HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 11/19/2002 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 177, 2002, MAKING V AGENDA, ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 19
DATE: November 19, 2002
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL FROM: Ted Shepard
SUBJECT :
First Reading f Ordinance No. 177, 2002, Making Various Amendments to the City of Fort
Collins Land L se Code.
RECOMMENDATIO :
Staff recomme ids adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Staff has ide tified a variety of proposed changes, additions and clarifications in the Fall
biannual update of the Land Use Code. On November 5, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Board
voted 4-0 to re ommend approval of the proposed changes to City Council.
CKGROUND:
The Land Use Code was first adopted in March of 1997. Subsequent revisions have been
recommended on a biannual basis to make changes, additions, deletions and clarifications that
have been ide tified in the preceding six months. The proposed changes are offered in order to
resolve implenientation issues and to continuously improve both the overall quality and "user-
friendliness" of the Code.
Attachments i clude a summary of all the issues as well as the draft ordinance itself.
Lase Code Revisions
Annotated Ordinance Index
Ord.Section# Code Cite Revision Effect Issue
1 1.5.5(A)(2) Non-confomrmhng use extended hours of operation. 550 Amend 1.5.5(A)(2)-Non-conforming Uses-so that
the prohibition against extending hours of operation of
a non-conforming use applies whether or not the use is
being expanded.
2 1.5.5(C) Non-confnmrming use extended hours of operation. 550 Amend 1.5.5(A)(2)-Non-conforming Uses-so that
the prohibition against extending hours of operation of
a non-confomdng use applies whether or not the use is
being expanded.
3 2.2.I0(A)(4) Clarify appeals of mina amendments 567 Amend 2.2.11)(A)(4)-Appeal of Minor Amendment-
m strike out"as provided for development plans under
Division 2.3.,2.4,and 2.5"and replace with
"appealable purstrant to Step 12,"for consistency.
4 2.11.2(C) Clarify process. 566 Amend 2.11.2(C)-Administrative Appeal Review
,o Procedures-to change the Development Application
Submittal standard from"not applicable"to
"applicable"to cwrrect an oversight.
5 2.125 Clarify annexation dates. 556 Amend 2.12 to add a section clarifying the effective
date at which point an annexation is legally brought
into the City.
6 2.14.2(A) Revise permit expiration period. 548 Amend 2.14.2(A)so that the building permit
expiration time is the same as stated in Sec.2.7.3(K).
7 3.2.1(K)(2) Reduce separation requirement between trees and 558 Amend 3.2.1-Street Trees-to reflect the discussions
sewerlines. between Current Planning,Forestry and Utilities as to
placement,separations,and spacing resulting in greater
flexibility.
8 3.2.2(L) Clarify parking stall dimensions. 554 Amend 3.2.2(L)to clarify that parking stall dimensions
are"minimum dimensions"and not absolute. Would
allow larger stalls without a modification.
9 3.4.7 Revise standards to be consistent with the Municipal Code. 557 Amend 3.4.7-Historic and Cultural Resources-to
bring this section into conformance with proposed
changes to the City Code with regard to individual
designation versus contribution to a larger district.
"- -- --- -- _ Page I of 3
Wednesday,November 13,2002
Ord.Section# Code Cite Revision Effect Issue
10 3.4.7(E)(1) Revise standards to be consistent with the Municipal Code. 557 Amend 3.4.7-Historic and Cultural Resources-to
bring this section law conformance with proposed
changes to the City Code with regard to individual
designation versus contribution to a larger district.
1 I 3.5.2(D) Revise title of sub-section. 565 Amend 3.5.2(D)-Residential Building Standards to
require minimum lot width of 50 feet for single family
detached dwellings where there are front-loaded
garages and no alleys to allow adequate spacing of
underground utilities,with alternative compliance
12 3.5.2(D)(3) Increase alley accessed garage set back to from 5 to 8 feet. 552 Amend 3.5.2(D)(3)to increase the side yard setback
for alley-accessed garages from 5'to 8'to match the
rear yard alley-accessed garages.
i
13 3.5.2(D)(4) Add new language regarding minimum lot width for single 565 Amend 3.5.2(D)-Residential Building Standards to
family detached houses. require minimum lot width of 50 feet for single family
j detached dwellings where there are front-loaded
garages and no alleys to allow adequate spacing of
underground utilities,with alternative compliance
14 3.8.3(10) Add auto related uses. 559 Amend 3.8.3(10)-Home Occupations-by adding a
new subsection(g)to add"auto related uses"(auto
repair,towing,auto detailing,etc.)to the list of uses
that do not qualify as home occupations.
15 3.8.6 Amend Group Home tables. 546 Amend 3.8.6(AXB)-Group Home Tables-to include
H-M-N zone,inadvertent omission.
16 3.8.7(L)(1) Amend Sign Code re:election signs. 549 Amend 3.8.7(L)(1) Sign Code-Election Signs-to
bring the time allowed for display into conformance
with State Law. Change from 60 days prior to 45,and
5 days after to 4.
17 3.8.17(A)(3) Correct grammer in contextual height standard. 571 Correa 3.8.17(A)(3)-Contextual Height-to change
the verb tense from the grammatically incorrect plural
to singular.
18 3.8.19 New sub-section for decks. - 547 Amend 3.8.19 to add"Decks not more than 30 inches
g in height"to the fist of items allowed to encroach into
,c setbacks.
19 4.4(11)(3)(b)l Include"vocational and technical schools". 561 Amend 4.4(BH3)(b)I-GM-N Type B permitted use
list- to include"vocational and technical schools"
where public and private schools are listed.
i
W '-esday,November 13,2002 Page 2-°3
Ord.Section# Code Cite Revision Effect Issue
20 4.21(1)) Clarify secondary uses in the E zone. 560 Amend the H-C and E zones to add explanatory text
that the secondary uses are either type 1 or 11 based on
the preceding permitted use list. The term"secondary"
does not apply to whether it's a type 1 or 11.
21 4.22(D) Clarify secondary uses in the HC zone. 560 Amend the H-C and E zones to add explanatory text
that the secondary uses are either type I or 11 based on
the preceding permitted use list. The term"secondary"
does not apply to whether it's a type 1 or II.
22 5.1.2 Definition of Block Face 564 Add a definition of"Block Face"
23 5.1.2 Defintion of Zero Lot Line development. 553 Define the term "Zero Lot Une Development"which
is referenced in 3.5.2(D)(3)but not defined in Art.5,
and amend the existing definition of"Zero Lot Line"
by adding the word"Structure."
24 5.1.2 Revise the definition of retail establishment. 555 Amend the term in Art.5-"Retail Establishment"by
expanding the definition to provide for
showroom/catalog type sales.
25 5.1.2 Definition of Zero Lot line Structure 553 Define the term "Zero Lot Line Development"which
is referenced in 3.5.2(D)(3)but not defined in Art.5,
and amend the existing definition of"Zero Lot Line"
by adding the word"Structure."
I
i Wednesday,November 13,2002 Page 3 of 3
:'N
Land Use Code Maintenance Process
Annotated Issue List
546 Amend 3.8.6(A)(B) -Group Home Tables- to include H-M-N zone, inadvertent omission.
Problem Statement
The HMN zoning district was created a few years ago as a result of the West Central
Neighborhood Plan. Due to an oversight at the time of adoption of the HMN regulations,
the Group Home tables in Article 3 were not amended to include this new zone. Since
group homes are a permitted use in the zone,the tables must reference the HMN.
Proposed Solution Overview
Since the HMN is a high density zone,the group home tables in Section 3.8.6(A) and
3.8.6(B)should be amended by including the HMN in the same category as the other
higher density zones.
Related Code Revisions
Ord Se Code CiteRevision ff t
15 3.8.6 Amend Group Home tables.
547 Amend 3.8.19 to add "Decks not more than 30 inches in height" to the list of items allowed to
encroach into setbacks.
Problem Statement
Section 3.8.19 of the LUC contains a list of features that are allowed to encroach into
required setbacks. Such features as fences,bay windows and similar cantilevered floor
areas,open outside stairways,and balconies are among those listed. The building code
exempts decks that are not more than 30 inches above grade from building permit and
building code regulations. It has always been policy that items not subject to a building
permit are also not regulated by zoning setback requirements. Therefore,such low decks
have never been required to be located in compliance with applicable setback
regulations. These types of decks should have been included in 3.8.19 at the time of the
LUC adoption. However,it was recently brought to staffs attention that these features
were left out of 3.8.19.
Proposed Solution Overview
In order to clarify that low decks are allowed to be located within required setbacks,
Section 3.8.19 of the LUC should be amended by adding a new subsection(10)to
address decks that are not more than 30 inches above grade.
Related Code Revisions
Ord Section Code Cite Revision Effect
18 3.8.19 New sub-section for decks.
548 Amend 2.14.2(A)so that the building permit expiration time is the same as stated in Sec.
2.7.3(K).
Problem Statement
Section 2.7.3(K)states that a building permit expires after 6 months,and is eligible for
one 6-month extension. This regulation is the same as that found in the adopted Building
Code. However,Section 2.14.2(A)states that a building permit is valid for I year. Thus
the two sections are in conflict.
40 Proposed Solution Overview
Wednesday,November 06,2002 - — - Page 1 of 8
Both of the LUC sections that establish building permit expiration periods should be _
consistent with each other and with the Building Code. Therefore,Section 2.14.2(A)
should be amended to define a consistent permit expiration period.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Sertinn Code Cite Revision Effert
6 2.14.2(A) Revise permit expiration period.
549 Amend 3.8.7(L)(1)-Sign Code-Election Signs-to bring the time allowed for display into
conformance with State Law. Change from 60 days prior to 45,and 5 days after to 4.
Problem Statement
The LUC allows election signs to be displayed up to 60 days prior to an election and 5
days after an election. The Uniform Election Code,as found in State statutes,allows such
display up to 45 days prior to and 4 days after. This difference in allowed time periods
results in confusion for those individuals and organizations putting up signs and for those
jurisdictions enforcing the regulations.
Proposed Solution Overview
In order to be consistent with State law and with Latimer County regulations,Section
3.8.7(L)(1)of the LUC should be changed.
Related Code Revisions
Ord,Section Code Cite Revision Effect
16 3.8.7(L)(1) Amend Sign Code re:election signs.
550 Amend 1.5.5(A)(2)-Non-conforming Uses-so that the prohibition against extending hours
of operation of a non-conforming use applies whether or not the use is being expanded.
Problem Statement
Section 1.5.5 of the LUC contains regulations that limit the extent to which a
nonconforming use can be expanded. These regulations generally apply only when the
building,facilities,or equipment are proposed to be enlarged or when structures or
equipment are proposed to be added. Section 1.5.5(A)(2)prohibits the hours of operation
from being extended into the hours between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.,but only in
conjunction with an enlargement of the building or facilities. There is no prohibition
against extending the hours of operation if no enlargement is proposed.
Staff recently received a request to allow the hours of operation of an existing
nonconforming adult-oriented use to be extended to 24 hours per day. If the request
would have been accompanied by a request for an enlargement of the building(even an
enlargement for something as small as a 15 s.f.vestibule entry),the expanded hours
would have been denied. However,since there was no accompanying enlargement plan,
the request could not be denied.
Proposed Solution Overview
The impacts of extended hours are the same whether or not a nonconforming building is
being expanded. Staff believes that Section 1.5.5 should be renamed,that 1.5.5(A)(2)
should be amended,and that a new Section 1.5.5(C) should be added to address this
issue.
Related Code Revisions
Ord Section Code CiteRevision Effect
1 1.5.5(A)(2) Non-confomnning use extended hours of operation.
2 1.5.5(C) Non-confomnning use extended hours of operation.
Wakesday,November 06,2002 __ . .. - Page 2 of 8
552 Amend 3.5.2(D)(3) to increase the side yard setback for alley-accessed garages from 5'to 8'to
match the rear yard alley-accessed garages.
Problem Statement
The LUC requires that the setback from a garage to a rear lot line adjacent to an alley be a
minimum of 8' whenever the garage is accessed from the alley. However,the same code
section only requires a minimum setback of 5' from a side lot line,regardless of whether
or not the building is a garage that is accessed from the alley along the side lot line. The
8' rear alley setback requirement is intended to ensure that the garage doors are far
enough behind an alley right-of-way line to minimize the probability of vehicles parallel
parking behind the garage and encroaching into the alley. (In other words,if the garage
doors are setback only 5' from the rear alley,a vehicle parked parallel between the garage
doors and the alley would end up encroaching a few feet into the alley). Some
developments contain lots that do not have an alley along the rear,but instead have an
alley along the side. Permit applications have been submitted for garages with garage
door access off of these side alleys,and have been approved at only a 5' setback since
that's all the code requires. However,the intent of the code to minimize alley
encroachment is defeated with only a 5' setback.
Proposed Solution Overview
In order to make the alley-accessed garage setback requirement consistent regardless of
where the alley is located,Section 3.5.2(D)(3)should be amended.
Related Code Revisions
Ord Sect! Code Cite Revision Effect -
12 3.5.2(D)(3) Increase alley accessed garage set back to from 5 to 8 feet.
553 Define the term "Zero Lot Line Development" which is referenced in 3.5.2(D)(3)but not
• defined in Art.5, and amend the existing definition of"Zero Lot Line' by adding the word
"Structure."
Problem Statement
Section 3.5.2(D)(3)refers to"Zero Lot Line Development"which is not defined and has
lead to confusion in discussion of this small—lot residential development pattern.
Proposed Solution Overview
Add a definition to the Code as follows:
Zero Lot Line Development Plan shall mean a development plan where the location of
buildings,whether single family detached or attached dwellings,are placed on lots in
such a manner that one or more of the building's sides rests directly on a lot line,as
measured from the outer edge of the building's foundation at the ground line,so as to
enhance the quality of usable open space on the lot.
Related Code Revisions
Ord Section Cede CitC Revision Effect
23 5.1.2 Defintion of Zero Lot Line development.
25 5.1.2 Definition of Zero Lot Line Structure
554 Amend 3.2.2(L)to clarify that parking stall dimensions are"minimum dimensions and not
absolute. Would allow larger stalls without a modification.
Problem Statement
We recently processed a request for parking stalls in front of a grocery store to be
increased in size from 9'x 19'to 10' x 19.5'. This required a Modification since the
standard is written as an absolute size not as a minimum size.
Proposed Solution Overview
Weriaesday,November 06,2002 Page 3 of a
By adding the word"minimum",the standard size can be increased without a
Modification.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Secti Codeit Revision Effect
8 3.2.21t.) Clarify parking stall dimensions.
555 Amend the term in Art.5 - 'Retail Establishment" by expanding the definition to provide for
showroom/catalog type sales.
Problem Statement
The current definition has been interpreted to exclude formats in which the display area
for a typical customer occupies a minority of the floor area, with merchandise stocked in
a separate area occupying a majority of the floor area.
Proposed Solution Overview
Amend the definition to include that the stocking of goods for sale to consumers,but not
on the sales floor per se,is considered to be part of the retail business.
Related Code Revisions
Ord Section Code Cite Revision Effect
24 5.1.2 Revise the definition of retail establishment.
556 Amend 2.12 to add a section clarifying the effective date at which point an annexation is
legally brought into the City.
Problem Statement
An annexation requires the approval of an ordinance and requires compliance with State
laws. All City of Fort Collins ordinances,except emergency ordinances,become
effective 10 days after approval of the ordinance on second reading. So one would
expect that an ordinance annexing land would be effective 10 days after second reading.
However that is not always the case since State law stipulates that an annexation becomes
effective on the date of the recording of the annexation plat. Therefore,it's possible that
an annexation ordinance can go into effect on January 1,2003,but if the annexation plat
is not recorded at that time,the property has not really been brought into the city. Since
Section 2.12 of the LUC does not specify the effective date of an annexation,there is
confusion on the part of staff and the public as to when an annexation is truly in effect.
Proposed Solution Overview
In order to clarify the effective date of an annexation,Section 2.12 should be amended
by adding a new subsection 2.12.5.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
5 2.12.5- Clarify annexation dates.
557 Amend 3.4.7-Historic and Cultural Resources-to bring this section into conformance with
proposed changes to the City Code with regard to individual designation versus contribution
to a larger district.
Problem Statement
There are additions and clarifications being made to other sections of the City's
Municipal Code that will result in an inconsistency with the Land Use Code. For
consistency,the Land Use Code needs to be amended accordingly.
Proposed Solution Overview
Revise the Land Use Code to be consistent with Municipal Code revisions.
Wednesday,November 06,2002 - Page 4 of 8
Related Code Revisions
Ord Section Code Cite Revision Effect
9 3.4.7 Revise standards to be consistent with the Municiple Code.
10 3.4.7(E)(1) Revise standards to be consistent with the Municiple Code.
558 Amend 3.2.1 -Street Trees-to reflect the discussions between Current Planning, Forestry and
Utilities as to placement,separations,and spacing resulting in greater flexibility.
Problem Statement
The Code presently requires a minimum of ten feet of horizontal separation between trees
and water or sewer lines. This has resulted in fewer trees for medium to high density
residential projects. In particular,it is difficult to achieve this treelutility separation for
attached single family(townhomes)which is a key housing type in achieving City Plan
densities in both infill and developing neighborhoods. The practical result of the current
standard is that instead of a uniform pleasing streetscape of evenly spaced trees,gaps are
created causing heat gain and a loss of aesthetics.
Proposed Solution Overview
Change the ten-foot separation to six feet.
Related Code Revisions
Ord Section Code Cite Revision Effect
7 3.2.1(K)(2) Reduce separation requirement between trees and
sewerlines.
559 Amend 3.8.3(10)-Home Occupations-by adding a new subsection(g)to add "auto related
uses" (auto repair, towing,auto detailing,etc.) to the list of uses that do not qualify as home
occupations.
Problem Statement
Section 3.8.3(10)of the LUC lists a number of land uses that are not allowed to be
classified as a home occupation. Home occupations are considered to be accessory uses,
and are permitted without any public hearing. The home occupation ordinance contains a
list of non-qualifying uses that should not be allowed pursuant to the non-public hearing
process for home occupations. Auto-related uses such as auto repair,towing,and auto
detailing are generally not compatible with adjacent residential uses,but are currently not
on the list.
Proposed Solution Overview
Section 3.8.3(10)should be amended by adding a new subsection(g)to address auto
related uses.
Related Code Revisions
Ord Section Code Cite Revision Effect
14 3.8.3(10) Add auto related uses.
560 Amend the H-C and E zones to add explanatory text that the secondary uses are either type I
or II based on the preceding permitted use list. The term "secondary" does not apply to
whether it's a type I or II.
Problem Statement
The Harmony Corridor zone regulations and the Employment zone regulations contain a
section that lists which of the permitted uses in the zones are considered to be
"secondary"uses. Specifically,Section 4.21(E)lists all of the permitted uses allowed in
the HC zone and the type of review process required for each permitted use(i.e.Type 1
Wednesday,November 06,2002 Page 5 of 8
or Type 2),and then Section 4.21(D)(2)further categorizes some of the permitted HC
uses as being"secondary'. Similarly,Section 4.22(B)lists all of the permitted uses
allowed in the E zone and then Section 4.22(D)(2)categorizes some of the permitted E
uses as being"secondary'. A secondary use is a type of use that is intended to support
and complement the primary uses of each zone. The primary uses are those that are
deemed to be uses that further the intent of the purpose statement of the particular zone
district.
The secondary use lists in the two zones do not restate the type of review process that is
required for each secondary use. To find the appropriate review process,one must refer
back to the main use list in a previous section of the zone district regulations. For
example,a"standard restaurant"is listed as a secondary use in the E zone in Section
4.22(D)(2),but that section does not make mention of the review process required for
such a use. It is necessary to refer back to 4.22(B)(3)(c)to find that such a use is a Type
2 use. Since the secondary use list does not contain any language regarding which type
of review is applicable,there are instances where developers or property buyers have
assumed that all of the secondary uses are a Type 1 review. This confusion comes about,
they say,because the secondary use language does not address review processes and the
term"secondary"implies that the use is"no big deal",and therefore it is implied that the
level of review needed is less than what would be required for primary uses. So it is
wrongly assumed that a Type 1 review is applicable instead of a Type 2 review.
Proposed Solution Overview
In order to clarify that secondary uses are not always a Type I review,staff recommends
that the introductory paragraph of Section 4.21(D)(2)and of Section 4.22(D)(2)be
amended to address this issue.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
20 4.21(D) Clarify secondary uses,in the E zone.
21 4.22(D) Clarify secondary uses in the HC zone.
561 Amend 4.4(B)(3)(b)1 -L-M-N Type 11 permitted use list- to include"vocational and
technical schools" where public and private schools are listed.
Problem Statement
The LMN district allows public and private schools for elementary,intermediate,and
high school education. However,the zone does not include vocational and technical
schools as a type of permitted school Therefore,such learning facilities as art schools,
business and secretarial schools,driver's education schools,music schools and language
schools are not permitted in the LMN zone.
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff recommends that Section 4.4(B)(3)(b)I of the LUC be amended in order to allow
vocational and technical schools to be allowed in the LMN zone subject to a Type 2
review.
Related Code Revisions
Ord Section Code Cite Revision Effect
19 4.4(B)(3)(b)l include'vocational and technical schools'.
564 Add a definition of"Block Face."
Problem Statement
The term"block face"appears in a proposed code change to Section 3.4.7(E). A
definition needs to be added to Article Five to supplement the proposed change.
Proposed Solution Overview
Wednesday,November 06,2002 Page 6 of g
Provide a definition of"Block Face" in the Code.
. Related Code Revisions
Ord Section Code Cit Revision ERert
22 5.1.2 Definition of Block Face -
565 Amend 3.5.2(D) -Residential Building Standards to require minimum lot_width of 50 feet for
single family detached dwellings where there are front-loaded garages and no alleys to allow
adequate spacing of underground utilities,with alternative compliance
Problem Statement
Recent residential development has revealed that where single family detached lots are
less than 50 feet in width,with front-loaded garages,there is not enough room for
underground utilities that serve the house from the front of the lot,and still maintain
adequate separation from each other.
Proposed Solution Overview
Amend 3.5.2 -Residential Building Standards—by adding a section requiring the
minimum lot width for single family detached dwellings that feature front-loaded
garages(versus alley-loaded). An exception would be made for comer lots since the
house and garage could face different streets thus freeing up land area for utilities. An
alternative compliance provision will allow for creative design solutions that meet the
fundamental purpose of the standard.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
11 3.5.2(D) Revise title of sub-section.
13 3.5.2(D)(4) Add new language regarding minimum lot width for single
• family detached houses.
566 Amend 2.11.2(C)-Administrative Appeal Review Procedures-to change the Development
Application Submittal standard from"not applicable"to "applicable' to correct an oversight.
Problem Statement
Section 2.11 of the LUC sets forth the regulations pertaining to the filing of appeals to
administrative/city staff decisions. Section 2.11.2 specifically describes the process to be
followed for filing an appeal and for conducting the public hearing. This is done by
referencing Steps 1 through 12 of the Common Development Review Procedures in
Section 2.2 of the LUC.
Step 3 of these Common Review Procedures deals with the Development Application
Submittal,and requires among other things that an application be made. Such an
application is required for all of the development processes listed in Article 2,except for
the appeal of administrative decisions process. An application is required for an ODP,
PDP,Final Plan,Stockpiling Permit,Building Permit,Modification,Zoning Variance,
and for a Map Amendment. For some unknown reason however,the code states that a
development application is"not applicable'for the administrative appeal procedure.
Proposed Solution Overview
In order to process a request for an administrative appeal,it is necessary that a person
must file an application. Therefore,staff recommends that Section 2.11.2(C)of the LUC
be amended in order to include wording that is similar to that found for application
requirements for the other types of developments.
Related Code Revisions
Ord Section Code Cite Revision Effect
. 4 2.11.2(0) Clarify process.
Wednesday,November 06,2002 Page 7 of 8
567 Amend 2.2.10(A)(4)-Appeal of Minor Amendment-to strike out"as provided for
development plans under Division 2.3.,2.4,and 2.5" and replace with "appealable pursuant to
Step 12," for consistency.
Problem Statement
In a previous Code change,we established a procedure where appeals of Minor
Amendments now go to P&Z first instead of directly to City Council. In addition,the
Code change went on to say that a P&Z decision on a Minor Amendment appeal may,in
turn,also be appealed to Council. The language that establishes the appeal up to Council
states that such appeals can only be done"as provided for development plans under
Division 2.3,2.4,or 2.5."
For the references to 2.3(O.D.P.)and 2.4(Project Development Plan),there are no
problems. For the reference to 2.5(Final Plan),however,the problem is that Final Plans,
cannot be appealed. This is because under the Land Use Code,the Final Plan is the"final
compliance"process of checking mylars,affixing the proper city signatures,and
recording documents.
Under the Land Development Guidance System,Final P.U.D.'s were considered"final
plans"and,of course,allowed to be appealed to Council. The problem is that the present
Code language,with the reference to Division 2.5,now prevents Minor Amendments to
Final P.U.D.'s from being appealed from P&Z up to Council. This was unintentional.
Proposed Solution Overview
The solution is to strike the limiting language and simply replace it with a reference to
"Step 12"which is the Appeals section under the Common Development Review
Procedures for Development Applications.
Related Code Revisions
Ord Section Code CiteRevision Effect
3 2.2.10(A)(4) Clarify appeals of minor amendments
571 Correct 3.8.17(A)(3)-Contextual Height-to change the verb tense from the grammatically
incorrect plural to singular.
Problem Statement
Section 3.8.17(A)(3)pertaining to"contextual height"contains a sentence which is
grammatically incorrect because it mixes the singular with the plural. Since the sentence
is referring to the height of"a building"the remainder of the sentence should be worded
in the singular rather than the plural.
Proposed Solution Overview
Revise wording to correct grammar and clarify meaning.
Related Code Revisions
Ord Section Code Cite Revision Effect
17 3.8.17(A)(3) Correct grammar In contextual height standard.
Wednesday,November 06,2002 Page 8 of 8
l
ORDINANCE NO. 177, 2002
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING VARIOUS AMENDMENTS
TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE
WHEREAS, on March 18, 1997, by Ordinance No. 51, 1997, the Council of the
City of Fort Collins adopted the 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 be, and hereby is, amended as follows:
Section 1. That Section 1.5.5(A)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
(2) The enlargement, expansion or construction shall not result in the
conversion of the nonconforming use of a seasonal to a year-round
operation, shall it result in the ,.,.ws of ,..read.. bee g
Section 2. That Section 1.5.5 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new subparagraph (c)which reads as follows:
Section 3. That Section 2.2.10(A)(4) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(4) Appeals. Appeals of the decision of the Director regarding the
approval, approval with conditions or denial of minor amendments
of any approved development plan or site specific development
plan shall be to the Planning and Zoning Board. Any such appeal
shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal of the final decision with
the Director within fourteen (14) days after the action that is the
subject of the appeal. The decision of the Planning and Zoning
Board on such appeals shall constitute a final decision, ubjee-t
_,_ty_._ appeal a r"e ,__e_ c__ d_. ele, _ __ t plans under Divisien
2.3, 2.4 ,._ 2.5, as pplieabl,, for N.e mifi.... am _d apped6ble
pursuant to Section 2.212 (Step 12).
Section 4. That Section 2.11.2(C)of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(C) Step 3 (Development Application Submittal): Net-applieableAll itei ¢t
d�
� � � 8u°btllttt8lf11'a�}�f'`lt3 '�4
$ � � 8 st r 'PrliOdtf�•`�h@ fQB,V�b �....
CiTC'Itmst$neiyS° =of the
Ih@#qy px@gtiiretn@nt would, either. :be iaeat�(
titer dalif of otherwise unnecessary for the full and co loft
Section 5. That Division 2.12 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by
the addition of a new Section 2.12.5 which reads as follows:
►u „a ._.... ..,. _, upon;the-last-to occur: of the follyntig
Section 6. That Section 2.14.2(A) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
(A) No building shall be erected, moved or structurally altered unless a
Building Permit has been issued by the Building and Zoning Director. All
permits shall be issued in conformance with the provisions of this.Land
Use Code and shall
2
• xpire six(6)months aftO dii date that such
I§ ding Permit was issued unless property acted upon-,aecofdance with
the provisions of the Uniform Building Code, as amended. One(1) six (6)
month extension may be granted by the Building and Zoning Director.
Section 7. That Section 3.2.1(K)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
(2) Tee(I O)Six(6) feet between trees and water or sewer lines.
Section 8. That Section 3.2.2(L) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(L) Parking Stall Dimensions Parking areas for automobiles shall meet the
following it inimAu standards for long- and short-term parking of standard
and compact vehicles:
Section 9. That subsections (A), (B) and (C) of Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use
Code are hereby amended to read as follows:
3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources
• (A) Purpose. This Section is intended to ensure that (1) historic sites,
structures or objects are preserved and incorporated into the
proposed development and any undertaking that may potentially
alter the characteristics of the historic property is done in a way
that does not adversely affect the integrity of the historic resource;
and (2) new construction is designed to respect the historic
character of the site and any historic properties in the surrounding
W
d. This Section is intended to rotect designated or
eligible h nc f ., structues � ate .�ructures _ r in designated historic districts,
whether on or adjacent to the project site.
(B) General Standard If the project contains a site, structure or object
that (1) is determined to be� `` j,TM eligible for local landmark
designation or for fisting in the JMM National
Register of Historic Places; (2) is officially designated as a local
or state landmark, or is listed on the National Register of Historic
Places; or (3) is located within an officially designated historic
district or area, then the development plan and
building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use
of the historic resource. The development plan and building
design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural
value of any such historic property, whether on or adjacent to the
3
project site. New buildings must be compatible with the historic
character of any such historic builckWresource, whether on the
project site or adjacent thereto.
(C) Determination of Landmark Eligibility. The determination of
individual eligibility for local landmark designation will be made
by the Landmark Preservation. Commission after reviewing the
ritual-construction date (or.age'of site or object) and photographs
of the historic resource (to,be provided by the applicant). A site,
structure or object may determined to be individually eligible
for local landmark designation if it meets one (1) or more of the
criteria as described in Section 14-5, "Standards for Designation of
Sites, Structures, Objects and Districts For Preservation" of the
City Code. If a property is determined to be eligible for
designation, the applicant will provide a completed '!KiRwriG
A >..,,, ,
Aret "' for the property. (Forms are
available from the Community Planning and Environmental
Services Department.)
The determination of individual eligibility for the National or State
Register of Historic Places shall be according to the processes and
procedures of the Colorado Historival;Society.
Section 10. That Section 3.4.7(E)(1)rdf the Land Use Code is hereby.amended
to read as follows:
(E) New Construction.
(1) To the maximum extent feasible, the height, setback and/or,
width of new buildings shall be similar to those of existing
historic buildings onwe rt r
.,u
�}'Z'Vhee building setbacks cannot be
maintained, elen(tettfs such as walls, columns, hedges or
other screens shall be used to define the edge of the site and
maintain alignment. Taller buildings or portions of
building shall be located interior to the site. Buildings at
the ends of blocks shall be of a similar height to buildings
in the adjoining blocks.
Section 11. That the title of Section 3.5.2(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(D) Residential Building Setbacks and Lot Width.
Section 12. That Section 3.5.2(D)(3) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
(3) Side and Rear Yard Setbacks. The minimum side yard
setback for all residential buildings and for all detached
accessory buildings that are incidental to the residential
building shall be five (5) feet from the property line, except
for a11� a0 '` " "prages for which the:rrtit imum setback
s , " `� . If a zero-lot line development plan
is proposed, a single six-foot minimum side yard is
required. Rear yard setbacks in residential areas shall be a
minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the rear property line,
except for garages and storage sheds not exceeding eight
(8) feet in height, where the minimum setback shall be zero
(0) feet, and for alley-accessed garages and dwellings for
which the minimum setback shall be eight(8) feet.
. Section 13. That Section 3.5.2(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by
the addition of a new subparagraph (4)which reads as follows:
w
Yi.
#S
s
would a. w plies with the
standards'oi this
2. Review Criteria. To approve an alternative
plan, the decision maker must first find that
the proposal alternative. lan accomplishes
the stars &of
In,-revteiitsg the &]ternative;plan,
the dechaorcmaker shall'obnsider the extent
tct 4vltt '_ s pr@ ' $ design provides
Section 14. That Section 3.8.3(10) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
by the addition of a new subparagraph (g)which reads as follows:
(g� vehr � atr, weep :detsi)ing or ,towing if
t�h'�,pret�ts�S,Or
Section 15. That the tables contained in Section 3.8.6 (A) and (B) of the Land
Use Code are hereby amended to read as follows:
(A) . . .
6
Maximum Minimum
Additional lot Maximum
number of separation
area jor each permissible
residents requirements
Zone additional residents,
excluding resident excluding between another
supervisors,for group home
minimum lot size (squarefeey supervisors (feet)`
U-E 3 2,000 8 1,500
R-L; N-C-L, H-C, E, 3 1,500 8 1,500
R-F
L-M-N,N-C-M, 6 750 8 1,000
R-D-R
N-C-B,D,C-N, 6 500 8 700
C-C-N,M-M-N,
H-MV N N-C,C,
C-C,C-L,C-C-R
(B) . . .
Maximum Minimum
Additional lot Maximum
number of separation
• area for each permissible
residents requirements
Zone additional residents,
excluding resident excluding between any other
supervisors,for (square group home
minimum lot size feet) supervisors (fet)#
L-M-N,N-C-M, 6 750 15 1,000
R-D-R
N-C-B,D,C-N, 6 500 20'* 700
C-C-N,M-M-N,
IlM N-C,
C,C-C,C-L,C-C-R
Section 16. That Section 3.8.7(L)(1) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
(1) No election sign authorized by Section 3.8.7(C)(1)( ) or'
3.8.7(D)(2) shall be allowed on a lot prior to sixty (69j,
days before an election day; provided, however, that any
person desiring an election sign to remain on a lot in any zone
district for a longer period may apply to the Zoning Board of
Appeals for a variance to extend the time period. The board shall
determine, based upon factors other than agreement or
disagreement with the contents of the particular election sign,
whether there is sufficient reason for an extension of time and the
exact amount of time to be allowed under any extension, taking
into consideration the purpose for which the sign was erected,
whether or not that purpose would still be served by allowing the
sign to remain on the lot for an additional period of time, and the
appropriate amount of time necessary to effectuate that purpose.
All election signs shall be removed within five (S)four (4) days
after the election day.
Section 17. That Section 3.8.17(A)(3) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(3) Contextual Height. Regardless of the maximum building height
limit imposed by the zone district standards of this Land Use Code,
applicants shall be allowed to use a "contextual' height limit. The
allowed "contextual" height may fall at any point between the zone
district maximum height limit and the height of a building that
exists on a lots that fire s adjacent to the subject lot. This provision
shall not be interpreted as requiring greater minimum heights or
lower maximum heights than imposed by the underlying zone
district.
Section 18. That Section 3.8.19(A) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
by the addition of a new subparagraph(10) to read as follows:
Section 19. That Section 4.4(B)(3)(b)1. of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
1. Public and private schools for elementary,
intermediate and high school education
_..aPn. ..,NNOW . ,,.,, _.. , .. .
Section 20. That Section 4.21(D)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
(2) Secondary Uses. All secondary uses shall be integrated
both in function and appearance into a larger employment-
based development plan-thatem hasizes rim uses.
The following permitted uses shall be
considered secondary uses in this zone district and together
shall occupy no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the
total gross area of the development plan.
8
Section 21. That Section 4.22(D)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
(2) Secondary Uses. All secondary uses shall be integrated
both in function and appearance into a larger employment
district development plan that emphasizes primary uses. A
seem use shall be subject to admtms:r&ti reyiew�ot
Platitiing and Zoning Board review as required for such itse
in Section 4.22(B). The following permitted uses shall be
considered secondary uses in this zone district and together
shall occupy no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the
total gross area of the development plan.
Section 22. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new definition 'Block face" which reads as follows:
Block face.OWI mean the portion of a block that,abuts a street.
Section 23. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new definition "Zero lot line development plan" which reads as follows:
Z b all:meanadev H'; Ri: 'j
IN I
te;gr�und(ttl , so
Section 24. That the definition of 'Retail establishment" contained in Section
5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Retail establishment (also known as retail store) shall mean an establishment of
twenty-five thousand (25,000) square feet or less of gross leasable floor area in
which sixty (60) percent or more of the gross floor area is devoted to the sale or
rental of goods �; i aI I COW to the general public for
personal or household consumption or to services incidental to the sale or rental
of such goodssr-nwrelaadise.
Section 25. That the definition of"Zero lot line" contained in Section 5.1.2 of
the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Zero lot line j shall mean a structure with at least one (1) wall
conterminous with the lot line, which wall may include footings, eaves and gutters
9
that may encroach onto the adjacent lot under the authority of an encroachment
and maintenance easement.
Introduced and considered favorably on first reading and ordered published this
19th day of November, A.D. 2002, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day
of December, A.D. 2002.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 17th day of December, A.D. 2002.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
10