HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 03/02/1999 - ITEMS RELATING TO THE LAND USE CODE 7FTT. 77_ '"7777PF777 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 30A-B
DATE: March 2, 1999
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Tom Vosburg
SUBJECT:
Items Relating to the Land Use Code.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and the Ordinance on First Reading.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A. Resolution 99-26 Amending Policy GM-5.1 of the "Principles and Policies" Element of the
Comprehensive Plan of the City.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 41, 1999,Making Various Amendments to the Fort Collins
Land Use Code.
These recommendations address four issues that were originally identified as part of the Fall 1998
Land Use Code maintenance process, but which were not included in the December ordinance in
order to allow time to work on the issues.
The issues addressed by theseproposed revisions are:
I Re-evaluation and refinement of the Natural Habitat Protection Standards;
2. Re-evaluation and refinement of the "Block Standards" and other development standards
contained in the LMN, MMN, NC and CC zones.
3. Exemption of the Harmony Corridor and Fossil Creek Reservoir Plan areas from the
Contiguity requirement contained in the Compact Urban Growth Standards.
4. Clarification and refinement of the process and standards for Planning and Zoning Board
review of requests for Modifications to Land Use Code standards.
The exemption of the Harmony Corridor and Fossil Creek areas from the contiguity requirement
(issue 1 above) requires Council adoption of a Resolution to amend the City Plan Principles and
Policies.
999
DATE: arc 1 2 ITEM NUMBER: 30 A-B
Each of the issues addressed by these proposed revisions is considered by staff to be a major revision
as opposed to being a minor housekeeping issue. Staff will make a full presentation regarding each
issue.
Staff briefly reviewed these issues with the Council Growth Management Committee at its February
22 meeting.
The Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing on these issues on February 19, 1999, and
recommended that Council adopt the proposed revisions,with the exemption of one element of the
proposed changes to the "Block Standards". The Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation is
outlined in more detail below.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
These recommendations address a number of issues that have recently emerged or have otherwise
been identified by staff as being appropriate to consider outside the context of the semi-annual Land
Use Code maintenance process.
1. Re-evaluate the Natural Habitat Protection Standards.
The Council Growth Management Committee directed staff to re-evaluate the Natural Area and
Features protection regulations contained in the Land Use Code in response to concerns voiced by
the Natural Resources Advisory Board and the Planning and Zoning Board. Key issues of concern
that have been identified include how the minimum buffer distances from natural areas are
determined, as well as what kinds of vegetation is appropriate within the buffer zone.
Staff is proposing the following revisions to respond to these concerns:
a. Generally re-organize and clarify the existing standards to provide a clearer
applicability statement and to eliminate redundant language;
b. Clarify the standards used to establish natural area buffers by utilizing a table
of specific recommended minimum buffer distances for different types of
resources to be used in conjunction with existing performance criteria;
c. Give the Planning and Zoning Board authority over the buffer distance
performance criteria in Type 2 review projects;
d. Require Planning and Zoning Board review of projects impacting Sensitive and
Specially Valued Species;
e. Require native vegetation be used in restoring buffer areas when non-native
vegetation is present;
f. Strengthen existing design standards for projects in stream corridors by
clarifying their applicability to above-ground utilities.
r-- DATE: March 2. 1999 3 ITEM NUMBER: 30 A-B
This issue has been extensively reviewed with the Planning and Zoning Board, the Natural
i Resources Advisory Board, and the Parks and Recreation Board. Both the Natural Resources
Advisory Board and the Parks and Recreation Board voted to recommend that Council adopt the
Code revisions as proposed.
Attachment 1 consists of a memo from Tom Shoemaker dated February 3 that provides background
on this issue and outlines the key elements of the proposed revisions.
2. Re-evaluation and refinement of the 'Block Standards"and other development standards
contained in the LAN, MAN, NC and CC zones.
Experience with recent projects indicates the need to continue to refine the various standards
contained within the"Block Standards". Past refinements have addressed difficulties with applying
the standards to in-fill development. Current concerns relate to the mix of land use and block types
required by the standards.
To address these issues, staff is proposing the following changes to the following zones:
a. LMN Zone: Revise the neighborhood center requirement to require that 90
percent of all units be within 3/4 mile of a neighborhood center, instead of
requiring a neighborhood center to be located in each quarter section.
b. MMN Zone: Replace the civic block requirement with a new requirement that
90 percent of all residential units be within 1/4 mile of a park, plaza or other
civic amenity.
c. MMN, NC and CC Zones: Replace the block type mix requirements with
limitations on specific secondary uses. Delete minimum FAR requirements.
Replace the minimum number of building stories with a minimum building
height requiremerit.
d. NC and CC Zones: Allow 10 acre size for blocks with supermarkets.
Attachment 2 is a memo from Tom Vosburg dated February 3, 1999, that provides additional
background information related to this issue.
The Planning and Zoning Board recommended that Council adopt each of the changes proposed by
staff, except that the minimum two-story building height requirement be retained in the Code and
not replaced by a minimum building height of 20 feet. While the Board agreed that it was
inappropriate to mandate all buildings in the NC and CC zones be two stories,the Board requested
that the existing requirements stay in effect until staff could proposed requirements that provide
stronger incentives for two-story development in these areas.
. Staff continues to recommend to Council that the two-story requirement be eliminated and replaced
with minimum building height requirement to provide an interim response to this issue until
additional work on the development standards can be completed later this year.
DATE: March 2, 1999 4 ITEM NUMBER: 30 A-B
3. Exemption of the Harmony Corridor and Fossil Creek Plan areas from the contiguity
requirement contained in the Compact Urban Growth Standards.
Certain properties within the Harmony Corridor Plan and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan have
been identified that do not meet the Land Use Code (Article 3) 1/6 Development Contiguity
requirement. Several landowners,and representatives within these two subareas,have brought this
issue to staffs attention and have expressed concerns that failure to meet this standard will
jeopardize their plans to pursue development in the foreseeable future. In addition, these owners
question whether the application of this standard is appropriate to areas which have been determined
through the subarea planning process to be ready for urban development.
Staff proposes to amend the Code to exempt the Harmony Corridor and Fossil Creek Plan areas from
the contiguity requirement. The requirement would continue to apply in all other areas of the City.
Staff also proposed to amend the City Plan Principles and Policies to make Policy GM-5.1 regarding
contiguity consistent with this exemption.
Attachment 3 is a memo from Pete Wray dated February 3, 1999, that provides additional
background information related to this issue.
The Planning and Zoning Board recommended Council adopt this proposed revision, with the
reservation that the Pedestrian Level of Service standard be reevaluated to determine if it is
appropriate to increase the distance within which offsite pedestrian improvements may be required.
4. Clarification and refinement of the process and standards for Planning and Zoning Board
review of requests for Modifications to the Standards of the Land Use Code.
Staff has identified the need to clarify how requests for Planning and Zoning approval of
Modifications to Standards may be processed and approved under Division 2.7 of the Code.
Currently the Code allows such requests to be processed independently from Project Development
Plan applications, but does not define how such a request would be processed.
It is important to clarify how to independently process Modification requests because the
Modification process is key to maintaining a degree of flexibility in application of the Land Use
Code to better accommodate creative design alternatives.
Attachment 4 is a memo from Tom Vosburg dated February 3, 1999, that provides additional
background information related to this issue.
Public Outreach
A public open house presenting information on each of these issues was held on January 28, 1999.
PATE: March 2, 1999 5 ITEM NUMBER: 30 A-B
Attachments
Attachments 1-5 previously noted.
Attachment 5 is an annotated issue list that provides a brief description of these other consent issues
and cross references the related sections of the draft ordinance that implement the proposed
revisions.
Attachment 6 is an index to the draft ordinance that briefly lists the effect of each section of the
ordinance and the issue that the section is related to.
m
I� e
1
RESOLUTION 99-26
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING POLICY GM-5.1 OF THE "PRINCIPLES AND
POLICIES" ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY
WHEREAS,Policy GM-5.1 of the"Principles and Policies" element of the Comprehensive
Plan ofthe City provides,among other things,that development which occurs within the Community
Growth Management Area shall have at least one-sixth (1/6) of its boundary contiguous with
existing urban development; and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined that such contiguity requirement should not be
mandatory in certain planned subareas because, by reason of the detailed subarea planning, such
properties, even though noncontiguous, are ready for development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS, that the third subparagraph of Policy GM-5.1 of the 'Principles and Policies" element
of the Comprehensive Plan of the City shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows:
Development which occurs within the Community Growth Management Area shall
have at least one-sixth (1/6) of its boundary area contiguous with existing urban
developmenT„exceptasgmaybeotheiwisdprovidedbytheGityCouncilli}� dinaisce.
• Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins held this
2nd day of March, A.D. 1999.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
•
ORDINANCE NO. 41 , 1999
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING VARIOUS AMENDMENTS
TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE
WHEREAS, on March 18, 1997, by Ordinance No. 51, 1997, the Council of the City of
Fort Collins adopted the Land Use Code; and
WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the understanding
of staff and Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject to future amendments,
not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors, but also for the purpose of
ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a "fluid" document capable of responding to issues
identified by staff, other land use professionals and citizens of the City; and
WHEREAS, the staff of the City, the Planning and Zoning Board and the Zoning Board
of Appeals have reviewed the Land Use Code and identified and explored various issues related
to the Land Use Code and have made recommendations to the Council regarding such issues; and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the Land Use Code amendments which
have been proposed are in the best interest of the welfare of the City and its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS that the Land Use Code be, and hereby is, amended as follows:
Section 1. That Section 2.3.2(H) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is
hereby amended to read as follows:
(H) Step 84(Standards): Applicable. An overall development plan shall
comply with the following criteria:
(1) The overall development plan shall be consistent with the
permitted uses and applicable zone district standards (Article 4) of
all zone districts contained within the boundaries of the overall
development plan and shall also be consistent with any applicable
general development standards (Article 3). If the overall
development plan contains any land within the M-M-N, C-C
and/or N-C Districts, the plan shall be consistent with the land use
requiremeatsq block size requirements
for those districts.
Section 2. That Division 2.8 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is
hereby amended to read as follows:
I
DIVISION 2.8 MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS(BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD)
Sections:
2.8.1 Purpose and Applicability
2.8.2 Modification Review Procedures
2 o3 e Ele
2.8.1 Purpose and Applicability
The Planning and Zoning Board is empowered to grant modifications to the
General Development Standards contained in Article 3 and the Land Use
Standards and Development Standards contained in Article 4 and any separation
or proximity standards that are established as a specific measurement of distance
in the District Permitted Uses contained in Article 4, eM fort Ja overall
development plans and4t: project development plans which are pending approval
at the time that the request for proposed modification is file
de . entt. antT�o
to ovi�-
.r
2.8.2 Modification Review Procedures
A request for modification to the standards
a p1aas r. pending pfejeet do-velepmeas plang shall be processed
according to, is compliance with, and subject to the same-provion
Di 2.1` S
P _ L
. A
modification may at Ai ' be processed in a consolidated
application and reviewed concurrently with the development application to which
it applies, m{ eve $ n r va #erg
Bo for ba a mod a th a o�enapp{ anl�wluc&;it
appsx evenfsuch develog aplicati z would otI vewbeen subject
to admmstrati Once a modification is approveds to
u, •�_ -a -- -� RAArd Review it shall be controlling for the successive,
tugeL filed, development applications for that particular development proposal
only to the extent that it modifies the standards pertaining to such plan.
3.8.3--Standards
2
ay be ow
detefffl4fies and find'; that
: ;kp Z., borh t d11C1 ett g) .No a plicabie
,.- «x^mnana-F *' :^ s9ass+ - ar• o*+;z' ;. _s .e
P . evelopA hon. ttal) or" ents
d a afi : Stan as the ent.
hca 6 sub ` e Di may
.I �..
Ve Sub ,gtv
cl
ent
bId �
cfi ,l of ,
e le.s
a Sectio 6(D)
• No able ;sub` '"for
o r ands' BoI
evvie j' der
nd% d ppli' ,a
oai of, . .i-_ ..
Mh
l nd b Pro sat
mdin�?
�rT 1"at ed imiy d!*o ¢Not
licab . y
& dg_ pp "and ann g staring$shall
u^
t a ficatw f only hods W(A-)the granting of the
modification would neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair
the intent and purposes of this Land Use Code;and that:
(41) the plan as submitted will advance or protect the public interests
and purposes of the standard for which the modification is
requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies
with the standard for which a modification is requested; or
3
(r 2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any
standard would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason
of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an
important community need specifically and expressly defined and
described in the city's Comprehensive Plan, adopted policy,
ordinance or resolution (such as, by way of example only,
affordable housing or historic preservation) or would substantially
alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide
concern (such as, by way of example only, traffic congestion or
urban blight), and the strict application of such a standard would
render the project practically infeasible
u me but
;x
co esS,
c 1uc1 e
CLin
'exec or
.. _ suc; _I , a=
Any finding made under subparagraph (&M of-(6g) M above shall be
supported by supplemental findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets
the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph(I 1)r ef(6 ,ffrp)..
Cepe�
g;
deve �
accoy oti onin
accoovisie t "me n 2 All
Mo fio, hic a deg putt tics
not wifih iori e orY 2 be:
valid `P pem " o trna motdeect,on' folio g the
de on 'o m�the iecue ised
mode€icon
(Ik!��'Step�� PPe�) PPIicalile
4
Section 3. That Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is
hereby amended to read as follows:
3.4.1 Natural Areas 6itats and Features
(A} p y Z1us sects appli nc�i f th elo `a
IRV
wi ve fiupdre if ea tiff'#°
�" ttat ofea
rvento p, or< rh, opm lw
00ihi rest whi tilde ;< eiq o
co rt$it a an
$fie de entrevt =' ud" tfie;
$abet Featrire ory .T'
2deaba,o " o w a ,
olicy areaa's�fo_a
-h nr,?Ns'iA I fPe
platiy OndM
v �{etLan et m
Native _d'
MPa?? ,.0
i��rbaa;p sta
itootiui . ,.�
vial feature ,
�' Signfic �7an� - any�_ t ,, epl"anY.communittes
} ;- Potential itats av&l n m locations ofzTare, threaYeried
or endangered'plan4s
�c T. Potenhal ha bitats andkicwit locations orare, threatened
Orendangeced annnalsy
5
(d)u 2? R4j hab& fi g+"�.. inclu nest,sites„ communal
roos sites,at key colt it,
onlaz s;
(e) Concentraftdg" reas,, o nestin -migratory shoieliitds:
an��aterfo� __.
Ml d
(g` ,a_ Ka` stin7,' , fog - `.d b
F ao ens
OMMM
eerz -con o�r
W§Pr
4fojn;es.A (5 in sizes
C°` tra° ;mi'_ '� residen li es
aa: lir strt uati, etdv
( ersi %
;mr '." sr al o . ontological` .LL
�u` ,�Irrx '� tha ��as w't �corrdors=
(AO) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to ensure that when property is
developed consistent with its zoning designation, the way in which the
proposed physical elements of the development plan are designed and
arranged on the site will protect the natural afeas '°tats and features both
on the site and in the vicinity of the site.
(P4) General Standard. To theem feasible, the ae*elepfa a
1 hagAI n be ae..:gmd and affaage4 ae e e that a@ A4stu..bame shell
vaem eTaaynauimA ffea as aresult ef the Eje*ejepmeat,
sh h 11 h .1 h h he kise ffea b4ref
Fea�ffe 1 a in a 1 L a lepmeat p est shall
{, e9wAnunity sush 1est natmrgl reseur- e:aher r eFF a�
A 1. Festermiea or. repl ..a shell he - -_' 1 ele..a ♦e
soa
the 1ess 4 d h the oeaffR+H4ty heeause ..F the .iisyaFbaaee T6rcYthe,
mauran'
dent asible e p
deveIo went pTatt shall be designed,"and
aria -ged}$to Tie couipahble with and to• rotect naMural habitats and features
and=,the pla�tts and`animal mhabt$tliem and tntegrate them anthtri,the`
develope3 landscape of tfiRcommuniigby (l) direchng development
away.
way from sensitive resources, (2)muumzing impacts and disturbance;
6
♦ •{�I - Y Ia a � �� d e I1 IY 1 30 - ♦ 1
- ♦ e e 1 ..Y ♦ 0 I I - 1 • 9 0�Y 4' 1 r 1 � 1 1 1 0:q
I / r v.,/ l! I p/ I / /.. l I 0 I / I I rl A • / I / /
B e a u tY. . 1 a ♦ e a l e �•''t.P.:.♦ v . . e I I a a i 1 a ':� 1.Y.-
a e ♦I a r ,'#. 1 " Y a .1 . 1 1 ,+, o7l w� -Yi. 1 1 D a BainP�.ra.Y
• r e l 1�" Y a ell wq`✓.11 .11 a/C 3 a r e I a l ,�., Y �.A�+-i
w ar aa��: a�a it ♦ � 1 , all : I. o4'ie �'�a�. / .• 1 tl e u Y a i {�+`� 1 "
YI 1
f '°°`�n„a rp S . r •>r. e u 1 ny� i s •� 1 �.'" a - - [y a YY �i"u'a.-'•`"`
9 AIP Y � ♦ Ilaa it YYV' ;all I t:�e: v YvSi�� e
. ..
y p' ♦ 0 :IOa11tlB e 0 `k� Y � ® ♦ B J is A 019aa1�0 a' ♦
tS y
e ��! a Y 0 9 a 1 A I il'1 � � Y ♦ 0 1 Y U J�J�a+a a
1 i 1 a (a 9 5t 1 tl �" 1 t1 w 0 -. 1 61 ,y.. Y b�lt •9
-
b �t
�z..nF Y�T ♦ I �� ;eae a o�.,_ a a 1 " s FI1 a a all"iiY" � 1 "
"''3}Ya a4:a •., iph�7a`�'aa s�Y �� �.I rS t i e Y tt(,w�� au 1�� -4�".=.-
9 Y:1�•� M KaBltiy�dl 1.•h.n`y�Yil +�+Lro ih I � "d 1aYu, �°AiId9$,Y1 /di�.x 1 "
y d 'ti
Y • a i p( 1 Y I ( >� a 1 ' 1 Y 1 � v-^d' Y
d' h
I ♦ 0 �.��� ,wjr,134P 1 111 .. '�Y 41 t��dl •
i
I Y Y�1 }&��9 M BII �:�u� 11 1 • 1 H d ®1 Y e
• ' 1 " s8 1 ® : ♦ - IY `p'y 1 1 " 10 tl - 01 to I
1 e Y • 1 1 � 1 1 1 - I e e l - tl I
1 ♦ 1 I
. 1 1 ♦ 1 1 " 111 ♦ I 1 -
I 1 - e. - i •- - I I a ♦ 1 ♦ • 1 1 IY
11 1 e l " 1 . 1 • 1 1 1
e t1i' a eifn mb 'oacg 11
al
ecfallS
s�ecial', ea
aiviti8 ogt , e
ou
(2) flan ouri hn y )in a
an e�so ,
Tog 'c o T, e
eh an' � � •,o
5
and/or �� o � TiG fi
Y _
ne o loR vt
an
b tha
v c, w e
tan
(6P Establishment of Jimd& of DmWopmmg and kh#P"' 4m& Buffer
Zones. For every development subject to this Division,the applicant shall
propose, and the fester. decis► shall establiskapp on the
project development plan, IIIIER49 ef a „ °4 /1T liaaO and
buffer zone(s) oMat
natutal i `ts and eatutes.
The pnrTose of.the bl ffe zones ptotectther�ecologleal character.of
r .,
the natural habitat or natural fea from the uapacts;of tfie opgoing
t 5 ,hoc a`:
ach ,-vrtytassociated wrth tht��develo�me ,
13slew.
8
:Phe I Op shall
piejc .. a�.eat he e ..at...^tea and
e4:..:4., shall he ee..tai..ea In vatahl:ehi..g the T OD ...hieh May he
fRWtjpj@ and a
and apply the follem4fig ef4aria---
(a) TF a..y pe..tie.. of the a r
1 afea er F at....e ea the eit..'a Tlat. ..a1 A.......- ,«..a«te....
sush :aef9ifiea shall ha ♦al.e.. intg ovaglant a..a
preteet a th..e..eh the eetahl:ahme,.t of the T QD /Tl.e
h a F efjy ..atami afea she..a. em Olge TIe4....e, Apeva
bj,eraMF5' A p is eH49' apPse*iRWAe 'rhe aet..el Le....aa_.
F any et....al afes to he eheAll eet.ie
Wlapffisfit
el I hl he .. sea h the a....liea.,t _a�yL'
rw r .,
i h ll Le haava ea the eealegioal slaw-asta'iea4iea eFqgwm .he
1 afea in eeaju..etie.. ...ith the...a.. Pis DiFester.„e..
7 Feqaire to he she..... as ..a4..m easoftthe ..f
a I�'m'7 Ta'..41J. i..el..ava a.. 41
e
n, , A as biven"r-44p, lauF pessessing--sxsk
e}xffaeaerisEies (e etla..ae .. F ethills
feest)as . e..la have a..rre..ea the:.. :-.el....:.... Ai3 the
TI 1 A 7 l&p if sueh ar-ags fe aivae..e_va
aa^a:4e al..a4:e. ..a/er raga4va
(b) T e at Ll:, the Le....ae^:ee ..F .. -etle..a the ..pplisant
And the Pipeete- shall use soil samples, saalegi^al
h _a h..a..elegieal .iae..ee ♦e the_ SiFtent
a >
th-At quab Afe 43 alkistease, a..a/e_ r req.eaten aF ^^a
Paevided by the applisafA 'rha Dir-eete_ _ also ..tiuze
h a a,�_ViEleliaes aa dle f p the r-ec ssie
FoGe a F L TT a n....... ..r _.re e fEfigi..ae..a the
�
TAT p Fish ,7 \S/:1.71:F Cee..:ee f.al.... the Cale.....ia
instanee
a
shall h he....aa...l eF a wetland he aef...va_as le..e
ingI 'va than� _L h' h would L igeladed ia L .etla..a
a:^e to ♦he sta^aa_aa a..a .. :a. eli,.es : e by the TT
0
S. n+my GOFPS eF Engineers e4 the time 4 aei.ele......e_.t
a
•
9
(e) la establishing the T QD the C Ile...eg shall else i.e WieH
1 visual iffiPasts, iflaWdifig -ut ,.94 1:,..:ted 40
2. @F8SiSH proventism And yongFel iaekiding_but ast
a
drainage faampmeat plan.
OthAF-AAti—A
Q. Agagan,atiga eF water eld:...e l...t of limitedto
e ..
5 9$'ean3 eeff}def gag wattlanc
y site te_rece e_ ..sl.. eld: o bilt _flAt liffli4ACIt
d a"sfeat..—es, L e ..te - and
�-
evalleye
e 2epegf9@33e-featwes..
'f Floedplains and f4sedways.
F
;XAflpg gr de-Iii-m-Amad 1. lo...
In the faet:eel needs efaa PPnm*ed a Astmet:e..
'p
develePed—p-e.}est and neeessm,
(�1) Ea+,���m��s�lh�s�hfflowt a�u+,fer—�—Buffer Zbir`e„ Pe), ,orn.aice
SrhYYd&ds. The patwfal b- ff she Al Feage ffa fie
.,:,:-a,'Wadfod lnm Feet 49 thfas 1..._d-sa iznm feet 49.. any idfflAified
nAtIlF-1 RF- N develepmeEA Shall aseur in the Rat..-el e e huffef
10
•
....L..4e..4:e1 &&,erne impaet 4e Qeasiti..e ef Q..ee:ell.. Valued
,ae....l,....,.. 41.e Pifee4... «. Of d6lPrOMOS ♦1.e Miff .
T.. e..4..1.1:..1 ing the na4.....1 afea 1...f.—z ..e(s) whiek be
n-
e
b • elpzo eac d con
k
co 6�0 ex•
s ,xi s
dt ce• � "
eve etthe
le di
der�idn ma �'nia NU, der; e
Ivv ofi bse c" .
r9
ullm °p a er
erfdic��� s� d
(a) o e
eco c
mow, � Y
mitt the foreseeable impacts of development tl�e
aa�ral-area.
Eb) 41.e eele..:eel e..A ,ild-N f Of 4t.e
HAWF'81AF6R
existence of wildlife movement comdors listµ
fea tint ace µ
(d) 41.e e."4e..4 Of 988 plat ffi&HEI llee.l.....
(ec) The{-project dial&be
designed to 'preserve significant existing trees and other
significant existing vegetation on the site.
•
11
(€d) tlte-exastexse-e€ Z��proecttshall' d�'esigna ,Pro_....;:.
fign pd rie impact species utilt<cug specialm habitat
features such as key raptor habitat features, including nest
sites, night roosts and key feeding areas as identified by the
Colorado Division of Wildlife or in the Fort Collins Natural
Areas Policy Plan(NAPP); key production areas, wintering
areas and migratory feeding areas for waterfowl; key use
areas for wading birds and shorebirds; key use areas for
migrant songbirds; key nesting areas for grassland birds;
fox and coyote dens; mule deer winter concentration areas
as identified by the Colorado Division of Wildlife or
NAPP; prairie dog colonies over fifty (50) acres in size as
included on the Natural Areas R Vea
Inventory Map; key areas for rare, migrant or resident
butterflies as identified in the NAPP; areas of high
terrestrial or aquatic insect diversity as identified in the
NAPP; remnant native prairie habitat; mixed foothill
shrubland; foothill ponderosa pine forest; plains
cottonwood riparian woodlands; and any wetland greater
than one-quarter('/4) acre in size.
(geJ h"Y desr i4so tha the character of the
proposed development in terms of use, density, traffic
generation, quality of runoff water, noise, lighting and
art..
similar potential development impacts shall
r
st ed t` egrOf
gtfi a gre w site topography, including but
not limited to such characteristics as steepness of slopes,
existing drainage features, rock outcroppings, river and
stream terraces, valley walls, ridgelines and scenic
topographic features.
'
eeor, eal sh. '- tee ' e " g
lanapr� the zon etermmed b e
y= � Ala .. :.
ses of
decision make incam attble the u the
buffe xzone„thh a apghcant iltidertait [estoration
'and/or the
and4 mtigatio, easurps siich as
replanturg of n vege, on
-
rep Tha;pro�ect liedesgned to prone appropriate 2inrran
access to natuzal fiabrtat§ acid feature and their assgerdted
12
M to
a raa
buffec,`wnes ta provld� re � ona c}i
as hikihgjtjishlnWphotograph 6serv;. and'
enviror*an t ednc z co a ,g an
objectivesfo£the;Na Co,
W agemeni6tueeTii> foiCi e d'
Op.eiSpaces prov>d i$su i I mp. the
the ecolcgicac
6ann�feaae
yAthifl cive h a s (enm feet Af s ..et,.sel area, gr it it is
detafmined h the Dis "on ..F aria r ffefa etie
h the sise likely i skides ffeas with A4141if_pie..t life e13.7/s..
h 1 / e.l of pfeterati e. and i f theme,
�
d-Aer net
h pessess h i4bmatiaaFequed by this s..hseetie..
ev-vAesoix� i T -- h del e_ea bu ff4. gone f to apply
qtA -d .l set C h h 1ew, then the de..ele_e_ shell p .ide
t the ajt3ca ope .�F s el 1.:., .l el•fe in the e e
F aseI •ldl fee hielegy ar. e.hef releyafg Aiseiplias th
e et
q •heee e. ..m4ha limittie.,f the C I1e..iagi
\ h 41,llif a eF me ..et....et e Sh8VA..e the e..e e 8
idiiC s ..,e og theama; the ti er. that the ;are i
a h these Speeies a h 1 Effiqap�ffg feeding,
watering, 4
esting stiff., ...,.
ehi that the _,.\
.i.less'r4 e.ah *AldliFe spesiss.
(b)—h baunda£j• e€ wetlands is the flea—as deter?m—imed ifl
estahl' hiRg the 1 99 and s desefirtiefl er the eeslseieel
Y
filaetieflS
d he_este.setiee Pwe .le..ii by these etle...l e.,:.
t. s fie seen_the S:t 7
^7—p^ivirriiseer
, e•c
tees A-Rd eths_..eti.. site yegetmnew
f
F7
\ the h k> ..he_oijae e .l high wmar ..afk of e perepAiial
sues.., of hed., a f wetef an the site;
(f) areas inhabited by a 1 l 'l• a by gansiti..e &gEl
Cs\ speeiel Sl itet l:eetaes
. (h� yildliC fe ent es....i.1..,.e., z..d
13
/a the a Fal eselea:sal C..f.etions_ff..eyided by the site and
C
eawfas
iSSHOS afd:ff.f tlfe tiff,:,.,. ..F...ie..eI8PH esf FOlete.i
a'!Fea.
C�
/ \ N . ... aati..:ty, iasioding, ,Atl.e..t l:fff;tatieff
Cal
gM4jfig, ij •o., f. SW04i4f.S eF AN fffa«af:al sAall Ise
pvr: k4 d VA&H tlfe 1:...:ta eF develop e..t ...Lathe.. to
pfev'de F f a building site elite ..ti/aes e e
Fer- reads er 4FW@ f...vn pi4ef to appfeve4 by hl.a
C Utility eF the a ..d sed:.f. fftatia ..afe]
oevsm+rasot•veaxrrry
plan fer the 4e,"Olelpfaeat.
/1f\ T L RWEiMUM af.tefft C aa:lde a de..elepf...a.ft
er *egetatien er- l.
removal
1 sell a fleu�side the aw aF
9nn me pt ash ef.:ded iff subseet:en[
h9(QRaetivity 4
'de the T QD f the
C lle...:ffa l:ffs:ted
pamesesi
} Fai4igmiea Ode ele _ft aeti.Atia
7 fes4efatieff F .f .nlf. d.st..fbfed F deafaded
itwAA-Untiens ..1.e.. s fal. aet:f.:tiaa a..d :ffstallatief.a
eamot Ll be sef.ta:f.ed ...:Ils:f, tlfa T Or) or
F •I ef f.edesu4aff ...I/...iAY
aMt
�—T
other near-by dewleped areas-;
14-
(2) TW. ' m _.c lt ` tIh, ..Bue $er Zone.
(a) No disturbance shall occur within any ffa4ue4-�buffer
zone and no person shall engage in any activity that will
disturb, remove, fill, dredge, clear, destroy or alter any area,
including vegetation within natural mess--habitats for
features including without limitation lakes, ponds, stream
corridors and wetlands, except as provided in subsection (c)
below.
(b) If the development causes any disturbance within the
satuml ages buffer zone, whether by approval of the
Pireete ., �- or otherwise, the applicant shall
undertake restoration and mitigation measures within the
aati,ral-ayes buffer zone such as regrading and/or the
replanting of native vegetation. The applicant shall
undertake mitigation measures to restore any damaged or
lost natural resource either on or off site at the discretion of
the P4ester i on Any such mitigation or
restoration shall be aeia� eon", x
p _ va to the loss suffered by the community
because of the disturbance, and shall be based on such
mitigation and restoration plans and reports as have been
requested, reviewed and approved by the Direeterdecxsron;
Unless otherwise authorized by the
e lie N iP" ,;tick , if existing vegetation (whether
native or non-native) is destroyed or disturbed, such
vegetation shall be replaced with native vegetation and
landscaping.
(c) The fester a pion •, may allow disturbance or
construction activity within the nawml-Rfea buffer zone for
the following limited purposes:
1. mitigation of development activities;
2. restoration of previously disturbed or degraded
areas of planned"enhancemenprojects to benefit the
nafural�area or feafiue;
3. emergency public safety activities;
15
4. ead-utility installations when such activities and
installations cannot reasonably be eent.�Iocated
oudide�1�the L-99 Oqk(`""``�` or other nearby
areas of development;
45. construction of a trail or pedestrian walkway that
will provide public access for educational or
recreational purpose ••4m ��
�. cb p" d.tlia
't /E
r`;
f' a.c V
x aya..,
Ono
i " Y p del is arm
r
t
ed
a
..W,� ;M ..
Irso y„ ,patc , ,€ nattvegrasslan shtubl TO
Isola#edpatches ofnativeiipl'andesFpaaan fgresti 50 feet
Wagdlots/famtstead windbreaks-,Ii 25,ciet
Natt ohzed irrigatiga ponds 50 feet:;
Naturalized"storm drainage.channets/detention; 50.feet
ponds:� », ._.�_ .
16
N AT ,ELgB' r- OR FEA.TURE'r BUFFERIZONR ST?�ND
P &reser,' :L f0 feeD
Rtends> thp�signif�icanta_use 10iet
be o ` r sFiorebirds.:a,
'
ds>rl' with^ catuseb Y
3 eet ;
T an ore -
Cu .
�C� eel
s Pn vez Est UCr `Fioun
-k
Po (ColLe-oa
"Av
C TaPo.` v °' acoln 'enue to '
Noun ,
Slo
_� qe
etc ee
die "fribut'�ties ee
S Ha ea " e§/Reso` "es of, ec�al
e ' tsites 0 f'
s-WE .„•
P r cenw' " n are' lfe
w ry °wYcgacentrattz d'areas feet
I .ft waterawl concenttatio'" as q=fee
WW'atory sfiarebird coiicentratioia mas ` 300 feet?
Nestft►g shord concentratioareas 300 feet
1t!1gXatory siagbird concentrationareas 300 feet
Locations of?P"xeble's meadow jumping mouse - 300r feet
Locations o£rare butterfly species' site analysis
17
-WA—TURAr,EFAM rAT OR ATUR1 BUFFER ZONE'S' AN])
thre&Meqj;:endangered'Dlant Site-aild"
pn&-of*e, -MYsis
pn
geo or p, ri al6dto logi si site,�jn sis
�"
es
i ora distances n Y'.I ' -from d loelots
ct'
,
`ftesi�bu&irione Akd �n �J'bY n "" 'ioned� �ffj" i erZ own'
fi
R e sEirdsa me - in ptio*4 A
id (EF) Protection of Wildlife Habitat and Ecological Character.
(4) cqM9.;p;.gag90@ T40miN0. genstpaegen shaj!be efgapized and tifflad to
winimi;cp distufbafiee 89 seaski*e er. speowly 119AUed spegies
Using on site and&E,aeew aa4w-al afea�i.
(g) J?emevffil. RefAm t.e reffimeRGOER811A ef e13f1RtR3Vt4;f1
Ali �hA d@41,141 ske, any pfairie Elegs ip.14abi4ing peFfieas ef th epmeRte
54A -444h-ifl the lifflits 89 de"IePERefit shall be ralAnged A
humeaely efadieated lay 4he developer by Qk3' apPfAved ffiethAds ar
gsit fafg; ii; ghapter. 4 e�the City C-949, aiid when applisable, as
d1 affid apprevaEl by the Gelefade DiAsiRIA Of 4441dlife
R;94:9 i 99Qetive eFadiqatim; mslthed"; RES fReigNM and-
t8ffip@F&VjM Elepefideig, and thAr.@4-w@ 4he eradisatien period is
seaaeaa4y lifnited soak that M" Alne afe eptimB4 faeffths-)
(ID Sensitive or Specially Valued Species. If the develepment s
sea4ai-Rs ar. is v.4thin fi;lw h4mdr-ed (500) feet ef a aavurf4 afea, affEl
the ecological characterization report required pursuant to
subsection above shows the existence in such natural
1-2 aFe ha�iX26r(fi:40
, �T fi�' J of a plant or wildlife species identified by
the city as a Sensitive or Specially Valued Species, or by state or
federal agencies as "threatened" or "endangered," then the
development plan shall include provisions to ensure that any
habitat contained in any such natural ffea lidbi 'or featlue or in
the adjacent navaFal-a�ea-buffer zone which is of importance to the
use or survival of any such species shall not be disturbed or
diminished and, to the maximum extent feasible, such habitat shall
be enhanced. (NOTE: Some studies, e.g., rare plant surveys, are
18
• time limited and can only be performed during certain seasons.)
) q tha liabtta areaused 5ensveo>r S ly:
peck .,tsubl bo�PCamm� �omnard
. , _. .w
IMP.
(42) Connections. If the development site contains existing natural
afees M ita eatuces that connect to other off site natural areas
ha abrres, to the maximum extent feasible the
development plan shall preserve such natural aFea-connections. If
natural areas _ . , eatures lie adjacent to (meaning in the
region immediately round about) the development site, but such
natural areas WbALatures are not presently connected across
the development site, then the development plan shall, to the extent
reasonably feasible, provide such connection. Such connections
shall be designed and constructed to allow for the continuance of
existing wildlife movement between natural areas _ for
fe " .74 and to enhance the opportunity for the establishment of
new connections between aaturtl areas for the movement of
wildlife.
(53) Wildlife Conflicts. If wildlife that may create conflicts for the
future occupants of the development (including, but not limited to,
prairie dogs, beaver, deer and rattlesnakes) are known to exist in
areas adjacent to or on the development site, then the development
plan must, to the extent reasonably feasible, include provisions
such as barriers, protection mechanisms for landscaping and other
site features to minimize conflicts that might otherwise exist
between such wildlife and the developed portion of the site.
(£ Lakes/Riparian Area Protection.
(1) Lakes, Reservoirs and Ponds. If the development site contains a
lake, reservoir or pond, the development plan shall include such
enhancements and restoration as are necessary to provide
reasonable wildlife habitat and improve aesthetic quality in areas
of shoreline transition and areas subject to wave erosion. The
development plan shall also include a design that requires uniform
and ecologically and aesthetically compatible treatment among the
lots or tracts surrounding a lake, reservoir or pond with regard to
the establishment of erosion control protection and shoreline
landscaping on or adjacent to such lots or tracts. Water bodies and
features such as irrigation ponds; reflecting pools and lagoons
constructed as new landscaping features of a development project
shall be exempt from the standards contained in this subparagraph.
19
(2) Streambank Stabilization. When the Stormwater Master Plans and
the Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards of
the city require streambank stabilization, native vegetation shall be
utilized for such purpose, and engineered stabilization techniques
such as exposed rip rap shall be avoided, to the maximum extent
feasible. The use of native vegetation shall be the principal means
of streambank stabilization, and the use of rip-rap for streambank
stabilization shall be restricted to locations where the use of
vegetation techniques is not reasonably feasible.
(Q ) Ridgeline Protection.
(1) Ridgeline Setback So that structures blend more naturally into the
landscape, rather than being a prominent focal point, no
development shall intrude into any ridgeline protection area
identified and designated by the Director during the development
review process in conjunction with the establishment of the LOD
and the aatioal s buffer zone. For the purposes of this
subsection, a designated ridgeline protection area shall include the
crest of any hill or slope so designated, plus the land located within
one hundred (100) horizontal feet (plan view) on either side of the
crest of the hill or slope.
(2) Building Height and Profile. Multi-level buildings shall follow the
general slope of the site in order to keep the building height and
profile in scale with surrounding natural features.
( Design and Aesthetics.
"' WJestg Projects in the vicinity of large natural amas
and/or natural-4fea 19
M corridors, including, but not
limited to, the Poudre River Corridor and the Spring Creek
Corridor, shall be designed to complement the visual context of the
natural aEea �. Techniques such as architectural design, site
design, the use of native landscaping and choice of colors and
building materials shall be utilized in such manner that scenic
views across or through the site are protected, and manmade
facilities are screened from off-site observers and blend with the
natural visual character of the area t&ese requirements's ll,.p ly
na() elements ' f.a protect udwg'any above grounduhhty
ations: .
(2) Yi ial Characte`'r of Natural Features. -Projects-`shall be-designed'
tpGminimize theµ degradiahon o€�the visual character of affecied
20
natural.features within'Milli site an tbrmnitnrz°the obstrucho o f
sceni viewsto an fro . estates 'thee
( Stormwater Drainage/Erosion Control. All stormwater drainage and
erosion control plans shall meet the standards adopted by the city
Stormwater Utility for design and construction and shall, to the maximum
extent feasible, utilize nonstructural control techniques, including but not
limited to:
(1) limitation of land disturbance and grading;
(2) maintenance of vegetated buffers and natural vegetation;
(3) minimization of impervious surfaces;
(4) use of terraces, contoured landscapes, runoff spreaders, grass or
rock-lined waterways;
(5) use of infiltration devices;
(6) use of recharge basins, seepage pits, dry wells, seepage beds or
ditches, porous pavement or Dutch drains.
@ Water Rights. To the extent that a development plan proposes the creation
of water features such lakes, ponds, streams or wetlands, the plan must
include clear and convincing evidence that such water features will be
supplied with sufficient water whether by natural means or by the
provision of sufficient appropriative water rights. No development plan
shall be,approved which would have the effect of injuring or diminishing
any legally established water supply for any natural area.
Eo it` ' PuGF al" a pm
as"pu o a e ty be ed
tGaf b aurAt th, of f c *MM
orde hi ;s .' velo p incl° such as
b' 1 in wil onfli setbacl s
or o ac to,P vide itio tweetr, elo ent an
the Are and edueatio a ' ted `uoaratto regarding
them u al vai s;'managemen 'eels, an potenhala gnflicts associated'
with I%ving in close proximity to artatural area
(KM) Access to Public Natural Areas. In the event that the development plan
contains or abuts a publicly owned aNatural aArea, the development plan
• shall include such easements and rights-of-way as are necessary to allow
reasonable access for the public to such aNatural akea, unless such
21
access is deemed by the Difestef decision maker to be unnecessary and
undesirable for the proper public utilization of the aNatural aArea. Any
such access requirement or dedication shall be credited (based upon a fair
market value analysis) against any open space dedication or fee-in-lieu
thereof required by the city. If the development site contains any privately
owned natural area, any access provided to such area, whether for private
or public use, shall be designed and managed in such manner as to
minimize the disturbance of existing wildlife using such area.
(Q; Standards for Protection During Construction. For " "develo ent
aP
d ea the co on
gbas tect%o :ha and
ffi re °The , se; tfie.
r tfi Io Ma
� M
tt x� Iiae s' tli e
( r ce wil
an an,
fro � `te
z
e.Io: O. be'. ed
t roe
3 y tu. YM 1L
.0
deli i� a pr
Q; te . �t
, s
-3. d
(�2) Designation. LODs approved by
the Director; shall be shown on the final plan for development.
LODs hall be designated in the field
prior to commencement of excavation, grading or construction
with fencing or other methods approved by the Director.
(�13) Barrier Fencing. Construction barrier fencing shall be provided at
the limits of development during construction. For the protection
of trees and clumps of trees to be preserved with a wlt4irsl aFea
buffer zone that is to be disturbed, tree protection specifications as
described in subsection 3.2.1(G)(1) and (3) through (7) shall be
followed.
22
(4) &'onstruchaiiAT:mm Gonst�ru orgamzed'an�`timeto�;
annim�z�that �' S ', tal Valu �� es
ociptngusmgj�o � a
5) r:ekl- e i 4Vd, eneement':o i`
er, co o - 6site„ktanp— gs:
bt soD sh5e; or
e�acli"cate they elo approveds me et
ft'rtii m s ter 1 th dj when
(44 Proof of Compliance
(1) If a proposed development will disturb an existing wetland, the
developer shall provide to the city a written statement from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that the development plan fully
complies with all applicable federal wetland regulations as
established in the federal Clean Water Act.
(2) The developer shall also provide to the city written statements
• from such other governmental agencies having jurisdiction, and
which have been identified in writing by the Director, that the
development plan fully complies with all applicable state
(including county) and federal environmental regulations. Such
written statements shall be provided to the Director prior to the
scheduling of the hearing for the project development plan.
Section 4. That Section 3.7.2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is
hereby amended by adding a new subparagraph(A)(4)to read as follows:
Pm F Pr ert
e` evel th of
e� e.....
�SI1bS n•( '
bs-
CreelIRrArea
"' - � ; Hartriony Coaidor�
Section 5. That Section 4.4(D)(3) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is
hereby amended to read as follows:
(3) Neighborhood Centers.
•
23
(a) Access to €-a Neighborhood Center. Ta the
e..ae..a fwible a Effinimum ec Pas iIA
7-7
l.e de..e1apf,ew eentai ,.. ... a ♦haa few. /AT a ee the
appijeaat ast either. pfevide ene (4) (e re f
v isf et@F . ♦e the desis e« ffiako.._re P .:de eft._ E4) al.va
9se Code. perc
all welo g than" t(4<,
be Incat tr mne;,U died 6�):
f 'f ei �a N 7 pd`
r
pro3
Cenh or ` g
Nei cen ca an ent u
or, o e eigh ood .
D erci wlu c be
V
m out an-
„ r n
or "�Cen �s e
requscem z o'
belay. ..
(b) Location. A neighborhood center shall be planned as an
integral part of surrounding residential development and
located where the network of local streets provides direct
access to the Center. The location may be:
e
1. in the interior of a residential development, or
2. along arterial streets.
Neighborhood centers with retail uses or restaurants good
oneri � e4S shall be spaced at least three thousand
nine hundred sixty (3,960) feet (three-quarter P/41 mile)
apart.
(c) Land Use Requirements. A neighborhood center shall
include two (2) or more of the following uses: community
facilities; neighborhood support/recreation facilities;
schools; child care centers; places of worship or assembly;
convenience retail stores; offices, financial services and
clinics; personal or business service shops; standard or fast
food restaurants; small animal veterinary clinics; and
24
artisan or photography studios or galleries. No drive-in
facilities shall be permitted. A neighborhood center shall
be a maximum of five (5) acres in size, excluding schools,
parks and outdoor spaces as defined in subparagraph (e) of
this Section.
(d) Design and Access. The design of neighborhood centers
shall be integrated with surrounding residential areas by
matching the scale of nearby residential buildings;
providing direct access from surrounding residential areas;
creating usable outdoor spaces; orienting building entrances
to connecting walkways; and, to the extent reasonably
feasible, maintaining/continuing the architectural themes or
character of nearby neighborhoods.
(e) Outdoor Spaces. A publicly accessible outdoor space such
as a park, plaza, pavilion or courtyard shall be included
within or adjacent to every neighborhood center to provide
a focal point for such activities as outdoor gatherings,
neighborhood events, picnicking, sitting, and passive and
active recreation.
Section 6. That Section 4.4(D)(7)(b)of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins
is hereby amended to read as follows:
(b) Accessibility. All parts of such parks shall be safely and easily
accessible by pedestrians an �ntlierl .
Section 7. That Section 4.5(D) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is
hereby amended to read as follows:
(D) Land Use Standards.
(1) Density. Residential developments in the Medium Density Mixed-
Use Neighborhood District shall have an overall minimum average
density of twelve (12) dwelling units per net acre of residential
land except that residential developments (whether approved
pursuant to overall development plans or project development
plans) containing twenty (20) acres or less and located in the Infill
Area shall have an overall minimum average density of seven (7)
dwelling units per net acre of residential land. T' a re
dwelling of
this paragraph shall,not apply':to mixed=usa dwellurgsi 'multi-
story mrxec�Iuse buildings.
25
(a) The minimum residential density of any phase in a
multiple-phase development plan shall be seven (7)
dwelling units per net acre of residential land.
(2) Mix of Housing Types. A complete range of the permitted housing
types is encouraged in a neighborhood and within any individual
development plan, to the extent reasonably feasible, depending on
the size of the parcel. The following minimum standards are
intended to promote such variety:
(a) A minimum of two (2) housing types shall be required on
any development parcel sixteen (16) acres or larger,
including parcels part of a phased development. A
minimum of three (3) housing types shall be required on
any development parcels thirty (30)acres or larger.
(b) Lot sizes and dimensions shall be varied for different
housing types to avoid monotonous streetscapes. For
example, larger housing types on larger lots are encouraged
on comers. Smaller lots are encouraged adjacent to
common open spaces.
(c) The following list of housing types shall be used to satisfy
this requirement:
1. Small lot single-family detached dwellings on lots
containing less than six thousand (6,000) square
feet.
9
2. Two-family dwellings.
3. Single-family attached dwellings.
4. Mixed-use dwelling units.
5. Group homes.
6. Multi-family dwellings.
(d) Lot pattern. The lot size and layout pattern for Medium
Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods shall be designed to
allow buildings to face toward the street.
(3) _cress to �c park Central f q, e or gathering place Ati least
ninety 06 ercent;of the dwellings is;all development,ppjects
26
shallsbe locatedl V. n,one thousand three un edc," (1,3 0}
feet (bne q [ /4] mzC either nea r pai
privatelowne g or.:annfeature oip` era a is
i
Iocate eitheswrtin ttle� ecor v�nthroiad scent Iopmenta;
whie stand §fialL b me ` atom w t
crossi# an ante i str marks,cea " ' gat6e
place*h contaiione, .2 �fthe fo use
(a) blic p recce =..: oz otli a ffi ..
(b) vat ae� meeun8 a g' 4
1 0o s"m
ton shallvt� s
s
9& tfic stt ,,a s and
(2) si urethan, p t'o
'etuneter of the p
• 3 +'� essibi ofsu =s e�` `5
'} Wshoal fio' '1
0165
a an e�b�th eto' rod-ems,.'
��ers as "4
6: Silarm e�GUhen mtegatiag staradraina
nage
anddeten� ofimctrons to'`SattstTvs g remeut;
�
thedesign oftsuch facilities shatnot reslnslo�pes
o 'gra3ie 'thaC conflict with otTiei recreationaF"and
civic purpdses ofithe pazk
(C) Comm um`ty facihhes* orb neighborhoods support recreation.
facilities ,�whichare' pertmtted;asan accessory usewto-
27
h0 � gIIe`O1T binldlil ISCL'il �t0
mcl '` ea i�o� cly ac re,o`� aac sac o
sq a usa eonfi �a`
a 77nr viligtor;
k � . , •ua., ri.- i k.
eon �cc° thn no
v1h' a� o or
si r
_
g ev mckin
assly. ... on.
We d
u p„
e
of. th" rost
° Y;
Section 8. That Section 4.5(E) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is
hereby amended to read as follows:
(E) Development Standards.
(1) Block Requirements. AlTd Inc com ="wi e
ap spec" ent
topo f. e,rv_ g;
(a) Block structure. Each Medium Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood and each development within this District
shall be developed as a series of complete blocks bounded
by streets (public or private). (See Figures 18A through
18F). Natural areas, irrigation ditches, high-voltage power
lines, operating railroad tracks and other similar substantial
physical features may form up to two (2) sides of a block.
types
G 11 A 1 e..trplans or. pr-81386als fer. aR ,...ti-e
Medium Density Miaeed y4se Neigmesheed—must
40faefistrate
w this 4Week t.. o is to -
the t r
.ram
area; but siwA fiete a
types vAthia the develepment.
28
(b) Ble..L lypes mEl s4ana Fas_ n 11 ae..elepineat ,.hA , ..._ly
..:th the appl:eable ..t....ae..a.. ..et F.th bel..... .A@ss N.e
ae..:..AR ...el.ff aet.......:..e.. that .. ..G......e . 4h a ee;F...
element er ;he ..t....aefd is i4easiblA abbe ..,1
s,r:....a 1410 ule.a.e n eoe ecne..Siop.Rom Din..
requiFed in eaek Ibleek., EA ether uses
fnayva.5c
4d6Fe&
Miaiffmffi VAR 04
4M44iff ) tow bleAk-&Rtage
'AA;weld
Ralliae..t4e1 Blear., 95 nnoi e f pe..elapi..e..t niLand Use Minimum Af .,�
0
lases-May VaFy
4-aefes
4004 Af Raab bleak
PaAgag R�tiq
9.tildifig Height
5tA}}AS
Do-voiop eat PI.A.M.
Mm4m,dffl Bleak affes
Ea3t1�-8�-6Bf3tAFS
(tsJn Block Sizei:;:A blocks'spat b limited taca maxunnn asize
oEseven(7,�aores_ � � ..
(c}, Minimum BuildinFrontage ;Forty (40) percent afz each
block side'or=fiftg (50);;peroent.o£ thbl'ock facestbithe
29
totalwblocLshall co s 4of ithert wldu> fontag pCazas'
oq(perf ktion '16 spac a e
Bu Legh to a mnmdn s
othm n(2) Buildings.
(a) The portion of a building located within a radius of
seventy-five (75) feet of the right-of-way of an intersection
of two (2) arterial streets may contain an additional fourth
story.
(b) The portion of a building within a radius of fifty (50) feet
of the right-of-way of any street intersection (except an
arterial/arterial intersection (except an arterial/arterial
intersection may contain an additional fourth story)
(c) Minimum setback from street right-of-way: none.
Section 9. That Section 4.14(D) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is
hereby amended to read as follows:
(D) Land Use Standards.
(1) rmi` " ?sae r `es 444& 44 .. To the maximum extent
',
feasible, sivis-serises eptpmmuniL facilities such as community
buildings, government offices, recreation centers, and libraries aa4
ire; shall be placed in central locations as highly visible focal
points. To the extent reasonably feasible, they shall be Located
close to transit stops. _,
(2) pn se L, Xee nse'
w f A
lhn m ko ^rz V a b dered
on this dtstn g ao
(30) perCent o "to §s Ea ' any'
P1 ,07
Section 10. That Section 4.14(E) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is
hereby amended to read as follows:
(E) Development Standards.
(1) Site Planning.
30
• (a) Building Orientation. The configuration of shops in the
Community Commercial District shall orient primary
ground-floor commercial building entrances to pedestrian-
oriented streets, connecting walkways, plazas, parks or
similar outdoor spaces, not to interior blocks or parking
lots. Anchor tenant retail buildings may have their primary
entrances from off-street parking lots; however, on-street
entrances are strongly encouraged. The lot size and layout
pattern for individual blocks within the Community
Commercial District shall support this requirement.
(b) Central Feature or Gathering Place. At least one (1)
pf.edefaifianf grom o central location within each
geographically distinct Community Commercial District
shall include a convenient outdoor open space or plaza with
amenities such as benches, monuments, kiosks public
art. e an emtrea may be
placed on �ivis blocks— Vtth co f �d
(c) Integration of the Transit Stop. Community Commercial
Districts shall be considered primary stops on the regional
transit network. Transit stops, to the maximum extent
feasible, shall be centrally located and adjacent to the core
commercial area. Commercial uses must be directly visible
and accessible from the transit stop. Transfers to feeder
buses shall be provided for in the design and location of
these stops. (See also Section 3.6.5, Transit Facilities
Standards.)
(2) Block Requirements. � ent. s, npC t€ie
�,.
dect er
c ecifi yoftli d!
. ibleda pograg g'
K
,...
ent,s factors area re:
(a) Block structure. Each Community Commercial District
and each development within this District shall be
developed as a series of complete blocks bounded by streets
(public or private). (See Figures 18A through 18F at
Section 4.5(E).) Natural areas, irrigation ditches, high-
voltage power lines, operating railroad tracks and other
• similar substantial physical features may form up to two (2)
sides of a block. gash ge ..l.Bally disti .et distFi,.. .wst
31
..:aea Tf.. ae..eh._...e..t : «.SURF than te.. (10) a,
.... Of hle..l. t....e.. ...:th:.. the .. .... fti
meek types and ..te_ae_ae 411 ae..et pfaefit shen Goa...
1.....e..t ..f the ..t.._a.._a ir ififeggib'A a..e to .el
t
v er.. ..h: F et....e.. . .w:.... ae ele ..t „F t.. C ....ete
ro � c
>,,ra..ea Un.. 21eeL.. 1e 6e0% of payeleprae..t Plan
Land Use Require Minimum of 0 At
lei
5024 Af AMA blaRk Ar 6004.
Maii"PaEkififf4ka4e
�5
stars A5
nefiee 7)1..a...
0
4-aefe&
4i;;iFAUM *iAeR 04
40,14 of eaek blerk side, er 500%
4aift�
e s e.dl ON .. e c et a
(iaekidi" ea st
Building 14@i5:`
SteFi@e
32
De....l e-.a:el a10Oka 15 6504 ..a'pe..ele.....e... ple..
0
a-agres
Spares'dwelling 41"4.
BuildiRg 114eight
Stefle6
C-•..ae nle 89 4 90
iZlc1l3
4asres
B � Siz�? bloc t 'maxrm'
o ev excep .that ks conf g;;
su . , stall ted t} .m(10es ur
b �� srd (� ent eto � allb
s co
- i „sue
pae
WfS
en (20 Ai)t din' be
_,�,
Section 11. That Section 4.19(A) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is
hereby amended to read as follows:
(A) Purpose. The Neighborhood Commercial District is intended to be a
mixed-use commercial core area anchored by a superket"'O grocery
store and a pgffwp stop. The main purpose of this District is to
meet consumer demands for frequently needed goods and services,with an
emphasis on serving the surrounding residential neighborhoods typically
including a medium-density mixed-use neighborhood. In addition to
retail and service uses, 4:the District may include neighborhood-oriented
uses such as schools, employment, day care, parks, -e4ei1 e_a _ ••41e faW
• ef-serwises aAd-small civic facilities, as well as residential uses.
33
Section 12. That Section 4.19(D) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is
hereby amended to read as follows:
(D) Land Use Standards.
(1) District Boundaries/Edges. Land use boundaries and density
changes in the Neighborhood Commercial District shall occur at
mid-block locations to the maximum extent feasible, rather than at
streets(so that similar buildings face each other).
(2) Se`c° � use
�xvei me `�"�` hmldin bed � � ered
seco ° " tI andto no
mo the to h any
Section 13. That Section 4.19(E) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is
hereby amended to read as follows:
(E) Development Standards.
(1) Site Planning.
(a) Overall Plan. The applicant shall demonstrate that the
development plan contributes to a cohesive, continuous,
visually related and functionally linked pattern within
existing or approved development plans within the
contiguous Neighborhood Commercial District area in
terms of street and sidewalk layout, building siting and
character, and site design.
(b) GeetFal--Feat a or gathering Plae. A Ne:..t,t,eFhe,.a
Corn ereisl Pistriet shall ineluds a sent ally e
saeh as b@fjGh@s, tneH,&%ents, laesl s ;and art 'T'' -
entral... eaCttre. Qr attermg
)?Cace Ate as or, ` 'oner�l)prommernaocattom.�nthin
each ge*ograp Caukv distinct Nergh6�ood Co ercial
D&iri6�sli`alI".mcIud`e a:.convement o oar open space or
plaza wr amemnes`suelr<as benches tinuments,••laosks
orpubli4.o'art: Ttii`s featu a and:its amenities maymbe placed
11
on.blocksµiwitlrist ared'c vic:facilities
34
(�F4 14aasing-14easiag—larated A4thia a Neighbefh
sen eseiel aFea.
(dc) Integration of the Transit Stop. Neighborhood Commercial
Districts shall be considered major stops on the local transit
network. Transit stop facilities, to the maximum extent feasible,
shall be integrated into the design of the District, centrally located,
and easily accessible for pedestrians walking to and from the
surrounding neighborhoods. (See also Division 3.6 Transportation
and Circulation.)
(2) Block Requirements. `en .s comp the..
(a) Block structure. Each Neighborhood Commercial District
and each development within this District shall be
. developed as a series of complete blocks bounded by streets
(public or private). (See Figures 18A through 18F at
Section 4.5(E)) Natural areas, irrigation ditches, high-
voltage power lines, operating railroad tracks and other
similar substantial physical features may form up to two (2)
sides of a block.
9 F.rth :.. the t..hle I.el,.... /T A:..vA TT,.e 11Ff:ve De..:Ae..t:el ..
an—a640 Neighh •I••�•alS3 ed C affifMOrr;nl Tl;i#iyt mat
pr-e..idea if a aeyelepfae..t ; .. s&r than-ton (19 e
the d0*81epment PI—an Must hev.; it eafi#ibwes
u; the a _..II M e f tt..,.k. Yp.,s within the .. ..,a:..,.
h..t Rh..11 ....t he -.. ..eA t.. .. .:Ae a of Week
types YA4h:fi the de..el.......eat
(b) Meek types and st,.adafds All deyaiepf.eat shell a ply
CpT
Alement of the ..te.,ae-a is infeaR;ible ,L.e to um- .el
teps"hie c et..-es existing ae..ele...,.e..t sec t5. carter-..
35
1�-1iuf
O
44if�
Minimum9
e•b1 � r
and .. oFffi.. Let.. ... ..be 1 ..t..F..\
Am
a01es
94
Minimum Building Fre"a 09QO4 of
,wfi $
e
59016 eF De..el....ffwat
all
'y4hoL-
8 _�'y
T40t0o
Mini0
/;^^ ffe0 -' L1_
Cn' 1,.�di�' total Week-fiemag'e
�t ��A
�dkllt
$tAFi95
C-Wi. Rigel...
DevelepFaefit Plan
4 a6Fe5
36
i
Bl°' iz btockst a be liffumaxini
on "ermark 1
�� �n��"tmuiii� "i11 �Fo :�. Fo percent:Y ,`. h
b ' sip a to firm " all'
co o " g"fmn lams>'o iuncho n"
S $
tt All shall m t
W0- -
shaltCed tin
Section 14. That the definition of"Community facility" in Section 5.1.2 of the Land
Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows:
Community facility shall mean a publicly owned facility or o "a wilding which
is primarily intended to serve the recreational, educational, cultural,
OffiArO—M
try ,or entertainment needs of the community as a whole.
Section 15. That the definition of"Sensitive or Specially Valued Species' in Section
5.1.2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sensitive or Specially Valued Species shall mean the following species: Federally
Threatened and Endangered Species; State of Colorado Threatened and Endangered
Species; State of Colorado Species of Concern as identified in the document, Colorado's
Natural Heritage: Aos and Imperiled Animals, Plants and Natural Communities,
April 1996, Volume 2, No. 1, Animals and Plants.of Special Concern and/or any other
species identified as in need of protection in the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Policy
Pla- f lle 41dlif el bedge Let. Pr-airie aegs
RI .il. 4-; plains pedef et ♦ead shepar, 48gs realesnakee ge.rte. snakes, b. 111
Snakes, li ds and tiger saga...... tiers; ....A leeall y ....tiye pepulatie fis e f toe f 11....4 ffg
/TA 7 __ _ 1 zefms I l.' iass o4;mie,L.miq b...aee..rpa) eRd peeeA leaf .:lle..-
37
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published in summary
form this 2nd day of March, A.D. 1999, and be presented for final passage on the 16th day of
March, A.D. 1999.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 16th day of March, A.D. 1999.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
9
38
Community Planning and Environmental Services z>rapyp,eypap.,
Natural Resources Department March 99 Land Use Code
Revisions
4a Attachment 1
City of Fort Collins
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 3, 1999
TO: Planning and Zoning Board
FROM: Tom Shoemaker, Natural Resources Director6;i"
RE: Proposed Revisions to the Land Use Code on Natural Areas and Features
At your meeting of February 18, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Board will make recommendations
on several changes to the Land Use Code. One area of significant change is in the section of the
Land Use Code that deals with Natural Areas and Features. Staff initiated the changes in response to
concerns raised by both the Natural Resources Advisory Board and the Planning and Zoning Board.
The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed proposed amendments to this section in November 1998
• and these were to have been considered by Council in December. Prior to Council hearing, however,
we learned that the Parks Planning staff had concerns about the proposed regulations and how they
would affect the development of future parks within the City. Staff and the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board requested additional time to work with Natural Resources staff on the proposed
changes so we postponed consideration of the code amendments from the Council's December
meeting.
In the intervening time frame, we have worked closely with Parks Planning to adjust the language of
code amendments and to revieVthe potential impact on park development. The changes made in
response to comments have been primarily to further clarify language about what types of activities
are allowed m buffer zones and to add affirmative language that requires the provision of human
access for passive recreation activities, unless such activitiy is incompatible with natural resource
protection needs. Much of our work involved a detailed review of individual park sites so that we
could clearly understand the design challenges posed by the natural habitats and features present on
individual sites. Both department staff are comfortable that the revised regulations will protect natural
resource values without unduly restricting future park designs.
We reviewed the proposed changes with the Parks and Recreation Board on January 27, 1999. The
Board endorsed the changes with the recommendation that additional changes be made in sections
where the current code sets a standard of"no disturbance" or"no impact." They suggested that a
realistic standard would be"compatibility" of development with natural habitats and features. Several
additional changes were made to the code section based on this comment.
The Natural Resources Advisory Board will review the changes again at their meeting of February 3,
1999. Prior to your meeting, I will provide an update on the NRAB's fatal recommendations with
respect to this issue.
281 N. College Ave. • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6600 • FAX(970)224-6177
The remainder of the memo highlights the major changes in the code, compared to the existing
adopted land use code.
General. The majority of the changes proposed are"housekeeping" in nature. They eliminate
redundancies, clear up confusion, and(we hope) make the code language more clear. Where major
additions or deletions occur, this is generally because we have moved sections around from the
existing code. As another example, we have changed the title and internal references from"natural
areas and features" to"natural habitats and features". Thus, "natural area" will refer to the publicly-
owned parcels of land that are acquired and managed to protect natural resource values and"natural
habitats and features" will refer to areas with high wildlife or other natural resource value without
regard to ownership.
Section A. Applicability. Moved from elsewhere in the document. For clarity, we added the fist of
natural communities or features that comprise the"Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map."
Section B. Purpose. No substantive change.
Section C. General Standard. Rewritten to clarify expectations about protection of natural
habitats and features. The existing standard of"no disturbance"was judged to be unrealistic and
unreachable. It was replaced with language that more closely mirrors the adopted goal for natural
areas established in City Plan and the Natural Areas Policy Plan and additional clauses that reflect the
requirements of the code. As rewritten, the general standard provides a clearer and more accurate
statement of what we hope to achieve.
Section D. Ecological Characterization. Generally moved from elsewhere without substantive
change. Subsection 1(k)was added to clarify that the ecological characterization report should
address measures needed to mitigate adverse impact, in addition to the characteristics of the site.
Section E. Establishment of Buffer Zones. This section has changed substantively. We have
clarified the differences between,;he"buffer zones" and the"limits of development." The former are
to be permanent features of the project design to ensure adequate protection of natural habitats and
features. The latter are areas within which construction may occur on the project; they are intended
as a construction management tool to avoid inadvertent, or unplanned disturbance to sensitive areas.
All of the discussion of"limits of development" has been moved to a later section. Redundant text
has been removed.
Criteria related to buffer zone establishment have been restated as performance standards.
A table of standard buffer distances has been added. This documents staffs existing practices in
specifying appropriate buffers around natural features.
Section(1)(g)was added to make clear that existing incompatible vegetation may be required to be
replaced with native vegetation.
Section(1)(h)was added to make clear that appropriate human access and passive recreational
activities and environmental education and interpretation are allowed within buffer zones.
Section(2)(c)(6)was added to clarify that construction of passive recreation features or public park
features may be constructed in the buffer zone when they are compatible with the ecological character
of the natural habitat or feature.
Section (3) was added to prescribe Planning and Zoning Board review of the project when buffer
zones are, on average, less than 800/6 of the minimum prescribed in the table.
Sections F, G,H, I,J, K. No substantive changes.
Section L. Compatibility With Public Natural Areas. Added to clarify the expectations of
projects located adjacent to public natural areas. Designed to avoid"buffering the buffer"but ensure
that projects do not negatively impact the public investment.
f
Section M. Access to Public Natural Areas. No substantive change.
Section N. Standards for Protection During Construction. Revised to clarify the role of"Limits
of Development" as a construction management tool. Redundant language eliminated.
Section O. Proof of Compliance. No substantive change.
Other Issues. The NRAB had previously recommended that the code include a provision that would
require the ecological characterization report to be done by a consultant hired by the City and paid
for by the developer, as opposed to current practice in which the consultant is hired and paid by the
developer. This recommendation is not included at this time due to difficulties in defining how the
system would be administered and what the fee structure would look like. It will continue to be
investigated and may be reconsidered at the next 6-month code revision.
a
3
Comminity Planning and Environmental Services
Office of the Director March 99 Land Use Code
Revisions
Attachment 2
City of Fort Collins
Memorandum
February 3, 1999
To: Planning andng Board
From: Tom Vosburg;tiPES Policy and Budget Manager
Re: Proposed "Block Standards" changes for the March 1999 Land Use Code
Maintenance Cycle.
This memo outlines the major issues that staff have identified in regard to "block
standards" contained in the Land Use Code. An overview of the proposed approach to
address these issues is also provided.
• Background
Article 4 of the Land Use Code contains standards that apply to the specific zoning
districts defined by the Code. Some of these districts were carried forward from the old
Code and previous neighborhood plans, but others were developed to implement City
Plan's vision of mixed use neighborhood districts. The primary City Plan based districts
are the LMN, MMN,NC and CC zones. One key feature of each of these zones is the.
idea of basing development blocks that are limited to maximum size.
V
The MMN, NC and CC districts rely heavily on a set of interrelated standards that are
referred to as"the block standards". These current block standards regulate both the
mix of permitted uses within the development, as well as the physical form of the
development. Currently, the mix of permitted land uses is regulated through requiring
that each project provide a certain percent of different"block types"(block types include
Residential, Mixed-use, Office and Civic). The physical form of development is
controlled through a series of inter-related standards addressing minimum floor area ratio
(FAR), minimum building street frontage, and parking ratios.
The block standards were originally conceived for application to new development on
large vacant parcels. However,these zones(particularly the NUW I zone) have also been
applied to existing developed portions of the city. Small infill projects generally cannot
comply with may aspects of these standards due to constraints created by existing
development. Past Land Use Code revisions have addressed these problems by making
provisions to waive standards that cannot be applied due to existing development.
•
281 N. College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580
(970)221-6601 • FAX (970)416-2020
However, staff has recently re-evaluated in detail how these standards work when applied.
to new development on larger parcels. While it is clear that the core concepts of the ,
block standards remain critical to the successful implementation of the City Plan vision
of these districts, certain aspects of the existing block standards need to be refined to
accommodate the practical needs of the development process.
Existing "block standards" Issues to Resolve
1. The required land use mix break-down is too speck and should be more flexible.
This is particularly true in the NC and CC zones.
2. It is difftcult to regulate the amount-of specific land uses through the use of
"block types". When the amount of a particular land use needs to be measured
for the purpose of a regulation, then the measurement should be a simple area-
measure such as square feet or acres. This would allow measurement of land uses
that may not take up a whole block.
3. There needs to be a better way of ensuring Civic uses and blocks are included in
new development projects. The current block standards require that 100,,o percent,
of a project consist of Civic blocks. However, it is difficult to define"Civic"
blocks. Many civic uses don't take up a whole block. Also, if blocks are
typically 7 acres each, for a single civic block to be 10%of a project,the entire
project would need robe 70 acres: Itis unclear how to apply this standard w-
smaller projects with out giving up the Civic use requirement.
4. It's not clear how off site parking is to be evaluated in the block standards.
Conceptually, we need to the define the degree to which parking lots and parking
blocks fit into these districts We need to be clear about how to respond to,
proposals for parking blocks.
5. We need to verb that the FAIL buitdtrtgfrontage and parking ratio standards are.
appropriate. These standards need to mesh together and be internally consistent
with producing an appropriate urban form in new development.
Overview of the proposed revisions to the Block Standards:
1. Eliminate "block types"and their related land use mix requirements; regulate
land use mix through limitations on secondary uses instead
The block standards should focus primarily on the physical form of the development, and
other more practical approaches should be used to address land use mix. Staff proposes
to eliminate specific block type mix requirements as the mechanism to regulate the mix
of land uses within these districts.
Instead, staff proposed that the permitted uses in each zone be classified into primary and_
secondary uses in each district, and that limits be placed on the amount of secondary uses
that can be included in each development plan. This approach would continue to allow
mixed use development but would provide more market driven flexibility in determining
the actual mix of land uses in each district. The secondary use limitation W-ould ensure
that residential would not be overly dominated by commercial development, and that key
commercial areas would not develop residentially. Limiting secondary uses rather than
counting block types is also consistent with how land use mix is regulated in the
Harmony Corridor(HC) and Employment(E)zones.
2. Ensure presence of Civic features or specific ruses through simple proximity•
requirements.
One of the objectives of the block type mix requirements in the block standards is to
ensure that civic uses and features are included in the land use mix. Instead of specifying
required block types, staff proposes to require that specific civic uses be available within
a specified distance of all elements of the project. One existing example of this
approach is the current LMN zone requirement that 900/0 of all units be with in mile of
a park.
Staff proposes new requirement that 9f}percent of all residential units in the MMN zone,
be with in ''/4 mile of a park, plaza or central gathering place as an alternative means to
ensuring civic elements-are provided in-new developments.
Staff also proposes to revise the Neighborhood Center requirement in the LNIN zone to
utilize a similar proximity measure. Currently-, theLNIN zone requires that each quarter
section include a Neighborhood Center, and that if one is not present,that projects over
40 acres in-size must include one. Staff proposes that the revised standard require that
90 percent of all units be with in'/4 of a mile of a Neighborhood Center, as measured -
along street frontage. This would mandate access to a neighborhood center in the same
manner as we mandate access to parks.
a
3. Refine the physical developmentstandards to eliminate internal incorzststencies.
In addition to the land use mix and civic element requirements, the current block
standards include development standards that regulate the physical form of development
as well. Currently these standards include minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR), minimum
and maximum number of stories a building is required to have, and the minimum
building frontage along required along the block face.
The most important of these standards is-the minimum building frontage along the block
face. Staff proposes to leave this unchanged from the existing code. However, staff has
determined the minimum number of stories and minimum FAR standards are internally
inconsistent with the minimum building frontage requirements and parking requirements.
Staff proposes to resolve these inconsistencies by-eliminating the minimum FAR
requirement and replacing the minimum number of stories with a minimum building
height-requirement instead-
Community Planning and Environmental Services
�Aamdwhhl Advance Planning Department March 99 Land Use Code
Revisions
Attachment 3
Citv of Fort Collins
Memorandum
February 3, 1999
To: PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
Staff: Pete ray
Subject: Proposed revisions to the Contiguity standard contained in Article 3, Section
3.7.2, of the Land Use Code.
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION:
(1) Amendment to the Fort Collins Land Use Code Article 3, Section 3.7.2, Contiguity to exempt
from the Standard for properties located within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan and the
Harmony Corridor Plan. (2) Amendment to the City Plan Principles and Policies GM-5.1.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Board forward a recommendation to City Council to
adopt the amendment to the Fort Collins Land Use Code, Article 3, Section 3.7.2, Contiguity,
and Policy GM-5.1 of City Plan Principles and Policies.
9
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF ISSUES:
Certain properties within two subarea plans, the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, and the
Harmony Corridor Plan have been identified that do not meet the Land Use Code (Article 3) 1/6
Development Contiguity requirement. Several land owners within these subareas have brought
this issue to staff s attention and have expressed concerns that failure to meet this standard will
jeopardize their plans to pursue development in the foreseeable future, and question whether the
application of this standard is appropriate to areas which have been determined through the
subarea planning process to be ready for urban development.
Background:
On February 18, 1997, the City Council adopted various documents (known as elements) to
complete the process of updating of the City's comprehensive plan, known as City Plan. Two
of the key elements adopted were the City Structure Plan map and the City Plan Principles and
Policies document, which together provide the basic policy guidance for the management of
281 North College Avenue • P.O.Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6376
F.AX (970) 224-6111 • TDD(970)224-6002 • E-mail:aplanningCci.fort-collins.co.us
growth and development of Fort Collins for the next twenty years. One of the basic growth
management concepts was for development to be in a compact pattern. The key principle from the City Plan Principles and Policies document is as follows:
PRINCIPLE LU-1: Growth within the city will promote a compact development
pattern within a well defined boundary.
Furthermore, Policy GM-5.1 states:
....Development which occurs within the Community Growth Management Area
shall have at least one-sixth of its boundary area contiguous with existing urban
development.
The new Land Use Code is designed to implement the goals, principles. and policies of City
Plan. One of the techniques in the document to promote a compact development pattern is
contained in Section 3.7.2 Contiguity. The contiguity requirement is designed to assure that
parcels developing within the City's fringe areas,would occur sequentially and not create
leapfrog development. The standard is as follows:
"3.7.2 Contiguity
(A) Development Approval Criteria. No development for any site within the city
limits shall be accepted or approved unless it meets the following minimum
requirements:
(1) Degree of Contiguity. At least one-sixth (1/6) of the proposed
development's boundaries be contiguous to existing urban development
within either the city or unincorporated Latimer County within the Urban
Growth Area. If the development is a phase of an Overall Development
Plan which complies with the contiguity requirement of this Section, and if
all portions of the phase are within one-half(1/2) mile of existing urban
development, then the development phase needs not comply with such
requirement.....
(2) Existing Urban Development Defined. For the purposes of this Section,
"existing urban development" shall mean industrial uses;
commercial/retail uses; institutional/civic/public uses; or residential uses
having an overall minimum density of at least one 91)unit per acre; and
provided further that all engineering improvements for any such
development, including paved streets, public sewer and water, stormwater
drainage, and other utilities, and fire suppression consistent with the fire
code must have been completed.
(3) Exemption for Infill Areas. A development application for the Infill Area
need not comply with the requirements of this subsection (A)."
Further, the Land Use Code provides for a process wherein the Planning and Zoning Board may
waive or make exceptions to the contiguity requirements upon making specific findings that the
proposed development will:
• substantially advance the implementation of the City Plan in the provision of
MMN or CC districts
• produce special benefits in terms of large open space dedication or preservation,
completion of regional trail linkages, or substantially advance other primary open
space and recreational goals
• produce special benefits to the city in terms of long term economic development
opportunity
• promote the infilling of an area with already existing noncontiguous urban level
development
In addition, the Planning and Zoning Board may grant modifications to Article 3, Section 3.7.2
Contiguity for overall development plans and project development plans which are pending
approval at the time that the request for proposed modifications is filed, if the Board finds that:
(A) the granting of the modification would neither be detrimental to the public good
nor impair the intent and purposes of this Land Use Code; and
(B) the plan as submitted will advance or protect the public interests and purposes of
the standard for which the modification is requested equally well of better than
would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is
requested; or
(C) the granting ofe a modification from the strict application of any standard would
result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed
project would substantially address an important community need specifically and
expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan, adopted policy,
ordinance or resolution (such as, by way of example only, affordable housing or
historic preservation) or would substantially alleviate an existing, defined and
described problem of city-wide concern (such as, by way of example only, traffic
congestion or urban blight), and the strict application of such a standard would
render the project practically infeasible.
Property Owner Concerns
Recently, several existing and prospective owners of properties located within the Fossil Creek
Reservoir area and Harmony Corridor, brought to staff's attention that some properties within
these subareas would not meet the Contiguity requirement. These property owners indicated
their desire to seek relief from this requirement and were seeking guidance from Staff on how to
proceed with such a request. Their concerns include:
• the detailed City planning efforts that have taken place for these subareas adequately
resolve the issues that the Contiguity requirement was originally intended to address,
particularly in regard to future, area-wide land use, transportation, and infrastructure
improvements.
• the City's Adequate Public Facility requirements are sufficient in these subareas to guide
the efficient and cost effective phasing of development.
• that the property owners were led to believe during the preparation of the subarea plans
that the City and County considered these areas desirable for immediate urban
development.
• that the properties within the Fossil Creek Reservoir area south of County Road 36 and
east of Timberline Road do not have the same requirement, and are being developed in
the County. The owners argue that being located between the developing County area
and existing city developed areas along Harmony Road should be a consideration for
allowing development to occur.
• that the application of the standard does not make sense for rapidly developing areas, for
example, along Harmony Road.
• that the property owners may be resistant to annexation as long as the uncertainty exists
as to the City's position on the Contiguity requirement.
Staff Analysis
There are two specific subareas in the City where this issue exists: Fossil Creek Reservoir Area
and Harmony Corridor.
Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan:
The City Structure Plan and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan identify future urban
development to be processed under Fort Collins'jurisdiction which includes parcels west
of Timberline Road and north of County Road 36—designated for Medium and Low
Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood and Neighborhood Commercial.. These areas were
determined to not be associated with the County's TDU Program,mostly eligible for
annexation, and should develop under Fort Collins regulations. A majority of the area
which eventually annex to the City would not currently meet the Contiguity requirement
(see attached Map).
Harmony Corridor Plan:
The Harmony Corridor Plan similarly identifies parcels south of Harmony Road and east
• of County Road 9 as "Activity Centers", with basic industrial and non-retail uses. Parcels
within this area are mostly adjacent to existing development or developing areas.
Both the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan and the Harmony Corridor Plan anticipated
annexation of these properties and immediate development according to the land use and
development regulations contained within each of these documents, and the Land Use
Code. Several key properties at the east end of the corridor would not currently meet the
Contiguity requirement (see attached Map).
Options
The City staff team identified four possible responses to this issue.
1. No change to Code requirements. Development proposals not meeting this standard
would seek either a waiver/exception, or Modification to the standard on a case by case
basis.
Pros: Process and criteria is already established for granting waiver/exceptions, and
modifications. Properties would be required to develop in sequential pattern with
some flexibility for ODP's.
Cons: The problem would not be solved. Land owners would still have to go through
• the expense and uncertainty of annexation and at least an ODP and/or Project
Development Plan process before knowing whether the waiver/exception, and or
modification would be granted. Some property owners might avoid annexation if
possible.
2. Adopt a "blanket exemption" from the standard for properties located within the Fossil
Creek Reservoir Area Plan, and the Harmony Corridor Plan. This action would require
an amendment to the hand Use Code, Article 3 Section 3.7.2 Contiguity, and Policy GM-
5.1.
Pros: The blanket exemption would include all affected properties at one time and
would be the most comprehensive approach in solving the issue, thereby avoiding
the case-by-case waiver/exception, and or modification review process.
Cons: There are still many who support the contiguity requirement and therefore would
be opposed to granting any relief on an area-wide basis.
3. Amend Land Use Code, Article 3 Section 3.7.2 Contiguity, "to require development
to be within 1/2 mile of existing development"--deleting the 1/6 contiguity requirement.
This option expands upon the existing Contiguity requirement which allows that if a
specific development"is a phase of an Overall Development Plan which complies with
the contiguity requirement..., and if all portions of the phase are within one-half(1/2) mile
of existing urban development, then the development phase need not comply with such
requirement."
Pros: This option would grant relief to other properties in the Community Growth
Management Area which are similar in situation to the affected properties in the
Fossil Creek Reservoir and Harmony Corridor subareas. The blanket exemption
would include all affected properties at one time and would be the most
comprehensive approach in solving the issue, thereby avoiding the case-by-case
waiver/exception review process.
Cons: This option would require amending the City Plan Principles and Policies
document, which will take time.There are still many who support the contiguity
requirement and therefore would be opposed to "softening" the standard. In
addition, Option 3 would grant relief to property not covered by a subarea plan.
4. Eliminate the 3.7.2 Contiguity Standard from the Land Use Code.
Pros: From a development standpoint, projects not originally meeting this requirement
would be able to develop sooner. However, the Adequate Public Facilities
requirements would still have a significant influence over the phasing of
development.
Cons: There would be some "leap-frog"development occurring at the City's edges. A
significant amount of community input went into creating this standard and to
eliminate it altogether could be resisted.
During the Council Growth Management Committee meeting held on November 16, 1998 the
previously mentioned issues and options were discussed. The Committee determined that Option
2 was the appropriate solution, and this item should be scheduled for hearing for the beginning of
1999—prior to the next regularly scheduled biannual Land Use Code Amendment Process in
May. The Committee also concluded that the existing development Contiguity Standard is still
appropriate for the remaining portions of the Growth Management Area and this Amendment
would only apply to the adopted Harmony Corridor Plan and Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan
subareas. The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan was discussed as to whether that portion of the City
should be considered for this Code Amendment and the Committee determined that an
exemption of this standard could be assessed in the future,because of a present slow growth
situation in the northeast, they were not prepared to include the Code Amendment now.
List of Attachments:
1. Proposed Land Use Code Amendment.
2. Proposed City Plan Principles and Policies Amendment.
3. Development Contiguity Assessment Map
(Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan/Harmony Corridor Plan)
Attachment 1
Exempt properties located within the adopted Harmony Corridor Plan, and Fossil Creek Reservoir
Area Plan from"Contiguity"Standard Section 3.7.2
Problem Statement
Certain properties within the Harmony Corridor Plan and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan
have been identified that do not meet the Land Use Code (Article 3) 1l6 Development Contiguity
requirement. Several landowners, and representatives within these two subareas, have brought
this issue to staffs attention and have expressed concerns that failure to meet this standard will
jeopardize their plans to pursue development in the foreseeable future. In addition, these owners
question whether the application of this standard is appropriate to areas, which have been
determined through the subarea planning process to be ready for urban development.
Proposed Solution Overview
Amend Development Contiguity Standard to add new subparagraph (A) 4 to read as follows:
(4) Exemption for properties located within certain planned subareas. Development located
within the following planned subareas need not comply with the requirements of this
subsection (A):
(a) Fossil Creek Reservoir Area
• (b) Harmony Corridor
Related Code Sections
None.
a
Attachment 2
Proposed Amendment to City Plan Principles and Policies to coincide with the
Amendment to the Land Use Code for 1/6 development contiguity.
In addition to the proposed amendments to the Land Use Code, staff has assessed that an
amendment is also needed to City Plan Principles and Polices as follows:
Existing Policy:
Policy GM-5.1 Phasing of Development. The provision of public facilities and services will be
utilized to direct development in desired directions, according to the following considerations:
(Bullet# 3)
• Development which occurs within the Community Growth Management Area shall have
at least one-sixth of its boundary area contiguous with existing urban development.
Amendment to Bullet#3:
llopmeriwtch occurs wt Chum awth ttgemen, S1'have alirast
at4��3txth af�itx baundh 'atea coziuou�th a �" urba ,�Teop ��` ekp[as may he m
�`e�wtse pra�ttd�6�legs}atio"� _ the �Co�:
Attachment 3
Area of Notification
Development Contiguity Change
N
Prepared on January 13, 1999
Comminity Planning and Environmental Services
Office of the Director March 99 Land Use Code
4a Revisions
Attachment 4
Citv of Fort Collins
February 2, 1999
To: Planning and Zoning Board
From: Tom Vosburgo
CPES Policy and Budget Manager
Re: Proposed Land Use Code revisions to clarify and refine the process and
standards for the Planning and Zoning Board to modify the standards of
the Land Use Code.
Feedback from the development community indicates that the development review
process needs some means to explore alternative design solutions with the P&Z Board
without requiring significant investment in detailed engineering work. This memo.
provides an overview of the approach staff proposes to address this issue.
Background
One of the basic assumptions underlying the Land Use Code is that it should define a,
basic "cookbook" set of standards that can be followed to provide an acceptable
implementation of City Plan principles. However, it was also intended that the system
retain the ability for applicants to propose creative alternatives that still meet the intent
and objectives of City Plan; but not necessarily the letter of the Code. This kind of site
specific design flexibility was one of the best appreciated aspects of the LDGS.
In order to retain this design flexibility, the Code gives the Planning and Zoning Board
the authority to modify any of the standards contained in the Code if the proposed
modification meets certain criteria. The intent was that applicants seeking more
flexibility could propose alternative design solutions to the Planning and Zoning Board in
much the same way that PUDs were reviewed under the LDGS.
In theory, this modification process should provide applicants with a similar, if not
greater degree of design flexibility as was provided by the LDGS. However, staff has
found that applicants are extremely hesitant to explore or utilize the modification process,
and most developers do not see this process as providing meaningful relief to design
problems posed by new Land Use Code requirements. It appears that part of this is due
to the new development review process changes and requirements that were also
implemented with the new Land Use Code.
Under the old PUD system, projects were reviewed in a two-stage process. The
Preliminary PUD stage established the site design; detailed engineering was completed
281 N. College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580
(970) 221-6601 • FAX (970)416-2020
If the P&Z Board approved the proposed modification, then the applicant would stilt need �—
to submit a complete Development Plan for review and approval within 1 year of the date
of the P&Z approval of the modification, or else the modification approval would expire.
Once the modification was approved, the remainder of the project would be reviewed by
whatever review process would normally be used form the project. All modifications-
would be conditioned on all remaining standards being met.
Related Issue: Lack of Planning and Zoning Board-Authority to Approve Hardship,
Variances.
Currently, the P&Z must find that modifications proposed generally meet an "equal to or
better" standard in order to be approved. The Planning and Zoning Board cannot now
grant a modification request based on a traditional hardship criteria; only the Zoning
Board of Appeals can grant a hardship variance to the standards of the Land Use Code.
As a result, some difficult projects (properties damaged in the flood, for instance) have
had to go first to the Zoning Board of Appeals to have hardship variances approved, and
then enter the normal development review process to process the site plan. Staff
perceives this two step process involving two different boards to be awkward and
somewhat disjointed.
Staff proposes-that-thePlanning arid-Zoning Board alsabe empowered to approve
modifications based on traditional hardship criteria in addition to the "equal to or better"
standard: This would allow-the Planning and Zoning Board to review and evaluate site
plans that contain a mix of variances based on either hardship issues or"equal to or
better" tests: This will provide a more straightforward process, and wilt aflow the
Planning and Zoning Board to evaluate the entire project rather than having the Zoning
Board of Appeals consider some issues separately.
• with the Final PUD and subsequent utility plan approval processes. Although this -
process did create certain problems, it allowed the applicant to propose design solutions
before investing in detailed engineering work.
The new development review process implemented by the Land Use Code is a one-step
process that requires detailed engineering be completed at the Project Development Plan.
stage. Although this solves many other problems, it places a significant burden on an
applicant seeking a modification to a site design standard by P&Z Board. If the-
Board rejects the modification request, or if the Board makes revisions to the site design
before approving it, the-previous engineeringworkmay need significant revisions, and,
the investment in the original work would have been wasted. This is a particularly
significant issue for projects that are norfeasibteurrless certain modifications are
approved. The existing process does not allow an applicant to get a"read"from the
Planning and-Zoning Board regarding a projects feasibility without doing a full scale
Project Development Plan.
Staff believes that it is critical to the success of both the block standards and the entire-
Land Use Code that a better means for applicants to explore alternative design solutions
that still meet the intent ofthe Code provisions be established.
Proposed Solution Overview
The existing Land Use Code implies that requests for the P&Z to approve Modifications.
. to Standards for specific projects may be processed independently from the Development
Plan application, but the Code-is-silent regarding the review process andpracedures for,
such a request. Also, staff has not yet established submittal requirements and a review
process for such a request.
Staff proposes-that the Code be revised-to,include a defined review process for
independently submitted modification requests. This would clarify how an applicant
could submit a request for a modification before developing a complete Project
Development Plan application, if they chose to do so. This would add a voluntary
additional step in the development review process, but it also allow the applicant
to review issues associated with specific standards with the P&Z Board before investing
in the engineering required-for a full project development plan.
This Modification review process would require the applicant to come to Conceptual
Review and to also provide the same kinds of notice as would typically be required for a_
development plan application (post a sign on the property, mail notice to near-by
residents, and publish notice of the P&Z hearing in the newspaper). P&Z decisions on.
the Modification request would be appealable to City Council the same as any other P&Z
decision.
The proposed submittal requirements would include site and landscape plans, but not
engineering studies and utility plans unless the Director determined that these were
necessary to evaluate a proposed modification. Also, the Director may now waive any,
submittal requirement he determines to be unnecessary to evaluate the project.
March 99 Land Use Code
Revisions
Attachment 5
Proposed Mar 1999 Land Use Code Revisions
City Council Meeting,First Reading,March 2„1999
Annotated Issue List: Major Issues
Issue ID# Issue Name
130 Re-evaluate Natural Habitates Protection Regulations
Problem Statement
The NRAB has requested that the existing code provisions relating to natural area
protection be re-evaluated to determine if there are any problems or loop holes that need
to be addressed Key issues of concern that have been identified include how the
minimum buffer distances from natural areas are determined,as well as what kinds of
vegetation is appropriate within the buffer zone.
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff is proposing the following revisions to respond to these concerns:
1. Generally re-organize and clarify the existing standards to provide a clearer
applicability statement and to eliminate redundant language;
2. Clarify the standards used to establish natural area buffers by utilization of a table of
specific recommended minimum buffer distance for different types of resources to be
used in conjunction with existing performance criteria;
3. Give P&Z authority over the buffer distance performance criteria in Type 2 review
projects;
4. Require P&Z review of projects impacting Sensitive and Specially Valued Species;
5. Require native vegetation be used in restoring buffer areas when non native
vegetation is present.
6. Strengthen existing design standards for projects in stream corridors by clarifying
their applicability to above ground utilities.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
3 3.4.1 Natural Area and Feature Protection Standards:Generally revise
the standards of this section as outlined in the staff report.
15 5.1.2 Definition of Sensitive and Specialty Valued Species:Revise to
eliminate redundant and inappropriate listing of specific species
146 Re-evaluate and Refine The Block Standards in the LNLN, MOWN,NC and CC Zones.
Problem Statement
Experience with recent projects indicates the need to continue to refine the various
standards contained within the"Block Standards". Past refinements have addressed
difficulties with applying the standards to in-fill development. Current concerns relate to
the mix of land use and block types required by the standards.
Wednesday,February 24, 1999 Page 1 of 5
Proposed Solution Overview
To address these issues,staff is proposing the following changes to the following zones:
LMN Zone:Revise the neighborhood center requirement to require that 90 percent of all
units be within 3/4 mile of a neighborhood center,instead of requiring a neighborhood
center to be located in each quarter section.
MMN Zone:Replace the civic block requirement with a new requirement that 90
percent of all residential units be within 1/4 mile of a park,plaza or other civic
amenity.
MNLV,NC and CC Zones:Replace the block type mix requirements with limitations on
specific secondary uses. Delete minimum FAR requirements. Replace the minimum
number of building stories with a minimum building height requirement.
NC and CC Zones:Allow 10 acre size for blocks with supermarkets.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
6 4.4(D)(7) Clarify that public access is required for private parks to satisfy
parks requirement.
1 2.3.2(H) Overall Development Plan Review Procedures,Step 8:Standards;
Revise to remove reference to"block standards"block type mix
requirements.
5 4.4(D)(3) LMN Zone Neighborhood Center Requirement;Change I per
quarter section to 90%of units must be with in 314 mile of one.
7 4.5(D) MMN Land Use Standards;Exempt vertical mixed use units from
minimum density;replace civic block requirement with access to a
park or plaza requirement.
8 4.5(E) MMN Block Standards;eliminate Block Type mix requirements and
minimum FAR requirement.
9 a 4.14(0) CC Block Standards;Clarify land use standards regarding shared
civic facilities;define and limit secondary uses.
10 4.14(E) CC Block Standards;eliminate Block type mix requirements and
minimum FAR requirement;replace minimum number of stories
with minimum building height.
11 4.19(A) NC District Block Standards;Revise and clarify the district purpose
statement to reference supermarkets
12 4.19(0) NC Blocks standards;Define residential uses as a secondary use
in the NC zone;limit secondary uses to 30%of the project.
13 4.19(E) NC Block Standards;eliminate block type mix requirements and
minimum FAR requirement;replace minimum number of stories
with minimum building height. Allow 10 acre block size for
supermarkets.
14 5.12 Revise the definition of Community Facilities to include
government offices.
Wednesday,February 24,1999 Page 2 of 5
207 Revise the Contiguity Requirement to Exempt the Harmony Corridor and Fossil Creek
Plan Areas
Problem Statement
Certain properties within the Harmony Corridor Plan and the Fossil Creek Reservoir
Area Plan have been identified that do not meet the Land Use Code(Article 3) 1/6
Development Contiguity requirement. Several landowners,and representatives within
these two subareas,have brought this issue to staffs attention and have expressed
concerns that failure to meet this standard will jeopardize their plans to pursue
development in the foreseeable future. In addition,these owners question whether the
application of this standard is appropriate to areas,which have been determined through
the subarea planning process to be ready for urban development.
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff proposes to amend the Code to exempt the Harmony Corridor and Fossil Creek
plan areas from the contiguity requirement. The requirement would continue to apply in
all other areas of the City.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Ellett
4 3.7.2.(A)(4) Add exemptions to the contiguity standard for specific subarea
plan areas.
208 Revise and Clarify the Modification of Standards Process and Submittal Requirements
. Problem Statement
Feedback from the development community indicates that the development review
process needs some means to be able to explore alternative design solutions with the P&Z
Board without requiting significant invests in detailed engineering work.
One of the basic assumptions underlying the Land Use Code is that it should define a
basic"cookbook"set of standards that can be followed to provide an acceptable
implementation of City Plan principles. However,it was also intended that the system
retain the ability for applicants to propose creative alternatives that still meet the intent
and objectives of City Plan,but not necessarily the letter of the Code. This kind of site
specific design flexibility was one of the best appreciated aspects of the LDGS.
In order to retain this design flexibility,the Code gives the Planning and Zoning Board
the authority to modify any of the standards contained in the Code if the proposed
modification meets certain criteria. The intent was that applicants seeking more
flexibility could propose alternative design solutions to the Planning and Zoning Board in
much the same way that PUDs were reviewed under the LDGS.
In theory,this modification process should provide applicants with a similar,if not
greater degree of design flexibility as was provided by the LDGS. However,staff has
found that applicants are extremely hesitant to explore or utilize the modification process,
and most developers do not see this process as providing meaningful relief to design
problems posed by new Land Use Code requirements. It appears that part of this is due
to the new development review process changes and requirements that were also
implemented with the new Land Use Code.
Under the old PUD system,projects were reviewed in a two-stage process. The
Wednesday,February 24,1999 Page 3 of 5
Preliminary PUD stage established the site design;detailed engineering was completed
with the Final PUD and subsequent utility plan approval processes. Although this
process did create certain problems,it allowed the applicant to propose design solutions
before investing in detailed engineering work.
The new development review process implemented by the Land Use Code is a one-step
process that requires detailed engineering be completed at the Project Development Plan
stage. Although this solves many other problems,it places a significant burden on an
applicant seeking a modification to a site design standard by the P&Z Board. If the Board
rejects the modification request,or if the Board makes revisions to the site design before
approving it,the previous engineering work may need significant revisions,and the
investment in the original work would have been wasted. This is a particularly
significant issue for projects that are not feasible unless certain modifications are
approved. The existing process does not allow an applicant to get a"read'from the
Planning and Zoning Board regarding a project's feasibility without doing a full scale
Project Development Plan.
Staff believes that it is critical to the success of both the block standards and the entire
Land Use Code that a better means for applicants to explore alternative design solutions
that still meet the intent of the Code provisions be established.
Proposed Solution Overview
The existing Land Use Code implies that requests for the P&Z to approve Modifications
to Standards for specific projects may be processed independently from the Development
Plan application,but the Code is silent regarding the review process and procedures for
such a request. Also,staff has not yet established submittal requirements and a review
process for such a request.
Staff proposes that the Code be revised to include a defined review process for
independently submitted modification requests. This would clarify how an applicant
could submit a request for a modification before developing a complete Project
Development Plan application,if they chose to do so. This wold add a voluntary
additional step in the development review process,but it would also allow the applicant
to review issues associated with specific standards with the P&Z Board before investing
in the engineering required for a full project development plan.
This Modification review process would require the applicant to come to Conceptual
Review and to also provide the same kinds of notice as would typically be required for a
development plan application(post a sign on the property,mail notice to near-by
residents,and publish notice of the P&Z hearing in the newspaper). P&Z decisions on
the Modification request would be appealable to City Council the same as any other P&Z
decision.
The proposed submittal requirements would include site and landscape plans,but not
engineering studies and utility plans unless the Director determined that these were
necessary to evaluate a proposed Modification. Also,the Director may now waive any
submittal requirement he determines to be unnecessary to evaluate the project.
If the P&Z Board approved the proposed modification,then the applicant would still
need to submit a complete Development Plan for review and approval with 1 year of the
date of the P&Z approval of the modification,or else the modification approval would
expire.Once the modification was approved,the remainder of the project would be
reviewed by whatever review process would normally be used form the project. All
Modifications would be conditioned on all of the remaining standards being met.
Wednesday,February 24, 1999 Page 4 of 5
Related Code Revisions
Ord Section Code Cite Revision Effect
2 2.7 Modification of Standards by the P&Z Board:Revise and clarify the
process to allow Modifications before development plans are
processed.
e
Wednesday,February 24,1999 Page 5 of 5
March 99 Land Use Code
Revisions
Attachment 6
Proposed March 1999 Land Use Code Revisions
March 2, 1999 City Council Meeting.
Annotated Ordinance Index
Ord.Section# Code Cite Revision Effect Issue
1 2.3.2(I1) Overall Development Plan Review Procedures,Step S: Re-evaluate and Refine The Block Standards in the LMN, MMN,
Standards;Revise to remove reference to"block standards" NC and CC Zones.
block type mix requirements.
2 2.7 Mudilicahon of Standards by the P&Z Board: Revise and Revise and Clardy dot MWd)flealion of siamlardx)'mxess and
clarify the process to allow Modifications before Submittal Koquirem ents
development plans are processed.
3 3.4.1 Natural Arm and Feature Protection Standards:Generally Re-evaluate Natural I labilates Protection Regulations
revise the standards of[his section as outlined in the staff
report.
4 3.7.2.(AN4) Add exemptions to the contiguity standard for specific Revise the Contiguity Requirement to Exempt the I larmony
subarea plan areas. Corridor and Fossil Creek Plan Areas
5 4.4(DA3) LMN Zone Neighborhood Center Requirement;Change 1 Re-evaluate and Refine The Block Standards in the LMN, MMN,
per quarter section to 90%of units must be with in 3/4 NC and CC Zones.
mile of one.
6 4.4(Dx7) Clarify that public access is required for private parks to Re-evaluate and Refine The Block Standards in the LMN, MMN,
satisfy parks requirement. NC and CC Zones.
7 4.5(D) MMN Land Use Standards;Exempt vertical mixed use Re-evaluate and Refine The Block Standards in the LMN, MMN,
units from minimum density;replace civic block NC and CC Zones.
requirement with access to a park or plaza requirement.
S 4.5(E) MMN Block Standards;eliminate Block Type mix Re-evaluate and Refine The Block Standards in the LMN, MMN,
requirements and minimum FAR requirement. NC and CC Zones.
9 4,14(D) CC Block Standards;Clarify land use standards regarding Re-evaluate and Refine The Block Standards in the LMN, MMN,
shared civic facilities;define and limit secondary uses. NC and CC Zones.
Wednesday,February 24,1999 Page I of 2
Ord.Section# Code Cite Revision Effect Issue
10 4.14(E) CC Block Standards;eliminate Block type mix Re-evaluate and Refine'rhe Block Standards in the LMN, MMN,
requirements and minimum FAR requirement;replace NC and CC Zones.
minimum number of stories with minimum building height.
1 I 4.19(A) NC District Block Standards;Revise and clarify the Re-evaluate and Refine The Block Standards in the LMN, MMN,
district purpose statement to reference supermarkets NC and CC Zones.
12 4.19(D) NC Blocks standards;Define residential uses as a Re-evaluate and Reline The Block Standards in the LMN, MMN,
secondary use in the NC mile;limit secondary uses to 30% NC and CC Zones-
of the project
13 4.19(L') NC Block Standards;eliminate block type mix Re-evaluulc and Retine'l ix:Block Standards in the LMN, MMN,
requirements and minimum AR requirement;replace NC and CC Zones.
minimum number of stories with minimum building
height. Allow 10 acre block sin for supermarkets.
14 5.12 Revise the definition of Community Facilities to include Re-evaluate and Relinc The Block Standards in the LMN, MMN,
government offices. NC and CC Zones.
i
15 5.1.2 Definition of Sensitive and Specially Valued Species: Re-evaluate Natural Ilabitales Protection Regulations
Revise to eliminate redundant and inappropriate listing of
specific species
Wednesday.February 24,1999 Page 2 of 2
I,