HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 10/24/2006 - FALL 2006 LAND USE CODE CHANGES AND BUSINESS OUTRE DATE: October 24, 2006 WORK SESSION ITEM
STAFF: Ted Shepard FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
Peter Barnes
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Fall 2006 Land Use Code Changes and Business Outreach Follow-up.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
The purpose of this work session is to introduce to Council the proposed amendments or options,
revisions and clarifications to the Land Use Code for Fall 2006 and to update the status of business
outreach items that were discussed at a recent Council work session. The Land Use Code team
encourages any questions or comments regarding any of these proposed changes.
The question staff would like Council to consider for shelters for victims of domestic violence is:
1. Does Council agree with the establishment of a new permitted use that would be processed
and reviewed under Basic Development Review which does not require a mailed notice or
public hearing?
The question staff would like Council to consider regarding potential business outreach Code
changes is:
2. Do the proposed Code changes accurately express the desire of City Council with regard to
off-street parking, signs, transportation impact studies and emergency access?
The question staff would like Council to consider regarding delayed business outeach items is:
3. Is the timeline proposed for these items (Spring 2007) acceptable to City Council?
BACKGROUND
In the past, it has been staff s custom to highlight those proposed changes that may be considered
more substantive than others. For Fall 2006,the Land Use Code team offers an explanation of those
substantive changes relating to:
1. the establishment of a new permitted use called Shelters for Victims of Domestic Violence,
and
2. potential Code changes,work plans,and organizational improvements associated with issues
identified at the recent work session on the Business Outreach project or are items that affect
the business or development community.
October 24, 2006 Page 2
More detailed analysis and actual Code language of the proposed changes is included in Attachment
2.
Shelters for Victims of Domestic Violence
Item 736 This item was initiated by Crossroads Safehouse. Staff recommends the Land Use
Code be amended in order to create a new land use definition for temporary housing
and counseling for victims of domestic violence, and place the use into the
appropriate zone districts to be permitted under Basic Development Review. Such
a review means there would be no notice or public hearing.
Social service professionals have indicated that, as a region with a growing
population, additional residential facilities may be needed to house victims of
domestic violence and their dependents. Such housing would be temporary. Other
functions would include day care, counseling, administration, and security. Since
the facility is required to be a confidential Safehouse, a maximum amount of
discretion is necessary. The Code presently does not distinguish a Safehouse from
a group home and yet the uses are very different. A new definition is needed that
recognizes the unique attributes of a Safehouse for battered persons and that the
gn q
processing of such a permitted land use acknowledges the special conditions for
confidentiality.
Code changes associated with the Business Outreach project
Numerous proposed Code changes included in the attached Land Use Code Issues list stem from,
or are associated with, issues that arose from the recent Business Outreach project or are items that
affect the business or development community. A short summary of these changes is provided
below. Items 670, 749, and 751 deal with Code change recommendations that relax the off-street
parking requirements. Item 744 updates regulations and presents Council with possible Code
changes for consideration with regards to certain types of signs (banners, election signs, portable
signs, and electronic message board signs). Item 759 clarifies that a transportation impact study is
not always required. Item 760 eliminates confusion between the emergency access regulations in
the Land Use Code and those that are in the Fire Code.
Item 670 amends the parking regulations by allowing a reduced amount of off-street parking
for multi-family dwellings in transit-oriented development (TOD) areas. Many
projects in areas targeted for infill and redevelopment find it is difficult physically
and/or financially to provide required parking spaces. These projects currently must
go through the modification process. Since adopted City policies encourage infill
and redevelopment, it is proposed that the residential parking minimums for multi-
family dwellings in certain areas be lifted to account for physical and financial
constraints and the availability of viable alternate modes of transportation.
Item 749 relaxes the conditions necessary in order to automatically qualify for a 20% increase
in the maximum number of parking spaces allowed. The Code currently allows the
maximum number of parking spaces to be increased up to 20% in situations where
there is no on-street or shared parking available and where the amount of parking lot
October 24, 2006 Page 3
landscaping required is increased by 20%. The proposed amendment removes the
requirement to provide the extra landscaping.
Item 751 proposes a change to the General Office Parking Standard. The change will add
flexibility in determining the number of parking spaces for non-traditional office
users such as call centers.
Item 744 proposes amendments to several sections of the Sign Code. Banners and pennants
are currently allowed for 20 days per calendar year. The proposed option for
Council consideration is to increase the number of days to 30. Election signs now
are allowed to be displayed no sooner than 45 days prior to an election day. Due to
some legal concerns, it is recommended that the pre-election time limit be
eliminated. The Land Use Code prohibits portable signs on private property and the
Municipal Code prohibits them in the public right-of-way. Interest has been
expressed in allowing signs downtown on sidewalks in the public right-of way. Staff
believes if the Municipal Code is amended to allow portable signs downtown, then
the Land Use Code needs to be amended to allow them elsewhere in order to
maintain equity regarding the types of advertising devices businesses can use. In
allowing portable signs, care must be taken to ensure they are regulated in a manner
that minimizes visual clutter. The proposed Code amendment that is presented for
Council consideration attempts to deal with visual and safety concerns. If it is
Council's direction to pursue the Code amendment and the end result,if it is adopted,
is not what is anticipated, the regulations can be modified as needed. Lastly,
additional regulations are recommended for electronic message board signs. The
recommended Code changes will address the size, brightness and color of the
display.
Item 759 clarifies when or if a transportation impact study is needed for infill/redevelopment
projects. The Code currently states a study "must" be submitted with all
development applications. Even though this language implies there is no flexibility,
that is not how this section has historically been administered. In order to eliminate
this confusion, staff proposes to change "must submit" to "may be required to
submit", and to add a reference to the applicable section of the Latimer County
Urban Area Streets Standards. Adding this reference will immediately direct an
applicant to a source that may better help them anticipate what could be required of
their project in this regard.
Item 760 is intended to eliminate confusion resulting from differing fire protection codes
found in the Land Use Code and in the Uniform Fire Code. In order to accomplish
this, the Fire Marshall recommends deleting most of Section 3.6.6 (Emergency
Access) from the LUC.
Some Business Outreach Items Delayed
Several other issues were identified as a result of the Business Outreach project. Staff will present
these recommendations to Council as part of the Spring 2007 Land Use Code changes.
October 24, 2006 Page 4
• A number of the issues involve impacts to infill and redevelopment projects. Those
specifically identified by the community were:
1. allowing existing sidewalks with cracks,
2. utility connection fee issues,
3. fire safety requirements, and
4. alley paving policies.
Staff will examine these issues in the coming months and make recommendations and/or
policy changes as needed.
• Another related issue is the possibility of relaxing the City's infrastructure warranty
requirements. Specifically, concerns were raised that:
1. there is a perception that Fort Collins significantly exceeds the market in
Northern Colorado in terms of its warranty requirements, causing rising
development costs,
2. cosmetic issues with concrete and asphalt are treated as structural problems
when they are really not, thus requiring the infrastructure to be replaced
during the warranty period, and
3. procedural issues arise about how to best protect infrastructure during
construction.
The City's warranty approach is a complex issue that needs to be evaluated further. Staff
recommends an industry advisory group be formed to more specifically advise the City on
the changes that may be needed. The recommended process is:
• November—form advisory group;
• December—present background information on the City's current approach to the
advisory group;
• January — task the group with identifying problems and examples and making
specific recommendations for changes for Council consideration;
• February—compile staff report for City Council work session;
• March— address any changes requested by City Council.
• Lastly, questions were raised about the residential density regulations, particularly in the
LMN zone, and if they discourage and/or prohibit developments with large lots. Staff will
perform an analysis that will include:
1. mapping locations of land use data;
2. comparing the market demand for large lots to availability and the geographic
location of available or potential sites;
3. a determination of the implications of the lack of large lot availability; and
4. identifying changes to City Plan policies or Land Use Code regulations.
October 24, 2006 Page 5
Update of Organizational Improvements—Creation of Development Review Center
As an outgrowth of the Zucker Report on the City's Development Review Process and the Finding
Barriers to the Economic Health of the Community Project, a "One-Stop" Development Review
Center will be created at 281 North College Avenue. This effort builds on work already completed
through the Neighborhood and Building Services merger by co-locating the Planning, Zoning,
Utilities, Transportation, Engineering and Building staff directly involved in development review.
All development applications,engineering permits,building permits and other fees associated with
land development will now be collected in the same place.
By locating both the permitting and non-permitting City specialists associated with development
review in the same place,there will be better customer service for all involved in the review process:
property owners,concerned citizens and members of the development industry. Customers will no
longer need to drive from place to place to receive services. Issues of poor communication and
inconsistency,which have continued to be a criticism of the City's development review process,will
be directly addressed through the Center's layout and operation.
The grand opening of the Development Review Center has been scheduled for November 6th.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Land Use Code issues summary list.
2. Analysis of individual Code change items included in the summary.
3. Balance of Fall 2006 Code change issues not included in the summary.
4. PowerPoint presentation.
ATTACHMENT 1
Land Use Code Issues
Tuesday,October 17.2006
Issue ID# Issue Name
670 Consider amending 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) -Parking-to allow lower minimum onsite residential parking for multi-
family in activity centers.
730 Amend 3.4.12(D)-Downtown Zone Development Standards-by revising the building height standards in the
Downtown zone district.
736 Create a new land use definition for temporary housing and counseling for victims of domestic violence. Place
into proper zones to be permitted as Basic Development Review so there is no notice or public hearing.
737 Evaluate the Code for consistency with regard to the term"Open Space" in case there may be confusion with
lands purchased through the City's Natural Areas Program
738 Amend 2.4.2(G)(1)(b)-P.D.P.Review Procedures-to clarify that a Type One use may remain eligible for a
Hearing Officer review even though it is part of an O.D.P.
740 Amend 3.2.4(D)(3)-Lighting Design Standards-to require flush-mount, flat lens under-canopy lighting for
fuel facilities in connnection with fascia remodels of existing canopies.
741 Amend 4.20(B)(1)(e)-C-L Accessory Uses-to allow satellite dish antennaes wider than 39 inches as a
permitted use. Corrects an oversight and brings consistency across all commercial zones.
742 Amend 4.6(D)(1)-N-C-L Density-by reducing the required lot area-to-floor area ratio from 3-to 1 to 2.5-to-1.
• 743 Amend 4.2(E)(2)(b)[c] -R-F Cluster Development-in order to correct a discrepency regarding density.
744 Amend 3.8.7- Sign Code-to update regulations of certain types of signs.
745 Amend 3.5.2(D)(5)-Maximum Size of Detached Accessory Buildings-by increasing the maximum size
allowed from 800 sq.ft.to xx sq.ft. for detached accessory buildings located on large lots.
749 Amend 3.2.2(K)(2)(a)-Non-residential Parking Requirements-to delete the requirement that parking lots that
use the 20%bonus allowance must also provide 20%additional landscaping.
751 Revise 3.2.2(K)(4)-Exception to the General Office Parking Category-to add flexibility in determining the
number of parking spaces for non-traditional office users such as call centers.
759 Amend 3.6.4(C)-Transportation Impact Study-to clarify that a TIS is not always required for small infill
projects.
760 Revise 3.6.6 to eliminate confusion between the emergency access requirements in the Land Use Code and
those in the Uniform Fire Code.
•
Tuesday,October 17,2006 Page I of I
Item 670 — Consider Amending 3 . 2 . 2 ( K) ( 1 ) (a ) — Parking — to allow lower
minimum onsite residential parking for multi -family in transit-oriented
development areas .
Problem Statement
The Code currently mandates a minimum number of on -site residential parking
spaces throughout the City , regardless of proximity to high activity centers or
alternate modes of transportation . Many areas targeted for infill and
redevelopment find that it is impossible physically and/or financially to provide
required parking spaces (the Wright Life , for example ) . These projects must go
through the modification process which can be very cumbersome (Atrium Suites ,
for example ) .
Since adopted City policies encourage infill and redevelopment , it is proposed
that the residential parking minimums for multi -family projects in certain areas be
lifted to account for physical constraints , insurmountable financial constraints and
the availability of viable alternate modes of transportation including walking ,
bicycling , and transit . Minimum multi -family parking standards are based on
greenfields conditions . Parking will still be required , but by market forces , not
arbitrary standards .
Proposed Solution Overview
(K) Parking Lots - Required Number of Off-Street ,Spaces for Type of Use.
( 1 ) Residential and Institutional Parking Requirements. Residential and
institutional uses shall provide a minimum number of parking
spaces as defined by the standards below.
(a) Attached Dwellings : For each two-family and multi-
family dwelling there shall be parking spaces provided as
indicated by the following table:
Number of Bedrooms/Dwelling Unit Parking Spaces Per Dwelling Unit *
One or less L5
Two 1 .75
Three 2 . 0
Four and above 2 . 5
* Spaces that are located in detached residential garages
(but not including parking structures) may be credited
toward the minimum requirements contained herein only if
such spaces are made available to dwelling unit occupants
at no additional rental or purchase cost (beyond the
dwelling unit rental rate or purchase price) .
77. Multi-family dwellings within the Tran
Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Map
minimum parking requir
(b) Multi-family, Attached or Two-Family Projects
Developed with Internal Streets : Parking on an internal
street fronting on a lot or tract containing multi-family,
attached or two-family dwellings (except for mixed-use
dwellings and single-family detached dwellings) may be
counted to meet the parking requirements for the
development.
Also , add the following definition in Division 5 :
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay shall mean that area shown on the Figure
below:
Item 736 — Create a new land use definition for temporary housing and
counseling for victims of domestic violence , and their dependents . Place
into the appropriate zone districts to be permitted as Basic Development
Review so there would be no notice or public hearing .
Problem Statement
Social service professionals have indicated that , as a region with a growing
population , additional residential facilities may be needed to house victims of
domestic violence , and their dependents . Such housing would be temporary .
Other functions would include day care , counseling , administration , and security .
Since the facility is required to be a confidential safehouse , a maximum amount
of discretion is necessary .
The Code presently does not distinguish a safehouse from a group home and yet
the uses are very different . A new definition is needed that recognizes the
unique attributes of a safehouse for battered persons and that the processing of
such a permitted land use acknowledges the special conditions for confidentiality .
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to create a new definition and add a separation
requirement of 1 , 500 from any other established group home to minimize any
potential geographic concentration .
Section 3 . 8 . 6 Group Home Regulations and Shelter for Victims of Domestic
Violence
Section 3 . 8 . 6 ( D ) Shelters for Victims of Domestic Violence shall be separated
from any other group home or shelter by a minimum of 1 , 500 feet .
Section 5 . 1 . 2
Shelter for victims of domestic violence shall mean a residential facility operating
on a twenty-four ( 24 ) hour per day and seven day per week basis , to receive ,
house , counsel and otherwise serve victims of domestic violence , as that term is
defined in C . R . S . Section 18-6 - 800 . 3 , and their dependents . Such facility may
also include day care , professional , administrative and security staff.
To be placed into the following zone districts as a Basic Development Review :
R- U - L , Rural Lands
U - E , Urban Estate
R- F , Foothills Residential
R- L , Low Density Residential
L- M - N , Low Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood
M - M - N , Medium Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood
N - C - L , Neighborhood Conservation , Low Density
N - C - M , Neighborhood Conservation , Medium Density
N - C - B , Neighborhood Conservation , Buffer
D , Downtown
R- D - R , River Downtown Redevelopment
C- C , Community Commercial
C- C - N , Community Commercial — North College
C- C - R , Community Commercial — Poudre River
C , Commercial
C- L , Limited Commercial
H - C , Harmony Corridor
E , Employment
• #744 Amend portions of Section 3 . 8 . 7 — the sign code - to update
regulations for certain types of signs .
Problem Statement - banners
The sign code allows banners and pennants as a type of temporary , promotional
advertising device . The current regulation limits the number of days a business
can display such a device to no more than 20 days per calendar year . A no-fee
permit is required to be obtained from the Zoning Department prior to the display
of banners or pennants .
Concerns have recently been raised about whether or not 20 days per year is
adequate for the purpose of advertising special sales or promotions .
Proposed Solution Overview - banners
In order to allow businesses an additional amount of time to advertise special
events , the following change to Section 3 . 8 . 7 ( N ) of the LUC is offered for Council
consideration :
( N ) Banners and Pennants. Banners and pennants are allowed in any zone
district , provided a permit is obtained from the Director . Any business shall
be entitled to use banners or pennants for not more than tWe 0 ) thirty
( 30 ) days per calendar year. The Administrator shall issue a permit for the
use of banners and pennants in locations which will not cause
unreasonable annoyance or inconvenience to adjoining property owners
or other persons in the area and on such conditions as deemed necessary
to protect adjoining premises and the public . The applicant shall remove
any banners and pennants erected pursuant to a permit on or before the
expiration date . If any person erects any banners or pennants without
receiving a permit , as herein provided , the person shall be ineligible to
receive a permit , as herein provided , for the remainder of the calendar
year.
Problem Statement - election signs
The sign code limits the period of time that election signs may be displayed on
private property in the city to 45 days before an election day . It also states the
election signs must be removed within 4 days after the election . A question has
been raised as to the constitutionality of this durational limit , especially with
regards to the pre-election , 45 -day limit .
Proposed Solution Overview - election signs
In order to not limit the right of free speech or expression , staff recommends that
the pre -election time limit be eliminated and that the removal requirement be kept
as is . Therefore , Section 3 . 8 . 7 ( L ) ( 1 ) of the LUC should be amended as follows -
( L ) Election Signs.
( 1 ) No election sign] authorized by Section 3 . 8 . 7 ( C ) ( 1 ) ( g ) or
3 . 8 . 7 ( D ) (2 ) shall be allowed on a lot at any time prior to the election
day for which the sign relates and prier +e forty five (45 ) nays
befer�TeleGtieR day ; pFeyided , he YeyeF that aRy peFsep desiri .p
an elen+ ien sign to remain on a lot in any zone diotrint for a longer
period may apply to the Zoning Beard of Appeals Te aarn-avariar.PrVe tev
extend ' me period The hoard shall determine has p
...�-rva�nc�v�r�.ai-iurra �p-cr�r`"' ``^" ``^^ ff `"' �� ��
fae+ers ether than agreement er disagreement � nii + h the nentents of
the paFtiGUIar eleGtien sign , whether there is SUffiGient reason for aR
ex+ensien of time and the exant amei in + of time +e he ' inner
any extension taking into nensideration the purpose for which the
sign was erented whether er net that ni irnese WAI lid s + ill he senierJ
vr�-n�vcrr Tcccca� whether vP���
by allowing the sign to remain on the let for an additional period o
E f
tome �'ca"rd-the anonrenr�ia e a rRt Gf crAc Te"eessarry to effectuate
that purpose All eleGtien signs shall be removed within four (4 )
days after the election day .
Problem Statement — portable signs
Portable signs (except for election signs and some `for sale ' or ` for rent' signs )
are prohibited anywhere within the city . The sign code prohibits portable signs
on private property when they are in a location where they can be seen from a
street or property line . The Municipal Code prohibits such signs anywhere in the
public right-of-way . A portable sign is most commonly thought of as a "sandwich
board " or " a -frame " sign . However, portable signs are also those types of " stick-
in -the-ground " signs that resemble real estate signs .
Portable signs are a common type of advertising device in many downtown areas
and other areas that are predominantly pedestrian oriented . There has been
some interest expressed in legalizing the use of such signs in our own downtown
area . However , these signs can create safety hazards and it is therefore
necessary to ensure that they be designed and located in a manner that
addresses these concerns . Since most portable signs on downtown sidewalks
are low to the ground and screened by the parked cars in front of the building ,
the case can be made that they are mainly used for the benefit of attracting the
attention of pedestrians .
Portable signs that are illegally displayed outside of the downtown area are
usually located on private property instead of within the public right-of-way . If the
code is amended to allow portable signs in the right-of-way on downtown
sidewalks , then it is probably necessary to amend the sign code in order to allow
businesses city-wide the same opportunities to attract the attention of pedestrian
traffic .
Proposed Solution Overview - portable signs
Portable signs , if allowed , should be regulated in such a manner that they do not
proliferate along the streets of Fort Collins . Such clutter would not be desirable
and would detract from the attractive streetscapes of Fort Collins and could
create traffic hazards .
In order to allow the use of pedestrian -oriented and parking lot-oriented portable
signs , Section 24 - 1 of the Municipal Code and Section 3 . 8 . 7 of the Land Use
Code would need to be amended . Since the Land Use Code ordinance can ' t
contain items that aren ' t in the LUC , a separate ordinance pertaining to the
Municipal Code would be presented as part of the Fall Land Use Code changes .
For the purpose of the Land Use Code ordinance , Section 3 . 8 . 7 (A) (2 ) would
need to be amended and and a new subsection (T ) would need to be added as
follows if it is City Council ' s desire to allow portable signs :
3 . 8 . 7 Signs
(A) General.
( 2 ) Prohibited Signs. Rooftop signs and all other signs which project above the
fascia wall , pei4ab ', e sig; .,s , revolving and rotating signs , strings of light bulbs
not permanently mounted on a rigid background used in connection with
commercial premises for commercial purposes other than traditional holiday
decorations , posters and wind -driven signs ( except banners and pennants )
shall be prohibited in all zone districts .
(T) Portable Signs. No portable sign shall be displayed in any zone district
except as provided in subsections ( 1 ) through ( 6 ) below , except that such
signs which are placed in the public right-of-way need only to comply with the
requirements of Section 24 - 1 of the Municipal Code .
( 1 ) Portable signs shall be placed only in locations where the displayed
message is directed to pedestrian and vehicular traffic within a shopping center ,
multi - building development , or a single - building development that has an off-
street parking lot .
(2 ) The maximum overall height of portable signs shall be five (5 ) feet .
(3 ) The maximum size of portable signs shall be six (6 ) square feet per side .
(4 ) Portable signs shall not be located within fifty (50 ) feet of any public street .
( 5 ) Portable signs shall be located either on sidewalks that abut the building
and that are at least eight ( 8 ) feet wide or within a landscaped parking lot island
or other landscaped area within the development . Such signs shall be placed
in a manner that does not create a sight obstruction or impede pedestrian or
vehicular circulation .
(6 ) Portable signs shall be unlighted .
PORTABLE SIGNS IN THE RIGHT-OF -WAY
Proposed changes to Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code
( c) ( 8 ) Portable signs . No portable sign shall be displayed within the public right-of-
way , or street easement except as provided in subsections a . through i . below .
a . Portable signs shall only be allowed in the public right-of-way or street
easement when the business that is advertising on the sign is in a building
that is setback 5 feet or less from the right-of-way line and is on a premise
that does not contain an off-street parking lot which is located to the side or
front of the building .
b . Portable signs shall be displayed only during hours in which the business is
open and be placed only in locations where the displayed message is
directed to pedestrian traffic along a sidewalk .
c . The maximum overall height of portable signs shall be five ( 5 ) feet .
d . The maximum size of portable signs shall be six ( 6 ) square feet per side
(two sides maximum ) .
e . Portable signs shall be constructed of materials that will not cause a
nuisance , safety hazard and /or damage or injury to pedestrians , neighboring
properties or the public right-of-way . Portable signs shall be stable and not
be vulnerable to overturning or movement with a wind gust of fifty ( 50 ) miles
per hour . Such signs may not be attached to or held by an object that
resembles a human or animal form .
f. Portable signs shall be located at least two (2 ) feet from the roadway .
g . Portable signs shall not be located within the area of sidewalk defined for
pedestrian traffic flow as determined by the City Engineer .
h . Portable signs shall be located within eighteen ( 18 ) feet from the primary
business entrance to which the sign relates .
i . Portable signs shall be allowed only through the issuance of an
Encroachment Permit as described in Chapter 23 , Division 3 of this Code .
Problem Statement — electronic message board signs
The sign code allows electronic message board signs with certain conditions .
Specifically , such modules must be programmed so that the displayed message
does not change more frequently than once per minute and so that the message
change occurs without the use of scrolling , flashing , fading or other similar effects .
The number of these signs that are being installed has increased recently , and with
this increase has come concerns about the brightness of the red color that is
commonly used in the displays .
Proposed Solution Overview — electronic message board signs
Staff believes that there are benfits to allowing the continued use of electronic
message boards , and that some additional regulations can help to alleviate
concerns . Benefits include :
1 . LED ' s are very efficient . They use approximately 1 / 10th of the energy of a
comparable lamp message display .
2 . The message is easily changeable and can be changed safely , without
ladders or equipment .
3 . Lower maintenance than conventional readerboards .
4 . Vandals and others cannot re-arrange lettering .
5 . Can reduce the need for businesses to use banners , thereby reducing the
number of banners that are displayed along the City ' s streets .
Staff recommends that Section 3 . 8 . 7 ( M ) (4 ) of the LUC be amended as follows :
4 ) Electrical signs that contain an electronic changeable copy module must
shall be subject to the following limitations : nrngrammerd se that the
displayed message !does not nhange more frequently than enne nor
mini ite and se that the message nhange anal irs �IAV of it the i isn of
scrolling flashing fading or other similar effects
e ,
(a ) The module must be programmed so that the displayed message
does not change more frequently than once per minute and so
that the message change occurs without the use of scrolling ,
flashing , fading or other similar effects .
( b ) The message center must be provided with automatic dimming
software or solar sensors to control brightness for night time
viewing .
(c) The message must be monochrome in an amber or white color .
(d ) The area of the electronic message display cannot exceed 40 % of
the total area of the sign face .
Item 749 — Amend 3 . 2 . 2 ( K) (2 ) (a ) — Non -residential Parking Requirements —
to delete the requirement that parking lots that use the 20 % bonus
allowance must also provide 20% additional landscaping .
Problem Statement
The Code presently allows for non - residential uses that cannot utilize on -street or
shared parking to increase their maximum number of allowable spaces by 20 %
but also requires that parking lot landscaping be increased by 20 % as well .
Experience has shown that existing parking lot landscaping standards are
sufficient to screen parking lots and that the requirement for an additional 20 %
landscaping is superfluous . In fact , it may be challenging to find areas where an
extra 20 % landscaping can be installed after existing screening standards are
met .
This standard was initially codified to ensure that non - residential parking lots that
were increased by 20 % over their maximum allowable number were adequately
mitigated with landscape materials . This extra measure of assurance has proven
to not be necessary .
In addition , the standard , as written , prohibits the General Office category from
taking advantage of the 20 % bonus on the theory that the Exception to General
Office Parking Standard would be the avenue by which to obtain a more flexible
parking ratio between employees and building square footage . By deleting this
reference , the General Office category would now be eligible for parking flexibility
under both sections .
Proposed Solution Overview
(2 ) Nonresidential Parking Requirements. Nonresidential uses will be
limited to a maximum number of parking spaces as defined
by the standards defined below .
(a) The table below sets forth the number of allowed
parking spaces based on the square footage of the gross
leasable area and of the occupancy of specified uses . In the
event that on-street or shared parking is not available on
land adjacent to the use, then the maximum parking
allllowled may be in(�crea11sed by twenty (20) percent. ,„ram
by
At tND /11'1'1/() 1fit o paf-kifig of 1llN /YC� I� /1ping is also
ine fell C1e
NCI twenty 1 0) percent. T�N�`�ls twenty
pety{ent increase shag
not to the " gene��� use. eategefy.}
Item 751 Revise 3 . 2 . 2 ( K) (4) — Exception to the General Office Parking
Standard — to add flexibility in determining the number of parking spaces
for non -traditional office users such as call centers .
Problem Statement
This section was added to the Land Use Code several years ago after a thorough
field survey of occupied office buildings and office parks , and interviews with
developers , property managers and tenants . One of the results of this effort was
to recognize that there are office users that are organized around placing a
relatively high number of employees in a relatively small space . Whether in
cubicles or not , if there are employees arranged in 200 square feet or less per
employee , then the General Office Standard of 3 . 00 spaces per 1 , 000 square
feet may be insufficient . Most typically , in our economic environment , such an
arrangement would be a call center or businesses that operate with more than
one shift .
The purpose of the standard is to work with such employers on a case- by-case
basis to provide parking based on a rational analysis of the needs of the end -
user . Thus far, the standard has worked well for those applicants that have
taken projects through the development review process .
During the Business Outreach Project , however, Staff discovered that there
remains a strong perception that there is little or no flexibility with regard to the
General Office category . Upon further analysis , Staff contends that the standard
can be revised to provide more flexibility without substantially altering its
underlying fundamental purpose .
Proposed Solution Overview
(4 ) Exception to the General Office Parking Standard. An exception to the
general office parking standard as established in the table
contained in Section 3 . 2 . 2 ( K) (2 ) (a ) shall be permitted for the
purpose of ensuring that the parking provided is adequate
but not in excess of the users ' needs . Requests for
exceptions to the general office parking standard shall be
reviewed according to the procedure and criteria contained
in subparagraphs ( a ) and ( b ) below . Exceptions shall be
available generally to those projects where the number
of anticipated employees can be reasonably estimated , and
such exceptions shall apply only to the ratio between the
number of parking spaces and the number of employees ,
and not to the ratio between the number of parking spaces
and the gross leasable area . If the n , imheF .,f 24G; P248. .
empleyees sArPnet he re .asr. ri .Ably estimated , them the
applinahle r» rkiRg standard shall he the ratio hetWeen the
ni imher of r» rkinry wanes and the gress leasable Area , and
e
ne evneptOE) R to the general Gffine r» rkiRg standard will he
lvrnnted u prier this si ihsentien
Item 759 — Amend 3 . 6 . 4( C ) — Transportation Impact Study — to clarify that a
TIS is not always required for small infill projects .
PROPOSED CHANGE :
3 . 6 .4(C) : Transportation Impact Study. In order to identify those facilities that may be
e necessarl in order to comply with these standards, all development plans
must submi inay be required a Transportation Impact
Study_ approved by the Traffic En meer, consistent with the Transportation Impact
Study guidelines
REASON FOR CHANGE :
The questions to be answered are : Is a TIS needed on small infill/redevelopment projects ?
What is the threshold? Could it be higher?
The original code language reads as if all development plans are absolutely required to
submit a formal TIS . In fact this is not the case. Chapter 4 of the Larimer County Urban
Areas Street Standards (LCUASS) — Transportation Impact Studies - states that the TIS
may be waived if certain criteria are met. The following is an excerpt from (LCUASS)
describing these criteria with the relevant language to the question at hand indicated in
bold type :
"D. No TIS Required.
Upon submittal of a Transportation Worksheet (Attachment "C ') by the
Applicant and written acceptance by the Local Entity Engineer, the TIS
requirement may be waived if all of the criteria below are satisfied.-
Note that in Loveland (GAM and city limits), the proposed land use will be
exempt from demonstrating compliance with the transportation Adequate
Community Facilities requirements, if the TIS requirement is waived.
1. Vehicular Traffic
a. In Loveland (GMA and city limits), daily vehicle trip-end generation
is less than 200 and/or the peak hour trip generation is less than 20 In
Fort Collins (GMA and city limits), the trip generation must be less
than 50 vph;
b. There are no additional proposed minor or major street
intersections on major collectors, arterials, or State Highways;
c. If the property is being redeveloped, the increase in the number of
vehicular trips for the proposed use does not exceed the trip
generation from the existing use by more than 20 peak hour trips or
200 daily trip ends;
d. Any change in the type of traffic to be generated (i. e. the addition of
new truck traffic) does not adversely affect the traffic currently
planned for and accommodated within, and adjacent to, the property;
e. The scale or use of the proposed development or redevelopment is
not likely to cause less than acceptable levels of service on the
adjacent public streets, accesses, and intersections; and
f The proposed development or redevelopment is not in the vicinity of
a street or intersection with a history of safety and/or accident
problems.
g. There is no change of land use with access on to a State Highway.
2. Pedestrian Traffic
Paved pedestrian facilities exist or will be constructed on, or adjacent to,
the site; or, the proposed use will not generate any new pedestrian traffic.
3. Bicycle Traffic
Paved bike lanes or paths exist or will be constructed on, or adjacent to,
the site; or, the proposed use will not generate any new bicycle traffic. "
As you can see, there is a mechanism currently in place that allows the TIS requirement
to be waived. Discussions among Engineering, Traffic Operations, and Transportation
Planning staff indicate that there is a general feeling that the thresholds mentioned above
should not be adjusted. In fact, it is estimated that perhaps I in 5 TIS ' s are already
waived for projects that come into the City.
It is anticipated that the proposed change to the LUC code language will address the
confusion of this issue in two ways : a) it states that not all projects absolutely have to
submit a TIS and b) that by including the reference to the appropriate chapter in
LCUASS the applicant is immediately directed to a source that may better help them
anticipate what may required of their project in this regard.
Item 760 - Revise Section 3 . 6 . 6 - Emergency Access - to eliminate
confusion between the emergency access requirements in the LUC and
those in the Uniform Fire Code .
3 .6.6 Emergency Access
(A) Purpose. This Section is intended to ensure that emergency vehicles can
gain access to, and maneuver within, the project so that emergency
personnel can provide fire protection and emergency services without
delays .
(B) General Standard . All developments shall provide adequate access for
emergency vehicles and for those persons renderin fire protection and
emer end services compTying WITH ice , e DeparTment Mcess
an , of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted and amended
pursuant to Chapter 9 of the City Code . All emergency access ways,
easements, rights-of-way or other rights required to be granted pursuant to
the Uniform Fire Code must include not only access rights for fire
protection purposes , but also for all other emergency services.
Mesh n ' pmitts thepfoEedufes set fefth in the FifeEode w he-n
1m odifie Ttions n11ay include aeeessZTistanees loiigef than
one
hundfe
fifty ( 1 C0) feet, iia fo�er- road widths , ; Ncfe-ased gfade, fcd'u' 6@fd
turn four s and
n longer !ball end
n distances
any c tfuetufe must be located
ocate within
one hundfe fifty
( 1 50) foot of n N7,� ib
�i
street (exe pt c`H4�liri�tr@ �` eees r r", n .]�rccrri. Alyhieh
app rntus can
be maneuvered .
( 1l1)Emergen^`�ZTG `�ii. s foads
may be public stt!ee4 (except
c
}.�. � public �.XG ��1
'�iTLfeets) and alleys, iag lots , pFiNza4e stFeets In dwelling1� :;V7
1
hundt!ed ( 100) feet in length-.
/ e F.A.i.404muffl.
lfflflobsuflReted
vvzi �h /l��. emefgenny r/1
shall by twenty (20) foot except that upon �i r the itte authorizatiot o
the M14fe Ghief-, sixteenbe feet may
appr-ove! fq.4.:
streetspr-oyided—that such stfePtseomply
with all
other- applicable
FeEf iFementsN 1NtNO M1rPV o4e l
(3 ) The mlvllmllml llNflbs }rllet width
idt shall
h lZ be thif41- feet
f aeee�7"s
r-PA q (\p
rovi
n
g
of the
t1hfee (2 )�.1n+1.,11yies1 !ter move
J1 i 11/eight o at leas
side
t shall be
�rlrll^�CPeess f 1 g Vl{J�l fill UU
oad
(tom iefgency-ofe ueeesssfoads may be used in eomIIImef ei71lTil d multi
family pfE eets when they eaii be designed into the netzfflal tfaffie
elremllatlo
etnefgenzy fife ueeesrsfoaefitefia A ppfov l of any eff> efgeney fife
aeeessfo to be maintained eon4inuously ^l 11ndefGf all eathef
(a) The width ffitist be a minitnem Of twenty (20) feet.
(b) The suffaee muste all-3ATeath
(e) All f 1uifed eme genet' a1Joes fo ,�ielllding N11blie stfeets,
q10 f111 be v
, NA�1 � ll�r-cl l �ci �rvccl � �A4:e eo inx�i6��i�r
above
fYfoufll eonstfuetion.
t Dead ends .
1 rExeep+i fof oca-e Sae—scieets designed and oo rstfue e T i
aeVo ee 11H4h the T f fl]pr County
Ur�b1,�/,l�N Area
Stfee
LS V�11}nN RC1llds , (dead(-men ifife
eeess foa�that exeel one
hulfidfefl :A.fty ( 1 50) feet 1N lengi shall
be
pr-oyi e, 10,74L A
minimum one 11undt!e Tgot di meter tuf ar/1un
mead. e4fial longth f6f an OFHOfge Gy f kafl.
� r�{{11 exceed
six h1lNfll^efl sixty (660) feed
� J]rN1N lY Radius . The. mlNlmllm N1Nlt r ll �efgoflo1
{{���/ fife access an i par-king
be twen+c�!'11ZfG1 e (25i�Jll�i.//�)
foot ; Nn ; f1e aN /Y f; #l . (50) foot UtSi ae J
(h ) Road Suf!f lee The clllrlfAno�all
efnel'gency fife aeeess toads
shAlh the !1(�T AN ANNr/lyeE haF( sulfl4e- o, of eomNAetery foa (base
ea—pable of
C�IIV pot!�fY fully
loaded
o /Ye/Yp�^Tif fife
appat!a � • All
sut aces
q�h llµl lurr-v�ixzciri�J �1L/1L/�J eVC i.4.4.
l {� 1�P11JV 1 TTP.,AAffhWTG�IITCLLi.E)fj l in ll ing S1403AA
fefnoNTal Any bl^lflges of culvefls must meet Z desig
eri�en Gfass A sifn , � soft sufface mntefiall shad bo
ri��s-c�e� �««��s�z��
MY/ Nl
(rasedenll �re�efgen�r€ accesrsf s ��e�pefl�
feaeofde emer-geney aeeess easements .
� ,�
Verde= le�ee . The minimum NTeftic feleafane�Z77 be
���Y� . The maximum grade of anremergex foad
shall be eight (8) pefeent,
Control
AfinfoNTe "No par-king Fife
ar-kTiFife Lane " signs shall
tufn , ng Y 11P . Cut!bs n these U.leas shall painted 1e f
the laying of the fife hose f�om the fire tf!uek to the side of feaf of the.
stfuetefe shall be pfevided with gates. .
(G) Street Numes-. Stfeet names shall not duplieate existing stfeet names iti the
eouf!ts llanec and s� mall, have
ll the same na asthei nY1�i1 afy stt!GGT
MY/1[ 111Ye /Y they afe !mil ifieetefl dire �tll1 to the. MY1maFy stYeet nn /Y afe 1n elose
piv n'y to ea eh othef. Stfeet frames in the same
� }di.feetion may chafigc
Il I at
1 } tYe�e layout
shall
n�� me the standardn�2QT'L72-
south I elZ��"st west vin, ITt<�C �betin1�S[uu��. .•lle� . �T�l(�Tl efgei3£y- fit!e-Taeeesss iYvoads�/`�i z`�lll
be n /Y with
appfo11 e�(j��ee also.J / 1 mfli foYm M1Y0 1 /1 f10
Seetion 90 n n ) o�TTll ITT
fot! all
new and existing buildings
and
shag be positioned
s tione to be plainly l nisi
legible
fflfo m the
shall[iu. ooat llYl foldI froi ( /lting t1Ne pr-oN TT l
n T1Y0 1 is
YLLQIILLl
CC Il , Ye/Y t1 e addt!ess h also
N so e visible
TYm the T, YD InnO
Item 737 Evaluate the Code for consistency with regard to the term " Open
Space " in case there may be confusion with land purchased through the
City ' s Natural Areas Program .
Problem Statement
There may be confusion that the term " Open Space , " as used throughout the
Land Use Code , may be misunderstood or misapplied to mean those specific
lands purchased by the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Program with the
dedicated quarter-cent sales tax .
Staff Evaluation
A word search of the Code reveals that term " Open Space " is used 53 times .
(Twelve of these references are found in U - E and R- F zones in describing the
requirements for residential cluster development . Five of these references are
found in the definition of Solar Lot. Three are used in describing the regulations
of carriage houses in the NCL , NCM and NCB zones . )
The term is of common usage and has a generic meaning and is not specifically
defined in Article Five .
In contrast there are three specific definitions in Article Five for the following :
Natural Area
Natural Area Buffer Zone
Natural Features
In reviewing the 53 sections , the term is used within a context of a specific
regulation . The term is often preceded with a defining adjective such as
" private , " " public , " "functional , " that further defines meaning and intent . The term
is not used in isolation but in relationship to a specific standard .
The term is used in Article One , General Provisions :
Defining the Purpose of the Land Use Code
Defining the Applicability of the Code
The term is used in Article Two , Administration :
Defining the Mailed Notice Area
The term is used in Article Three , General Development Standards related to :
Solar Access
Public Dedications for Plats
Natural Area Buffers
Building Height Review for Buildings over 40 feet
Contiguity for Annexation of Land
Increasing the Number of Unrelated Persons for Four- Bedroom Units
Location of Single Family Lots from 1 -25
Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping in the 1 -25 Subarea
Regulating High Intensity Colors in 1 -25 Subarea
The term is used in Article Four , Zone Districts in standards related to :
U - E Residential Cluster Development
R- F Residential Cluster Development
L- M - N Mix of Housing
M - M - N Purpose Statement
M - M - N — Mix of Housing Types
N - C - L — Carriage House
N - C - M — Carriage House
N - C - B — Carriage House
C- C — Central Feature or Gathering Place
C- C — Block Requirements
C- C — Multiple Building Developments
N - C — Central Feature or Gathering Place
N - C — Minimum Building Frontage
The term is used in Article Five , Definitions in definitions for :
Buildings
Community Park
Natural Features
Recreational Space — Active Open Space
Setback
Solar Oriented Lot
Zero Lot Line Development Plan
Staff concludes that the term " Open Space " is a commonly used and easily
understood concept that has meaning within a specific context to a variety of
sections in the Land Use Code . For purposes of interpreting the Land Use Code ,
the term , as used within the specific context of the code section , is intuitive and
self-explanatory . The term has value as a generic concept and has not
presented a problem since the adoption of the Code in 1997 .
If the term were to be defined , then this would likely involve creating separate
definitions , or clear distinctions for :
Active Open Space
Common Open Space
Improved Open Space
Natural Open Space
Passive Open Space
Public Open Space
If we got down to such a level of specificity , we would then have to determine
how to classify improvements or semi - improvements that may or may not be
permitted in any of the classifications of Open Space , such as , but not limited to ,
the following :
Golf courses
Swimming pools
Tennis courts
Parks
Picnic shelters and tables
Trails and walkways
Buffer yards
Stormwater detention ponds
Item 738 Amend 2 . 4 . 2 ( G ) ( 1 ) ( b ) — P . D . P . Review Procedures — to clarify that a
Type One use may remain eligible for a Hearing Officer review , even though
it is part of an O . D . P .
Problem Statement
Article Two contains the standards that pertain to the administration of the Code
and Section 2 . 4 describes the administrative procedures for a P . D . P . The
standard as written could be interpreted to require all P . D . P . ' s that are part of an
Overall Development Plan must be processed as a Type Two review , even
though the use ( s ) contained within the P . D . P . are permitted as Type One uses in
Article Four. Since Article Four does not trump Article Two , such an
interpretation would render the division of land uses between Type One and
Type Two practically meaningless .
Proposed Solution Overview
It was never the intention for the standard to be interpreted in such a manner . In
fact , Staff has never required a Type One use to be shifted to a Type Two use
just by the fact that the proposed use is part of an O . D . P .
O . D . P . ' s shall remain a Type Two review . Subsequent submittals of individual
phases within the O . D . P . that consist of Type One uses exclusively should be
processed under Type One review . The proposed solution would delete the
clause pertaining to O . D . P . ' s . to remove any ambiguity .
Code Section
( G ) Step 7(A) ( Decision Maker) : Applicable as follows :
( 1 ) Administrative review (Type 1 review ) applies to a project
development plan that satisfies all of the following
conditions :
( a ) it was submitted after the effective date of this
Land Use Code and is subject to the provisions of this
Land Use Code ; and
( b ) it is Ret s bjeGt to ap eyerall i eyelepmeRt plan ;
0
( b ) ko it contains only permitted uses subject to
administrative review as listed in the zone district ( set
forth in Article 4 , District Standards ) in which it is
located .
• #740 Amend Section 3 . 2 .4( D ) (3 ) — Lighting Design Standards — to require
that flush -mount, flat lens under-canopy lighting for fuel facilities be
installed in connection with fascia remodels of existing canopies .
Problem Statement
The site lighting standards of the LUC currently require that under-canopy light fixtures at fueling
facilities be flush-mount and flat lens . These types of fixtures minimize spill-light and glare very
effectively. However, the regulation only applies to new fuel facility canopies . It does not apply to
existing canopies , even when such canopies undergo subtantial fascia changes that occur with
re-branding or new corporate imaging . Therefore , an opportunity to improve the effect that
exterior lighting may have on the surrounding neighborhood is lost.
Proposed Solution Overview
Numerous canopies have recently undergone fascia remodels , and many of them contain under-
canopy light fixtures that are not flush-mount or flat lens . It would be beneficial to the surrounding
neighborhood to be able to correct nonconforming lighting at the time a canopy remodel occurs .
Therefore , staff recommends that Section 3 . 2 . 4 ( D )(3) of the Land Use Code be amended as
follows :
( D ) Design standards.
(3 ) Light sources shall be concealed and fully shielded and shall feature sharp cut-off
capability so as to minimize up-light , spill-light, glare and unnecessary diffusion on
adjacent property . Light fixtures shall be attached to poles and buildings by use of
nonadjustable angle brackets or other mounting hardware . Under-canopy fueling
areas shall feature flush -mount, flat lens light fixtures ..
ni+n +Vl IM4 A nnn^nv r.r romoadwa nmopy.
• #741 Amend Section 4. 20 ( B ) ( 1 ) (e ) — CL Accessory Uses — to allow satellite
dish antennas wider than 39 inches as a permitted use . Corrects an
oversight and brings consistency across all commercial zones .
Problem Statement
With the exception of the CL zone , all commercial and industrial zoning districts allow satellite
dish antennas with a diameter of greater than 39 inches . For some reason , the CL zone was
overlooked , even though the CL zone is one of the most lenient districts .
Proposed Solution Overview
In order to correct this oversight, staff recommends that Section 4 . 20 ( B ) ( 1 )(e) of the LUC be
amended by adding a new subsection (2 ) as follows :
(e) Accessory/miscellaneous uses :
(2 ) Satellite dish antennas greater than thirty-nine (39 ) inches in diameter.
• #742 Amend Section 4 . 6( D ) ( 1 ) — NCL Density= by reducing the required lot
area -to -floor area ratio from 3 to 1 to 15 to 1 .
Problem Statement
The NCL , NCM , and NCB zones are the three residential zones that are found in the eastside
and westside neighborhoods . The NCL zone currently requires a lot area-to-floor area ratio of 3
to 1 , the NCM requires a ratio of 2 to 1 , and the NCB requires a ratio of 1 to 1 . These same ratios
were in effect when the zones were originally created in 1991 . However, numerous amendments
were adopted in 1996 to further address the impact of secondary structures on the rear portion of
lots in these old town zoning districts . One of the adopted changes resulted in the inclusion of the
floor area of all detached buildings as part of the total floor area allowed on the lot . As a result,
many properties in the NCL zone became nonconforming with regards to the 3 to 1 ratio once the
added floor area of detached buildings began to count as floor area . This has often impacted an
owner's ability to add on to an existing house in the NCL zone without first having to obtain a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) .
The ZBA has struggled with these variance requests . A variance is often required for any size
addition due to the already nonconforming status of the home , yet it is not always easy to find that
the standards necessary for granting a variance are met without creating some sort of
precedence .
Proposed Solution Overview
In recent years , additional code amendments were enacted in the NCL zone that help to address
the concern of building mass and density on a lot. Specifically, the size of detached accessory
buildings has been capped at 600 square feet, and a new lot-to-floor area ratio of 4 to 1
specifically for the rear half of a lot was put in place . These two standards help to ensure that a
lot will not be "over-built" to the extent that the character of these neighborhoods might be lost or
diminished . These new standards , together with a recommended reduction of the overall lot
area-to-floor area requirement of 3 to 1 should be sufficient safeguards and at the same time
reduce the number of variance requests that the ZBA has to deal with regarding this code
requirement. Therefore , staff recommends that the NCL zone overall lot area-to-floor area ratio in
Section 4 . 6( D )( 1 ) be reduced to 2 . 5 to 1 .
( D ) Land Use Standards.
( 1 ) Density. Minimum lot area shall be equivalent to at least three —
the total floor area of the building (s) , but not less than six
thousand (6 , 000 ) square feet. For the purposes of calculating density, "total floor
area" shall mean the total gross floor area of all principal buildings as measured
along the outside walls of such buildings and including each finished or
unfinished floor level plus the total gross floor area of the ground floor of any
accessory building larger than one hundred twenty ( 120 ) square feet , plus that
portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least
seven and one-half (7'/2) feet located within any such accessory building located
on the lot . (Open balconies and basements shall not be counted as floor area for
purposes of calculating density) .
• #743 Amend Section 4. 2 ( E )(2 ) ( b )(c) - RF Cluster Development - in order to
correct a discrepency regarding density.
Problem Statement
The minimum lot size for properties in the Residential Foothills ( RF) zone is normally 2 . 29 acres
per dwelling unit. However, an exception to this density is allowed if property is developed in
clusters . In such a cluster development, lot sizes may be reduced in order to cluster the
dwellings together on a portion of the property , with the remainder of the property permanently
preserved as public or private open space .
The overall density of the cluster development can not be greater than 1 unit per gross acre , and
the development must set aside at least 50% of the total land area as private or public open
space . The cluster development standards also require that the portion of the property where the
units are clustered together must be at a density of between 3 to 5 units per gross acre . It is this
density range of between 3 and 5 units per acre that creates a conflict in the Code . Specifically, a
development of 10 gross acres , for example , can 't have more than 10 dwellings since the
maximum density allowed for the overall development is one unit per gross acre . Yet , if 5 acres
of the total is set aside as open space (at least 50% of the total is required ) the remaining 5 acres
would have to have a density of 3 to 5 units as required . This would mean that there would have
to be between 15 units (5 acres x 3 units minimum ) and 25 units (5 acres x 5 units maximum ) in
the "cluster" . Therefore , in this scenario , it's impossible to propose a cluster development that
complies with both the overall development density standard of 10 units maximum and the
density standard in the "cluster" of at least 15 units .
Proposed Solution Overview
For the most part, the cluster development plan regulations are a carryover from the pre- LUC
regulations for the RF zone . However, the 50% set-aside requirement was not part of the
previous code . When the LUC was adopted and the 50% set-aside requirement was put in place ,
the old requirement of 3 to 5 units per acre in the "cluster" should have been deleted . Leaving it
in the code has created situations where it is not always possible to comply with both the overall
density standard and the "cluster" density standard . Therefore , staff recommends that Section
4 . 2 ( E )(2 )(b) be amended as follows :
( b) Minimum lot sizes may be waived by the Planning and Zoning Board , provided that the overall
density of the cluster development is not greater than one ( 1 ) unit per gross acre , and the „ nits
areduistered tegether ' R theP940GRef the property designated on the plan for residential use
density of throe (3 ) to fide ( 5 ) i mite nor gross ogre
• #745 Amend 3 . 5 . 2 ( D )(5) - Maximum Size of Detached Accessory
Buildings - by increasing the maximum size allowed from 800 square feet
to 1200 square feet and 2500 square feet for detached accessory buildings
located on large lots .
Problem Statement
The Code was amended several years ago by enacting a regulation to cap the size of detached ,
accessory residential buildings to 800 square feet . This was in response to growing concerns
that detached buildings on average size lots ( lot area less than 10 , 000 square feet ) were
increasing in size to the point that they weree no longer "accessory or subordinate" to the house
or to the lot. In some instances , the building footprint of a detached building either exceeded the
size of the footprint of the house or took up a good portion of the yard . The 800 square foot
limitation was placed in Article 3 , and therefore applies to all zones that do not have specific size
limitations contained in the zoning district regulations in Article 4 . For example , the NCL , NCM
and NCB zone regulations in Article 4 limit the size of accessory buildings to 600 square feet.
Therefore , the section of the Code that is proposed to be amended with this item does not apply
to those zones that already have a size restriction in the zone specific regulations in Article 4 .
Since the time that the 800 square foot limit was adopted in 2003 , the Zoning Board of Appeals
(ZBA) has heard numerous requests to increase the size limit of detached buildings proposed to
be located on lots far larger than the normal size urban lot . The Board has always granted these
when it can be shown that the size of the building compared to the size of the lot satisfies the
purpose of the standard which is to ensure that such buildings truly are accessory . For instance ,
a 1200 square foot building on a 1 acre lot is no more of an impact than is an 800 square foot
building on a normal size lot . An equal or lesser amount of yard space is used up by the larger
building on the larger lot. The ZBA has requested that staff consider revising the 800 square foot
size limitation in order to reduce the amount of variance requests that are heard by the Board .
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff agrees with the ZBA that the Code should be amended in order to allow larger accessory
buildings on larger lots . A maximum size should still be applicable in order to reasonably ensure
that adequate yard space is maintained and that buildings can still be considered as accessory or
subordinate . In instances where there may still be an unusual situation , a person would of course
continue to be able to petition the ZBA for a variance . Staff recommends that Section 3 . 5 . 2(D )(5)
of the LUC be amended as follows :
(5) Maximum Size of Detached Accessory Buildings. Any detached accessory building that is
incidental to a single-family or two-family dwelling shall contain a maximum of eight
hundred (800 ) square feet of floor area Tor lots wnicn are less Man twenty tnousanal
(20 , 000 ) square feet in siz8, a maximum of twelve hundred ( 1200) square feet of floor area
for lots which are between twenty thousand (20 , 000) square feet and one ( 1 ) acre , and a
maximum of twenty-five hundred (2500 ) square feet of floor area for lots which are larger
than one ( 1 ) acre , except that the size of such building may be increased by the minimum
amount necessary to accommodate a handicap accessible parking bay when such a bay is
required by the city's Building Code .
/p�-� STAPBU(NS
-
ATTACHMENT 4
wa �24 liuvrr CLUB�� ...
0t 0
Ig
S F
. .r
Unlimited Tanning
Memberships
rr
SO,PI Mo
7"-" .
y K
�yy
^ V c.
� Z
^ 4 5
� I •
A»
t y.
• h
.: w
PF
I
e.
e J _ •
{ A h
M i
BRrNCp 5
. � ! CAM•';' '�
X �
t`` ._
en-pd e
naveM
wwo
•
„-. ,�z+=-ro -vxsxLm rx-xwa� za,
0.1
p�d' kit
Fwk
w
Ii18-private ��� � �"
pl4 ly w,
p.tlaN.
10.04.2006 15.57 .
•
2
_ ;
SNIE ' n°
" p'ci-pnvale
prrpeRy portable
•
�w
N v
i
10-06.2006 13:17
xzz--private
property portable
•
4
-
rt
r
.. n
a
f
n
r
SS
AUM
N30—nonconlonning
signs/Z009 cmigliance
•
8
I
fi
y
ji
_ fow
t
u
r
-
9TOD Overlay
ll�"'1,iL11�l1AV j J013
� /
, R rr s ,
9 MEMO oil .10011,
1!99! U1111 t=0 Omit
I ^i.rrU�ar
Mile
ilk
�► b 111® �.
__ .. twin =
- ., f
li. l�� yyI
Legend
r..
City Zoninga :. *'` J .
c
�� .
r� ERE
k• J
r� / 166