HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 06/03/2008 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 073, 2008, MAKING V ITEM NUMBER: 30
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: June 3, 2008
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Ted Shepard
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 073,2008,Making Various Amendments to the City of Fort Collins
Land Use Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. The Planning and Zoning Board
recommends all but one of the proposed changes. That change is discussed below.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff has identified a variety of proposed changes, additions and clarifications in the 2008 annual
update of the Land Use Code.
BACKGROUND
The Land Use Code was first adopted in March 1997. Subsequent revisions have been
recommended on a regular basis to make changes, additions, deletions and clarifications that have
been identified since the last update. 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.
On May 15, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Board considered the proposed changes and voted 7—
0 to recommend approval of 13 of the changes except, with regard to the changes proposed to
Section 2.1.2 of the Land Use Code, the Board defeated a motion recommending approval with
conditions by a vote of 4-2 (1 member abstained). The proposed change to Section 2.1.2 that the
Board does not recommend would establish a new process whereby the City Council could hold a
preliminary conceptual hearing with regard to land use proposals that entail not only specific project
development plans, but also legislative decisions of the Council pertaining to annexation,property
acquisition, amendments to the City's comprehensive plan, and/or public-private partnerships.
Quasi-judicial decisions such as the review and approval of a project development plan call for
different legal procedures and safeguards than decisions regarding such matters as annexations and
amendments to the City's comprehensive plan, which are legislative in nature. The quasi-judicial
procedures and safeguards are intended to ensure that: (1) the particular parties affected by such
decisions have notice and an opportunity to be heard,(2)the decisions are based solely upon specific
June 3, 2008 -2- Item No. 30
criteria and the evidence presented at the quasi-judicial hearings, and(3)the decisions are made by
an impartial tribunal that is able to fairly and objectively apply the appropriate criteria.
The application of these principles to situations involving both quasi-judicial and legislative
decisions sometimes unnecessarily impedes the effective flow of information regarding the
legislative aspects of these more complex proposals and prevents the Council from providing timely
feedback to applicants about the feasibility of proceeding with more formal proposals, so that they
can make decisions in that regard without having to expend substantial amounts of time and money.
The staff believes that it may be in the best interests of the City in these situations to create an on-
the-record opportunity, prior to the time that a formal application is presented to the City, for
Council to: (1) gather information about such proposals; (2)hear from the prospective applicants,
as well as interested members of the community, about the advisability of the proposals from a
planning, land use, environmental and economic development standpoint; and (3) share their
individual ideas and concerns about such proposals.
The City Manager and City Attorney have recommended a procedure for creating such a forum. The
Planning and Zoning Board's primary concern about the proposal is that, although this kind of
conceptual hearing before the Council would not result in any formal action on the part of the
Council,Councilmembers' remarks at the hearing might tend to predetermine,or at least influence,
the eventual outcome of the project development plan. For example,a development plan that is filed
with the City and reviewed by the Board is supposed to be reviewed under the Land Use Code
criteria. If,at this earlier hearing, Councilmembers have indicated general approval for the concept
proposed by the developer, the Board is concerned that there may be undue pressure on them to
approve the project or perhaps even undue pressure on the Council, in the event of an appeal. On
the other hand, the Board is also concerned that negative comments by Councilmembers at the
conceptual hearing may unnecessarily deter applicants from even pursuing a formal application.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Issues List.
2. Annotated Ordinance Index
3. Annotated Issue List.
4. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes for 13 items numbered 780-799.
5. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes for Item #800.
ATTACHMENT 1
Land Use Code Issues
Wednesday,May 28,2008
Issue ID# Issue Name
780 Amend N-C-B-4.9(B)(1)5.and 4.9(B)(2)5.-Mixed-Use Dwellings-to remain consistent with ESNP and
WSNP so that if a mixed-use dwelling is combined with a Type Two use,the project is processed as a Type
Two Review,not a Type One.
784 Amend 5.2.1 -Definition of"Director" to change the title that refers to the newly established P.D.T. Director
due to the City's change in organizational structure.
785 Amend the N-C-M and N-C-B to clarify the review process,B.D.R. or Type I, for new duplexes.
786 Amend 3.8.4(A)-Child Care Regulations-to eliminate the outdoor fencing requirements for a Drop-In Child
Care Center in order to be consistent with State regulations.
787 Amend 5.1.2-Definition of Long Term Care Facility-by clarifying that the 25%total gross area of an
independent living facility means the total gross Floor Area of the development,not acreage.
790 Amend 4.6(B)(3)(c)3. -M-M-N Permitted Use List-to move "Restaurant, Limited Mixed-Use" from Type
Two to Type One because,by definition,such restaurant must be a part of multi-family dwelling thus
becoming a component of a"Mixed Use Dwelling."
791 Amend 3.2.1(K)-Landscaping/Utilities-to require that new street trees do not interfere with traffic control
devices.
794 Amend 3.8.17(C)-Exemptions from Building Height Regulations-to resolve a discrepancy with 3.5.1(G)-
Building Height Review.
795 Amend 1.3.4(A)-Addition of a Permitted Use- to allow the Board to add a compatible use on a parcel
specific basis and subject to compliance with 3.5.1.
796 Amend 4.13(B)(3)(a)-Permitted Uses in the POL-to allow"Community Facilities" as a Type Two permitted
use.
797 Amend 3.3.2(F)-Offsite Public Access Improvements-in order to rectify the timing of disbursements to
developers with City Code.
798 Delete 4.10(D)(2)(b)-Minimum Front Yard Setback in the H-M-N-as 45 feet from arterials and 30 feet from
all other streets has proven to be excessive and unnecessary.
799 Amend 5.1.2-Definition of"Warehouse and Distribution"-to "Wholesale Distribution"to more accurately
reflect the nature of the operation in today's economy.
800 Add 2.1.2(H)(I)-Overview of Development Review Procedures-to allow an applicant of a complex
development proposal to request a non-binding hearing with City Council for preliminary comments.
Wednesday,May 28,2008 Page 1 of 1
Land Use Code Revisions
Annotated Ordinance Index
Ord.Section N Code Cite Revision Effect Issue
I 1.3.4 Adds an Addition of a Permitted Use process on a site- 795 Amend 1.3.4(A)-Addition of a Permitted Use- to
specific basis allow the Board to add a compatible use on a parcel
specific basis and subject to compliance with 3.5.1.
2 2.L2(H)(I) Adds an option for a non-binding hearing with Council 800 Add 2.1.2(H)(1)-Overview of Development Review
Procedures-to allow an applicant of a complex
development proposal to request a non-binding hearing
with City Council for preliminary comments.
3 2.1 L 1(B)(1) Clarifies the role of ZBA re Addition of a Permitted Use 795 Amend 1.3.4(A)-Addition of a Permitted Use- to
allow the Board to add a compatible use on a parcel
specific basis and subject to compliance with 3.5.I.
4 3.2.1(K) Requires 20 foot separation between trees and traffic 791 Amend 3.2.I(K)-Landscaping/Utilities-to require
control devices that new street trees do not interfere with traffic
control devices.
5 3.3.2(F) Resolves a discrepancy between LUC&City Code 797 Amend 3.3.2(F)-Offsite Public Access
Improvements-in order to rectify the timing of
disbursements to developers with City Code.
6 3.5.1(A) Clarifies the Purpose Statement re Addition of a Permitted 795 Amend 1.3.4(A)-Addition of a Permitted Use- to
Use allow the Board to add a compatible use on a parcel
specific basis and subject to compliance with 3.5.1.
7 3.8.4(A) Eliminates outdoor play area for drop-in child care 786 Amend 3.8.4(A)-Child Care Regulations-to
eliminate the outdoor fencing requirements for a Drop-
In Child Care Center in order to be consistent with
State regulations.
8 3.8.17[C] Clarifies what is exempt from height review 794 Amend 3.8.17(C)-Exemptions from Building Height
Regulations-to resolve a discrepancy with 3.5.1(G)-
Building Height Review.
9 4.6(13)(2)(c) Clarifies the review process for Restaurant,Limited Mixed- 790 Amend 4.6(B)(3)(c)3.-M-M-N Permitted Use List-to
Use move"Restaurant,Limited Mixed-Use" from Type
Two to Type One because,by definition,such
restaurant must he a part of multi-family dwelling thus H
becoming a component of a"Mixed Use Dwelling."
n
x
z
Wednesday,May 28,2008 Page 1 of 3 N
Ord.Section# Code Cite Revision Effect Issue
10 4.6(B)(3)[c] Clarifies the review process for Restaurant,Limited Mixed- 790 Amend 4.6(B)(3)(c)3.-M-M-N Permitted Use List-to
Use move"Restaurant,Limited Mixed-Use" from Type
Two to Type One because,by definition,such
restaurant most be a part of multi-family dwelling thus
becoming a component of a"Mixed Use Dwelling."
11 4.8(B)(1xa)2 Clarifies the review process for duplexes in NCM 785 Amend the N-C-M and N-C-B to clarify the review
process,B.D.R.or Type 1, for new duplexes.
12 4.8(B)(2)(a)2 Clarifies the review process for duplexes in NCM 785 Amend the N-C-M and N-C-B to clarify the review
process,B.D.R.or Type I, for new duplexes.
13 4.9(B)(1)(a)2 Clarifies the review process for duplexes in the NCB 785 Amend the N-C-M and NC-B to clarify the review
process,B.D.R.or Type 1, for new duplexes.
14 4.9(B)(1)(a)5 Clarifies that when Mixed-Use Dwellings are combined 780 Amend N-C-B-4.9(B)(1)5.and 4.9(B)(2)5.-Mixed-
with Type 2 uses,reviewed as Type 2 Use Dwellings-to remain consistent with ESNP and
WSNP so that if a mixed-use dwelling is combined
with a Type Two use,the project is processed as a
Type Two Review,not a Type One.
15 4.9(B)(2)(a)2 Clarifies the review process for duplexes in the NCB 785 Amend the N-C-M and N-C-B to clarify the review
process,B.D.R.or Type I, for new duplexes.
16 4.9(13)(2)(a)5 Clarifies that when Mixed-Use Dwellings are combined 780 Amend N-C-B-4.9(B)(1)5.and 4.9(B)(2)5.-Mixed-
with Type 2 uses,reviewed as Type 2 Use Dwellings-to remain consistent with ESNP and
WSNP so that if a mixed-use dwelling is combined
with a Type Two use,the project is processed as a
Type Two Review,not a Type One.
17 4.9(B)(3)(a) Clarifies that when Mixed-Use Dwellings are combined 780 Amend N-C-B-4.9(B)(1)5.and 4.9(B)(2)5.-Mixed-
with Type 2 uses,reviewed as Type 2 Use Dwellings-to remain consistent with ESNP and
WSNP so that if a mixed-use dwelling is combined
with a Type Two use,the project is processed as a
Type Two Review,not a Type One.
18 4.10(1))(2)(b) Deletes two HMN setback standards 798 Delete 4.10(D)(2)(b)-Minimum Front Yard Setback
in the H-M-N-as 45 feet from arterials and 30 feet
from all other streets has proven to be excessive and
unnecessary.
19 4.13(B)(3)(a) Adds Community Facilities to POL 796 Amend 4.13(B)(3)(a)-Permitted Uses in the POL-to
allow"Community Facilities"as a Type Two permitted
use.
Wednesday,May 28,2008 -- _- --- Page 2 of 3
Ord.Section 9 Code Cite Revision Effect Issue
20 4.22(B)(2)(d)5 Amends the permitted use list in the C-N zone 799 Amend 5.1.2-Definition of"Warehouse and
Distribution"-to"Wholesale Distribution"to more
accurately reflect the nature of the operation in today's
economy.
21 4.24(B)(2)D Amends the permitted use list in the C-L zone 799 Amend 5.L2-Definition of"Warehouse and
Distribution"-to"Wholesale Distribution"to more
accurately reflect the nature of the operation in today's
economy.
22 4.27(B)(2)(d)4 Amends the permitted use list in the E zone 799 Amend 5.1.2-Definition of"Warehouse and
Distribution"-to"Wholesale Distribution"to more
accurately reflect the nature of the operation in today's
economy.
23 4.28(B)(2)(d)l Amends the permitted use list in the I zone 799 Amend 5.1.2-Definition of"Warehouse and
Distribution"-to"Wholesale Distribution"to more
accurately reflect the nature of the operation in today's
economy.
24 4.(All Zones)[C] Clarifies the Prohibited Uses statement in all zones 795 Amend 1.3.4(A)-Addition of a Permitted Use- to
allow the Board to add a compatible use on a parcel
specific basis and subject to compliance with 3.5.1.
25 5.L2 Updates the definition of Director 784 Amend 5.2.1-Definition of"Director" to change the
title that refers to the newly established P.D.T.Director
due to the City's change in organizational structure.
26 5.1.2 Clarifies that 25%refers to floor area 787 Amend 5.1.2-Definition of Long Term Care Facility by clarifying that the 25%total gross area of an
independent living facility means the total gross Floor
Area of the development,not acreage.
27 5.1.2 Changes the definition to Wholesale Distribution 799 Amend 5.1.2-Definition of"Warehouse and
Distribution"-to"Wholesale Distribution"to more
accurately reflect the nature of the operation in today's
economy.
Wednesday,May 28,2008 Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT
Land Use Code Maintenance Process
Annotated Issue List
780 Amend N-C-B-4.9(B)(1)5.and 4.9(B)(2)5.-Mixed-Use Dwellings-to remain consistent
with ESNP and WSNP so that if a mixed-use dwelling is combined with a Type Two use,the
project is processed as a Type Two Review,not a Type One.
Problem Statement
❑The NCB zone is intended for areas that are a transition between residential
neighborhoods and Elmore intensive commercial areas. Therefore the uses allowed in the
zone are a mix of residential and low intensity non-residential. Some of the permitted non-
residential uses are allowed subject to Basic Development Review, some are subject to
Type One review,and others are subject to Type Two review.
A mixed-use dwelling is considered to be a residential use,defined as"a dwelling that is
located on the same lot or in the same building as a nonresidential use". This use is listed
as being allowed in the NCB zone as a non-public hearing Basic Development Review if
there are no additions made to an existing building,and it's listed as a Type One use if an
addition is proposed. However,mixed-use dwelling is not in the list of permitted Type
Two uses. This means that a mixed-use dwelling never has to be processed as a Type
Two review. This creates confusion since some non-residential uses are allowed only as a
Type Two use,but the current wording of the code will allow such a non-residential Type
Two use to actually be processed as a Basic Development Review or as a Type One
review if it is combined with a dwelling unit.
Proposed Solution Overview
The intent of the NCB zone is to require a Type Two use to always be processed as a
Type Two,regardless of whether or not it is combined with a mixed-use dwelling. In
order to close the loophole that currently exists,staff recommends that the NCB
regulations be amended to clarify that if a mixed-use dwelling is combined with a Type
Two use, it must be processed as a Type Two instead of as a Basic Development Review
or a Type One.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
14 4.9(B)(1)(a)5 Clarifies that when Mixed-Use Dwellings are combined with
Type 2 uses,reviewed as Type 2
16 4.9(B)(2)(a)5 Clarifies that when Mixed-Use Dwellings are combined with
Type 2 uses,reviewed as Type 2
17 4.9(B)(3)(a) Clarifies that when Mixed-Use Dwellings are combined with
Type 2 uses, reviewed as Type 2
784 Amend 5.2.1 -Definition of"Director" to change the title that refers to the newly established
P.D.T.Director due to the City's change in organizational structure.
Problem Statement
The Land Use Code defines the term"Director"to mean the Director of the Community
Planning and Environmental Services service area. Following the reorganization which
was done by the City Manager over a year ago,the service area(mown as"Community
Planning and Environment Services"no longer exists,and has been replaced by the
"Planning,Development and Transportation Service Unit". Therefore,the definition
Wednesday,May 28,2008 Page I of 12
should be changed in the Land Use Code to match reality.
Proposed Solution Overview
Change the definition of Director in Section 5.2.1 to read Director shall mean the
Director of the Community Planning and Environmental Services Service AreaPlanning,
Development and Transportation Service Unit.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cie Revision Effect
25 5.1.2 Updates the definition of Director
785 Amend the N-C-M and N-C-B to clarify the review process,B.D.R. or Type I, for new
duplexes.
Problem Statement
Numerous amendments to the NCL,NCM and NCB district regulations were adopted in
2004 in order to address carnage house and accessory building issues within the Old
Town Area. Specifically,neighborhood concerns were expressed about the lack of public
participation for projects that proposed multiple principal buildings and accessory
buildings on individual lots. As a result,code changes were adopted which differentiated
which type of review process applies to different types of uses.
The NCM and NCB zones currently and historically have allowed certain types of
duplexes to be allowed subject to Basic Development Review when certain circumstances
exist. One of the amendments contained in the 2004 ordinance was intended to require
that a duplex would be subject to a Type 1 review when such building would result in
more than one principal building on the lot. However,the phrase"when there is more
than one principal building on the lot"was inadvertently left out. This omission has
resulted in a confusing situation since the current language pertaining to duplexes in the
basic development review section is almost identical to the language in the Type 1 review
section. As a result,it's not clear what process would apply if someone wants to construct
a duplex on a vacant lot or add a duplex to a lot that already contains a principal building.
Proposed Solution Overview
Amend the Code to distinguish between a basic development review and a Type 1 review
for duplexes,and to clarify that the Type 1,public hearing process for a duplex applies in
situations where the duplex would result in more than one principal building on a lot in
the NCM and NCB zones(i.e. a duplex and a single family home)
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
11 4.8(B)(1)(a)2 Clarifies the review process for duplexes in NCM
12 4.8(121)(2)(a)2 Clarifies the review process for duplexes in NCM
13 4.9(B)(1)(a)2 Clarifies the review process for duplexes in the NCB
15 4.9(B)(2)(a)2 Clarifies the review process for duplexes in the NCB
786 Amend 3.8.4(A)-Child Care Regulations-to eliminate the outdoor fencing requirements for
a Drop-In Child Care Center in order to be consistent with State regulations.
Problem Statement
The City's child care center regulations contain requirements for indoor floor space and
for outdoor play area. These regulations currently apply regardless of the type of child
Wednesday,May 28,2008 Page 2 of 12
care center facility that is being operated. Therefore,an outdoor,fenced play area is
required for a full-time child care center(i.e. Kinder Care,Children's World,etc)and for
a drop-in child care center.
A full-time center is one that is open weekdays only and is normally attended by regularly
enrolled children on a set schedule,and wherein the children are there for all or most of
the day. A drop-in center is one that is open days,nights and weekends and is attended by
children on a short-term basis. A drop-in center provides babysitting or"spot"child care
when parents need to attend a doctor's appointment,do errands,go out to dinner or a
movie,etc.
The City's outdoor play area regulation was modeled after the State's child care center
requirement. The State has recently revised their regulations by exempting drop-in
centers from this requirement. The Zoning Board of Appeals has recently heard and
approved two variance requests which allowed drop-in centers to be exempted from the
outdoor play area regulations. The Board determined that such play areas were not
necessary due to the nature of the operation,and that our Code should be amended to
comply with the State exemption.
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff recommends that Section 3.8.4(A)of the Land Use Code be amended such that
outdoor play areas are not required for drop-in centers to maintain consistency with the
State regulations.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
7 3.8.4(A) Eliminates outdoor play area for drop-in child care
787 Amend 5.1.2-Definition of Long Term Care Facility-by clarifying that the 25%total gross
area of an independent living facility means the total gross Floor Area of the development,not
acreage.
Problem Statement
A"long-term care facility"is defined in Article 5 as a use that can consist of one or more
of the following: 1)a"convalescent center",2)a"nursing care facility",and/or 3)an
"intermediate health care facility". The use can also consist of an"independent living
facility",but only if such a facility does not exceed 25%of the total gross area of the
development.
An"independent living facility"consists of one or more buildings that contain individual
dwelling units(i.e. a single-family,two-family and/or multi-family)which are located in a
development that consists of one or more of the 3 uses listed above. In order to ensure
that a long-tern care proposal is not just a residential development,the definition limits
the amount of individual dwelling units allowed to 25%. However,the definition does
not clearly explain what is meant by"25%of the total gross area". It could mean 25%of
the total lot area,25%of the total building footprint coverage,or 25%of the total gross
floor area of the development.
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff believes that"25%of the total gross area"is intended to apply to the gross floor
area of all buildings in the development. In order to clarify the meaning of the
definition,the definition of"long-term care facility"should be amended so that floor area
is the proper metric.
Related Code Revisions
Ord Section Code Cite Revision Effect
26 5.1.2 Clarifies that 25%refers to floor area
Wednesday,May 28,2008 Page 3 of 12
790 Amend 4.6(13)(3)(c)3.-M-M-N Permitted Use List-to move"Restaurant,Limited Mixed-
Use" from Type Two to Type One because,by definition, such restaurant must be a part of
multi-family dwelling thus becoming a component of a"Mixed Use Dwelling."
Problem Statement
Presently,a Limited Mixed-Use Restaurant in the M-M-N is permitted subject to review
by the Planning and Zoning Board. Such use,by definition,must be contained within a
building containing dwelling units. And,a building containing both residential and non-
residential uses is considered,again by definition,to be"mixed-use." Further,"mixed—
use dwellings"are a Type One permitted use. Therefore,we have glitch in the Land Use
Code in that this land use,by definition,should be a Type One,but is presently permitted
only under Type Two Review.
Since one of the fundamental principles of City Plan is to provide opportunities for a
healthy mix of land uses across all zone districts,subjecting Limited Mixed-Use
Restaurants to a Type Two review is considered a disincentive. As two recent projects
have experienced,by including this use into a multi-family project,the whole project is
subject to a Type Two Review.
It is helpful to review the two definitions:
Restaurant,limited mixed-use shall mean any establishment in which the principal
business is the sale of food and beverages to the customer in a ready-to-consume state,
and in which the design or principal method of operation includes all of the following
characteristics:
(1)food and beverages are usually served in edible containers or in paper,plastic or other
disposable containers;
(2)there is no drive-in or drive-through facility as a part of the establishment;
(3)the establishment is contained within or physically abuts a multi-family dwelling;
(4)the establishment is clearly subordinate and accessory to a multi-family dwelling;
(5)the establishment shall not exceed one thousand five hundred(1,500)feet in gross
leasable floor area;
(6)the establishment shall not engage in serving alcohol;and
(7)the establishment shall not engage in the playing of amplified music.
Mixed use shall mean the development of a lot,tract or parcel of land,building or
structure with two(2)or more different uses including,but not limited to,residential,
office,retail,public uses,personal service or entertainment uses,designed,planned and
constructed as a unit.
Encouraging an effective mix of land uses contributes to the urbanization of our City. In
contrast,single use zone districts have been found to contribute sprawl,can often be
exclusionary by income and does not allow for aging-in-place housing. Mixed-use has
been found to reduce vehicle miles traveled,relieve congestion and help set the stage for
supporting transit. The Land Use Code allows"mixed-use dwellings" in 16 zone
districts.
Since promoting mixed use is such a fundamental aspect in City Plan,"mixed-use
dwellings"are permitted in one zone and one Downtown Sub-district subject to Basic
Development Review and in 15 zones(including two Downtown Sub-districts)subject to
Administrative Review.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to move"Restaurant,Limited Mixed-Use" from Planning and
Zoning Board(Type Two)review to Administrative(Type One)review.
Related Code Revisions
Wednesday,May 28,2008 Page 4 of 12
Ord Section Code Cite Revision Effect
9 4.6(13)(2)(c) Clarifies the review process for Restaurant, Limited Mixed-
Use
10 4.6(13)(3)[c] Clarifies the review process for Restaurant, Limited Mixed-
Use
791 Amend 3.2.1(K)-Landscaping/Utilities-to require that new street trees do not interfere with
traffic control devices.
Problem Statement
City Transportation Engineering is experiencing problems with visibility conflicts
between placement of required deciduous street trees in parkway strips(or behind
attached sidewalks)and traffic control signs(e.g.: stop signs,speed limit signs,pedestrian
crossing signs, etc.).Because of tree canopies associated with deciduous trees(primarily
in the Spring to Fall months when trees are in foliage)there are numerous situations
around the City where motorists and bicyclists do not see signs in time to adequately
prepare for necessary stops at street intersections,pedestrian crossings and such.
Typically traffic control signs are 1 foot to 2 feet away from the curb line(and 8 feet high
to the middle of the sign)and street trees are 3 to 4 feet(minimum)from the curb line so,
generally,the tree trunks are not the problem.
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff recommends that Section 3.2.1(K)of the Land Use Code be amended in order to
significantly reduce safety-related sight problems between street trees and traffic control
devices:
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
4 3.2.1(K) Requires 20 foot separation between trees and traffic
control devices
794 Amend 3.8.17(C)-Exemptions from Building Height Regulations-to resolve a discrepancy
with 3.5.1(G)-Building Height Review.
Problem Statement
Section 3.5.1(G)requires that buildings greater than 40 feet in height above grade shall be
reviewed and evaluated for impacts on views, light and shadow,privacy and
neighborhood scale.
Section 3.8.17(C)lists seven building components that are exempt from the building
height regulations. One of these exemptions is"elevator bulkheads and stairway
enclosures."
A recent P.D.P. submittal included two elevator bulkheads and stairway enclosures that
Staff considered to be of sufficient size as to not warrant the exemption. Further,one of
these was located very close to a north property line bringing the shadow analysis into
consideration. Due to the exemption,however,Staff and the Planning and Zoning Board
were precluded from evaluating the impact of this particular elevator bulkhead and
stairway enclosure. The two sections are not internally consistent.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution would be to continue to allow the exemption,but only as long as
elevator bulkheads and stairway enclosures cover no more than five(5)percent of the
horizontal surface area of the roof. This allowance of up to 5%coverage matches the
allowance offered for"cooling towers,ventilators and other similar equipment that cover
no more than five(5)percent of the horizontal surface area of the roof." The solution
Wednesday,May 28,2008 Page 5 of 12
resolves a discrepancy between two code sections.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Ore Revision Ettec!
8 3.8.17[C] Clarifies what is exempt from height review
795 Amend 1.3.4(A)-Addition of a Permitted Use- to allow the Board to add a compatible use
on a parcel specific basis and subject to compliance with 3.5.1.
Problem Statement
The Land Use Code contains 25 zone districts. Each zone contains a list of permitted
uses. Further,each zone district states:
❑"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."
Prescribing certain land uses to each of the 25 zone districts was designed to implement
the vision of the City Plan and the Structure Plan Map. In addition,this high degree of
specificity was intended to bring a measure of extra predictability to the land use
regulatory system.
While the Land Use Code moved the regulatory system further along the predictability
scale,there is a concern that such predictability came at the expense of flexibility and did
not consider emerging new uses or changing market conditions over the life of developed
properties.
Presently, Section 1.3.4 can only add uses that were not contemplated by the L.U.C. Very
few land uses have been added by way of Section 1.3.4. By way of example,non-
alcoholic nightclubs were added to the Downtown zone,and wildlife rescue and education
center was added to eight zone districts.
Staff contends that introducing flexibility,on a limited basis via the Addition of a
Permitted Use, does not come at the expense of predictability. In other words,the balance
between predictability and flexibility is not a zero sum game.
With a Type Two review process and compatibility and operational standards in Article
Three,plus any specific conditions related to the individual P.D.P. applicant,there are
sufficient safeguards to mitigate any impacts and protect surrounding neighborhoods. In
fact,many towns and cities throughout the region have adopted a Special Use/Conditional
Use Permit process to allow for unforeseen,unique variables in certain circumstances,
while still protecting the public good.
It has been Staff s experience that introducing a level of flexibility on a limited parcel-by-
parcel basis will not undermine the overall objectives of City Plan and the Structure Plan
Map.
The Addition of a Permitted Use provision will allow the Planning and Zoning Board to
address site specific issues that may make a certain land use appropriate with given
circumstances and limitations. For example,Staff has encountered proposals involving
houses situated on arterial streets in the L-M-N zone. Proposals have involved small
businesses that may fit the specific property but are not appropriate to simply allow
throughout the zone district.
The Addition of a Permitted Use would reduce the all-or-nothing choice of either
Wednesday,May 28,2008 Page 6 of 12
rezoning to a commercial zone or denying the request. Once a re-zoning occurs and a use
is permitted,any further conditions on the land use is considered inappropriate.
One of the fundamental attributes of City Plan is to promote a mix of uses in newly
developing areas,and to strategically allow certain mixed-uses to be added into existing
established areas. Calibrating the precise recipe of these mixes,however, is more art than
science. Staffs experience suggests that different degrees of intensity within use
categories may warrant additional uses to be allowed in the mix,with limits on intensity
tailored to the specific site,and without setting a precedent for any other situations. Staff
contends this can accommodated without any serious detriment to overall community
vision and goals.
Staff has discussed the following guiding principles:
-[]New uses that add a level of intensity near residential neighborhoods will be limited to
transition areas or along arterial and collector streets.
-[]New uses that are permitted will be for site specific properties only and not be
considered approved for that zone district on a city-wide basis nor considered a precedent
on which to base future decisions.
•0Any violations of an Addition of a Permitted Use are subject to standard enforcement
procedures on par with a zoning violation.
•OAn Addition of a Permitted Use may only be granted by the Planning and Zoning
Board.
-[]As is presently the case,the Planning and Zoning Board may impose conditions on a
P.D.P as may be found to be necessary.
-El For example,these limitations are enumerated in(but not limited to)Section 3.5.1(H)—
Land Use Transition,Section 3.5.1(I)—Outdoor Storage Areas/Mechanical Equipment
and Section 3.5.1(J)—Operational/Physical Compatibility Standards.
•0An Addition of a Permitted Use may run with the property,not any one specific
owner/applicant,but any expansions or changes are subject to further review.
•0This process will allow commercial properties in the Southwest Annexation a degree of
flexibility in finding practical uses as the area transitions from unincorporated Latimer
County to City of Fort Collins.
Examples of Potential Properties
Several properties have been brought to Staff s attention where the proposed land uses do
not necessarily match the permitted use list for the affected zone. A cursory review of
these properties,and their prospective land uses,does not lead us to conclude that the
overall vision of City Plan would be jeopardized.
This list is by way of example and not intended to be exhaustive:
•❑1225 Redwood(New Beginnings, Wingshadow)
Originally constructed for 30-day drug and alcohol treatment, this building includes
residential wings,commercial kitchen,large meeting rooms,ample parking and offices.
Over the years,various uses have come and gone,including group home,child care and a
small private high school. This building will continue to attract various public/private
Wednesday,May 28,2008 Page 7 of 12
institutional type land uses.
•0421 Parker(Columbine Care Center)
Originally constructed as a large nursing home,this vacant building is zoned L-M-N and
is attracting a variety of uses that are either not permitted in the zone or permitted but
exceed maximum allowable number of clients.
•115009 Fossil Boulevard
Originally constructed for a wholesale distributor,the soon-to-be vacant building features
dock-high loading,high-rack storage,and an ample indoor floor area for bulky goods.
Wholesale distribution and light industrial,however,are not permitted in the zone.
•114800 Innovation Drive
Originally constructed for sheet metal contractor,this building includes a large shop area,
outside enclosed storage for material and overnight truck parking and a small office. The
parcel backs up to the railroad tracks. A recent wholesale distributor was denied use of
the building due to the use not being permitted in the zone.
•11315 West Harmony Road
Originally constructed as a large single family detached home,this structure sits on nine
acres and includes a 1,700 square foot office. And yet the parcel abuts the railroad tracks
and a South College Avenue shopping center. Several proposals have been brought
forward that slightly exceed the Home Occupation limits and do not match the zoning.
•04101 South Taft Hill Road
This older,small single family detached home fronts on South Taft Hill Road. But,due to
the re-alignment of West Harmony Road,this parcel now finds itself at the southwest
corner of two arterials. A mom and pop bicycle repair shop was denied due to underlying
residential zoning.
•0921 East Prospect Road
This property includes a house that fronts on Prospect Road and a large shop. The
original owner resided in the house and operated a machine shop. Upon the death of the
owner,the house became an office and the shop transitioned to a small company that
restores houses after floods,fires,etc. Under today's Land Use Code,however,both uses
would not be permitted.
•0706 East Stuart Street
Originally constructed as a single family home by a photographer operating as a home
occupation,this structure has transitioned to a variety of non-owner occupied,non-
residential uses. The large structure has ample off-street parking. Again,under today's
Land Use Code,the only permissible use would be as a residence with a home occupation.
In these examples, land uses were proposed that seemed reasonable,market-driven,with
few impacts but not allowed in the zone district. Further,re-zoning of individual parcels
is discouraged as being considered spot zoning.
The proposed revision would provide for a reasonable approach that would allow
Wednesday,May 28,2008 Page 8 of 12
properties with unique attributes to be eligible for a wider range of land uses subject to
conditions as may be deemed appropriate by the Planning and Zoning Board. The
proposed provision would allow existing buildings to adapt to changing market conditions
over the life of the structure.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to amend Sections 1.3.4;2.11 and 3.5.1 in order to create a
process by which a use can be added to zone but only for a specific parcel,potentially
subject to conditions and subject to Type Two review.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section CodeCile Revision Effec7
1 1.3.4 Adds an Addition of a Permitted Use process on a site-
specific basis
3 2.11.1(8)(1) Clarifies the role of ZBA re Addition of a Permitted Use
6 3.5.1(A) Clarifies the Purpose Statement re Addition of a Permitted
Use
24 4.(AII Zones)[C) Clarifies the Prohibited Uses statement in all zones
796 Amend 4.13(B)(3)(a)-Permitted Uses in the POL-to allow"Community Facilities"as a
Type Two permitted use.
Problem Statement
Use standards within the Public Open Lands(POL)zone district allow both the
development of large publicly-owned parks and open lands which have a community-wide
emphasis,and for"public facilities";however,"community facilities"are not permitted.
Community facilities are more narrowly defined than public facilities and are considered
"publicly-owned or leased facilities or buildings which are primarily intended to serve the
recreational,educational,cultural,administrative or cultural needs of the community."
Since several existing community facilities are located within publicly-owned parks,e.g:
Northside Aztlan Center,EPIC and City Park Pool,the present code limitation poses an
issue for new community facilities or existing facilities slated for expansion.
Proposed Solution Overview
Amend 4.13(B)(3)(a)to add Community Facilities to the P-O-L zone.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effec!
19 4.13(B)(3)(a) Adds Community Facilities to POL
797 Amend 3.3.2(F)-Offsite Public Access Improvements-in order to rectify the timing of
disbursements to developers with City Code.
Problem Statement
Presently,there is a discrepancy between the Land Use Code and City Code with regard
to the method of disbursing funds to developers for their share of constructing public
improvements. The proposed change would rectify the two Codes.
Proposed Solution Overview
Repeal Section 24-95 of the Code and amend Section 3.3.2(F)(2)and add a new Section
3.3.2(F)(3)of the Land Use Code.
Related Code Revisions
Ord,Section CodeCite Revision Effect
Wednesday,May 28,2008 Page 9 of 12
5 3.3.2(F) Resolves a discrepancy between LUC&City Code
798 Delete 4.10(1))(2)(b)-Minimum Front Yard Setback in the H-M-N-as 45 feet from arterials
and 30 feet from all other streets has proven to be excessive and unnecessary.
Problem Statement
The High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood,H-M-N zone is a geographically small
district located south of Colorado State University and north of West Prospect Road.
Between Whitcomb Street on the east and Shields Street on the west,the district is only
520 feet wide. In addition,this distance is bisected by a property line midpoint between
Prospect Road and Lake Street resulting in most of the 55 properties having only 260 feet
of depth. (See map.)
The district also includes properties on local streets such as Whitcomb Street,Blevins
Court,James Court,Burton Court and Summer Street.
Given the relative size,shape and depth of practically all the parcels in the district,
applicants are struggling to comply with both the arterial and non-arterial minimum
required setback.
This zone district was conceived as a result of the West Central Neighborhoods Plan
adopted in 1999. Only one project has been submitted since the inception of this zone.
The setback standard was considered sufficiently onerous that the this multi-family
project deliberately elected to include a non-residential component in order to be subject
to the build-to line standard versus the minimum setback standard.
The original intent of the standard was to provide a landscape area between future multi-
family structures and West Prospect Road. Re-development along West Prospect is
required to dedicate additional right-of-way and a utility easement along the street.
Further,since natural drainage is south toward Spring Creek,stormwater detention ponds
and conveyance channels are practically located between the street and building. These
appurtenances provide for a de-facto setback so that buildings will not crowd the street so
deletion of the standard will not be detrimental to the public good.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to delete the standard. The default setbacks will be those found
in Section 3.5.2(D)—Residential Building Setbacks which govern setbacks on a city-
wide basis. This would result in a 30 foot setback along arterials and 15 feet along other
streets.
Related Code Revisions
Ord,Section Code Cite Revision Effect
18 4.10(D)(2)(b) Deletes two HMN setback standards
799 Amend 5.1.2-Definition of"Warehouse and Distribution"-to "Wholesale Distribution"to
more accurately reflect the nature of the operation in today's economy.
Problem Statement
The use of the term"warehouse"implies passive storage of goods until such time as the
goods are retrieved by their owner. A true warehousing of goods does not involve active
selling of such goods. Originally,warehouses were built near railroad yards and ports
where goods were unloaded and stored until needed. In Denver,the area around the
Union Station and the central Platte Valley featured a warehouse district that fulfilled this
purpose. In fact,prior to redevelopment,warehouses and loading docks paralleled the
street.
Wednesday,May 28,2008 Page 10 of 12
A"wholesale distributor,"however, is actively engaged in adding value to goods by
breaking down their bulk into smaller lots for sale to a variety of customers. Most of
these customers, in turn,will re-sell these goods at the retail level to the ultimate
customer. A wholesale distributor provides an inside sales team and a city counter
directly serving the trade.
The fact that a wholesale distributor just so happens to engage in this activity in a
structure that typically includes an area commonly referred to as"the warehouse"does not
necessarily mean that the activity is a warehouse from a land use perspective.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to amend the definition to more accurately reflect the nature of
the operation in today's economy. The Code will continue to include a definition for a
"warehouse"as it is historically used.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
20 4.22(B)(2)(d)5 Amends the permitted use list in the C-N zone
21 4.24(B)(2)D Amends the permitted use list in the C-L zone
22 4.27(B)(2)(d)4 Amends the permitted use list in the E zone
23 4.28(B)(2)(d)l Amends the permitted use list in the I zone
27 5.1.2 Changes the definition to Wholesale Distribution
800 Add 2.1.2(H)(I)-Overview of Development Review Procedures-to allow an applicant of a
complex development proposal to request a non-binding hearing with City Council for
preliminary comments.
Problem Statement
Presently,the Code does not offer a process by which an applicant may seek informal
feedback or preliminary comments from City Council regarding complex land use
proposals that involve both legislative and quasi-judicial decisions on the part of the City.
Council may consider applications via the quasi-judicial process such as an appeal of an
O.D.P.,or P.D.P.,by a party-in-interest. Council may also take action via the legislative
process such as consideration of an annexation;Comprehensive Plan element;zonings or
rezonings of more than 640 acres;or establishing an urban renewal district,tax increment
financing district or special improvement district.
For land development proposals that have a high degree of complexity and involve both
kinds of decisions,there is no process for either applicants or City Council to engage in an
informal dialogue about the feasibility of the overall proposal. Direct,on-the-record
communication between applicants and Council may provide information for both parties
that otherwise could not be communicated.
Both City Council and potential applicants have indicated that a new format that allows
preliminary,but non-binding feedback would benefit all parties.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution would be to add a new section to Article Two that establishes a
review procedure for the purpose of receiving preliminary comments from the City
Council. The new section would also clarify that it would be inappropriate for an
applicant or other members of the public to talk to either the City Council,the Planning
and Zoning Board or the Hearing Officer"off-the-record"outside of the hearing process
about a development plan.
Related Code Revisions
Wednesday,May 28,2008 Page 1 I of 12
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
2 2.1.2(H)(1) Adds an option for a non-binding hearing with Council
Wednesday,May 28,2008 Page 12 of 12
ATTACHMENT
Planning & Zoning Board
May 15, 2008
Page 8
Project: 2008 Annual Revisions, Clarifications &Additions to the Land Use Code
Project Description: This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding the annual
update to the Land Use Code. There are proposed revisions, clarifications and
additions to the Code that address a variety of subject areas that have arisen
since the last update in 2007.
Recommendation: Approval
Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Chief City Planner Ted Shepard reported there are fourteen proposed items that change, clarify or
add to the Land Use Code. The revisions, by Article, are summarized as follows:
• Article One —Organization —one change
• Article Two—Administration—zone change
• Article Three —General Development Standards—four changes
• Article Four— Districts—five changes
■ Article Five —Terms and definitions—three changes
Item 800 has recently been initiated at the City Manager/City Attorney's office level. The proposal will
--Add 2.1.2 (H)(1)—Overview of Development Review Procedures—to allow an applicant of a complex
development proposal to request a non-binding hearing with City Council for preliminary comments.
That item was added after the work session. A memo outlining the change was distributed prior to the
Board hearing.
The board agreed they were ready to act on items 780-799.
Member Lingle moved to approve the 2008 Annual Revisions, Clarifications and Additions of
the Land Use Code, items 780-799. Member Campana seconded the motion.
Member Stockover asked if item# 794, Exemptions from Building Height Regulations would have
affected the case previously heard? Shepard said the change would amend 3.8.17 (C) Building
Height Regulation to resolve a discrepancy with 3.5.1 (G) — Building Height Review. Section 3.5.1 (G)
requires that buildings greater than 40 feet in height above grade shall be reviewed and evaluated for
impacts on view, lights and shadow, privacy and neighborhood scale. Section 3.8.17(C) lists seven
building components that are exempt from the building height regulations. One of these exceptions is
"elevator bulkheads and stairway enclosures."
The proposed solution would be to continue to allow the exemption, but only a long as elevator
bulkheads and stairway enclosures cover no more than five (5) percent of the horizontal surface area
of the roof. This allowance of up to 5% coverage matches the allowance offered by "cooling towers,
ventilators and other similar equipment that cover no more than five (5) percent of the horizontal
surface area of the roof." The solution resolves a discrepancy between two code sections.
Motion was approved 7:0.
ATTACHMENTS
Planning &Zoning Board
May 15, 2008
Page 9
Item 800—Add 2.1.2 (H)IIl —Overview of Development Review Procedures —to allow an
applicant of a complex development proposal to request a non-binding hearing with City
Council for preliminary comments.
Eckman reported that presently the Code does not offer a process by which an applicant may seek
informal feedback or preliminary comments from City Council regarding complex land use proposals
that involve both legislative and quasi-judicial decisions on the part of the City. Council may consider
applications via the quasi-judicial process such as an appeal of an O.D.P, or a P.D.P., by a party-in-
interest. Council may also take action via the legislative process such as consideration of an
annexation; Comprehensive Plan element; zonings or re-zonings of more than 640 acres; or
establishing an urban renewal district, tax increment financing district or special improvement district.
For land development proposals that have a high degree of complexity and involve both kinds of
decision, there is no process for either applicants or City Council to engage in an informal dialogue
about the feasibility of the overall proposal. Direct, on-the-record communication between applicants
and Council may provide information for both parties that otherwise could not be communicated.
Both City Council and potential applicants have indicated that a new format that allows preliminary,
but non-binding feedback would benefit all parties.
The proposed solution would be to add a new section to Article Two that establishes a review
procedure for the purpose of receiving preliminary comments from the City Council. The new section
would also clarify that it would be inappropriate for an applicant or other members of the public to talk
to the City Council, the Planning and Zoning Board or the Hearing Officer"off-the-record" outside of
the hearing process about a development plan.
Whenever an application for approval of a development plan also entails the approval of an
annexation for petition or an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan or some other kind of
legislative action by the City Council, the applicant for such approval may request that the City Council
conduct a hearing prior to submittal of the development application or annexation petition for the
purposes of receiving preliminary comments from City Council. Such a hearing will then be held in
accordance with the provisions contained in Steps 6, 7(B) and 7 (C) of the Common Development
Review Procedures, except that the signs required to be posted under Step 6(B) shall be posted
subsequent to the scheduling of the hearing and not less than fourteen (14) days prior to the date of
the hearing. At the time of requesting the hearing, the applicant must advance the City's estimated
costs of providing notice of the hearing. Any amount paid that exceeds actual costs will be refunded
to the applicant. At the conclusion of the hearing, members of the City Council may, but shall not be
required to, comment on the development plan. Any comment, suggestion, or recommendation made
by any Councilmember with regard to the development plan is gratuitous and does not bind or other
wise obligate any City decision maker (including this Board) to any course of conduct or decision after
an application for approval of the plan has been submitted.
Is it permissible to talk with decision makers about a development plan prior to the decision makers'
formal review of the application? No. Development plans must be reviewed and approved in
accordance with the provisions of this Land Use Code and the City's decision whether to approve or
deny an application must be based on the criteria established herein and on the information provided
at the hearings held on the application. In order to afford all persons who may be affected by the
review and approval of a development plan an opportunity to respond to the information upon which
decision regarding the plan will be made, and in order to preserve the impartiality of the decision
makers, all decision makers who intend to participate in the decisions are encouraged to avoid
Planning & Zoning Board
May 15, 2008
Page 10
communicating with the applicant or other members of the public about the plan prior to the hearings
in which they intend to participate.
It's important to preserve if you want to make sure you have an impartial tribunal in the event of an
appeal. That's why we want to make sure it's non-binding. Eckman has never seen a case where
there's been an open public hearing (and they can provide non-binding feedback) that later biased
individual council members on appeal. If the content of a hearing is quasi-judicial matters it becomes
more difficult to avoid bias. They are trying to fashion a way that this meeting can be held with
Council prior to the filing of an application. It's modeled somewhat after the City/County of
Broomfield, City of Loveland and others.
Public Input. None
Chair Schmidt asked the following questions:
• Is only one hearing allowed? Eckman responded yes.
• Where will the notice be posted? Shepard replied on the Public Meeting Notice Board at City
Hall and via a legal notice in the Coloradoan.
• Can other people such as staff participate in the hearings as information providers? How will
City Council get all the correct information on whether it meets the provisions of the Land Use
Code? Eckman said he couldn't answer those questions from the language in the
recommended amendment. His opinion, however, it it's a hearing and with notice gives
anyone who comes has an opportunity to speak.
• Would Council be given contextual information by staff such as sub-area plan information
when applicable? Would that be allowed at the hearing or would that be considered biased?
Eckman responded staff could participate and answer questions. It was not intended,
however, that the Planning &Zoning Board participate. The intention is to keep the Board's
process separate, purely quasi-judicial, and free from tainting the process.
Member Lingle asked how it would not taint their process. Eckman replied the Board would not be
involved with the hearing so you wouldn't hear their particular input. Lingle asked if an applicant got
non-binding comments from City Council first, wouldn't City staff present at that hearing not take into
account the non-binding comments? Wouldn't that influence their recommendations to the Board?
Eckman responded that the staff would be instructed that the Land Use Code is their guiding
document as it is the Board's.
Member Lingle said he thinks this is one of the most incredible bad ideas he's heard in a long time.
Member Lingle asked about the proposed paragraph G—"Any comment, suggestion, or
recommendation made by any Councilmember with regard to the development plan is gratuitous and
does not bind or otherwise obligate any City decision maker(including the Board) to any course of
conduct or decision after an application for approval of the plan has been submitted"—that's just so
unrealistic--to really think that would not happen. I can think of an example since I've been on the
Board of something that came up between the City and the State of Colorado relative to moving the
rest areas. There were all these "deals"that had been made between the City and the State for land
exchanges and open space prior to it coming to the Board. It was behind the scenes and the Board
knew nothing about. They made a recommendation to City Council 7:0 against the development.
City Council overturned that decision and then chastised them for not following their direction for
which they were not even aware.
Planning & Zoning Board
May 15, 2008
Page 11
Chair Schmidt said it would be a waste of the Board's time if that's the way it's going to be. In the
case of the City and the State of Colorado they spent a lot of time reviewing that.
Chair Schmidt asked how the Board would know that any of the recommendations made by a
Councilmember will be based on the Land Use Code. Their recommendation could be different then
the Land Use Code criteria the Board uses.
Chair Schmidt said she understands that part of the reason for the change is to get some of the
proposals more into the daylight. That's admirable—it goes to City Council, they make their
comments. What if another municipality offer them more and the developer comes back to counter—
how many hearings will they have? Is it going to alert other municipalities to our bargaining If we're
going to bargain in the daylight, is every body else doing that? Or are we, in some respects putting
ourselves at a disadvantage? Eckman noted the more than one hearing is a good point that he'll
take back to the managers. The number of hearings allowed should be clarified.
Member Campana said that Schmidt had a good point about confidentiality. The way he sees it (as a
developer,) however, is you get the chance to get a "gut check" on non-Code related items. If you
need approval of a zoning change or a Comprehensive Plan change it would be good to know what
direction Council wants to go. You'd get a sense of whether to proceed on spending your time and
money—limit your risk to getting turned down later. When it comes to the Board, we'll use the Land
Use Code—not what we're reading in the paper. He likes the proposal.
Member Wetzler doesn't like the proposal for a couple of reasons: he thinks the change would
"precondition"the outcome. If the project came to Council on appeal—wouldn't a council member
already made their decision at the hearing? Also, he likes the way the system currently works—staff
does an incredible job of working with the applicant/the Board.
Member Rollins asked if the Board was being asked to vote on Item 800 tonight? Shepard replied
yes. It's a LUC recommendation. Shepard said whatever action taken by the Board tonight will go to
City Council at their June 3`d meeting. Rollins said the other code changes were worked on for two
work sessions. Item 800 was given to them as recently as tonight. There are a lot of questions the
Board has not even thought of yet. This is a very important proposed change so she feels very
uncomfortable making a yes or no determination tonight. It doesn't seem appropriate.
Member Stockover asked since this is an annual recommendation, would the Board be allowed to
table the item and take it to a work session to review. Shepard replied the "annual-ness" is not written
in stone. A good idea does not have to wait a year or any idea does not need to get rushed through.
Staff has taken items out of sequence given the time of the year the idea was brought forward.
Eckman added the City Manager wants the changes to go to City Council on June 3`d. He'd think
they'd want a yes or no versus a postponement.
Member Smith asked how do applicants currently make queries about the Council's preference on
legislative matters—is it through the City Manager? Eckman replied applicants can currently talk to
Council on legislative issues (which are annexations, Comprehensive Plan (including sub-area plan)
changes, and re-zonings greater than one square mile (640 acres.)
Member Smith said if an applicant can lobby individual Council members on legislative issues, he
didn't understand what would be gained by addressing the group. Eckman provided a theoretic
example. In the case of Front Range Village for instance, the applicant wanted to speak to Council
about a zoning change to the Harmony Corridor Plan, the applicant would need to lay out his general
Planning & Zoning Board
May 15, 2008
Page 12
development concepts. Smith wondered how he talk about rezoning and not talk about quasi-judicial
matters—it becomes very difficult.
Chair Schmidt asked Director Gloss if a change had not already taken place that makes it easier for
an applicant to come in to meet with staff without having to pay fees. Gloss responded there is a
preliminary design review that is more comprehensive pre-application process. Staff collaborative
works through issues before a submittal. That process, however, does not involve the Council, the
Board or the Hearing Officer. Schmidt asked if staff ever gives guidance such as 'this isn't going to
fly; nothing like this has ever been built before...' Gloss said staff tries to identify fatal flaws early in
the process and make it very clear in their professional opinion whether an application has a chance
to go forward or not.
Member Campana said staff does a good job at that—letting them know if modifications will need to
happen to make the project fly. He thought the proposed change would be a valuable tool in the tool
box for some of the complex issues for upcoming projects. He thinks there's a reason why they
(developers and Council) are asking for it. The dynamics have changed regionally and this just gives
us a tool to be more efficient in putting the best project forward on a particular piece of ground.
Eckman stated that this does not apply to "any run of the mill" project that doesn't involve a legislative
action on the part of Council. If it's simple application for a Planned Unit Development under the Land
Use Code that's purely quasi-judicial, this process would not be available.
Member Lingle said he thinks the Board understands how City Council feels if it's a Land Use Code or
a modification of standards request. He thinks, however, this direction is off base. We either have a
good planning review process or we don't He doesn't think it should be changed on a whim based on
what a neighboring municipality might do—it's not good planning.
Chair Schmidt said she understands the issue and she remembers Council's frustration relative to the
rest stops. Her thoughts are she wished we would have known. Whether their decision would have
been different or not it would have been nice to know (possibly via a staff report.). Then it's up
front...you know what Council thinks...you just than operation in the quasi-judicial arena for a
decision. On the Front Village project the pressure was so intense on the timeframe (to beat other
projects.) It was very obvious which direction City Council wanted to go whether there was an open
hearing or not. She had concerns about the public notice of the hearing—posting on a bulletin board
or in the Coloradoan doesn't really"cut it for me" to make sure the public is aware of a proposal.
Member Wetzler thinks we're operating on thin ice if we move this to the political arena. We have a
great review process as it is. He thinks staff—their work, their support of good ideas, and their
collaboration with applicants works. It's not like the 'ble days"when developers went down the road
because the City was impossible to deal with. People have a much more positive outlook. They
understand what kind of opposition (heat) they're going to have to face. He's not going to support the
change.
Member Campana said he'd like to rally a little more support for the proposal. The planning
methodology is good—the support staff gives developers and the improvements the City has made—
makes it more friendly for developers. In today's environment, however, it would be helpful to make
some improvements at the starting gate level. There could be a project out there that would benefit
the City in a number of different ways (something we may not even hear) because a developer says I
don't even know what's going to happen there so I'm going to go to another community. He thinks we
should have the option (within the context of what's good in the Comprehensive Plan) to keep the
projects in our community. With every change there's pros and cons. This may not be 100%
Planning & Zoning Board
May 15, 2008
Page 13
positive—there may be flaws. He thinks, however, it's necessary for what our community is dealing
with.
Member Smith said he'd like to echo some of Member Rollins concerns. The proposal has some
merit and some issues. He doesn't feel confident making a decision with limited analysis—not like
analyses they've recently done on less significant Land Use Code changes. Like I tell my children: "If
you want me to decide now, I guess I need to tell you no."
Chair Schmidt asked staff members Gloss, Shepard and Eckman what really is our benefit to doing it
this way—out in the open? I think we all know that discussions are taking place. It's still going to take
time to schedule a hearing, to post a notice, to have a hearing. That could take on average four
weeks and they could have had informal conversations in the meantime. Plus, you're also saying
they're having those conversations with other municipalities. She's not sure what we're gaining by
doing this. Eckman replied as it says in the problem statement, "both City Council and potential
applicants have indicated that a new format that allows preliminary, but non-binding feedback would
benefit all parties."
Eckman said relative to the Board's perceptions that conversations are taking place—that's not so.
The City doesn't support developers talking to City Council members "out of school." We think they
honor that. This proposal would provide a forum for that dialogue. Schmidt asked if developers talk
to staff who will take the content to City Council in work session. Eckman said staff do not take
Planned Unit Development plans to City Council in work session. Shepard said they present potential
amendments to sub-area plans. For example, there may be a pretty substantial revamp of the
Mountain Vista Sub-area Plan and the South College Corridor Plan. They're staff initiated and not
the result of any one developers—it's just good Comprehensive Plan planning.
Chair Schmidt asked if a developer can talk to staff and ask them to take a particular issue to City
Council. Shepard replied that does not happen now. Eckman said that is what the proposed
amendment would allow. It doesn't fit the format of a work session. It' better to have a written
procedure with notice and not to confuse it with Council work sessions. "If you're going to do it, do it
under a specific procedure."
Member Stockover asked if there was going to be a procedure for reporting non-binding
recommendations made by City Council? Eckman thought the Board should receive their applications
as they've always had and measure them against the Land Use Code. If the Council decides they
want to make legislative changes to the Land Use Code before it's reviewed by the Board that would
be their prerogative. He'd like to suggest we keep our process here just focused on the Land Use
Code.
Shepard said the Land Use Code requires that any changes to the Land Use Code first come to the
Planning & Zoning Board (to make a recommendation to Council.) Eckman reminded them that
Council would be free to approve or deny any recommendation made by the Board relative to the
Land Use Code.
Shepard asked Eckman if it would be appropriate that a request for hearing minutes be delivered to
the Board in a certain time frame. Eckman replied the Board should feel free to make any change
requests to the proposal. He'd already made a note related to having one hearing. Eckman said that
a recommendation one way or the other would be appreciated by City Council.
Planning &Zoning Board
May 15, 2008
Page 14
Member Stockover said he's not as concerned as other members about a developer's plan to get the
approvals they need. Boards change—City Council and Planning &Zoning. They still need to
concentrate and satisfy Land Use Code requirements. He didn't think that adding this step would
really change the outcome.
Chair Schmidt used an example—Bayer Property (Front Range Village.) There was a lot of pressure
to approve it as a life style center and the Board did that (even based on very sketchy drawings.)
Then they back asking for a big box project. It's hard to deny a project when there's been a
collaborative work relationship. It's hard to change in the middle of the stream and say no.
Chair Schmidt asked how long this new non-binding process would take last. Would it change with a
new City Council? This Council may say this is a good vision and its two years down the road before
this vision (a development) materializes. Eckman said it's non-binding in the first place so even if
Council changes, it shouldn't affect the process. Say an appeal comes—Council might be persuaded
by the Board's decision (with their level of more current detailed information) than with the information
they had at the preliminary hearing.
Member Smith wondered about the quality of the deliberations--given a hearing is in the early stages
of planning a development and an apolitical review. A hearing may be inadequate to insure a high
quality development. Then, later on, if the developer's plan is for an appeal (should the Board deem
they do not meet the requirements of the Land Use Code,) it doesn't seem like it would be in the best
interests of the citizens.
Member Campana said P&Z just makes recommendations relative to changes of the Comprehensive
Plan. We're only ruling on actual Land Use Code issues. The intent is everything outside of what
we're doing. Generally speaking you can design your project around that Code Book—it either works
or it doesn't. It may involve modification requests. The wild card here is has the vision of the
Comprehensive Plan changed? Has the vision of the Harmony Corridor Plan changed? Has the
vision of 1-25/Harmony changed? What they're trying to accomplish here is to get a "gut check" from
the decision makers on those issues.
Member Wetzler says he thinks the proposal is a compromise that will undermine the integrity of the
system—little by little "it'll turn the boat upside down."
Chair Schmidt asked if the Board was ready to give direction. Do you want to have a vote? Another
option might be we could just list individual comments. Staff member Shepard said that a
recommendation is requested—a vote to approve or deny is being requested.
Member Compana moved the Planning and Zoning Board recommend the adoption of Land
Use Code Item 800 with changes that there be one hearing and a summary of that hearing be
given to the Planning &Zoning Board. Member Stockover seconded the motion.
Member Wetzler thinks there will be unintended consequences—the process has been too quick.
Chair Schmidt said that was her general feeling. She can see both sides. She can see there would
be a benefit to people but I think this is being rushed through and I don't like the feeling of that. There
are some things to be taken into consideration--do you want to do more public announcement, what
exactly would be covered? I don't think the Board's been given ample enough time to discuss (even
with the Board's Council Liaison.) At this point in time, she cannot support it.
Planning &Zoning Board
May 15, 2008
Page 15
The motion failed 2:4 with Members Smith, Lingle,Wetzler and Chair Smith voting no and
Member Rollins refraining from voting.
Eckman asked if it is to be interpreted that the Board does not recommend the adoption of the LUC
Item 800. The Board agreed that is the interpretation. Eckman asked if the Board wanted to make a
motion that would make their recommendation more clear. Member Lingle said we did not support a
positive recommendation to Council—he does not see that its not clear but if we need to do
something different we could. Eckman said that if you want us to take that to Council we will. Chair
Schmidt says that pretty accurately describes how some of us feel—at this time, with the way it's been
proposed they do not recommend the adoption of LUC Item 800.
Member Smith said that perhaps with a more thorough analysis and discussion (work session or what
have you) there could have been a different outcome.
Member Wetzler said that he could be convinced if whatever takes place does not circumvent
processes that are there for very good reasons...thus the unintended consequences concerns.
Meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
Cameron Gloss, Director Brigitte Schmidt, Chair
ORDINANCE NO , 073 , 2008
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 , 19971 by Ordinance No. 051 , 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 1 . 3 .4 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
1 .3.4 Addition of Permitted Uses
(A) Required Findings. In conjunction with a particular development proposal
and upon application by the applicant or on the Director's own initiative, the
Director (or the Planning and Zoning Board as specifically authorized in
subparagraphs (5) and (6) below) may add to the uses specified in a
particular zone district any other similar use which conforms to all of the
following conditions :
( 1 ) Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added;
(2) Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and
the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added;
(3 ) Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust,
heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more
traffic hazards , traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental
I
impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities
or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or
aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount
normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone
district to which it is added;
(4) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone
district to which it is added;
(5) Such use is not specifically listed by name as a prohibited use in the
zone district to which it is added, or if such use is prohibited, the
proposed use is specific to the proposed site, is not considered for a
text amendment under paragraph (B) below, and is specifically found
by the Planning and Zoning Board to not be detrimental to the public
good and to be in compliance with the requirements and criteria
contained in Section 3 . 5 . 1 ;
(6) Such use is not specifically listed as a "Permitted Use" in Article 4 or
if such use is not specifically listed, the proposed use is specific to the
proposed site, is not considered for a text amendment under paragraph
(B) below, and is specifically found by the Planning and Zoning
Board to not be detrimental to the public good and to be in
compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in Section
3 . 5 . 1 . (See Section 2 . 9 for the procedures for text amendments.)
(C) Conditions. When any use has been added to the list of permitted uses in
any zone district in accordance with this Section, the Director (or the
Planning and Zoning Board, if applicable) may impose such conditions and
requirements on such use as are necessary or desirable to accomplish the
purposes and intent of this Land Use Code, to ensure consistency with City
Plan and its adopted components and associated sub-area plans, to prevent
or minimize adverse effects and impacts upon the public and
neighborhoods, and to ensure compatibility of uses .
Section 2 . That Section 2 . 1 .2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of new subparagraphs (H) and (I) which read as follows :
2. 1 .2 Overview of Development Review Procedures
This article establishes the development review procedures for different
types of development applications and building permits within the city.
(H) Is it possible to receive preliminary feedback from the City
Council regarding complex development proposals ? When an
2
application for approval of a development plan also entails the approval of
an annexation petition or an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan
or some other kind of legislative action by the City Council, the applicant
for such approval may request that the City Council conduct a hearing,
prior to submittal of the development application or annexation petition,
for the purpose of receiving preliminary comments from the City Council
regarding the overall proposal. Such hearing will then be held in
accordance with the provisions contained in Steps 6, 7(B) and 7(C) of the
Common Development Review Procedures, except that the signs required
to be posted under Step 6(B) shall be posted subsequent to the scheduling
of the hearing and not less than fourteen ( 14) days prior to the date of the
hearing. At the time of requesting the hearing, the applicant must advance
the City's estimated costs of providing notice of the hearing. Any amounts
paid that exceed actual costs will be refunded to the applicant. At the
conclusion of the hearing, members of the City Council may, but shall not
be required to, comment on the proposal. Any comment, suggestion, or
recommendation made by any Councilmember with regard to the proposal
does not bind or otherwise obligate any City decision maker to any course
of conduct or decision pertaining to the proposal. Only one such hearing
may be requested.
(I) Is it permissible to talk with decision makers "off the record"
about a development plan prior to the decision makers 'formal review of
the application ? No . Development plans must be reviewed and approved
in accordance with the provisions of this Land Use Code and the City's
decision whether to approve or deny an application must be based on the
criteria established herein and on the information provided at the hearings
held on the application. In order to afford all persons who may be affected
by the review and approval of a development plan an opportunity to
respond to the information upon which decisions regarding the plan will
be made, and in order to preserve the impartiality of the decision makers,
decision makers who intend to participate in the decisions should avoid
communications with the applicant or other members of the public about
the plan prior to the hearings in which they intend to participate .
Section 3 . That Section 2 . 11 . 1 (B)( 1 ) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(B) Applicability. This Division shall apply to appeals from an administrative
decision regarding the interpretation and/or application of the land use
regulations which preceded this Land Use Code, and to appeals from the
following administrative decisions made under this Land Use Code,
provided such administrative decision is not for approval, approval with
conditions, or denial either of a project development plan or a final plan
pursuant to Divisions 2 .4 or 2 . 5 or of an administrative
3
amendment/abandonment of any such plan or of any plan approved under
prior law, processed pursuant to Section 2 .2 . 10 (Step 10) :
( 1 ) Addition of a Permitted Use by Director (but not by Planning and
Zoning Board) under Section 1 . 3 .4 ;
Section 4 . That Section 3 .2 . 1 (K) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
(K) Utilities and Traffic. Landscape, futility and traffic plans shall be
coordinated. The following list sets forth minimum dimension
requirements for the most common tree/utility and traffic control device
separations . Exceptions to these requirements may occur where utilities or
traffic control devices are not located in their standard designated locations,
as approved by the Director. Tree/utility and traffic control device
separations shall not be used as a means of avoiding the planting of required
street trees .
( 1 ) Forty (40) feet between shade trees and streetlights . Fifteen ( 15) feet
between ornamental trees and streetlights. (See Figure 2 .)
Figure 2
Tree/Streetlight Separations
SHADE TREES ORNAMENTAL TREES
40' 15 '
•
STREETLIGHT STOWU4H
AW
(2) Twenty (20) feet between shade and/or ornamental trees and traffic
control signs and devices .
(-23 ) Ten ( 10) feet between trees and water or sewer mains .
(34) Six (6) feet between trees and water or sewer service lines .
4
(45) Four (4) feet between trees and gas lines
(56) Street trees on local streets planted within the eight-foot-wide utility
easement may conflict with utilities. Additional conduit may be
required to protect underground electric lines .
Section 5 . That Section 3 . 3 .2(F) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
F) Off=Site Public Access Improvements.
(2) Costs and Reimbursements. When any per.... e developer of any
property constructs an off-site street, street intersection, sidewalk, alley, or—path or other
related improvements through undeveloped- areas or areas that may be redevelop 0
serve the prepertdevelopment site or constructs such improvements along the perimeter
of the prope development site, the entire cost of such construction (including right-of-
way acquisition) shall be the responsibility of such pefsendeveloper. If, within twelve
( 12) months of the completion and acceptance by the city of such improvements, the
developer installing such improvements (the "Installing Developer") has entered into a
reimbursement agreement with the city in the manner prescribed by this Section, then, at
the time suekthat other property adjacent to the improvements (the "Adjacent Property")
is developed or redeveloped and access to such improvements is accomplished or other
benefit from such improvements is conferred, the city may collect from the developer of
the Adjacent Property a proportionate charge, per r� foot from the abetting
develeperbased upon the cost incurred by the Installing Developer, plus an inflation
factor, and based upon the benefit conferred upon the Adjacent Property . For the purpose
of this provision, benefit to the Adjacent Property may include, among other things, the
construction of improvements that will allow the Adjacent Property to be developed in
accordance with the requirements of Section 3 . 6 .4, where in the absence of the
improvements, such development would not be allowed to proceed. Said charge, if
imposed by the City, shall be paid prior to the issuance of any -Bbuilding P-permits for the
abuttingAdjacent pProperty; provided, however, that the city shall not attempt to make
such collection unless the reimbursement agreement has been timely and properly
prepared, executed and delivered to the city. If the front
footsuch charge is collected, the
city shall reimburse the Installing dDeveloper to the extent of such collection after
deducting a service charge of three (3 ) percent to cover administrative costs. All costs for
the construction (including right-of-way acquisition) of stre-e such improvements must be
fully paid by the iInstalling dDeveloper before such person shall be entitled to
reimbursement under any agreement established hereunder. The amount of the
reimbursement assessed by the city for each aAdjacent pProperty as it develops shall be
based on ( 1 ) the fair market value (as determined by the city) of any right-of-way
acquired by the Anstalling dDeveloper that was needed for, and is directly attributable to,
the improvements, and (2) the original cost of design and construction of the
improvements plus an adjustment for inflation based on the construction cost index for
Denver, Colorado, as published monthly by "Engineering News Record. " in no ease
shall the front foot charge reflect less than the (If said index shows deflation, the
s
adjustment shall be made accordingly, but not below the original cost as submitted by the
iInstalling dDeveloper and approved by the City Engineer.) The original cost of the
right-of-way and design and construction shall mean the cost of right-of-way acquisition,
financing, engineering, construction and any other costs actually incurred which are
directly attributable to the improvements, including any costs incurred for the formation
or administration of a special improvement district. The city's obligation to reimburse the
lInstalling dDeveloper shall be contingent upon the city's actual collection of the front
foot-charge from the abtittin developer of the Adjacent Property. In order to obtain
approval of a reimbursement agreement from the city, the iInstalling dDeveloper shall
provide the City Engineer with copies of the following, after acceptance of the
improvements :
(a) real estate closing documents and/or appraisals or other documents
showing to the satisfaction of the city the fair market value of the right-of-
way for the improvements ;
(b) an invoice from the iInstalling dDeveloper's engineer for any fee assessed
on the project;
(c) the contractor's application for final payment approved by the iInstalling
dDeveloper's engineer;
(d) a letter from the iInstalling dDeveloper and/or contractor certifying that
final payment has been received by the contractor;
(e) a letter from the iInstalling dDeveloper and/or engineer certifying that
final payment of engineering fees has been made;
(f) a map prepared by a licensed engineer or surveyor which shows :
1 . the location of the improvements constructed;
2 , the name of the owner of each Adjacent pProperty which has
floatage- alongis benefited by the improvements ;
3 . the rfiont-ago-of-e-ac-hproportionate benefit conferred upon each
Adjacent pProperty-abutting theme ne ts, together with the
assessment due based on the original costs;
4. the acreage and parcel number of each Adjacent pProperty "'-gig
the improvements ;
5 , a reference to the book, page and reception number from the
records of the county Clerk and Recorder where the information
for each property was obtained; and
6
6 . any other information deemed necessary by the City Engineer.
Any right to reimbursement pursuant to this provision shall not exceed a period of ten
( 10) years from the acceptance by the city of the street improvements . The City Council
may approve extensions of the reimbursement agreement for additional ten ( 10) -year
periods . No such reimbursement shall be made unless the person entitled to
reimbursement has fully satisfied his or her obligations under any other reimbursement
agreements with the city.
Section 6 . That Section 3 . 5 . 1 (A) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
3 .5. 1 Building and Project Compatibility
(A) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to ensure that the physical and
operational characteristics of proposed buildings and uses are compatible
when considered within the context of the surrounding area. They should
be read in conjunction with the more specific building standards contained
in this Division 3 . 5 and the zone district standards contained in Article 4 .
All criteria and regulations contained in this Section that pertain to
"developments", "the development plan", "buildings", and other similar
terms shall be read to include the application of said criteria and regulations
to any determination made by the Planning and Zoning Board under Section
1 . 3 .4(A)(5) and (6) for the purpose of evaluating the authorization of an
additional use .
Section 7 . That Section 3 . 8 . 4(A) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
3.8.4 Child Care Center Regulations
(A) A minimum of two thousand five hundred (2 , 500) square feet of outdoor
play area shall be provided for fifteen ( 15) children or fewer, with seventy-
five (75) additional square feet being required for each additional child,
except that the size of the total play area need only accommodate at least
fifty (50) percent of the capacity of the center, and that such outdoor play
area shall not be required for drop-in child care centers . For the purposes of
this subsection, the capacity of the center is calculated based upon indoor
floor space reserved for school purposes of forty (40) square feet per child.
Any such play area within or abutting any residential district shall be
enclosed by a decorative solid wood fence, masonry wall or chain link fence
with vegetation screening, densely planted. The height of such fence shall
be a minimum of six (6) feet and shall comply with Section 3 . 8 . 11 . Where
access to preschool nurseries is provided by other than local streets, an off-
street vehicular bay or driveway shall be provided for the purpose of
loading and unloading children.
Section 8 . That Section 3 . 8 . 17(C) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
(C) Exemptions From Building Height Regulations. The following structures
and features shall be exempt from the height requirements of this Land Use
Code :
( 1 ) chimneys, smokestacks or flues that cover no more than five (5)
percent of the horizontal surface area of the roof;
(2) cooling towers, ventilators and other similar equipment that cover no
more than five (5) percent of the horizontal surface area of the roof;
(3 ) elevator bulkheads and stairway enclosures that cover no more than
five (5) percent of the horizontal surface area of the roof;
(4) fire towers ;
(5 ) utility poles and support structures;
(6) belfries, spires and steeples ;
(7) monuments and ornamental towers ;
(8) solar energy systems .
Section 9 . That Section 4 . 6(B)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
by the addition of a new subparagraph 6 which reads in its entirety as follows :
6 . Restaurant, limited mixed-use .
Section 10 . That Section 4 . 6(B)(3 )(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
to read as follows :
(c) Commercial and Retail Uses .
1 . Personal and business service shops .
2 . Offices, financial services, clinics and small animal
veterinary clinics .
2 Resta ant limited
imite mixed use
8
Section 11 . That Section 4 . 8(B)( 1 )(a)2 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
2 . Two-family dwellings where there is only one ( 1 ) principal
building on the lot, provided that no structural additions or
exterior alterations are made to than existing building or
the dwellings are constructed on a vacant lot or a parcel
which did not contain a structure on October 25 , 1991 ,
Section 12 . That Section 4 . 8 (B)(2)(a)2 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
2 . Two-family dwellings when there is more than one ( 1 )
principal building on the lot, provided that no structural
additional or exterior alterations are made to than existing
building or the dwellings are constructed on a vacant lot or
a parcel which did not contain a structure on October 25 ,
1991 , and provided that such two-family dwelling is
located within a street-fronting principal building.
Section 13 . That Section 4 . 9(B)( 1 )(a)2 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
2 . Two-family dwellings when there is only one ( 1 ) principal
building on the lot.
Section 14 . That Section 4 . 9(B)( 1 )(a)5 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
5 . Mixed-use dwellings which are not combined with a use
permitted subject to administrative review or Planning and
Zoning Board review, provided that no structural additions
or exterior alterations are made to the existing building, or
the dwellings are constructed on a vacant lot or a parcel
which did not contain a structure on October 25 , 1991 .
Section 15 . That Section 4 . 9(B)(2)(a)2 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
9
2 . Two- family dwellings when there is more than one ( 1 )
principal building on the lot, provided that such two-family
dwelling is located within a street-fronting principal
building.
Section 16 . That Section 4 .9(B)(2)(a)5 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
5 . Mixed-use dwellings which are not combined with a use
permitted subject to basic development review or Planning
and Zoning Board review and 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 ,
Section 17 . That Section 4. 9(B)(3 )(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
by the addition of a new subparagraph 3 which reads in its entirety as follows :
3 . Mixed-use dwellings which are combined with any other
use subject to Planning and Zoning Board review.
Section 18 . That Section 4 . 10(D)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
to read as follows :
(2) Dimensional Standards.
(a) Maximum building height shall be five ( 5 ) stories .
(b)
forty five (45 ) feet and
n from al otheF stfeets steal be thirty
(30)
€eetFor all setback standards, building walls over thirty-five
(35 ) feet in height shall be set back an additional one ( 1 ) foot
beyond the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction
thereof of wall or building that exceeds thirty-five (35 ) feet in
height. Terracing or stepping back the mass of large buildings
is encouraged.
10
Section 19 . That Section 4 . 13 (B)(3 )(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(3 ) The following land uses are permitted in the P -O-L District, subject to
review by the Planning and Zoning Board :
(a) Institutional/Civic/Public Uses :
1 . Golf courses.
2 . Wildlife rescue and education centers .
3 . Community facilities.
Section 20 . That Section 4 .22(B)(2)(d)5 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(d) Industrial Uses :
5 . W^rehousesWholesale distribution.
Section 21 . That the table contained in Section 4 .24(B)(2)D of the Land Use
Code is hereby amended to read as follows :
D. INDUSTRIAL
Workshops and custom small industry uses BDR BDR
Transportation terminals (truck, container storage) BDR Not Permitted
Warehouses BDR Type 1
`x'^r�Wholesale distributions BDR Not Permitted
Light industrial uses Not Permitted Type 2
Research laboratories Not Permitted Type 1
Outdoor storage facilities consisting only of the storage of Type 1 Not Permitted
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 facilities are located at least thirty-five (35)
feet from the flow line of all abutting arterial streets.
Section 22 . That Section 4.27(B)(2)(d)4 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(d) Industrial Uses :
11
4 . 3A'afehousesWholesale distribution.
Section 23 . That Section 4.28(B)(2)(d) l of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(d) Industrial Uses .
1 . ` ar- Wholesale distribution.
Section 24 . That the "Prohibited Uses" paragraph contained in every zone
district listed in the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows :
(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 or the
Planning and Zoning Board pursuant to Section 1 . 3 .4 of this Land Use Code
shall be prohibited.
Section 25 . That the definition of "Director" contained in Section 5 . 1 .2 of the
Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows :
Director shall mean the Director of the GommtHiity Planning and Envir-enm
SeFv ces Sefvi ,o n ,-°.,planning, Development and Transportation Service Unit.
Section 26 . That the definition of "Long-term care facility " contained in
Section 5 . 1 .2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows :
Long-term care facility shall mean any of the following:
(4) Independent living facility shall mean a single-family, two-family and/or
multi-family dwelling which is located within a development that contains one ( 1 )
or more of the facilities described in ( 1 ) through (3 ) above, wherein the residents
of such dwellings have access to the common amenities and services available to
residents of the facilities described in ( 1 ) through (3 ) above and wherein
independent living facilities occupy no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the
total gross floor area of a long-term care development.
Section 27 . That the definition of " Warehouse and distribution " contained in
Section 5 . 1 .2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows :
Warehouse and Wholesale distribution shall mean a use primarily engaged in
storage, whekx a4ethe sale and distribution of manufactured products, supplies or
equipment, including accessory offices or showrooms, and including incidental
12
retail sales, but excluding bulk storage of materials that are inflammable or
explosive or that create hazardous or commonly recognized offensive conditions,
and where the products, supplies or equipment that are distributed from the
facility are not used or consumed on the premises . Activities customarily include
receiving goods in bulk or large lots and assembling, sorting or breaking down
such goods into smaller lots for redistribution or sale to others for resale.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd
day of June, A.D . 2008 , and to be presented for final passage on the 1 st day of July, A.D .
2008 ,
Mayor
ATTEST :
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1 st day of July, A.D . 2008 .
Mayor
ATTEST :
City Clerk
13