HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 06/15/2010 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 068, 2010, MAKING V DATE: June 15, 2010
STAFF: Ted Shepard • - • •
First Reading of Ordinance No. 068, 2010, Making Various Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff has identified a variety of proposed changes, additions and clarifications in the 2010 annual update of the Land
Use Code.
BACKGROUND/ DISCUSSION
The Land Use Code was first adopted in March 1997. Subsequent revisions have been recommended on a regular
basis to make changes, additions, deletions and clarifications that have been identified since the last update. The
proposed changes are offered in order to resolve implementation issues and to continuously improve both the overall
quality and "user-friendliness"of the Code.
This Ordinance was originally scheduled for First Reading on June 1, 2010, but was continued to June 15, 2010
because of two issues.
1. Revision Item 838 proposes to amend the sign code by allowing extra sign allowance to accommodate signs
on the rear of buildings facing an improved downtown alley per the D.D.A. alley enhancement program. This
item originally proposed allowing signs up to 12 square feet. As revised, the bonus size would be limited to
six square feet for flush-mounted wall signs and six square feet per side for projecting wall signs.
The Code revision has been changed to clarify that such extra sign allowance is available only to
establishments that have a public entrance off such an alley.
2. Revision Item 837 proposed to amend the sign code by adding design criteria to enhance the appearance of
pole signs. This item has been deleted from the Ordinance and will be considered at a later time.
FINANCIAL/ ECONOMIC IMPACTS
A Land Use Code that is systemically updated is able to respond to changing trends and conditions. For example,
proposed revision number 846 allows projects that have already paid submittal fees and are in the development review
process an extended period of time during which to complete the process. Requiring a re-submittal and review would
be an'inefficient use of staff resources.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Proposed revision number 831 would provide additional flexibility for placement of wind turbines on individual parcels.
By designing a wind turbine to collapse versus topple, additional height may be gained, if needed, to maximize
effectiveness.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of this Ordinance on.First Reading.
June 15, 2010 -2- ITEM 16
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On May 20, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Board considered the proposed changes. The Board took two actions:
A. With regard to the proposed revision item number 833—Outdoor Amphitheaters—The Board voted 6—0 to
approve the'change subject to the following:
1. Move Outdoor Amphitheaters in the Downtown — Old City Center Subdistrict from a Basic
Development Review process to a Planning and Zoning Board Review process;
2. Move Outdoor Amphitheaters in the Downtown — Civic Center Subdistrict from an Administrative
Review process to a Planning and Zoning Board Review process;
3. Amend the definition of Outdoor Amphitheaters so it is clear that the term does not refer to public
spaces such as plazas, squares and parks.
These changes have been incorporated into the Ordinance.
B. The Board then voted 6—0 to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval for the balance of the
proposed changes. I
ATTACHMENTS
1. List of Land Use Code Issues
2. Letter provided to Property Owners within the Community Commercial Poudre River Zone District(CCR)
3. Map of the CCR Zone
4. Minutes from the Planning and Zoning Board meeting, May 20, 2010
ATTACHMENT 1
Land Use Code Issues
Friday,June 04,2010
Issue ID# Issue Name
830 Reconcile 4.5(E)(3)and(E)(4)-maximum height in the L-M-N -to correct the gap in maximum allowable
height for buildings containing between 3 and 8 units.
831 Amend 3.5.2(D)(6)- Setback for Windmills-to allow greater than 1-foot height-to-I-foot setback if designed
to collapse versus topple, like telecom towers.
833 Amend C-C-R.to move "Entertainment Facilities and Theatres" - from a Type 1 to a Type 2,and create a new
use and definition for Outdoor Amphitheatres and place as a new use in 8 other zones.
835 Update 1.3.4-Addition of Permitted Uses-to clarify that such additions do not need to be codified like
additions made by the Director.
838 Amend 3.8.7(D)-Signs-by allowing extra sign allowance to accommodate small signs on the rear of
buildings facing an improved, downtown alley.
841 Amend 4.9(B)(3)(a)2. -N-C-B Type 2 Permitted Uses-to add back in the language that was inadvertently
deleted that clarifies the review process for Multi-Family Containing More Than 4 Units.
842 Clarify 2.I2.4-Annexation of Uses Not Legally Permitted-so that an illegal use must be discontinued within
2 years from the date that the annexation becomes effective,rather than 2 years from the date of Second
Reading of the Annexation Ordinance.
844 Clarify 4.12(B)(1)(a)-Transition Zone- Permitted Uses-so that no property that contains an illegal use can
be placed in the T district.
845 Amend 2.2.6(A)-Mailed Notice-to remove 5.50 cents per notice and replace it with "as established in the
development review fee schedule."
846 Amend 2.2.1](A)- Lapse-to allow longer timeframes for application extensions.
847 Amend 3.5.3(B)(2)(d)5 -Exception to the Build-To Line Standards-to provide the same flexibility allowed
for minimum required setbacks but retain the prohibition on placing vehicular use between building and street.
848 Amend 3.3.2(B)-Development Agreements-to require that they be recorded with the Larimer County Clerk
and Recorder with recording fees to be paid by applicant.
849 Amend 4.22(B)(2)(c)14-CS- Service Commercial Permitted Use List-to reconcile terminology regarding
vehicle sales.
850 Amend 3.8.7(N)-Signs-to allow the City Manager to increase the size of non-commercial banners used for
community events like C.S.U. Homecoming.
Friday,June 04,2010 Page I of 1
Land Use Code Maintenance Process
Annotated Issue List
830 Reconcile 4.5(E)(3)and(E)(4) -maximum height in the L-M-N-to correct the gap in
maximum allowable height for buildings containing between 3 and 8 units.
Problem Statement
In the L-M-N zone, Section(E)(3)—Maximum Residential Building Height-states that
the maximum building height for single and two family dwellings is 2.5 stories. Section
(E)(4)(d)—Design Standards for Multi-family Dwellings Containing More Than Eight(8)
Dwelling Units- states that the maximum building height for multi-family dwellings
containing more than eight dwelling units is 3 stories. This leaves a gap in for the
allowable height for multi-family dwellings containing between 3 and 8 dwelling units.
Proposed Solution Overview
First,the proposed solution is to cap the height of a tri-plex to 2.5 stories. Second,the
proposed solution is to allow a maximum height of three stories for multi-family
dwellings containing between 4 and 8 dwelling units, but that any such dwellings that
seek three stories would be further subject to the Design Standards for Multi-family
Dwellings Containing More Than Eight(8) Dwelling Units.
Since parcels greater than 30 acres are required to have two housing types and parcels
greater than 45 acres are required to have three housing types,the greater the variety of
housing the more diverse the neighborhood. The design standards are intended to
enhance the appearance of three story buildings and work in conjunction with the
compatibility standards in Section 3.5.1.
Besides height,these standards address orientation and setbacks, variation among
repeated buildings,entrances,roofs, facades and walls,colors and materials, and
maximum floor area. These standards were originally codified to add an enhanced level
of design for structures in the L-M-N that have more than eight units. For example,the
maximum number of units is 12 and the maximum height is three stories. The concept is
to allow an increase in the flexibility of housing types so that density on large tracts of
land can be distributed ranging from large-lot single family detached(greater than 6,000
square feet)to 12-plex multi-family. The proposed solution would subject multi-family
dwellings that contain four or more dwelling units,and are proposed to be three stories in
height,to the Design Standards in Section 4.5(E)(4)(a—i).
It is important to note that multi-family dwellings containing four or more dwelling units,
but that are proposed to be 2.5 stories or less,are not subject to the Design Standards in
Section 4.5(E)(4)(a—i).
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
10 4.5(E)(4) Multi-family with 4-8 units must comply with enhanced
standards.
10 4.5(E)(3) Adds tri-plex to maximum height of 2.5 stories.
831 Amend 3.5.2(D)(6)-Setback for Windmills-to allow greater than 1-foot height-to-l-foot
setback if designed to collapse versus topple, like telecom towers.
Problem Statement
In 2009, Section 3.5.2(D)was amended in order to regulate the setback requirements for
windmills so that if a windmill collapses, it will do so within the confines of the lot on
Friday,June 04,2010 Page I of 9
which the structure is located. This requires that the height not exceed the distance to the
nearest property line.
Cellular towers, however,are allowed to exceed this 1-foot height—to 1-foot setback
ratio but only if designed to collapse upon itself instead of toppling over. Such a design is
required to be certified by a structural engineer and plans must be stamped accordingly.
Advocates of small-scale wind turbines have asked for the same consideration.
Allowing a greater height may potentially create other impacts on adjoining properties
such as shadow flicker. Consequently,a prohibition on imposing shadow flicker has been
added.
Proposed Solution Overview
The allowance granted for cellular towers will be afforded to wind turbines. Causing
shadow flicker on adjoining properties will be prohibited.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
6 3.5.2(D)(6) Allows taller wind turbines but no shadow flicker across
property line.
833 Amend C-C-R.to move "Entertainment Facilities and Theatres" -from a Type 1 to a Type 2,
and create a new use and definition for Outdoor Amphitheatres and place as a new use in 8
other zones.
Problem Statement
Part One: The current definition reads as follows:
"Entertainment facilities and theaters shall mean a building or part of a building devoted
to showing motion pictures or dramatic,musical or live performances."
These uses are in enclosed buildings that are large,generate significant concentrations of
traffic and are active on nights and weekends. And yet the Community Commercial
Poudre River zone(C-C-R)directly adjoins the Buckingham neighborhood on the west
and south.
One of the original tenets of the Type One review was that the allowable uses are
fundamental in accomplishing the purpose of the district and not considered controversial
relative to the surrounding area.
Whereas the Type Two review was intended to allow for a review process for secondary
or supporting uses or for uses that would benefit from additional opportunities for citizen
input. That is why neighborhood meetings are required with a clear process for resolving
compatibility issues with the added scrutiny of Planning and Zoning Board review.
Based on the proximity of the C-C-R to an established neighborhood,and given the
activity and operational characteristics of Entertainment Facilities and Theaters, Staff
recommends that review of this use in the C.C.R. be shifted from Type One to Type Two.
Part Two: Staff finds that the current definition implies enclosed structures and does not
capture the unique attributes of an outdoor amphitheater. By the very nature of not being
enclosed, outdoor amphitheaters are sufficiently different in both form and function as to
warrant their own definition.
Part Three: Outdoor Amphitheaters would be added to the C-C-R and eight other zones
that currently allow Entertainment Facilities and Theaters with one exception. They
Friday,June 04,2010 Page 2 of 9
would not be added to the C-L, Limited Commercial, zone as such facilities do not
conform to the purpose statement of the district.
Proposed Solution Overview
First,the review process for Entertainment Facilities and Theaters would be moved from
Type One to Type Two permitted use in the C-C-R zone. Second, a new use and
definition for Outdoor Amphitheaters would be created to make a distinction between
indoor and outdoor facilities and added to the C-C-R as a Type 2 use. Third, newly
defined Outdoor Amphitheaters would be placed in the aforementioned C-C-R as well as
eight other zone districts that currently permit Entertainment Facilities and Theaters as a
Type 2 use. And, such use would not be added to the C-L zone.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
13 4.16(B)(2) Adds Outdoor Amphitheater to Downtown-Civic Center as
a Type 1.
13 4.16(B)(2) Adds Outdoor Amphitheater to Downtown-Canyon Ave.as
a Type 2.
13 4.16(B)(2) Adds Outdoor Amphitheater to Downtown-Old City Center
as a B.D.R.
14 4.17(B)(3)(c)7. Adds Outdoor Amphitheater to R-D-R as a Type 2.
15 4.18(B)(3)(c)13, Adds Outdoor Amphitheater to C-C as a Type 2.
16 .4.19(B)(3)(c)6. Adds Outdoor Amphitheater to C-C-N as a Type 2.
17 4.20(B)(2)(c)8, Deletes Entertainment Facilities/Theaters in C-C-R as a
Type 1.
18 4.20(B)(3)(c)7. Adds Outdoor Amphitheaters to C-C-R as a Type 2.
18 4.20(B)(3)(c)6. Adds Entertainment FacilitiestTheaters in C-C-R as a Type
2.
19 4.21(B)(3)(b)17. Adds Outdoor Amphitheater to C as a Type 2.
21 4.22(B)(3)(b)4. Adds Outdoor Amphitheater to C-S as a Type 2.
22 4.23(B)(3)(c)6. Adds Outdoor Amphitheater to N-C as a Type 2.
23 4.26(B)(3)(c)12. Adds Outdoor Amphitheater to H-C as a Type 2.
24 5.1.2 Creates a new definition for Outdoor Amphitheater.
835 Update 1.3.4-Addition of Permitted Uses-to clarify that such additions do not need to be
codified like additions made by the Director.
Problem Statement
Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code,pertaining to"addition of permitted uses,"has
evolved not only into a mechanism for the Director to propose an additional use,but also
to authorize the Planning and Zoning Board to add uses on a specific site basis. A use
allowed by the Director is required to be forwarded to City Council to address whether or
not to codify the use on zone district-wide and city-wide basis. A use allowed by the P&
Z Board is not so required but the Code does not state this directly. The section is unclear
and somewhat confusing as to when such additional uses need to be presented to City
Council for consideration of codification and when not. The purpose of this change is to
clarify the meaning of Section 1.3.4.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to make a distinction between the functions of the Director and
the Planning and Zoning Board,and to clarify that a use added by the Board does not
have to be considered for adoption into the zone district on a city-wide basis but remains
specific only to the subject property.
Friday,June 04,2010 Page 3 of 9
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
1 1.3.4 Updates section to clarify that Addition of Permitted Uses
do not have to be codified.
838 Amend 3.8.7(D)- Signs-by allowing extra sign allowance to accommodate small signs on
the rear of buildings facing an improved, downtown alley.
Problem Statement
The DDA is currently implementing an alley improvement project for a number of
downtown alleys. The goal of the project is to enhance the alleys aesthetically and to
stimulate increased economic vitality and use of these spaces. The alleys will feature
pavers,pedestrian-scaled lights and Tivoli (string) lights at entrances,planters in pots,
high-quality street furniture and improved drainage where possible. Each alley will have
public art work incorporated into the design. These improvements will result in
opportunities for downtown businesses to enhance the rear building facades facing the
alleys,and in some instances, allow businesses to create a second store front entrance. In
order to take advantage of the new opportunities,signage on the rear facades will be
desirable when the business has a public entrance along the alley.
The established downtown businesses erected their current signage in conformance with
the Sign Code which did not anticipate alley improvements and in many instances all or
most of their sign allowance is already used up. The sign allowance for a property is
based on the width of the building or lot fronting on a street. An alley is not considered to
be a street for the purposes of signage. Therefore,the downtown businesses only have a
sign allowance based on the width of their store front facing the street. Without
additional sign allowance for the alley,many businesses would have to remove their
existing signs and replace them with smaller signs in order to free up allowance for a rear
wall sign.
Proposed Solution Overview
Given the changing nature of the alleys and the opportunities presented by the
improvements, staff believes that it would be appropriate to allow a small amount of
signage on the rear walls of downtown businesses when the businesses have a public
entrance along the alley. An additional 6 square feet for a flush wall sign or 6 square feet
per side for a projecting wall sign should be adequate to accommodate the name of the
business on the rear wall or new rear entrance.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
8 3.8.7(D) Adds 12 square feet of sign allowance but only along
D.D.A.'s enhanced alleys.
841 Amend 4.9(13)(3)(a)2. -N-C-B Type 2 Permitted Uses-to add back in the language that was
inadvertently deleted that clarifies the review process for Multi-Family Containing More
Than 4 Units.
Problem Statement
Numerous amendments to the NCL,NCM and NCB regulations have been adopted over
the last 10 years. Changes were made in 2004 to the wording of some of the uses in the
permitted use list in the NCB district. One of the changes was to add the phrase
"provided that such multi-family dwelling is located within a street fronting principal
building"to the various multi-family scenarios allowed in the zone. When this phrase
was added to one of the sections, some of the previous wording was accidentally deleted.
Specifically,the key phrase of"at a density of more than twenty-four(24)dwelling units
Friday,June 04,2010 Page 4 of 9
per net acre"was inadvertently removed. This now-missing phrase is important in the
context of when a multi-family dwelling containing more than 4 units per building needs
to be approved by the Planning&Zoning Board instead of by a hearing officer.
Proposed Solution Overview
In order to re-insert the original language that was inadvertently removed, and to clarify
that this type of use requires Planning&Zoning Board review as originally required,add
back in "at a density of more than 24 dwelling units per acre."
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
11 4.9(B)(3)(a)2. Re-inserts missing clause.
842 Clarify 2.12.4-Annexation of Uses Not Legally Permitted-so that an illegal use must be
discontinued within 2 years from the date that the annexation becomes effective,rather than 2
years from the date of Second Reading of the Annexation Ordinance.
Problem Statement
Section 2.12.4 establishes the manner and time period in which a use that is illegal in the
county may either continue in operation or be required to cease operation upon
annexation into the city. Specifically, if a property having an illegal county use is
annexed and placed into a zoning district wherein the use is allowed,then the property
owner must submit a development application within 60 days of the date of second
reading of the annexation ordinance, and must receive approval of the development plan
within 6 months from the date of submittal of the application. If the property contains an
illegal county use for which the County never initiated any enforcement action,and the
property is placed in a zoning district wherein the use is not permitted, then the use must
cease within 2 years of the date of second reading of the annexation ordinance.
The Southwest Enclave Annexation ordinance was approved in 2006, but the annexation
contained multiple phases which were to be annexed over a period of several years. The
current wording of Section 2.12.4 with regard to the time period for dealing with illegal
county uses means that the clock starts ticking on the date of second reading of the
annexation ordinance in 2006, rather than on the effective date of the actual annexation of
the property. This has created a problem for properties that have recently been annexed.
For instance, Phase 3 of the Southwest Enclave was just annexed on January 1,2010,
even though the ordinance authorizing annexation of the phase was approved in 2006.
This means that the time periods described in the preceding paragraph had already
expired before the properties were even annexed into the city. Therefore,there are no
grace periods to either apply for a development plan or to cease operation,which means
that illegal uses have to cease immediately upon the date of annexation.
Proposed Solution Overview
Property owners, regardless of which phase of an annexation their property is in,should
all be allowed the same opportunity to legalize an illegal use or amortize it out of
business. Therefore,staff recommends that Section 2.12.4 of the LUC be amended by
changing the trigger date to coincide with the date that an annexation ordinance becomes
effective,rather than the date of second reading of the annexation ordinance.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
4 2.12.4 Changes compliance requirements for illegal uses that are
annexed from second reading of Ordinance to effective
date of Ordinance.
Friday,June 04,2010 Page 5 of 9
844 Clarify 4.12(B)(1)(a)-Transition Zone-Permitted Uses-so that no property that contains an
illegal use can be placed in the T district.
Problem Statement
It's possible that a property,upon annexation, can be placed in the T—Transition Zone.
The current wording in Section 4.12(B)(1)(a)would allow an illegal county use to be
placed in the T zone. This would mean that such illegal use would not be subject to any
process or regulation that would require the use to be made legal or for the property to be
brought into compliance with applicable regulations contained in Articles 3 and 4 of the
LUC,nor would there be any requirement that the illegal use be amortized or otherwise
required to cease operation.
The annexation provisions in Section 2.12.4 of the LUC do establish procedures and
regulations that apply to the annexation of illegal county uses. However, it's currently
possible to evade those requirements if the property is placed in the T zone.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to close this loophole to clarify that only legal uses are eligible
to be zoned T—Transition.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
12 4.12(B)(1)(a) Illegal uses in the County, upon annexation,cannot be
placed in the T zone.
845 Amend 2.2.6(A)-Mailed Notice-to remove$.50 cents per notice and replace it with "as
established in the development review fee schedule."
Problem Statement
When the code was adopted,Current Planning charged$0.50 cents per letter for the
mailing of the affected property owners list. For cost recovery purposes,this rate was
raised to$0.75 cents per label but the code was not amended at the time.
Proposed Solution Overview
The solution is to delete the reference to$0.50 cents per notice. And, instead of
replacing this with the current fee,replace with language that allows for future
adjustments to be made administratively without having to revise the Code. The
reference to the development review fee schedule is identical to the clause in Section
2.2.3(D)—Development Review Fees.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
2 2.2.6(A) Deletes reference to an obsolete fee and replaces with
reference to fee schedule.
846 Amend 2.2.11(A)-Lapse-to allow longer timeframes for application extensions.
Problem Statement
There is a concern that the lapse provisions for application submittals are too short.
Currently,an applicant has a total of 180 days to complete the review process for a
development plan. Applicants have indicated that there have been significant changes in
ways the development projects are financed resulting in longer lead times between
submittal and public hearing. In addition, large,multi-phased projects take longer to
review than small,single-phased projects. Finally,while it remains important to control
the flow of projects through the review process,the premature expiration of a
development application would result in an inefficient and duplicative re-submittal.
Proposed Solution Overview
Friday,June 04,2010 Page 6 of 9
The proposed solution is to increase the allowable time in application review process
from 180 days to 360 days.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
3 2.2.11(A) Increases application review time from 180 to 360 days.
847 Amend 3.5.3(B)(2)(d)5 -Exception to the Build-To Line Standards-to provide the same
flexibility allowed for minimum required setbacks but retain the prohibition on placing
vehicular use between building and street.
Problem Statement
Required minimum front setback standards are provided a degree of flexibility in order to
conform to an established contextual pattern on adjoining lots facing the same street.
This is codified in Section 3.8.19(B). Build-To Line standards,however,are not afforded
the same latitude. It seems logical that if conforming to an existing pattern of
relationships between buildings and streets is suitable for minimum required setbacks,
then such conformance should apply to the build-to line standards as well. Two recent
projects in existing industrial parks illustrated the issue where existing buildings exceeded
the required build-to line. Requiring the new buildings to comply with the build-to lines
would have starkly contrasted with the established pattern on the streets. Consequently,
modifications were sought and granted by the Hearing Officer in both cases.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to allow greater build-to lines for commercial buildings to
conform to an established pattern but only so long as there is no vehicular use area
between the building and the street. This would offer the same latitude granted to
minimum front setbacks as provided for in Section 3.8.19(B)—Setback Regulations—
Contextual Setbacks.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
7 3.5.3(B)(2)(d) Provides flexibility for Build-To lines but retains the
essence of the standard.
848 Amend 3.3.2(B)-Development Agreements-to require that they be recorded with the
Larimer County Clerk and Recorder with recording fees to be paid by applicant.
Problem Statement
In order for development agreements to be binding upon all subsequent purchasers of the
property described in the agreement,the development agreement should be,recorded.
Presently,they are not required to be recorded.
Proposed Solution Overview
The solution is to require the recording of Development Agreements and charge the
applicant for the Larimer County recording fees.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
5 3.3.2(B) Requires recording of Development Agreements,fees paid
by applicant.
849 Amend 4.22(B)(2)(c)14 -CS-Service Commercial Permitted Use List-to reconcile
terminology regarding vehicle sales.
Friday,June 04,2010 Page 7 of 9
Problem Statement
In the Permitted Uses Section of the Service Commercial(C-S)zone,the terminology
used with regard to vehicle sales uses is inconsistent and unclear. Different terms of
varying vintages have been used,and they simply need to be reconciled. In this Section
4.22(B)(2)(c),number 14 in the list of uses is called:
"Vehicle and boat sales establishments with outdoor storage."
Since the inception of this zone,this use has been governed by a restriction that display
lots not exceed more than 10%of the North College Avenue frontage between Vine Drive
and State Highway One. But,the language requiring this restriction presently uses the
term:
"Automobile sales and rental uses."
Finally,the definition of this use in Article 5 is titled:
"Vehicle sales and leasing for cars and light trucks."
These 3 terms shown in italics above need to be reconciled with a single term.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to use the term as defined in Article 5 in all instances. That is,
"Vehicle sales and leasing for cars and light trucks."
This captures the original intent of the permitted use and associated limitation. The
mention of boats in the current permitted use terminology was not based on any
particular intent to allow boat sales,with or without any limitation.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
20 4.22(B)(2)(c)14. Provides consistency between permitted use list and
definition.
850 Amend 3.8.7(N)- Signs-to allow the City Manager to increase the size of non-commercial
banners used for community events like C.S.U. Homecoming.
Problem Statement
The sign code regulates the size of banners and the number of days that businesses are
allowed to display banners. Specifically,banners can't be larger than 40 square feet,and
businesses can only display them for 20 days per year, with new businesses and non-
profits getting an extra 20 days. The code was amended several years ago to give the City
Manager the authority to allow extra days during which non-commercial banners may be
displayed to coincide with community events that"advance a goal or policy of the City
Council and contribute to the health,safety or welfare of the city." This recent code
amendment did not contain a provision authorizing the City Manager to allow such
banners to be increased in size beyond the maximum allowed 40 square feet. There may
be some events and some banner locations where it could be appropriate to allow for
larger banners, but a code amendment would be required to give the City Manager the
same discretionary authority that he has now for increasing the number of days.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to allow the City Manager the ability to authorize a community
event banner to be larger than 40 square feet.
Related Code Revisions
Friday,June 04,2010 Page 8 of 9
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
9 3.8.7(N) Allows City Manager to approve non-commercial
bannersup to 40 square feet.
Friday,June 04,2010 Page 9 of 9
Land Use Code Revisions
Annotated Ordinance Index
Ord.Section# Code Cit Revision Effect Issue
1 1.3.4 Updates section to clarify that Addition of Permitted Uses 835 Update 1'.3.4-Addition of Permitted Uses-to clarify
do not have to be codified. that such additions do not need to be codified like
additions made by the Director.
2 2.2.6(A) Deletes reference to an obsolete fee and replaces with 845 Amend 2.2.6(A)-Mailed Notice-to remove$.50
reference to fee schedule. cents per notice and replace it with"as established in
the development review fee schedule."
3 2.2.11(A) Increases application review time from 180 to 360 days. 846 Amend 2.2.1 1(A)-Lapse-to allow longer timeframes
for application extensions.
4 2.12.4 Changes compliance requirements for illegal uses that are 842 Clarify 2.12.4-Annexation of Uses Not Legally
annexed from second reading of Ordinance to effective Permitted-so that an illegal use must be discontinued
date of Ordinance. within 2 years from the date that the annexation
becomes effective,rather than 2 years from the date of
Second Reading of the Annexation Ordinance.
5 3.3.2(B) Requires recording of Development Agreements,fees paid 848 Amend 3.3.2(B)-Development Agreements-to
by applicant. require that they be recorded with the Latimer County
Clerk and Recorder with recording fees to be paid by
applicant.
6 3.5.2(D)(6) Allows taller wind turbines but no shadow flicker across 831 Amend 35.2(D)(6)-Setback for Windmills-to allow
property line. greater than I-foot height-to-I-foot setback if designed
to collapse versus topple,like telecom towers.
7 3.5.3(B)(2)(d) Provides flexibility for Build-To lines but retains the 847 Amend 3.5.3(B)(2)(d)5-Exception to the Build-To
essence of the standard. Line Standards-to provide the same flexibility
allowed for minimum required setbacks but retain the
prohibition on placing vehicular use between building
and street.
8 3.8.7(D) Adds 12 square feet of sign allowance but only along 838 Amend 3.8.7(D)-Signs-by allowing extra sign
D.D.A.'s enhanced alleys. allowance to accommodate small signs on the rear of
buildings facing an improved,downtown alley.
9 3.8.7(N) Allows City Manager to approve non-commercial 850 Amend 3.8.7(N)-Signs-to allow the City Manager to
bannersup to 40 square feet. increase the size of non-commercial banners used for
community events like C.S.U.Homecoming.
Friday,June 04,2010 Page I of 3
Ord.Section# Code Cit Revision Effect Issue
10 4.5(E)(3) Adds tri-plex to maximum height of 2.5 stories. 830 Reconcile 4.5(E)(3)and(E)(4)-maximum height in
the L-M-N-to correct the gap in maximum allowable
height for buildings containing between 3 and 8 units.
10 4.5(E)(4) Multi-family with 4-8 units must comply with enhanced 830 Reconcile 4.5(E)(3)and(E)(4)-maximum height in
standards. the L-M-N-to correct the gap in maximum allowable
height for buildings containing between 3 and 8 units.
11 4.9(B)(3)(a)2. Re-inserts missing clause. 841 Amend 4.9(B)(3)(a)2.-N-C-B Type 2 Permitted
Uses-to add back in the language that was
inadvertently deleted that clarifies the review process
for Multi-Family Containing More Than 4 Units.
12 4.12(B)(1)(a) Illegal uses in the County,upon annexation,cannot be 844 Clarify 4.12(B)(1)(a)-Transition Zone-Permitted
placed in the T zone. Uses-so that no property that contains an illegal use
can be placed in the T district.
13 4.16(B)(2) Adds Outdoor Amphitheater to Downtown-Civic Center 833 Amend C-C-R.to move"Entertainment Facilities and
as a Type 1. Theatres'-from a Type 1 to a Type 2,and create a
new use and definition for Outdoor Amphitheatres and
place as a new use in 8 other zones.
13 4.16(B)(2) Adds Outdoor Amphitheater to Downtown-Canyon Ave.as 833 Amend C-C-R.to move"Entertainment Facilities and
a Type 2. Theatres'-from a Type 1 to a Type 2,and create a
new use and definition for Outdoor Amphitheatres and
place as a new use in 8 other zones.
13 4.16(B)(2) Adds Outdoor Amphitheater to Downtown-Old City 833 Amend C-C-R.to move"Entertainment Facilities and
Center as a B.D.R. Theatres'-from a Type 1 to a Type 2,and create a
new use and definition for Outdoor Amphitheatres and
place as a new use in 8 other zones.
14 4.17(B)(3)(c)7. Adds Outdoor Amphitheater to R-D-R as a Type 2. 833 Amend C-C-R.to move"Entertainment Facilities and
Theatres'-from a Type I to a Type 2,and create a
new use and definition for Outdoor Amphitheatres and
place as a new use in 8 other zones.
15 4.18(B)(3)(c)13. Adds Outdoor Amphitheater to C-C as a Type 2. 833 Amend C-C-R.to move"Entertainment Facilities and
Theatres"-from a Type I to a Type 2,and create a
new use and definition for Outdoor Amphitheatres and
place as a new use in 8 other zones.
16 4.19(B)(3)(c)6. Adds Outdoor Amphitheater to C-C-N as a Type 2. 833 Amend C-C-R.to move"Entertainment Facilities and
Theatres'-from a Type 1 to a Type 2,and create a
new use and definition for Outdoor Amphitheatres and
place as a new use in 8 other zones.
Friday,June 04,2010 Page 2 of 3
Ord.Section# Code Cit Revision Effect Issue
17 4.20(B)(2)(c)8. Deletes Entertainment Facilities/Theaters in C-C-R as a 833 Amend C-C-R.to move"Entertainment Facilities and
Type 1. Theatres"-from a Type 1 to a Type 2,and create a
new use and definition for Outdoor Amphitheatres and
place as a new use in 8 other zones.
18 4.20(B)(3)(c)6. Adds Entertainment Facilities/Theaters in C-C-R as a 833 Amend C-C-R,to move"Entertainment Facilities and
Type 2. Theatres"-from a Type I to a Type 2,and create a
new use and definition for Outdoor Amphitheatres and
place as a new use in 8 other zones.
18 4.20(B)(3)(c)7. Adds Outdoor Amphitheaters to C-C-R as a Type 2. 833 Amend C-C-R.to move"Entertainment Facilities and
Theatres"-from a Type 1 to a Type 2,and create a
new use and definition for Outdoor Amphitheatres and
place as a new use in 8 other zones.
19 4.2 1(B)(3)(b)17. Adds Outdoor Amphitheater to C as a Type 2. 833 Amend C-C-R.to move"Entertainment Facilities and
Theatres"-from a Type 1 to a Type 2,and create a
new use and definition for Outdoor Amphitheatres and
place as a new use in 8 other zones.
20 4.22(B)(2)(c)14. Provides consistency between permitted use list and 849 Amend 4.22(B)(2)(c)14-CS-Service Commercial
definition. Permitted Use List-to reconcile terminology
regarding vehicle sales.
21 4.22(B)(3)(b)4. Adds Outdoor Amphitheater to C-S as a Type 2. 833 Amend C-C-R.to move"Entertainment Facilities and
Theatres"-from a Type 1 to a Type 2,and create a
new use and definition for Outdoor Amphitheatres and
place as a new use in 8 other zones.
22 423(B)(3)(c)6. Adds Outdoor Amphitheater to N-C as a Type 2. 833 Amend C-C-R.to move"Entertainment Facilities and
Theatres"-from a Type 1 to a Type 2,and create a
new use and definition for Outdoor Amphitheatres and
place as a new use in 8 other zones.
23 4.26(B)(3)(c)12. Adds Outdoor Amphitheater to H-C as a Type 2. 833 Amend C-C-R.to move"Entertainment Facilities and
Theatres"-from a Type I to a Type 2,and create a
new use and definition for Outdoor Amphitheatres and
place as a new use in 8 other zones.
24 5.1.2 Creates a new definition for Outdoor Amphitheater. 833 Amend C-C-R.to move"Entertainment Facilities and
Theatres"-from a Type I to a Type 2,and create a
new use and definition for Outdoor Amphitheatres and
place as a new use in 8 other zones.
Friday,June 04,2010 Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT 2
City Of Planning,Development and
y Transportation Services
F6rt
Colliloom] Current Planning
281 N.College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580
970.221.6750
970.224.6134-fax
Dear Property Owner: May 6, 2010 fcgov.com/Currentp/anning
You are being notified as a property owner within the City's Community
Commercial Poudre River Zone District, C-C-R, that on Thursday, May 20,
2010, at 6:00 p.m., at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, the City of
Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board will consider three changes regarding
permitted uses within the C-C-R zone (please see map on reverse.) These
changes are summarized as follows:
"Entertainment Facilities and Theaters" would be moved from Administrative
Review (Type 1) to Planning and Zoning Board Review (Type 2). This is a more
rigorous review process. The current definition of"Entertainment Facilities and
Theaters" implies enclosed buildings, not outdoor facilities. Consequently, a new
definition for "Outdoor Amphitheaters" would be added to distinguish between the
two.
The newly defined use, "Outdoor Amphitheaters," would be placed into C-C-R
zone as a permitted use, subject to Planning and Zoning Board Review (Type 2).
Type 1 uses are considered fundamental to the zone and are reviewed by the
Hearing Officer as the decision maker. Whereas Type 2 projects are considered
secondary or uses with greater impact, are required to have a neighborhood
information meeting and the Planning and Zoning Board is the decision maker.
By way of background, please note the existing definition:
"Entertainment facilities and theaters shall mean a building or part of a
building devoted to showing motion pictures or dramatic, musical or live
performances."
As proposed, a new use would be added and defined as:
Outdoor Amphitheaters shall mean a permanent stage and seating facility
that is open or partially open to the outdoors for the purpose of showing
motion pictures or dramatic, musical or live performances."
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Ted Shepard,
Chief Planner, 221-6750.
Sincerely:
Ted Shepard, AICP
Chief Planner
Reasonable accommodations for access and for special communication arrangements for
persons with disabilities will be provided. Please call 970-221-6750 for assistance.
ATTACHMENT 3
s P asca/ t Cd1et O RL MMN
CCN t Alta Vista P
POL k
r Vicinity Map
E Vine D
Trujillo St
O Coy Pond Lopez Ct
i r
oL �1
C)
Lee Martinez Park e� Genter Dr RL � �� '
_c
287 POL J Romero Park
Old Fort Collins Heritage Park Buckingham St I
harry St �1
e , . �a� `n U- U ,
aple St U)l
p l RL N M MMN
>1 o
Qi Jefferson.StreetoPark\
Buckingham Park 1Z
E ; Lincoln Ave — — CD
01 lo�� P L
0 = �
Oak_$t Plaza Park CL Oak St
2
17 Cache la Poudre'River C
Library Park I �,
Id L
E Magnolia_St_ +,
E OliveLU I St --
- N
1E
�, RDR
D (D � EEMMagn_oI lia St (7� RC
(� 10 u q`O
I
o � � 1` 11 J C E Mulberry_St Frontage Rd
aD U1 Q
a) wo Frontage Rd
..
..
E Myrtle.St o � F,
o, c ) o col RC
U) p UE P .
C N C �0 w l oUare Ri
r ,, a) , Ver r
Centennial Sr HighL C ca ;J W J O
E Laurel_S_tJ
el
Eastdale� U' NCB NC o
CSU L II J ❑❑ L
� III
Csu
E PIum .St E�st-Side Park E
L F Laurel Elementa Pennock PI da\
ryO I
R�ve
Legend Map of the CCR Zone
CCR Zone Water Symbols N
Railroad Parks 1 inch = 900 feet W E
Schools
s
5+ ATTACHMENT�4fi
.. ,. 0 Q
F •
Council Liaison: Lisa Poppaw Staff Liaison: Steve Dush
Chair: William Stockover Phone: (HI)'482-7994
r
Chair Stockover called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
.
rail � }il�lb
Roll Call: Campana, Carpenter, Lingle, Schmidt•, Smith, and1Stockover
Absent: Hatfield # r�rgi�€ ��, 'I1 ' i3
Staff Present: Dush, Eckman, Shepard, Barnes, and�Sanchez-Sprague,
Agenda Review. Director Dush reviewed the agenda. I I the
I0
Citizen participation:
Cheryl Distaso, Coordinator of the Center foriRdace, Justice and th '-nvironment, works with an
,9i,€atti s, 'td�lltr
affiliate—the Open Communities Collective. Since.1visiting the Board a°coupleibf months ago with
Community Activist Betty Aragon, she's followedithefBoarclIsla dvice and`Iisited with Advance Planning
r 1I€' ! f �f'
staff Megan Bolin and Julie Smith to discuss the issue of affordable housing. They referred her to their
. 91t!'Y- dd'
website for more information and shewas impressed with the q 1 alityjof information, including the City's
Affordable Housing Five Yea�lS,trategic Plan. She thanks the Planning & Zoning Board has a stake in the
outcome of addressing thercomm°unifys affordable housing needs. She believes that in order to provide
an effective approach forlaffordabI housing the Board must consider planning for increased densities
I v sup. €i€ €I
along with planning for transportation and transit, throughout the entire City, including the fringe of the
u,n€, I i €€e
community. Projects that support affo��, le€housing cannot just be located within a few inner-ring
"05
neighborhoods. She j thanked they Boar d forith'elh timed''
€IIIIIIIII#�1111�����11r[►i, •r,.i�,i?��jYr .
Chair Stockover asked if€anyone in the,'audience or on the Board wanted to pull items from the consent
�h
agenda. None did. *'Ili ii "1 f
,tnq� tf !! I�
rl�i�l
Consent Agenda: I
1. Minutesifr,om the April 151►2010 Planning & Zoning Hearing
i 1
Member Smith moved� �to app�ove item # 1 April 15 2010 minutes of the Planning and Zoning
Board Hearing. Memberl,Campana seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0.
fl
Discussion Agenda:
2. 2010 Annual Revisions, Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code
Planning &Zoning Board
May 20, 2010
Page 2
Project: 2010 Annual Revisions, Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use
Code
Project Description: This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding
the annual update to the Land Use Code. There are proposed revisions,
clarifications and additions to the Code that address a variety of subject
10
areas that have arisen since the last update in 2a009'.111,1$
Recommendation: Approval lllill���jl
I
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidericl'� � I
Chief Planner Ted Shepard said there are 15 proposedJitems that change, or add to th
9 , clarify, e
Land Use Code. One of the proposed amend ments1l(#840) was removed at the Bbard;s
recommendation at their worksession. The revisibns,,llby Article, are summarized a.. i'follows:
• Article One — Organization — one change; ��
• Article Two —Administration, three changes; Jilt.
Article Three - General Development Standards —I chan es;
t3' 1ia�SSSI4r.. 1 } 11
g
• Article Four— Districts —five changesa , ill1l1l,
}p �aljl
tt i
Shepard said the amendments will be considered biy,"ICitylC,iii�liilo'uncil,on June 1 (first reading) and
June 15 (second reading)
,,►I,flf � �� ll,
Board Questions
The Board considered th�la�1end�rnerit s�lnla series pf work sessions. Chair Stockover asked
members if they'd like to pull�any amendments1for further consideration. Member Lingle asked
that items 1833Fan18 3� be pulled
Item 833i1�12, � E , . ' IIID.
Chief Planner Ted Shepard 1rAelivlewed Ysllde of how in the Downtown zone district where there
is further Wit Mil,into three sub-districts. Presently Entertainment Facilities and Theaters are
allowed in alllthireel sub-districts but with a different review process. For example, in the Old City
Center— Basic DDevelopmentl'Review (BDR), in the Canyon Avenue — Type Two Review, and in
the Civic Center—Type One Review. The proposed code revision would allow Outdoor
Amphitheaters as a perrnitted use in all three sub-districts with a review process that would
match Entertainment Iacilities and Theaters.
(A BDR is a staff-level review with no public hearing. A Type One is an Administrative Review
with a Hearing Officer. A Type Two is a Planning and Zoning Board Review.)
Member Schmidt said her concern is because of the nature of an outdoor amphitheater and the
way the zones intermingle; she didn't understand the rationale for a different type of review in
the different sub-districts. Shepard said they tried not go back in history to recreate the thinking
Planning &Zoning.Board
May 20, 2010
Page 3
that went into the placement of Entertainment Facilities and Theaters in these three sub-
districts. Staff assumed there was a logic for that and they were simply going to parallel how it
was already set up. There was no deep philosophical research done in that regard. Staff was
comfortable with Entertainment Facilities and Theaters being classified as shown simply
paralleled the review processes for Outdoor Amphitheaters.
Member Schmidt asked what types of things are covered under the current definition of
Entertainment Facilities and Theaters? Does it also cover outdoor venue facilities? Shepard
said yes because presently, as broadly defined, there is no carving olutlforloutdoor facilities.
il
An example of a typical Entertainment Facility/Theater would be`thi lgs that are basically indoor
�,
type venues such as the Lincoln Center or the Bas Bleu Theater. Shepard said again, as
currently defined, the definition includes both indoor and outdoor facilities111
dl}i' X' 3
Member Lingle said in the definition there is no size criteria. He said it couldii" a small little
a,=1 1; E111,
stage with a couple of rows of built-in benches. Shepard said correct—if it wereisrnallland
111'11141111, 1', 111 4P"
permanent, it would fit under the definition. Lingie askel- if the size might be the criteria for
separating a BDR (Basic Development Review) from a typet2?� Could a facility that seats 20
people be a BDR but if it seats 300 people maybe itshoul'dbelsomething different? Shepard
said possibly. He said they've always talkElabout the level of#intensity of a land use. He said our
definitions don't distinguish between the differences in seating capacity. This lack of distinction
M1116 111 1 11, 1. 1ol ,
is fairly typical in the Land Use Code. For example;>1Shepard saidistheiLUC defines Professional
Office which can be both a multi-storied building and`a'converted Victorian home so Lingle's
t �31{I1 1
point is well taken. 'II ijiij, IIII t 1(III 1111.
€dfil��iiijll=±, ��lljj 1�11"
Member Lingle asked if staff wouldlobject if he proposed that Outdoor Amphitheaters be
considered as a type l2�review in a1111Jithree Downtown Sub-districts? Shepard said Staff would
not object per se. Theylveiidone some outreach, however, contacting the DDA, Bohemian
Foundation, New Belgiumj_Brleweryl�ad1Llink 'N Greens. In the Downtown, only D.D.A. is
affected. The way it is struct''red now4here havel'not been any objections. If we were to
restructure th`isl,�,at tlie�`Board'slrecommenda tiori�l he'd like to revisit with D.D.A. He believes it
dlr , 110 I!l111s,
may impact some of t Itertalnment programming aspirations.
,11s11l�li►1,
Schmidt asre information on the effect the revision would .have on Bohemian
ofked for a little more 11i111. U'
Foundationl New Belgium Brewery and Link 'N Greens. Shepard said that these are the owners
11111
of the largest parcels in the Ci1C-R zone where we are leaving Entertainment Facilities and
1111111 11111
Theaters as a type)N.. And, we are creating a new definition for Outdoor Amphitheaters, and
adding it to the zone
1 l`as a type 2 review. That is what they've put in their notification letter to all
the affected property lowriers in the CCR. Shepard said these owners and representatives of
11111, p p
these larger parcels were personally notified in addition to the mass mailing.
1,.
Shepard said there really is no difference with the CCR—we're adding a new use, we're making
it a type 2 review, and we're retaining the old use as it was before as type 1. Justification for the
type 2 he said had to do with these large parcels being near neighborhoods and the impacts
usually associated with hours of operation, activity on nights and weekends, parking, and traffic.
Planning &Zoning Board
May 20, 2010
Page 4
(Editor's Note: In reviewing the draft minutes, Staff discovered that it was erroneous to state:
"...and we're retaining the old use as it was before as a type 1." The correct answer is that the
review process for the existing use, Entertainment Facilities and Theaters, will also be shifted
over to the type 2 review process. The letter that was mailed to 76 property owners within the
C C-R zone district stated:
""Entertainment Facilities and Theaters" would be moved from Administrative Review
(Type 1) to Planning and Zoning Board Review (Type 2). This is,a more rigorous review
process. Ji
��ili[1�,t
,ilfll��.
The explanatory reports and the draft Ordinance that were presentedjto the Planning and
Zoning Board include the shifting of Entertainment Facilities and Theaters from type 1 to type 2.
Since the public hearing, Staff has followed up with Member SIehmidt anidl'she indicated
agreement with Staffs recommendation that the review,process"for Entertainment Facilities and
Theaters be shifted from type 1 to type 2.) ,111
������I IiI► '
�llr, s
Member Schmidt asked why night clubs were type 2 inithe Downtown Civic Centel sub-district.
Shepard said that goes back to 1997 when we converted,the old permitted uses and zone
districts into the new Land Use Code. lilll , �t
E
I f
�l�ill€y,. 6 �1�
Member Lingle said he can understand some'differentiation in those sub-districts for an indoor
i Ii�lililry,,
venue but he thought an outdoor venue with concerns of noise lightlimpact etc., should be
�� �NEf�III1i. iii1 ,
considered in a type 2 review. Lingle wouldlencourage`ithat, moving'forward, we look at the
definition relative to a facility that seats only 115-20 pieopllei�11Heiisiai i maybe we could do
something not tonight but in the next round of revisions try tolmodify it a bit to be a little more
user friendly".
j!llli11i11���� [II� �)
y �4
Director Dush asked if Li ngle he would be looking at,aidefinition to distinguish a facility size at a
certain threshold. At a lowertthreshold, some venue may not have the impact concerns and
ilBgsEti��i�leax ,.. ..
could follow the, develop�rinent (staff)Ilreiuiloiwlpiocess. Lingle said in his mind he could
probably cor Si'de�=what�mi ht have an impact and what would but he's not sure he could
q IIIII" �l1r�,1iMI 1l#i�;,,
quantify�itIIIutonight. He th��nks we ca work on that over the next 6 to 12 months. Dush said that
wouldigi ie�staff a chance itoresearch �e Sst'practices to see what criteria is used—it may not
sim be�1, mericaL ply
I�III,i
Member Schmidtlsaid in the meantime, she'd be comfortable with making Outdoor
Amphitheaters altype 2 review,in all three Downtown Sub-districts, then fine-tuning the code for
the next revision. I 111111
!
Member Smith said heiunderstands and appreciates Lingle's concerns. He said he's s okay
with leaving it as proposed—type 1 in the Civic Center Sub-district simply because of the
programming objectives and the fact that it is a district that is designed to have that type of
entertainment and nightlife. With CCR being pulled into type 2, he thinks it provides a level of
assurance of what to expect on the part of an applicant wanting to propose an Outdoor
Amphitheater. He thinks most of the issues that might be objectionable in the Downtown Sub-
districts could be resolved in a type 1 by staff. He'd hate to see downtown have too much office
Planning &Zoning Board
May 20, 2010
Page 5
and residential and lose the opportunity to attract the type of entertainment facilities for which it
is known.
Member Schmidt said we have night clubs that are type 2 in both Canyon Avenue and Civic
Center and you have lodging establishments that are type 2 in all Sub-districts. It looks like
things are a little "hodge-podge". She thinks the issues you'd have with night clubs would be
some of the same issues you'd have with outdoor amphitheaters. She'd rather err on the side of
giving the public more avenues. 4i
III Iil
Member Smith asked, what is the public outreach process for typell? Shepard said like type 2,
Jilt
a development review sign is posted, the affected property owners a Eeinotified by mail, and a
fillegal ad is published in the newspaper. He said a neighborhood meet nt glls mandatory for type
1112t2 but not for type 1. Smith asked if a concerned citizen wouldlhave an opportunity to appeal.
dui;r, r,, 11111
Shepard said we tape-record the type 1 hearings. In case there is an appeallithe recording
'Ili01
could be transcribed and forwarded to city Council justilike a Planning and Zoning Board
hearing. . ,illy ��i 3 ,i
141!i1lita :ri1ii1ii�. 1�
Member Carpenter said you could have a situation wheretyou.d have an Outdoor Amphitheater
going in and there would not be a neighborhood meeting ifiitiwere a type 1. Shepard said that
hypothetically that is correct. He said, initerms of process, we1lwaould not have the full force of
(��� 5< <
the Code and that a neighborhood meeting1could only be recommended in a type 1 review but
not required. Carpenter said it seems to her thatlan,outdoor entertaihm°ent venue has enough
possibility of conflict with neighbors that sh&s uncomfortable with itlnot having a mandatory
neighborhood meeting. Shepard said if DDA§was prAAt lthey would likely say they
understand and that their purpose is to work withiitfieir neigGoI GIs. He did ask that she keep in
mind that parts of the downtownlare envisionedito be an ente°rtainment area. He said with
regard for potential impacts her point is well taken.
Member Schmidt says sh�111 green �w it. Lingle's pr ous comments. If we could find some
Ill I ,fit 01{1Ei4iI It'll. i4 ,
gradation that we could add to the Code that would be a perfect solution. Since we don't have
g Alin iim� , r flit, imi uni11.
that in placeJjustfiyeti,'tha�Is whereiher concerns are. Shepard said he understands. He said
staffs thinking is that tl'iese are permanent and the likelihood of someone building a smallish
i91' 'If 11 r.1F� itiifi.
permanent outdoor venuelsia little rnorelremote than someone building something large
enough to require the mandatory type,a2 review.
Member Schrnidtjasked if theli;ountain area in Old Town Square is considered an outdoor
'fall
amphitheater. Shlepard saidino—its for special events. It doesn't have a permanent sound
system. It doesn'tih�ave permanent seating=they are seat walls that are in constant use for
other purposes. He said+it-'s a downtown plaza. Shepard said Old Town Square is multi-use
and has a lot of functions/activities. It's a square...not just an amphitheater...its other things as
well. W
Member Schmidt asked if we'd be saying that other Outdoor Amphitheaters are not allowed to
be multi-purpose. Let's say that something gets built at the Oxbow site and that it is also a very
nice site where people would have public access and could come and use it for other non-event
purposes. Under the proposed definition of Outdoor Amphitheaters, are you thinking of an
exclusive, enclosed area?
Planning &Zoning Board
May 20, 2010
Page 6
Shepard said yes. We are thinking of a specialized venue. For example, there would be people
taking tickets, there would be restrooms, there would be emergency exits, there would be fire
code provisions, health and safety concerns would be addressed. It would be classified by the
Building Code and the Fire Code as a place of assembly. Outdoor Amphitheater would be its
principal use.
Public Input „
None
Member Lingle said most of it is fine and he doesn't want to woit;he dsmithla definition but he does
believe it needs some work. His concern is with Section 14 of dralh I or
dinance which
provides for the same review process for Outdoor Amphitheaters in the'th��ee Downtown Sub-
districts as Entertainment Facilities and Theaters. 1111'ilMltt. Oil
liiil' ���iil,,
Member Lingle recommends approval of LUC item 833 regard Outdoor Amphitheaters
141".4Ri u. it i1111.
with the change that the table contained in Section A 16(B)(2) C of the Land Use Code be
lilt " fill.' It
changed so that the Outdoor Amphitheater is a type�2J'review mtall three (Old City Center,
Canyon Avenue, and Civic Center) of the Downtown ub S -districts. Member Schmidt
seconded the motion. 'lint.
Member Schmidt said her advice is that lsorn,*eth n needs t e in th � � � «
g to be In theideflnitlon relative to free
"tit -'�i,liV`ls,, "s'1i1
use". Her concerns are in the area of private versus'!publicly-owned-and whether or not Outdoor
tl a311331'lSlr. .P�
Amphitheaters would be used by the public o l tside,its principal purpose. Shepard said they
could embellish the definition�lto make that distinction. tlll °ll}'
llllllli,t�l� Illp
Member Lingle said theilteview ofathlis use is better served with 7 people thinking about it asking
Will111 4111+ tit
questions, and exploringithe optio�ls as opposed t. jaIsingle decision maker in a type 1 review.
Im
He thinks until we get ourlfelet wet`with this use, it would be better to require a type 2 review.
IIt1lllllliilll�lli
ttlill11111I11 -. �Ih(13 li:iil
Deputy Cit Attorne Eckman said the motion as he understands only changes the chart on
P Y ,Yl. Y lint t• tid
page 9 of the Ordinance ffom bothBDR in Old CityCenter and type 1 in Civic Center to type 2
uu � Ilnit. n!t14e YP YP
reviewl(process. (Type 2 review would�be4etained in the Canyon Avenue Sub-district as shown
tt 111i41 , 111 i11
in the Ordinance.) He'd Iikelto.come tola better understanding of what the want relative to a
tis� u, 11s�t g Y
definition ofla 110utdoor Amprh'theatef. Maybe we need to tighten up the definition to clarify that .
Outdoor Amphitheaters are notiancillary uses, they are a principal use. He also heard the
general public would not havelliaccess to the Outdoor Amphitheater as they can in the Old Town
Square. Instead, youlwouldinleed special permission/a ticket. Director Dush said if it's primary
and principal those are=th`eydistinguishing characteristics. He thinks, like Shepard suggested,
that we can make the definition clearer before taking it to City Council.
Member Schmidt said she's perfectly happy with the definition if everything is changed to type 2.
If after City Council's approval, the DDA wants to change back to type 1; she'd like to see a
different definition.
Member Campana asked for clarification. Shepard said staff is okay with Outdoor
Amphitheaters being converted to type 2 in the three Downtown Sub-districts. And, Staff is okay
Planning &Zoning Board
May 20, 2010
Page 7
with clarifying the definition by including a "this; not that" provision so a public plaza does would
not be considered an Outdoor Amphitheater. We understand that we do not want to classify a
public plaza as a type 2 review.
Member Lingle said that may take care of the whole gradation question too. Anything that met
the definition of principal use, access controlled, and ticket required, elevates that to an intensity
where he thinks all of them need to be type 2.
Chair Stockover wants to be sure we're not overly restricting somethin'gith'at might be smaller.
He agrees it is nice to go down and just hang out as some people do'at the Old Town Square.
He just doesn't want to all a lot of verbiage that is not needed. f 'ill1 '
Eckman said it would be useful to try and tighten that definition?; Schmidt;,said shed be a little
uncomfortable doing that tonight because she doesn't kn'owlwhat the DDAIh°astenvisioned in the
Downtown. She doesn't want to put in a bunch of requirements that limits whatlthey have
planned.
�3
It, I;IIIpiIIII
1Vitt lli,. ;.
Member Carpenter asked why they couldn't just leave i -it olstaff! We can recommend and they
take a look before it goes to City Council and then let Couneiljhandle it at that point so we're not
trying to do things on the fly here. DirectorjtDush said staff wilif come up with some language
that fits Shepard's suggestions. Cam pana said,that would w0i:0118tockover said they'll take a
vote based on that happening. 11,11111HIIIIII `iiiii°
The motion passed 6:0.
Item 837 fill
1i,.
Member Lingle asked fora little mlo to explanation of.how staff arrived at 40% as the amount of
air space between the top�,ofithe signland the ground'for pole signs. Zoning Administrator Peter
11(13't� ,+,
Barnes said they had received1' irectiom�toJtake,ailook at a possible amendment to the sign code
to look at adding,lde§g'nlcriterial�tolenhancelthieiappearance of pole signs. There are two kinds
of detachdlied signs—pol'e�1, and16monument signs. He presented photos with the two types.
He metlwith members of le�If sign industryEand looked at what would make sense. They wanted
mu ❑h,
to have criteria where the applicant would have the flexibility for creative design. They played
with designslwith 20%, 30%yj40%, and 50%. 40% seem to provide the best latitude.
Public Inputl'i� ��{�� 1, 1
None
Member Schmidt moved to recommend to City Council approval of the remaining Land
Use Code items suggested by staff in the proposed ordinance. Member Campana
seconded the motion.
The motion was passed 6:0.
Planning &Zoning Board
May 20, 2010
Page 8
Other Business:
Member Schmidt asked that staff look into the wording in the last sentence in the LUC section
on notice.
Meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m. g
I1,.ai,,
,Icol Ill��,i.
Steve.Dush, CDNS Director Butch St�Ickoive�, Chair'11111h i
I
Jill
�Ir'
ORDINANCE NO , 068 , 2010
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING VARIOUS AMENDMENTS
TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE
WHEREAS, on March 18 , 19971 by its adoption of Ordinance No. 051 , 1997 , the
City Council enacted 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 the City 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 , City staff 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 City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use
Code amendments are in the best interest of the City and its citizens .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF FORT COLLINS that the Land Use Code is hereby amended as follows :
Section 1 . That Section 1 . 3 .4 of the Land use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows :
1 .3.4 Addition of Permitted Uses
(A) Required Findings. In conjunction with an application for approval of an
overall development plan, a project development plan, a final plan or any
amendment of the foregoing, and upon the petition of the applicant or on
the Director's own initiative, the Director (or the Planning and Zoning
Board as specifically authorized and limited in subp ,.., ,., aphs «` an (7)
paragraph (B) below) may add to the uses specified in a particular zone
district any other similar use which conforms to all of the following
conditions :
( 1 ) Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added;
(2) Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the
other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added;
(3 ) Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat,
smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic
1
hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts,
adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services,
adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other
adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from
the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added;
(4) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone
district to which it is added;
(5 ) Such use is not a medical marijuana dispensary or a medical marijuana
cultivation facility.
/6�eh use is not specifielisted vy e as n pFo ibit� use i the zone
}�distr-iet to h it is added, or- if stiek use is przekibited, the proposed use
J
isspe� to *hei proposed site5 is not considered tex4 amendimenunder- paragraph (B) below, and is speeifieally fetind by the Planning and
Zoning Boardt not be to the publ e good and to be in
,
11Pennitted II in
proposed
use
is
specifie to the proposed site, is of eensidere�' for-
Planning
and
n Zoning
Boaf to not be detf menta to the pub
ie mood and
n to
3� . 1 . (See Section 2 . 9 fof the pfoeediffes for- text amendmento
(B) Planning and Zoning Board Authority and Limitation . In conjunction
with an application for approval of an overall development plan, a project
development plan, a final plan or any amendment of the foregoing, the
Planning and Zoning Board may add a proposed use if the Board
specifically finds that such use would not be detrimental to the public
good and would be in compliance with the requirements and criteria
contained in Section 3 . 5 . 1 provided that such addition of a proposed use
by the Planning and Zoning Board must be specific to the proposed site
and shall not be considered for a text amendment under paragraph (C)
below and provided further that such use is not specifically listed as a
"Prohibited Use" in the zone district in which the proposed site is located.
(BC) Codification of New Use. When any use has been added by the Director to
the list of permitted uses in any zone district in accordance with this
Seetionparagraph (A) above, such use shall be promptly considered for an
amendment to the text of this Land Use Code under Division 2 . 9 . If the text
amendment is approved, such use shall be deemed to be permanently listed
in the appropriate permitted use list of the appropriate zone district and shall
be added to the published text of this Land Use Code at the first convenient
opportunity, by ordinance of City Council pursuant to Division 2 . 9 . If the
2
text amendment is not approved, such use shall not be deemed permanently
listed in the zone district, except that such use shall continue to be deemed a
permitted use in such zone district for only the development proposal for
which it was originally approved under (A) above .
(CD) Conditions. When any use has been added to the list of permitted uses in
any zone district in accordance with this Section, the Director (or the
Planning and Zoning Board, if applicable) may impose such conditions and
requirements on such use as are necessary or desirable to accomplish the
purposes and intent of this Land Use Code, to ensure consistency with City
Plan and its adopted components and associated sub-area plans, to prevent
or minimize adverse effects and impacts upon the public and
neighborhoods, and to ensure compatibility of uses .
Section 2 . That Section 2 .2 . 6(A) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
2 .2 . 6 Step 6 : Notice
(A) Mailed Notice. The Director shall mail written notice to the owners of
record of all real property within eight hundred (800) 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 homeowners' 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
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 offrfty
Gents (e 50) per- r +; eeas established in the development review schedule.
Failure to mail such notice shall not affect the validity of any hearing,
meeting or determination by the decision maker.
Section 3 . That Section 2 .2 . 11 (A) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
to read as follows :
3
2.2. 11 Step 11 : Lapse
(A) Application Submittals. An application submitted to the city for the
review and approval of a development plan must be diligently pursued and
processed by the applicant. Accordingly, the applicant, within ninety
(90)one hundred eighty ( 180) days of receipt of written comments and
notice to respond from the city on any submittal (or subsequent revision to
a submittal) of an application for approval of a development plan, shall
file such additional or revised submittal documents as are necessary to
address such comments from the city. If the additional submittal
information or revised submittal is not filed within said period of time, the
development application shall automatically lapse and become null and
void. The Director may grant one ( 1 ) extension of the foregoing ninety-
one hundred eighty ( 180) day requirement, which extension may not
exceed sixty (60)one hundred twenty ( 120) days in length, and one ( 1 )
additional extension which may not exceed thirty(30)sixty (60) days in
length. This subsection (A) shall apply to applications which are, or have
been, filed pursuant to this Land Use Code and to applications which are,
or have been, filed pursuant to the laws of the city for the development of
land prior to the adoption of this Land Use Code.
Section 4 . That Section 2 . 12 .4 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
2. 12.4 Annexation of Uses Not Legally Permitted
Except as provided below, any use that exists on a separately owned parcel
outside the city and that is not legally permitted by the county must cease and be
discontinued before the City Council adopts, on second reading, an annexation
ordinance annexing any such property except as provided herein. In the event that
a property containing a use that is not legal pursuant to county regulations is
proposed to be annexed into the city and placed into a zone district wherein such
use is a permitted use, said use must be reviewed and processed as set forth in
Article 4 (i. e . , Type 1 review or Type 2 review) for the zone district in which the
land is proposed to be located, and shall comply with the applicable standards
contained in Articles 3 and 4 . A development application for such review must be
filed with the city within sixty (60) days following the a ^*e of 1"seenend
reading
of
the annexation neeeffective date of annexation. Such use shall be
temporarily permitted for a period not to exceed six (6) months following the date
of second reading of the annexation ordinance . In the event that the development
application is not approved within said six-month period, then the use shall be
discontinued within thirty (30) days following the date of the decision of denial or
expiration of said six-month period, whichever first occurs, except that the
Director may grant one ( 1 ) extension of the foregoing six-month requirement,
which extension may not exceed three (3 ) months in length. In the event that the
development application is approved, then such use shall be brought into full
4
compliance with this Land Use Code and the decision made thereunder by the
decision maker within sixty (60) days following the date of final plan approval.
In the event that a use which is not permitted by the county exists on any property
that is included in an enclave annexation consisting of more than one ( 1 )
separately owned parcel, the above-described development process shall apply
only if such property is placed in a zone district wherein such use is a permitted
use. If a property which contains a use that is not permitted by the county is
included in such multi-parcel enclave annexation, and such property is placed in a
zone district that does not allow the use within the city, such illegal use must be
discontinued within (A) two (2) years from the date of the seeond reading
of the
annexation ordi aneeeffective date of annexation; (B) if such illegal use is the
subject of a county-initiated zoning or nuisance enforcement action, then within
the time established by the court as a result of such enforcement action; or (C) if
such illegal use is the subject of a zoning or nuisance complaint filed with the
county and determined by the Director to be bona fide (but which has not become
the subject of an enforcement action under (B) above or, if it has become the
subject of an enforcement action, such action has been dismissed by the court for
lack of county jurisdiction because the property has been annexed into the city),
then ninety (90) days from the date of seeend reading of the annexa4io
ordinaneeeffective date of annexation, whichever comes first. With respect to the
time limit established in (C) above, the Director may extend said time for an
additional duration not to exceed one hundred eighty ( 180) days if necessary to
prevent or mitigate undue hardship or manifest injustice.
Section 5 . That Section 3 . 3 .2(B) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
3 .3 . 2 Development Improvements
(B) Development Agreement. At the time the plans, profiles and specifications
required in this Division are approved, the applicant shall enter into an
agreement providing for the installation of all improvements in the
subdivision required by this Land Use Code . Such agreement shall
establish and set forth the extent to which the city is to participate in the
cost of constructing any public improvements, including, without limitation,
collector or arterial streets . No final plan or plat or other site specific
development plan shall be approved by the city or recorded until such
agreement has been fully executed. Such agreement shall further provide
that the applicant will fully account to the city for all costs incurred in the
construction of any public improvement in which the city is participating,
and the books and records of the applicant relating to such public
improvement shall be open to the city at all reasonable times for the purpose
of auditing or verifying such costs . Such agreement (and any amendments
thereto) shall be recorded by the City with the Larimer County Clerk and
Recorder with all recording costs to be paid to the City by the applicant.
5
Section 6 . That Section 3 . 5 . 2 (D)(6) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
to read as follows :
3.5.2 Residential Building Standards
(6) Setback for Windmills. Windmills shall be set back from the property
lines a minimum of one ( 1 ) foot for every foot of height of the
structure measured from the ground to the top of the highest blade of
the windmill; provided, however, that if the applicant demonstrates
with a certified analysis of a licensed professional engineer that the
structure will collapse rather than topple, then this requirement may
be waived by the Director. Shadow flicker shall not be allowed to
cross any property line.
Section 7 . That Section 3 . 5 . 3 (B)(2)(d) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 5 which reads in its entirety as follows :
3 .5.3 Mixed-Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings
5 , in order to conform to an established pattern of building and street
relationships, a contextual build-to line may fall at any point
between the required build-to line and the build-to line that exists
on a lot that abuts, and is oriented to, the same street as the subject
lot. If the subject lot is a corner lot, the contextual build-to line
may fall at any point between the required build-to line and the
build-to line that exists on the lot that is abutting and oriented to
the same street as the subject lot. A contextual build-to line shall
not be construed as allowing a vehicular use area between the
building and street.
Section 8 . That Section 3 . 8 . 7(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by
the addition of a new subparagraph (7) which reads in its entirety as follows :
(D) General Limitations for Nonresidential Districts and Uses.
(7) In addition to the sign allowance calculation described in
subsection (6) of this section, a building located in the Downtown
(D) zone district that abuts an alley which has been improved
pursuant to the Downtown Development Authority' s Alley
Enhancement Project may be allowed one ( 1 ) flushwall sign not to
exceed six (6) square feet, or one ( 1 ) projecting wall sign not to
6
exceed six (6) square feet per side, on the rear wall of such
building, provided that a public entrance to the business(es)
advertised on the sign exists in said wall.
Section 9 . That Section 3 . 8 . 7(N)(2) of the Land use Code is hereby amended
to read as follows :
(N) Banners and Pennants.
(2) Notwithstanding the size and time limitations contained in subsection
( 1 ) above, noncommercial banners or pennants may be larger in size
and displayed for such additional periods of time as may be
established by the City Manager during community events that, in the
judgment of the City Manager, advance a goal or policy of the City
Council and contribute to the health, safety or welfare of the city.
Section 10 . That Section 4 . 5 (E)(3 ) and (4) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(E) Development Standards
(3 ) Maximum Residential Building Height. The maximum height of
single an one, two-, and three family dwellings shall be two and
one-half (2 . 5) stories.
(4) Design Standards for Multi-Family Dwellings Containing More Than
Eight (8) Dwelling Units and for Multi-Family Dwellings Containing
Between Four (4) and Eight (8) Dwelling Units When Three (3) or
More Stories in Height. Each multi-family dwelling containing more
than eight (8) dwelling units and each multi-family dwelling
containing between four (4) and eight (8) dwelling units when located
in a building of three (3 ) or more stories in height, shall feature a
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 :
Section 11 . That Section 4. 9(B)(3 )(a)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
7
(a) Residential Uses .
2 . Multi-family dwellings containing more than four (4)
dwelling units per building at a density of more than twenty
four (24) dwelling units per net acre, provided that such
multi-family dwelling is located within a street-fronting
principal building.
Section 12 . That Section 4 . 12(B)( 1 )(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
(B ) Permitted Uses.
( 1 ) The following uses are permitted in the T District:
(a) No use shall be permitted of properties in the T District except
such legal use as existed on the date the property was placed
into this zone district. No permanent structures shall be
constructed on any land in this District, except that at the time
of zoning or rezoning of the property into this District the City
Council may grant a variance permitting the installation or
enlargement of a permanent structure containing a legal use
which was existing, or is ancillary to the legal use of the
property, at the time of such zoning or rezoning upon the
following conditions :
Section 13 . That the table contained in Section 4 . 16(B)(2)C of the Land Use
Code is hereby amended to read as follows :
Land Use Old City Center Canyon Avenue Civic Center
C. COMMERCIAL/RETAIL. (Cont'd)
Outdoor amphitheaters Type 2 Type 2 Type 2
Section 14 . That Section 4 . 17(B)(3 )(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 7 which reads in its entirety as follows :
7 . Outdoor amphitheaters .
Section 15 . That Section 4 . 18(B)(3 )(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 13 which reads in its entirety as follows :
13 . Outdoor amphitheaters .
8
Section 16 . That Section 4 . 19(B)(3 )(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 6 which reads in its entirety as follows :
6 . Outdoor amphitheaters .
Section 17 . That Section 4 . 20(B)(2)(c)8 of the Land Use Code is hereby
deleted in its entirety and all subparagraphs thereafter be renumbered accordingly:
Section 18 . That Section 4 .20(B)(3)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended by the addition of new subparagraphs 6 and 7 which reads in their entirety as
follows :
6 . Entertainment facilities and theaters.
7 . Outdoor amphitheaters .
Section 19 . That Section 4 .21 (B)(3 )(b) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 17 which reads in its entirety as follows :
17 . Outdoor amphitheaters .
Section 20 . That Section 4 .22(B)(2)(c) 14 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows :
14. Vehicle and boat sales and leasing establishments with
outdoor stofag€for cars and light trucks . *
* Au� Vehicle sales and re��leasing for cars and light
trucks shall be limited to ten ( 10) percent of the total linear frontage
of both sides of North College Avenue between Vine Drive and the
northern city limits or the intersection of North College Avenue and
State Highway 1 , whichever results in the shortest linear distance.
These uses shall be located at least one hundred fifty ( 150) feet from
South College Avenue.
Section 21 . That Section 4 .22(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. Outdoor amphitheaters .
Section 22 . That Section 4 .23 (B)(3)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 6 which reads in its entirety as follows :
6 . Outdoor amphitheaters .
9
Section 23 . That Section 4 .26(B)(3 )(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 12 which reads in its entirety as follows :
12 . Outdoor amphitheaters .
Section 24 . That Section 5 . 1 .2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of new definition "Outdoor amphitheater" which reads in its entirety as follows :
Outdoor amphitheaters (other than community facilities) shall mean
permanent stage and seating facilities that are open or partially open to the
outdoors, the principal use of which is the showing of motion pictures or the
presentation of dramatic, musical or live performances, which facilities are
accessible to persons only by permission given at the doors or gates.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th
day of June, A. D . 2010, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of July, A.D .
2010,
Mayor
ATTEST :
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of July, A.D . 2010 .
Mayor
ATTEST :
City Clerk
10