2004 , and not la4er- than November- 1 , 2004 .
Introduced and considered favorably on first reading and ordered published this
7th day of December, A.D . 2004, and to be presented for final passage on the 21 st day of
December, A.D . , 2004 .
Mayor
ATTEST :
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 21 st day of December, A.D . 2004 .
Mayor
ATTEST :
City Clerk
18
MCI
■�111111ORMIIIIE'll 1111 �O C
E
1:- M_mm.m■11■■-19�t=
- ----- --- noon un�uu.- ms �
-gun-i�m, �s�:■n:_mmn. - ----
1�A 14 ��_�•�oTJ ' 11 11117�1111�11111111�► — - ��'
rldlllll--! illIIIIMI.M.M. 11�1- 1•G'��
a■Inml:.:.u� � \
//�µ - -1� III �� ■ :io__'1�■1
unnIIell�r � �■
�C,�ti^ll�n r.�►� 13 III► r�� T�l�► '� �eF 11
W