HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 06/07/2005 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 070, 2005, MAKING V ITEM NUMBER: 34
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: June 7, Zoos
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Ted Shepard
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 070, 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 Spring
biannual update of the Land Use Code. On May 19, 2005, the Planning and Zoning Board
considered the proposed changes and voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the proposed changes
to City Council. The Board then voted 5-1 to recommend to Council that staff be directed to
reexamine the neighborhood compatibility criteria related to Small Scale Reception Centers.
These actions are summarized in the attached memo.
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 summary of the Planning and Zoning Board's action and a summary of all
the issues as well as the draft Ordinance itself.
In addition, at the March 22 work session, Council requested three additional items. First, a
report on Parking Flexibility is provided in response to the question on finding two specific
commercial parking code standards that could be applied on a flexible basis. Second, a diagram
is provided indicating how increasing the number of dwelling units per building in the L-M-N
zone beyond the present maximum of eight to twelve could create additional open space or
larger yards. Third, more information is provided on the C-L, Limited Commercial zone district.
June 7, 2005 -2- Item No. 34
ATTACHMENTS
1. Land Use Code Issues List
2. Annotated Ordinance Index
3. Land Use Code Maintenance Process - Annotated Issue List
4. Summary of Planning and Zoning Board Discussion Regarding Performance Standards
for Small Scale Reception Centers in the Urban Estate District
5. Commercial Parking Standards Flexibility and Status of Code Change Item#678
6. Allowing more than Eight Dwelling Units per Building in L-M-N Zone
7. C-L - Limited Commercial Zone Item#686
ATTACHMENT
Land Use Code Issues
Wednesday,June 01,2005
Issue ID# Issue Name
608 Amend 3.8.3(11)-Home Occupations-to delete the license fee from the Code entirely and add it to the list of
fees that can be set admininstratively by the City Manager.
679 Amend 3.8.8 (A)-Lots-Area and Width-to not allow the land area associated with private drives to count
towards meeting the minimum lot area requirements. And add a new definition for a"private driveway."
680 Amend 2.8.2(G)Step 7(A)-Modifications-so that a Type One applicant has the option of submitting a
Request for Modification to the Planning and Zoning Board.
681 Amend 2.2.7[C](3-5)-Order of Proceedings at Public Hearings-so that public testimony is taken after Staff
Response.
682 Correct the definition of"Lot size" so that the reference is back to 3.8.8,not 3.7.8 which does not exist.
683 Amend 4.1(E)(2)(d)-Site Design for U-E Residential Cluster Development-so standards are not tied to R-L
minimum standards for lot area,lot width,front,rear and side yard&height. Would allow greater creativity
with no change in allowable density.
684 Clarify 3.2.2(K)(5)(d)-Handicap Parking-so that at least one van-accessible space is required regardless of
the number of standard handicap spaces required.
685 Clarify 2.12.4-Annexation of Uses Not Legally Permitted-as the last paragraph seems to cloud the
enforcement issue. To clarify,add a reasonable(2-year)amortization period for phasing out illegal uses.
686 Consider amending the C-L zone to allow Outdoor Storage(i.e.towing impound lot)as a principal use. Would
have to be set back from arterials by 35 feet. Currently only allowed in Industrial zone.
691 Clarify 3.8.27(F)-Performance Standards for Small Scale Reception Centers in U-E-so that direct access is
further defined as not adding traffic to existing local neighborhood streets.
692 Clarify 3.5.2(B)-Housing Model Variety-by adding a cross-reference to 3.8.15 which allows the standard to
be met at the time of building permit by an affidavit.
693 Clarify three definitions to reflect that the"Natural Areas Inventory Map"has been updated and re-titled to
"Natural Habitat and Features Inventory Map."
694 Delete 3.3.3(A)(4)&(5)-Water Hazards-as this sub-section is redundant with(3)and also duplicated in
Chapter 10 of the City Code.
695 Clarify 3.5.1(G)(1)[c]-Modification to Height Limits-to delete the reference to"Director or the Planning and
Zoning Board"and replace with"Decision Maker."
696 Correct 2.8.2(K)-Modifications-Step 11 -(Lapse)-so the cross-reference is back to Section 2.8.1,not 2.7.1
which is not pertinent to this section
697 Amend 3.8.17(A)(2)-Measuring Building Height-so measuring the height of a residential story,in those
zones where height and building compatibility could be sensitive,would be defined as 12 feet 8 inches,not 25
feet from floor to floor.
Wednesday,June 01,2005 Page I of I
ATTACHMENT 2
1
At ] ovt
0
u
ego
w
a .o •c y� en
�rR
� � a•5 S w � "B ��E S �`� _5 $ � � � Vim ? "5� '8�
U� � � Y � F � •��.� N � � ^ Y O M y x U d
Sa Fam u RN ua Q u � a . u
O b b b b b b b b b
W
� V
w 0.
a as u u ul s
�UNt
O �\ N 0 0 W
V N N N e+f Nf rf Nj e1 _
V � O
yraJ ll� _• r N t1 V N V l� e0 O. •�
w
0
N
Y
O.
s S '���,, Y •q� C g SS � � K. ry $S p ($ •� Y •�•�Y •H
S � •� G $ S SyyS y y��!$ �4 -
PC
e a�:y�� s �. �'�e8Fp •gxv �p .n�0�p ,9da889.�� ,—e�° � ,° ;� �s ;� �iq.ffi ;� ��
00 � � H • aC mO i � N � Y � W ¢�D '�� � ss � � � � �� � �5. � �S
u. pp
3 .) u u s u s s
Y V b b b V b b V b
Iti
V y]
9 m 9
s
M 0 Y >
> p3
O O
99
a ®
y
N {�
71 CO •..i N W S 'N N .Ni O
n1 Mf V V N N M V1 N
O P
�y
W
� r 3
w
0
a
o
m
sW
� � s
'e3 � � e�
R
P
r
d �
7
0
r
C>C
�Y
.d.
.0
w
a+
W e
OC
a
y
U
w
8
V h N
O
�y
Y
� a a
ATTACHMENT
Land Use Code Maintenance Process
Annotated Issue List
608 Amend 3.8.3(11)-Home Occupations-to delete the license fee from the Code entirely and
add it to the list of fees that can be set admininstratively by the City Manager.
Problem Statement
The home occupation regulations contain a provision that a home occupation license fee
of$10 must be paid at the time of license issuance. Unlike most other land use fees,this
fee has never been changed. The$10 fee was appropriate 20 years ago,but the fee should
be increased in order to more accurately recover the costs associated with processing,
reviewing,and recording home occupation licenses and renewals.
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff recommends that Section 3.8.3(11)of the LUC be amended to increase the home
occupation license fee to$20:
Related Code Revisions
ord Section Code Cite Revision Effect
9 3.8.3(11) Increase Home Occupations License fee.
679 Amend 3.8.8(A)-Lots-Area and Width-to not allow the land area associated with private
drives to count towards meeting the minimum lot area requirements. And add a now
definition for a"private driveway."
Problem Statement
This is a minor housekeeping item to clarify intent. A residential subdivision
development recently highlighted an apparent loophole in minimum lot size requirements.
Some house lots were developed to abut a private drive rather than a public street. This
occurred in a zone district with a 6,000 square-foot minimum lot size. The private drive
looked just like a street,but it was contained within an easement along the front of each
lot. So the remaining portion of the lot which looks and functions like a lot is now less
than the 6,000 square feet,as would be required if the street was a public street. This is
not the intent of the minimum lot size.
Proposed Solution Overview
Clarify the standard so it is clear that private streets and drives that are not individual
driveways cannot be counted towards meeting minimum lot area requirements. And add
a new definition for"private driveway"for clarity.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
10 3.8.8 Prevents private drives to be counted as lot area.
19 5.1.2 Adds a new definition for private driveway.
680 Amend 2.8.2(G)Step 7(A)-Modifications-so that a Type One applicant has the option of
submitting a Request for Modification to the Planing and Zoning Board.
Problem Statement
Presently,a Type One(Administrative)Request for Modification is required to be
considered by the Hearing Officer and a Type Two Request for Modification is required
Wednesday,June 01,2005 Page 1 of 10
to be considered by the Planning and Zoning Board. There is no provision for a Type One
Request for Modification to have the option of being considered by the Planning and
Zoning Board where seven members could evaluate the proposal versus one Hearing
Officer. There may be cases where an applicant may find it advantageous for a Request
for Modification to be heard by a seven member board.
Proposed Solution Overview
Amend the Request for Modification procedure to allow the option of a Type One
Request for Modification to be considered by the Planning and Zoning Board.
Related Code Revisions
Ord,Section Code Cfte Revision Effect
2 2.8.2(G) Allows th option of Type One requests for Modifications to
be heard by the PBZ.
681 Amend 2.2.7[C](3-5)-Order of Proceedings at Public Hearings-so that public testimony is
taken after Staff Response.
Problem Statement
The Planning and Zoning Board has observed that,in many instances,the issues and
concerns expressed by the general public are answered at a later point in the hearing under
Applicant and Staff Response. If public testimony is taken after Staff Response,then it
may be likely that the questions and concerns of the citizens could be addressed prior to
their public testimony. A re-ordering of the proceedings could save time and contribute to
more efficient hearings.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed change would re-order the proceedings.
Related Code Revisions
Ord,Section Code Cite Revision Elect
1 2.2.7[Cl(3-5) Reorders the public hearing sequence.
682 Correct the definition of"Lot size" so that the reference is back to 3.8.8,not 3.7.8 which does
not exist
Problem Statement
The definition of"lot size"in Article 5 of the Land Use Code references Section 3.7.8.
However,there is no such section in the Code. The section that is intended to be
referenced is Section 3.8.8.
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff recommends that the definition of"lot size"in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code
be reviesed to provide the correct cross reference.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Elect
15 5.1.2 Corrects a cross-reference error.
683 Amend 4.1(E)(2Xd)-Site Design for U-E Residential Cluster Development-so standards are
not tied to R-L minimum standards for lot area,lot width,front,rear and side yard&height
Would allow greater creativity with no change in allowable density.
Problem Statement
The Urban Estate district provides the option of consolidating the overall allowable gross
Wednesday,June 01,2005 Page 2 of 10
residential density(two dwelling units per acre)into a cluster,as long as 50%of the gross
land area is preserved as open space. Within the cluster,the design of the lots and
building placement is required to conform to the minimum standards of the R-L zone.
This concept of clustering is a carryover from the old Zoning Code which allowed the
cluster option in the R-F,Foothills Residential District.
A comparison of the R-L minimum standards,from Section 4.3(D),and the General
Development Standards—Residential Building Setbacks,Lot Width and Size,from
Section 3.5.2(D)is summarized below:
EXISTING RL
Lot Size:6,000 s.f.minimum
Lot Width:60 ft.single family; 100 ft.duplex
Front Yard Setback: 20 feet
Rear Yard Setback: 15 feet
Side Yard Width: 5 feet interior; 15 feet comer
Maximum Height: 28 feet
PROPOSED 3.5.2(D)
Lot Size:No minimum
Lot Width: 50 feet*
Front Yard Setback: 15 feet
Rear Yard Setback: 8 feet
Side Yard Width: 5 feet interior; 15 feet comer
Maximum Height 2.5 stories
•An Alternative Compliance provision is available subject to satisfaction of certain
criteria.
To date,we have not received a single application for an Urban Estate Cluster Plan. We
have heard from consultants and developers that R-L standards are overly restrictive and
stifle flexibility in lot layout and building and garage layout.
In order to make the U-E cluster option more attractive,and to allow for more
contemporary design,the proposed change would eliminate the reference to the R-L
standards. The result would be that an Urban Estate cluster development plan could
potentially demonstrate more new urbanism design characteristics than a typical R-L
neighborhood. Further,there could potentially be more flexibility in lot sizes,lot
frontages,building placement,recessed garage placement or alley-loaded garages.
There would be no change in allowable density or any diminution in the required amount
of open space. There would simply be more flexibility in design of the lots and building
placement within the cluster.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution would delete the reference to the R-L zone for minimum area of
lot,minimum width front yard,minimum rear yard and minimum side yard. Instead,the
reference would be to General Development Standard Section 3.5.2(3)—Residential
Building Setbacks,Lot Width and Size which governs these design attributes on a city-
wide basis,unless preempted by a specific zone district standard that takes precedence
over General Development Standards.
The maximum allowable height would change from 28 feet to 2.5 stories to match that
allowed in the L-M-N zone.
Related Code Revisions
Wednesday,June 01,2005 Page 3 of 10
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
13 4.1(Ex2xd) Revise Cluster Develop standards in the UE zone.
684 Clarify 3.2.2(K)(5)(d)-Handicap Parking-so that at least one van-accesuble space is
required regardless of the number of standard handicap spaces required.
Problem Statement
The current wording of Section 3.2.2(K)(5)(d)of the LUC requires that when only one
handicap parking space is required in a parking lot,that one space must be a van
accessible space. However,the wording is such that if a parking lot is required to provide
more than one handicap space,no van accessible space is required at all. The intent of the
regulation is to ensure that there is always a minimum of one van accessible space
provided in a parking lot.
Proposed Solution Overview
The wording of Section 3.2.2(K)(5)(d)should be revised as follows in order to clarify
that there always has to be at least one van accessible parking space in a parking lot.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
5 3.2.2(Kx5xd) Revise Accessible Parking space requirements.
685 Clarify 2.12.4-Annexation of Uses Not Legally Permitted-as the last paragraph seems to
cloud the enforcement issue.To clarify,add a reasonable(2-year)amortization period for
phasing out illegal uses.
Problem Statement
Section 2.12.4 establishes the manner in which annexations are to be processed if the
property to be annexed contains a use that is illegal in the county. Specifically,if such a
situation exists,the illegal use must cease and be discontinued before the property can be
annexed into the city if the proposed zoning will not permit the use. However,if the
property is to be placed in a zone district wherein the use is listed as a permitted use,a
development application must be submitted to the City within 60 days and the plan must
show that the property will be brought into compliance with the applicable standards of
Articles 3 and 4 of the LUC. If the plan is approved,then the property must be brought
into compliance within 60 days of the plan approval. If the plan is denied,then the use
must cease within 30 days of the denial,even though the use is permitted in the zone. Of
course,the property owner can resubmit an application and pursue a plan approval.
This process only applies to a single property annexation. If there are more than one
separately owned parcels involved in the annexation,then the last paragraph of this
Section states that the above-described process does not apply. This basically means that
the Code is silent with regards to the treatment of illegal county uses that are on properties
in an enclave annexation. Therefore,it is not clear whether the City should allow the use
to continue upon annexation,even if the property is placed in a zone district that does not
allow the use,or whether the City should begin immediate enforcement action to shut the
use down once it is annexed.
Proposed Solution Overview
Single property annexations are usually voluntary annexations. However,the enclave
properties that contain an illegal use are usually being annexed involuntarily. In many
cases,the County has knowingly allowed the use to continue illegally for many years,
thereby allowing the property owner to establish a viable business with some"defacto"
vesting. Once the property is annexed,is the City supposed to be the"bad guy"and put
someone immediately out of business after they have been allowed to continue in
Wednesday,June 01,2005 Page 4 of 10
operation for a substantial period of time and didn't ask to be annexed to begin with?
Staff believes that a two-year amortization period is the fairest and most appropriate
method by which to deal with these illegal county uses since the properties are usually the
subject of an involuntary annexation and the owner has been allowed to establish and
continue the use in the county. A clarification is provided that establishes the timeframe
as the date of the second reading of the annexation ordinance. Therefore,it is
recommended that Section 2.12.4 of the LUC be amended to provide these clarifications.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
4 2.12.4 Clarify Annexation of Uses Not Legally Permitted.
686 Consider amending the C-L zone to allow Outdoor Storage(Le.towing impound lot)as a
principal use. Would have to be set back from arterials by 35 feet. Currently only allowed in
Industrial zone.
Problem Statement
Outdoor Storage is defined in Article 5 as:
"...the keeping,in an unroofed area,of any equipment,goods,junk,material,merchandise
or vehicles in the same place for more than twenty-four(24)hours."
Such a use is allowed as an accessory use in all zones,but as a principal use it is allowed
only in the I(industrial)zone. Staff has recently received a request to allow an existing
vehicle repair business in the C-L zone to establish a towing business on the lot abutting
their existing accessory use outdoor storage area. The towing business and impound lot
would not be considered accessory to the repair business. Therefore,it is not allowed
unless the permitted use list is amended to include outdoor storage as a principal use.
The I zone is the least restrictive zone in the city and the C-L zone is the second least
restrictive. These 2 zones allow many of the same uses,and are the only two zones that
allow"Farm implement&heavy equipment sales"and"Mobile home recreational
vehicle,and truck sales and storage". Additionally,both zones allow major vehicle repair
uses(i.e.body shops)that typically will have outdoor storage areas as a permitted
accessory use,wherein vehicles will be"stored"for a period of time while they are in the
process of being repaired. All of the above-described uses are similar in appearance and
impact to a principal use outdoor storage facility.
Proposed Solution Overview
The C-L zone encompasses a total of 35.5 acres,which amounts to 1/10th of one percent
of the total acreage within the city. Staff recommends that the list of permitted uses in the
C-L zone be amended by adding"outdoor storage facilities"as a principal use(Type 1).
Such a use is consistent with the other uses already allowed in the C-L zone and is
supported by the purpose statement of the C-L zone which states that:
"The Limited Commercial District is intended for areas with commercial uses,
automobile-oriented businesses which usually contain outdoor display or storage of
vehicles,and service uses..."
Additionally,an outdoor storage facility is required to be screened from view with such
elements as fencing and landscaping. Therefore,the visible impacts associated with an
outdoor storage lot are mitigated. However,in order to ensure that the visual impact of
screening fences or walls along arterial streets is minirrizad,it is also recommended that
the use must be at least 35'behind the flow line of the abutting street.Finally,the use will
be further defined to prevent a towing impound lot to become a junk or auto salvage yard.
Wednesday,June 01,2005 Page 5 of 10
Section 4.20(B)(2)of the Land Use Code should be amended by adding a new subsection
(e)(1).
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
14 4.20(Bx2) Add"outdoor storage"as a permitted use in the C-L Zone.
691 Clarify 3.8.27(F)-Performance Standards for Small Scale Reception Centers in U-E-so that
direct access is further defined as not adding traffic to existing local neighborhood streets.
Problem Statement
There is a concern that the standard as presently written is unintentionally vague causing
multiple interpretations. The Planning and Zoning Board requested Staff clarify the
standard to avoid any differing interpretations in the future.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed change would add clarifying language consistent with public testimony
from Staff to the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council. It is not the intent of this
code change to cause any previously approved Project Development Plan to now fall out
of compliance with this standard upon adoption of this change.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
12 3.8.27(F) Refine performance standards for small scale events
renters.
692 Clarify 3.5.2(B)-Housing Model Variety-by adding a cross-reference to 3.8.15 which
allows the standard to be met at the time of building permit by an affidavit.
Problem Statement
The General Development Standard as described in Section 3.5.2 requires that residential
projects include a minimum of housing models on a sliding scale depending on how large
the project. Since many Project Development Plans are submitted by developers,not
builders,this standard is difficult to review during the P.D.P.stage.
To rectify this,Supplemental Regulation 3.8.15 Housing Model Variety allows this
standard to be met at the time of Building Permit Application by an affidavit from the
home builder.
The problem is that Section 3.5.2 makes no reference to Supplemental Regulation 3.8.15
causing consternation on the part of those who are not familiar with the Land Use Code.
In order to make the code more user-friendly for developers,consultants,builders,etc,a
cross-reference is recommended.
Proposed Solution Overview
Add a cross-reference to Section 3.5.2(B)directing the reader to Supplemental
Regulation 3.8.15 as to enforcement procedures.
Related Code Revisions
ord.section Code Cite Revision Elrect
8 3.5.2(B) Adds a helpful cross-reference.
693 Clarify three definitions to reflect that the"Natural Areas Inventory Map"has been updated
and retitled to"Natural Habitat and Features Inventory Map."
Wednesday,Jane 01,2005 Page 6 of 10
Problem Statement
The title of the"Natural Areas Inventory'map was changed to"Natural Habitat and
Features Inventory Map"to better reflect the information shown when the map was
updated in 2002. The current code text refers to the old map title.
Proposed Solution Overview
These proposed housekeeping changes correct references to the updated map and
document.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
16 5.1.2 Revise definition of"Native vegetation."
17 5.12 Revise definition of"Natural area."
18 5.12 Revise definition of"Natural features."
694 Delete 3.3.3(A)(4)&(5)-Water Hazards-as this sub-section is redundant with(3)and also
duplicated in Chapter 10 of the City Code.
Problem Statement
Language in the LUC and Chapter 10 of the City Code either contradict one another or
have like provisions.
Section 3.3.3 Water Hazards,subparagraph(3)states that development must comply with
chapter 10 of the city code. The purpose of Chapter 10 of the City code is to promote the
public health,safety and general welfare and to minimise public and private losses due to
flood conditions in flood hazard areas. This is accomplished by:
(1)Restricting or prohibiting uses which are dangerous to health,safety and property
due to water or erosion hazards or which result in damaging increases in erosion or in
flood heights or velocities;
(2)Requiring that uses vulnerable to floods,including facilities which serve such uses,
be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction;
(3)Controlling the alteration of natural floodplains,stream channels and natural
protective barriers which help accommodate or channel floodwaters;
(4)Controlling filling,grading,dredging and other development which may increase
flood damage;and
(5)Preventing or regulating the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally
divert floodwaters or which may increase flood hazards in other areas.
Chapter 10 of the City Cade requires that any development in the floodplain obtain a
floodplain use permit before that development can occur. Specifically Chapter 10 of the
city code states:
Sec. 10-37.Floodplain Use Permit
(e)When reviewing the application for a floodplain use permit,the General Manager shall
determine which portions of the floodplain are affected by the particular development
request and then shall apply the provisions of this Article as applicable.The General
Manager also shall determine whether the application meets the intent of this Chapter after
considering the following factors:
(1)The effects upon the efficiency or capacity of the conveyance zone;
(2)The effects upon lands upstream,downstream and in the immediate vicinity;
(3)The effects upon the one-hundred-year flood profile and channel stability;
(4)The effects upon any tributaries to the main stream,drainage ditches and any other
drainage facilities or systems;
Wednesday,June 01,2005 Page 7 of 10
(5)Whether additional public expenditures for flood protection or prevention will be
required;
(6)Whether the proposed use is for human occupancy;
(7)The potential danger to persons upstream,downstream and in the immediate vicinity;
(8)Whether any proposed changes in watercourse will have an adverse environmental
effect on the watercourse,including without limitation,erosion of stream banks and
streamside trees and vegetation and wildlife habitat;
(9)Whether any proposed water supply and sanitation systems and other utility systems
can prevent disease,contamination and unsanitary or hazardous conditions during a flood;
(10)Whether any proposed facility and its contents will be susceptible to flood damage
and the effect of such damage;
(11)The relationship of the proposed development to the Elements of the City of Fort
Collins Comprehensive Plan and any applicable floodplain management programs;
(12)Whether safe access is available to the property in times of flood for ordinary and
emergency vehicles;
(13)Whether the cumulative effect of the proposed development with other existing and
anticipated uses will increase flood heights;and
(14)Whether the expected heights,velocities,duration,rate of rise,channel stability and
sediment transport of the floodwaters expected at the site will adversely affect the
development or surrounding property.
The city code also limits encroachment in the floodplain as long as those encroachments
do not increase the water surface elevation more than 0.5-feet in citywide floodplains and
0.1-feet in the Poudre River Floodplain. In contrast,Section 3.3.3 (4)Water Hazards
states any development in any 100-year floodplain be designed to not cause any adverse
effects to the development or to any other properties from either increased flood heights,
flow velocities,flow duration,rate of rise of flood waters,channel stability or sediment
transport;provided,however,any development permitted in the Poudre River Floodplain
can increase the water surface elevation by no more than one-tenth(.1)of a foot.
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff recommends that Section 3.3.3 subparagraph(4)&(5)of the LUC be deleted from
the LUC because provisions of this subparagraph are already addressed in subparagraph
(3)which requires the development to comply with Chapter 10 of the City Code.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision E/fect
6 3.3.3(Ax4)&(5) Delete redundant water hazards subsections.
695 Clarify 3.5.1(G)(1)[c]-Modification to Height Limits-to delete the reference to"Director or
the Planning and Zoning Board" and replace with"Decision Maker."
Problem Statement
This is a sub-section under Building Height Review which outlines a process and review
criteria for modifying height limits. The Code,as written,states that the height limits can
be either increased or decreased by the"Director or the Planning and Zoning Board."
This conveys the incorrect impression that the Planning Director is free to modify a height
limit without the benefit of a Type One Administrative Hearing.
Proposed Solution Overview
The reference to the"Director or the Planning and Zoning Board"should be replaced by
the"Decision Maker"to more accurately convey that a formal Request for Modification
is required. Once a Request for Modification is received,it is forwarded to the either the
Hearing Officer or the Planning and Zoning Board depending on how the underlying land
use is classified in the permitted use list of the applicable zoning district. Changing the
reference to"Decision Maker"is consistent with other recent code changes. The
Wednesday,June 01,2005 Page 8 of 10
Decision Maker could include the Director,but not necessarily in all cases.
Related Code Revisions
Ord,Section Code Cite Revision Effect
7 3.5.1(Gx1)Icl Clarify who is the Decision Maker in building hieght review.
696 Correct 2.8.2(K)-Modifications-Step 11 -(Lapse)-so the cross-reference is back to
Section 2.8.1,not 2.7.1 which is not pertinent to this section.
Problem Statement
Section 2.8.2(K)addresses the time validity of Modification whether it is stand-alone or
connected with Project Development Plan. This section is also referred to as Step 11
(Lapse)and contains an incorrect cross-reference back to Section 2.7.1 which refers to
Building Permit Applications. Instead,the cross-reference should be back to Section
2.8.1which addresses the Purpose and Applicability of Modification of Standards.
Proposed Solution Overview
Correct the cross-reference.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
3 2.8.2(K) Correct cross-reference.
697 Amend 3.8.17(Ax2)-Measuring Building Height-so measuring the height of a residential
story,in those zones where height and building compatibility could be sensitive,would be
defined as 12 feet 8 inches,not 25 feet from floor to floor.
Problem Statement
A recent request for a modification to the building height standards established for the
Neighborhood Conservation-Medium Density zone district has spurred an interpretation
of the Land Use Code clarifying the definition of"story"as used in a residential context.
This interpretation was logged in as#1-05 and rendered on February 3,2005.
The specific code language of Section 4.7(17)(2)(a)(1)states that the"maximum building
height shall be two(2)stories..."within the NCM zone district."
Section 3.8.17(A)(2)of the Land Use Code,Building Height Measured in Stories,also
sets a rule for measuring the height of a building in stories based on the following:"No
story of a commercial or residential building shall have more than twenty five(25)feet
from floor to floor".
A previous Administrative Interpretation,#4-02,that addressed the same issue,at least in
part,is still applicable today and helps to guide an interpretation addressing this particular
request:
"At the time the Land Use Code was initially drafted,there was considerable staff
deliberation on which unit of measurement was most appropriate to use. Staff chose to use
a height limit of"stories"principally to address the needs of industrial buildings that may
have substantially greater floor to ceiling heights than in other types of residential and non-
residential structures".
The maximum story height described in Section 3.8.17 does not imply a right to build 25
foot stories in a neighborhood characterized by residential units with typical residential
floor to ceiling heights.That would violate the intent of Section 3.5.1 Building and Project
Compatibility and also the intent of the 2-story height limitation in the Neighborhood
Wednesday,June 01,2005 Page 9 of 10
Conservation Zone Districts found in Article 4.
A more appropriate limitation on what constitutes a residential building story should be
based on typical floor to ceiling heights in the surrounding area and on residential building
design and construction practices most commonly used in Fort Collins.The International
Residential Code(IRC)helps provide some parameters. For wood wall framing with
bracing,the IRC permits stud clear heights up to 12 feet. Masonry walls are allowed a
maximum bearing wall clear height of 12 feet. Since wood frame and masonry are the
most common construction types in the City's residentially-zoned areas,this seems like a
reasonable application. Consideration also needs to be given toward an additional 16
inches of floor framing.
Proposed Solution Overview
In order to codify administrative interpretation#1-05,Section 3.8.17(A)(2)should be
clarified so that a maximum of a twelve(12)foot eight(8)inches of vertical height shall
be permitted for each residential"story." This limitation is proposed for only those zone
districts where residential height and building compatibility are considered sensitive. For
zones where loft-style dwellings may be appropriate,this limitation would not apply.
Related Cade Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
11 3.8.17(AX2) Refine residenflal building height measurement in certain
zones.
Wednesday,June 01,2005 Page 10 of 10
ATTACHMENT 4
SUMMARY OF P &Z DISCUSSION REGARDING
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR
SMALL SCALE RECEPTION CENTERS
IN THE URBAN ESTATE DISTRICT
At the P & Z Board hearing on May 19, 2005, the Board discussed Item 691
which is summarized as follows:
#Item 691 Clarify 3.8.27(F) — Performance Standards for Small Scale
Reception Centers in the U-E —so that direct access to an arterial street is
further defined as not addina traffic to existing, local, neiahborhood
streets.
Problem Statement
There is a concern that the standard as presently written is unintentionally vague
causing multiple interpretations. The Planning and Zoning Board requested Staff
clarify the standard to avoid any differing interpretations in the future.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed change would add clarifying language consistent with public
testimony from Staff to the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council. It is not
the intent of this code change to cause any previously approved Project
Development Plan to now fall out of compliance with this standard upon adoption
of this change.
Code Change
(F)Acces& Vehicular access to the reception center shall be only directly from an
arterial street
Staff explained to the Board that the scope of the proposed Code change was to
simply clarify what Staff intended when drafting and adopting the original
standard. Also, by clarifying the standard, the intent is to remain consistent with
the public testimony offered by Staff during the public hearings regarding the
Feather Ridge Small Scale Reception Center. Finally, the proposed Code
change was to offer clarification only and not to change the Code is such a way
as to make Feather Ridge Small Scale Reception Center fall out of compliance
with the standard.
The Board, however, indicated a willingness to re-open the merits of the standard
in such a way as to add a prescriptive measurement that any access road to a
Small Scale Reception Center would have to be set back a minimum distance
from a neighborhood. Since such measurement would have expanded the scope
of the original intent of the standard, Staff recommended that further analysis of
this particular performance standard needed to be done.
The Board agreed that such work would be more appropriate for the Fall review
cycle. The Board then voted 5 — 1 to recommend to City Council that Council
direct Staff to reexamine the criteria that are intended to mitigate the impacts of
Small Scale Reception Centers in the Urban Estate zone district.
ATTACHMENTS
COMMERCIAL PARKING STANDARDS
FLEXIBILITY—TWO EXAMPLES
AND
STATUS OF CODE CHANGE ITEM 678
REVIEW OF THE 20% BONUS
REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE
REVIEW OF EXCEPTION TO THE OFFICE STANDARD
At the March 22, 2005 Council worksession, there was a request to cite two
specific commercial parking standards that could be relaxed or applied more
flexibly. This request was in reference to proposed Code change Item 678 which
has since been dropped from the list for consideration for the Spring 2005 cycle.
This report will briefly summarize the P & Z 's discussion and the status of this
item. In addition, this report will describe three commercial parking standards
that are already administered in such a way as to provide flexibility for
developers, owners and tenants.
As a reminder Item 678 was described as follows:
#678 Consider addina design guidelines for large commercial parking lots
to improve circulation while still maintainina pedestrian safety.
This item was initiated at the request of the P & Z Board in the Fall of 2004. The
Board heard concerns that large commercial parking lots are overly circuitous
leading to driver frustration.
1. Response to Council Reauest: Example of Two Commercial Parking
Standards - Flexible Interpretation:
Here are two specific commercial parking standards that are not now, but could
be, clarified and then interpreted in a more flexible manner.
A. Section 3.2.2(K)(2)(a)— Non-residential Parking Requirement
Non-residential land uses are limited to a maximum number of parking
spaces. The Parking Code, however, already allows a 20% increase if on-
street parking or shared parking is not available within a center or on land
adjacent to the use. This 20% bonus is presently tied to a corresponding
20% increase in parking lot landscaping.
Staff recommends that for those projects seeking the 20% bonus in
parking spaces, that this requirement for a 20% increase in parking
lot landscaping could be eliminated.
Staff is comfortable that our current landscaping requirements are
sufficient to mitigate the "sea of asphalt" and "heat island" problems
associated with large commercial parking lots. The requirement for a 20%
increase in landscaping, therefore, may not be necessary.
B. Section 3.3.2(K)(4)— Exception to the General Office Parking
Standard
This section was added to the Code in 2000 as a result of working
with a citizen's ad hoc advisory committee. The primary purpose
was to provide a mechanism where the maximum number of
spaces could be increased based on the needs of certain end-
users. For example, call centers generally provide less square feet
per employee than a general office use. Also medical facilities and
newspaper publishers that are staffed around the clock need extra
spaces to accommodate for shift overlap.
This section allows for such uses to provide information regarding
their specific needs. This data is then plugged into the review
criteria of determine a more performance-based parking ratio.
Presently, the criteria by which such requests are reviewed are very
specific and somewhat narrowly defined.
Staff recommends that the review criteria could be broadened
to allow greater eligibility for projects seeking to increase their
parking maximum through the Exception to the General Office
Parking Standard.
Staff is comfortable working with specific projects to accommodate
unique parking requirements. While prescriptive parking
maximums provide a valuable regulatory baseline on a community-
wide basis for a number of reasons, a flexible approach to meet the
particular needs of the end-user, and mitigate negative impacts of
large parking lots, may have benefits as well. This approach is
more performance-based versus the one-size-fits-all approach and
has merit in certain situations.
2
2. What Happened to Pr000sed Code Chanae Item 678?
The P & Z Board, at their April 15th worksession, mutually agreed with Staff to
drop this proposed code change for the following reasons:
• Public sector regulations can only go so far in addressing
commercial parking lot design. After satisfying the maximum
number of spaces and minimum design specifications, the private
sector is free to design a parking lot in any manner they choose.
• Complaints about one parking lot are solved in a different layout for
another lot. And yet we may receive complaints about the
"solution." It may be impossible to eliminate frustration without
risking creation of overly vast, universally functional facilities.
• The design of a parking lot is an exercise in balancing competing
objectives. For example, the desire to ease the circulation and
maneuvering of a vehicle must be balanced by the need to slow
down vehicle speed, raise awareness of pedestrian safety and
provide for crosswalks, ramps and sidewalks and other amenities.
• The design must balance the desire to maximize the number of
stalls near the main entrance versus the provision of parking lot
circulation convenience such as wider drive aisles, larger stalls for
S:U.V.'s and loop roads. For each measure of circulation
convenience, there is a loss in the number of stalls and a possible
diminution in the level of pedestrian safety. Each project weighs
these trade-offs and designs their private parking lot accordingly
once minimum requirements have been satisfied.
• All sites have unique physical characteristics and the needs of
retailers vary widely. Often, developers are designing parking for
speculative tenants. While some centers feature multiple entrances
which disperse congestion, other centers feature single-use, one-
entry stores that attract congestion at one specific point while other
areas of the parking lot are lightly used.
• The requirement distributed parking applies to big box retail only to
mitigate the impacts associated with single user, single entrance
stores. It is not universally applied on a city-wide basis
• Staff and the Board caution that a "one-size-fits-all" approach may
be overly simplistic and lacks flexibility. The retail industry is
cyclical as trends come and go. Some retail generates a
concentrated number of trips on weekends while the parking lot sits
half-empty five days per week.
3
In conclusion, Staff and the Board are comfortable in continuing an active
dialogue about well-designed commercial parking lots. Our discussion included
the perspectives offered by Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning and
Engineering professionals. As Staff and the Board brainstormed ideas, there
was recognition that most all ideas carry a trade-off that that may not be
acceptable from other perspectives. The goal remains to promote necessary
speed reduction and pedestrian safety and yet still provide improved convenient
circulation for drivers.
3. Additional Information Related to Council Request- Staff Review of Three
Areas of the Parking Code that Presently Provide Flexibility:
There are three areas of the non-residential parking code that have worked well
in providing flexibility to developers, owners and tenants. A brief review, with real
world examples, is provided:
A. The 20% Bonus
As mentioned, the 20% bonus in the maximum allowable number of
spaces is available for projects that do not have on-street parking or
shared parking options within a center or adjacent uses. This bonus has
recently been allowed for a stand-alone three-story office project known as
"Harmony Oaks" located on a re-development site at 608 East Harmony
Road.
B. Alternative Compliance
An alternative parking ratio may be substituted for a maximum parking
ratio as stated in the standard. Such an alternative does not have to be
considered as a Modification by the decision-maker. Rather, the review
criteria are performance-based to mitigate the impacts of large parking
lots. This code provision has been used for several branch banks where
there is relatively small square footage of gross leasable floor area but a
need for employee and customer parking to accommodate peak demand.
C. Exception to the General Office Parking Standard
As mentioned, this provision is designed to accommodate the particular
needs of end-users. This code section was used to allow extra parking for
the new Coloradoan office building at 1300 Riverside Avenue to deal with
such needs as shift overlap and publishing the U.S.A. Today.
These provisions are in the Code now and are working well. The administration
of the non-residential parking section has been to respect the policy of
prescribing the maximum number of spaces while providing sufficient flexibility on
4
a case-by-case basis. Our goal is regulate those aspects of parking lots that are
directly experienced by the general public (safety, functionality, aesthetics and
micro-climate). While Staff is counting the number of spaces, we realize the
general public is not. Staff is comfortable that we are prioritizing the regulation
the parking lot experience within a broad interpretative framework. As always,
Staff looks forward to continuing to work on these issues with both the Planning
and Zoning Board and City Council.
5
ATTACHMENT
ALLOWING MORE THAN EIGHT DWELLING
UNITS PER BUILDING IN L-M-N ZONE
At the March 22, 2005 Council worksession, there was a request to provide an
example, in diagram form, of how allowing more than eight dwelling units per
building could provide for additional open space. The diagrams compare
examples of eight-plexes to 12-plexes.
1. Pr000sed Code Chanae - Item #690:
The catalyst for this discussion was the proposed code change Item 690. As a
reminder, Item 690 was described as follows:
Item #690 Amend L-M-N 4.4(B)(2)(a)4. — Permitted Use List— "Multi-family
dwellings (limited to 8 or less units Per buildina)" by moving the limitation
on eight-plexes to Section (D)8— Land Use Standards —so that it becomes
eligible for a Modification.
Problem Statement
Staff has been approached by a developer that would like to construct buildings
in the L-M-N district that contain up to 12 dwelling units. The limitation on eight
units, however, is codified in the Permitted Use List, and, therefore, cannot be
modified. If this limitation were moved to Land Use Standards, then it would be
eligible for the Request for Modification procedure.
2. What the Diaorams Show:
Please refer to the attached diagrams which are based on an actual multi-family
phase of a large Project Development Plan in the L-M-N zone. The site is 16
acres in size. The maximum allowable density for any one phase in the L-M-N is
12 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, a total of 192 dwelling units are assumed.
These schematics show how additional open space is created by allowing up to
12 dwelling units per building. At 12 units per building, there would be 16
buildings versus 24 buildings at eight units per building. Since there is no
increase in the maximum allowable density, additional open space is created with
12 units per building that can be spread out in a variety of ways.
3. What Staff Reported at the March 22, 2005 Council Worksession:
At the March 22, 2005 worksession, Staff indicated that there was a concern with
this proposed code change and that there may be public testimony regarding its
merits. In the attachments to the March worksession, Staff stated:
"The eight-plex structure is specifically intended to be the upper limit for a
housing type in the L-M-N. In fact, the eight-plex was added to the L-M-N
several years ago but only under the condition that it be accompanied by
design standards that would mitigate the mass, height, bulk, scale and
promote the residential character of the structure. These standards were
placed in the L-M-N zone as mitigation for allowing the eight-plex
structures in the L-M-N.
The 12-plex structure is exactly what was intended for the M-M-N, Medium
Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood district. This zone is intended to
provide housing in multi-family structures where the minimum required
density is 12 dwelling units per acre.
Allowing residential structures in the L-M-N zone to house more than eight
dwellings starts to blur the distinction with the M-M-N zone. The size of
such structures is considered to be out of character with the L-M-N zone
and should be directed towards the M-M-N zone."
4. What Happened at P & Z:
Due to Staff concerns, this proposed Code change was not part of the Planning
and Zoning Board packet. There was no public testimony or written materials for
their May 19, 2005 public hearing. The diagrams became available to Staff only
recently just in time for the Council's First Reading of the Land Use Code.
5. Expected Public Testimony:
Staff expects the diagrams to be accompanied by public testimony at First
Reading. Staff is prepared to discuss this proposed change, take direction from
Council, and bring back information to the Planning and Zoning Board
accordingly. (The Planning and Zoning Board is required by the Land Use Code
to consider a proposed code change and make a recommendation prior to an
Ordinance being offered to City Council.)
e
is
\\ re
I
z.-
$ .
Al
14,
fA
VFeivk AsLalA�s __. S'�0[9�05
ATTACHMENT
C-L— LIMITED COMMERCIAL ZONE
ITEM 686— CONSIDER ALLOWING TOWING
IMPOUND LOT AS A PERMITTED USE
At the March 22, 2005 Council worksession, there was a request for more
information on the characteristics of the C-L zone. This information is provided in
reference to proposed Code change Item 686 which would allow a towing
impound lot as a permitted use and summarized as follows:
• #686 Consider amending the C-L zone to allow Outdoor Storane of
towed vehicles as a principal use. Currently only allowed in the
Industrial zone.
Staff and the G.I.S. Department have prepared a map of the C-L zone. Here are
the pertinent facts:
• The zone consists of 35.53 acres.
• There are two arterial streets in the zone — East Mulberry Street and
Riverside Avenue.
• There are four vacant parcels in the zone totaling 4.01 acres.
• Two vacant parcels have frontage on Riverside Avenue. There are no
vacant parcels on Mulberry Street.
• These two vacant parcels combined have 278 feet of frontage along
Riverside Avenue.
The P & Z Board included this proposed Code change in the vote to approve all
the changes as a package. The vote was 6 - 0. The use would be defined as:
4.20(B)(2) Permitted Uses.
(e) *000w,
9. oufIJa Cortsir>gl ore liar
po
Ll
E MMOUN7AIN AVE
oa o 0o qQ �
JC0 C70 ��0�0❑❑
CecM I41 Rrver
E OAK ST
poE) ❑ �
CI °� ❑ °
3 � a
E OLIVE ST
�gO07 O �o B°o o0i o CED
o u ] a .❑a ° o El ❑
boo 00P o ❑ ❑ o. Q ❑ o ❑'. CD O
O ❑ ' °C] o o
r� 4 ° � O 9 C
�oJDb ) �L'7° ❑ ❑ O��b O° O OQ°90
E MAGNOLIA ST
0,110
O ° a \/
°o u
�y op' p ao p ��� .Q [� ' o ❑
o ❑° � a
��❑ {� O ococ o vo ❑Qo❑❑ a dJQ o6 oa
w U) E MULBERRY ST
0 w 4❑Q C 0o w 00'pq D❑ o ad q ° Qo
0 OG a Q oo
O o ° ❑ Cz`o p 0 ❑ o
o° d O 4 oO8 N 0° ❑ p �.� ❑ a ^°O
OFCI p8 p Q r GJ ❑.0 4 00 � o 00 m ❑
�w0 ❑o a ❑❑o aoo N �1' m� �� BED 1,d❑a-,d00
E MYRTLE ST y z
5m rpo C1, �l❑ Vp=1 d a d] El m :0 El 3 da ❑0 C7
_�� •9 o ° '❑ a o� °❑ [� aa.. oo � �� O �c6 �QwCo.
1 O ° ❑ ❑ o ❑ 6 ❑ °p N ° O° o_o 0 1- Q ❑
C� o ,... ❑ B1 6 p o ° o Cl p ❑ o O
❑ ° �° ❑❑D p °° °qb Q 0 � L7. � �Qa om6
❑ Q Q O tJ 6'0 ❑❑ o
p o�dO n 0 P° o ° 0 ❑. e ° 4
P a a d Q m❑•. o o e o°� o 0 00
❑° Go11j�a ElQ❑mom :0000. ❑, 6oq'� oao� m do AC
E LAUREL ST O
Q�Qag O� �OQ ° ° m �oSbd�O �o� G��❑ ° ��[ a0 o
"❑ ° o. 1O n ❑ EASTDALE DR D =
Q G7 0 0 O ❑ o. ❑ 8 m O p ❑❑�. °O ❑ Oa.o O
('} ° ° ter] p o
° Feet a�❑C� pvoo❑ �° ❑ oo N 0 250 500 1,000 q — 4 BL
A
Legend
City of Fort Collins Parcels Railroad Lines
CL Zoning Streets — — City Limits
cl°voiro,rcan�,,., Water Features F— Buildings(April 1999)
° .•,., n,,,, 3Jr..53 Acres Urban Growth Area Boundary®Vacant Parcels
Ser�i.e•
ORDINANCE NO . 070, 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 . 7(C) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
(C) Order of Proceedings at Public Hearing. The order of the
proceedings at the public hearing shall be as follows :
( 1 ) Staff Report Presented. The Director shall present a
narrative and/or graphic description of the development
application. The Director shall present a Staff Report
which includes a written recommendation. This
recommendation shall address each standard required to be
considered by this Land Use Code prior to approval of the
development application.
(2) Applicant Presentation. The applicant shall present any
relevant information the applicant deems appropriate .
Copies of all writings or other exhibits that the applicant
wishes the decision maker to consider must be submitted to
1
the Director no less than five (5) working days before the
public hearing.
(53 ) Staff Response to Applicant Presentation. The Director, the
City Attorney and any other City staff member may
respond to any statement made or evidence presented by
the applicant of the ,., ,bl
(34) Public Testimony. Relevant public testimony shall be
heard.
(45) Applicant Response. The applicant may respond to any
testimony or evidence presented by the public .
(6) Staff Response to Public Testimony or Applicant Response.
The Director, the City Attorney and any other City staff
member may respond to any statement made or evidence
presented by the public testimony or by the applicant's
response to any such public testimony.
Section 2 . That Section 2 . 8 .2 (G) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
(G) Step 7(A) (Decision Maker) : Applicable, and in explanation
thereof and in addition thereto, if an application for a modification
of standards pertains to a development plan which is subject to
administrative review, the Director shall be the designated decision
maker, that that, at the option of the applicant, the
application may be considered by the Planning and Zoning Board;
and if an application for a modification of standards pertains to a
development plan which is subject to Planning and Zoning Board
review, the Planning and Zoning Board shall be the designated
decision maker. If the application is for a modification of
standards pertaining to a development plan previously approved
under prior law or not yet filed, the Director shall determine
whether such development plan would have been, or will be,
subject to administrative review or Planning and Zoning Board
review and shall identify the decision maker accordingly. In all
cases, the decision maker shall review, consider and approve,
approve with conditions or deny an application for a modification
of standards based on its compliance with all of the standards
contained in Step 8 .
2
Section 3 . That Section 2 . 8 .2(K) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
(K) Step 11 (Lapse) : All Modifications of Standards which apply to a
pending development plan or a development plan which is timely
filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 2 .78 . 1 shall be
valid in accordance with the lapse provisions contained in Section
2 .2 . 11 , All Modifications of Standards which apply to a
development plan which has not been filed in accordance with the
provisions of Section 2 .78 . 1 shall be valid for a period of time not
to exceed one ( 1 ) year following the determination of the decision
maker on the request for the proposed modification.
Section 4 . That Section 2 . 12 .4 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
2 . 12 . 4 Annexation of Uses Not Legally Permitted
Except as is provided below, Aany use that exists on prepeA a separately
owned parcel outside the city and that is not legally permitted by the
county must cease and be discontinued before the City Council adopts, on
second reading, an annexation ordinance annexing any such property
except as provided herein. In the event that a property containing a use
that is not legal pursuant to county regulations is proposed to be annexed
into the city and placed into a zone district wherein such use is a permitted
use, said use must be reviewed and processed as set forth in Article 4 (i .e. ,
Type 1 review or Type 2 review) for the zone district in which the land is
proposed to be located, and shall comply with the applicable standards
contained in Articles 3 and 4. A development application for such review
must be filed with the city within sixty (60) days following the PT�ve
4at€date of second reading of the annexation ordinance . Such use shall be
temporarily permitted for a period not to exceed six (6) months following
the ofl.hetivo a ^*edate of second reading of the annexation ordinance. In
the event that the development application is not approved within said six-
month period, then the use shall be discontinued within thirty (30) days
following the date of the decision of denial or expiration of said six-month
period, whichever first occurs, except that the Director may grant one ( 1 )
extension of the foregoing six-month requirement, which extension may
not exceed three (3 ) months in length. In the event that the development
application is approved, then such use shall be brought into full
compliance with this Land Use Code and the decision made thereunder by
the decision maker within sixty (60) days following the date of the
decision.
This section shall not app *^In the event that a use which is not permitted
by the county exists on any property that is included in an enclave
3
annexation of eo�econsisting of more than one ( 1 ) separately owned
parcel, the above-described development process shall apply only if such
property is placed in a zone district wherein such use is a permitted use . If
a property which contains a use that is not permitted by the county is
included in such multi-parcel enclave annexation, and such property is
placed in a zone district that does not allow the use within the city, such
illegal use must be discontinued within two (2) years from the date of the
second reading of the annexation ordinance.
Section 5 . That Section 3 . 2 .2(K)(5)(d) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(d) Each parking lot shall contain at least the minimum
specified number of handicap spaces as provided in
the table below. Aqien -e*Regardless of the
number of handicap spaces required, at least one ( 1 )
such space is required, that spaee shall be
designated as a van accessible space, and must be a
minimum of eight (8) feet wide and adjoin a
minimum eight-foot-wide access aisle .
Section 6 . That Section 3 . 3 . 3 (A) of the Land Use Code are hereby amended
to read as follows :
(4 ) any development inn year- fleedplain
is designed so
as not
ff- de
to eause any adverse e 1 .e is to the development or 4�
flt+y other- NYepet4 es Am e4ther e fe sead fleel heights,
flow velocit ) flow duf ion Fate Of
rice of
flood
w tefs
ll ll 1 ll4y or- sediment 7 ; provided, however-,
that any development
re Rive
f
eedplain, As
i Y er'uelh. fl.eeQiplain is
designated in Srietion 10
60 of the City
• o 0 s all be eo sideired asCi-C�'J [[ii
advpffse eff@Et—to--aRy ethef pi:epe+:4es- by Fe-aSerlof
inereased flood heights if such development does not cause
fA Fi e, of
mAre twhf1N Ann, tefAN (. 1 ) of A TAAt 1N the-,
Ase, TIAA
l /Y elevation of the Poudr-e RiveF
(5 ' any mitigation me-asufproposed by the applicant to
L o efse ef.feetws idefl.twifi AG'C T�71T-TCCO��i FitH�N (1TTr[7. � �e
cfAn r cs
fins al applicable
r iiir 4s nt N Sec N
TCGt� �ll rTeTgATr�in�e�ZTITTE�IIGif�1 GGtIeII
2 1 rPIflt.1NA �A � Iayar-a 4JflWtAtCi A4gd Meatffeas
4
(64) all measures proposed to eliminate, mitigate or control
water hazards related to flooding or drainageways have
been approved by the Water Utilities General Manager.
Section 7 . That Section 3 . 5 . 1 (G)( 1 )(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(c) Modification of Height Limits . To provide
flexibility in meeting the height limits contained in
Article 4 of this Land Use Code, such height limits
can be either increased or decreased by the T'i�or
or- the Planning and Zoning Be decision maker in
the development review process for the following
purposes :
Section 8 . That Section 3 . 5 .2(B) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by
the addition of a new subparagraph (4) which reads in its entirety as follows :
(4) The enforcement procedure for this standard shall be in
accordance with Section 3 . 8 . 15 .
Section 9 . That Section 3 . 8 . 3 ( 11 ) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
( 11 ) A home occupation shall be permitted only after the owner
or inhabitant of the dwelling in which such occupation is
conducted has obtained a home occupation license from the
city. The fee for such a license shall be ton dollars
{")the fee established in the Development Review Fee
Schedule, and the term of such license shall be two (2)
years . At the end of such term, the license may be issued
again upon the submission and review of a new application
and the payment of an additional ten dollar fee. If the city
is conducting an investigation of a violation of this Code
with respect to the particular home occupation at the time
such renewal application is made, the license will not be
reissued until the investigation is completed, and if
necessary, all violations have been corrected. The term of
the previous license shall continue during the period of
investigation.
s
Section 10 . That Section 3 . 8 . 8 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
(A) Area and Width. No part of an area or "dimension required
for a lot to comply with the
provisions of this Land Use Code shall be included as an area or
wid required for another lot, nor shall such required
area or dimension be burdened by any easement for an abutting
private street or private drive that provides access to the lot or to
any other lot. Private driveways on the lot may be included in the
lot area. Where a minimum lot area square footage is otherwise
required by this Land Use Code, said minimum lot area shall be
required for each principal building located on any one ( 1 ) lot.
Section 11 . That Section 3 . 8 . 17(A)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended by the addition of a new subparagraph (c) which reads in its entirety as follows :
(c) A maximum vertical height of twelve ( 12) feet eight
(8) inches shall be permitted for each residential
story. This maximum vertical height shall apply
only in the following zone districts : U-E ; R-F ; R-L ;
L-M-N; M-M-N; N-C-L; N-C-M; N-C-B ; R-C; C-
C-N; N-C ; and H-C .
Section 12 . That Section 3 . 8 .27(F) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
(F) Access. Vehicular access to the reception center shall be only
directly from an arterial street so as to not add traffic to existing
local neighborhood streets .
Section 13 . That Section 4. 1 (E)(2)(d) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
to read as follows :
(d) Building envelopes shall be identified on the cluster
development, and the ,v, :ffli.14B D �A re,�A A4- r
minimuf width
yard, v�miimiim r rar-d
m. n . miim nidv c � �Q A:Rd
shall con f Fm to rho ro�ciira,ma,fl.tn established.
in the
R hi LAW T Defisity Resident � nt residential
building setbacks , lot width and lot size shall
conform to Section 3 . 5 .2(D) . The maximum
residential building height shall be two and one-half
(2 . 5) stories.
6
Section 14 . That Section 4 .20(B)(2) of the Land Use Code shall be amended
by the addition of a new subparagraph (e) which reads in its entirety as follows :
(e) Industrial Uses :
1 . Outdoor storage facilities consisting only of the
storage of vehicles which are towed to the premises
and temporarily stored until such vehicles are
claimed by the vehicle owners or moved to an
auction or junk yard or other similar disposal site,
provided that such faciltities are located at least
thirty-five (35) feet from the flow line of all
abutting arterial streets .
Section 15 . That the definition "Lot size" contained in Section 5 . 1 .2 of the
Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows :
Lot size shall mean the amount of horizontal (plan view) land area within lot lines .
(See Sectioin 3 .78 . 8)
Section 16 . That the definition "Native vegetation " contained in Section 5 . 1 . 2
of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows :
Native vegetation shall mean any plant identified in Fort Collins Native Plants :
Plant Characteristics and Wildlife Value of Commercial Species, prepared by the
city's Natural Resources Department, updated Mar-eh 1996February 2003 .
Section 17 . That the definition "Natural area" contained in Section 5 . 1 . 2 of the
Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows :
Natural area shall mean all areas shown as "natural areas" on the city's Parks &
Natural Areas Map or the Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map . Any
land that qualifies as a "wetland" pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act shall
also be deemed a natural area, in addition to the areas designated as wetlands on
the city's Natural A-peasHabitatS and Features Inventory Map. Any land area that
possesses such characteristics as would have supported its inclusion on the
n ,.e Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map, if such area is
discovered during site evaluation and/or reconnaissance associated with the
development review process, shall also be deemed a natural area as provided in
Section 3 .4 . 1 (C)( 1 )(a) .
Section 18 . That the definition "Natural features " contained in Section 5 . 1 .2 of
the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows :
Natural features shall mean (a) natural springs, (b) areas of topography which,
because of their steepness, erosion characteristics/geologic formations, high
visibility from off-site locations and/or presence of rock outcroppings, and (c)
view corridors which present vistas to mountains and foothills, water bodies, open
spaces and other regions of principal environmental importance, provided that
such natural features are either identified on the city's Natural Habitats and
Features Inventory Map, or otherwise meet the definition of natural area as
contained in this Article.
Section 19 . That Section 5 . 1 .2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new definition "private driveway" which reads in its entirety as follows :
Private driveway shall mean the area of a platted lot that is specifically designed
for the parking and movement of the vehicles of the property owner and that generally
leads directly to a garage, carport or other such structure . Such area shall not include the
area of a private street or private drive, except that a private driveway may be shared
between two (2) abutting platted lots.
Introduced and considered favorably on first reading and ordered published in
summary form this 7th day of June, A.D. 2005 , and to be presented for final passage on
the 5th day of July, A.D . , 2005 ,
Mayor
ATTEST :
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 5th day of July, A. D . 2005 .
Mayor
ATTEST :
City Clerk
8