HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 11/29/2005 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 161, 2005, MAKING V ITEM NUMBER: 8
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: November29, 2005
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Ted Shepard
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 161, 2005, Making Various Amendments to the City of Fort
Collins Land Use Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff has identified a variety of proposed changes, additions and clarifications in the Fall
biannual update of the Land Use Code. On November 17, 2005, the Planning and Zoning Board
considered the proposed changes and voted 5 — 0 to recommend approval of the proposed
changes to City Council with one exception. On the item relating to requiring a higher level of
connectivity in the Urban Estate Zone (Item 704), the Board voted 4 — 1 to approve the proposed
change.
BACKGROUND
The Land Use Code was first adopted in March of 1997. Subsequent revisions have been
recommended on a biennial basis to make changes, additions, deletions and clarifications that
have been identified in the preceding six months. The proposed changes are offered in order to
resolve implementation issues and to continuously improve both the overall quality and "user-
friendliness" of the Code.
Attachments include a description of the changes made since the Council worksession of
October 25, 2000, a summary of the Planning and Zoning Board's action and a summary of all
the issues as well as the Ordinance itself.
CHANGES TO THE FALL 2005 LAND USE CODE
SINCE COUNCIL WORKSESSION
OF OCTOBER 25, 2005
There are three changes to the Fall 2005 Land Use Code Update since the City
Council worksession of October 25 , 2005 . These changes involve the
continuation of two items and the revision of one item .
1 . Continuation of Establishing the New R-U-L Zone District:
Staff has decided that the implementation of the new proposed R-U-L zone
needs to be further processed with the public. As we " road-tested " this new zone
during the Fall , it has become evident that various groups , residents , affected
neighborhoods and the general public would benefit from an ongoing citizen
outreach program . Since it is not critical that this new zone be adopted at this
time , the establishment of the new R-U-L zone will be continued to the Spring of
2006 .
2 . Continuation of Allowing More Than Eight Dwelling Units Per Buildinq in
the LW=N Zone — With Design Standards:
Staff has retained the professional services of an architectural firm to assist in the
formulation of design standards that would allow larger multi-family buildings in
the L-M-N zone . In addition , Staff has met with affected developers and their
design teams. Quite simply, more time is needed to refine these standards and
present them to the public and Planning and Zoning Board for feedback. Since
these standards are not ready, this item will be continued to Spring of 2006 .
3 . Amendment to Zoning Map To Increase Frequency of Rezoning Requests
From Twice Annually to Anytime During the Year for " Redevelopment: "
This item has been revised based on Council 's input at the worksession . Instead
of simply increasing the frequency of rezoning opportunities from two to three
times per year, there will be unlimited opportunities for projects that meet the
definition of "Redevelopment. " For all others , the twice-per-year schedule will be
retained . The new definition reads as follows:
Redevelopment shall mean the intensification of use of existing
underutilized buildings and/or development sites, building rehabilitation, or removal or
demolition of existing buildings, followed promptly by construction of replacement
buildings.
SUMMARY OF P & Z DISCUSSION REGARDING
REQUIRING A HIGHER LEVEL OF CONNECTIVITY
IN THE URBAN ESTATE ZONE
At the P & Z Board hearing on November 17 , 2005 , the Board discussed Item
704 which is briefly summarized as follows :
Item 704 Amend 4. 1 ( E)( 1 )(a)(b) — Urban Estate Development Standards — to
delete the reference road grading and delete the exemption from having to
comply with Connectivity standards of 3.6.3
Problem Statement:
Currently the Urban Estate District exempts new development projects from
having to comply with the Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards (Section
3 . 6 .3 ) .
Staff from Transportation and the LUC team has reviewed this exemption due to
discussions arising from several recent U-E development projects ( Fossil Lake
Estates, Lemay Avenue Estates , Falcon Ridge , Crawford Annexation ). The
current exemption from 3 . 6 . 3 is resulting in the lack of direct connectivity for
pedestrians , cyclists , and motorists within and between these new
neighborhoods , limiting access to area schools , parks , and other nearby
destinations .
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed change would delete the standard that refers to site disturbance by
road grading and revise the standard regarding compliance with Section 3 . 6 . 3 so
as to remove the current exemption .
Code Change:
4 . 1 ( E ) Development Standards.
( 1 ) Street Connectivity and Design. The following standards shall apply to
all development in the Urban Estate District:
( ed mavimum e�denf fe . sihle , StFeete, shall be
(a) To the extent reasonably feasible, and in order to
provide ntegratwqi between r e ghborhoods,
development in this District shall be exempt
comply with the standards contained in Section 3 . 6 . 3 ,
Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards ,
One Board member had concerns about implementing this proposed code
change at this time , particularly during the planning process for the Northwest
Subarea Plan . There is a strong likelihood that Urban Estate zoning could be
applied to this area .
The Northwest Area is an expansive geographic area that presently does not
have a level of street connectivity that the City has come to expect in other parts
of town . Requiring street connectivity into and through existing semi-rural
established County neighborhoods in the Northwest may invite resistance and ,
possibly, opposition to the pending Subarea Plan . Further, there is a concern
that new streets constructed to urban standards serving the Urban Estate density
could potentially feed into existing County roads that are not improved to handle
the additional traffic.
In response , Staff stated that the connectivity standard would apply to new
development only and not be retrofitted into older County subdivisions . The
ability to apply the standard " to the extent reasonably feasible" allows Staff the
flexibility to downgrade a potential connection to a bicycle and pedestrian path
versus a roadway. While the Northwest Area is undergoing a planning process ,
there remain other parts of the City where opportunities to connect Urban Estate
subdivisions to logical destinations , such as schools and parks , are being lost.
One Board member expressed approval of the proposed change based on the
concern that without connectivity, there is an implication that Urban Estate
subdivisions can become isolated enclaves . City Plan envisions a network that
unifies the City across the broad spectrum of housing densities and Urban Estate
neighborhoods should be no exception . The discretion afforded to Staff allows
each case to be reviewed on its merits to determine whether connectivity can
best be accomplished by a roadway or by a bike/pedestrian path .
The Board voted 4 — 1 to recommend approval of the proposed code change .
Land Use Code Issues
Monday, November 14, 2005
Issue ID# Issue Name
698 Amend 3 .2.4(D) - Site Lighting - to add a maximum of 1 ,000 candela per square meter (nits) for exposed
L.E.D. lighting (light emitting diodes). Add a definition to 5 . 1 .2 for "candela per square meter."
699 Amend 4.8(B)(2)(a)(3) to re-insert a clause, relating to additions on existing houses, inadvertently deleted
pursuant to the alley house changes.
702 Clarify 3 .2.4(D) - Lighting - so that adjustable angle brackets are not allowed which causes illumination to not
be down-directional. Will prevent readjustments after initial inspection.
703 Amend 2.2. 11 (D)(3) - Term of Vested Right, or 2.2. 11 (D)(4) - Extensions, to allow more flexibility for large
projects that need additional time due to market conditions.
704 Amend 4. 1 (E)( 1 )(b) - Urban Estate Development Standards - which currently exempts projects from having to
comply with the Connectivity Standards of Sec. 3 .6.3 .
705 Amend 4.5(13)(3)[c] and 4.24(B)(3) to allow small Limited Mixed-Use Restaurants to the M-M-N and H-M-N
zones as permitted uses but with some restrictions. Add a definition to 5. 1 .2.
706 Amend 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications - to allow for a new
process called "Preliminary Design Review. "
707 Amend the drive aisle width in Tables A & B of 3 .2.2(L) 'one-sided loading width" and two-sided loading
width" by replacing "loading width" with "drive aisle" to match LCUASS.
708 Amend 3 .6.2(L) - Private Drives - to allow more than 4 single family lots, more than 660 feet in length, and
naming and addressing.
709 Amend 2.9.2 - Amendment to Zoning Map - to allow rezonings for projects qualifying as "Redevelopment"
anytime.
711 Amend 3 .6.3(H)( 1 ) - Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards - Alternative Compliance - by deleting the
reference to "modifications" as this standard does not pertain to modifications.
Monday, November 14, 2005 Page 1 of 1
N
w
O
.y.
OD
a
wffi wffi a :• � $ �
° g 6 OIL
14 aid
•o
boo
x x � MOO,% 8 8 tkDOW
pw
WOO
ougOw
> �
N ea ^$ t: w rl ° bJ ' 4+ p, N
� Wi'n � W � ..r .•.. .� .r i-. � N � q � q �Q •.r7 � ^may^ y N W
N N & N A �+ N A Q O N W 'J •�tw) •� M '°O •
!L�r' � .L7 � 0
b�. ftEj ". N 'C!' �Nj ^+ d 'a N a^ N N •.q�, .�� x A f'"y�y 'Si
CNlo •i0 � M ..rt
O n tOOOen en O1000
go
O O O
go
1
�qq
N
�O
� a �
F
m � cg
• p W y„
r u
W be 0
s
p :2 � o
W
40
n v o
e 16 w e e a A A a WO)Oa N N
a
N N N N N M M M M .r
b Fa
o � e
O z
tN�
O
N
d
a�
U � r � N O � "
U .r l0
o
'O .. .+ N YS O
ve -
o N axa � a
O
r
e�e ae Sz ,o � ., z o � gA � •� E 6 • z
00 n o
m
g
sg
S
U
to d 8
d w
5
w o
b a b
� X
.. °. a ..
U x M N X v1
oo
vi
O
� z
Land Use Code Maintenance Process
Annotated Issue List
698 Amend 3 .2.4(D) - Site Lighting - to add a maximum of 1 ,000 candela per square meter (nits)
for exposed L.E.D. lighting (light emitting diodes). Add a definition to 5. 1 .2 for "candela per
square meter."
Problem Statement
Exposed L.E.D. lighting is most typically found in signage as illuminated reader boards.
Recent examples include the Walgreens at Drake and Taft; Walgreens at Drake and
College; McDonalds at College and Columbia; Dales Carpet One at Horsetooth and
Automation; College of America at Harmony and Mason.
When these exposed L.E.D. reader boards are illuminated to the point where they are
visible during the daytime, they can be exceptionally bright during the nighttime. This
causes glare and a distraction for drivers. The technology allows the illumination level to
be adjusted, particularly at night, but there are no standards in the lighting section of the
Land Use Code.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed change would require the illumination level of exposed L.E.D. lighting to
be reduced to the level where the copy is still readable but not to the level of distraction
for the public, drivers and the nighttime environment. The illumination level is measured
as Candela Per Square Meter (and referred to as nits). The level recommended is based
on the advice of Clanton and Associates, an outdoor lighting engineering consulting firm,
and matches the lighting code of Douglas County, one of the most recently adopted
lighting codes in the state.
Related Code Revisions
Ord, Section Code Cite Revision E ect
6 3.2.4(Dx10) Would set a new brightness mabmum
13 5. 1 .2 Adds a new definition
699 Amend 4.8(B)(2)(a)(3) to re-insert a clause, relating to additions on existing houses,
inadvertently deleted pursuant to the alley house changes.
Problem Statement
Numerous Land Use Code amendments were adopted in 2004 in order to implement
regulations pertaining to carriage houses and other rear lot buildings on properties in the
NCL, NCM, and NCB zones. A phrase that was in a code section prior to the changes
was inadvertently left out of that section pertaining to the NCB zone when it was
reworded in 2004. The same phrase that was inadvertently omitted from the NCB zone
regulations also previously existed in the NCM zone regulations. However, when the
2004 rewordings occurred that required multi-family dwellings to be located on the front
portion of lots, the phrase did remain intact in the NCM, as was intended, but was
accidentally dropped from the NCB.
Without reinserting the phrase in the NCB regulations, there is no process that would
allow a property owner to construct an addition to an existing tri-plex or four-plex
building. Additionally, without reinserting the phrase, there is no process that would
allow someone to convert a single-family or two-family dwelling to a tri-plex or four-plex
if the conversion required an addition. Yet, the NCB zone does allow such uses and the
Monday, November 14, 2005 Page 1 of 9
Code provides a process for someone to construct a brand new tri-plex or four-plex in the
NCB zone. Thus, we inadvertently ended up with a zone that allows brand new multi-
family dwellings to be constructed (by means of a different section of the NCB
regulations), but does not allow any size addition to an existing multi-family dwelling or
an addition to an existing building in order to create a multi-family dwelling.
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff recommends that the previously existing wording be re-inserted in Section
4.8(B)(2)(a)(3) as follows in order to correct the previous oversight. This will allow
property owners to once again make improvements to existing multifamily dwellings and
to construct additions when necessary in order to create new ones as was originally
intended by the Eastside and Westside Neighborhood Plans that were adopted in 1991 .
Related Code Revisions
Ord, Section Code Cite Revision Effect
11 4.8(Bx2xax3) Would reinsert an omitted clause
702 Clarify 3.2.4(D) - Lighting - so that adjustable angle brackets are not allowed which causes
illumination to not be down-directional. Will prevent readjustments after initial inspection.
Problem Statement
The site lighting standards in the Land Use Code contain a provision that requires light
sources to be concealed and fully shielded from view. Development applications are
reviewed during the development review process to ensure that the applicable standards
are met, and then staff conducts a site inspection at the time the construction is completed
to inspect the site for compliance with the approved plans. Staff has noticed that on
several projects, the lights were initially installed in a manner that complies with the code,
only to notice later that the angle of the light fixtures had been changed, resulting in lights
that were no longer in compliance. Since the fixtures were installed with adjustable angle
brackets, it was an easy task for the owners to adjust the angle of the fixtures so as to
direct the lighting in a manner they felt to be advantageous.
Proposed Solution Overview
In order to prevent lighting from being adjusted in a manner that creates a violation and
ongoing enforcement problems, staff recommends that Section 3 .2.4(D)(3) be amended
to require that brackets be non-adjustable.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
6 3.2.4(D) Would prohibit adjustable brackets
703 Amend 2.2. 1l (D)(3) - Term of Vested Right, or 2.2. 1 l(D)(4) - Extensions, to allow more
flexibility for large projects that need additional time due to market conditions.
Problem Statement
Recently, two large residential projects have, or come close to, expiring. Both projects
exceed 100 acres and feature L-M-N densities. Due to the size of these developments, the
owners have invested millions of dollars in public infrastructure. Section (D)(3) requires:
"Within three years. . . . the applicant must undertake, install and complete all engineering
improvements (water, sewer, streets, curb, gutter, street lights fire hydrants and storm
drainage) . . . "
The Code grants three years of vesting following final approval. Two successive
administrative six-month extensions are allowed. After that, the developer is required to
Monday, November 14, 2005 Page 2 of 9
come back to the Planning and Zoning Board which is allowed to grant extensions but
only in six-month increments.
During the vesting period, many developments are installing infrastructure but may not
have completed all improvements. There is a concern that upon investing substantial
funds into infrastructure, any denial of an extension may violate a common law vesting
under the legal interpretations of State case law. In fact, for the project that expired, City
Council granted a Determination of Vested Right under Section 2. 13 based on this legal
principle.
Since the economy may, upon occasion, hit a soft patch, and projects take longer to build-
out, there is a concern that our term of vesting may not provide sufficient flexibility for
developments that have invested heavily in public infrastructure. The other concern is that
the extension periods of six months are too short in duration and do not reflect the
complexity and time frame of installing and completing all engineering improvements.
The standard presently requires that extensions be granted only if the project continues to
comply with all applicable General Development Standards as contained in Article Three
and Zone District Standards as contained in Article Four at the time of application for the
extension. Staff is exploring one additional criterion that relates to the rate of progress
toward completing engineering improvements. This could possibly be measured as a
percentage of the total improvements required. Or, this new criterion could be measured
as a dollar amount expended thus far that achieves either a certain minimum threshold or
percentage of the total. Staff has not yet finalized this proposed standard for extensions.
Under Section 2.2 . 11 (D)(3), Council may extend the normal three year vesting period by
legislative action but only for "large base industry. " Since large residential projects could
potentially invest as much capital for public improvements as "large base industry," why
not grant Council the ability also extend vesting for other types of projects? A broadening
of this ability may be warranted under certain circumstances.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution at this time is to lengthen the duration of the extension periods
from six months to one year. In addition, a clause is added that would require some level
of development activity as criterion for granting an extension. Allowing Council to
legislatively grant extended vesting for large residential projects, currently restricted to
only "large base industry," is also recommended.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
3 2.2. 11 (D)(3) Would expand legislative vesting
3 2.2. 11 (D)(4) Would lengthen the duration of extensions
704 Amend 4. 1 (E)(1)(b) - Urban Estate Development Standards - which currently exempts
projects from having to comply with the Connectivity Standards of Sec. 3 .6.3 .
Problem Statement
Currently the Urban Estate District exempts new development projects from having to
comply with the Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards (Section 3 .6.3).
Staff from Transportation and the LUC team has reviewed this exemption due to
discussions arising from several recent U-E development projects (Fossil Lake Estates,
Lemay Avenue Estates, Falcon Ridge, Crawford Annexation). The current exemption
from 3 .6.3 is resulting in the lack of direct connectivity for pedestrians, cyclists, and
motorists within and between these new neighborhoods, limiting access to area schools,
Monday, November 14, 2005 Page 3 of 9
parks, and other nearby destinations.
The goal of section 3 .6.3 is to ensure that "Local streets provide for both intra- and inter-
neighborhood connections to knit developments together, rather than forming barriers
between them."
With the current exemption from section 3 .6.3 , Staff is unable to require development
proposals to incorporate reasonable connectivity into the project's site design, resulting in
more barriers and more out-of-direction travel for all modes. Of particular concern are
development proposals that are located in areas of our community that have existing
destinations (schools, parks, commercial areas, etc.) that are within close proximity to the
proposed site. We want to enable safe, direct, and convenient access to and from these
new neighborhoods to these types of destinations.
There is a growing realization that the Urban Estate fringe of 1997 is not the same as
today. Urbanization, allowed by L-M-N zoning, is moving out to the edges of the Growth
Management Area, especially in the southeast and northeast areas. These densities are
authorized under the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area, Mountain Vista and I-25 Sub Area
Plans. The value of Urban Estate is that it provides a mechanism to preserve the semi-
rural character of County-approved subdivisions. For newly developing U-E projects,
however, there seems to be less of clear distinction between semi-rural and urban.
This subtle blurring of land use intensity between U-E and L -M-N is characterized by
recent U-E projects that have come into the review process or have recently annexed.
Therefore, applying connectivity standards to U-E developments is appropriate to link
neighborhoods, schools, parks and open space.
Having said that, however, Staff still recognizes that there are development constraints on
the fringe of the G.M.A. that present connectivity challenges. These areas are typically
characterized by abutting County-approved subdivisions/minor residential divisions,
mobile home parks, stream corridors, irrigation ditches, railroad tracks, small farming
operations and other non-residential development.
In recognition of these constraints, Staff recommends that the U-E connectivity standard
be prefaced with the qualifier "To the extent reasonable feasible. " As defined by Article
Five, this clause allows a degree of flexibility. For example, this clause may allow the
connectivity standard to be met with a bicycle/pedestrian path versus a roadway. In many
cases, this may be sufficient. Additional flexibility is provided for in Section 3 .6.3 which
contains the Alternative Compliance provision.
In reviewing these standards, Staff also recommends deletion of the standard that refers to
minimising site disturbance caused by road grading. Given the fact that U-E is blending
into the urbanized pattern of the L-M-N zone, this standard is more appropriate for the
proposed R-U-L zone. This standard is also redundant and covered by the protections
offered by Natural Habitats and Features of Section 3 .4. 1 .
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed change would delete the standard that refers to site disturbance by road
grading and revise the standard regarding compliance with Section 3 .6.3 so as to remove
the current exemption.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision E ect
9 4. 1 (E)(1 )(b) Would delete reference to grading and require connectivity
Monday, November 14, 2005 Page 4 of 9
705 Amend 4.5(B)(3)[c] and 4.24(B)(3) to allow small Limited Mixed-Use Restaurants to the M-
M-N and H-M-N zones as permitted uses but with some restrictions. Add a definition to 5. 1 .2.
Problem Statement
There is a concern that the small deli and coffee shop land uses are important to the mix of
land uses in the M-M-N and H-M-N neighborhoods. Staff has spoken with three
developers working on projects in M-M-N zone districts with predominantly multi-family
units, but also desire to provide a small supporting coffee shop or deli within the same
structure. These are Bella Vista at the northeast corner of Horsetooth Road and Stanford
Road, Hellenic Plaza at the northwest comer of Shields Street and Birch Street, and
Mansion Park at the northwest corner of Timberline and Drake. Also, in the H-M-N, the
Frazier Subdivision at 800 - 814 West Prospect Road has a mixed-use component that
could conceivably include this type of business, although it has not been an issue to date.
M-M-N and H-M-N zones currently allow some arguably similar commercial uses: small
retail stores under 5,000 square feet; offices and clinics; personal and business service
shops, and artisan and photo studios and galleries. The intent is to allow some
complementary and supporting secondary uses in these transitional, higher-density
locations. In the arrangement of districts and neighborhoods on the City Structure Plan,
some uses overlap across adjoining districts, and that is why these limited commercial
uses are allowed in the M-M-N and H-M-N neighborhood zone districts.
For background, here are some relevant excerpts from City Plan:
"A new Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood is a place for denser, attached, small
lot, and multiple-family housing built around [a commercial activity center] . Secondarily,
these neighborhoods may also contain other moderate intensity uses which can help to
form a transition and a link between surrounding Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods
and the commercial area. "
""Policy M-M-N- 1 .2 Housing Types and Lot Sizes. Various housing types can fit this
transitional, higher-activity location, including the following:
a. small lot single-family houses (lots under 6,000 square feet)
b. duplex houses
C. townhouses (attached housing)
d. accessory dwelling units
e. group homes
f. multi-family housing
g. dwelling units stacked above or mixed with offices or work space
These housing types can readily share streets and blocks with other uses, and offer
opportunities for low- and medium-cost housing to be mixed with higher-cost housing and
non-residential uses."
""Policy M-M-N- 1 .3 Non-Residential Uses. Secondary uses can fit this transitional,
higher-activity location including the following:
a. Parks and recreation
b. Places of worship and assembly
c. Civic uses
d. Day care (adult and child)
e. Offices and clinics
f. Small businesses with low traffic and visibility needs such as service shops,
studios, workshops, bed-and-breakfasts, and uses of similar intensity
g. Neighborhood-serving retail uses"
Initial Staff discussions indicate hesitation due to a number of concerns. Nevertheless.
Monday, November 14, 2005 Page 5 of 9
staff has discussed the concept of adding a new use called, say, "Restaurant, Limited
Mixed-Use" as a permitted use in the M-M-N and H-M-N neighborhood zones. This new
use would be defined with limitations to address some serious concerns about why
restaurants would be introduced into these neighborhoods, what would be achieved, and
how negative impacts would be mitigated. An objective would be to promote only
restaurants which truly serve the neighborhood with amenity and convenience, rather than
primarily capturing general market demand or arterial traffic. Restrictions discussed
include the following topics:
-The Limited. . .Restaurant would have to be clearly subordinate to a residential project.
-The Limited. . .Restaurant would have to be contained within a residential mixed-use
building.
-The size of the Limited. ..Restaurant is be capped at certain square footage to ensure that
the scale is appropriate.
-Odor, noise, and light issues related to hoods, vents, exhaust fans, grease traps, fire
separation walls, and hours of operation would have to be addressed in some manner so
the Limited. ..Restaurant does not become a neighborhood nuisance.
Many of the operational and physical compatibility issues are already governed by the
standards found in Section 3 .5 . 1 (J).
A potential downside is that by allowing such a restaurant in the neighborhood zones,
there could be an opportunity cost on achieving goals for enhanced commercial-based
"activity centers" to which the neighborhoods are linked. Most of the M-M-N zone
locations are intentionally coupled with the N-C, Neighborhood Center zone, the C-C,
Community Commercial zone, and a couple other zones in a few cases, as complementary
land uses. Goals are high for the quality of these commercial-based activity center zone
districts, and by allowing restaurants into the M-M-N zone in particular, the economic
strength of these commercial-based zones could be diluted.
Proposed Solution Overview
The idea is to allow for small sit-down/carry-out restaurants, delicatessens or coffee
shops to be permitted within or next to mixed-use buildings located in the M-M-N and H-
M-N zone districts provided that careful size and operational requirements are met. An
option is provided that would allow a portion of the restaurant to feature sit-down service.
The requirements are intended to ensure that the non-residential use is compatible with
the surrounding area both in terms of physical appearance and intensity of use. Further,
the intent is to promote truly neighborhood-serving businesses. A new definition of
"Restaurant, Limited Mixed-Use" would have to be added to Article Five.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
10 4.5(B)(3)[c] Adds use to the MMN
12 4.24(B)(3) Adds use to the HMN
15 5. 1 .2 Adds a new definition
706 Amend 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications - to
allow for a new process called "Preliminary Design Review."
Problem Statement
Conceptual Reviews are similar to what many communities call pre-application meetings.
These reviews are not required but are strongly encouraged. A group of interdepartmental
Monday, November 14, 2005 Page 6 of 9
staff meets with applicants in half hour segments three Mondays per month and reviews
conceptual sketch plans and then provides written follow-up comments.
Minor changes have been made to Conceptual Review meetings to make them more
productive. Conceptual sketch plans are now provided prior to the meeting along with a
site vicinity map.
While these changes have improved Conceptual Review, a greater level of scrutiny is
needed for many projects, particularly for infill and redevelopment sites where unusual
constraints are often present. At times, critical issues are not identified during Conceptual
Review and this leads to a protracted review process or, in some cases, approval of an
unfeasible plan.
Proposed Solution Overview
Amend the Conceptual Review meeting, allowing for more meaningful discussion about
substantive impacts, and create the opportunity for a more detailed plan analysis to be
referred to as "Preliminary Design Review".
Conceptual Review
-Create a "preliminary" list of critical issues
-Decide whether a Preliminary Design meeting is necessary
-Determine if group site visit is warranted
-Involve key City Departments
-Provide ADA information
Preliminary Design Review
-Expand the number of departments/agencies in attendance
-Charge fee for meeting
-Lengthen meeting duration
-Determine critical issues/strategies for sign-off
-Identify necessary variances
-Choose neighborhood meeting format
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
1 2.2. 1 Adds a new pre-submittal meeting option
2 2.2.2(B) Adjusts a cross-reference
707 Amend the drive aisle width in Tables A & B of 3.2.2(L) "one-sided loading width" and two-
sided loading width" by replacing "loading width" with "drive aisle" to match LCUASS.
Problem Statement
Section 3 .2 .2(L) of the LUC contains two tables that set forth the parking lot dimensions
for parking spaces and drive aisles. Table A contains the regulations for standard size
parking spaces and Table B contains the regulations for compact vehicle parking spaces.
The dimensions shown in both tables for the drive aisle and backup space widths are
noted as applying in situations where the drive aisle has parking on either both sides of the
aisle (two-sided loading) or on only one side of the aisle (one-sided loading). This
terminology has led to confusion, not only among developers but also among staff. The
standards in LCUASS and many other jurisdictions refer to these particular dimensions as
being for one-way or two-way drive aisles.
Proposed Solution Overview
In order to eliminate the confusion that has arisen from the differing terminology in
various codes and standards, staff recommends that the language in Tables A and B of
Section 3 .2.2(L) of the LUC be amended as follows in order to achieve a more universal
Monday, November 14, 2005 Page 7 of 9
consistency.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
5 3.2.2(L) Revises terminology for consistency with LCUASS
708 Amend 3 .6.2(L) - Private Drives - to allow more than 4 single family lots, more than 660 feet
in length, and naming and addressing.
Problem Statement
The Land Use Code does not permit private drives to serve more than four single family
lots, exceed 660 feet and be allowed a street name and address.
There appears to be a growing need to construct private drives in lieu of public streets,
particularly on smaller redevelopment and infill sites with small lot detached single family
housing where a wider street cannot be readily accommodated. These concerns were
identified during the Infill and Redevelopment Project.
In the past, functional hurdles have restricted the use of private drives. The amount of
space available to layout utilities is limited and there have been a host of emergency
access issues. While the utility issues can typically be resolved through careful utility
coordination and dedication of appropriately-sized utility easements, emergency service
providers have been frustrated with their lack of ability to find units fronting private drives
during fires or medical emergencies.
Since private drives are often providing rear vehicular access to dwelling units with no
clear "entry door" to the unit, this has provided a challenge for emergency service
providers. Addressing "kiosks" , a centrally-located structure identifying the building
addresses, have been one specific method that has been tried, but has not worked well.
Other methods to identify more remote residential units have been unsuccessful.
Overflow parking has been an issue on narrow streets in the past. Solutions include
providing guest parking areas, parking in areas defined by "notching-out" spaces and by
lane striping that makes it obvious that parking in the travel lane is prohibited. These
potential solutions are designed to be self-evident and therefore would not require specific
parking enforcement.
The potential downside is that second and third generation homeowners might not be
aware of the private ownership status of the drive. This could lead to citizen demand for
public services for maintenance and replacement. One solution to this would be that street
signs for Private Drives could be painted a distinctively different color thereby indicating
a different status of street.
Proposed Solution Overview
Permit more than four single family lots on private drives that exceed 660 feet in length.
In addition allow assignment of street names and addresses to comply with the
requirements of the Poudre Fire Authority. Along with this policy change would be
adoption of a requirement that private street signs be painted a prominent color that aids
the public in distinguishing between public and private streets.
Related Code Revisions
Ord, Section Code Cite Revision Effect
7 3.6.2(L) Would allow broader usage of private drives for residential
Monday, November 14, 2005 Page 8 of 9
709 Amend 2.9.2 - Amendment to Zoning Map - to allow rezonings for projects qualifying as
of anytime.
Problem Statement
Rezoning applications are processed only twice per calendar year, with applications
considered by the Planning and Zoning Board in March or April and again in September
or October. Concern has been expressed that the biannual cycle is not responsive to the
needs of the development community, particularly on redevelopment sites where the
likelihood of rezoning is often greater than on "greenfield" sites. If a prospective applicant
"just misses" a rezoning application deadline, they must wait another six months for
consideration. As a result of this limitation to a biannual cycle, developers are
substantially increasing their degree of risk and paying a premium in both time and
carrying costs. These concerns were identified during the Infill and Redevelopment
Project.
Proposed Solution Overview
Allows rezoning applications for "redevelopment" anytime.
Related Code Revisions
Ord, Section Code Cite Revision E ect
4 2.9.2 Allows rezoning applications for redevelopment anytime
14 5. 1 .2 Adds a definition for Redevelopment
711 Amend 3 .6.3(H)(1 ) - Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards - Alternative Compliance - by
deleting the reference to "modifications" as this standard does not pertain to modifications.
Problem Statement
This section of the Code describes the Alternative Compliance procedure and criteria for
only those standards under Street Pattern and Connectivity. The Modification of
Standards section of the Code is found under 2. 8 . Therefore, it is confusing for
3 .6.3 (H)( 1 ) to contain a reference to "modifications."
Proposed Solution Overview
Delete the reference to "modifications. "
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision f ect
8 3.6.3(Hx1 ) Deletes the word "modifications"
Tuesday, November 22, 2005 Page 9 of 9
ORDINANCE NO . 161 , 2005
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 , 19975 by Ordinance No . 51 , 1997, the Council of the
City of Fort Collins adopted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code") ; and
WHEREAS , at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the
understanding of staff and Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject
to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors,
but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic document
capable of responding to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and
citizens of the City; and
WHEREAS , the staff of the City and the Planning and Zoning Board have
reviewed the Land Use Code and identified and explored various issues related to the
Land Use Code and have made recommendations to the Council regarding such issues;
and
WHEREAS , the Council has determined that the Land Use Code amendments
which have been proposed are in the best interest of the City and its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF FORT COLLINS that the Land Use Code is hereby amended as follows :
Section 1 . That Section 2 .2 . 1 (E) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
2.2. 1 Step 1 : Conceptual Review/Preliminary Design Review
(A) Conceptual Review.
(Al ) Purpose. Conceptual review is an opportunity for an applicant to
discuss requirements, standards and procedures that apply to his or
her development proposal. Major problems can be identified and
solved during conceptual review before a formal application is
made.
Representatives of the Community Planning and Environmental
Services, Transportation Services, Poudre Fire Authority, Police
Services, Water & Wastewater Utility, Electric Utility, Storm
Drainage Utility, Building and Zoning Department, and Cultural,
Library and Recreation Services regularly attend conceptual
review meetings .
1
(B2) Applicability. A conceptual review is mandatory for all overall
development plans and for project development plans not subject
to an overall development plan. Conceptual review must occur at
least one ( 1 ) day prior to submittal of any application for an overall
development plan or project development plan which is not subject
to an overall development plan. The conceptual review may be
waived by the Director for those development proposals that, in his
or her opinion, would not derive substantial benefit from such
review.
(E3) Concept Plan Submittal. The applicant shall bring a sketch showing
the location of the proposed project, major streets and other
significant features in the vicinity to the Conceptual Review meeting.
(D4) Staff Review and Recommendation. Upon receipt of a concept plan,
and after review of such plan with the applicant, the Director shall
furnish the applicant with written comments regarding such plan,
including appropriate recommendations to inform and assist the
applicant prior to preparing the components of the development
application.
(B) Preliminary Design Review:
( 1 ) Purpose. Preliminary design review is an opportunity for an
applicant to discuss requirements, standards, procedures, potential
modifications of standards or variances that may be necessary for a
project and to generally consider in greater detail the development
proposal design which has been evaluated as a part of the
conceptual review process . While the conceptual review process is
a general consideration of the development proposal, preliminary
design review is a consideration of the development proposal in
greater detail . Problems of both a major and minor nature can be
identified and solved during the preliminary design review before a
formal application is made .
Representatives of the Community Planning and Environmental
Services, Transportation Services, Poudre Fire Authority, Police
Services, Water & Wastewater Utility, Electric Utility, Storm
Drainage Utility, Building and Zoning Department, and Cultural,
Library and Recreation Services regularly attend preliminary
design review meetings. Additionally, other public or quasi-public
agencies which may be impacted by the development project are
invited and encouraged to attend the preliminary design review.
These agencies may include the gas utility, water and/or
wastewater utility districts, ditch companies, railroads, cable
television service providers, and other similar agencies .
2
(2) Applicability. Although a preliminary design review is not
mandatory, it may be requested by the applicant for any
development proposal . A request for preliminary design review
may be made in an informal manner, either in writing or orally, but
must be accompanied by the payment of the application fee as
established in the development review fee schedule . Preliminary
design review, if requested by the applicant, must occur at least
seven (7) days prior to the submittal of any application for an
overall development plan or project development plan which is not
subject to an overall development plan.
(3) Preliminary Plan Submittal. In conjunction with a preliminary
design review, the applicant shall submit all documents required
for such review as established in the development application
submittal requirements master list.
(4D) Staff Review and Recommendation. Upon receipt of a
preliminary development proposal for review, and after review of
such proposal with the applicant, the Director shall furnish the
applicant with written comments and recommendations regarding
such proposal in order to inform and assist the applicant prior to
preparing components of the development appliation. In
conjunction with the foregoing, the Director shall provide the
applicant with a " critical issues list" which will identify those
critical issues which have surfaced in the preliminary design
review as issues which must be resolved during the review process
of the formal development application. The critical issues list will
provide to applicants the opinion of the Director regarding the
development proposal, as that opinion is established based upon
the facts presented during conceptual review and preliminary
design review. To the extent that there is a misunderstanding or a
misrepresentation of the facts, the opinion of the Director may
change during the course of development review. The positions of
the Director that are taken as a part of the cricital issues list may be
relied upon by applicants, but only insofar as those positions are
based upon clear and precise facts presented in writing, either
graphically or textually on plans or other submittals, to the
Director during the course of preliminary design review.
Section 2 . That Section 2 . 2 . 2 (B) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
(B) Applicability. A neighborhood meeting shall be required on any
development proposal that is subject to Planning and Zoning Board
review unless the Director determines as a part of the staff review and
3
recommendation required pursuant to Section ''� 2 . I (D)2.2. 1 (A)(4)
that the development proposal would not have significant
neighborhood impacts .
Section 3 . That Sections 2 .2 . 11 (D)(3 )and (4) of the Land Use Code are
hereby amended to read as follows :
(3) Term of Vested Right. Within a maximum of three (3)
years following the approval of a final plan or other site
specific development plan, the applicant must undertake,
install and complete all engineering improvements (water,
sewer, streets, curb, gutter, street lights, fire hydrants and
storm drainage) in accordance with city codes, rules and
regulations . The period of time shall constitute the "term of
the vested property right. " The foregoing term of the
vested property right shall not exceed three (3 ) years
unless : (a) an extension is granted pursuant to paragraph
(4) of this subsection, or (b) the city and the developer enter
into a development agreement which vests the property
right for a period exceeding three (3) years. Such
agreement may be entered into by the city only if the
subject development constitutes a
" large base industry" as defined in Article 5 , or if the
Director determines that it will likely take more than five
(5 ) years to complete all engineering improvements for the
development, and only if warranted in light of all relevant
circumstances, including, but not limited to, the size and
phasing of the development, economic cycles and market
conditions . Any such development agreement shall be
adopted as a legislative act subject to referendum. Failure
to undertake and complete the development within the term
of the vested property right shall cause a forfeiture of the
vested property right and shall require resubmission of all
materials and reapproval of the same to be processed as
required by this Land Use Code . All dedications as
contained on the final plat shall remain valid unless vacated
in accordance with law.
(4) Extensions . Extensions for two (2) successive periods of six
(6 me son ( 1 ) year each may be granted by the Director,
upon a finding that the plan complies with all general
development standards as contained in Article 3 and Zone
District Standards as contained in Article 4 at the time of the
application for the extension. Any additional six me one
( 1 ) year extensions shall be approved, if at all, only by the
Planning and Zoning Board, upon a finding that the plan
4
complies with all applicable general development standards
as contained in Article 3 and Zone District Standards as
contained in Article 4 at the time of the application for the
extension, and that the applicant has been diligent in
constructing the engineering improvements required
pursuant to paragraph (3 ) above, though such improvements
have not been fully constructed. A request for an extension
of the term of vested right under this Section must be
submitted to the Director in writing at least thirty (30) days
prior to the date of expiration. Time is of the essence. The
granting of extensions by the Director under this Section
may, at the discretion of the Director, be referred to the
Planning and Zoning Board,
Section 4 . That Section 2 . 9 .2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
2.9.2. Applicability
Any and all amendments to the text of this Land Use Code and any and all
changes to the Zoning Map must be processed in accordance with this Division.
Commencing one ( 1 ) year after the effective date of this Land Use Code,
amendments to the Zoning Map shall be processed only twice per calendar year
and shall be considered by the Planning and Zoning Board in March or April and
in September or October of such year; provided, however, that this limitation shall
not apply to petitions for amendments to the Zoning Map initiated by the owners
of properties in the Transition District, which petitions shall be governed by the
provisions of Section 4 . 9(B)(2), for properties located within the Infill Area or
that are considered Redevelopment, or to initial Zoning Map amendments
following annexation, or to Zoning Map amendments which are founded upon the
adoption and implementation of a subarea plan. Only the Council may, after
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board, adopt an ordinance amending
the text of this Land Use Code or the Zoning Map in accordance with the
provisions of this Division.
Section 5 . That Section 3 .2 .2(L) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
TABLE A
Standard Vehicle Dimensions in feet
A B C D E F G
00 8 23 8 23 20 12
30" 8 . 5 20 17 . 4 17 20 15
5
450 8 .5 20 20.2 12 20 15
600 9 19 21 10.4 24 20
900 9 19 19 9 24* 20 * *
TABLE B
Compact Vehicle Dimensions in feet
A B C D E F G
00 7 . 5 19 7 . 5 19 20 12
300 7 . 5 16 . 5 14 . 8 15 20 15
450 7 . 5 16 . 5 17 10 . 6 20 15
600 8 16 17 . 9 9 .2 24 20
900 8 15 15 8 24 * 20 * *
A-Angle of Parking
B-Stall Width
C-Stall Length
D-Stall Depth
E-Curb Length
F-Two-Sided Loadingway Drive Aisle Width
G-One Sided LoadingWay drive Aisle Width
*When garages are located along a driveway and are opposite other garages or buildings, the
driveway width must be increased to 28 feet.
**When an overhand is allowed to reduce stall depth, aisle width must be increased to 22 feet.
(See Figure 4)
Section 6 . That Section 3 .2 .4(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
(3 ) Light sources shall be concealed and fully shielded and
shall feature sharp cut-off capability so as to minimize up-
light, spill-light, glare and unnecessary diffusion on
adjacent property. Light fixtures shall be attached to poles
and buildings by the use of non-adjustable-angle brackets or
other mounting hardware. Under-canopy fueling areas shall
feature flush-mount, flat lens light fixtures.
( 10) Exposed L .E .D . (light emitting diode) lighting shall be
limited to a maximum of one thousand ( 1 ,000) candela per
square meter (nits) .
6
Section 7 . That Section 3 . 6 . 2(L) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
(L) Private Drives.
( 1 ) When Allowed.
(b) Primary access in single-family developments. A
private drive, instead of a street, shall be allowed to
provide primary access to an
unusually
y shape
pafeel of land to senre up to four- ( 4 ) iselated single
family residential development, provided that
the drive is connected to only one ( 1 ) street. The
f6fe roing limit of foul (4) single
family
lots shag
aecess to pfopef �t �as street ftontage an
(
(2) Design Requirements. Private drives shall be designed to
meet the following criteria:
(a) If any property served by the private drive cannot
receive fire emergency service from a public street,
then all emergency access design requirements shall
apply to the private drive in accordance with
Section 3 . 6 . 6 . An "emergency access easement"
must be dedicated to the city for private drives that
provide emergency access, and such private drive
shMfl. n.otenxseed. six hun.dffed. sixty feet ifl.
length,
(c) Maxl=m dead-end •�,-crrrde length shall be one
hundred fifty ( 150) feet exeept for- pfiva* dr-ives
thaprovide additional aceess aszefefeneed i
The design of private drives
shall comply with all the standards for Emergency
Access as contained in Section 3 . 6 . 6 .
(5 ) Naming and Addressing. Private drives shall not-be named,
if necessary, to comply with the standards for Emergency
Access as contained in Section 3 . 6 . 6 . Addressing of the
property shall be fieffl the n4rvo4 f,.,,m ., ,hie pr-i at=y ,, eeesn
to the ,-.fopefty is take assigned by the city in conformance
with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards .
Section 8 . That Section 3 . 6 . 3 (H)( 1 ) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
to read as follows :
(H) Alternative Compliance. Upon request by an applicant, the
decision maker may approve an alternative development plan that
may be substituted in whole or in part for a plan meeting the
standards of this Section.
( 1 ) Procedure. Alternative compliance development plans
shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with
submittal requirements for plans as set forth in this Section.
The plan and design shall clearly identify and discuss the
moth fieatio s and alternatives proposed and the ways in
which the plan will better accomplish the purpose of this
Section than would a plan which complies with the
standards of this Section.
Section 9 . That Section 4 . 1 (E)( 1 ) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
(E) Development Standards.
( 1 ) Street Connectivity and Design. The following standards
shall apply to all development in the Urban Estate District:
i maximum ex GefA feasible, stfeet shall�G
Eesigiie'd t6 " mriien the—c`�3acrirt of site. distumba ee
caused by roadway
an associated
ssociate grading
require
fiqr their r�v. n4riir�� �v.
(ba) To the extent reasonably feasible Ddevelopment in
this District shall be exempt
& mcomply with the
st&HdWr- equirements contained in Section 3 . 6 . 3 ,
Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards, in order
to provide integration between neighborhoods.
Section 10 . That Section 4 . 5 (B)(3 )(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
by the addition of a new subparagraph 3 which reads in its entirety as follows :
8
3 . Restaurant, limited mixed-use .
Section 11 . That Section 4 . 8(B)(2)(a)3 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
3 . Multi-family dwellings up to four (4) units
which propose structural additions or
exterior alterations to the existing building,
or the dwellings are to be constructed on a
lot or parcel which contained a structure on
October 25 , 1991 , provided that such multi-
family dwelling is located within a street-
fronting principal building.
Section 12 . That Section 4 .24(B)(3 ) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
to read as follows :
(c) Commercial/Retail Uses :
1 . Restaurant, limited mixed-use .
(ed) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses :
1 . Wireless telecommunications equipment.
Section 13 . That Section 5 . 1 .2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new definition " Candela per square meter (nits) " which reads in its entirety
as follows :
Candela per square meter (nits) shall mean a unit of measurement referring to the
illumination of exposed L .E .D . (light emitting diode) lighting and also referred to
as nits .
Section 14 . That Section 5 . 1 .2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new definition "Redevelopment" which reads in its entirety as follows :
Redevelopment shall mean the intensification of use of existing underutilized
buildings and/or development sites, building rehabilitation, or removal or demolition of
existing buildings, followed promptly by construction of replacement buildings .
9
Section 15 . That Section 5 . 1 .2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new definition "Restaurant, limited mixed-use" which reads in its entirety as
follows :
Restaurant, limited mixed-use shall mean any establishment in which the principal
business is the sale of food and beverages to the customer in a ready-to consume state,
and in which the design or principal method of operation includes all of the following
characteristics :
( 1 ) food and beverages are usually served in edible containers or in paper,
plastic or other disposable containers ;
(2) the consumption of food and beverages is encouraged or permitted within
the restaurant building, elsewhere on the premises or for carryout;
(3 ) there is no drive-in or drive-through facility as a part of the establishment;
(4) the establishment is contained within or physically abuts a multi-family
dwelling;
(5) the establishment is clearly subordinate and accessory to a multi-family
dwelling;
(6) the establishment shall not exceed one thousand five hundred ( 1 ,500) feet
in gross leasable floor area;
(7) the establishment shall not engage in serving alcohol; and
(8) the establishment shall not engage in the playing of amplified music .
Introduced and considered favorably on first reading and ordered published this
29th day of November, A.D . 2005 , and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day
of December, A.D . , 2005 .
Mayor
ATTEST :
City Clerk
10
Passed and adopted on final reading this 20tt day of December, A. D . 2005 .
Mayor
ATTEST :
City Clerk
11