HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 06/06/2006 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 104, 2006, MAKING V ITEM NUMBER: 33
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: June 6, 2006
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Ted Shepard
Cameron Gloss
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 2006, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
On May 18, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 7-0 to approve 14 of the 16 proposed
changes. On the item clarifying the height regulations in the Downtown Civic Center and Canyon
Avenue subdistricts (Item 730), the Board voted 4-3 to approve the proposed change. On the item
expanding the Supplemental Notice Requirements (Item 732), the Board voted 6-1 to approve the
proposed change.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff has identified a variety of proposed changes,additions and clarifications in the Spring biannual
update of the Land Use Code. 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.
BACKGROUND
The Land Use Code was first adopted in March 1997. Subsequent revisions have been
recommended on a biannual basis to make changes,additions,deletions and clarifications that have
been identified in the preceding six months.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Land Use Code Issues.
2. A description of the changes made since the Council work session of March 28, 2006.
3. Summary of the Planning and Zoning Board's action.
4. Supplemental materials provided to Planning and Zoning Board.
5. Land Use Code Revisions - Annotated Ordinance Index.
6. Powerpoint presentation.
ATTACHMENTI
Land Use Code Issues
Tuesday,May 30,2006
Issue ID# Issue Name
690 Amend L-M-N 4.4(11)(3)(c)-Permitted Use List-to allow"Multi-family dwellings(greater than 8 units per
building)"as a Type Two review,subject to design standards.
715 Add a new land use, "Wildlife Rescue and Education Centers,"to the UE,RF,RL,POL,RC,CCR,I,and LMN
(within 1,000 feet of East Vine Drive)zone districts.
718 Amend definition of"Boarding and rooming hosue"in Section 5.1.2 by changing the term to "Extra Occupancy
Rental House."Replace "boarding and rooming house"with"Extra Occupancy Rental House" in certain zones
and Supplemental Regulations.
719 Amend the definition of"child care center"by replacing the words "mentally retarded"with the words
"developmentally disabled."
722 Amend the definitions of"Fast Food Restaurant" and "Limited Mixed-Use Restaurant"to remove ambiguity.
723 Amend the general use category heading in Section 4.15(B)(1)(a)in order to clarify that the uses in this
subsection are not principal residential uses.
724 Amend 3.5.1[C] -Building Size,Height,Bulk,Mass, Scale-by broadening the area upon which to consider
similarity in massing and proportionality to now include"block face"(across the street)in addition to the block
on which the building sits.
725 Amend Section 4.12(B)(2)of the Land Use Code in order to change the term"building permit review" to "basic
development review"to correct an oversight from a code change that occurred several years ago.
726 Clarify Section 3.3.1(C)(1)-Public Sites,Reservations and Dedications-so that all projects,not just those
platting,are required to dedicate needed easements and/or rights-of-way.
727 Amend 3.6.1[C] -Compliance with Access Control Plans-to acknowledge that Access Control Plans are
applicable to all roadways,and not just intersections with state highways. Such plans remain valid for former
state highways such as Harmony Road.
729 Delete 3.6.2(L)(2)(b)-Design Requirements for Private Drives-to remove an ambiguity between"private
drive"and"drive aisle,"and add new clarifying language stating that the maximum length for a"private drive"
is 660 feet.
730 Revise building height standards in the Downtown zone district, Sections 4.12(D).
731 Amend 3.5.1(J)-Operational and Physical Compatibility Standards-to add a new criterion addressing parking
impacts.
732 Amend 2.2.6(A&D)-Standard and Supplemental Notice Requirements-and 2.9.4(F)-Text and Map
Amendment Review Procedures-to correct a gap in the cross-referencing of notification for zonings and
rezonings.And increase to 800 feet the mailing distance.
733 Amend 3.2.l(K)-Landscaping and Tree Protection-Utilities-to clarify the separation distances between trees
and water and sewer service lines and mains.
734 Amend 2.2.10(A)(1)-Minor Amendments-to allow a decrease in the number of dwelling units of greater than
one percent as a minor amendment,but only as long as the resulting density does not fall below any zone
district prescribed minimum.
Tuesday,May 30,2006 Page l of 1
ATTACHMENT 2
CHANGES TO THE SPRING 2006 LAND USE CODE
SINCE COUNCIL WORKSESSION
OF MARCH 28, 2006
There are three added changes to the Spring 2006 Land Use Code Update since
the City Council worksession of March 28, 2006. One of these changes (Item
732) has been expanded based on Council direction from the May 16, 2006 City
Council Meeting.
1. Item 732 —Amend 2.2.6(D)—Supplemental Notice Requirements and
2.9.4(F)—Text and Mao Amendment Review Procedures —to correct a
gap in the cross-referencina of notification requirements for zoninas and
rezoninas. And increase the minimum mailing distance from 500 and 750
feet to 800 feet.
This item was added after a Council rezoning hearing. A cross-
referencing gap was discovered and is recommended to be closed. In
addition, at the City Council meeting of May 16, Council directed that the
standard notification area for mailed notices be expanded from 500 and
750 feet to 800 feet.
2. Item 733 Amend 3.2.1 W— Landscapina and Tree Protection — Utilities—
to clarify the separation distances between trees and water and sewer
service lines and mains.
This item was added at the request of the Utilities. It is minor and
straightforward and codifies a standard operating procedure that has been
in place for years.
3. Item 734 Amend 2.2.10WO) — Minor Amendments—to allow a decrease
in the number of dwellina units of greater than one Percent as a minor
amendment, but only as Iona as the resulting density does not fall below
any zone district prescribed minimum.
This item was added after several applicants of approved P.D.P.'s
requested to delete dwelling units, but remain above the minimum
required overall average density. Since their projects contain less than
100 units, and since the public hearing process is triggered by any
increase or decrease that results in greater than a one percent change, a
public hearing is required to delete one or more dwelling units. (For
example, for one particular project with a total of 51 dwelling units, a
decrease to 2 units results in a 3.92%% change.)
i
ATTACHMENT
SUMMARY OF P &Z DISCUSSION
REGARDING THREE ITEMS
At the P & Z Board hearing on May 18, 2006, the Board voted 7—0 to
recommend approval of all but three individual items. For these three items, the
Board took separate actions which are summarized as follows:
1. Item 690 Amend L-M-N 4.4(B)(2)(a)4— Permitted Use List— "Multi-
family dwellings (limited to 8 or less units Per buildina)" by movina
the limit on 8-Plexes to (D)(8)— Land Use Standards—so that it
becomes eligible for a Modification instead of beina Prohibited
Includes adopting architectural standards for neiahborhood
compatibility.
The Board expressed a concern that the proposed maximum building size
of 12,000 square feet was too low. The Board noted that the average size
of a multi-family dwelling unit that is designated as "affordable" often
comes in around 1,100 square feet and "market-rate" units come in
around 1,300 to 1,400 square feet per unit. Both of these types of multi-
family dwellings would result in a 12-plex exceeding the proposed
maximum.
The Board was concerned that the 12,000 square foot building maximum
would be inflexible and that adopting such an unrealistic cap would, in all
likelihood, result in Requests for Modification. Or, the standard would
have the effect of limiting buildings to 10 units. Or, the standard would
result in the segregation by unit size and that buildings containing one-
bedroom units would be separate from buildings containing two and three-
bedroom units.
The Board noted that the sample projects described in the packet
indicated that most projects have an average per unit size that exceeds
1,200 square feet.
While Staff explained that the reason behind the 12,000 square foot
maximum building size was to err on the side of being conservative in the
L-M-N zone district, the Board offered that an increase of 2,000 square
feet would be a better standard.
r
The Board voted 7 — 0 to recommend to Council that the maximum
building size for a multi-family structure in the L-M-N zone be 14,000
square feet.
2. Item #730. Revise buildino heiaht standards in the Downtown zone
district. Sections 4.12(D).
Certain members of the Board expressed a concern that the maximum
building heights appeared to vary significantly from existing code. For
some properties, the maximum has been reduced 168 feet to 45 feet(+/-).
For other properties, the maximum of 150 feet(+/-) may be too limiting
and may stifle creativity such as the potential addition of an attractive
slender tower that would contribute to the skyline of a growing city but may
exceed 150 feet.
Other members expressed a concern about notification to affected
property owners. One member suggested the item be continued to Fall.
Other members expressed a comfort level that the rational basis for the
recommended standards is based on the outreach and conclusions of the
Downtown Strategic Plan (DSP).
Other members pointed out that while the current code may allow 168 feet
in one section of the Code, there are compatibility standards in other
sections of the Code. The chances of a parcel on the fringe of the Canyon
Avenue sub-district, immediately abutting the Neighborhood Conservation
Buffer zone, in gaining approval of a 168 foot high building are extremely
remote. Given citizen input and compatibility standards, even the current
code does not grant an absolute right to achieve 168 feet in height. The
design issues related to the redevelopment of the Steele's Market site on
Mountain Avenue was cited as an example where the height and
compatibility standards are required to work in concert with each other.
Certain members expressed a satisfaction that the proposed changes
represent a delicate compromise that was hammered out during the DSP
process which included recommendations by the various boards and
commissions as well as a citizen outreach process. The proposed change
implements adopted policy.
In the course of deliberation, the Board agreed that a special mailed notice
should be provided for affected property owners advertising the City
Council meeting of June 6, 2006 just in case any property owners are not
aware or do not recall the work of the DSP.
The Board voted 4—3 to recommend approval of the proposed code
change, subject mailing a notice to affected property owners
regarding Council's pending action.
2
3. Item 732—Amend 2.2.6(D) —Supplemental Notice Requirements and
2.9.4(F) —Text and Map Amendment Review Procedures —to correct
as oap in the cross-referencing of notification requirements for
zonings and rezonings. And increase the minimum mailed
notification area from 500 and 750 That to 800 feet.
One member expressed a concern about the cost versus benefit of the
proposed change to expand the notification area. Would the cost of the
increased notification area result in any measurable benefit to the citizen
participation process? There is a concern that a cost is being added to
the process that may not yield the desired result.
Another member pondered whether simply enlarging area would
fundamentally change the outcome of development proposal. There may
be a series of other measures that, if used in combination, would result in
more effective participation.
Other members offered in the affirmative that an enlarged area would
enhance the citizen participation process on the fringe of the urban area
where there are larger lots and rural acreage lots. Other members agreed
that notifying more people is fundamentally positive.
The Board voted 6 — 7 to recommend approval of the proposed
change.
3
ATTACHMENT 4
MAXIMUM SIZE OF 12-PLEX IN L-M-N ZONE
At the April 14, 2006 Planning and Zoning Board worksession, the Board directed
Staff to provide a maximum size for a 12-plex multi-family building that is being
proposed for the L-M-N zone. The following information is provided as
variety of multi-family projects
cts approved in a variety of zones.
background on a y Y P 1 pp Y
Project Number in Sample Avg. Sq. Ft./Unit
The Timbers 11 buildings 1,115
S. Timberline Road at Zephyr Dr. 88 units
Two bedroom condos, 8-plexes
Parkside East at Rigden Farm
Two bedroom condos, 6-plexes 2 buildings 1,190
12 units
Fossil Creek Condos — Huntington Hills 2 buildings 1 ,228
Fossil Creek Parkway 40 units
Condos - Mix of 16 — 24-plexes
Brookfield (Morningside) 5 buildings 1,521
Rock Creek Drive 43 units
Condos - Mix of 8 and 9-plexes
Willow Springs (Genesee) 2 buildings 1,092
Battlecreek & White Willow 16 units
Two bedroom condos, 8-plexes
The Lodge at Miramont 1 building 1 ,226
Lemay and Boardwalk
Two bedroom condos, 12-plex
Range: 1 ,092 — 1,521 sq. ft.
The Lodge at Miramont — Mix of 12 Units — Divided Between 1 and 2
Bedroom Units In the Following Manner:
Unit A 2-B.R. 1,226 sq. ft x 2 = 2,452 sq. ft.
Unit B 1-B.R.&Den 987 sq. ft. x 2 = 1,994 sq. ft.
Unit A-1 2-B.R. 1 ,235 sq. ft. x 2 = 2,470 sq. ft.
Unit C 2-B.R. 1 ,178 sq. ft. x 2 = 2,356 sq. ft.
Unit D 1-B.R.&Den 978 sq. ft. x 2 = 1 ,956 sq. ft.
Unit E 1-B.R 814 sq. ft. x 2 = 1 ,628 sq. ft.
Total 12 12,856 sq. ft.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION — 12,000 Square Feet, Excluding Garages
Staff recommends that the maximum size of a 12-plex multi-family building in the
L-M-N be 12,000 square feet. While 12,000 square feet would be on the low end
as compared to the data presented, the placement of a 12-plex in a relatively low
density neighborhood suggests that the maximum size be conservative.
The maximum size standard would be placed in the Development Standards
section of the L-M-N zone. Therefore, any project that desires to exceed the
maximum size would be eligible for Request for Modification. Modifications may
be forwarded to the Hearing Officer or the Planning and Zoning Board either as a
stand-alone or in conjunction with a P.D.P.
Staff envisions any Request for Modification to be evaluated based on visual
impact and neighborhood compatibility. Design parameters such as building
placement, proximity to single or two family dwellings and architectural quality
would factor into the analysis. There is a likelihood that a well-designed and
sufficiently screened building that exceeds 12,000 square feet, and meets the
overall purpose of the standard equally as well as a building that meets the
standard, would earn a favorable recommendation.
±
uw
M \ \ cm
I f ±
\ no \j
]od NOOle g °
epjlsecidO
m&; P o a
t \ \
) \ k
� \
Z \ \ \ \
� 7 a Am @
� �
\ / � ( 4 (
■ w7@Z
) \ \ )
LO
• g � ..
, ) e
\\ ) \
) / b
U � �
E
�
RECEIVED
APR 2. R 2006
CURRENT PLANNING
Affordable Housing Coalition
of Larimer County
April 21, 2006
Dear Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board Members:
We are writing in support of Item#690 to amend L-M-N 4.4(B)(3)(c)to allow
multi-family dwellings greater than 8 units per building. We believe that this change in
the land use code will allow developers greater flexibility, create more green space within
developments, and may lower the cost per unit for future construction. As an
organization we would support any reasonable code change that may contribute to the
development of housing that is more affordable to the citizens of Larimer County.
On behalf of the Affordable Housing Coalition,
Tom Honn John Tuchscherer
Co-Chair Co-Chair
F O R T C O L L INS
Downtown
S T R A T E G IC PLAN
Attachment to Item#999, Section 4.12(D)—Downtown Building Height 5.3.06
ISSUE: CLARITY ON HEIGHT and BULK of TALL BUILDINGS
Summary and Overview Fort Collins Advance Planning Department February 2004
Current City policies and standards allow the tallest buildings in the city to occur throughout the
Downtown Civic Center and Canyon Avenue area, encompassing 25 blocks west and south of
the historic core.
The Downtown Strategic Plan recommendations are adopted and represent a compromise
between those opposed to tall buildings (could diminish the historic character of downtown) and
those who support tall buildings (could add vitality and variety to downtown).
The Downtown Strategic Plan (DSP) process has affirmed the general idea that taller buildings
over 3 stories can be appropriate Downtown. The process, however, also highlighted the need
for more clarity about shaping any new tall buildings to fit the physical context of their specific
locations while, at the same time, respecting and preserving historic character. In much public
discussion, the area has been scrutinized block by block.
In the process of adopting the DSP, there was consideration for the perspectives of all of the
various competing interests. The result is that there is widespread support for A DEGREE of
redevelopment and intensification in this area, PROVIDED that the historic character and
pedestrian scale of downtown are protected by appropriate standards for careful design. Current
policies and standards reflect these ideas, but are too general and vague. The result is excessive
controversy and confusion over what they mean for a given development proposal on a given
block.
This DSP responds to the need for clearer mutual understanding of the issue, with
recommendations for height and massing of new tall buildings.
The rest of this paper summarizes:
• objectives for tall buildings in this area,
• proposed recommendations, and
• background summary of existing policy and standards
1
WE85
45
Civic Center/Canyon
m7m Ave Sub-Districts
Conservation
L• .I V1�.I ._� t
Gin o■ 1 Buffers
. 1JEW - . N.. III
NMI! Downtown Plan Boundary
i LIII PYLt�7 a ... 1 LI F Property Lines
�
Y ' rulfifi■L ■110
LIIMi Buildings
Railroad
ON
m
,u ✓
1 - , 11111 ��u!L■
r�i Ili Itl , IF, Mal
O r I�r;� NI* 111 � � •4M
mmimm
!►,,i�'� - -
l_ C.rW
J t yr�l�li +��'r��� A L—ice •,rMEN
Ed
,�
im
— �7 Illrrl arr•, r li'i ��r• r..�1 C!r•J
F O R T C O L L INS
Downtown
STRATEGIC PLAN
Attachment to Item#999, Section 4.12(D)—Downtown Building Height 5.3.06
ISSUE: MAXIMUM HEIGHT and BULK of TALL BUILDINGS
Objectives Related to Tall Buildings
The three main objectives for tall buildings in the Civic Center/Canyon Avenue have been
affirmed in the DSP process: a market objective, an overall community design objective, and a
blending objective involving community design at the scale of the individual block. The
blending objective includes better understanding and acceptance by various interests through
public discussion and compromise.
Market Objective for Civic Center/Canyon Avenue area: Support the commercial health of
the retail/entertainment core with redevelopment that brings additional people and investment
into the downtown market. This mainly means more housing and jobs to underpin the market for
downtown retail, cultural and dining activities.
As affirmed in the DSP process, the Canyon Avenue/Civic Center area is THE place to allow a
dynamic, mixed urban environment with buildings of different sizes and functions.
In most cases, this would be achieved most effectively by new buildings that are larger than the
majority of existing buildings in the area. Reasons for this include the following:
• redevelopment is more financially feasible with relatively larger buildings, particularly if
parking is to be provided within structures rather than as surface parking lots; and
• market and transportation benefits of bringing residential and office employment uses close
to the core are more significant with relatively larger buildings.
Overall Community Design Objective for Civic Center/Canyon Avenue area: Reinforce
downtown as the focal point of the city from an urban design standpoint. Urban architecture,
streets, and other spaces can be more dramatic with the relatively larger buildings suggested by
the market objective.
Harmonious Blending Objective for Civic Center/Canyon Avenue area: Respond to the
other buildings in the area, in the design of new buildings. New buildings should reinforce
downtown as a place to be enjoyed on foot. Massing of larger buildings should be carefully
placed to create pedestrian-scaled streetscapes and architectural transitions from new, larger
buildings to nearby buildings, with careful consideration of sunlight, views, and privacy.
Development interests seeking individual expression should employ creativity in responding to
the context, in addition to making an individual architectural statement.
2
F O R T C O L L INS
Downtown
STRATEGIC PLAN
Attachment to Item#999, Section 4.12(D)—Downtown Building Height 5.3.06
ISSUE: MAXIMUM HEIGHT and BULK of TALL BUILDINGS
RSP Recommendations
Proposed recommendations from the DSP are excerpted below:
2.2 Urban Design
2.2.1. Continue to allow taller buildings (more than 3 stories), to support the market
recommendations for redevelopment in the Infill(Transition Area, and to reinforce
downtown as the primary focal point of Fort Collins from a community appearance and
design standpoint.
a. Redevelopment will likely require new buildings that are larger than the majority of existing
buildings in the area. Redevelopment is more financially feasible with relatively larger
buildings, particularly if parking is to be provided in structures rather than on surface parking
lots. In addition, the various transportation and market benefits of more jobs and housing
close to the core are more significant with relatively larger buildings.
b. As stated in previous plans and affirmed in this planning process, this area is THE primary
place to allow a dynamic, mixed urban environment with buildings of widely varied sizes and
functions. Architecture, streets, and other spaces can be more dramatic with relatively
larger buildings as suggested by market recommendations for redevelopment.
2.2.2. Acknowledge that taller buildings affect various interests differently, with both
positive and negative effects; and set standards for scale and careful design so that
negative effects are considered and mitigated (e.g., changes to historic character, quality
of life in nearby neighborhoods, sunshine patterns in adjacent spaces, views, and large
existing trees).
a. Architectural creativity and individual expression should include responsiveness to a
framework of thoughtful standards for height, mass, and design. The purpose being to
blend recommendations for future redevelopment with the area's defining characteristics
that will remain as part of the evolving character over time. See 3.2.2 for more detail.
2.2.3. Continue to allow for modifications to standards within the framework of
development review, if justified by creative, responsive designs that meet the general
p Y
parameters in a different way.
a. Continue to acknowledge the possibility of creative, negotiated design solutions that fulfill
the purpose of a standard in a given development project, yet do not meet the letter of the
standards.
3
F O R T C O L L INS
Downtown
STRATEGIC PLAN
Attachment to Item#999, Section 4.12(D)—Downtown Building Height 5.3.06
3.2.2 Carefully locate and shape taller buildings (4-12 stories) in the westside
InfilifTransition Area to respond to defining characteristics of the surrounding
context. (The surrounding context includes both existing and emerging
characteristics that are consistent with adopted plans.)
a. Revise relevant Land Use Code sections with clearer standards for height and mass.
Standards should be flexible enough to allow for architectural creativity, yet rigid enough to
provide meaningful limits and parameters.
b. Standards should describe mass reduction techniques to carefully distribute building mass
to fit the local context; and to mitigate negative effects of taller buildings. Topics for
standards include:
1. Base. A taller building should have a clearly defined base portion, typically 1 or 2 stories.
A cornice or roof, fenestration, materials, and colors should define the base. The ground
floor of every building should be differentiated to emphasize its relationship to
pedestrians.
2. Step back. Portions of the building above the base portion should be stepped back, with
the amount of floor area reduction generally greater with greater height above the base
portion. The reduction should be a significant aspect of the building design, related to
useable indoor rooms or outdoor terraces or balconies.
3. Balconies. Balconies or terraces should be required on upper-floor residential units.
4. Maximum height. Zoning limits for height should be adjusted to vary with the context of
each block. See Figure 2.6, Maximum Building Heights Map, representing a compromise
among various interests.
5. Landscape setback. A landscaped setback should be standard on all blocks west of
Mason Street. The intent is to continue the typical soft green edge that characterizes the
area, and that contributes to the transition from the core area. Exceptions should be
allowed at entrances, and where a building features display windows along the street
sidewalk.
c. Various interests generally agree that buildings up to about 6 % stories (about 80') can be
acceptable throughout the area. Greater concern and opposition exists to allowing buildings
taller than that. Standards should allow the former, throughout the area, with fairly
straightforward review based on the general agreement on key parameters. Standards
should allow the possibility of the latter, where shown on the map, subject to more detailed
P Y
consideration, public discussion, and negotiation of design solutions to decrease negative
effects. Issues to consider include additional bulk reduction to avoid long, high building
walls; shadow analysis; use of height to mitigate mass; and use of design to mitigate height.
4
F O R T C O L L INS
Downtown
STRATEGIC PLAN
ISSUE: MAXIMUM HEIGHT and BULK of TALL BUILDINGS
Review of Existing POLICY AND STANDARDS Governing Tall Buildings
EXISTING POLICY WHAT'S LACKING
DT Plan—Vision: "Larger buildings should be Guidance on how much larger, in keeping with the
encouraged amid historic buildings,parks, plazas, and Framework Diagram. Explain that the tree-lined streets,
tree-lined streets. The Downtown's skyline should be parks, and plazas should be treated as a continuous
encouraged to continue to grow. A series of attractive framework that defines the building sites. (As opposed
towers can draw attention to Downtown." to buildings maximizing their sites, crowding out the
p. 2. sidewalks, and threatening the root systems of big trees.
The big building idea comes with multiple, strong
caveats. The point is to keep Fort Collins identity, and
keep the "soft edge" feel of the city.
DT Plan—POLICY 2—LAND USE:
"The intensity of land use decreases as distance from the Guidance on what degree of intensity we are talking
center of these districts increases." about.
"Intensive office development is encouraged in the
Canyon Avenue District while protecting the existing Again, clarify these caveats on big buildings so they can
character created by the large public buildings,historic be translated into Code standards, and maybe Design
structures, lawns and stately trees." Manual explanations.
p. 66
DT Plan—POLICY 2—LAND USE:
"...C. Locate the highest intensity of development in
the Old City Center and Canyon Avenue districts and Guidance on what the highest intensity can be.
step intensity down toward the residential
neighborhoods.
...E. Encourage greater intensification of land use in Guidance on how far upwards! Especially since this
the Old City Center and Canyon Avenue districts by lumps the historic core together with Canyon Avenue—
building upwards, seeking greater building coverage and those are two different degrees of greater intensification.
productive use of upper-story building space."
p. 67.
DT Plan—POLICY 7—URBAN FORM:
"Allow buildings of greater height and mass while Clarify how much greater height and mass, and be sure
respecting the character of individual districts and the caveats can be easily translated into Code.
historic buildings." Should greater height be contingent upon smaller mass,
p. 85 i.e.to get to 12 stories,have a slender shaft like the
existing ones?
Should we describe a step-back along all streets,with a
prominent base of 3 stories or less? Maybe make it
most prominent along east-west streets?
5
P O R T C O L L INS
Downtown
STRATEGIC PLAN
DT Plan—POLICY 7—URBAN FORM: Clarify all aspects of this policy,particularly the
"Maintain lower building massing(two to three stories) "buildings of greater height as the setback from the
along the street frontages of the major retail streets and street increases."
major pedestrian ways. Allow buildings of greater
height as the setback from the street increases. The
appearance of these buildings must be respectful and
sensitive to the historic character of this area."
EXISTING STANDARDS WHAT'S LACKING
1. F.A.R.Limit, Canyon Avenue and Civic Center
Subdistricts: 5 for non-residential uses. Higher This would typically result in an office building about 6-
F.A.R.'s above 5 are allowed for residential uses, 10 stories. Need better design objectives. This says
limited only by other standards. 75% lot coverage nothing about design.
allowed.
LUC 4.12 (p. 78).
2. Height Limit, Canyon Avenue and Civic Center Add a clause "subject to Article 3 standards"to avoid
Subdistricts: 168 feet max. surprises;
LUC 4.12 (p. 78): Step-back along all streets with a prominent base of 3
These 2 subdistricts comprise most of the orange stories or less;
leverage areas on the Framework Map.
Define lower heights (4 stories?)at other edges of the
orange leverage areas;
Define lower heights adjacent to the historic core?
Lower heights adjacent to other historic buildings?
Lower heights adjacent to smaller buildings that are
NOT historic? If so, does shading make a difference?
Or is the bldg to bldg relationship covered best by
descriptive compatibility standards?
3. F.A.R. Limit, Old City Center Subdistrict: 2. Delete? Redundant w/4-story limit. Historic buildings
100% lot coverage allowed. LUC 4.12 (p. 78). may exceed this, so it may not even make sense as a
protection of existing character.
4.Height Limit,Old City Center Subdistrict: 4
stories or 56 feet max. LUC 4.12 (p. 78). Corresponds OK as is?
to the red core area on the Framework Map with 3 minor
exce tions where the red core area is smaller.
5. Height Limit,NCB zone district:
3 stories max. OK as is?
LUC 4.8 (p. 58):
Corresponds to edges of the light orange leverage area
on the framework ma 2.
6
FORT COL LINS
Downtown
STRATEGIC PLAN
6. Historic Resources Compatibility Standards:
Compatible Design; Respect for Historic Character; OK as is? Esp. if the zone district is made more
Protect and Enhance the Resource; Taller Portions specific?
of Buildings Set Back. Developers may feel there's too much room for
3.4.7 (p. 71-73). interpretation. Neighbors and historic preservation
interests may feel the same way, but with the opposite
goal in mind. In staff s middle ground, it was a good
tool in review of Steeles Mtn. Ave. Residences project.
7. Compatibility Standards: Complementary Design, Same comments as above. A good tool to use in design
Similar Proportions to Nearby Bldgs. and review of a project, but can be criticized by
3.5.1 (B) &(C) (p. 75-78). Specifically applicable opposing interests on both sides for not stating exactly
under 4.12E 1 (b). what can and can't be done.
8.Height Review Standards: Full of redundancies,needs complete overhaul.
Shading and Privacy Impacts; Repositioning of Bldg; What is not redundant is barely useable, e.g.
Redesigning Bldg Shape; Reducing Bldg Mass; `...shall...not have a substantial adverse impact on the
3.5.1(G) (p. 78-79). distribution of natural and artificial light on adjacent
public and private property. Adverse impacts
include...contributing to accumulation of snow and ice
during the winter...".
Many buildings could be found in violation of this.
Some topics maybe worth salvaging in an overhauled
section:
General consideration of excessive shadows or privacy
impacts; the shadow analysis along with summary
conclusions about why the shadows are OK from the
standpoint of off-site interests;
9.Height Review Standards—Modification of Height OK as is? This one overrides the height limits of the
Limits: height limits can be either increased or zone district if it's done for one of the purposes listed. A
decreased by the decision maker. deliberate loophole.
3.5.1 G 1)(c) (p. 80).
7
Community Planning and Environmental Services
AAdvance Planning Department
City of Fort Collins
May 22, 2006
Dear Downtown Property Owner:
On Tuesday, June 6, 2006, at 6:30 p.m., in City Council Chambers, City Hall West, 300
LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, the City Council will conduct a public hearing to
consider semiannual changes to the Land Use Code. One item may be of interest to
property owners in the Downtown zone district, particularly the Canyon Avenue and
Civic Center subdistricts: regulations from the 2004 Downtown Strategic Plan (DSP)
for building height, massing, and compatibility, are proposed for incorporation
into Downtown zone district.
Current standards are not effective, need to be clarified, and need to be consistent with
the DSP. The proposed change would directly implement the recommendations of the
2004 Downtown Strategic Plan in this regard.
The centerpiece of the proposed change is a block-by-block map of maximum height
limits — see reverse side. Standards describe the height limits as approximate, to
convey a scale of building rather than fixed points in space. There are also design
standards for mitigating the bulk of taller buildings (over 3 stories) with setbacks and a
pedestrian-oriented base portion.
View the proposed zone district change, along with some background information, online
at fcgov.com/advanceplanning. Look for'Downtown Zone District Changes.'
This letter is primarily to inform you of the proposed change, but also to invite you to
contact me with any questions or comments; and to participate in the Council's hearing if
you would like.
The list of affected property owners for this hearing is derived from official records of the
Larimer County Assessor. Because of the lag time between occupancy and record
keeping, or because of rental situations, a few affected property owners may have been
missed. Please feel free to notify your neighbor of this pending meeting so all neighbors
are aware of the issue.
Sincerely:
Clark Mapes, AICP
City Planner
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services,
programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons
with disabilities. Please call 970-221-6376 for assistance.
281 North College Avenue • P.O.Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6376
FAX(970)224-6111 • TDD(970)224-6002 • E-mail:aplanning@fcgovcom
Community Planning and Environmental Services
Advance Planning
City of of Fork MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 25, 2006
TO: DDA Board
FROM: Clark Mapes, City Planner
RE: Downtown Zone District Regulations for Taller Buildings
As part of semiannual changes to the Land Use Code, recommendations from the 2004
Downtown Strategic Plan (DSP) for building height, massing, and compatibility, are being
proposed for incorporation into the Downtown zone district. The item is scheduled for City
Council at their regular Tuesday, June 6 hearing.
Current standards are not effective, need to be clarified, and need to be consistent with the
DSP. The proposed change would directly implement the recommendations of the 2004
Downtown Strategic Plan in this regard.
The DDA Board discussed this issue several times during the DSP process. I will be prepared
to review those previous discussions at the meeting. The Planning and Zoning Board recently
voted 4-3 to recommend approval of this change to City Council; I can review that discussion as
well.
The centerpiece of the proposed change is a block-by-block map of maximum height limits.
Standards describe the height limits as approximate, to convey a scale of building rather than
fixed points in space. There are also design standards for mitigating the bulk of taller buildings
(over 3 stories)with setbacks and a pedestrian-oriented base portion.
Enclosed is the staff report section from City Council's materials on this item, including the
actual proposed Code text changes; and a background Issue Paper.
See you Thursday.
/S�Siinncceeerrrelly,
Clark Mapes,, AICPV
City Planner
281 N. College P. O.Box 580 ° Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 ° (970)221-6376 ` FAX(970)224-6111
ATTACHMENT 5
Ir
w
0
I �
a
A � c
O5-pC
C m 6 % C S G 6 iC G N C 0 i d O
Ev �, — � Aeyo� E .cccE G �go � EagLw El
m�a
9 a o 0 5 m .B O g O 9c o p c � E 8 ° g g E c 3 w C a
c � gc .E E � Rs �
Eq $ y boy O
zm
'_U' p � 3 �
c .N
-,
Q K a K E a c J. ° y a +
W O ..
c _ ac 2Ec c $ c2 'Ec � � c"0d � $ � 2 � c ac $ a � ' c aYE C c
5 O F ^N
¢ Z ¢ E �' c ¢ X ¢ E �' a aF9 ° ' d 'ZQ5 L' 'e ¢ Z ¢ � L 'c Q ,7t U m 6E
eN+l M M N eN+l M N
Y
O
N
H I
� � I
C A
N C N
V
F � N
R
O V
y = O N
y.
C V 00 p
17
v
•y N N N P Q m m
� N
V 'ti3 i i T
u m
T
w
r
w
O
N
N
R
14
4 t.,
5
W p.s A V a ^ y W C N O N 4 u U NA F N O
y � 2 y c m ° y � Q w p W �o c � � s w� E I ,`•__ r� � ' `= m .c 4'
eum py ._ o � w ,L � d `" eoo 'p m: � :? 9 ��, � �c ? '�o ' �'
E o a o c .L � " s �, O N g' > °' c .O `� ❑ w x p 0 cs, �c, `� F y x
� ro �
p
c
U C
U qN `� X 3 ^V Y
,m s u c ,a3 E ry C O c w .• c c 'E ry FC ° c
vi s` = ° o vi _ m �? m ° s °3 e � �� � > v " u.°c 3 � s 3 Q :c 3 3 ;c
m.0
y I
T U
Y j 8
L S s
p F F
N I _
.v.
o >y >y U
m ai m m vi e d e o e
0
C_O ry
p N
I T
W
r
to
ro
a
y o a F a
-y O O 'O s •y � 'y 'J y � y � FO 9F
c N
E . .
'O
C O w U N y F O OF9 R 'O .L m A C O C N C py F C SAC+, Gy L W Al v
W 'O > m D% 0'i � LLk CND LLX Efi JV ^ CL. 4L � •O U i
kW � = � t U � � E Emro Ew Ew4p OF
Ew O TO � �' � q d =� B T � O TO ' B T � . V T � , � ❑
QyFmG 'c^ � � ro ,tz � ,F^ ggAc � g � c € oPcm � cd
W m d o 9 0 0 ro m� oNl W eo c W W eq y X n
m m m o
m � o "yti m
O C p p c CC c C
v E F a E F O T O T O T O T
'O W C 'O _ F C v v. O � OF9'O 'O C W C•� 'O N G•_ 'O ro C 'O C W F F 3 .h
Q v�iOgE Groa '� i ¢ U � �o ' � Aa' '� QyO Y .E QwO g .S Qrn � € .5 Q �nO .S QU .] e I
p
O 0
c
I C C € E F C F
y �O yU y y N
d € € €
m m m I DD m
FI U 6 Q d U U
v
V v a v � v�i vo oo m
O � N
'C ro
Y "O
W
r
u.
' o
a
m
m
p
,oU > o >' x 'Q cC = x : F4 ,ro xap0' � x •E CC � o y x 'Q � m
6m'y
m oo `-z7 � ?76 nc =� � m o � m 600 � �
m G �' « - ❑ o v� c o ti -or c
25 a pF S �c F yo6a p oF, 2 c�c �
av � CllEN Lm•� ... OT"� .SWI OT� SF � TC � N pT� S � CCC .LL � iW
c c " o m p z c ti ;t qy d a y a w ;y y p y ape
F .y F V ;� C N Z C N fA •J' O F N C p gypO•' E N N. O OU9 W R C N N. •J' O
4. .-. T Op
� -• � `� ,o � a c vi � m,c a �n W m c a �n � m g q a vi c m$ X° a h � m.E I
�n �n o m m o0 0o M o0
m
e
h
c
'p= W Q •OO 'UO S 'UO L 9
I
• � c '. C� C F C�
o 9� u u u u S U
0
# N
p N
N N N N M M M M Ch I T
r
u.
0
h
n
a
L yypv m.R. C L'O yyOa
C L � � C L �p Y O OFq F 9 � .L 4x1 �N C
wL
S T O
d '�
�S q T O O T Q B U F O T
8002o � ci� Cocd gs ? G �0 CODcd $ `° Ac ° �
nGG nC' � � C nC ntX nC ' aFC
c ° O O
EE F ° O c v O
sx E « ceE sa E « z
v v o
o m N n q m y M.M. y � y
p m ° u> ; '6o c W 3 a v 07 'Fn o cW y W '60 0 0] 'eo o W ycon 60 `-y y
'r'o « a
O T O T O T O T O T O T CC O T
jg
a vl F m F a Vl F EO F 'O Vl C 00 G - 'S ✓ O Vl C 00 C a h C CO..F. a Vl c m.E a Vl C yp F
a G n F a C n F a F n F C a C n C a C n n n
6 v, 0 � 5 Qm0 g .E Qy � g c QU � o d � O C5 Qm0 � « d n0 � S 6rn0
m oo m �n m m m m
o
m I
0 3 > > > >
C F C F C F E` � O
E E E
v e e e e e e
U o 0 o I L o 0 0 0
« L « « L u «
•y m i m m n 000 � m ' m m
fYi U U U 6 U U U 'I U
m n
V N N M x N x N i.
0
� N
C �O"
O N
E
� ' w
r
w
0
b
v
eo
w
P.
eF0 �tl C O e0 ��aa G C O M ��tltl C CC 00 w C O 00 w�v C O 09 ya C O bD ��pp C O CC
�= 9U >
�
m � ro u 5 `S
c 5
LC sC scG s £ _ v c � C Fa ra `7
� r°°° y � n oc „ a � cyW ocma oca B � ya oc „ fin , � � O
60 >
'L A �i y d '« A aGi m an 'L A v y a� 'L A �i •u0i d 'L A �i m ao 'L A Fi y v 'L A Fi •vOi d t O ,_, i
'd0 vpl G � C '00 vl C m F 9 Vi p � C '00 Vl � �.0 ,. '00 vl C LCO C '° Vi � � F '00 vp1 G W C Y °„'� •
'O O
^c $
QUO E 6rn0 QUO � .E Q �nO S Qtix Q � 6rn0 � .5 6 �n0
0o m m o0 0o m I m �n
e
y
F�
O O O O O O O
ro ro ro m ro ro m
w
c I
'�• � 'I c '. pm � m epn � ro
•d N '. R ttl N m N t0 O
C4 � I cAi cL� u I, cFi o u
� Vl V1 N
X I
U N I I N N t/1y�
G
iG I N
O I N
T
u ro
N
VI r� a v� b � oo S lil O
7 c
/{
lz � t� .
%!
� \ \
-
,
/ � /
Land Use Code Maintenance Process
Annotated Issue List
690 Amend L-M-N 4.4(B)(3)(c)-Permitted Use List-to allow"Multi-family dwellings(greater
than 8 units per building)"as a Type Two review,subject to design standards.
Problem Statement
Staff has been approached by representatives of three active developments(Maple Hill,
Observatory Village,and Provincetowne)in the L-M-N zone that would like to construct
multi-family buildings that contain more than eight units as part of their larger projects.
The limitation on eight units is presently codified in the Permitted Use List,and,therefore,
cannot be modified under any circumstances. This is viewed by these representatives as
being overly restrictive and contributes to a lack of housing mix in the L-M-N.
At the June 7,2005 City Council meeting,during consideration of the Spring 2005 Land
Use Code Update,Council considered public testimony and directed Staff to draft a
change to allow multi-family housing that contain more than eight dwelling units in the L-
M-N,but subject to a minimum level of design standards.
The existing L-M-N code allows for multi-family dwellings of less than eight units with a
maximum of 2-1/2 stories. Since the adoption of the Land Use Code in 1997,there has not
been any eight-plex multi-family buildings constructed in the L-M-N district.
Proposed Solution Overview
The Land Use Code team retained the services of a local architectural firm to draft
standards and guidelines for multi-family buildings containing more than eight dwellings.
In addition,the staff met with the three affected developers and other architects to
establish what changes were required in the L-M-N district to assure financial feasibility,
but maintain the character and quality of the surrounding single-and two-family dwelling
neighborhoods. Following is a summary of the goals as a result of these meetings:
-Increase the maximum number of stories from 2-1/2 to three.
-Increase the maximum number of units from 8 to 12.
-Do not increase the allowable density.
-The Code should be descriptive rather than prescriptive to encourage creativity and
variety in building and site solutions.
-The wording shall not dictate a specified style of architecture or design features and
elements.
-The building should relate to the scale of the residential homes,streets and adjacent
neighborhoods by the stepping of the building fagade and roofline,and general building
massing.
-Modify the permitted use list so that the maximum number of dwelling units per building
is moved to a general development standard so that it would become eligible for a
Modification.
-New standards would be triggered for any building containing more than six dwellings.
Friday,May 26,2006 Page 1 of 10
-New standards would include a maximum builidng size.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
18 4.4(13)(3)(a) Adds a new use-multi-family more than 8 units
20 4.4(E)(3)and(4) Adds design standards for multi-family more than 8 units
715 Add a new land use, "Wildlife Rescue and Education Centers,"to the UE,RF,RL,POL,RC,
CCR,I,and LMN(within 1,000 feet of East Vine Drive)zone districts.
Problem Statement
The Land Use Code currently lacks a suitable land use classification for the Rocky
Mountain Raptor Program A new land use,Wildlife Rescue and Education Centers,was
recently added to the I and LMN zones in conjunction with a development plan,by the
Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services,pursuant to Section 1.3.4 of
the Land Use Code. That section requires that the addition of the use be promptly
considered for an amendment to the text of the Land Use Code in this semi-annual process.
Proposed Solution Overview
Add a new land use to the appropriate zone districts and add a definition to Article 5 of
the Land Use Code.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
13 4.1(13)(3)(b) Adds a new permitted use
14 4.2(13)(3)(b) Adds a new permitted use
15 4.3(13)(3)(b) Adds a new permitted use
19 4.4(13)(3)(b) Adds a new permitted use
25 4.10(13)(3)(a) Adds a new permitted use
26 4.11(B)(3)(a) Adds a new permitted use
38 4.16(B)(3)(b) Adds a new permitted use
50 4.23(B)(3)(a) Adds a new permitted use
55 5.1.2 Defines a new permitted use
718 Amend definition of"Boarding and rooming hosue"in Section 5.1.2 by changing the term to
"Extra Occupancy Rental House."Replace "boarding and rooming house"with"Extra
Occupancy Rental House"in certain zones and Supplemental Regulations.
Problem Statement
Traditionally,the term"boarding house" or"rooming house"has been used to describe a
house that is occupied by the owner of the home,who,in addition to using the home as
their own personal residence,will rent out bedrooms to other individuals. Often times,the
room rental will include meals prepared on the premises by the owner. The term in our
code,however, is more often used to describe a home that is simply rented out to a number
of individuals who are not related to each other. The owner usually doesn't live on the
premises,and the rent does not include meals.
Proposed Solution Overview
In order to more accurately describe the type of residential dwelling allowed in our code,
staff recommends that the definition of"Rooming and boarding house" in Section 5.1.2 of
the LUC be amended,and that the new term be used in place of'Rooming and boarding
house" in all of the applicable permitted use lists in Article 4 of the LUC.table and the
Friday,May 26,2006 Page 2 of 10
Supplemental Regulations.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision E/fect
12 3.8.28 Changes the term to describe 4 or more in a rental house
16 4.4(B)(1)(e) Changes the term to describe 4 or more in a rental house
17 4.4(B)(2)(a)7 Changes the term to describe 4 or more in a rental house
21 4.5(B)(1)(e) Changes the term to describe 4 or more in a rental house
22 4.5(B)(2)(a)7 Changes the term to describe 4 or more in a rental house
23 4.8(B)(1)(a)4 Changes the term to describe 4 or more in a rental house
24 4.8(B)(2)(a)7 Changes the term to describe 4 or more in a rental house
29 4.13(B)(1)(e) Changes the term to describe 4 or more in a rental house
30 4.13(B)(2)(a)7 Changes the term to describe 4 or more in a rental house
31 4.14(B)(1)(e) Changes the term to describe 4 or more in a rental house
32 4.14(B)(2)(a)5 Changes the term to describe 4 or more in a rental house
34 4.15(B)(1)(e) Changes the term to describe 4 or more in a rental house
35 4.15(B)(2)(a)6 Changes the term to describe 4 or more in a rental house
36 4.16(B)(1)(e) Changes the term to describe 4 or more in a rental house
37 4.16(B)(2)(a)6 Changes the term to describe 4 or more in a rental house
39 4.17(B)(1)(e) Changes the term to describe 4 or more in a rental house
40 4.17(B)(2)(a)5 Changes the term to describe 4 or more in a rental house
41 4.18(B)(1)(e) Changes the term to describe 4 or more in a rental house
42 4.18(B)(2)(a)6 Changes the term to describe 4 or more in a rental house
43 4.19(B)(1)(e) Changes the term to describe 4 or more in a rental house
44 4.19(B)(2)(a)5 Changes the term to describe 4 or more in a rental house
45 4.20(B)(1)(a)5 Changes the term to describe 4 or more in a rental house
46 4.22(B)(1)(e) Changes the term to describe 4 or more in a rental house
47 4.22(B)(2)(a)2 Changes the term to describe 4 or more in a rental house
48 4.23(B)(1)(e) Changes the term to describe 4 or more in a rental house
49 4.23(B)(2)(a) Changes the term to describe 4 or more in a rental house
51 5.1.2 Amends the definition with a new term
719 Amend the definition of'child care center"by replacing the words"mentally retarded"with
the words "developmentally disabled."
Problem Statement
In the Land Use Code,the term"mentally retarded" appears only in the definition of child
care center. This term is an outdated term and should be replaced with the term
"developmentally disabled,"which is a defined temp,and one that is used in other sections
of the Land Use Code.
Proposed Solution Overview
Amend the definition of child care center.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
52 5.1.2 Amends the definition with a new term
Friday,May 26,2006 Page 3 of 10
722 Amend the definitions of"Fast Food Restaurant" and"Limited Mixed-Use Restaurant"to
remove ambiguity.
Problem Statement
The definitions of"Restaurant,fast food"and"Restaurant,limited mixed-use" contain
descriptions and criteria of the method of operation that distinguish these two types of
restaurants. One of the criteria that are found in both definitions is meaningless and should
be deleted.
Specifically,one of the listed characteristics for each type of restaurant allows for the
consumption of food or beverages within the building,elsewhere on the premises,or for
carryout. This means that it really doesn't matter where the product is consumed. It can
be consumed wherever the patron chooses. Since it doesn't matter,then there is no point
in including it as a requirement of how these types of restaurants are to operate. On
occasion,customers have been confused as to the meaning of the phrase,assuming that
since it is in the two definitions,there must be a typographical error and that there must be
some other meaning as to what is meant to be described.
Proposed Solution Overview
Removing the unnecessary phrase from the two definitions in Article 5 will eliminate
confusion. Therefore,the definitions of Restaurant,fast food and Restaurant,limited
mixed-use should be amended.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
53 5.1.2 Makes the definition more precise
54 5.1.2 Makes the definition more precise
723 Amend the general use category heading in Section 4.15(B)(1)(a)in order to clarify that the
uses in this subsection are not principal residential uses.
Problem Statement
Section(13)(1)(a)of every permitted use list for each zone district is a section that lists the
accessory and miscellaneous uses that are allowed in a particular zone without the need for
a public hearing. Section 4.15(13)(1)(a)of the code(the CCN zone)is no different. The
uses listed in this section are indeed accessory uses.However,the heading of this
particular section is mistakenly entitled"residential uses"instead of
"accessory/miscellaneous uses". The residential use heading is actually found in Section
4.15(B)(1)(e), and is therefore mistakenly duplicated in the CCN permitted use list.
Proposed Solution Overview
In order to correct this error staff recommends that Section 4.15(B)(1)(a)of the LUC be
amended in order to be consistent with the use list categories of every other zone district.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Efect
33 4.15(B)(1)(a) Fixes a sub-section heading
724 Amend 3.5.1[C] -Building Size,Height,Bulk,Mass, Scale-by broadening the area upon
which to consider similarity in massing and proportionality to now include"block face"
(across the street)in addition to the block on which the building sits.
Problem Statement
Presently,the test for whether or not a new building is similar in size and height,or
demonstrates proportional massing to the mass and scale of other structures,is restricted to
Friday,May 26,2006 Page 4 of 10
other structures"on the same block." During the consideration of recent appeal of a
proposed a 21/2-3 story building,however,it was revealed that while there were no
similar structures on the same block,there were similar structures across the street.
It seems logical that building compatibility can be found across the street in addition to on
the same block. Further,the geographic area upon which to base compatibility can also be
found diagonally across the street(opposing cater corner)as well as directly across the
street.
Blocks that are predominantly residential may still have commercial or multi-family uses
along one side. For example,there are large blocks north of Prospect Road that are
bounded on one side by an arterial street. Similarly,the block across the street may exhibit
the same condition. Compatibility,therefore,could be achieved by buildings across the
street from each other versus buildings contained in the other areas of the block.
It is interesting to note that a companion piece to this proposed revision is the recent
Council determination that parking issues may now be considered part of the compatibility
evaluation,regardless of whether or not specific parking ratios meet the Code.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to add"block face,opposing block face or cater comer block
face"to the standard.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
8 3.5.11C1 Broadens the area on which to base compatibility
725 Amend Section 4.12(B)(2)of the Land Use Code in order to change the term"building permit
review"to"basic development review"to correct an oversight from a code change that
occurred several years ago.
Problem Statement
The zone district regulations in Article 4 list 3 types of development review. One type is
"basic development review" (non-public hearing), another is"administrative review"
(Type 1),and the third is Planning&Zoning Board review(Type 2).
"Basic development review"was initially called"building permit review" in the original
version of the Land Use Code. Basic development review is a development process that is
separate from and not associated with a building permit review. The original term of
"building permit review"which was used to describe this non-public hearing process was
confusing to contractors and developers.They often assumed that if a use was listed as a
building permit review process, all one had to do was submit an application for a building
pemtit to the Building Department solely for the purpose of making sure the proposed
construction complied with the applicable building codes. In actuality,building permit
review as set forth in the Land Use Code meant that the staff of various City departments
would review the development proposal for compliance with the standards of the LUC as
well as other applicable regulations.
A few years ago the term"building permit review"in the zone district regulations in
Article 4 was replaced with the term"basic development review" in order to alleviate this
confusion. Staff recently discovered that the term had not been changed in Section
4.12(B)(2)of the Downtown District.
Proposed Solution Overview
To correct this oversight,staff recommends that the first paragraph of Section 4.12(B)(2)
of the LUC be amended in order to be consistent with the language contained in all of the
Friday,May 26,2006 Page 5 of 10
other zone district regulations.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
27 4.12(B)(2) Corrects the name of the review process
726 Clarify Section 3.3.1(C)(1)-Public Sites,Reservations and Dedications-so that all projects,
not just those platting,are required to dedicate needed easements and/or rights-of-way.
Problem Statement
The language in the Land Use Code requiring that an applicant dedicate rights-of-way for
public streets, and necessary easements appears to limit this requirement to only those
projects being platted. This was brought to our attention by a development that is not
platting which has challenged the City's requirement for the development to dedicate the
right-of-way for the abutting street and the associated utility easement. If a site has already
been platted,the Code does not require the project to replat. Many projects go through the
development process without replatting,but still may need to dedicate rights-of-way or
easements to accommodate the site or the City's adopted plans. Clarification is also
desired so that dedication maybe required as needed for streets abutting the development
(a street the property has frontage on)and not just roadways within the development.
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff recommends that Section 3.3.1(C)(1)be amended to clarify that it applies to all
developments and includes adjacent streets.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
7 3.3.1(C)(1) Clarifies that R.O.W.and easements can be dedicated
when not platting
727 Amend 3.6.1[C] -Compliance with Access Control Plans-to acknowledge that Access
Control Plans are applicable to all roadways,and not just intersections with state highways.
Such plans remain valid for former state highways such as Harmony Road.
Problem Statement
The paragraph in the Land Use Code that identifies that projects need to comply with
adopted access control plans does not reflect the requirements of the Harmony Road
Access Control plan now that the roadway is no longer State Highway 68.
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff recommends that changes be made to Section 3.6.1(C)as follows in order to correct
the oversight.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision ENect
10 3.6.1(C) Clarifies applicability of access control plans
729 Delete 3.6.2(L)(2)(b)-Design Requirements for Private Drives-to remove an ambiguity
between"private drive" and"drive aisle,"and add new clarifying language stating that the
maximum length for a"private drive"is 660 feet.
Problem Statement
The Land Use Code utilizes defined terms which establish the context wherein a code
requirement should apply. These defined terms are intended to remove confusion and
ambiguity,thus promoting the universality of application for all who use the Land Use
Friday,May 26,2006 Page 6 of 10
Code.
There is a problem with Section 3.6.2(L)(2)(b)as it is written because it equates a private
drive with a drive aisle:
A"private drive" is a defined term,see definition,Article 5,pg.32.
A"drive aisle" is a defined term, see definition,Article 5,pg. 16.
There are key differences between the two. The private drive is a dedicated easement,
whereas the drive aisle is not. The private drive can be named and addressed,not so with
the drive aisle. A private drive is dedicated for road purposes,the drive aisle is not.
This amendment provides a recognized upper limit to the length of a private drive. This
upper limit is stipulated in other sections of the Code regarding length of Cul-de-sacs,
connectivity standards,etc.
Proposed Solution Overview
Whereas a drive aisle is not equivalent to a private drive,and since these two items are
defined to provide two distinct functions,these defined terms cannot be used
synonymously. This section of the Code promotes confusion,and does not provide the
clarity for which it is intended.
Therefore,it is recommended that Section 3.6.2(L)(2)(b)be deleted and replaced.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision go'eci
11 3.6.2(L)(2)(b) Clarifies applicability and limits of private drives
730 Revise building height standards in the Downtown zone district,Sections 4.12(D).
Problem Statement
Building height and bulk standards for taller buildings(over 3 stories)in the Downtown
zone district are not effective in guiding investment,programming,design and review of
such buildings. Important issues are not adequately covered;unimportant issues are
covered with no benefit. Also,the section could be presented in a more logical order. The
single most important problem is the table of numerical dimensional standards in
4.12(D)(2),which states a height limit of 168 feet for the entire Canyon Avenue and Civic
Center area. This corresponds to about a 12-story building. For reference,the two tower
buildings that exist downtown are about 154 feet.
On most of the 25 blocks in the subject area,it is clear that no new building would be
appropriate or approvable at the current 168-foot maximum height. That number simply
does not fit the spaces that could become available for redevelopment.
The stated height limit is offset by a requirement in 4.12(E)(1)(b)that buildings taller than
56 feet must be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board using Compatibility standards
in section 3.5.1 (B)and(C)of the code. Those standards require complementary design in
terms of size,height,bulk,mass,scale,and architectural character.
The point is,it's impossible to tell how tall a developer could build on a given site. In
some cases,it's an open question whether 3 stories or 12 stories could be built,depending
on various interpretations.
Proposed Solution Overview
The 2004 Downtown Strategic Plan(DSP)outlines this proposed solution. DSP policies
result from extensive public discussion among the Landmark Preservation Commission,
Friday,May 26,2006 Page 7 of 10
the Downtown Development Authority,the Downtown Business Association,the
Planning and Zoning Board,City Council members,neighbors,property owners,business
owners,other interested citizens,staff,the Chamber of Commerce,developers,and
architects.
Primary elements of the proposed solution are a block-by-block map of maximum height
limits,with general agreement on acceptability of 5-6 story height throughout the entire
area except for a few blocks at the very western edge adjacent to stable single family
neighborhood areas. That general agreement is based on certain basic design parameters
for setbacks and terracing of taller buildings.
Those parameters are:
1.Maximum height. Zoning limits for height should be adjusted to vary with the context
of each block.
2. Landscape setback. A landscaped setback should be standard on all blocks west of
Mason Street.The intent is to continue the typical soft green edge that characterizes the
area,and that contributes to the transition from the core area.Exceptions should be
allowed at entrances,and where a building features display windows along the street
sidewalk.
3.Base. A taller building should have a clearly defined base portion,typically 1 or 2
stories. A cornice or roof,fenestration,materials,and colors should define the base. The
ground floor of every building should be differentiated to emphasize its relationship to
pedestrians.
4.Upper-floor setback. Portions of the building above the base portion should be stepped
back,with the amount of floor area reduction generally greater with greater height above
the base portion. The reduction should be a significant aspect of the building design,
related to useable indoor rooms or outdoor terraces or balconies.
5.Buildings up to about 6 stories(about 85 feet)are acceptable throughout the area,with
a few exceptions at the very western edge next to stable neighborhoods of detached
houses. There are concerns with allowing buildings taller than that. Standards should
allow 6-story buildings throughout the area,with fairly straightforward review based on
general agreement on key parameters. Standards should allow the possibility taller
buildings,where shown on the map,subject to more detailed consideration,public
discussion,and negotiation of design solutions to decrease negative effects. Issues to
consider include additional bulk reduction to avoid long,high building walls;shadow
analysis;use of height to mitigate mass;and use of design to mitigate height.
The whole premise of this proposed Code change is that it's better than what exists now,
and it directly implements the Downtown Strategic Plan. The reorganization is more
logical than the current format.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision QTect
28 4.12(D)and(E) Revises and clarifies Downtown height standards
731 Amend 3.5.1(1)-operational and Physical Compatibility Standards-to add a new criterion
addressing Parking impacts.
Problem Statement
Friday,May 26,2006 Page 8 of 10
This section allows Staff and the P&Z Board to address a range of compatibility issues
that may arise due to the unique attributes of any one particular project. Because all zones
contain a mix of permitted uses,there are scenarios where dissimilar land uses may be in
close proximity to each other.
In a recent appeal of a Project Development Plan that contained a mix of residential and
non-residential uses,Council expressed a concern about the impact of parking on the
neighborhood. Even though the number of parking spaces complied with Section
3.2.2(K),there may be cases where issues related to parking spillover need to be addressed.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to add a seventh compatibility criterion(J)(7)that addresses
parking impacts, and to make minor clarification changes in the wording of(J).
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
9 3.5.1(J) Adds a new criterion by which to evaluate compatibility
732 Amend 2.2.6(A&D)-Standard and Supplemental Notice Requirements-and 2.9.4(F)-Text
and Map Amendment Review Procedures-to correct a gap in the cross-referencing of
notifcation for zonings and rezonings.And increase to 800 feet the mailing distance.
Problem Statement
There is a gap in a cross-reference for the notification requirements for zonings and
rezonings. Section 2.9.4(F)describes the notice requirements for zonings and rezonings
by referring back to Section 2.2.6(D). But 2.2.6(D)does not contain any parameters for
notice such as minimum radius for the mailed notice and the size of the sign for the posting
of the property. The change also includes adding"Zonings"to five sub-headings under
Section 2.9.4(F)and(H)for consistency. And increase the standard and supplemental
mailed notification area from 500 and 750 feet to 800 feet.
Proposed Solution Overview
The solution is to correct the cross-reference in Section 2.9.4(F)and increase and add a
specific notification requirement to Sections 2.2.6(A&D).
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
1 2.2.6(A) Increases mailed notice to 800 feet.
2 2.2.6(D) Adds a notification standard for zonings and rezonings.
4 2.9.4(F) Adds a cross-reference for notification for zonings and
rezonings
5 2.9.4(H) Adds"Zonings"to sub-headings
733 Amend 3.2.1(K)-Landscaping and Tree Protection-Utilities-to clarify the separation
distances between trees and water and sewer service lines and mains.
Problem Statement
The standard, as written,contains two omissions. The first omission is that the
requirement for six feet of horizontal separation between trees and water and sewer lines
does not specify that these lines are the domestic service lines,as opposed to the main
lines. Adding the word"service"will add a degree of specificity to meet the intent of the
standard.
The second omission is that the standard fails to provide a requirement for ten feet of
horizontal separation between trees and water and sewer mains. The requirement of ten
Friday,May 26,2006 Page 9 of 10
feet of separation between trees and mains has long been a customary practice of the plan
reviewers for Utilities. While this is not a new requirement,its placement in the Land Use
Code provides applicants,who may not be civil engineering consultants, a user-friendly
reference so that landscape plans and utility plans are coordinated as early in the process as
possible.
Proposed Solution Overview
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Elfect
6 3.2.1(K) Clarifies the separation between trees and utilities
734 Amend 2.2.10(A)(1)-Minor Amendments-to allow a decrease in the number of dwelling
units of greater than one percent as a minor amendment,but only as long as the resulting
density does not fall below any zone district prescribed minirnum
Problem Statement
The standard requires any change to a final plan that results in either an increase or a
decrease by more than one percent in the approved number of dwelling units is not eligible
for a minor amendment and must be processed as a major amendment. A major
amendment to a final plan is practically equivalent to a Project Development Plan and
requires a public hearing subject to posting and notification requirements.
Staff agrees that any increase in the number of approved dwelling units by more than one
percent should remain subject to a public hearing since there are related impacts associated
with adding dwelling units. These impacts relate to utility services,common areas,open
space,parking,neighborhood compatibility and the like.
Conversely;reducing the number of approved dwelling units would lessen the impact
associated with the services and plan elements as identified above. An important caveat is
that any reduction in the number of approved dwelling units would not be allowed to fall
below any prescribed zone district minimum For example,the L-M-N zone requires a
minimum of five dwelling units per gross acre for parcels located outside the designated
Infill Area.
Proposed Solution Overview
Make a minor amendment the acceptable type of application for a reduction in the number
of approved dwelling units that complies with the requirements of the zone district and
does not change the character of the project's final plan.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Cade Cite Revision Effect
3 2.2.10(A)(1) Allows reduction in units by minor amendment
Friday,May 26,2006 Page 10 of 10
22 6(D)
Spring 2006 Biannual
Revisions, Clarifications, and
Additions to the
Land Use Code
22e1D1 z26(D) SMALL LOT
SOOfi�er �SOJen. NOOfert I,000Jrr
Number of'Jamex on Liil 106 '_?I 255 ?Y7
Cost of Nlxiling last for $79W $1]?.25 4191:5 $26].]3
Applicant 1(ai Y0.7Y per
label)
Coat of Clerk's Mailing for 54]W 39p.09 Y99.4$ $1?9.2?
Appeal(�,$U i9 per lahell
LARGE LOT
YOOIee( '>Oferr NOOfeer I,000firr
Number of Natrcs on List 27 $9 ]II Itl
Cosl of M1feilinK List for Y20�5 Y44.2Y 452 W SN?SS
Applicant l($OJ$per
label)
Cosl of Clerk's Mailing for YI0.5? Y23.01 Y2]30 $43.29
Appral I�rt YIL?9 per laheq
-•
fv isi !f
• / .I O?o0
•h��31R 1—�"� `��6u
�t�•
K �
�o
�_^�
UPI. m d�il g'
,8
re,3%
Y
1:
xb !:F3 fF�l T
11:
4 4(E((3(&(4) 4 4(EH3)&(4)
Ni l
'+ ry
ew
r
pin
rd��®
Iftx1mum Building MNpltl A
Uw,wehn snwysPYn 'or_",,,BG,,,,
•
•
5
ORDINANCE NO . 104, 2006
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 . 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 2 .2 . 6(A) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
(A) Mailed Notice. The Director shall mail written notice to the owners of
record of all real property within freight hundred (-5-00800) feet (exclusive
of public rights-of-way, public facilities, parks or public open space) of the
property lines of the parcel of land for which the development is planned.
Owners of record shall be ascertained according to the records of the Larimer
County Assessor' s Office, unless more current information is made available in
writing to the Director prior to the mailing of the notices . If the development
project is of a type described in the Supplemental Notice Requirements of
Section 2 .2 .6(D), then the area of notification shall conform to the expanded
notice requirements of that Section. In addition, the Director may further
expand the notification area. Formally designated representatives of bona
fide neighborhood groups and organizations and homeowner's associations
within the area of notification shall also receive written notice . Such
written notices shall be mailed at least fourteen ( 14) days prior to the public
hearing/meeting date . The Director shall provide the applicant with a map
delineating the required area of notification, which area may be extended by
I
the Director to the nearest streets or other distinctive physical features
which would create a practical and rational boundary for the area of
notification. The applicant shall pay postage and handling costs of fifty
cents ($ . 50) per notice. Failure to mail such notice shall not affect the
validity of any hearing, meeting or determination by the decision maker.
Section 2 . That Section 2 .2 . 6(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
(D) Supplemental Notice Requirements.
Minimum Notice Radius Sign Size
All developments except as described 500800feet 5 .4 square feet
below.
Developments proposing more than fifty 750800feet 5 .4 square feet
(50) and less than one hundred ( 100) single-
family or two-family lots or dwelling units.
Developments proposing more than twenty- 750800feet 5 .4 square feet
five (25) and less than one hundred ( 100)
multi-family dwelling units.
Nonresidential developments containing 750800feet 5 .4 square feet
more than twenty-five thousand (25,000)
and less than fifty thousand (50,000) square
feet of floor area.
Developments proposing one hundred ( 100) 1 ,000 feet 12 square feet
or more single-family or two-family lots or
dwelling units.
Developments proposing one hundred ( 100) 1 ,000 feet 12 square feet
or more multi-family dwelling units.
Nonresidential developments containing 1 ,000 feet 12 square feet
fifty thousand (50,000) or more square feet
of floor area.
Nonresidential developments which 1 ,000 feet; plus, with respect 12 square feet
propose land uses or activities which, in the to neighborhood meetings,
judgment of the Director, create community publication of a notice not
or regional impacts. less than seven (7) days prior
to the meeting in a
newspaper of general
circulation in the city.
Zonings and Rezonings of forty (40) acres 800 feet 5 .4 square feet
or less
Zonings and Rezonings of more than forty 1 ,000 feet 12 square feet
(40) acres
Section 3 . That Section 2 .2 . 10(A)( 1 ) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
2
( 1 ) any change to any approved development plan or any site specific
development plan (except a minor subdivision [no longer authorized
in this Land Use Code]) which was originally subject only to
administrative review and was approved by the Director, or any
change of use of any property that was developed pursuant to a basic
development review or a use-by-right review under prior law,
provided that such change would not have disqualified the original
plan from administrative review had it been requested at that time;
and provided that:
(a) the minor amendment results in an increase ^Y deefease by one
( 1 ) percent or less in the approved number of dwelling units,
except that in the case of a change of use of any property that
was developed pursuant to a basic development review or use-
by-right review under prior law, the number of dwelling units
proposed to be added ^wed may be four (4) units or less ; or
(b) the minor amendment results in an increase or decrease in the
amount of square footage of a nonresidential land use or
structure that does not change the character of the project; or
(c) the minor amendment results in a change in the housing mix or
use mix ratio that complies with the requirements of the zone
district and does not change the character of the project; or
(d) the minor amendment does not result in a change in the
character of the development.
(e) the minor amendment does not result in new buildings, building
additions or site improvements, such as parking lots and
landscaping, that are proposed to be located outside the
boundaries of the approved site specific development plan.
(f) the minor amendment results in a decrease in the number of
approved dwelling units and does not change the character of
the project, and that the plan as amended continues to comply
with the requirements of this Land Use Code.
Section 4 . That Section 2 . 9 .4(F) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
(F) Step 6 (Notice) :
( 1 ) Text Amendments. Not applicable, and in substitution therefor, notice
of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing shall be given in
accordance with Section 2-72 of the City Code. (However, for text
amendments proposed pursuant to Section 1 . 3 .4(C), Section 2 .2 . 6(C)
shall apply, and in addition the notice shall name the specific
3
proposed new use [or uses] to be added to the zone district list of
permitted uses.)
(2) Zonings or Rezonings of no more than six hundred forty (640) acres
(quasi-judicial). Section 2 .2 .6(A) shall apply except that the notice
provided for therein shall be mailed at least seven (7) days prior to the
public hearing/meeting date (instead of fourteen [ 14] days) and shall
identify the proposed new zone district(s), as well as the uses permitted
therein, shall indicate whether a neighborhood meeting will be held with
regard to the proposed zoning or rezoning, and shall inform the recipient
of the notice of the name, address and telephone number of the Director,
to whom questions may be referred with regard to such zoning change.
Section 2 .2 . 6(B), (C) and (D) shall apply and the published notice
given pursuant to Section 2 .2 .6(C) shall provide the time, date and place
of the hearing, the subject matter of the hearing and the nature of the
proposed zoning change. Seetio„ 2 2 6(D) shall not apply.
(3 ) Zonings or Rezonings of more than six hundred forty (640) acres
(legislative). Section 2 .2 . 6(C) shall apply. Section 2 .2 . 6(A), (B) and
(D) shall not apply.
Section 5 . That Section 2 . 9 .4(H) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
(H) Step 8 (Standards) : Applicable, as follows :
( 1 ) Text Amendments and Legislative Zonings or Rezonings.
Amendments to the text of this Land Use Code, and amendments to
the Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning of more than six
hundred forty (640) acres of land (legislative rezoning), are matters
committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council, and
decisions regarding the same are not controlled by any one ( 1 ) factor.
(2) Mandatory Requirements for Quasi-judicial Zonings or Rezonings.
Any amendment to the Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning
of six hundred forty (640) acres of land or less (a quasi-judicial
rezoning) shall be recommended for approval by the Planning and
Zoning Board or approved by the City Council only if the proposed
amendment is :
(a) consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; and/or
(b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood
surrounding and including the subject property.
(3) Additional Considerations for Quasi-Judicial Zonings or Rezonings.
In determining whether to recommend approval of any such proposed
4
amendment, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council may
consider the following additional factors :
(a) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is
compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the
subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the land;
(b) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment, including, but not limited to, water, air, noise,
stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the
natural functioning of the environment;
(c) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in a logical and orderly development pattern.
Section 6 . That Section 3 .2 . 1 (K) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
(K) Utilities. Landscape and utility plans shall be coordinated. The following
list sets forth minimum dimension requirements for the most common
tree/utility separations . Exceptions to these requirements may occur where
utilities are not located in their standard designated locations, as approved
by the Director. Tree/utility 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 . )
(2) Ten ( 10) feet between trees and water or sewer mains .
(23 ) Six (6) feet between trees and water or sewer service lines .
(34) Four (4) feet between trees and gas lines .
(45) 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 7 . That Section 3 . 3 . 1 (C)( 1 ) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
to read as follows :
( 1 ) An applicant shall be required to dedicate rights-of-way for public
streets, drainage easements and utility easements as needed to
serve the area being developed and/or platted. In cases where any
part of an existing road is inabutting or within the tract being
s
developed and/or subdivided, the applicant shall dedicate such
additional right-of-way as may be necessary to increase such
roadway to the minimum width required under this Land Use Code
for such street.
Section 8 . That Section 3 . 5 . 1 (C) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
(C) Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale. Buildings shall either be similar
in size and height, or, if larger, be articulated and subdivided into massing
that is proportional to the mass and scale of other structures, if any, on the
same block, face,
opposing block face, or cater-corner block face at the nearest intersection.
(See Figure 7 .)
Section 9 . That Section 3 . 5 . 1 (J) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
(J) Operational/Physical Compatibility Standards. The following ^Conditions
may be imposed upon the approval of development applications to ensure
that new development will be compatible with existing neighborhoods and
uses;. Such conditions may ineludinginclude, but need not be limited to,
restrictions on:
( 1 ) hours of operation and deliveries ;
(2) location on a site of activities that generate potential adverse impacts
on adjacent uses such as noise and glare ;
(3 ) placement of trash receptacles;
(4) location of loading and delivery zones;
(5 ) light intensity and hours of full illumination;
(6) placement and illumination of outdoor vending machines ;
(7) location and number of off-street parking spaces .
Section 10 . That Section 3 . 6 . 1 (C) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
(C) Compliance with Access Control Plans. The State Highway Access
Control Code and/or any specific access control plan adopted aeeor- ing to
that code shall determine the location of all intersections (whether of public
streets or private drives or other access ways) with state highways or city
6
streets , as applicable. All development plans that are adjacent to a state or
federal highway shall provide the access design facilities, including
supporting circulation facilities, identified within any applicable adopted
access control plans, when such facilities are needed because of the
development plan. In addition, all development plans that are adjacent to
any street for which an access control plan has been adopted by the city
shall provide the access design facilities, including supporting circulation
facilities, identified within such access control plan, when such facilities are
needed because of the development plan.
Section 11 . That Section 3 . 6 .2(L)(2)(b) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(b) Private drives whieh .,-c fe aisles in a parking to of havepafking
stalls adjoining shall be designed in aeeefdanee with the par-kin
lot requirements
is i Se r S 1 and i PtYOet.
I��r�i q�CLr�in��in�CJGri C2Vlf��� C�t�SGrGGL
standfl Private drives which must comply with Section 3 . 6 . 6
for emergency access shall be limited to an overall length of six
hundred sixty (660) feet (measured as the fire hose would lay) .
This measurement shall begin at the intersection of the private
drive with the public or private street.
Section 12 . That Section 3 . 8 .28 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
3 .8.28 15
Boarding and RoomingExtra Occupancy Rental House Regulations
(A) Extra occupancy rental houses shall conform to the
occupancy limits and separation requirements specified in the following table :
Maximum percentage ofparcels
per blockface that may be used
Maximum number ofpermissible residents, for beardingextra occupancy
Zone excluding occupant family rental houses
L-M-N One ( 1 ) beard€rtenant per three hundred fifty No more than twenty-five
(350) square feet of habitable floor space, in percent (25%) of parcels on a
addition to a minimum of four hundred (400) block face may be approved for
square feet of habitable floor space if owner beardingextra occupancy rental
occupied house use.
M-M-N, H-M-N, N-C-13 One ( 1 ) boarder-tenant per three hundred fifty No limit.
(350) square feet of habitable floor space, in
addition to a minimum of four hundred (400)
square feet of habitable floor space if owner
occupied.
D, R-D-R, C-C, One (1 ) beardertenant per three hundred fifty No limit.
C-C-N, C-C-R, C. C-N, (350) square feet of habitable floor space, in
N-C, C-L-E, I addition to a minimum of four hundred (400)
square feet of habitable floor space if owner
occupied.
R-L, N-C-L, R-F, U-E, N- n/a BeardiagExtra occupancy rental
C-M, H-C, P-O-L, R-C houses not allowed.
(B) In all zone districts allowing bea-rdingextra occupancy rental houses except
L-M-N, an application for beafdin extra occupancy rental house use for
five (5 ) or fewer beardefstenants shall be subject to basic development
review.
(C) In all zone districts allowing bea-rdingextra occupancy rental houses except
L-M-N, an application for beafdin extra occupancy rental house use for
more than five (5) boardefstenants shall be subject to Type 1 administrative
review.
(D) In the L-M-N zone district, an application for bear-dingextra occupancy
rental house use for four (4) or fewer beardefstenants shall be subject to
basic developmental review.
(E) In the L-M-N zone district, an application for boarding house use for more
than four (4) boarders shall be subject to Type 1 administrative review.
Section 13 . That Section 4. 1 (B)(3 )(b) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 4 which reads in its entirety as follows :
4. Wildlife rescue and education centers .
Section 14 . That Section 4. 2(B)(3 )(b) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 4 which reads in its entirety as follows :
4. Wildlife rescue and education centers .
8
Section 15 . That Section 4. 3 (B)(3 )(b) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 3 which reads in its entirety as follows :
3 . Wildlife rescue and education centers .
Section 16 . That Section 4.4(B)( 1 )(e) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
to read as follows :
(e) Residential Uses :
1 . Boar-ding a r omingExtra occupancy rental
houses with four (4) or fewer beafdefstenants .
Section 17 . That Section 4.4(B)(2)(a)7 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(a) Residential Uses :
7 . Boafding and foomin Extra occupancy rental houses with
more than four (4) beafdefstenants .
Section 18 . That Section 4.4(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 . Multi-family dwellings containing more than eight (8) units
per building.
Section 19 . That Section 4.4(B)(3 )(b) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 5 which reads in its entirety as follows :
5 . Wildlife rescue and education centers, provided
they are located within one thousand ( 1 ,000) feet of
East Vine Drive .
Section 20 . That Section 4.4(E)(3) and (4) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(3) Maximum Residential Building Height. The maximum height of
resiaen„*i ^ ' 'wild „gssingle or two-family dwellings shall be two and
one-half (2 . 5) stories .
(4) Design Standards for Multi-Family Dwellings Containing More Than
Sm (6) Eight (8) Dwelling Units. Each multi-family dwelling
containing more than six -(6)eight (8) dwelling units shall feature a
9
variety of massing proportions, wall plane proportions, roof
proportions and other characteristics similar in scale to those of
single-family detached dwelling units, so that such larger buildings
can be aesthetically integrated into the low density neighborhood.
The following specific standards shall also apply to such multi-family
dwellings :
i) "1ia(a Roofs . Each multi family buildingshall fe.atffi � a eomb" tioII
�CL�1aftieulate by at least one ( 1 ) of the following elements :
1 . ehanges in plane and elevation.
1 lYofiner-s gables or- eler-estofies
, gafages ,
porelles, bay windows .
(a) Maximum number. The maximum number of dwelling units
shall be twelve ( 12) .
(b) Orientation and Setbacks . Setbacks from the property line of
abutting property containing single and two-family dwellings
shall be twenty-five (25) feet.
(c) Variation Among Repeated Buildings . For any development
containing at least f fty ( 40) ,,,, ,a :fret Y..Affe than fifty six (56)
dwelling
un tsfive (5) but not more than seven (7) buildings,
there shall be at least two (2) distinctly different building
designs . For any such development containing more than fifty-
six (56) dwelling i (7) buildings, there shall be at least
three (3) distinctly different building designs . For all
developments, there shall be no more than two (2) similar
buildings placed next to each other along a street or major
walkway spine .
Distinctly different building designs shall provide significant
variation in footprint size and shape, architectural elevations
and entrance features, within a coordinated overall theme of
roof forms, massing proportions and other characteristics. To
meet this standard such variation shall not consist solely of
different combinations of the same building features.
(d) Building Height. The maximum height of a multi-family
building shall be three (3 ) stories . Buildings with a setback of
less than fifty (50) feet facing a street or single or two-family
dwellings shall minimize the impact on the adjacent single or
10
two-family dwelling property by reducing the number of
stories and terracing the roof lines over occupied space .
(e) Entrances . Entrances shall be clearly identifiable and visible
from the streets and public areas by incorporating use of
architectural elements and landscaping.
(f) Roofs . Roof lines can be either sloped, flat or curved, but must
include at least two (2) of the following elements :
1 . The primary roof line shall be articulated through a
variation or terracing in height, detailing and/or change in
massing.
2 . Secondary roofs shall transition over entrances, porches,
garages, dormer, towers or other architectural projections.
3 . Offsets in roof planes shall be a minimum of two (2) feet in
the vertical plane .
4. Termination at the top of flat roof parapets shall be
articulated by design details and/or changes in materials
and color.
5 . Roof top equipment shall be hidden from view by
incorporating equipment screens of compatible design and
materials .
(bg) Facades and Walls . Each multi-family dwelling shall be
articulated with projections, recesses, covered doorways,
balconies, covered box or bay windows and/or other similar
features, dividing large facades and walls into human-scaled
proportions similar to the adjacent single or two-family
dwellings, and shall not have repetitive, monotonous,
und�7ifferentiiated wall planes . A.1.1 }
multi family building s:h
nrtieulatad by at lance tNyo (2) of any of the following
elements
AA rithin. every thirty six foot lefigah of thea, CAM-,
1 Recesses , projections of significant off-sets in the wall
2 . Distinct individualized epAranees with functional porehes o
patios .
2 . Chinuieys made of fnaso fy, or other contrasting
material
7 (� l
that pr-eje is TYAm �Na yz 1 11 1 plan.
11
4 . Baleefiies
Building facades shall be articulated with horizontal and/or
vertical elements that break up blank walls of forty (40) feet or
longer. Fagade articulation can be accomplished by offsetting
the floor plan, recessing or projection of design elements, change
in materials and/or change in contrasting colors. Projections
shall fall within setback requirements .
(h) Colors and Materials . Colors of non-masonry materials shall be
varied from structure to structure to differentiate between
buildings and provide variety and individuality. Colors and
materials shall be integrated to visually reduce the scale of the
buildings by contrasting trim, contrasting shades or by
distinguishing one ( 1 ) section or architectural element from
another. Bright colors, if used, shall be reserved for accent and
trim.
(i) Maximum Floor Area. The maximum gross floor area
(excluding garages) shall be fourteen thousand ( 14,000) square
feet.
Section 21 . That Section 4. 5 (B)( 1 )(e) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
to read as follows :
(e) Residential Uses :
1 . Extra occupancy rental houses with
five (5) or fewer tenants .
Section 22 . That Section 4. 5 (B)(2)(a)7 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(a) Residential Uses :
7 . Extra occupancy rental houses with
more than five (5) berstenants .
Section 23 . That Section 4. 8(B)( 1 )(a)4 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(a) Residential Uses :
12
4. Extra occupancy rental houses with
five (5) or fewer berstenants .
Section 24 . That Section 4. 8(B)(2)(a)7 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(a) Residential:
7 . Extra occupancy rental houses with
more than five (5) bearderstenants .
Section 25 . That Section 4 . 10(B)(3 )(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 2 which reads in its entirety as follows :
2 . Wildlife rescue and education centers .
Section 26 . That Section 4 . 11 (B)(3 )(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 2 which reads in its entirety as follows :
2 . Wildlife rescue and education centers .
Section 27 . That Section 4. 12(B)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
to read as follows :
(2) The following uses are permitted in the subdistricts of the Downtown
District, subject to BttildingBasic Development Review (BP-BDR),
administrative (Type 1 ) Review or Planning and Zoning Board (Type
2) Review as specifically identified on the chart below :
Land Use Old City Center Canyon Avenue Civic Center
A. RESIDENTIAL
Two-family dwellings Not Permitted Type 1 Not Permitted
Single-family attached dwellings (up to Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1
four units per building)
Multi-family dwellings BPBDR Type 2 Type 2
Group homes Type 1 Type 2 Type 2
Mixed-use dwelling units BPBDR Type 1 Type 1
Boarding and roomingExtra occupancy Type 1 Type 1 Type 1
rental houses with more than five (5)
hearde-rstenants
Boarding and roomingExtra occupancy B-PBDR BFBDR BPBDR
rental houses with five (5) or fewer
13
boaFdoFstenants
Fraternity and sorority houses Not Permitted Type 2 Not Permitted
B. INSTITUTIONAL/CHIC/PUBLIC
Places of worship or assembly Type 1 Type 1 Type 2
Public and private schools (colleges, BPBDR Type 1 Type 1
universities, vocation training)
Public and private schools (elementary, Type 2 Type 2 Type 2
intermediate and high school education)
Community facilities Type 1 Type 1 Type 1
Long-term care facilities Type 2 Type 2 Type 2
Public facilities BPBDR Type 1 Type 1
Parks, recreation and other open lands, Type 1 Type 1 Type 1
except neighborhood parks as defined by
the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan
Transit facilities (without repair/storage) Type 2 Type 2 Type 2
Jails, detention and penal centers Not Permitted Not Permitted Type 2
C. COMMERCIAL/RETAIL
Bed and breakfast establishments BPBDR Type I Type 1
Standard restaurants BPBDR Type 1 Type 1
Retail establishments BPBDR Type 2 Type 2
Grocery stores (occupying between five Type 1 Type 1 Type 1
thousand [5,000] and forty-five thousand
[45,000] square feet)
Personal and business service shops BPBDR Type 1 Type 1
Offices, financial services and clinics BPBDR Type 1 Type 1
Artisan, photography galleries and studios BPBDR Type 1 Type 1
Limited indoor recreation establishments BPBDR Type 1 Type 1
Fast food restaurants (without drive-in or BPBDR Type 1 Type 1
drive-through facilities)
Gasoline stations Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2
Bars and taverns BPBDR Type 2 Type 2
Land Use Old City Center Canyon Avenue Civic Center
C. COMMERCIAL/RETAIL (Cont'd)
Night clubs BPBDR Type 2 Type 2
Entertainment facilities and theaters BPBDR Type 2 Type 1
Child care centers Type 1 Type 1 Type 1
Clubs and lodges BPBDR Type 1 Type 1
Funeral homes Not Permitted Type 2 Not Permitted
Lodging establishments Type 2 Type 2 Type 2
Health and membership clubs BPBDR Type 1 Type 1
Parking lots and garages (as a principal Type 2 Type 2 Type 2
use)
Veterinary facilities/small animal clinics Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2
Supermarkets Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2
Open-air farmers markets Type 1 Type 1 Type 1
14
Large retail establishments Type 2 Type 2 Type 2
Print shops Type 1 Type 1 Type 1
Dog day care facilities Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2
Food catering or small food product BPBDR BPBDR BPBDR
preparation
Exhibit halls BPBDR Type 2 Type 1
Conference/convention center BPBDR Type 2 Type 2
Day shelters, provided they do not exceed Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2
10,000 square feet and are located within
1 .320 feet (`/4) mile of a Transfort route
Adult day/respite care centers Type I Type 1 Type 1
Small scale reception centers Type 1 Type 1 Type 1
D. INDUSTRIAL
Workshops and small custom industry Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1
Research laboratories Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1
E. ACCESSORY — MISC.
Accessory buildings BPBDR BPBDR BPBDR
Accessory uses BPBDR BPBDR BPBDR
Satellite dishes more than thirty-nine (39) BPBDR BPBDR BPBDR
inches in diameter
Wireless telecommunication equipment Type 1 Type I Type 1
Wireless telecommunication facilities Type 2 Type 2 Type 2
Drive-in facilities Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2
Section 28 . That Section 4 . 12(D) and (E) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(i' Land b-se Standard
( >I ) z� ooF AV&264. A.11. new
buildings
greater- t'' a f4f4y tho„ i50,0"
square
feed in
floor area and
any i ns o f � than fi
-
�uccr�rc ca—icrnr-ccrr additions of
thousand
housan ( cn nnn) s „ are feel- ♦•e. eaxisting buildings
shall
be subjeet to
Planning and
Zoning Beard review.
jHje�10HaI Cs%.H/ dt .V4S The., dim.efisios4nr jl �"AFP, �� Pt T/l�
the
ehai4 below; IIII
1\ iT:..:.�.,,m lot � e i`YVlt@ TYVli@ None
Minimum Int width
1\ Ra.,;,v.,,m FAR* 2 5 5
Ail...,:...,,... front yar-d 6ethaek* * 8 15fee 15 fee�
Afini .,,M r ..r.1 .. vtl.., ..1' 8 8 0
Ma*iminn building height 4 gtnrieq not to o eed 56 Fat 169 fee 169 fee
15
Any flooffs of a. building dedioated exelusiwly tO FOSidP-,41fi.AI use, off uses aeeessor-y to tho- se, rousid-entia-I uses are no
included in the WOW of the floor area ratioThese are "free floor
as other-wise allowed in 4 . 12(E)( 1 )(a) .
(ED) e+yelopmeWBuilding Standards.
( 1 ) Landscaping Along Streets. A landscaped area between the
building and the street shall be required on all block faces west of Mason
Street, (except the block faces along the west side of Mason Street),
provided, however that no such setback shall be required at building
entrances, and in front of display windows along the street sidewalk.
Setbacks shall be compatible with established setbacks of existing buildings
on the same block face and necessary utility easements . Landscaping shall
be designed as an integral part of the development plan. At a minimum,
widths of landscaping shall be adequate to allow health of proposed plant
materials .
1 )Bui"xg Design.
aceol�nO c�i�v with
thefoll owing standards to ereate n
] /lN �1Nll All (1 (ltYPUPOt TYAHt .
1 . Sethaeks for- new buildings shall align with the sethaeks o
existing
xis i gbuildings
u ldi gs within
S]ithi the block face in
li -hieL1 the nelATT
building is being eeastt:ueted or with the sethaek of a f4ein
bloek if no buildings exist on the same bloek fa
building set back aathirty-five degree angle
fneasttfed at the intet:seetian of the Peof plane of the fo
story
-�t �1 pSVpf✓YY. along �.r 1�TGr/ RT.g�i .
See Yigufe l l/l
j . The ffont y r-d sethaek requirement shall apply to
building tha4 is proposed to be eenstrueted beo. Azeen the
baek of an existing building and the feaf pr-opefty line o
the lot on whieh both buildings will be leeated.
(2) Eaeades
plaza
or-
walk-way
lk-wa ] shall
exeee l fifty
(50) foot in
length.
shall
be integrally integfally designed with the upper- fl�tobe
multiple stofe ffonts shall unifiedthough the l�Qf
16
ni itect r r compatible matefials, eo1ofs, details,
1 r � rra
C��iLIti�
(E) Outdooractivity. Buildings shall r m te- and aceotmnodate
1 > > >
deeks an
eo Ards f�dentntis 'and ��k fs' use and
i tefactier to
the &Etent feasaiiably feasible.
(d) A ,,,,�Ines . Pew coimmnefC�dey development may ,IIe6r"pvrfaleZv^riII�CL�) shed, flat or- gable roofs,
but stieh roofs shall be sifflilaf
roofs of
buildings
within the block faee
(2) Building Height.
(a) Maximum Height, Old City Center: Four (4) stories not to
exceed fifty-six (56) feet.
(b) Maximum Height, Canyon Avenue and Civic Center: Varies
block by block, see Building Heights Map (Figure 18 . 5) .
17
�f� » i�'! • rrr�y s, � , nR� .i� r:. . � i ^ if; �►sue +'�1 - ' r > ,
r j . tL -JlrJR- - CH RRL@T �� _ -- - _ — • • _
tai
p A apnI, , � 7777 -�
it . tQqk
it MW
I all
Via x
Rim �w i 1 f • . a �i 1 •dam , I 4 ri 1
.........."FOR Ozoi
,�la � • � M ,,Ill All
%
T:a:��F..�..J� �+�1/�i air`• = 1. � ' I (' n ', �
f ` •� : Ili 1�1 � � - 0 r
1.
:t ,.�:, deb � ^ � �1 � .. . - ti �
_-` • �*'� •�h•—' `� a ��� 'f � .`_ � �-.� _ N
wr
+ v�{��Jj�[/ � GJ R�-�`1 �i �► �I�� Gt �� �°�11 is
■ ' 7 J
• �-• p " .�� Core
: 71nfi U�Transition
Is Y
.., .57 yF . • �1 Area [ � . I � �.-:, 1 •
l � /:� 1N F.ui!< : '' — _.►• ■
:
a'Y_ ' ti •� -� H II ERE ass ma��1
IL. y.. Ai.. - • 1
A. • s r
Y
�
IR Axis
i _91 Y. .i '.' .'(w: ' ICI � : • i �— ^ �rl
d , • 0 . - e
. 1
tii�. � . �
i �� . L� __.•._ j
0
• L
as �� t��t _�� wn► - �.
mpt�
to
it
n r. !Yi
.tea. AD
• e• { )• owl • I C �' ime � I k i 1-T134 ,�� - � '� i �..
III
111411111111411 7 �6r � r wi , � low in f .
� f •t � 1il' IS� i I r� .;
R' ��•n -a.a-v .�. . ..r• � w, ; . . � _ _ _ ( 1�'7:' 11rrY• c'o •
ea
JAL L
Legend _
Q DSP Area re, JtJ � ! +�ay��,��t i � ;
NCB - Neighborhood
Conservation Buffer
Civic Center/Canyon
Ave Districts
Block Heights (feet) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS
+/- 150
+/- 115
+/- 80
+/- 45
Figure 18 . 5
Is
1 . Measurement of Height Limits for the Canyon Avenue and
Civic Center Subdistricts . The maximum height limits are
intended to convey a scale of building rather than an exact
point or line. In the case of sloped roofs, building height
shall be measured to the mean height between the eave and
ridge. The maximum height limits are not intended to
hinder architectural roof features such as sloped roofs with
dormers, penthouses, chimneys, towers, shaped cornices or
parapets, or other design features that exceed the numerical
limits but do not substantially increase bulk and mass .
Lofts or penthouses projecting above the limits shall not
exceed one-third ( 1 /3 ) of the floor area of the floor below,
and shall be set back from any roof edge along a street, by a
distance equal to or greater than the height of the loft or
penthouse structure . See Figure 18 . 6 .
AV44 rECTOPAU
9,p
MiPv Mc iu KT'
Ler.aElwJ EA•.E � 4+i�(aE
• w
Figure 18 . 6 .
(3 ) Planning and Zoning Board Review of Large Buildings.
Development plans with new buildings (or building additions)
greater than twenty-five thousand (25 ,000) square feet in floor area
per story, or which exceed either six (6) stories or eight-five (85)
feet in height, shall be subject to Planning and Zoning Board
review.
( weigh* Building heights oveff feuf (meter; o of fifty 6)
feet, i"iehever- is gr-ea4er-, shall be s* eet to Plaiffiing an
Zoning
Board review based
ase o the
standards
t nd rds set forth in
Seetior
19
(4) Building Mass Reduction for Taller Buildings (over three [3]
stories).
(a) Old City Center: The fourth story of a building shall be set
back at a thirty-five-degree angle measured at the intersection
of the floor plane of the fourth story and the property line
along the public street frontage. See Figure 19 .
Figure 19
(b) Canyon Avenue and Civic Center:
1 , Base . Taller buildings (over 3 stories) shall have a base
portion consisting of one ( 1 ) or two (2) stories, clearly
defined by a prominent projecting cornice or roof,
fenestration, different materials, and different colors from
the remainder of the building. If the base portion is two (2)
stories, the ground floor shall be further differentiated by
fenestration and other detailing.
2 . Upper Floor Setbacks . Upper portions of taller buildings
shall be further set back above the base in such a manner as
to constitute a significant aspect of the building design.
Upper floor setbacks shall be determined by an emphasis
on pedestrian scale in sidewalks and outdoor spaces,
compatibility with the scale and massing of nearby
buildings, preservation of key sunshine patterns in adjacent
spaces, and preservation of views in order to insure
sensitivity to the historic context and scale of Downtown,
and to maintain a degree of open sky as part of the visual
character of the city.
20
ItFlc91FT
Additional Height Over 6 Stories/85 Feet;
yy Additional Setbacks and Mass Reduction
Landscaped
Setback
i
�y Combination of Ground-Floor and
1TI Upper-Floor Setbacks
Massing, ground floor setbacks, and upper floor setbacks shall be compatible with the
historical and pedestrian character of Downtown, shading, views, and privacy.
3 . Additional Upper Floor Setback and Mass Reduction for
Buildings Over Six (6) Stories or Eight-five (85) feet in
height in the Canyon Avenue and Civic Center Subdistricts.
The Planning and Zoning Board may approve additional
height above six (6) stories or eighty-five (85 ) feet, where
allowed as shown on the Building Heights Map, provided
that the applicant shall demonstrate how the additional
height is incorporated into the design of the building in
such manner as to mitigate mass and add significant
architectural interest to a building.
4. Alternative Compliance for Mass Reduction Standards.
Upon request by an applicant, the decision maker may
approve an alternative plan that may be substituted in
whole or in part for an architectural plan meeting the mass
reduction and setback standards in this subsection (4) .
a. Procedure. Alternative architectural drawings shall
be prepared and submitted in accordance with the
applicable submittal requirements . Such drawings
21
shall clearly identify and discuss the alternatives
proposed and the ways in which the plan will
accomplish the purposes of the applicable standards
equally well or better than would a plan which
complies with such standards or deviates from the
standards only in a nominal or inconsequential way.
(b) Review Criteria. To approve an alternative plan, the
decision maker must first find that the proposed
alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of this
Section equally well or better than would a plan
which complies with the standards of this Section,
or deviates from the standards only in a nominal or
inconsequential way.
In reviewing the proposed alternative plan for purposes of determining whether it
accomplishes the purposes of this Section as required above, the decision maker shall
take into account whether the alternative is compatible with its context in the mitigation
of height and mass, considering scale, views, shading, and privacy.
(5) Building Character and Facades.
(a) Blank walls . No blank wall that faces a public street, public
plaza or walkway shall exceed fifty (50) feet in length.
(b) Outdoor activity. Buildings shall promote and
accommodate outdoor activity with balconies, arcades,
terraces, decks and courtyards for residents ' and workers '
use and interaction, to the extent reasonably feasible.
(ec) Windows .
1 . Glass curtain walls and spandrel-glass strip
windows shall not be used as the predominate style
of fenestration for buildings in this District. This
requirement shall not serve to restrict the use of
atrium, lobby or greenhouse-type accent features
used as embellishments to the principal building.
2 . If Gground floor retail, service and restaurant uses
shall have large pane display windows., Ssuch
windows shall be framed by the surrounding wall
and shall not exceed seventy-five (75) percent of the
total ground level facade area.
22
(d) Nonresidential buildings . All nonresidential buildings
permitted in this District (including, without limitation,
mixed-use and industrial use buildings) shall meet the
standards established in Section 3 . 5 . 3 for mixed-use and
commercial buildings .
(6) Parking Structures. To the extent reasonably feasible, all parking
structures shall meet the following design criteria:
(a) Where parking structures front streets, retail and other uses
shall be required along the ground level frontage to
minimize interruptions in pedestrian interest and activity.
The decision maker may grant an exception to this standard
for all or part of the ground level frontage on streets with
low pedestrian interest or activity.
(b) Parking and awnings, signage and other architectural
elements shall be incorporated to encourage pedestrian
activity at the street-facing level.
(c) Architectural elements, such as openings, sill details,
emphasis on vertical proportions such as posts, recessed
horizontal panels and other architectural features shall be
used to establish human scale at the street-facing level.
(d) The architectural design of structures shall be compatible in
architectural design with adjacent buildings in terms of
style, mass, material, height, roof pitch and other exterior
elements .
(e) Auto entrances shall be located to minimize pedestrian/auto
conflicts .
(3E) Site Design Standards.
(a) Parking lots . Parking lots shall not dominate the frontage of
pedestrian-oriented streets, interrupt pedestrian routes or
negatively affect surrounding neighborhoods . Parking lots shall
be located behind buildings in the interior of blocks, in side
yards, underground or in a parking structure, to the maximum
extent feasible.
(b) Outdoor cafes . Restaurants shall be permitted to operate
outdoor cafes on sidewalks, including areas within the public
right-of-way and in courtyards, provided that pedestrian
23
circulation and access to store entrances shall not be impaired.
Outdoor cafes shall also be permitted to operate on rooftops,
balconies or other similar locations . The following standards
shall apply to all outdoor cafes :
1 . To allow for pedestrian circulation, a minimum of seven (7)
feet of sidewalk along the curb and leading to the entrance
to the establishment shall be maintained free of tables and
other encumbrances .
2 . Planters, posts with ropes or other removable enclosures
are permitted as a way of defining the area occupied by the
cafe .
3 . Extended awnings, canopies or large umbrellas shall be
permitted. Colors shall complement building colors .
4. Outdoor cafes shall be required to provide additional trash
receptacles in the outdoor eating area.
5 . Tables, chairs, planters, trash receptacles and other
elements of street furniture shall be compatible with the
architectural character of the building where the
establishment is located in terms of style, color, materials
and similar elements .
6 . The operators of outdoor cafes shall be responsible for
maintaining a clean, litter-free and well-kept appearance
within and immediately adjacent to the area of their
activities .
(e)7 . Outdoof spzaces.To the extent reasonably feasible,
outdoor spaces shall be placed next to activity that generates the
users (such as street corners, offices , day care, shops and
dwellings). Outdoor spaces shall be linked to and made visible
from streets and sidewalks to the extent reasonably feasible.
(4) Patlk StFuetHFe Design. To ahen oUcrrw Fe-nst&H.A.ry feasivr' e,
parking ng� str ctuFes steal meet the following
o Iow YIg design
rritoria:
(a) Wh 1�4% enC1 firent ( r t.afl A
e Cr[[ctl�I�iivrrcatF@etSzc esm
be required along the ground level fr-ontage to maze
iiLtPUFflH P dons in Pedestrian interest-Anti Lehi y. The deei 'Tie
maker- may grant an exception to this standard foF al of! pER4 A�
the gr_Al1N /Y l01101 4 F-0-0flt ge AN ( PAS With ow pede 1tria inter-es
or- activ4ty-.
24
(b) Par-king and nlnnrn nl Hire r nr itec
���gnu e� z���tu-r elements
st feet �a.e ng level.
(e) Atvhiteetural elements, sueh sill details, emphasis.
on Vefficnl propoft Onn mirk as posts feeesse hofizontnl panels
l 1 l 11 (� l 1 )1 1 1 l l l
and other ar-ehiteetllrlll feat es shall
a used
se to est hlish N11YY1 /ln
seale at the stfeet foe ng level.
style ,(d) The afehiteetufal design of stf+tetefes shall be eefflpatible in
afebiteetufal design with adjaeent buildings in tefnis of
(e) Auto entfanees- shall oeated to minimize pedest n, to
�s
(5F) Special Provisions Civic Center Subdistrict. The Civic Center
Subdistrict will serve as an important element of the Downtown
District and as the primary location for new civic uses and buildings .
The following criteria shall apply to all development in the Civic
Center Subdistrict:
(a) Civic spine. All development shall incorporate the concept of
the " Civic Spine" as described in the Downtown Civic Center
Master Plan, allowing for continuous north-south and east-west
pedestrian connections . The civic spine will serve to connect
various buildings in order to unify parks and plazas .
(b) Building materials. The use of local sandstone is required in all
civic buildings to establish a visual continuity and a local sense
of place.
(c) Civic buildings . New major civic buildings, such as a library,
government offices, courthouses, performing arts facilities and
transit centers, shall be located within the Civic Center
Subdistrict and placed in central locations as highly visible focal
points . To the extent reasonably feasible, they shall be close to
a transit stop .
(d) Incorporation of new buildings. New buildings shall be
designed in a manner that establishes continuity and a visual
connection between new and existing buildings within and
adjacent to the Civic Center Subdistrict. The height, mass and
materials of major public buildings shall convey a sense of
permanence and importance. 1 1 1 l l
(e) �TAnN� (11 �'Y A{']T1 n � buildings .
ngs . A 11 nI' I^� �1 {'] 1-lnl MUildngs
C Pe Redl in this Distric�ncl lg,wi�i+GNT,l „�NAlimitation,
25
industfial use buildings) shall meet the standards established
Section 29 . That Section 4 . 13 (B)( 1 )(e) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(e) Residential Uses :
1 . Boafding and foomin Extra occupancy rental houses with
five (5) or fewer beafdefstenants .
Section 30 . That Section 4. 13 (B)(2)(a)7 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(a) Residential Uses :
• , , 7 . Extra occupancy rental houses with
� Y
five (5) or fewer boafder-stenants .
Section 31 . That Section 4 . 14(B)( 1 )(e) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(e) Residential Uses :
1 . Extra occupancy rental houses with
five (5) or fewer beafder-stenants .
Section 32 . That Section 4. 14(B)(2)(a)5 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(a) Residential Uses :
5 Boar-ding and Foomin Extra occupancy rental houses with
more than five (5) beafdefstenants .
Section 33 . That Section 4 . 15 (B) ( 1 )(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(a) ccessory/Miscellaneous Uses :
26
Section 34 . That Section 4 . 15 (B)( 1 )(e) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(e) Residential Uses :
1 . Boafding and foomin Extra occupancy rental houses with
five (5) or fewer beafderstenants .
Section 35 . That Section 4 . 15 (B)(2)(a)6 of the land Use code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(a) Residential Uses :
• • • 6 . Extra occupancy rental houses with
� Y
more than five (5) bearderstenants .
Section 36 . That Section 4 . 16(B)( 1 )(e) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(e) Residential Uses :
1 . Boafding and foomin Extra occupancy rental houses with
five (5) or fewer bearderstenants .
Section 37 . That Section 4. 16(B)(2)(a)6 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(a) Residential Uses :
• • • 6 . Extra occupancy rental houses with
� Y
more than five (5) beafder-stenants .
Section 38 . That Section 4 . 16(B)(3)(b) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 3 which reads in its entirety as follows :
3 . Wildlife rescue and education centers .
Section 39 . That Section 4 . 17(B)( 1 )(e) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(e) Residential Uses :
27
1 . Extra occupancy rental houses with
five (5) or fewer berstenants .
Section 40 . That Section 4 . 17(B)(2)(a)5 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(a) Residential Uses :
5 . Extra occupancy rental houses with
more than five (5) bastenants .
Section 41 . That Section 4 . 18(B)( 1 )(e) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(e) Residential Uses :
1 . Extra occupancy rental houses with
five (5) or fewer beafderstenants . *
Section 42 . That Section 4 . 18(B)(2)(a)6 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(a) Residential Uses :
6 . Boafding and foomin Extra occupancy rental houses with
more than five (5) beafderstenants . *
Section 43 . That Section 4 . 19(B)( 1 )(e) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(e) Residential Uses :
1 . Extra occupancy rental houses with
five (5) or fewer beafderstenants .
Section 44 . That Section 4. 19(B)(2)(a)5 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(a) Residential Uses :
5 Boar-ding and momin Extra occupancy rental houses with
more than five (5) beafde-rstenants .
Section 45 . That Section 4.20(B)( 1 )(a)5 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
28
(a) Residential Uses :
5 . Boafding and foomin Extra occupancy rental houses with
five (5) or fewer beafdefstenants .
Section 46 . That Section 4 .22(B)( 1 )(e) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(e) Residential Uses :
1 . Extra occupancy rental houses with
five (5) or fewer bergtenants .
Section 47 . That Section 4.22(B)(2)(a)2 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(a) Residential Uses :
. • • 2 . Extra occupancy rental houses with
� Y
more than five (5) beafder-stenants .
Section 48 . That Section 4 .23 (B)( 1 )(e) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(e) Residential Uses :
1 . Extra occupancy rental houses with
five (5) or fewer beafderstenants .
Section 49 . That Section 4 .23 (B)(2)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(a) Residential Uses :
2 . Extra occupancy rental houses with
more than five (5) beafder-stenants .
Section 50 . That Section 4 .23 (B)(3)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 6 which reads in its entirety as follows :
6 . Wildlife rescue and education centers .
29
Section 51 . That the definition of "Boarding and rooming house" contained in
Section 5 . 1 .2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows :
Beat;64ng and rooming Extra occupancy rental house shall mean a building
or portion of which is used to accommodate, for compensation, four (4) or more
tenants, boarders or roomers, not including members of the occupant's immediate
family who might be occupying such building. The word compensation shall
include compensation in money, services or other things of value .
Section 52 . That the definition of " Child care center" contained in Section
5 . 1 .2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows :
Child care center shall mean a facility, by whatever name known, which is
maintained for the whole or part of a day for the care of seven (7) or more
children under the age of sixteen ( 16) years who are not related to the owner,
operator or manager, whether such facility is operated with or without
compensation for such care and with or without stated educational purposes,
except that a child care center shall not include any of the following three (3)
types of family care homes as defined by the State of Colorado : family child care
home, infant/toddler home or experienced family child care provider home . The
term includes, but is not limited to, facilities commonly known as day care
centers, day nurseries, nursery schools, preschools, play groups, day camps,
summer camps, large child care homes as defined by the State of Colorado,
centers for mentally fetafdeddevelopmentally disabled children and those
facilities which give twenty-four-hour-per-day care for dependent and neglected
children. Child care centers are also those facilities for children under the age of
six (6) years with stated educational purposes which are operated in conjunction
with a public, private or parochial college or a private or parochial school, except
that the term shall not apply to a kindergarten maintained in connection with a
public, private or parochial elementary school system of at least six (6) grades .
Section 53 . That the definition of "Restaurant, fast food' contained in Section
5 . 1 .2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows :
Restaurant, fast food 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 ; and
(2) the conswuptien of food and beverages is encouraged or peFmittea
Mri rf P.A FPVS+�I '' MnA MHiI i It P f iSeS Or- fo
CiTiYl , er2 6��3 �rel�rsc���rzveaFFyout; and
(32) there is no drive-in facility as a part of the pisesestablishment.
30
Section 54 . That the definition of "Restaurant, limited mixed-use" contained in
Section 5 . 1 .2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows :
Restaurant, limited mixed-use shall mean any establishment in which the principal
business is the sale of food and beverages to the customer in a ready-to-consume
state, and in which the design or principal method of operation includes all of the
following characteristics :
( 1 ) food and beverages are usually served in edible containers or in paper,
plastic or other disposable containers ;
(2 eons do o peyerag�eneouf Lged of Hefmitt�d
a.�lv a�aa '
Within the r-estaufaftt
eafr-yout;
(32) there is no drive-in or drive-through facility as a part of the
establishment;
(43 ) the establishment is contained within or physically abuts a multi-
family dwelling;
(54) the establishment is clearly subordinate and accessory to a multi-
family dwelling;
(65) the establishment shall not exceed one thousand five hundred ( 1 , 500)
feet in gross leasable floor area;
(76) the establishment shall not engage in serving alcohol; and
(97) the establishment shall not engage in the playing of amplified music .
Section 55 . That Section 5 . 1 .2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended a new
definition " Wildlife rescue and education centers " which reads in its entirety as follows :
Wildlife rescue and education center shall mean a facility that provides shelter
services for the rescue and care of injured birds or other wildlife with associated
education and research.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th
day of June, A.D . 2006, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of July,
A.D . 2006 .
Mayor
ATTEST :
31
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of July, A.D . 2006.
Mayor
ATTEST :
City Clerk
32