HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 10/25/2005 - FALL 2005 LAND USE CODE CHANGES DATE: October 25, 2005 STUDY SESSION ITEM
STAFF: Ted Shepard FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Fall 2005 Land Use Code Changes.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
The purpose of this work session item is to introduce to Council the proposed amendments,revisions
and clarifications to the Land Use Code for Fall of 2005. The Land Use Code team encourages any
questions or comments regarding any of these proposed changes.
Staffs experience is that discussion with Council is most efficient prior to First Reading of the
Ordinance so that any questions may be answered or any suggestions may be incorporated without
delay to the adoption schedule.
In the past, it has been staff s custom to highlight those proposed changes that may be considered
more substantive than others. Please note that four items are specifically designed to implement the
findings of the Infill and Redevelopment Project and one item creates a new zone district. Briefly,
for this round of changes, four substantive changes are:
Rural Lands Zone District
Under Item 486,a new zone district is proposed called Rural Lands(R-U-L). This zone is designed
to implement the vision of the City's Structure Plan(a component of City Plan)for areas designated
Rural Lands or Community Separator. The new zone district is needed to protect the semi-rural
character of lands around the perimeter of the community. These designated areas occur in the Fossil
Creek Reservoir Area, east of the foothills within the Southwest Annexation area, and in the
northwestern portion of the Growth Management Area along the west side of Shields Street north
of Willox Lane. The resulting density and pattern of development generally reflects existing
conditions and matches the agreement reached in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. The base
level of development is one residential unit per ten acres,with clustering of units that will allow for
conservation easements over larger areas and a density bonus of 2.29 acres per unit.
Multi-Family Dwellings (greater than 8 units) in the L-M-N
Under item 690,staff recommends that we amend the L-M-N zone to allow"Multi-family dwellings
(greater than 8 units per building)" as a Type Two review, subject to design standards. The
limitation on eight units is presently codified in the Permitted Use List, and, therefore, cannot be
modified under any circumstances. This is viewed as being overly restrictive and contributes to a
lack of housing mix in the L-M-N. Staff has obtained the services of a local architectural firm to
assist in the drafting of standards and guidelines for such buildings. Issues needing resolution at this
Page 2
time relate to establishing a maximum height and possibly setting a cap on the number of units or
size of building footprint.
Limited Fast Food Restaurants in the M-M-N and H-M-N Zones
Under item 705,staff recommends that anew land use,Limited Fast Food Restaurants,be permitted
in the M-M-N and H-M-N zones but only as part of a larger mixed-use residential project. Fast
Food Restaurants allow carry-out but no drive-through. Such restaurants are permitted in the L-M-N
as part of a neighborhood center and in the M-M-N zone, convenience retail is permitted. It seems
that a carry-out type restaurant, with limitations on size, would be appropriate to encourage
urbanization by adding to the mix of permitted uses in the M-M-N and H-M-N zones.
Private Drives
Under item 708,staff recommends changes to the Private Drive regulations. This would allow more
than four single family lots,more than 660 feet in length and naming and addressing. 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. Staff has worked closely with Engineering, Poudre Fire and
Utilities,in conjunction with the Infill and Redevelopment Project,to provide an increased measure
in flexibility for sites that have design constraints. The design and safety issues relating to staff s
reluctance to allow a greater degree of latitude for Private Drives have,over the years,been resolved
by researching other communities and monitoring successes and failures.
Land Use Code Issues
,,,konday,October 17,2005
Issue ID# Issue Name
486 Consider enacting a new zone district-R-U-L-Rural Open Land-for fringe areas for large acreage lots.
690 Amend L-M-N 4.4(B)(3)[c]. -Permitted Use List-to allow"Multi-familly dwellings(greater than 8 units per
building)" as a Type Two review. Also adopt architectural standards.
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)
699 Amend 4.8(11)(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 2.2.1 I(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(B)(3)[c]and 4.24(B)(2)[c] to allow small Limited Fast Food Restaurants to the M-M-N and H-M-
N zones as permitted uses but with some restrictions.
• 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 increase the frequency of rezoning requests from two to three
times annually.
710 Consider amending various Article Four Permitted Uses that are subject to commercial separation
requirements.
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,October 17,2005 Page I of I
Item #486 Add a new Zoning District called Rural Lands ( RUL) District.
Problem Statement
The Land Use Code lacks an appropriate zone district to implement the vision of the
City' s Structure Plan ( a component of City Plan ) for areas designated Rural Lands or
Community Separator . The new zone district is needed to protect the semi - rural
character of lands around the perimeter of the community . These designated areas
occur in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area , east of the foothills within the Southwest
Annexation area , and in the northwestern portion of the GMA along the west side of
Shields St . north of Willox Lane .
Proposed Solution Overview
Add a new zone district primarily modeled on the County ' s FA- 1 , Farming zone district .
The resulting density and pattern of development generally reflects existing conditions
and matches the agreement reached in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan . The
base level of development is one residential unit per ten acres , with clustering of units
that will allow for conservation easements over larger areas and a density bonus of 2 . 29
acres per unit .
Code Change
Division 4 . 25 Rural Lands District ( RUL )
(A ) Purpose. The Rural Lands District is intended for privately owned lands
that are planned as a rural edge to the community . Rural lands include
but are not limited to community separators , clustered residential
development , large lot residential , agriculture , natural area buffers and
corridors , and other open lands of similar character and purpose .
( B ) Permitted Uses.
( 1 ) The following uses are permitted in the RUL District , subject to
Basic Development review , provided that such uses are located
on lots that are part of an approved site -specific development
plan :
(a ) Agricultural Uses .
1 . Agricultural Activities .
( b ) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses :
1 . Accessory buildings .
2 . Accessory uses .
3 . Farm Animals .
4 . Electric and Barbed Wire Fences to control livestock .
( c ) Any use authorized pursuant to a site specific development
plan that was processed and approved either in compliance
with the Zoning Code in effect on March 27 , 1997 , or in
compliance with this Land Use Code (other than a final
subdivision plat , or minor subdivision plat , approved
pursuant to Section 29 -643 or 29 -644 of prior law , for any
nonresidential development or any multi -family dwelling
containing more than four [4] dwelling units ) , provided that
such use shall be subject to all of the use and density
requirements and conditions of said site specific
development plan .
(d ) Any use which is not hereafter listed as a permitted use in
this zone district but which was permitted for a specific
parcel of property pursuant to the zone district regulations in
effect for such parcel on March 27 , 1997 ; and which
physically existed upon such parcel on March 27 , 1997 ;
provided , however, that such existing use shall constitute a
permitted use only on such parcel of property .
( 2 ) The following uses are permitted in the RUL District subject to
administrative review :
(a ) Residential Uses :
1 . Single -family detached dwellings on lots containing at
least 10 acres .
( b ) Institutional/ Public/Civic Uses :
1 . Public facilities .
2 . Parks , recreation and open lands , except neighborhood
parks as defined by the Parks and Recreation Policy
Plan .
( c ) Industrial Uses .
1 . Composting facilities .
(e ) Agricultural Uses :
1 . Animal boarding .
( 3 ) The following land uses are permitted in the RUL District subject
to review by the Planning and Zoning Board :
(a ) Residential Uses :
1 . Single -family detached dwellings in Residential Cluster
Developments , except that such Residential Cluster
Developments shall , to the maximum extent feasible , be
located at least one -thousand three hundred twenty
( 1 , 320 ) feet (one -quarter [ 1 /4 ] mile ) from the centerline of
Interstate Highway 25 ( 1 -25 ) .
( b ) Institutional/Civic/ Public Uses :
1 . Golf Courses .
2 . Riding Academies .
3 . Cemeteries .
( c ) Industrial Uses .
1 . Resource extraction processes and sales , except that
such uses are not permitted in natural area protection
buffers .
(d ) Accessory Uses :
1 . Wireless Telecommunication Equipment provided that
they are not located within '/4 mile of the centerline of I -
25 , or the centerline of Carpenter Road .
(C) Prohibited Uses. All uses that are not ( 1 ) expressly allowed as permitted
uses in this Section or (2 ) determined to be permitted by the Director
pursuant to Section 1 . 3 . 4 of this Land Use Code shall be prohibited .
(D) Land Use Standards. All development shall meet the following
requirements :
( 1 ) Density. Maximum residential density shall be one ( 1 ) dwelling unit
per ten ( 10 ) net acres , except for Residential Cluster Development
Plans , where the density of the cluster development does not
exceed one ( 1 ) dwelling unit per 2 . 29 net acres .
( 2 ) Airport Critical Area - No Residential Use . No residential use shall
be permitted within the designated Airport Critical Area .
( 3 ) Dimensional Standards.
( a ) Minimum setback shall be at least eighty ( 80 ) feet along
arterial streets .
( b ) For single -family detached dwellings on lots containing at
least 10 acres :
1 . Minimum lot width shall be two hundred (200 ) feet .
2 . Minimum front yard setback shall be sixty ( 60 )
feet .
3 . Minimum rear yard setback shall be fifty ( 50 )
feet .
4 . Minimum side yard setback shall be fifty ( 50 ) feet.
( c ) For single -family detached dwellings in Residential Cluster
Developments :
1 . Minimum lot width shall be sixty (60 ) feet .
2 . Minimum rear yard setback shall be fifteen ( 15 )
feet .
( d ) Maximum building height shall be 2 '/z stories .
( E ) Development Standards.
( 1 ) Street Connectivity and Design
( a ) To the extent reasonably feasible , development in this
District shall comply with the standards contained in Section
3 . 6 . 3 , Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards .
( b ) The layout and design of any new streets shall emphasize
characteristics and views of the open landscape . Examples
of special street design characteristics appropriate to this
District are divided lanes , landscape islands and landscape
solutions to drainage instead of standard curb and gutter ,
with storm water runoff directed into open swales and
ditches . Local and residential access roads shall be
designed without curbs and gutters unless deemed
necessary for health and safety by the City Engineer.
( 2 ) Residential Development Configuration . Residential development
may be configured as lots containing at least 10 acres , or as a
Residential Cluster Development , at the option of the applicant .
( 3 ) Site Design for Residential Cluster Development. Sites in the Rural
Residential District may developed in clusters according to the
following standards :
( a ) At least eighty ( 80 ) percent of the gross land area of the
proposed development shall remain as open space
protected by the dedication of either ownership , or an
appropriate easement to either the City or a nonprofit
organization acceptable to the City . The development plan
shall include such restrictive provisions , proposed uses , and
maintenance provisions as necessary to ensure the
continuation of the open space uses intended . The City may
also require that the developer commit in the Development
Agreement to maintain the open space .
( b ) The design of the cluster development shall be appropriate
for the site , as demonstrated by meeting the following
criteria :
1 . Preservation of significant natural resources ,
natural areas and features such as , but not limited
to , drainage swales , rock outcroppings and slopes ,
native vegetation , open lands or agricultural
property through maintenance of large , contiguous
blocks of land and other techniques .
2 . Provision of linkages and amenities such as trails ,
common areas or access to public recreational
areas and open space .
3 . Layout of lots to conform to terrain and minimize
grading and filling . Preservation of natural
features such as drainage swales , rock
outcroppings and slopes .
4. Indication of any areas where farm animals will be
allowed, including any mitigation features needed to
buffer these areas from surrounding uses .
Amendment to Section 3 . 9 . 2 of the Land Use Code to Allow Single-family Lots in the
RUL District within '/4 Mile of 1 -25 :
3 . 9 . 2 Location of Single - Family Residential Lots From 1 -25
(A) Development of new single-family lots within one thousand three hundred twenty
( 1 , 320 ) feet one-quarter [ 1 /4) mile ) of the centerline of Interstate Highway 25 ( 1 -25 ) shall
be prohibited .
( 1 ) Exception : single-family detached dwellings in the Rural Lands District ( RUL ) shall
be exempt from this standard .
7h _ f-1111 1
. 111,1111
T• rti��
���.�.� 1 ll'lrI11I!'-uu iiinu • III -
_ 1 -.- I���Ii1i1P_Iuilllall■ �w n
� �� ��i'�il�lillll_I_illnlllllllllllllllal v� 1�w� ,/ , r
11l111 j�- �1YYY •�•.it
u�l ' \t\ 1{Illll �I`ill�hllllh�" IIII_ '{ 1 :��1� 1 �-_-•�_.•%/_DUI.. � C
ilt
Mill
m ill
. y J J t om` Knee` t 1
1 -:`C �Y. -• dill � Y-~ Y -.�����
Litz
�' �Er1��e!��• _ .
OWN
1
#Item 690 Amend L -M -N 4 .4( B ) ( 3) (c) — Permitted Use List — to allow " Multi -
family dwellings (greater than 8 units per building ) " as a Type Two review,
subject to design standards .
Problem Statement
Staff has been approached by representatives of three active developments in
the L- M - N zone that would like to construct multi -family buildings that contain
more than eight units as part of their larger projects . The limitation on eight units
is presently codified in the Permitted Use List , and , therefore , cannot be modified
under any circumstances . This is viewed by these representatives as being
overly restrictive and contributes to a lack of housing mix in the L- M - N .
At the June 7 , 2005 City Council meeting , during consideration of the Spring
2005 Land Use Code Update , Council considered public testimony and directed
Staff to draft a change to allow multi -family housing that contain more than eight
dwelling units in the L- M - N , but subject to a minimum level of design standards .
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff has obtained the services of a local architectural firm to assist in the drafting
of standards and guidelines for such buildings . In addition , Staff is in the process
of discussing whether or not to cap the number of dwelling units contained within
such a structure or the size of the building envelope . No decision has been
made to date on capping the number of units or what the number should be or on
building size . If there is a cap or maximum size , current thinking is that these
would be a development standards and not a codified in the Permitted Use
section since development standards are eligible to apply for a Modification and
Permitted Use is not modifiable .
Code Changes To Date
(3 ) The following uses are permitted in the L-M-N District, subject to Planning
and Zoning Board review :
(a) Residential Uses .
1 . Mobile home parks .
2 . Group homes, other than allowed in
subparagraph (2)(a)5 above .
3 . Boarding and rooming houses .
Item 698 Amend 3 . 2 . 4 — Site Lighting — To add a maximum illumination level
for exposed L . E . D . lighting ( light emitting diode) of 1 , 000 candela per
square meter ( nits ) .
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 .
Code Change
Section 3 . 2 . 4 ( D ) ( 10 )
Exposed L . E . D . ( light emitting diode ) lighting shall be limited to a maximum of
1 , 000 candela per square meter ( nits ) .
Section 5 . 1 . 2
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 .
Item 699 Amend Section 4 . 8 ( B ) (2 ) ( a ) ( 3 ) to re - insert a clause relating to
additions on existing homes , 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 when it was
reworded .
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 .
( a ) Residential :
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 .
702 Clarify Section 3 . 2 . 4( D ) ( 3 ) — Lighting — so that adjustable angle
brackets which might cause illumination to not be down -directional are not
allowed .
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 as follows :
3 . 2 . 4( D ) Design Standards.
( 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 .
Item 703 Amend 2 . 2 . 11 ( D ) ( 3 ) (4) — Lapse - Term of Vested Right - 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 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 .
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 .
Code Change To Date
(4 ) Extensions. Extensions for two ( 2 ) successive periods of s
11 ORths one year 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 sixth one
year extensions shall be approved , if at all , only by the
Planning and Zoning Board , upon a finding that the plan
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 improvemegs
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 .
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 .
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 1 -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 minimizing 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 .
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 :
( a ) Te the v rextent fe.asi-a� ibTc streets s .all be
decinned to minimize the omei Rt of site disc irhanne
Ga serd by rearJwa y and. nosenieted nradiRg required
for their nenStn intien
(a ) To the extent reasonably feasible , and in order to
provide integration between neighborhoods ,
development in this District shall he exempt from
comply with the standards contained in Section 3 . 6 . 3 ,
Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards .
Item 705 Consider amending the permitted use list in the M - M - N and H -M - N
zone districts to allow Limited Fast Food Restaurants in mixed - use
residential projects as a Type Two use .
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 MMN and HMN neighborhoods . Staff has spoken
with three developers working on projects in MMN zone districts with
predominantly multi -family , 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
corner of Shields Street and Birch Street , and Mansion Park at the northwest
corner of Timberline and Drake . Also , in the HMN , 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 .
MMN and HMN 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 MMN
and HMN 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 MMN - 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 MMN - 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 , staff has discussed the concept of adding a new use called , say ,
" Restaurant, Limited Mixed- Use " as a permitted use in the MMN and HMN
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
accounted for . An objective would be to promote only restaurants which truly
serve the neighborhood with amenity and convenience , rather than 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 could 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 .
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 MMN zone locations are intentionally coupled with the NC , Neighborhood
Center zone , the CC , 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 a
restaurants into the MMN zone in particular , the economic strength of these
commercial - based zones could be diluted .
Proposed Solution Overview
Allow for small carry-out restaurants , delicatessens or coffee shops to be
permitted within or next to mixed - use buildings located in the MMN and HMN
zone districts provided that careful size and operational requirements are met .
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 .
Code Change To Date
LMN - Section 4 . 5 ( B ) ( 3 ) ( c )
( c ) Commercial and Retail Uses :
1 . Personal and business service shops .
2 . Offices , financial services , clinics and small
animal veterinary clinics .
3 . Restaurant , Limited Mixed - Use .
HMN - Section 4 . 24 ( B ) ( 3 ) ( c )
( c ) Commercial/Retail Uses :
1 . Restaurant , Limited Mixed - Use .
(ed ) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses :
1 . Wireless telecommunications equipment .
Item 706 Amend Section 2 . 2 - Common Development Review Procedures for
Development Applications - to allow for an additional process , at the
applicant' s request , 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 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
Code Change To Date
Section 2 . 2 . 1 ( E ) — Preliminary Design Review
Step X : Preliminary Design Review
(A) 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 .
(B) Applicability. Although a preliminary design review is not
mandatory for any development proposal, 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.
(C) 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.
(D) 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.
707 Consider amending the drive aisle width terminology in Tables A & B
of Section 3 . 2 . 2 ( L ) by changing " one -sided loading width " and " two -sided
loading width " to " one -way drive aisle " and " two -way drive aisle " in order
to be consistent with the standard in 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 consistency .
Code Change
( L ) Parking Stall Dimensions. Parking areas for automobiles shall meet
the following minimum standards for long - and short-term parking of
standard and compact vehicles :
( 1 ) Standard Spaces. Parking spaces for standard vehicles shall conform
with the standard car dimensions shown on Table A .
( 2 ) Compact Vehicle Spaces in Long-term Parking Lots. Those areas of a
parking lot that are approved as long -term parking have the
option to include compact parking stalls . Such approved
long -term parking areas may have up to forty (40 ) percent
compact car stalls using the compact vehicle dimensions set
forth in Table B .
TABLE A
Standard Vehicle Dimensions in feet
A B C F D E F FG
00 8 23 8 23 20 F 12
300 F
8 . 5 20 F
17 .4 17 20 F 15
450 F
8 . 5 20 F
20 .2 12 20 F 15
600 9 19 21 I 10 . 4 24 F 20
900 9 19 19 9 24 * F 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 E-Curb Length
B-Stall Width F-Two-Way Drive Aisle Width
C-Stall Length G-One-Way Drive Aisle Width
D-Stall Depth
* 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)
Figure 4
Parking Stall Dimensions
A A
V
Item 708 Amend Section 3 . 6 . 2 ( L ) — Private Drives — To Allow More Than
Four 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 .
Code Change To Date
Section 3 . 6 . 2 ( L ) — Private Drives
( 1 ) ( b ) Primary access in single -family developments .
A private drive , instead of a street , shall be allowed to
provide primary access to an unusually gall „ shaped n � rnel
of land te seRie up to fey it (4 ) iselated SiRgle _f
lots-, residenTS uevgpp provided that the drive
is connected to only one ( 1 ) street . The feregeing limit
of four ( 4 ) single family lets shall not apply to private
��vr.��rr v--prr�crcc
drives th .At nreyide addition .Al aanness to nrepei4y that
has street frontage and pedestrian anness from a
street .
( 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 GUGh priyaate drives shall net
exceed six hi Rdred sixty ( G 60) feet in length
( c ) Maxim , im dead end drive length shall he one
hundred fifty ( 1 50 ) feet exnent far private droves tha
prgvOde additiennl nnsess as referepned in s , ihsentien
ve .
The design of private drive shall comply with all the
requirements of the standards for Emergency Access
as described in Section 3 . 6 . 6 .
( 5 ) Naming and Addressing. Private drives shall be named , if
necessary , to comply with the requirements of the standards
for Emergency Access as described in Section 3 . 6 . 6 .
Addressing of the property shall be fre .m. the Street fr„ m
whinh primary aGGess to the property is taken assigned by
the City in conformance with the Larimer County Urban Area
Street Standards .
Item 709 Amend 2 . 9 . 2 — Amendment to Zoninq Map — Increase Frequency of
Rezoning Requests to From Two to Three Times Annually.
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
91greenfield1) 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
Increase the opportunity for rezoning applications , allowing submittals to be
considered three times per year .
Code Change
2 . 9 . 2 . Applicability top
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 tWiGe
three times per calendar year and shall be considered by the Planning and
Zoning Board in MaFGh eF April and OR ceptem .her A. r Qc�"e February or
n e11r,7nd in October or November 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 ) , 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 .
Item 710 Consider Amending Various Article Four Permitted Uses That Are
Subject To Commercial Separation Requirements .
Problem Statement
The Land Use Code requires the separation of certain commercial land uses in
order to best support the neighborhood structure embodied in City Plan and to
reduce the negative visual impact of commercial ` strip " development along major
streets . More specifically , the LUC sets a minimum 3/4 mile separation between
neighborhood commercial centers that include retail or restaurant uses and are
located on an arterial street , and also between convenience retail stores with fuel
sales .
Staff has been asked to evaluate the present commercial separation
requirements and determine whether a Land Use Code Amendment is
appropriate .
Background
The latest commercial separation requirements found within the Land Use Code
are really a continuation of long -standing limitations on the location and intensity
of commercial use . The City of Fort Collins has a long history of restricting
commercial land uses ; it dates all the way back to 1929 when the City adopted its
initial zoning ordinance . More modern regulations are rooted in the Land Use
Policy Plan , adopted in 1979 , and the City ' s previous land use regulations ,
known as the Land Development Guidance System ( LDGS ) . While the LDGS
opened up the possibility for commercial development to occur in all zone
districts , performance criteria were established which often prevented
commercial development , particularly along arterial streets .
One could argue that the present land use regulatory climate is actually less
restrictive than it has been in the past . The current code requirements open up
some new possibilities for certain neighborhood -scale commercial uses such as
modest office facilities , business services and day care centers . These
possibilities are expanded primarily due to the adoption of mixed use zone
districts as a part of City Plan .
Why did the community adopt commercial separation requirements ?
1 . These code limitations have always been a response to proliferation of
commercial developments along arterial streets and that fall outside of
established commercial districts . The limits address those commercial
uses which tend to generate high traffic volumes , have high visibility , and
strong corporate image needs , such as retail and restaurants . Proliferation
along major streets has aesthetic and urban form implications as well as
traffic impacts .
2 . City Plan is structured to provide mixed use neighborhoods on the
condition that the non - residential uses are carefully limited in terms of
automobile-oriented uses , and building placement , orientation , scale and
character.
Neighborhoods are one of the primary building blocks of the community ,
with the neighborhood center as the foundational element . Neighborhood
Centers are carefully defined , with the spacing requirement being one
important component .
3 . As previously noted , the present commercial separation standards were
not new with the adoption of City Plan in 1997 . Rather, they are a
continuation of two well -established precedents from the previous LDGS :
A ) the 3/4 mile separation of " Neighborhood Convenience Shopping
Centers" ( adopted 1988 ) ;
B ) the location of these developments at collector/arterial street corners ,
and not arterial/arterial street corners , with good " back side " access from
surrounding neighborhoods .
Those previous precedents were established based on a thorough
analysis and public discussion of issues ; they were reviewed by the
Planning and Zoning Board and adopted by City Council . They have been
thoroughly tested in practice .
4 . Reducing vehicle miles traveled has long been a goal from both a land use
and transportation perspective . The length of trip for the every day items
such as milk , bread , gas , etc . should not result in excessive driving . Thus ,
small convenience centers envisioned by the L- M - N neighborhood center
should be allowed in close proximity to neighborhoods . The key tradeoff,
however , is that such a commercial intrusion , while convenient , should be
used sparingly , lest the proliferation lead to a diminishing quality in the
neighborhood . The two convenience centers at East Horsetooth Road
and Lochwood Drive , and West Harmony Road and Seneca Street are
often cited as good examples of the scale and quality in relationship to the
surrounding neighborhood . The frequency of their placement is well -
received in that they demonstrate the delicate balance between frequency
of location and aesthetic quality .
Why a % mile separation distance ?
This is a matter of community design based on multiple considerations . The main
idea is to avoid the possibility of having these developments occur along arterial
streets at any and every arterial or collector intersection , thus resulting in 3 per
mile (one at each arterial street intersection and one at the collector street
intersection midway between the arterial streets ) . This has always led to a
concept of a separation greater than 2/3 mile , because collector streets are
sometimes constructed at a shorter interval . 3/4 mile is a round number, slightly
greater than 2/3 mile and that has served the community well since 1988 .
Many communities have adopted separation requirements for a whole host of
land uses , e . g . - adult-oriented businesses , motels , churches , schools and
billboards , but have generally not done so for retail uses . The location of certain
care facilities , such as group homes , is typically governed by state law rather
than local zoning ordinances .
Conclusion
In conclusion , the Land Use Code team does not proposed any code changes at
this time . Rather, the team has a comfort level that procedures and criteria for
Modification of Standards (Section 2 . 8 ) provide sufficient flexibility for property
owners , applicants , investors , developers , small businesses and multi - national
corporations to pursue reductions in the current separation requirements .
Item 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 . '
Code Change
( 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
medifinatmens 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 .
Infill and Redevelopment Rural Lands (R-U-L) Zone
oAdd limited-scale restaurants within mixed 0-Private land
use buildings in the M-M-N/H-M-N District
(705)
o Provides a Rural Edge to the Community
oAdd Preliminary Design Review(706)
oLarge lot residential, agriculture, open
o Naming and Addressing of Private Drives lands, natural habitat protection areas and
(708) community separation
o Rezoning 3X per year(709)
z
•
Trw OslgnNaC x RwN Open laM
R-U-L - —'
oOne dwelling unit per 10 acres
OR
z " q-
o Cluster option—one dwelling unit per 2.29 5
acres
. 80% open space LLa
a
•
1
L-M-N Multi-Family Greater Than Limited Fast Food Restaurants
8 Dwelling Units
(>Establish baseline standards oAllowed in M-M-N and H-M-N only
oOther design issues to be addressed: a Other design issues to be addressed:
. Cap the number of units? • Must be subordinate to larger project
. Cap the size?
. Cap the size of the building envelope? , Limit hours of operation?
. Cap the height?
5 6
Private Drives —
Private Drives Other Issues to be Addressed
a Allow to serve more than 4 single family o Require utility coordination
lots
o Provide sufficient guest parking
a Allow to exceed 660 feet in length
o Require a sidewalk system connecting all
a Allow naming and addressing units
o Establish a baseline for drainage
improvements
� e
2